It is not wise to act without thinking beforehand. My god, before (“before” taken logically, not chronologically since time was not before creation) creating the heavens and the earth reflected.
No wise individual would omit, at some point, to reflect on his own self. My god’s reflection on his own self is his first reflection because he is all wise. Another consequence of his being all wise is that this introspection reflects perfectly its thinker: this introspection is my god’s essence.

When you make something you first conceive it. You need a plan to build your house. On the other hand, conceiving needs not your prior conceiving that conception: it is direct, it is a concept: it is your son because you don’t need a plan to product your son.
My god’s essence i.e., his concept is his son: Jesus.
So I have to admit that my god is Jesus. But “is” is to be taken in the sense of predication not “=”. Think of “this flower is red”: that flower isn’t = red because that flower is a space-time object while “red” is a concept.

So I can boldly claim with Paul that Jesus is the express image (essence) of his (my god’s) person. But I cannot accept that Jesus = the Father because e.g.,

no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. (Matthew 11.27)

i.e., only my god knows his son which thing is obvious once one realizes that the son = my god’s essence because knowing the son means to recognize one’s self in my god’s essence and this only my god can because you would hardly expect somebody other than you to recognize his self when you utter “I”, you only recognize yourself when you so utter. But only through my god’s essence can you know my god because you know no thing except through its concept.

Now unlike everything else, my god’s essence is not before (“before” as before i.e., taken as logical precedence) its object (my god) because my god did conceive it, he thought it. A flower’s concept, on the contrary, precedes that flower. Also unlike many concepts, my god’s concept (Jesus) isn’t dead (the concepts of number, of a circle etc. are dead: they can be grasped in a finite lifespan) because otherwise man could know my god in a finite lifespan but this isn’t the case. Indeed:

And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. (Exodus 33.20)

If man should see him (i.e., know god most high) and live it would mean that god most high would be known by man in a finite lifespan. For this you need life eternal:

And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17.3)

My god’s essence, his concept, his son has life in himself; why? Because my god’s name (essence) is “I AM” (Yahweh) i.e., his “I” contains his existence.

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (Exodus 3.14)

But since my god’s name, his essence is “I AM”, his chief property is that he exists, that is he is Existence, the Rock. Hence my god, the Father, is in his Son because Existence is implied by its essence and the Son is in the Father because my god did conceive my son in his mind by introspection, by reflecting on his self.

Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake. (John 14.11)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the] God, and the Word was God. (John 1.1)

That the Word (Logos) was God means that “God” i.e., the concept, the essence of [the] God is that Logos.

Jesus is that un-created mathematical & conceptual realm, the Logos, the “I” of my god (but not he to whom that “I” applies, that is the Father), the only thing giving true joy.

The Son of Man is the shadow of the eternal i.e., prior to creation Son of God. The creation of the heavens and the earth needs a prior plan according to which that creation should proceed. A plan is a concept, we need this creation’s concept. Now this concept is to be found in the conceptual “space” i.e., in the eternal Son of God, in my god’s essence. So, that essence has to be analyzed if one wants to discover the concept of the shadow of the eternal, of God’s garment, of creation:

I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations.Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end. The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee. (Psalm 102.24-28)

This eternal analysis of the concept of God i.e., the slaughter of the Son of God for creation’s sake is shadowed by the Son of Man’s sacrifice for Adam’s (Man, Earth) sake. Jesus is

the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Revelation 13.8)

In particular the Son of Man’s death and rising from the dead shadows the eternal reduction ad absurdum “if God doesn’t exist then God exists”.

Is your god = my god?

No one else seems to be responding, so I’ll attempt a response. In a word, maybe. However, I want to say no. It’s a tough question to answer because your description was tough to follow.

To the best of my understanding, you don’t believe in a Trinity, but in what I think can be called “monism”. In your view, there is God and a reflection of him, Jesus. They are both the same and different, as the relation between sunlight and moonlight. One thing missing from your view of God is the Holy Spirit. This seems particularly strange, given that you accept the divinity of Jesus. Overall, this seems heretical. It sounds like Modalism combined with a rejection of the Trinity. And if I understood the description correctly, the answer should be no, for the same reason we don’t think Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses worship the same god as us.

The first post is a total mess.

The poster should start over at square one.

St. John’s gospel is a good beginning.

First the Rock, existence i.e., Yahweh.
Then the Rock’s introspection i.e., his begetting his concept, his essence, the Word i.e., Jesus together with the truth, the light of the recognition “I AM” (the Rock recognized his self in the Word because the Word is the “I” of the Rock, applies to the Rock and the Rock is in the Word).

So the logical & eternal order is the Rock then the Word & the light.
What was described is eternal, not in creation’s space-time.

The Father is that Rock, he isn’t equal to the Son because if existence (the Father) = concept of existence (the Son) then whatever exists would be = to the Father itself. In particular the existing concept of non-existence would be = to existence i.e., non-existence would apply to itself: a contradiction.

Creation needs a prior plan, concept according to which it is to be created. That concept is in the Word because the Word is the eternal realm of the conceptual.
To find that concept of creation the Word has to be analyzed, unfolded i.e., slaughtered.
The Word is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The creation is the shadow of the eternal, it is God’s garment. The Son of Man is the shadow, the garment of the eternal Son of God. The slaughter of the Son of God is shadowed by the slaughter of the Son of Man.

It is for this reason that in what follows it is said “half-dead”, “hemithane”:

And Jesus answering said, A certain man [Jesus] went down from Jerusalem [the heavenly Jerusalem] to Jericho [Sheol], and fell among thieves [Babylon & the Beast], which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead [Son of Man slaughtered]. (Luke 10.30)

Yeah… You still need to clarify, well, everything. Try not using such flowery language. Also, it might help if you organized your thoughts differently. Start be telling us what you believe about God the Father, then God the Son, then God the Holy Spirit.

Also, you’re completely missing the point of Luke 10:30. That was the setup for the Parable of the Good Samaritan. I don’t know that it had any secret meanings about Jesus

The ancients knew Jesus. Abraham knew Jesus:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am (John 8.56-58)

Darius was Aryan:

I am Darius the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage. (Inscription of Darius the Great at Naqsh-e Rustam)

The wise men are priests of Ahuramazda:

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men [magoi in Greek i.e., priests of Ahuramazda] from the east to Jerusalem (Matthew 2.1)

Zoroaster was Aryan.
Darius recognized in the god of Daniel his god, the god of Zoroaster, Ahuramazda. Why?

Purusha, (man) has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, and a thousand feet. He filled the earth and extended beyond it by ten finger lengths.
Purusha was all of this: whatever has been, whatever is yet to be. He is the ruler of all immortality; all living creatures are a quarter of him; while three quarters of him is immortal, and in heaven.
With three quarters of him Purusha rose upwards, while a quarter of him remained here. From the quarter remaining here he spread out in all directions into that which eats, and that which does not eat.
From him Viraj (woman) was born, and from Viraj came man.
When the Gods spread out the sacrifice with Purusha as the offering, spring was the clarified butter, summer the fuel, and autumn the oblation.
They sprinkled Purusha—and the sacrifice was born at the very beginning, upon the sacred grass. With him the Gods and the sages sacrificed.
From the sacrifice in which everything was offered the melted fat was collected, and he made it into those beasts who live in the air, in the forest, and in the villages.
From that sacrifice the verses and chants were born, the rhythmical metres were born.
Horses were born from it, and those other animals that have two rows of teeth; cows were born from it, and also goats and sheep.
When they dismembered Purusha how many parts did they divide him into? What do they call his mouth, his two arms, his thighs and his feet?
His mouth became the Brahmin priests and poets; his arms became Kshatriyas, warriors and kings; his thighs became Vaishyas, the merchants; and from his feet servants, or Shudras, were born.
Moon was born from his mind; from his eye came the sun, and from his breath the Wind was born.
From his head the sky evolved, from his navel the middle space, from his two feet the earth, and the sky from his ears. Thus the Gods set the world in order.
With the sacrifice the Gods sacrificed to the sacrifice. (Sacrifice of Purusha, Aryan Rig Veda)

That is, the eternal Son of God, the Logos, the Father’s “I” is analyzed, slaughtered for creation’s sake.
Purusha is Jesus, the Son of God vested in the Son of Man, the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

So you know, your replies are getting more and more cryptic. Although I’m leaning very, very heavily toward “No, you do not worship the God of Abraham” because you’re staring to draw on Hindu sources saying they’re about Jesus.

Aryan sources, and for a reason (Darius’ god, Ahuramazda, is believed by him to be Daniel’s god). My god is, I believe, Jesus’ god: Yahweh.

I believe that the concept of the Trinity is inconsistent. It is inconsistent with what Jesus taught. the Trinity is Athanasius the Great’s god in the same manner as Allah is Muhammad’s god: both are idols i.e., concepts that apply to no thing.

Jesus is the very concept of God, this concept of God applies to the Father. The concept of God, the Word is, unlike other concepts, living. This is so because the Father is in the Son: the concept of God (the Son) implies God.

Anselm’s argument hangs on the concept of God’s implying the existence of that to which it applies. In view of…

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. (1 John 1.5)

One can believe that the concept of God implies no contradiction.

Some people today believe same-sex “marriage” is marriage. Does that make it so? Similarly, just because Darius thought the Zoroastrian god was YHWH, doesn’t necessarily mean he’s right.

I believe that the concept of the Trinity is inconsistent. It is inconsistent with what Jesus taught. the Trinity is Athanasius the Great’s god in the same manner as Allah is Muhammad’s god: both are idols i.e., concepts that apply to no thing.

How is it inconsistent with what Jesus taught? I can’t remember which apostle, but one of them called Jesus God. If Jesus was not, in fact, God, then why did Jesus not scold him? Also, how do you explain John 1:1 without the Trinity? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” That last clause makes it pretty clear that the Word (Jesus) is God

But that is what I’m saying: Jesus = god. Jesus = the concept of god. But the concept of god doesn’t apply to itself (isn’t reflexive). Jesus is not = [the] god. The god being he to whom the concept of god applies i.e, the Father.

The concept of something needs not be = to that something. Your “I” applies to your ego but isn’t = to your ego. As an analogy, the “I” would be the description or program of some machine, the ego, working according to that program. Its execution would be its life.

The “I” is more abstract than the ego. Every I except “god” is dead.

In the beginning was the Word [ho logos, the word], and the Word was with God “ton theon”, the god], and the Word was God “kai theos en ho logos”, and god was the word]. (John 1.1)

I understand “…and god was the word” as meaning that “god” = the word. That is, that logos, that conceptual realm is = to the concept of god.

Note the “…and the Word was with [the] God” i.e., the word was with him to whom that word applies. The god is an object, the word is a concept (that of god). Both are living.

In our human form, we know The MOST HIGH realm as:


1X1X1 = 1

You have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If you loved me, you would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (John 14.28)

And Jesus said unto him, Why call me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. (Mark 10.18)

All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. (Matthew 11.27)

“All things are delivered unto me of my Father” means that all the properties of the Father are to be found in his concept, in his essence (by virtue of the essence of essence). This concept is the Son of God.
“Son” because a concept is conceived (hence the word “concept”), begotten & not created. A created thing needs a plan, its concept according to which it is created.

“…and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father” because only you recognize yourself in your “I”.
“…neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him” because the Son has the Father in himself since the concept of god (existence) contains god (existence) (cf. e.g., Anselm). And only through a concept of something do you know that thing.

Jesus is not the Father: this is is demonstrable.

John 10:30

30 I and the Father are one.

John 14:9

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou, Show us the Father?

Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations. For every one of the house of Israel, or of the stranger that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his idols in his heart [e.g., believing that Jesus = the God], and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face [Jesus is that stumblingblock, revealing the idols in their hearts], and cometh to a prophet [to Jesus] to inquire of him concerning me; I the LORD will answer him by myself [Jesus will answer as God himself]: And I will set my face against that man, and will make him a sign and a proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of my people; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.

And if the prophet be deceived “yeputteh”, is prevailed] when he hath spoken a thing “I and my Father are one.” (John 10.30)], I the LORD have deceived that prophet [prevailed that prophet], and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel [Jesus was killed because he was misunderstood by the workers of iniquity, the Pharisees, believing that Jesus claimed to be = to the Father]. And they shall bear the punishment of their iniquity: the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him [Jesus was slain because of our idolatry, “…him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood” (Revelation 1.5)]; That the house of Israel may go no more astray from me, neither be polluted any more with all their transgressions; but that they may be my people, and I may be their God, saith the Lord GOD. (Ezekiel the son of man, 14.6-11)

Jesus is indeed the stumblingblock of him who “setteth up his idols in his heart”:

If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. [because “I and my Father are one.” is indeed true but means that the “I” of the Father and the concept of Father are the same not that, as the Pharisees or Athanasius or Muhammad understood, that Jesus = the Father] (John 15.22-25)

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? (John 14.9)

The only way to the Father is through his concept i.e., through Jesus.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14.6)

Matthew chap 28

Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Oh, really? Who gave it if not the Father? :smiley:

Go, therefore,* and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

And that settles the question of the reality of the Holy Trinity for all time.

There is no need to bite your nails over the nonsense promulgated by this thread.

Oh, really? Who gave it if not the Father?

Are you asking this question to yourself?

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (Matthew 28.19)

Does this justify “the Father = the Son = the Holy Ghost”?

And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. (Matthew 28.17)

You cannot believe something without that thing’s being true. Belief in the true god is a gift of the true god, a good report.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. (Hebrew 11.1)

By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh (Hebrew 11.4)

Belief in a concept that applies to no thing is no belief: there is nothing to give you your belief in it.
Matthew 28.17 applies to “Christians” & to Muslims.

Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews [of the children of Abraham, not [URL=“”]these

who are in Israel. To them, one may apply “I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2.9)]. (John 4.22)

For he [the Father] hath put all things under his [the Son’s] feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he [the Father] is excepted, which did put all things under him [the Son]. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15.27, 28)

Try John Hardon’s “The Catholic Catechism”; I found it deepened my understanding of God (the Trinity).

I agree and disagree. I agree that the Father is not the Son, but that both are God. However, I think we have vastly different explanations of why. I believe the Athanasian Creed. Part of it can be summed up:
The Father is God
The Son is God
The Holy Spirit is God
The Father is not the Son
The Son is not the Father
The Son is not the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is not the Son
The Holy Spirit is not the Father
The Father is not the Holy Spirit

But one notable thing about what Catholics believe that has been absent from all of your explanations is the Holy Spirit. What do you believe about the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity.

EDIT: And as others have pointed out, Matthew 28:19 makes the Trinity very clear


If the Trinity were false, then why would the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have a singular name?


I wonder if your ideas have any roots in the Zeitgeist movement? I have come across a few folks expressing things like you are and they had read and watched things from Zeitgeist. I have found that it is difficult to fact check these ideas. Just a thought, maybe I’m wrong about my assumption of your ideas. Wonder if you could express how you formulated you faith ideas and how you put the ideas you have into practice. If you have read much of Jesus ideas, it is all about developing community.


What is the Zeitgeist Movement? (Its name is sure abominable to me).

Please admit that I didn’t make Jesus a mere man. Jesus is eternal. Jesus is the express image of my god, his very essence hence his son. I doubt that the zeitgeist would agree: the zeitgeist tends to materialism and hardly would materialism admit the existence of non-space-time things (in particular, the concept of materialism is itself non-space-time).

If the Son, the Father and the Spirit are god then, by virtue of god’s uniqueness we have the Son = the Father = the Spirit. But if they’re not equal & are god then the concept of god occurring there is not = to my concept of god and we have polytheism.

What is true, I believe, is that the Father is in the Son because the Rock is in the Word seeing that my god is necessarily existent, that is his essence implies his existence (and existence = the Rock) and the Word is in the Father because the Father did conceive the Son in his understanding.

Holy Ghost:

And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. (Revelation 19.10)

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: (John 15.26)

Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God. (Revelation 22.9)

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. (John 14.17)

The Spirit is Truth itself. Truth = Light. It began as the truth of the predication “I AM”, when my god recognized his self in his concept. Therefore:

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. (Matthew 12.31)

Why? Because to blaspheme against the spirit of truth = to lie…

For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. (Revelation 22.15)

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth

…These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God (Revelation 14.4, 5)

If you have read much of Jesus ideas, it is all about developing community.

I don’t believe that. False religions are social. When men are one the gods are many because the social begets falsity. When gods are many men are many because enmity begets division. When men are many the god is one. This is the reason why:

And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. (Genesis 11.5-9)


Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division (Luke 12.51)

Adam must die:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2.17)

But my god is longsuffering:

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. (1 Corinthians 10.13)

That is, he gave Adam a means to continue his self by begetting children. However this is not without sin:

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm 51.5)

…and much blood.
Adam needs the Lamb to continue.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit