Holes in the trinity

[kjw47]

No, He is serving the right God. The Israelites were serving the same God as the Trinity. The Father is fully God. The knowledge of the Trinity was not fully revealed yet. There is a clue to it however in Genesis when God refers to Himself in the plural. Genesis 1:26 Let us make man....

Actually Jehovah was speaking to Michael in Genesis--Jehovah created all things except Michael through Michael--Michael was created directly by God-first and last. It was Michael who came and laid down his life on behalf of mankind and was called Jesus as a mortal. And upon Jesus return he comes with the voice of the archangel( Michael)-- his voice. 1 thess 4:16

 

[savagewind]

Actually Jehovah was speaking to Michael in Genesis--Jehovah created all things except Michael through Michael--Michael was created directly by God-first and last. It was Michael who came and laid down his life on behalf of mankind and was called Jesus as a mortal. And upon Jesus return he comes with the voice of the archangel( Michael)-- his voice. 1 thess 4:16

Michael's name means who is like God. Do you believe Jehovah created everything with a question? I do not believe it.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I never read the book of Enoch--is that an extra book in catholic bibles?

Nope, only accepted in the Ethiopian Bible last I check, but it is the book that covers the fall of Satan mentioned in Revelations, and later stories. It played a large rule in shaping Satan into the being we have today.

 

[savagewind]

Does anyone believe God created everything to find someone like God's self?

I always say there should be an icon laughing it's little head off.

 

[Shermana]

Nope, only accepted in the Ethiopian Bible last I check, but it is the book that covers the fall of Satan mentioned in Revelations, and later stories. It played a large rule in shaping Satan into the being we have today.

It was apparently accepted by many early church Fathers and by Jude.

And the argument that Jude was going by a different book is quite unfounded.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

I play devil's adovocate. I operate based on what the topic on hand is about. If you dont' think you should take me seriously (dont' know why you would want to...you don't know me) that's perfectly okay.

For your sake though I'll put this.

I care more about trying to be a good person, I find that what I have been taught in the Bible has had a really good role in shaping me to be that person. Anything else such as my relationship between God, or my beliefs on Jesus...are just that my beliefs, not needed to be shared. What I do know is that I love information, and so I gather as much of it as I can and when I see people picking and choosing, i respond by doing exactly that...picking and choosing.

Hi, Franklin

Thank you for the info. You can see, by my small number of posts, that I am new here; so every bit of input helps.

When you say you don't want to be taken seriously, I take that with a grain of salt. I spent most of my life, EXPECTING people not to take me seriously, because I was young. Once I got to be around 60, though, had devoted my life to the church and read the Bible through several times, and had an MS in Chemistry backed up by years of research, I felt I had something important from God to share (namely, years of Christ living in me) for the benefit of others; and I expected others to take me seriously simply because of my age and background.

So much for expectations. In spite of these, all of us WANT to be taken seriously; we just don't necessarily want to have to bear the consequences of being wrong.

I look forward to the day when you "come out" and speak on your own. We tend to put a lot more thought into what we say, when we "own" it; and I especially enjoy thoughtful posts.

You mentioned a New Testament-related background, which emphasized "being good". The latter seems to be the principal doctrine, in its raw, undefined form, of Methodism; but I generally think of Methodists as having lost all copies of the Bible. Your interest in the Scriptures seems to run deeper than that. I will continue to scrutinize you and guess, because I love Holmesian mysteries like this.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Hi, Franklin

Thank you for the info. You can see, by my small number of posts, that I am new here; so every bit of input helps.

When you say you don't want to be taken seriously, I take that with a grain of salt. I spent most of my life, EXPECTING people not to take me seriously, because I was young. Once I got to be around 60, though, had devoted my life to the church and read the Bible through several times, and had an MS in Chemistry backed up by years of research, I felt I had something important from God to share (namely, years of Christ living in me) for the benefit of others; and I expected others to take me seriously simply because of my age and background.

So much for expectations. In spite of these, all of us WANT to be taken seriously; we just don't necessarily want to have to bear the consequences of being wrong.

I look forward to the day when you "come out" and speak on your own. We tend to put a lot more thought into what we say, when we "own" it; and I especially enjoy thoughtful posts.

You mentioned a New Testament-related background, which emphasized "being good". The latter seems to be the principal doctrine, in its raw, undefined form, of Methodism; but I generally think of Methodists as having lost all copies of the Bible. Your interest in the Scriptures seems to run deeper than that. I will continue to scrutinize you and guess, because I love Holmesian mysteries like this.

I say seriously not in the sense that you should not what I take to heart or a slight against you or anyone.

My interest in scripture again goes to my love of information. I also like to test myself against others opinions, develop new arguments all the likes. As such at my core I guess I like to see the root of where things started.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Right and who is the evil one? Where in the OT and even the NT is there a description that Satan is the evil one? Or is he talking about Beelezubub? How does he reconcile acts of "God sending his evil spirit onto Saul" or "God hardening the pharoahs heart" or if Death is an enemy 'Why is the angel of death an ally to the israelites?"

The only record of a war in heaven is found in the book of enoch. So whoever wrote 1 john took that book as canon.

Hi, Franklin

You seem to be a man after my own heart, in looking for the root of things.

I just discovered the Book of Enoch today, and have begun reading it. Jude and Peter both quote it; and both the chief priest of Matthew 26:65 and the "Jews" of John 5:18 seemed to have believed its tenets about Messiah's divinity. None of this, however, means that anyone considered the book "canonical". It was part of the ambient culture, so its language and iconography found its way into people's reasoning. By comparison, many Jews today religiously oppose capital punishment, Zionism and penalties for homosexual behavior and adultery; yet these beliefs are completely contrary to scriptures relating explicitly to these things.

I find the Matt 26 and John 5 passages most curious. Of course, Jews of today disclaim ever having believed such things, and even use this as "proof" that the NT is false; but the execration of the Book of Enoch strongly suggests that the Jews tried to expunge its memory in order to accomplish some narrow (probably anti-Christian) religious end. The Christians themselves, except for the Ethiopians, seem to have exercised similar zeal for their own reasons. The Jews likewise cursed the Septuagint, after Christians began using it to dispute them.

Concerning the Trinity doctrine, I don't believe there are "holes" in it. I believe it is one great hole with no substance.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Hi, Franklin

You seem to be a man after my own heart, in looking for the root of things.

I just discovered the Book of Enoch today, and have begun reading it. Jude and Peter both quote it; and both the chief priest of Matthew 26:65 and the "Jews" of John 5:18 seemed to have believed its tenets about Messiah's divinity. None of this, however, means that anyone considered the book "canonical". It was part of the ambient culture, so its language and iconography found its way into people's reasoning. By comparison, many Jews today religiously oppose capital punishment, Zionism and penalties for homosexual behavior and adultery; yet these beliefs are completely contrary to scriptures relating explicitly to these things.

I find the Matt 26 and John 5 passages most curious. Of course, Jews of today disclaim ever having believed such things, and even use this as "proof" that the NT is false; but the execration of the Book of Enoch strongly suggests that the Jews tried to expunge its memory in order to accomplish some narrow (probably anti-Christian) religious end. The Christians themselves, except for the Ethiopians, seem to have exercised similar zeal for their own reasons. The Jews likewise cursed the Septuagint, after Christians began using it to dispute them.

Concerning the Trinity doctrine, I don't believe there are "holes" in it. I believe it is one great hole with no substance.

I'm interested in when these books where written. Of course we have the individuals who they are attributed to and while the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, given the claims made by those who take the Bible to be the literal word of God, it should be held to an even higher standard than other works if that is to be accepted.

From what I understand and I'm not Jewish, so I wouldnt have indepth understanding, the development of Satan as the malevolent creature we know now (who opposes God), happened during the second temple restoration (With traces of evil angels being around before then--The story of Noah for instance has traces of that when referring to the Nephilim and their creation).

During that time was the return to Jerusalem after being under Babylonian rule and later Persian rule. The Perisan rule I think is very important because I believe the religion at the time was Zoroaster, one of the first known religions to have a clear cut separation of Good and Evil. One where you have a good creator and an being that seeks to undermine that creation. I find it difficult to not think that had an impact on shapping the Satan character.

Not saying that Satan wasn't mentioned prior, but its usage varies from: being used to refer to a person, or in the case of Job to one of the sons of God whose goal was to accuse. But never a challenger of God.

I bring this up when people mention Satan to show that at times what we believe to be true isn't always found in the Bible...yet we speak of it as if it is so. There is a lot of picking and choosing that goes on.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

I'm interested in when these books where written.

They were written over a period of time.

"The older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) are estimated to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably was composed at the end of the 1st century BC."

-- Book of Enoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That corresponds to the Hellenistic period. Others have suggested an earlier authorship, back to the First Temple period. Portions were found in the oldest Dead Sea Scrolls (which range from 408 BCE to 318 CE), but the Qumran sect seems to have lost interest in the book as time progressed.

Of course we have the individuals who they are attributed to and while the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, given the claims made by those who take the Bible to be the literal word of God, it should be held to an even higher standard than other works if that is to be accepted.

That isn't my opinion. The book was probably part of the popular culture, just as Shakespeare is today. I don't hold Shakespeare to any high standard, but I fully expect Godly people to quote him. I think "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" is good advice, and I haven't even read Hamlet.

From what I understand and I'm not Jewish, so I wouldnt have indepth understanding, the development of Satan as the malevolent creature we know now (who opposes God), happened during the second temple restoration (With traces of evil angels being around before then--The story of Noah for instance has traces of that when referring to the Nephilim and their creation).

HaSatan was bent on wickedness in the book of Job. If he was not up to evil, God would not have opposed him. Satan didn't "develop" from good to evil. The Jews simply are calling his evil good, dressing up their belief with religious notions.

During that time was the return to Jerusalem after being under Babylonian rule and later Persian rule.

Alexander the Great (the Greek from Macedonia) captured Jerusalem from the Persians in 332 BC. By that time, the Jewish people and temple had been returned to Jerusalem for some time.

The Perisan rule I think is very important because I believe the religion at the time was Zoroaster, one of the first known religions to have a clear cut separation of Good and Evil. One where you have a good creator and an being that seeks to undermine that creation. I find it difficult to not think that had an impact on shapping the Satan character.

The Bible made a clear-cut separation in the early chapters of Genesis. God made a distinction between righteous Noah and the unrighteous others, in judging the world with a flood. As I said, it is the modern Jews who blur the distinction, not the Bible.

Not saying that Satan wasn't mentioned prior, but its usage varies from: being used to refer to a person, or in the case of Job to one of the sons of God whose goal was to accuse. But never a challenger of God.

Satan didn't evolve, period.

I bring this up when people mention Satan to show that at times what we believe to be true isn't always found in the Bible...yet we speak of it as if it is so. There is a lot of picking and choosing that goes on.

It's true that E=mc², but the Bible doesn't explicitly say so.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

They were written over a period of time.

"The older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) are estimated to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably was composed at the end of the 1st century BC."

-- Book of Enoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That corresponds to the Hellenistic period. Others have suggested an earlier authorship, back to the First Temple period. Portions were found in the oldest Dead Sea Scrolls (which range from 408 BCE to 318 CE), but the Qumran sect seems to have lost interest in the book as time progressed.

That isn't my opinion. The book was probably part of the popular culture, just as Shakespeare is today. I don't hold Shakespeare to any high standard, but I fully expect Godly people to quote him. I think "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" is good advice, and I haven't even read Hamlet.

HaSatan was bent on wickedness in the book of Job. If he was not up to evil, God would not have opposed him. Satan didn't "develop" from good to evil. The Jews simply are calling his evil good, dressing up their belief with religious notions.

Alexander the Great (the Greek from Macedonia) captured Jerusalem from the Persians in 332 BC. By that time, the Jewish people and temple had been returned to Jerusalem for some time.

The Bible made a clear-cut separation in the early chapters of Genesis. God made a distinction between righteous Noah and the unrighteous others, in judging the world with a flood. As I said, it is the modern Jews who blur the distinction, not the Bible.

Satan didn't evolve, period.

It's true that E=mc², but the Bible doesn't explicitly say so.

These books, referring to the books of the Bible there is plenty of information on when the books of the Bible were composed.

Also

Ha Satan translates to The Accuser.

Thirteen occurrences
Ha-Satan with the definite article occurs 13 times in the Masoretic Text, in two books of the Hebrew Bible:
Job ch.1–2 (10x),[8]
Zechariah 3:1–2 (3x).[9]
Satan without the definite article is used in 10 instances, of which two are translated diabolos in the Septuagint and "Satan" in the King James Version:
1 Chronicles 21:1, "Satan stood up against Israel" (KJV) or "And there standeth up an adversary against Israel" (Young's Literal Translation)[10]
Psalm 109:6b "and let Satan stand at his right hand" (KJV)[11] or "let an accuser stand at his right hand." (ESV, etc.)
The other eight instances of satan without the definite article are traditionally translated (in Greek, Latin and English) as "an adversary," etc., and taken to be humans or obedient angels:
Numbers 22:22,32 "and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him."
32 "behold, I went out to withstand thee,"
1 Samuel 29:4 The Philistines say: "lest he [David] be an adversary against us"
2 Samuel 19:22 David says: "[you sons of Zeruaiah] should this day be adversaries (plural) unto me?"
1 Kings 5:4 Solomon writes to Hiram: "there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent."
1 Kings 11:14 "And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite"[12]
1 Kings 11:23 "And God stirred him up an adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah"
25 "And he [Rezon] was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon"

These are the instances of Satan as used in the Masoretic Text.

Then you have the story of Job which further shows that Satans powers are granted by God as a way to trial, notice even Gods response to Job later on doesn't even bother to mention Satan. Furthermore you notice that Satan says to God "If you stretch your hands..." further proof that Satan was a tool utilized by God, and God even replies later "You have incited me against him" indicating that God is responsible for Jobs suffering. This is further defend in Isaiah with the saying that God brings good and wickedness. We see plenty of times of God bringing destruction upon various countries and even among the Israelites according to Biblical text.

Also Zoroastrianism, was the main religion of Persia. Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians who would later be overtaken by the Persians, Cyrus the Great would then give the Jews permission to return to their homeland (though not all the Jews had been taken into exile). That was around 500 BC maybe 530? That would mean that by the time Alexander the Great would take Persia during the time you gave, Judah/Israel would have been under Persian Rule for almost 200 some odd years. I suppose that would not have given enough time for them to pick up some of their religious customs and development of Ideas?

I also believe it was during that time that the pentauach was redacted and completed. So there is plenty of time in my view for other religious ideas that would not have existed earlier or in full strength (like monotheism and the ultimate evil against God), to take a foothold. Let's not even forget the influences that Babylon would have also had.

The Bible doesn't say that E=MC2 simply because the Bible doesn't know that. The people who wrote the books who went into the Bible didn't know it either. They were men with only knowledge of what was around them.

 

[yokomodoful]

Actually Jehovah was speaking to Michael in Genesis--Jehovah created all things except Michael through Michael--Michael was created directly by God-first and last. It was Michael who came and laid down his life on behalf of mankind and was called Jesus as a mortal. And upon Jesus return he comes with the voice of the archangel( Michael)-- his voice. 1 thess 4:16

I never heard of the above. It is not the Genesis I know. Where did it come from?

 

[BlandOatmeal]

These books, referring to the books of the Bible there is plenty of information on when the books of the Bible were composed.

Also

Ha Satan translates to The Accuser.

Thirteen occurrences
Ha-Satan with the definite article occurs 13 times in the Masoretic Text, in two books of the Hebrew Bible:
Job ch.1–2 (10x),[8]
Zechariah 3:1–2 (3x).[9]
Satan without the definite article is used in 10 instances, of which two are translated diabolos in the Septuagint and "Satan" in the King James Version:
1 Chronicles 21:1, "Satan stood up against Israel" (KJV) or "And there standeth up an adversary against Israel" (Young's Literal Translation)[10]
Psalm 109:6b "and let Satan stand at his right hand" (KJV)[11] or "let an accuser stand at his right hand." (ESV, etc.)
The other eight instances of satan without the definite article are traditionally translated (in Greek, Latin and English) as "an adversary," etc., and taken to be humans or obedient angels:
Numbers 22:22,32 "and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him."
32 "behold, I went out to withstand thee,"
1 Samuel 29:4 The Philistines say: "lest he [David] be an adversary against us"
2 Samuel 19:22 David says: "[you sons of Zeruaiah] should this day be adversaries (plural) unto me?"
1 Kings 5:4 Solomon writes to Hiram: "there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent."
1 Kings 11:14 "And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite"[12]
1 Kings 11:23 "And God stirred him up an adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah"
25 "And he [Rezon] was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon"

These are the instances of Satan as used in the Masoretic Text.

Then you have the story of Job which further shows that Satans powers are granted by God as a way to trial, notice even Gods response to Job later on doesn't even bother to mention Satan. Furthermore you notice that Satan says to God "If you stretch your hands..." further proof that Satan was a tool utilized by God, and God even replies later "You have incited me against him" indicating that God is responsible for Jobs suffering. This is further defend in Isaiah with the saying that God brings good and wickedness. We see plenty of times of God bringing destruction upon various countries and even among the Israelites according to Biblical text.

Also Zoroastrianism, was the main religion of Persia. Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians who would later be overtaken by the Persians, Cyrus the Great would then give the Jews permission to return to their homeland (though not all the Jews had been taken into exile). That was around 500 BC maybe 530? That would mean that by the time Alexander the Great would take Persia during the time you gave, Judah/Israel would have been under Persian Rule for almost 200 some odd years. I suppose that would not have given enough time for them to pick up some of their religious customs and development of Ideas?

I also believe it was during that time that the pentauach was redacted and completed. So there is plenty of time in my view for other religious ideas that would not have existed earlier or in full strength (like monotheism and the ultimate evil against God), to take a foothold. Let's not even forget the influences that Babylon would have also had.

The Bible doesn't say that E=MC2 simply because the Bible doesn't know that. The people who wrote the books who went into the Bible didn't know it either. They were men with only knowledge of what was around them.

I think I agree with you, pretty much in full -- except for the Pentateuch bit. Deuteronomy was certainly completed by the time of the Kings, as this is reckoned to be the text that Josiah read to the people of Judah. The other books of Moses were probably written before then.

The flow between religions was two-way. I read a Zoroastrian prophecy from the Parthian period (contemporary with the late Hellenistic and Roman periods in Palestine), which was essentially an Iranian adaptation of the Messianic prophecies in Daniel. That Zoroastrian prophecy was probably the basis for the "Madhi" teachings of Shi'a Islam.

The "cultural borrowing" affected the LANGUAGE and IMAGERY of the scriptures, but not their inspiration. Depictions of guardian spirits, for instance, were ubiquitous in the Fertile Crescent. They were winged, part-human and part-animal concoctions. As with other pagan images, they were basically 3-D hieroglyphics representing spiritual attributes: The immovability of an ox, for instance, the fearlessness of a lion, the perception of an eagle and the intelligence of a man. The Egyptian Sphinx was part lion and part man; the Canaanite Lammasu were part lion, part man and part eagle; and the Assyrian Kirubu (cognate with chruvim) were part man and part bull; all of them winged. I assume the winged beasts covering the Ark of the Covenant were bull-man combinations. The guardian beasts of Ezekiel and Revelation were combinations of all the above, symbolizing that YHVH was more powerfully protected than any of the other gods.

I've just told you everything I know, and then some.

Shabbat shalom :beach:

 

[Walkntune]

You say Jesus is God. But Jesus is God's son. Do you believe in the trinity that God and Jesus is one and that Jesus is God's son? How? The definition of son is someone born to or adopted. That means a beginning. Do you believe God has a beginning?

Jesus was completely man in the flesh whos Spirit was God.The flesh was subjected to the Spirit .Trinity concept is not really as important as understanding that in love there is no exclusion. Maybe all is one as we become one in ourselves, with others, with all of Gods creation. To want in this creation creates separation.To let go of wanting and putting the kingdom first you become one with God and your hearts desires.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I think I agree with you, pretty much in full -- except for the Pentateuch bit. Deuteronomy was certainly completed by the time of the Kings, as this is reckoned to be the text that Josiah read to the people of Judah. The other books of Moses were probably written before then.

The flow between religions was two-way. I read a Zoroastrian prophecy from the Parthian period (contemporary with the late Hellenistic and Roman periods in Palestine), which was essentially an Iranian adaptation of the Messianic prophecies in Daniel. That Zoroastrian prophecy was probably the basis for the "Madhi" teachings of Shi'a Islam.

The "cultural borrowing" affected the LANGUAGE and IMAGERY of the scriptures, but not their inspiration. Depictions of guardian spirits, for instance, were ubiquitous in the Fertile Crescent. They were winged, part-human and part-animal concoctions. As with other pagan images, they were basically 3-D hieroglyphics representing spiritual attributes: The immovability of an ox, for instance, the fearlessness of a lion, the perception of an eagle and the intelligence of a man. The Egyptian Sphinx was part lion and part man; the Canaanite Lammasu were part lion, part man and part eagle; and the Assyrian Kirubu (cognate with chruvim) were part man and part bull; all of them winged. I assume the winged beasts covering the Ark of the Covenant were bull-man combinations. The guardian beasts of Ezekiel and Revelation were combinations of all the above, symbolizing that YHVH was more powerfully protected than any of the other gods.

I've just told you everything I know, and then some.

Shabbat shalom :beach:

Indeed, however archeological findings indicate that ancient Israel/Judah was not at all monotheistic and if anything the reform of King Josiah was a push towards making Yahweh the only God. I'm looking at this from a secular point of view, particularly in the defining of Yahweh's relationship with Israel. There is evidence to suggest that the push towards monotheism was political as well as religious. We see a very similar thing happen with Constantine with Christianity.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Indeed, however archeological findings indicate that ancient Israel/Judah was not at all monotheistic and if anything the reform of King Josiah was a push towards making Yahweh the only God. I'm looking at this from a secular point of view, particularly in the defining of Yahweh's relationship with Israel. There is evidence to suggest that the push towards monotheism was political as well as religious. We see a very similar thing happen with Constantine with Christianity.

The main problem with Judaism has always been the Jews. They had their golden calf, their calves of Jeroboam, their Baals and Asherahs, you name it. Nowadays, they're into Kabbala, New Age and Atheism. God has had a genuinely hard time with them, but it's a labor of love.

As a friend of mine said, "The Jews are just like you and me, only more so."

Shabbat shalom.

PS thanks for reminding me of the Jewish tendency toward polytheism. It helps explain some doctrinal oddities around the time of Jesus.

 

[savagewind]

Jesus was completely man in the flesh whos Spirit was God.The flesh was subjected to the Spirit .Trinity concept is not really as important as understanding that in love there is no exclusion. Maybe all is one as we become one in ourselves, with others, with all of Gods creation. To want in this creation creates separation.To let go of wanting and putting the kingdom first you become one with God and your hearts desires.

I understand Jesus did the will of The Father. To believe the life in Jesus was not Jesus but is God means God broke God's rule "do not make an image". If the trinity is true then God made an image. What other commandment did God break do you think?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The main problem with Judaism has always been the Jews. They had their golden calf, their calves of Jeroboam, their Baals and Asherahs, you name it. Nowadays, they're into Kabbala, New Age and Atheism. God has had a genuinely hard time with them, but it's a labor of love.

As a friend of mine said, "The Jews are just like you and me, only more so."

Shabbat shalom.

PS thanks for reminding me of the Jewish tendency toward polytheism. It helps explain some doctrinal oddities around the time of Jesus.

You mean the human tendency towards polytheism?

Christianity has the Trinity, and if not it has the idea of Satan (The God of Evil).

I see no problem with the Jews, from a purely historical point of view they were trying to find their place in the world, and in order to unite it was easier to say there was one God rather than having to deal with a huge pantheon of them.

 

[Walkntune]

I understand Jesus did the will of The Father. To believe the life in Jesus was not Jesus but is God means God broke God's rule "do not make an image". If the trinity is true then God made an image. What other commandment did God break do you think?

Well he made all of mankind in his image and likeness didn't he?
If you make a graven image of God, you are in denial that you are in the image of God. You are trying to worship from a place of "doing" instead of "being".
We may not agree with each others theology of the trinity but its only important that " they" know and understand who 'they' are and that 'they 'are in agreement of who we are in them. We can only understand them from their perspective and not our own.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

You mean the human tendency towards polytheism?

Christianity has the Trinity, and if not it has the idea of Satan (The God of Evil).

I see no problem with the Jews, from a purely historical point of view they were trying to find their place in the world, and in order to unite it was easier to say there was one God rather than having to deal with a huge pantheon of them.

Satan is not the "god" of evil. There is an angelic hierarchy in the scriptures, and we also are part of a hierarchy:

Pss 8
[3] When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
[4] What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
[5] For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
[6] Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
[7] All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;
[8] The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.

Heb 2
[6] But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
[7] Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
[8] Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
[9] But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
[10] For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

The psalmist's choice of the expression "THE son of man" may refer to Moshiach, as a unique individual. I will have to check this:

Psa 8:4 (8:5)
מה אנושׁ כי תזכרנו ובן אדם כי תפקדנו׃

I though so... a more appropriate translation would seem to be A son of man, not THE. (There's no "ה" prefix, or direct article). Without prompting from the NT or Enoch, then, the scripture simply says

"What is man, that thou art mindful of him? even a son of Adam, that thou visitest him?

Bunny trail over; back to Satan. In Job, he is called a "son of God":

Job 2
[1] Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

Despite the protestations of Trinitarians here, being a "son of God" indicates that one is definitely NOT God, but one of his creatures. For cross-reference, note:

Luke 3
[37] Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
[38] Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Satan was therefore not "God", but a creation, ranked somewhere in with the angels and men. Some men and other dignitaries were referred to in scripture as "elohim", a term usually applied to God; and indeed, the false gods of the pagans were also called "elohim". Nevertheless, the scriptures are emphatic that none of these, to the extent that they actually existed, was of the status of YHVH:

Exodus 34
[12] Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:
[13] But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves:
[14] For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

"Uniting with the world" is not an option for Jews. When they have failed to heed this of their own, the goiim (non-Jews) have been all to eager to set them straight.