Non-Trinitarian Belief

[Brickjectivity]

The discussion about trinity vs non-trinity is itself strange for the reason that it presumes many modern things. Its full of new ideas supplanting older ones. The older ideas remain attested in the scripture but are unacceptable, since they don't fit in with modern ones.

Abraham is the Heavenly Father, the first catholic saint, and Jesus prays to him. The evidence is there. The argument about biblical or unbiblical trinity depends upon who the Heavenly Father is that Jesus refers to, but the evidence is there in the gospels who it is. God? No. Abraham is a man. Both the modern trins and the modern anti trins overlook this, and all are embarrassed by it. They are so caught up in presuming that Jesus is referring to the omnipotent transcendant God taught to them by the church, that their eyes run right past the scriptures like they were trying to find an expired can of tuna. So they have very, very bad arguments either way: trin or not. They have terrible arguments...in a truly biblical context. In the context of God that each has believed and overlooking Jesus statements about Abraham things seem biblical to them, but its because they are ignoring what scripture actually says. Unintentionally.

If we insist upon a biblical (not a sermoned) position, then Abraham is the Heavenly Father Jesus refers to and prays to (just like Catholics pray to saints). Who else is 1. In heaven 2. the father of all Jews and of all Christians + others 3. Contrasted against Cain the father of all murderers? All of these 3 things about Abraham are acknowledged in the gospels, yet non-trinitarian Christians hold Abraham to be merely an ancestor and of little importance beyond the part he plays in the geneology of Jesus. He's relegated to a position somewhat like Moses or Daniel or one of them, which is fine except when they are using passages about him to make statements about the Trinity.

The Trinity is something understood through Philosophy. Everybody knows this who has ever studied it. Scholars (reading the old writings) can tell you the history of it and how it is developed. That doesn't mean it is evil or unChristian. It means its not something you derive from scripture. You don't.

 

[Coder]

The Trinity is something understood through Philosophy.

Yes, this is one area where I think philosophy is reflected in Scripture. "No one knows the Father but the Son...".
Doesn't philosophy have a "knower" and "known" concept? Greek philosophy?

I believe in God as one to whom we can pray to personally as one. I think that Jewish "philosophy", if one wants to call it that, or "inspiration" is reflected in the Jewish Scriptures, that God is one. In Jewish Scripture, this is evidently against a background of polytheism, so this emphasizes the oneness of God with regards to the concept of the existence of any equals to God. And the Bible shows Jesus discouraging the concept of "equality" with God, including with regards to himself.

 

[jesussetsusfree]

Where in the bible does Jesus call Abraham Father directly. Jesus says call no one father on earth except he who is heaven. This would contradict jesus. Jesus is our high priest which eliminates our need to run to some priest to confess our sins. Priests are not needed to relay a message for us, we are to worship in spirit and truth and we don't need a building for his accoridn to jesus when he speaks to the lady at the well samaratian woman. I do not follow philosophy. Our bibles for sure are skewed as God told us they would be in deuteronomy and revelations and about adding to his words and omitting his words and the lying scribes. However the Trinity is a doctrine never discussed or mentioned by Jesus. Jesus seperates himself from the father, not as one, even though he came to represent his father. Jesus says we have one teacher and he has one flock. Jesus came here to create divsion and not peace ( like we are so forth taught) SO we follow him or we don't.

 

[Coder]

I have been taught we may be entering the 1000 years of peace. but who knows. .... so you believe Jesus was just a prophet?

"so you believe Jesus was just a prophet?"
I do believe that we have sufficient evidence of his existence (which even that, some doubt).
I think that the teachings ascribed to him are of God. "Love your enemies" is of God.

"1000 years of peace...", May we pray for this and beyond! It's absolutely stunning to hear Jewish Rabbi Skobac (an expert in Christian Scriptures), say that Jesus is part of the Jewish story! He further goes on to speak about how the Christian journey can be God's plan to lead non-Jews to God. He still sees this unfolding. We see official Catholic teaching: "Prayer in common with Jews should, when mutually acceptable, be encouraged,.." That's only one example. Many Christians and Jewish people are working together. So I encourage Christians, of whom many of us are humanly descended from polytheists of past millennia, to consider that we are still on our journey to better monotheism (I'm already there, as you seem to be)! Very exciting!

So, relating this to your question about Jesus. At the same time as followers of Jesus grow, Jewish people can and have already observed the Jewish reforms of Jesus. By "observed" I don't necessarily mean in practice, e.g. regarding certain laws etc. Although, certainly Jewish people agree with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and loving your neighbor. In fact, a Jewish friend of mine even quoted that. By "observed", I mean that many Jewish people now are aware of the rabbinic teachings of Jesus and can consider those teachings in a rabbinic sense, without the wall put up by the demands of the Roman empire and the "demands" of the churches that persisted in the Roman context (as ironically, even many Protestant churches still do).

I don't limit my view of Jesus to "prophet". I think that he works for God and perhaps we may view all, as what God is unfolding, as opposed to focusing on Jesus, per se. Did Jesus "pre-exist"? Don't we all "pre-exist" in God? "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you."! So, Jesus is a child of God who is specially gifted by God, and whether he pre-existed is irrelevant in terms of his being distinct from us.

Fascinating also that the Bible speaks of Jesus returning the kingdom to God. A clue that when his teaching and even the artificial parts (adaptive parables) of his story in the Bible have served their purpose, then we will return to focus on God (Father) alone. I.e. It may be a hint in the Bible itself that the authors knew the bigger picture of what the Bible was about. This includes our outgrowing of concepts like the "trinity". I believe that Jesus is with God, but I think not in a much a different way than we can be with God. "I pray that they may be one as we are one." We see, that Scripture does not exclude this perspective. An example of Scriptural insight than can be accepted without the trinity meaning. No different than how non-literal stories in Genesis convey essential and powerful meanings. The Bible also depicts Jesus teaching about parables (another clue for us, and perhaps Christian leaders at the time, I think). (I think that it could also certainly be a message for Christian leaders now, if they could put their assumptions and inherited perspectives aside for a moment. )

So is this (a bit in common with what you speak of) happening now? I don't know, maybe, and I enjoy your insightfulness here. However, I hope that we can improve permanently as a human family under God. Certainly the improved relationship of Christians and Jews is a great happening!

 

[Brickjectivity]

Where in the bible does Jesus call Abraham Father directly. Jesus says call no one father on earth except he who is heaven. This would contradict jesus. Jesus is our high priest which eliminates our need to run to some priest to confess our sins. Priests are not needed to relay a message for us, we are to worship in spirit and truth and we don't need a building for his accoridn to jesus when he speaks to the lady at the well samaratian woman. I do not follow philosophy. Our bibles for sure are skewed as God told us they would be in deuteronomy and revelations and about adding to his words and omitting his words and the lying scribes. However the Trinity is a doctrine never discussed or mentioned by Jesus. Jesus seperates himself from the father, not as one, even though he came to represent his father. Jesus says we have one teacher and he has one flock. Jesus came here to create divsion and not peace ( like we are so forth taught) SO we follow him or we don't.

I realize this does not provide a systematic theology that we crave with parts that all turn together like gears and answering every question; but it is bible. Jews in the gospels have many fathers, but they have one common father: Abraham. When they die they go to the bosom (mentioned in the gospels) of Abraham. How is that possible if Abraham is not the Heavenly Father mentioned? So we have to consider him when Jesus says 'Heavenly father'. We can't just paste 'God' over it.

 

[Coder]

The Trinity is something understood through Philosophy.

As I consider this further, I see that it's such an excellent point that you make, as I see it in terms of pre-Christian philosophy! Thank You! (as long as I am understanding you correctly).

 

[Coder]

I realize this does not provide a systematic theology that we crave with parts that all turn together like gears and answering every question; but it is bible. Jews in the gospels have many fathers, but they have one common father: Abraham. When they die they go to the bosom (mentioned in the gospels) of Abraham. How is that possible if Abraham is not the Heavenly Father mentioned? So we have to consider him when Jesus says 'Heavenly father'. We can't just paste 'God' over it.

Fascinating!

The name of the Roman god Jupiter means "father in the heavens (sky)", so in what I consider to be Greco-Roman adaptive wording, we see an intention to refer to God as opposed to Abraham (because use of wording that relates to Jupiter [the chief god], would not serve to lead polytheists to Abraham, as it would serve to help lead them to the true God of monotheistic Judaism). Intrigued by your thoughts on this, and grateful if could specify some passages that may refer to Abraham. No debate challenge here, simply interested and fascinated.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Fascinating!

The name of the Roman god Jupiter means "father in the heavens (sky)", so in what I consider to be Greco-Roman adaptive wording, we see an intention to refer to God as opposed to Abraham.

Did you ever feel it was odd that one of the 10 commandments was to honor parents? I used to, but I misunderstood the meaning. Only many years later I learned it meant not only your immediate parents but theirs going all the way back to the beginning of the covenant and possible further than that. The measure (in English) was approximately this: "

[Exo 20:11-13 KJV] "...and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. 12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 13 Thou shalt not kill."​

This created a tribal order of authority. 'Honor' did not mean only to be polite and to think nice thoughts or to say nice things. It went much further. This was more like what you might think of as adoration and which some today think of as worship. They were to strive to be like Abraham and to pattern their lives after his. The Jews were not simply "Israel" but "The Children of Israel" which was important. They would always be his children, never graduating or ceasing to be. At top of this pyramid of honor was Abraham (and his wives), the parents of all Jews and of all adopted by Abraham or descended from his families.

Intrigued by your thoughts on this, and grateful if could specify some passages that may refer to Abraham. No debate challenge here, simply interested and fascinated.

I'll put the most confusing and fascinating passage first. It is the gospel John chapter 8 verse 56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw, and was glad." followed soon after by the statement "Before Abraham was, I am." This always confuses people: new people, experienced people, people trying to figure out what his meaning is, people who just accept what he is saying but don't get it, etc. Different people say it means this or that. The main thing I wish to draw from this is how awesome and how central and how important Abraham is to these people and how Jesus is claiming to be even more important. To be greater than Abraham is to be owed honor by all Jews, and Jesus is claiming this except he is not demanding to be honored. Nevertheless it is a rude thing to say. The baptism of Jesus by John (The Baptist) is done as a sign that illustrates Jesus being greater than his father Abraham. Prophets often have some sign that they do to illustrate their message. In this case it is a lesser baptizing a greater, and it uses the baptism of Elisha as its model. The message: Jesus is descended from Abraham yet is greater. This is what the baptism is about in John: a greater coming from a lesser. Wow, amazing. Everybody thought that you had to strive to be as good as your betters; but Jesus was saying no not so.

So...the Jews in these stories are organized by tribe not merely for convenience but by one of the 10 Commandments -- organized under Abraham their patriarch. He's the one to be greater than, the one who is before. Everything pivots around him; but Jesus says he has been placed in a higher position of honor than even Abraham. Confusing, but examine the concept.

Now sometimes when people are discussing the Trinity they like to bring that up: "Before Abraham was I am." Its never been a very good argument, but its always been hard to argue against due to having to explain idioms and Jewish customs. It has this sort of time travel sound to it, and its a confusing statement, at least in English.

 

[Questioning]

Did you ever feel it was odd that one of the 10 commandments was to honor parents? I used to, but I misunderstood the meaning. Only many years later I learned it meant not only your immediate parents but theirs going all the way back to the beginning of the covenant and possible further than that. The measure (in English) was approximately this: "

[Exo 20:11-13 KJV] "...and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. 12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 13 Thou shalt not kill."​

This created a tribal order of authority. 'Honor' did not mean only to be polite and to think nice thoughts or to say nice things. It went much further. This was more like what you might think of as adoration and which some today think of as worship. They were to strive to be like Abraham and to pattern their lives after his. The Jews were not simply "Israel" but "The Children of Israel" which was important. They would always be his children, never graduating or ceasing to be. At top of this pyramid of honor was Abraham (and his wives), the parents of all Jews and of all adopted by Abraham or descended from his families.



I'll put the most confusing and fascinating passage first. It is the gospel John chapter 8 verse 56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw, and was glad." followed soon after by the statement "Before Abraham was, I am." This always confuses people: new people, experienced people, people trying to figure out what his meaning is, people who just accept what he is saying but don't get it, etc. Different people say it means this or that. The main thing I wish to draw from this is how awesome and how central and how important Abraham is to these people and how Jesus is claiming to be even more important. To be greater than Abraham is to be owed honor by all Jews, and Jesus is claiming this except he is not demanding to be honored. Nevertheless it is a rude thing to say. The baptism of Jesus by John (The Baptist) is done as a sign that illustrates Jesus being greater than his father Abraham. Prophets often have some sign that they do to illustrate their message. In this case it is a lesser baptizing a greater, and it uses the baptism of Elisha as its model. The message: Jesus is descended from Abraham yet is greater. This is what the baptism is about in John: a greater coming from a lesser. Wow, amazing. Everybody thought that you had to strive to be as good as your betters; but Jesus was saying no not so.

So...the Jews in these stories are organized by tribe not merely for convenience but by one of the 10 Commandments -- organized under Abraham their patriarch. He's the one to be greater than, the one who is before. Everything pivots around him; but Jesus says he has been placed in a higher position of honor than even Abraham. Confusing, but examine the concept.

Now sometimes when people are discussing the Trinity they like to bring that up: "Before Abraham was I am." Its never been a very good argument, but its always been hard to argue against due to having to explain idioms and Jewish customs. It has this sort of time travel sound to it, and its a confusing statement, at least in English.

Jesus speaking e-bonics....

 

[Coder]

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw, and was glad." followed soon after by the statement "Before Abraham was, I am." This always confuses people: new people, experienced people, people trying to figure out what his meaning is, people who just accept what he is saying but don't get it, etc. Different people say it means this or that. The main thing I wish to draw from this is how awesome and how central and how important Abraham is to these people and how Jesus is claiming to be even more important. To be greater than Abraham is to be owed honor by all Jews, and Jesus is claiming this except he is not demanding to be honored. Nevertheless it is a rude thing to say. The baptism of Jesus by John (The Baptist) is done as a sign that illustrates Jesus being greater than his father Abraham. Prophets often have some sign that they do to illustrate their message. In this case it is a lesser baptizing a greater, and it uses the baptism of Elisha as its model.

Yes, the symbolism used to establish authority, I can understand. Thanks! Where I think we may diverge, is that when Jesus is depicted in Scripture as speaking of the Father or praying to the Father, I think that the intended message of the Scripture authors is that the Father means God.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yes, the symbolism used to establish authority, I can understand. Thanks! Where I think we may diverge, is that when Jesus is depicted in Scripture as speaking of the Father or praying to the Father, I think that the intended message of the Scripture authors is that the Father means God.

In many modern churches praying to a saint is considered to be idolatry. I myself barely understand why catholics do it. Why pray to a saint when you can pray to God? It makes me question whether I understand what prayer actually is.

 

[Coder]

In many modern churches praying to a saint is considered to be idolatry. I myself barely understand why catholics do it. Why pray to a saint when you can pray to God? It makes me question whether I understand what prayer actually is.

I believe in praying only to God and never attempt to pray to another. I don't believe in praying to humans that have passed on.

I believe that the Roman Church used saints as a replacement for polytheistic gods.

I see that you are possibly presenting this practice in Catholicism, as an indication that Scripture depicts Jesus praying to Abraham as a saint? And this would establish the practice for polytheists? That possibility is eye-opening! Jupiter "father in heavens" replaced by Abraham "father in heaven"? This absolutely fits the practice of praying to saints! Still, the creed says "true God" so isn't the intention is to lead people to pray to God and only to saints as replacements for the "lesser" gods?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I believe in praying only to God and never attempt to pray to another. I don't believe in praying to humans that have passed on.

I believe that the Roman Church used saints as a replacement for polytheistic gods.

I see that you are possibly presenting this practice in Catholicism, as an indication that in Scriptures Jesus is praying to Abraham as a saint? And this would establish the practice for polytheists? That is eye-opening! Jupiter "father in heavens" replaced by Abraham "father in heaven"? This absolutely fits the practice of praying to saints! Still, the creed says "true God" so isn't the intention is to lead people to pray to God and only to saints as replacements for the "lesser" gods?

What I believe does not change what this scripture says or what the law says about honoring parents. As a young protestant Christian I learned only to obey my parents in the LORD, which I undertood to mean I should do what they say provided that it is moral. I also was taught that praying to saints was a flaw in catholic practice but that they didn't know they were practicing idolatry. The reasoning behind their prayer was never taught to me however.

The question is: what is prayer? The catholics seem to have a different idea about what it is. Jews do too, or at least modern Jews seem to. In this case prayer to a saint may not mean the same thing that we think it does.

Replacement for polytheistic gods? That has always been a controversial topic between protestants and catholics. The catholics say it is not polytheism, and the protestants retort oh yes it is. The question remains what prayer is, and it is never defined in scripture. That being said I do not think the question can be resolved through scripture alone. Prayer appears in scripture but is not explained in scripture. Nor are several other practices: marriage, divorce, sacrifice. Holiness is not defined in scripture, nor is worship. All of this requires interpolation or knowledge from God or from some other source.

 

[Coder]

The question is: what is prayer? The catholics seem to have a different idea about what it is.

It's petitions and requests to saints, similar to what is in prayer to God. However I don't think that saints are prayed to for mercy, so a distinction in the kind of prayer is made. Regardless, I believe that any attempt at a form of communication to "spirits" other than God, is seriously wrong.

Replacement for polytheistic gods? ... The catholics say it is not polytheism,

It may not be intended as polytheism, but it fits the pattern of substitution of a Christian practice for a prior Greco-Roman religion one. This pattern applies to belief, prayer, holidays, statues, houses of worship, books, religious tokens, ... Saints substitute for Greco-Roman "gods"

So, even if not intended as "polytheism", I still believe that any attempt to pray to other than God is a serious wrong. (And one could argue that it's still a different form of "polytheism".)

This also relates to the trinity belief. I believe that we pray to God as one personal being, and it is neither right nor necessary to use a name of a "person" who is one of three "persons" in prayer to God.

The question remains what prayer is, and it is never defined in scripture.

Jesus is depicted as teaching the "Our Father" prayer. And (as mentioned) this also fits the Greco-Roman religion to Christian transferal pattern with the use of "Father in heaven" to transfer the thinking from Jupiter "father in the heavens (sky)" to God ("true God" in the creed). So perhaps, you may consider that the Our Father prayer does not have an association with the idea of Jesus praying to Abraham?

 

[Brickjectivity]

It's petitions and requests to saints, similar to what is in prayer to God. However I don't think that saints are prayed to for mercy, so a distinction in the kind of prayer is made. Regardless, I believe that any attempt at a form of communication to "spirits" other than God, is seriously wrong.

I doubt that catholics pray to saints as if the saints were God, and I happen to know that the catholics do not believe saints are God. Jesus prayer to the Heavenly Father might be the first example in scripture; unless we count all the times that prophets pray on behalf of other people.

There are examples in scripture of a person who is better at prayer praying on behalf of other people. For example Genesis 20:17 shows Abraham praying on behalf of Abimelech's family. They are healed as a result, but Abimilech's prayers do nothing. Might this not be what catholics are doing?

It may not be intended as polytheism, but it fits the pattern of substitution of a Christian practice for a prior Greco-Roman religion one. This pattern applies to belief, prayer, holidays, statues, houses of worship, books, religious tokens, ... Saints substitute for Greco-Roman "gods"

So, even if not intended as "polytheism", I still believe that any attempt to pray to other than God is a serious wrong. (And one could argue that it's still a different form of "polytheism".)

Consider what concession Naaman gets from Elisha. It isn't merely the healing of leprosy in his skin but the recognition that Naaman (a bloody cruel Assyrian general) is doing his best where he is, though he bows to an idol and is an Assyrian officer with Jewish slave girls. He converts because he is drawn by the mercy and kindness. Someone less wise would drive him away, but Elisha wins his soul. Elisha refuses to receive any compensation. Gahazi risks undoing what good Elisha has done, and he is cursed for doing so. In Elisha's name, Gahazi charges Naaman money and clothing, and he thinks Elisha won't notice. Elisha does.

It is a warning to all Christians not to charge for overlooking sins. Its true that Elisha would not bow to an idol next to the Assyrian king, but Elisha also would not hinder this general.

This also relates to the trinity belief. I believe that we pray to God as one personal being, and it is neither right nor necessary to use a name of a "person" who is one of three "persons" in prayer to God.

It is meritorious to be patient in communion. I think that those who do not accept the trinity do no harm by being alongside those who do. The evidence is strong that both catholics and non-trins can love God.

The question of trinity, though, seems a different case to me than that of praying to saints. It could simply be a semantic misunderstanding.

 

[Coder]

I doubt that catholics pray to saints as if the saints were God,,,
...Abraham praying on behalf of Abimelech's family. ... Might this not be what catholics are doing?

Catholic article:

Mediums: More Dangerous than They Seem

Linda Kracht explains why consulting mediums, even as entertainment, is a spiritually perilous practice.

www.catholicmom.com

"While the desire to connect with the dead ... may seem perfectly Christian, the practices condemned by our faith actually corrupt those good desires and lead us further away from God."

 

[Brickjectivity]

Catholic article:

Mediums: More Dangerous than They Seem

Linda Kracht explains why consulting mediums, even as entertainment, is a spiritually perilous practice.

www.catholicmom.com

"While the desire to connect with the dead ... may seem perfectly Christian, the practices condemned by our faith actually corrupt those good desires and lead us further away from God."

This could be misapplied, because it leaves out the 'Why' which Christianity is always concerned with. Its entirely possible that catholics praying to saints is not wrong. Firstly it may not be the same as contacting the dead, and secondly to forbid Christians from using mediums or from praying to saints either you must have a reason why it is wrong for Christians. Otherwise it is spurious application of Jewish laws which Christians do not generally keep, since Christians live by principles not by rote. Christians "Live by the spirit." Christians eat pork and clams though it is against the Jewish law, because there is no reason not to. They do many things Jews may not, and they do not do things which Jews must. Therefore.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I simply urge anyone to pray only to God.

Prayer can be counter-intutive. Why does person A sometimes need person B's prayer? Why for example couldn't Abimilech make his prayer known unto God? He had to go to Abraham. I notice that in the 5th chapter of James that a brother who has left the church needs to be restored by the people and cannot merely return by stepping back throught the door. They have to pray for him.

If I lose my walk with God it sometimes means that I need the help of other people to lift me up; but I cannot tell who is really that good. Suppose I am a catholic living after the black plague, and I am surrounded by mean Friars who sell wine and don't really care about holy living. Where do I find someone to help me? Who is righteous? Who is confirmed to be a good person? That would be a saint...but how do I know who is saintly? Also what if I am surrounded by people as bad as me or worse? Who can help me pray to God and will help me to be restored? I know! I'll ask for help from one of the resurrected saints, not to consult them in divination but to beg them to petition on my behalf.

So you see that the above is a very innocent scenario. The petitioner is not trying to scam anyone. They just want to be restored to fellowship with God. Where is the sin?

 

[jimb]

I read the Bible every day and have done so for years. There is no question in my mind that "the trinity" -- God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit -- are three aspects of the one God.

I have a body, a mind, and a spirit (the Holy Spirit since I became a Christian), i.e., I have three distinct parts. So does God!

It's not an easy concept to understand, but it is a reality.

 

[jesussetsusfree]

I read the Bible every day and have done so for years. There is no question in my mind that "the trinity" -- God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit -- are three aspects of the one God.

I have a body, a mind, and a spirit (the Holy Spirit since I became a Christian), i.e., I have three distinct parts. So does God!

It's not an easy concept to understand, but it is a reality.

I understand what you are saying; however, Jesus never discussed this, not did his apostles and Jesus taught the disciples for 3 years and before ascending, he told them that any words that speak other than what he is saying is from the devil. The trinity is a doctrine, instead of abiding in doctrines, if Christians really followed Jesus, they should follow his words and his words only. the trinity waas sold to us by the Roman Catholic Church which stemed from Pauls teachings who he was often in dispute with the apostles. Pauls epistels were brought forth by a man who was obsssed with Pauls teachings on raising the dead and brought his epistles to the Romans. Here we are 2000 years later doing far from what Jesus commanded. the trinity is by far not the worse lie to follow but one cant explain why no early christians followed it like the ebonites and nazerines, the ones who actually followed jesus. Follow Jesus, every other doctrine is a lie