Ogre Gods

In the enjoy­able com­ment con­ver­sa­tion of A “Pro­gres­sive Chris­t­ian Blog”?, a fel­low by the nick­name of yes2truth made the judg­ment that I was bib­li­cal­ly igno­rant. Oh, and that I am, for there is far more still yet to learn from the pages of Scrip­ture than would have even been pos­si­ble to have already learned in my lifetime.

I vis­it­ed yes2truth’s web­site expect­ing typ­i­cal “I’m right; you’re all wrong” divi­sive­ness, as is often seen on, for exam­ple, fun­da­men­tal Bap­tist, KJV-only­ist web­sites (there are, praise the Lord, excep­tions; at one point in time, my site was one of them, but it was not one of the excep­tions). What I found when I got to his web­site, how­ev­er, was quite different. 

That isn’t to say the style of writ­ing isn’t the same, but he was­n’t just attempt­ing to enscrip­turate tra­di­tion, he bla­tant­ly denied the very nature of God, which I’m sor­ry to say calls into ques­tion not only every­thing he will ever preach while believ­ing in a false god, but can one be saved while deny­ing the God of the Bible?

Yes2truth presents the God of the Bible as a three-eyed “ogre god” (for the Trin­i­ty) or a one-eyed “ogre god” (for monothe­ism). This is a sad case indeed, and I will reply to his arti­cle point-by-point, with his text indent­ed and un-altered and my replies fol­low­ing each sec­tion. This is a seri­ous issue – a denial of one of the most fun­da­men­tal truths in the uni­verse – so please for­give any­thing that seems to be a lapse in my patience. Sar­casm was the tool of both Paul and the Christ, and if I employ it here, please under­stand I am being noth­ing but scrip­tur­al in doing so.

You will not find the word ‘Trin­i­ty’ in The Holy Bible and pay no atten­tion to those who sup­port this papist rubbish.

The word “Eccle­si­astes” also is not found in the Bible, but it works as a title for the book. Like­wise, “Trin­i­ty” is the title giv­en to a spe­cif­ic teach­ing. The “Beau­ti­tudes” describe a pas­sage, as does the “Olivet Dis­course.” If I called the doc­trine of a six-days Cre­ation, well, “a six-days Cre­ation,” shall I be crit­i­cized for it? The title does not appear in Scrip­tures, but it is nonethe­less accu­rate.

To my read­ers I note that seem­ing­ly any­thing yes2truth dis­likes becomes “papist rub­bish.” I won­der what these things would have been before the papa­cy was cre­at­ed in the fourth cen­tu­ry? I also should­n’t have to men­tion to yes2truth that “papist” comes for a Latin word and, accord­ing to yes2truth in his com­ments on the afore­men­tioned entry, thus is part of the “Dev­il’s lan­guage.” He uses it any­way, and a bold move it is. Let’s see if it helps get his point across.

They often use the imma­ture lame duck excuse “you won’t find the term ‘Holy Bible’ in the Holy Bible either.” The issue here is that the trin­i­ty doc­trine is just that — a doc­trine, where­as the term Holy Bible is not, it is a title for the Canon of Holy Scrip­tures and offends no one.

Peo­ple were aston­ished at Jesus’ doc­trine, so why is it so com­mon for me to read or hear peo­ple say­ing that we should­n’t be so con­cerned with doc­trine? Or in this case, it reads as though doc­trine is a dis­dain­ful thing.

And of course “Holy Bible” offends no one… espe­cial­ly not the Mus­lims who die in the name of anoth­er holy book, nor the antichris­t­ian politi­cians who want all men­tion of any­thing “holy” shut out of soci­ety for fear of offend­ing the one or two open-mind­ed peo­ple who for­got to open up their minds. The very idea that the Bible is “holy” is divi­sive and dar­ing. With its use we declare the Scrip­tures to be pure from sin, false wit­ness, and imper­fec­tion. With its use, we declare that it stands above all oth­er doc­u­ments as being pure and sim­i­lar in nature to the Lord who inspired them: free from sin.

Fur­ther­more you will not find the word Monothe­ism in The Holy Bible either; anoth­er flawed doc­trine. Those in main­stream Chris­tian­i­ty who believe in these expres­sions of God are total­ly deceived. Metaphor­i­cal­ly, one — the trin­i­ty god, is an ogre god with three eyes and the oth­er — the mono god, is an ogre god with one eye and if you believe in a god that is like either of these then your belief is in vain.

The chal­lenge is made. The game is set. Here yes2truth appar­ent­ly search­es in vain for some bib­li­cal descrip­tions and comes up hor­ri­bly short; instead, he jumps into the realm of mythol­o­gy and pulls out “ogre.” It’s okay; it’s not in the Bible, but he can use it any­way. He isn’t us, after all. (Though to make it easy on him in the future, the cor­rect Bible word for a false god is “idol.”)

Deut 6:4. Hear, O Israel: The LORD (Eter­nal and self-exis­tent) our God (Elo­him [Hebrew] means plur­al) is one (uni­fied, unit­ed and num­ber one and none above) LORD (Eter­nal and self-existent):

Amen! Love that word of God!

The God­head has always been two who are uni­fied or unit­ed or at one with them­selves — in com­plete and total agree­ment; this is the True God­head, again, metaphor­i­cal­ly a God with two eyes (and would you believe we are made in their image!?).

Metaphor­i­cal descrip­tions are appar­ent­ly the foun­da­tion of his belief; he’s yet to give us a Scrip­ture that explicite­ly saves him from being labeled a Bible-rejecter. How­ev­er, I see his metaphor, and I see a god with two gods for eyes and this is sup­posed to be the image of a human with two eyes for eyes. Fas­ci­nat­ing. Let’s try a bet­ter comparison:

God is Father, Son, and Spir­it; man is spir­it, body, and soul. The soul acts as the inter­me­di­ary between the spir­it and body just as the Spir­it acts as an inter­me­di­ary of sorts with the Father and the Son.

They are not a tri­une of per­son­ages oth­er­wise Paul’s greet­ings to the Church­es in his let­ters would have includ­ed the Holy Spir­it with The Father and The Son in his greet­ings, but he did­n’t. Check the Scrip­tures for your­selves The Holy Spir­it is nev­er men­tioned in his greet­ings. Now if the Holy Spir­it was a per­son­age of the God­head do you think Paul would have omit­ted ‘His’ inclu­sion in those greetings?

It is a dan­ger­ous doc­trine the foun­da­tions of which are built upon the assump­tions of a man. “If A was true, then I think B should have hap­pened; if B did­n’t hap­pen, then A can’t be true.” Unfor­tu­nate­ly, God does not con­form to the expec­ta­tions of a man, and it is up to us to bend or to break to con­form to His expec­ta­tions for us.

Of course not, the Holy Spir­it was and is the Pow­er of the God­head and Paul knew this; he knew The Holy Spir­it is the Pow­er of the God­head, and not a person.

Blas­phe­mer. There, I said it. The Holy Spir­it is God. He can be noth­ing less. He is referred to as a per­son mul­ti­ple times. Note the repeat­ed use of per­son­al pro­nouns in ref­er­ence to the Holy Spir­it in John 14:16,17. A pow­er, force, influ­ence, or oth­er such imper­son­als are not “com­forters” and they are cer­tain­ly not a “he”!

Fur­ther, look at Acts 5:3,4. Could Ana­nias and Sap­phi­ra have lied to a pow­er, force, or spir­it? Or did they lie to the Holy Spir­it (v.3), who is almost imme­di­ate­ly called God (v.4). It is a strange thing to think that “the pow­er of God” is “God,” espe­cial­ly if it is sup­pos­ed­ly the “Holy Spir­it” which is not “God.” Not even a Vul­can could process that log­ic and not get a headache.

There is only one verse in The Holy Bible that states God is three in one — 1 John 5:7. This verse was added and you will not find it any orig­i­nal Greek writ­ing. So who added it? Sur­prise, sur­prise — The old whore of Baby­lon in Rome who else? The trin­i­ty doc­trine is just anoth­er Roman Catholic lie.

On the con­trary, the impres­sion I get in read­ing about 1 John 5:7 is that at one point it was placed there by a scribe as a mar­gin note – much as peo­ple take mar­gin notes today. How­ev­er, today are Bibles aren’t copied by oth­ers; we have pub­lish­ers to do that for us. Then, how­ev­er, scribes and oth­ers who want­ed a copy of the Scrip­tures for them­selves would have to copy by hand some­body else’s. Upon encoun­ter­ing mar­gin­al notes, a deci­sion would have to be made to include them or not – as some­times scribes would mis­tak­en­ly leave some­thing out and place it in the mar­gin rather than scrap the project (writ­ing mate­ri­als were more pre­cious then than now). Seem­ing like a log­i­cal piece of the text, some­one’s mar­gin­al note became part of the canon via sim­ple copy­ist mis­take. There was no grand con­spir­a­cy to invent a doc­trine, for as can be sim­ply shown, as above, the Holy Spir­it is a per­son, not a “pow­er” or “force.”

The first five books of the Bible are sup­posed to be The Lord’s work through Moses’ hand. I am hap­py with this teach­ing. No ordi­nary man, apart from Enoch, Noah, Abra­ham, the Patri­archs and the Prophets, could claim to know more about the nature of the God­head than Moses.

That is an inter­st­ing claim. Moses had an incom­plete rev­e­la­tion of God. He may have seen God per­son­al­ly, but to see God and to under­stand His nature are two sep­a­rate things. The Apos­tles, which are exclud­ed from your list, like­ly knew more about God than any pre­vi­ous men who had ever lived, sim­ply by virtue of the fact that they had not only the rev­e­la­tions of the past, but also the new rev­e­la­tions of the New Covenant to under­stand God by, rev­e­la­tions which opened the Old Tes­ta­ment and shed light where before there were but shad­ows of things to come.

So great was he in the Lord’s eyes, that at one point He would have destroyed all the Israelites and start­ed afresh through Moses [Exo­dus 32:10], such was God’s anger toward His way­ward peo­ple and such was His rela­tion­ship with Moses.

Don’t for­get Noah, whom God did start over through.

Moses and all the prophets would have known about the dual nature of the God­head. King David cer­tain­ly knew when he said “The Lord said to my Lord” Ps 110:1 The God­head is a dual­i­ty, and I know from the Judais­ers and Jews I have clashed with on var­i­ous forums that they say God is one or sin­gu­lar, only one, but as True Believ­ers we should know this is not true.

More assump­tions upon which to build such an impor­tant doc­trine. What if Moses and all the prophets only under­stood the uni­ty of God rather than the fact that uni­ty was com­prised of three per­sons? There is but a shad­ow of things to come in Old Tes­ta­ment rev­e­la­tion; to expect men then to under­stand those shad­ows is a tall order, espe­cial­ly con­sid­er­ing they had no idea Mes­si­ah was to suf­fer and die for them, despite numer­ous proph­e­sies of the fact. Con­sid­er that the dis­ci­ples of Christ had no idea Christ would have to die despite being told the fact face to face.

You can­not take for grant­ed what peo­ple know. If the Bible does not tell us what they know, do not assume it. Your assump­tions are no bet­ter than mine, and they are a denial of the suf­fi­cien­cy of Scrip­ture if they are used to build reli­gious dogma.

As for Psalm 110:1, I see “LORD said to my Lord.” As you said ear­li­er, “LORD” is a plur­al noun. So we have “my [plur­al] said to my [sin­gu­lar].” Thus, there could eas­i­ly be three there, but both two and one are ruled out. Sor­ry ’bout that.

Oh, and “True Believ­ers”? What verse is that from? Or is that some­thing like “Trin­i­ty”? Either you’re okay with extra­bib­li­cal titles, or you are not. For hon­esty’s sake, be consistent.

There are only two deities; Our Father and Jesus Christ on the one hand and the god of this world (Satan) on the oth­er. The Father and the Son are uni­fied (The God­head does not change), so if we wor­ship Jesus, we wor­ship the Father too and this is the same God­head as wor­shipped by our fore­fa­thers — The Patri­archs and The Prophets.

Colos­sians 2:9 is the only place I can find “Deity” men­tioned, and it is in ref­er­ence to God alone. In the spir­it of stick­ing with the Bible, it should be point­ed out that you are apply­ing to Satan that which Scrip­ture alone ascribes to God. There is but only one Almighty God; any oth­er gods are not supreme, for they are either world­ly rulers, princes, mag­is­trates, or id

Fea­tured image: source, license

2 thoughts on “Ogre Gods”

Leave a Reply to Rick Beckman Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Use your Gravatar-enabled email address while commenting to automatically enhance your comment with some of Gravatar's open profile data.

Comments must be made in accordance with the comment policy. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam; learn how your comment data is processed.

You may use Markdown to format your comments; additionally, these HTML tags and attributes may be used: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

A Salted Faith
%d bloggers like this: