topic: Monotheism and Angels
in contrast to Hindu that has "plural gods deva" like divine, not different "appearances of same one" because claiming all same one is not hindu, catholic does claim "not three gods but one"
so was the famous "charismatic pirate" a monotheist?
when some christians claimed [arius and now unitarian] jesus is not "same" as god, that was protested, because according to christian faith jesus WAS the same one monotheism. a branch certainly is not "half" of all followers plus the protest prevented followers from straying to arius whose branch became extinct.
hindu separated: only some in human body like krishna from rama, same one in human body, but without shell a different name while others not incarnation in human body, not same one as vishnu, while "goddess distinguished from god" not only by shape form but hindu taught "with body, just not in human," like rama. the catholic trinity is not "parts" but "one god" not more. thre was never doubt maybe god was three gods plural but specified "not three but one" even emphasizing the NUMBER one in traditional athanasia creed because in numbers only one option one. this was elaborated, "within trinity nothing submit to other" to specify same one, in contrast to unitarian, jesus is less than father god, not same so not divine, but less.
if jesus was "begotten" does that mean jesus started later? tradition specified "never" a time without complete trinity. the fact that i can misrepresent someone and say "you said\say you are a murderer" is simply false accusation. the volume "many false accusations" whatever claim, whether lying that christian more than one, as i heard from jew and islam or claim many contradictions, as if teachers did not notice nor commentate, does not make the target worse than one flaw because the accusations were false. a jew cannot represent christianity saying "they say three gods" only the teachers can teach their own and said in number one. also a muslim cannot represent christianity saying "they say three gods" becuase that would violate their own book the noble quran.
if christianity was more than one god would Allah say christains have no worry? even quran said they are good and therefore monotheism ergo claiming christians are more than one is what violated their own quran. in fact a muslim, according to this book can even join christianity without violating his own book. but back to montheism: only the teachers can teach their own, unless quoting an "internal" source and even catholics specified, in number: one.
trinity is neither "parts" nor "partners" because that is not catholic trinity and never was more than one in number not >1 and nor did they change from ancient tradition but now preserve the ancient lessons the ancient monotheism "has not moved on in 18 centuries" mocked dawkins page 55, that is not only correct but also indicating "preservation" there was no alteration because changing the faith would not be the same religion, but instead preserved the same fiath. in contrast, newton who was "wrong" about gravity as einstein found, science needed to change from ancient to copernicus in 1600's and to einsteinian to fix errors not due to the artificial "demand to progress". instead the trinity "was distinct" and described by only one number one, not obscure nor indistinct as false accusers accused. those who punished polytheistic christian... as rabbis lied iin books and islam, were merely false accusers and if punished or killed were killing "innocent even by their own demand of monotheism."
using a number IS lucid to prevent error of different names obscuring more than one so not obscure but with number.
but how do christians claim that hindu is wrong? how can they be certain with confidence about anything spiritual... that question assumed that god never sent a message but how can we assume that or any other assumption for accusing. if god existed, then the claim he communicated, is more plausible than "existed silently" without guiding, so the only "progress" was the change from primitive many to monotheism which as above did "not move on" because that would not be the same faith.
can "evidence be possible" about anything spiritual? the posssibility exists that prophecy might be from spirits or spirit god. they can have evidence by prophecy and "have" as prophets taught. the only doubt is when spirit is described without prophecy as kabbala of rabbis elaborated that is silly imagination because not even based on a spirit message but jesus did claim to bring spirit messages, and even rabbis tangled themselves teaching zacharia was a prophet... admitting prophecy during second temple so they can't claim jesus was "too late" because even their claim "prophecy ended when destruction of temple" included both zacharia and jesus. if rabbis would try to mimic islam, then the "last" prophet would be before zacharia in generation of darius.
theological opinions HAVE basis on sources and are taught USING references same as the modern "solution" for arguments is "checking sources" oops i meant "reliable sources" not internet websites nor wikipedia nor facebook where i saw people argue, "after jack sparrow was a pirate in carribean did he repent and accept islam or hindu" in illustration above, if that were fan fiction i would be amused , i was until i noticed the source "true light" they did not intend fan fiction. gasp. in contrast to that, theology IS taught using sources in "spiritual books written before prophecy ended."
a religious argument rages, if muhamed was "last prophet" or "after last prophet", and the "method" exists same as any topic "settle arguments by check sources."
to illustrate if someone would say "i believe newton and no evidence will budge me" that a decision to deny einstein and the same close minded decision by those who think or say "no evidence" that i am wrong as foolish as picking newton without considering other options... the opposite protestant is growing BECAUSE people are leaving other faiths aand isms incuding atheism parents due to religious people "not closed minds" but willing to here and then change faith to join protestant. in the words of one rabbi despite anti christian the "smartest jewish students are converting to christianity" i add often without any ceremony just faith... those words are unintended "marketing" called association, by association we should all be like the smartest... they were probably not fooled and probably right if they were the wisest.
returning to monotheism, "adding" more gods is "not slightly different" it is not mono. in trinity "nothing added". to illustrate if something is not blue it is different. claiming "they say three gods" is simply a false accusation nobody can speak for others any more than i can say "dawkins taught christianity" but publishers decided not to publish that book which would ruin the popularity of his other books. therefore same as i can't try to represent atheists they equally, despite trying, cannot be representatives for any faith nor ism now that they are not the ism ogf atheism eitheer.
their "trinity" is one not a "tricycle nor trifocal". a "triangle" has three angles but a trinity is not three "nits". and even a triangle is one shape not more despite containing tri in its name.
BUT despite in action praying to mary catholics never changed the trinity to a quartet!! the problem in praying to mary is not monotheism, but the violation of their own book "when you pray pray to the father". but who said? the students of jesus including MATTHEW was one of HIS students, not a hundred years later, so that lesson, not an outsider complaining about its competition but from within their own faith, prohibited the pope wrongly praying to mary and claiming to lead without "exactly one wife" in his own book. by the "rules" he is not a leader therefore could not appoint bishops nor cardinals and... those non-cardinals were not cardinals to appont the following pope so each is extinct. but we must return to montheism.
angels are precisely that angels not gods not even demigods. hindu does not claim the main gods are 3 and the rest angels but gods and semigods and goddesses. saints are less than angels only saints. the target of prayer does not indicate they are added gods and were always "distinguished BY name" for "lucidity" and "inobscurity" as angel and saint. mary was never named goddess "in name" because that would be a different faith.
i can believe in "indra" if i call him an angel... which would match rama defeating indra... but that is not "splitting hairs" it is a different faith than hindu that indra is "a god and god can be defeated" and was.
nobody "added" gaurdian angels as additional gods but the opposite of calling them god just "sent by god" according to psalms book.
the opposition has always been failing to find ANY error, therefore the only option, and according to OPPOSERS also same page 55 "only" method for the anti-christianity is only mock and try to ridicule... with false accusations instead of letting teachers describe their own faith. people are not as dumb as dawkins hoped, when he wrote "mary was a goddess in all but name" same page 55, you are not a teacher of christianity... the reason "not in name" is because "name is for identity" and also distingiushed for lucidity and inobscuraty the very things he lied were absent. instead they DID bother to use numbers and the number they teach is the number one as monotheism not any other number.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
2Opinion
A) Was meth involved in this post. It's just a bit long and intense.
B) Just to start off it's common among Hindus to say that "All is Brahman." Brahman in turn is the One. So I don't thinkbthis distinction is hard and fast.
C) The Trinity poses a particular difficulty for Christians that almost entirely extends from the Gospel of John and the idea that in the beging the Logos* was with God and was God.
* (Logos is often translated as Word but that's not quite right its more akin to the term Dharma, if you have an intuitive sense for what that means. Logos is Word in the same way that ScrIpture is Writing, if you can see how writing doesn't really capture the meaning)
b you interpret "all is brahman" as monotheism but that is not hindu. anyway brahman is a term, not name neither brama nor any other god.
c trinity is not "difficulty" but very clearly defined unambiguous even with number one.
the source "with and was" can be the one god with more than one 'person" like personality or appearance. i invented a more literalist idea due to the question which word? the word was "god" those letters are a word the word that with, not saying that unknown word was divinity, a=b but answering which word.
do you feel guilty being on here during shabbat? i feel conflicted at it not work and is relaxing but using electricity
is using electricity on the list? the people at the power plant do the work not me.
the DEVS are fallen angels who had sex with the women
its in the bible
Genesis 6:4