Why do Christians accuse other religions of believing in false prophets?

[IndigoChild5559]

Saying Jesus was "Homoousios" - one substance .. is saying that Jesus was "The Father" ..

It would seem that way at first, except that trinitarianism goes to great trouble to specifically say that Jesus is not the Father, the Father is not the HS, etc. Trinitarianism violates the rules of logic, but it nevertheless should not be misrepresented.

 

[Sargonski]

Any of that can be insufficient for finding the Truth. The Paraclete is the Truth.

I believe that is false. I do not believe in a man made Trinity ; I believe in the Trinity that is in the Bible.

I believe that is because those words do not exist. The word is: one with the Father.

I believe you are reflecting your own thinking. I understand the Trinity as well or better than anyone.

I believe I would know a deception because I have the Spirit of Truth in me.

I believe there are at least two reasons. 1. Fulfilled prophecy 2. God is not going to allow the deceiver to take His place.

I believe you are not able to make that judgment because you do not have the Holy Spirit.

Something Triggered you mate much incoherence and "thought Avoidance" going on . ... failed to address the question of how you will know that your Spirit guide is True .. contradicting yourself on the Man Made Trinity --- self deception that the man made part you believe in is in the Bible... hence why it is called "Man Made" .. talking about the "Jesus is God" part.

So you believe that your spirit Guide can outwit the Advocate -- that you be smarter than he .. so sure of the Truth you are - in zones where that is an impossibility . Already self deception is apparent.

"God is not Going to allow the Deceiver to take his Place" - this is a nonsensical thing to say --- no one is claiming otherwise .. The question is whether or not God allows the Tester to test humans.. do the Business of Which God has tasked him. Does the Bible not infer that our good friend Sataniel has dominion over the earth when he tempts our lord and Savior ?

and who are you to judge between the spirits .. You don't know what spirits inhabit yourself ... never mind know the spirits inhabiting others .. What preposterous arrogance and self deception .. coupled with made up nonsense .. speaking nonsense for the sake of opening lips...

Who are you to claim to know what God will allow and What God will not.. that sounds awfully close to usurping the position of the Logos .. "Speaking for God" .. aka "The Unforgivable Sin" blaspheming the Spirit .. Who is it beckened you to wander down that path mate ? -- and you claim is me who is "UnHoly" .. more like the angel sent to you to stop you from continuing down the dark road .. towards the abomination of desolation .. the "Awfull Horror"

 

[Sargonski]

It would seem that way at first, except that trinitarianism goes to great trouble to specifically say that Jesus is not the Father, the Father is not the HS, etc. Trinitarianism violates the rules of logic, but it nevertheless should not be misrepresented.

Yes .. it is a blatant contradiction .. Jesus is X - but Jesus is Not X .. not sure what you are getting at with the Seeming .. and misrepresenting. No idea what this is referring to.

Homoousios = one substance with the Father = Jesus is God .. "The FAther" .. "The ALLSPARK" rather than having a small piece of the divine spark in him .. subordinate to the Father .. as all the Early Church Fathers believed .. Sub to the Father like his Brother Sataniel .. but less divine in nature.. being son of Man.

 

[Trailblazer]

John 10 is not referring to "one in substance" . It is referring to one in will . "Of the same mind" .. as Jesus was "The Logos" emissary between man and God .. who spoke God's word through the Holy Spirit. John 1:1 is an intentional mistranslation ... Jesus was "The Logos" and this is the Greek word .. not "The Word" .. and no .. that is not what Logos means in a religious context .. Logos can mean word .. but when used in a religious context means "emmisary between Man and God"

That is exactly what I believe.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

From Muhammad to Krishna to Buddha and Baha’u’llah, it has been a norm amongst Christians of many denominations to accuse religionists of other religions of believing in satan himself and that all of these Teachers are ‘false Prophets’. Many times I have heard this said to me and others. Yet nowhere in the Bible does it categorically state by name that any of These Teachers are false. It is an interpretation by priests and clergy. All of Them taught love just as Christ did.

The kind of people who say these things will interpret the Bible to say that these are false teachers and doctrines because multiple times in the Bible it says that Jesus and believing in him is the only way to salvation. That's the entire gospel of Christianity. If they believed that a different prophet was the way to salvation they wouldn't be Christians. In fact, I bet if I do a simple Google search on this I can find all kinds of scripture in the Bible that most Christians would interpret to mean that Christ is the only way to spiritual redemption. While the Bible does not specifically mention the other, more recent, prophets, because they weren't born yet, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus is not a way, Jesus is the way.

1. John 14:6 – Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
2. Acts 4:12 – And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.
3. John 3:16 – For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
4. Rom. 10:9 – Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
5. 2 Cor. 4:4 – In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
6. John 3:36 – Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
7. Acts 10:43 – To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.
8. 1 Tim. 2:5 – For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
9. Rom. 3:22 – The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
10. John 17:3 – And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

To be fair, I know of excellent Christians and priests who respect other religions and Prophets and they, I believe, are true Christians who practice love and tolerance towards all.

This is primarily marked by theologically liberal Christians. Liberal Christianity will practice with hymnals and the Bible meant to glorify the Son but when it comes to individual belief they do not scorn those who hold different positions. I am part of a progressive Mennonite religion and for the most part I am able to say whatever I think regarding my beliefs, but I still don't, because I don't feel like I want to change anyone's mind on these subjects, so I remain silent when appropriate. Upon talking to them individually though, they express that they value my beliefs even if they are different than their own.

The most liberal Christians, the Unitarian Universalists, eventually stopped doctrines and creeds altogether and started to practice general spirituality at the pulpit, and UUism is now a completely separate religion from Christianity. What binds UUs together is mostly a general sense of religious humanism and respect for all members of their congregations. While this sounds good in principle I have come to realize that the most liberal religions don't really care about what you believe, and is mostly a front for progressivism and the Democrat Party. So if I attend a conservative congregation I will be expected to be a Christian and if I attend a liberal congregation I will expected to be a progressive Democrat. And many in the middle dabble in both camps. I can't win either way.

As a Christian, what do you believe about Muhammad or Buddha or Krishna and Baha’u’llah? Do you believe the different religions should mix with one another or shun each other? I once invited some Christians who knocked on my door to say some prayers together for humanity but they told me that their elders forbid them to do that because they could get ‘spiritually infected’! If Christ taught to love even ones enemy then this attitude towards other religions doesn’t sound right. What do you think?

I'm not a Christian but my Bible quotes that I included make it abundantly clear why many of them think this way.

What do I think? Live and let live. Let people be and believe whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt them or other people. However, I am not a Christian and I don't believe in the Gospel of Christianity.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes .. it is a blatant contradiction .. Jesus is X - but Jesus is Not X..

It sure is a mystery.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes .. it is a blatant contradiction .. Jesus is X - but Jesus is Not X .. not sure what you are getting at

Oh, yes, absolutely. It's boggling that anyone who believe something so blatantly irrational. But nevertheless they do, and so since they also believe that each person of the trinity is distinct, they cannot be said to believe the son is the father.

 

[Sargonski]

It sure is a mystery.

only to the uninitiated

 

[Sargonski]

Oh, yes, absolutely. It's boggling that anyone who believe something so blatantly irrational. But nevertheless they do, and so since they also believe that each person of the trinity is distinct, they cannot be said to believe the son is the father.

Yes .. Jesus is X --- Jesus is Not X

but -- there is a quazi middle ground where things get interesting -- but this ground has diverged from "One God" as soon as it gets interesting.

You can consider "The Godhead" as One ... The logos (emissary between man and God) an emination from the Godhead .. but- the "emination" is not the Godhead .. a bit of the divine spark .. is not the "All-Spark" .. but once we start splitting out the Godhead . .and giving that part of the Godhead a will separate to the other part.. we have already talking something other than one God .. or more interestingly -- "More divinities" .

As it turns out .. there are a number of other divinities in the Bible .. Sons of God - Sons of the Supreme one - Angels .. and our good friend Sataniel who has quite the Godlike Powers .. also a Son of the Most High.

 

[Sargonski]

That is exactly what I believe.

Neo- Platonism is what a whole lot of the Educated Classes believed .. at the time of the writing of John the Plato schools of a Philosophy were over 500 years old .. had spread far and wide.

The author of John was speaking to a Greek audience .. and so wanted to speak in they would understand .. and everyone knew "The Logos" concept .. same as every western kid knows Santa.

Glad you found some connection .. in this description of the divine nature of Christ - I like this concept much better than the Trinity dogma .. and the Logos is from the Bible .. rather than a man made construction 250 years after the fact.. one full of contradiction and political intrigue.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

only to the uninitiated

Every Christian scholar I have spoken to or who has written books on the Trinity, acknowledges that it does not make rational sense.

 

[Sargonski]

Every Christian scholar I have spoken to or who has written books on the Trinity, acknowledges that it does not make rational sense.

Only to uninitiated" - was jk and/or sarcasm --

 

[Brian2]

Saying Jesus was "Homoousios" - one substance .. is saying that Jesus was "The Father" .. but this has nothing to do with John 10..

You do not know what the word "Homoousios" means .. do not know what "One Substance" means .. / "meant" to the folks at Nicea. ---

To "the Greeks" - neo-platonic philosophy - there were two kinds of substances -- one that God is made of .. and one that everything else was made of -- dirt - trees - man .. everything else.

So if you are made of the God Substance .. you are "GOD" aka "The Father" Same Subtance with the Father -from whome all things are made.

Now the trinity contradicts itself and also claims 3 personages .. or 3 wills if you like .. but now we are in the land of Polytheism

The debate over the nature of Christs divinity raged for 300 years --- claiming Jesus was Homoousios settled the issue .. by decree. Jesus is the Father .. and thats that .. ask me no questions.. I will tell you no lies.

John 10 is not referring to "one in substance" . It is referring to one in will . "Of the same mind" .. as Jesus was "The Logos" emissary between man and God .. who spoke God's word through the Holy Spirit. John 1:1 is an intentional mistranslation ... Jesus was "The Logos" and this is the Greek word .. not "The Word" .. and no .. that is not what Logos means in a religious context .. Logos can mean word .. but when used in a religious context means "emmisary between Man and God"

John is using a play on words here .. because Jesus is the physical representation of God's word .. and emination from the Godhead ..

but Jesus is not "The Father" not one substance with the Father according to the author of John. The one telling you otherwise is the deceiver .. on them fundamentalist sites.

So how about telling me what you think the scriptures I quoted mean.
John 1:3 certainly shows that Jesus was not created.
So an uncreated being who has been around forever with the Father sounds like 2 gods............... if they have different bodies (are different substances).
If they are the one substance, the Father and Son have the same body, one God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So how about telling me what you think the scriptures I quoted mean.
John 1:3 certainly shows that Jesus was not created.
So an uncreated being who has been around forever with the Father sounds like 2 gods............... if they have different bodies (are different substances).
If they are the one substance, the Father and Son have the same body, one God.

You are not being fair. Trinitarians are crystal clear that their doctrine makes no rational sense, and in trying to force it to be rational, you are misrepresenting what they teach. Trinitarians do NOT think that the Father and son have the same body. Indeed, they do not think the father has any body at all. So please, disagree with them all you want. I know I do. But let's not misrepresent what they teach.

 

[Sargonski]

So how about telling me what you think the scriptures I quoted mean.
John 1:3 certainly shows that Jesus was not created.
So an uncreated being who has been around forever with the Father sounds like 2 gods............... if they have different bodies (are different substances).
If they are the one substance, the Father and Son have the same body, one God.

No and No. Jesus being around at the time of the creation of the Earth does not mean Jesus was not created. Also we need keep in mind that John depicts Jesus much differently than the synoptics .. and the potential allegory in the passage.

No - if of different substances does not mean the "Non God Substance" is a God. .. and did the All-Spark Analogy not ring bell ?! nor does different bodies mean different substances

Told you that John 1: 1-2 is a mistranslation .. "In the Beginning was the "Logos" not "Word"

and last .. what part of Satan was also a Son of God --- was unable to sink in ? and what are angels made of ? (if divine are they GOD as well>?)

 

[Brian2]

No and No. Jesus being around at the time of the creation of the Earth does not mean Jesus was not created. Also we need keep in mind that John depicts Jesus much differently than the synoptics .. and the potential allegory in the passage.

No - if of different substances does not mean the "Non God Substance" is a God. .. and did the All-Spark Analogy not ring bell ?! nor does different bodies mean different substances

Told you that John 1: 1-2 is a mistranslation .. "In the Beginning was the "Logos" not "Word"

and last .. what part of Satan was also a Son of God --- was unable to sink in ? and what are angels made of ? (if divine are they GOD as well>?)

John 1:3 shows us that the Logos was not made, did not come into existence, but was always in existence.
Jesus is the unique Son of God, the only one who comes from the Father. All the rest were created by the Father and through the Logos.

 

[Brian2]

You are not being fair. Trinitarians are crystal clear that their doctrine makes no rational sense, and in trying to force it to be rational, you are misrepresenting what they teach. Trinitarians do NOT think that the Father and son have the same body. Indeed, they do not think the father has any body at all. So please, disagree with them all you want. I know I do. But let's not misrepresent what they teach.

I was using the word "body" more as an analogy.
If the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son then the 2 are the one thing.
This is what the Bible teaches and also fits in with the Trinity teaching of the Church that the Father and Son are of the same substance/essence.
The trinity doctrine can be understood to an extent but is hard to fully understand. That does not mean that it makes no rational sense.

 

[Sargonski]

John 1:3 shows us that the Logos was not made, did not come into existence, but was always in existence.
Jesus is the unique Son of God, the only one who comes from the Father. All the rest were created by the Father and through the Logos.

The author of John seems to claim that Jesus is Pre-existent with God .. This is not claiming that Jesus "IS" the Father however .. it is not claiming that Jesus and the Most High are one in the same .. but regardless .. this is not Jesus making the claim ... this is not "Jesus Said". This is the author trying to put his conception of the divinity of Christ on paper using Hellenistic religious terminology of the day... It is not the word of Jesus .. not the word of the Lord.

Your claim that Jesus is unique son of God and the only one who comes from the Father ... is made up story .. doens't come from Jesus. nor the OT and in fact conflicts with it .. so speaking power to falsehood. The Bible claims there are many sons of God.. .. Jesus is the only one referenced as "The son of Man" ... the offspring of God and Man .. the other sons of God are the offspring of God and God .. Such as Sataniel .. YHWH .. Baal .. Marduk and the other of the 70 Sons of EL among which the nations of the Earth were divided .. YHWH's portion Israel. Deut 32:8 (LXX - Bible)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I was using the word "body" more as an analogy.
If the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son then the 2 are the one thing.
This is what the Bible teaches and also fits in with the Trinity teaching of the Church that the Father and Son are of the same substance/essence.
The trinity doctrine can be understood to an extent but is hard to fully understand. That does not mean that it makes no rational sense.

One of the most basic rules of logic is that something cannot be x and not x at the same time. So, my friend, is IS completely irrational to say that God is one and three at the same time.

 

[Trailblazer]

The author of John seems to claim that Jesus is Pre-existent with God ..

That is what my religion teaches.

96) PRE-EXISTENCE - of Prophets
The Prophets, unlike us, are pre-existent. The soul of Christ existed in the spiritual world before His birth in this world. We cannot imagine what that world is like, so words are inadequate to picture His state of being.

(Shoghi Effendi: High Endeavors, Page: 71)

This is not claiming that Jesus "IS" the Father however .. it is not claiming that Jesus and the Most High are one in the same .. but regardless .. this is not Jesus making the claim ... this is not "Jesus Said". This is the author trying to put his conception of the divinity of Christ on paper using Hellenistic religious terminology of the day... It is not the word of Jesus .. not the word of the Lord.

No, that is not claiming that Jesus IS God the Father, or that Jesus and God are one and the SAME.
No, it is not Jesus making this claim.... It is as you said, the author trying to understand the divinity of Jesus and put it on paper.