FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  Who is OnlineWho is Online   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
  • Welcome
  • Guest

  • Main Menu
  • Sticky Articles
  • Open Support Tickets
Trinity means TRI-THEISM, not monotheism, Ranting

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Apostates Of Religion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275

Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:40 am    Post subject: Trinity means TRI-THEISM, not monotheism, Ranting  Reply with quote

WARNING Bill Robinson, Ranting Tirade ahead!

Parrotting what you were taught without THINKING OVER what that information means, is the gravest sin.  It can kill you.  It sends a virus of blindness to you and others to whom you parrot.  Thus the lies of so much in religion, multiply like rabbits, and the rabid disease of blindness and roteness, rises exponentially.  Until, you can't think anymore.

So while in other topics you'll see me say stuff about Muslims not thinking, well -- we Christians do plenty of mindless parrotting, ourselves.  When it comes to "Trinity" we are mindless robots.  Thus we trash Bible and God's Own Nature, because we parrot instead of Reading the Book and learning the Right Definition.  Of course, we are so dumb that when we TRY to Read the Book, we hallucinate that Trinity isn't in it -- duh, "Trinity" is an ENGLISH word, and English didn't exist back in Moses.. John's day.  So let's have a look at John, shall we?

When the Lord says in John 17, "that they may be one even as we are one" does NO Christian lightbulb turn on?  "One" is clearly NOT one in number.  Greek heis, even as Hebrew echad, mean "unique", "united", "SAME", "identical" (likemindedness), way more often than they mean one in number.  So Christians don't get the Greek wit when the Lord says (as God) in 1Tim2:5 (stated in eternity past, verb in ellipsis):  heis.gar theos, heis mesites!  "United Godhead, [so I will become] God-Man!"

So why is it when a clear plurality is used throughout Bible far more often via "one", to depict a bonding, a shared THINKING -- why is it, Christians call themselves monotheists?  I submit it's because Westminster Confession mistranslated Greek "ousia mia" to mean "one nature", rather than "SAME NATURE", which is what it really means.  You can click here for a traced morphing.  Article takes a long digression into hupostasis and ousia, to set the stage.  So watch the early church tie itself up in knots over Trinity. It's embarrassing to think that the whole "one" thingy perhaps arose, from Athanasius' need to defeat the Arians politically?
    Here's a link to a search page in dogpile, in case you want to cruise other salient references on these two words, hupostasis and ousia: click here.

    It doesn't help that Greek henotes, meaning system of Divine harmony, is mistranslated "unity" in Ephesians 4.  Greek henotes is a culturally-loaded word for a System of Thinking which for the human, is the ultimate goal in life.  Plato recorded (or invented) Socrates' talk about this, i.e., in the Philebus.

    Point is, "one" in any language ever on earth first references a PLURALITY BEING IN ACCORD, whether of the SAME ATTRIBUTES (as here), or the SAME THINKING (also as here, Total Rapport), and your big tip off that SAME or IDENTICAL is meant rather than one in number, is that the number of persons is greater than 1.  Duh.
 In any event, certainly the translation error of heis (or mia, the feminine) from "SAME" to one-in-number, has screwed up theology for centuries.  And you are considered apostate if you don't buy the Westminster Confession, which is NOT Bible, and is often as silly as those hadiths.  Particularly, in its wayward non-Biblical definition of "Trinity" as 3-in-one.

True test of a false doctrine:  no matter how many times it's explained to you it STILL doesn't make sense.  A true doctrine will eventually make sense, but of course takes time to learn.  But a false one can never be made to make sense, so it always sounds silly.  That's the problem, here.

    I don't care how many times it's explained to me, it will NEVER make sense that the hajj is required to be holy.  Wearing two towels wrapped around you while you march for miles and oh boy on your return you might get crushed to death as you pile into that narrow enclave to throw the ritual seven or 49 or 21 stones at some pillar they had to ENLARGE so you could hit it amidst two million other fools who also stink like you do.  Would stones hurt Iblis?  I think not.  Did Abraham suddenly run down to Mecca from Mamre in middle Israel, a month's travel?  Could Hagar have made it that far?  I think not.  And even if you pretend they did, the RITUAL IS SILLY and life-threatening.  This is not God's authorship, it's a Mad Magazine satire.  the hajj is a perfect example of a false doctrine which cannot ever make sense no matter how you spin it.
 LOL Christians spin God like this:  God is hydra-headed, or like an EGG?  I actually heard someone explain Him that way.  Each Him is less than a human, then, for at least I don't have to 'share' my humanity with another human to breathe, like siamese twins!

"Three hupostases, Same Ousia" is what should have been our answer.  Hupostasis is the fundamental joinedness of infinity, full-spectrum.  Ousia means Essence, Essential Nature or Character.  Stress is on the SAME INFINITE CHARACTER being true of Each Person of the Godhead.

    So look:  you are human, I am human, a third person is human.  We are all EQUALLY human, though perhaps unalike in other respects.  So, they are all EQUALLY God, and since Each One is Unique, they are INFINITE (so all have same Infinite Attributes) -- but not clones.

    You are not a clone of me, you're an individual.  I am not a clone of you, I'm an individual.  We are not joined at the hip, so neither would "God" be, duh.
 But typical Churchinanity disregards the Bible (duh, could the three definite articles of 2:Cor13:14 be any clearer) and reads "one" as one in NUMBER, rather than the likemindedness which "one" typically means throughout Bible (i.e., end of Genesis 2, man and woman becoming one flesh is obviously not a Scylla, nor is John 17, nor is the multiple He's in Isa63, Psalm 110:1, etc).

Godhead as a Voluntary ASSOCIATION means A Corporate Voluntary Bonding.  Not hydra-headed.  It's a CORPORATE Oneness, Being in Concert, in Agreement, United-in-Rapport on Everything.  Not a limitation on their independence!

So that makes me an apostate from the inaccurate, centuries-long silliness of Christianity claiming to be monotheistic.  It's TRI-theistic, not polytheistic.  THREE EQUAL INFINITE GODS.  "Triplets" my pastor once quipped to describe Them in the year 2000.  "Elohim" is a rubric for the Attributes all being equal;  it's also frequently used to show EACH ONE AGREES, has the SAME ATTITUDE toward whatever "Elohim" thinks, says, or does, in the verse.  So "Elohim" is "like a last name", my pastor noted (ever since his 1967 classes).  Then the first name distinguishes them (though it's a Hebraism to prefer not mentioning the first name, and instead say Adonai or He) -- "ruach" for the Spirit, "YHWH" for the Son (though that can be Any One of Them), and sometimes "Ab" for Father.

Much OT wordplay is made, particularly with "He", as it's considered more sacred (and witty, stressing Like-Mindedness and Co-Equality).  Isaiah 63 revels in this, with Son being depicted in verses 1-9, Spirit in 10-14, and Father in 15ff (if memory serves).  You distinguish them by function.  Son created, and becomes Savior promised (first Adam, then the others, then David).  Spirit restores us, depicted first as restoring the earth in Genesis 1:2ff.  Father is the Grantor, the Person for whom all this Gifting is done by Son and Spirit.  They do all this to express their Love for Each Other.

Easy to understand.  God would love God.  Not much point in being God all by Himself!  How Just would that be?  Shouldn't Justice first and ultimately be FOR God?  TO God?  Would you want to live with God forever if you knew He was shorted on Justice?  Never mind He doesn't need it, if you love God you want Him to Get Everything.  You want that for yourself, your loved ones -- how much more, for God Who Lovingly made your very soul, never mind He always knew what a stinker you'd become once you were born!

By contrast, monotheism necessarily means God would be a masochist or sadist, all alone, no one like him, poor boy.  Yuck.  Do we never think about what it must mean to be God?

Polytheism always requires that the gods be of unequal nature and power.  Bible never says that about THREE GODS, and you know the Jews were tri-theistic also, as Father Son and Spirit are in the OT and in the Gospels.  They hung Christ for claiming to BE Son, not for there being a son.  No one asks, "who is the Father", or "who is the Holy Spirit", the other two members of the Godhead.

So I'm an apostate from the silly bad theology which for centuries has confused people about what "Trinity" means.  THREE GODS.  Very simple.  THREE EQUAL INFINITE GODS.  Not polytheistic, at all.  The Qu'ran's big complaint about shirk is centered on the idea of Allah being claimed to 'need help', which is patently not true.  THREE GODS doesn't mean any of them need help -- unless you go with Churchinanity's 3-in-one idea, as if none of them could survive without the other.  No wonder Qu'ran makes fun of Trinity.  It's the WRONG definition!  And it was active then, too.  RCC screwed it up.

So let's clear things up:  Infinity is qualitative, not quantitative, so there is no restriction on number.  You know instantly that must be true, for if it were a compromise to be more than one God, then creation would compromise God also.  Clearly a plurality of beings is not a compromise to Infinite, All-Wise, All-Powerful God.  So a plurality of GODNESS would certainly not be a compromise.  If it's not a compromise for a plurality of lesser beings who do NOT meet God's Standard to exist, then certainly it cannot be a compromise for a plurality of EQUAL beings who DO meet God's Standard to exist.  We are adults.  We like adult company.  If we only had children for companionship or relationship, then it WOULD be a compromise -- no?

Notice:  then it's a FREE GIFT what One does for the Other (i.e., add Humanity and then in that Humanity pay for sin, Romans 5:12ff and Phili2:5-10); and Any One of Them could do it all -- but due to Love, One (Each) chooses to receive (from the Other).  Very simple, huh.  No mystery math here!  You do things for your spouse which your spouse can do.  But it's a GIFT if you do it.  Now what can God give to God, but Self?  And what happier way to gift?  Love would be Infinite so logically would want Infinite expression.  Well going LOW is as infinite as can be, since the Infinite High is already Eternal...

Ok, now notice: Justice is juridically independent if Three, Three is disclosed, and there don't need to be more than that many.  Factually it's just reported as Three in Bible, no reason why given.  But if you reason out how Justice requires Three to be Independent, then you can see why it makes sense.  Any lesser number cheats God.  I covered this in detail in DueDisclosure.htm , if anyone's interested.  The Westminster Confession is quoted there so you can see the problem.

So true apostacy would be to say God is somehow magically Three yet One, which is mathematically impossible.  No wonder unbelievers laugh at us.  We can't even explain our own Bible properly.  Bible does it really well:  there are three definite articles in 2Cor13:14.  Since most of you are familiar with other languages, you know that when three definite articles are used per person, it means EACH PERSON IS EQUAL TO EACH OTHER PERSON in that context.  So too, in koine (and classical) Greek.  It's arguable that Paul is using classical Greek in that verse, because the verb is in ellipsis, a common dramatic device (signifies excitement, timeless truth, high drama).  Paul likes Atticisms a lot, as do Peter (who was a fan of Drama), and John (a bigger fan of drama).  All of Ephesians is a spoof on Euripedes' play Ion, to show God's superior begetting versus the venomous myth of the Greek sea peoples' beginning as told in that play.

Later on I'll do both a video and a longer piece on Trinity.  It's already extensively covered in my webpages.  But here in this "apostates" section I just had to get it off my chest.  Christians always depict God like an Egg, 'sharing' in Attributes with each other God --

Which of course would mean that NO ONE of them would really BE God on His Own, since they have to share attributes.  The meanwhile, Satan's mystery math class, 1+1+1=1!  is covered in more detail in Mystery Math, click here.   Twisted Evil

Thanks for listening to me rant.  This is the one topic which makes me go wild.  I can't tolerate stupidity, have to breathe 1Jn1:9 constantly. Shocked

God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Apostates Of Religion All times are GMT + 11 Hours
Page 1 of 1
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum