Видео

We’re not in the right company for that kind of discussion.

Well, you should probably watch my videos on the Trinity before you go praising the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. :D

If Yahweh is the evil one, then the snake plays a very different role in the story. That being the case, the doctrine of the Fall undermined. Once original sin is undermined, the core elements of Christianity has to be redefined.

Yeah, I haven’t overlooked Job in my studies. I think Isaiah 14 & Job have Yahweh equating Lucifer with the Adversary (Satan), while Jesus’ response is to identify Yahweh with Satan. Yahweh is the only one of the two described as a dragon, and Jesus in Rev. 13:2 takes Yahweh’s self description in Hosea 13:7-8, applying it to the Sea Beast.

Jesus gave glory to his Father, not to Yahweh. The point of this series is to show that Jesus did not identify his Father with Yahweh, but exposed him as Satan.

I have listened to a good number of your videos, sir. Love your channel! Thanks for your input. I think in Job it is clear (comparing with Isaiah) that Yahweh is implying Lucifer is Satan. But Jesus teaches otherwise very clearly, particularly in Revelation and the Gospel of John. Yahweh is written back into Job and Genesis, of course. We know this because Yahweh tells Moses in Exodus 6 that the Burning Bush scene is the first time in which Yahweh reveals his new name. Do you have examples of what you are referencing that you would be willing to share with me?

@@critiquingchristianity Thank you! Yes this if what I am referring to "I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High (El Elyon)” - Isaiah 14:14 The name ʽElyōn (Most High) standing alone is found in many poetic passages, especially in the Psalms. It appears in Balaam's verse oracle in Numbers 24:16 as a separate name parallel to Ēl. Lucifer rebelled against El Elyon.

Yes, vs 14 is talking about El, the Most High. But how do you draw the conclusion Yahweh is also Lucifer? It is Yahweh speaking in those verses, accusing Lucifer of attempting to ascend to the clouds and become like the Most High. I don’t know that Jesus is necessarily good, either in spite of certain good moral teachings and spiritual principles he preaches. Ultimately he and Yahweh are rivals, engaged in a very long and protracted battle over millennia. I think we are just pawns in their game. Just look at the list of sins that Jesus will throw you into hell for in Rev. 21 and 22. Magic, idolatry, etc. In spite of the fact Jesus isn’t preaching the Christianity we know of today, he remains in some ways as harsh and sectarian as Yahweh, not to mention very Judaeo-centric. By rejecting all “idols” and “magic”, he is basically rejecting all other gods but himself, precisely what Yahweh did. Jesus clearly doesn’t mind using fear and coercion anymore than Yahweh.

@@critiquingchristianity Could you provide me with those verses? Also sorcerers I believe was a mistranslation. πορνοιςto legislatively corrupt onesnoun dat-pl-mas I believe is what I can see? Also hell is just being denied eternal life, not some prison.

Yes, Revelation 21:8 & 22:15.

Lucifer is not God. Lucifer is a god. Well, let me nuance that. It depends on the narrative you go with. While the gospel of John tends to identify the Son with the Father in terms of their shared divinity, the divine council texts (Deut. 32:8-9, Psalm 82) view the sons of God (gods, angels) as lesser deities under the Supreme Creator, El Elyon. The divine council texts are borrowed from far older Sumerian texts and tell much the same story, with the Supreme God there being called Anu. One could easily see how Lucifer (Jesus), like Yahweh (Satan) was simply a member of the divine council, one of the sons of God-which is what Isa. 14:12 indicates. Lucifer was a Shining One, a higher ranking god or angel. But again, places like John’s Gospel ascribe a divinity to Jesus that is essentially on par with what Krishnaites do with Krishna in that particular school of Hinduism. Krishnaites think Brahman has only one Supreme Form, and they see that in Krishna. But is anything like the Trinity being taught in the Bible? No. The so-called “plural of majesty” texts in the O.T. are far more lucid when explained in terms of the divine council. In terms of the N.T. I John 5:7 was an interpolation added several centuries after Jesus, and all biblical scholars acknowledge this now, whether Christian or non-Christian. The Great Commission passage is believed to be added to the text after 70 CE. Most of the gospel narratives (plus Acts) were written between 70 and 110 CE as scholars all attest. It is the original sayings of Jesus that seem to be the most authentic, such as The Sermon on the Mount. The baptism of Jesus is presented in terms of adoptionism in the Synoptics, whereas (as previously mentioned) John tries to take Jesus’ divinity much further. As to the Holy Spirit specifically, the teaching concerning it pre-dates Christianity in the Qumran texts (Dead Sea Scrolls), and it originally had a feminine quality, being related to Sophia from the Septuagint or the Shekhina in the Temple from the O.T. The concept of deity in the Bible has far more in common with ancient Egypt and other ancient civilizations that standard exoteric Christianity knows.

In history there have been many flavors of gbosticism, some dualistic others nondualistic. Overall, I generally feel the way you do about it. Just know Gnosticism isn’t the only alternative to the Bible. I think of myself as a Platonist, for example, and would highly recommend the critique of Gnosticism made by the Neoplatonist philosopher, Plotinus entitled, “Against the Gnostics.”

@@critiquingchristianity@critiquingchristianity The word of God contains many aspects. Some could be hidden or difficult to understand. But it should not contradict plain information provided by God. You cannot say Jesus is a separate person and God, while you say Father is a separate person and God. It contradicts the concept of perfection, the complete, the only true God. You do not need to understand the full meaning of Born Again for salvation, but you should believe that you will be born (recreated) again. Since the soul did not die, the bodily resurrection should be accepted. But what type of body? What kind of materials, what kind of abilities, it does not matter. Unless you are informed by Divine, you only made guesswork. By doing this, you could end up contradicting the ideas of God and creation. Yawveh is one of the names of the true God. The name signifies Everliving, always existed & always will exist, re-creator, beautifier. Abraham and his family knew the word in the verb form. The adjective form of this word was given to Israelites. Israelites used it as the name of God, special for themself. The word had been commonly used because it was new and separate from other cultures, which used the common name of God. Actually, Elohim, the Everliving (Yahweh), is one person, the true God of the universe.

@@Age_of_Magpie Yahweh is not the true God. He was added into Genesis by Jewish scribes, and we know this because Yahweh explicitly tells Moses in Ex 3 that the Burning Bush scene was the first time in which he had revealed himself by that new name. The real reason for this is that he had not yet received his allotted portion, Israel from the Supreme Father, EL, until the Red Sea Crossing. Yahweh is one of the 70 sons of God (bene elohim) who received authority over different nations and over various territories of the Earth (cf. Deut. 32:8-9). My earlier videos in this series feature Thom Stark’s refutation of Dr. Michael Heiser on the divine council texts. I highly recommend looking into this more deeply. Biblical scholars are way ahead of the churches.

@@critiquingchristianity@critiquingchristianity Religion 101; God is one, and He is all-powerful. There is no God before Him and after Him. He is the creator and sustainer of all the things. He created the universe alone and does not need anyone to manage it. Israelites wanted to use YHWH more because this provided them a tribal cement. Scholars could use all legitimate names of God. But the name in the divine text should not be changed. Because the name may provide depth to context. Tetragrammaton God is the true God, the legitimate name of the true God. Your textual criticism is not related to God but to the Israelites. Equivalent word roots of YHWH ('ehye) are also used in the Quran. yaḥyā (Jhon) live, will live fa-ḥayyū then greet wa-yastaḥyī and letting live ḥayyan alive ḥayyin living thing l-ḥayati the life la-muḥ'yī surely He (will) give life My favorite for Tetragrammaton is below. yuḥ'yī revives, grants life, brings to life l-ḥayu the Ever-Living.

@@Age_of_Magpie Are you a Muslim?

I beg you to look into the Bible in a different light. You will see that the Old Testament foreshadowed the Trinity, because God said in Genesis "let us make man in OUR image". Jesus loves you.

@@Wifgargfhaurh The “us” in “Let us make” is read back into the text by Trinitarian dogmatists. They have certain assumptions and then plug them into various passages rather than extracting the meaning of the texts from the actual texts in question. Scholars know the “us” here is in reference to the divine council from Deut. 32:8-9 & Psalm 82. It consists of the Most High God (who is not Yahweh) and the “gods” or “sons of god” (bene elohim). There were 70 of these sons, each receiving an inheritance among the nations, Yahweh’s portion being Jacob (or Israel) from El the Most High, as it states in the Deut. passage. I go over the divine council texts in detail in the early part of this series. I also discuss them in the series previous to this one and how that changes the meaning and implications of certain passages (like the one you brought up) in Genesis.

For all of what Jesus stood for and gave glory to God for, why would "satan" inspire so many people to do good and despise wickedness?

@@Doubleaa500 Yahweh also ordered genocides, permitted chattel slavery, instituted usury, required human sacrifice in fulfillment of vows, and kept the choicest virgins acquired in battle. Any of the good things Yahweh commanded can be found in most any religious ethical system. Even the mafia performs deeds of charity and kindness as a means to an end.

Yes. Now, of course the Christian response to that would be that Yahweh’s barbarism was necessary because the magnitude of the evil being done by those societies who worshiped the sons of god (“fallen angels” or “demons”) was so great that it required extraordinary measures. What the divine council texts show, however (along with many other evidences in the text we will be covering) is that Yahweh was no exception. He was a member of the same pantheon, and he was ambitious, jealous, greedy, and violent in the same way some if not most of his brothers were. Therefore, what this tells us is that Gen. 6, is Yahwistic propaganda designed to set Yahweh apart from the so-called fallen angels. The truth is, he is a cut above the rest - but only in the sense that his avarice far exceeded the other members of the council. Yahweh is one of them, plain and simple.

The most ironic and extraordinary thing about all of this is that the Christian Church is not aware that its own New Testament is embedded and interwoven throughout with a subtle but unmistakable anti-Yahweh narrative, from Jesus in the Gospels to the book of Revelation.

@rmh_223 I think it might help you to read the note I posted on my YT community wall this morning entitled, “Why the Monarchia of the Father Solves Nothing (in a Nutshell)” I spent nearly 15 years in the EO Church. I had the same experience of feeling that their formulation was superior to others in helping to discern the true meaning and import of trinitarianism. However, when you look very closely under the hood at the metaphysical assumptions that are required to prop it all up, it just doesn’t stand the test of close scrutiny.