The Dreams

Timing

I dreamt of being in the BYU music building, where I saw that a choir had been practicing a hymn and I read from a book used by the choir. The book said that the hymn would be used in the last Funday before the world ended, thus implying that the next Funday was the last Funday before the world ends.

Later, I dreamt of being in a Mormon event space, where I learned about a meeting they were to have about the last day before the Millennium – again implying that the world would end very soon. This dream also involved an important Christian pastor who seemed to be evil, and I had the impression that the meeting may have been intended for the bad apostate Christian leaders, not the good ones.

Discussion

It would be cool if the world ended this week, but if it doesn’t I will interpret this dream as yet another warning that we are running out of time.

Nestorianism

I dreamt of reading notes about how the feds would mandate Nestorianism and give the Antichrist power, or that the Antichrist would issue these mandates himself. The notes also said that the Antichrist was a Nestorian, and that he and the Nestorians would mandate people to join their Church, but that this was never a real religion and purely came from government.

AI enforced Morality

I dreamt of an AI bot that enforced its morality upon the world by its own power and dreamt that it was given this power by the feds. This bot thing would mandate its religion upon people in a regularized fashion with a schedule, and this religion was the Nestorian religion.

I also dreamt a calendar with regularly spaced highlighted days.

Word

On waking, I thought I received the word in my mind:
Our game play will be awesome during the end game.

And I thought it was referring to “chess” by mentioning end game. I think this word is to say that even though the enemy has terrible plans, God also has plans which will counter the enemy.

Phones

I dreamt that it – the homophone – closed the system/power, and I thought there was a connection between it (which I thought could be the evil AI bot in the beast system) and our phones. I also dreamt of someone putting things on my phone and my brother’s phone.

I don’t know what “homophone” means in this context, but I think this dream is a warning against technology.

Articles of Faith

I dreamt that just thinking of the articles of faith helps against the adversary and the flesh.

Waves

I dreamt of massive movements of water and waves which I thought looked like they could have been in the Virgin Islands, and this was connected to something that Blue Heaven had predicted.

Studying Nestorianism

* I had no idea what Nestorianism was until researching for this essay, and I doubt that I had ever even heard the term. I guess if you think I am lying when I say this, I take that as a compliment, because I wish I had a better understanding of early church history than I do.

It appears that Nestorianism is the belief that Christ has multiple natures: the human and the divine, as well as the man and the word. Nestorianism originally originated from the teachings of Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, starting in 428 AD. His views were originally rejected and condemned in 431 AD at the First Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, leading to Nestorius being banished to an oasis in Egypt in 435 AD.

Nicene Creed

To fully explain the reasons for Nestorius’s rejection, I will have to take you on a long historical journey starting with the Nicene Creed.

The Nicene creed, which came from the 325 AD Council of Nicaea, is viewed as the foundational document formalizing the Trinity. However, this is all false. Here is an old English translation of the creed from here:

As you can see, the Nicene creed DOES NOT say that Jesus is the same being as God the Father. Rather, it says that Jesus is “of one substance with the father”.

This matters because if you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father, and not literally the same being as God the Father, then your views do not actually contradict the Nicene Creed, since *children indeed are made of the same substance as their parents* even if they are not themselves the same people as their parents. This contrasts with the Trinity, which holds that Jesus actually is part of the same being as God the Father – and so if you believe that Jesus is a different being from God the Father then you are a heretic.

Which is all to say that my own personal views do not contradict with the Nicene Creed, while they do contradict the Trinity (which I discuss in great detail in I hate the Trinity).

Modern Alteration of Nicene Creed

Because the workers of darkness have been steadily working to falsify all the modern scriptures (some examples of this documented in Spiritual Warfare), it should come as no surprise that the same thing has happened with the Nicene Creed.

According to the *modern* version of the Nicene Creed, instead of being “of one substance with the father”, Christ actually is “of one Being with the Father” (episcopal church). This significantly changes the meaning of the document – now instead of merely needing to believe that Jesus is in the same family as God the Father, you must believe that Jesus is the same Being as God the Father.

Subordinationism

If the Nicene creed doesn’t actually contradict my theology of God (which roughly aligns with Mormonsim), the question then arises: at what point in Christian history was the Mormon view of the Godhead firmly rejected? To answer this question, first I will detail my views on the nature of God:

God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost form the Godhead (Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20), and are all perfectly one in purpose, glory, and will. In a sense, you might say that there are two Gods – the Father and the Son, with the Father being higher since Jesus is subordinate to God the Father – however, in practice, there is only one God, since a “god” is a divine entity that we worship, and the figure in heaven that we worship and address our prayers to is God the Father. This is because if you are worshipping the Father you must also be worshipping the Son and vice versa, since they are one in purpose and glory and they glorify each other, and also because worship of the Father must necessarily be through the Son, since the only way to the Father is through the Son (John 5:23, John 14:6, Ephesians 2:18, John 1:18).

I discuss this more in I hate the Trinity.

Therefore, my belief is a subvariant of Subordinationism, since I view Jesus Christ as subordinate to God the Father. Subordinationism is somewhat an impossible view for a Trinitarian to hold, because if you view Christ as subordinate to God the Father, then that means Christ must be a distinct entity from The Father.

Subordinationism was rejected by Christianity in the Second Council of Constantinople of 553 AD. Thus, it appears that the actual date when Modern Christianity’s views forever diverged from those of my own was not actually the 325 AD Council of Nicaea, but rather the 553 AD Second Council of Constantinople.

Modern Understanding of God

As a consequence of Subordinationism being rejected, in the modern Christian church, the view of Christ is that he is co-equal with God the Father, because they are all one being. However, there are two slightly different variants on how this works: Trinitarianism and Practical Modalism.

Modern Trinitarianism

In my experience, if I ever try to join a Christian organization, they will exclude me because I believe Jesus is distinct from God the Father. That is their policy. But if I ever see them debating against atheists or Muslims, and they are pushed on the many scriptures which imply that Jesus is separate from God, they will all the sudden pretend like they thought Jesus was distinct from God the whole time. Therefore, it’s hard for me to define the Trinity, because it seems like the doctrines of the Trinity change depending on the audience. If I were to charitably try to understand the Trinity, I think it is that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are distinct persons, but composed of the same essence of God. To me this seems like a redefinition of the word “God” to mean “Magical Essence that makes a Being a God”, which contradicts the way the word “God” is used in scripture – which is not to refer to a divine essence, but to a person with whom one can reason.

Practical Modalism

I was told by a Christian once that “there is only one true God. He is manifested in the flesh as Jesus Christ and in the spirit as the Holy Spirit. Yet all three are one” – a statement which they believed contradicted Mormon theology. This statement I think reflects the wider view of Practical Modalism, which is that God has different attributes and natures, and the name for the attribute/nature of God when God is manifested in the flesh is “Jesus Christ”. Practical Modalism differs from the Trinity in that the Trinity holds Jesus and God the Father to be distinct persons (though same divine essence), whereas practical modalism holds that they are not at all distinct – rather, they are just different names and faces for the same God. Therefore, Practical Modalism is officially rejected by Trinitarianism, yet many modern Christians still believe in Practical Modalism and in error view themselves as believing the Trinity (it’s pretty funny that modern Christians think that the only way to be saved is to have the correct view of the nature of God, but then they themselves don’t even really understand the Trinity). Practical Modalism is easily disproven by the many scriptures which only make sense if Jesus is separate from God the Father, which I overview in I hate the Trinity.

Initial Rejection of Nestorius

The reason why I needed to explain to you, my reader, the theology of modern Christian churches is to prove a very important point: Nestorius’s views actually were in alignment with modern thinking, whereas the views of the larger Church in 431 AD that rejected Nestorius have failed to propagate themselves into modern Christianity.

You see, both Trinitarianism and Practical Modalism accept that God has distinct natures – the Trinity has distinct persons of God that still form one being (Jesus is one person, God the father is another person) – while practical Modalism has distinct manifestations of God – Jesus the manifestation in the flesh, whereas the Holy Ghost while in the spirit. This all contrasts with the views held by the early Christinas in 431 AD, which appear to hold that there are no distinct natures of God whatsoever. God is God, and you should not distinguish Jesus from The Father or anything else.

This aligns with the idea that the early Christian church was originally corrupted via the Hellenization of Christianity, in which the Greeks attempted to merge Christianity with their own philosophies such as that of Platonism. As a result, the anthropomorphic God of the Old Testament was abstracted into a more distant philosophical ideal. This can especially be seen in the obsession with viewing Jesus as “the Word of God” – since that turns Jesus from a person into an idea – and generally with their insistence of radical Monotheism, which denies any distinct natures of God whatsoever.

Here are some quotes from the source documents on the rejection of Nestorius which substantiate all of this:

Twelve Anathemas Proposed by Cyril and accepted by the Council of Ephesus
“2. If anyone does not confess that the Word from God the Father has been united by hypostasis with the flesh and is one Christ with his own flesh, and is therefore God and man together, let him be anathema.
3. If anyone divides in the one Christ the hypostases after the union, joining them only by a conjunction of dignity or authority or power, and not rather by a coming together in a union by nature, let him be anathema.
4. If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, thought of separately from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.”

The Letter of Cyril to Nestorius (Second Letter of Cyril)

“So we shall confess one Christ and one Lord. We do not adore the man along with the Word, so as to avoid any appearance of division by using the word “with”. But we adore him as one and the same, because the body is not other than the Word, and takes its seat with him beside the Father, again not as though there were two sons seated together but only one, united with his own flesh. If, however, we reject the hypostatic union as being either impossible or too unlovely for the Word, we fall into the fallacy of speaking of two sons. We shall have to distinguish and speak both of the man as honoured with the title of son, and of the Word of God as by nature possessing the name and reality of sonship, each in his own way. We ought not, therefore, to split into two sons the one Lord Jesus Christ.”

Other False Doctrines

In these early documents, you can also see creeping in other false doctrines which still haunt the Churches.

Use of the Title “Father”

Specifically, in the Letter of Cyril to Nestorius, we can already see the doctrines being built to elevate the views of early church leaders to that of scripture:

“The most effective way to achieve this end will be zealously to occupy ourselves with the words of the holy fathers… This is the account of the true faith everywhere professed. So shall we find that the holy fathers believed.”

This is plainly wrong. According to Jesus, we should not use the title “Father” for our Church leaders:

Matthew 23:9
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Worship of Mother Marry

Another false doctrine introduced in these doctrines is the deification of Marry, mother of Jesus:

“1. If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh, let him be anathema.”

This attempt is more blatantly seen in the Letter of Cyril to Nestorius:

“So have they dared to call the holy virgin, mother of God, not as though the nature of the Word or his godhead received the origin of their being from the holy virgin, but because there was born from her his holy body rationally ensouled, with which the Word was hypostatically united and is said to have been begotten in the flesh.”

Basically, this paragraph is saying that it is bad to believe that Marry is the “holy virgin” because she merely gave birth to the body of Christ, because the correct doctrine is that she is the “mother of God” because the literal Godhead received its origin from her. That is crazy! The Godhead did not come from Marry!

And we are even quite explicitly told in the scriptures not to worship Marry.

Luke 11:27-28
27 ¶ And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Matthew 12:47–50
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Low IQ Energy

At first glance, it’s actually kind of astounding how idiotic these early Church leaders were: how could these Church leaders hold doctrines which are exactly opposite to what we read in the New Testament concerning worship of Marry and use of the title “Father”? Did they not ever read the scriptures, or were they not able to understand even very basic concepts held within the scriptures? Well, having dealt with these sorts of “religionists” a lot in my life, I think I may be able to provide some insight:

This is, quite frankly, what happens when low IQ, narcissistic people gain positions of authority. Since these people have no insightful commentary or original ideas, and instead rely upon their position in a bureaucracy for respect, they end up policing everyone around them to pay proper respect to titles and bureaucracy – hence the obsession with calling people “Father” (and they begin to believe that ideas are true, not because they logically make sense, but simply because someone with the right title supported them). Similarly, because they refuse to believe that merit matters, since they have none, and because they don’t see the big picture whatsoever, they instead make their entire organization hierarchy become about who has the most passion and deference towards God. Hence, the insistence on people making sacrifices, not to actually accomplish anything, but purely just to show passion, as well as the obsession with getting offended on behalf of God over trivial things. In other words, because getting offended on behalf of mother Marry was the way they showed their own love for the divine, they ended up reaching ridiculous doctrines regarding her that contradict the scriptures.

Conclusion of Nestorian Dream

At root, Nestorius’s core ideology was that Christ has two natures: the human and the divine. While this was firmly rejected during his day, it appears that in our modern world, almost all Christians have adopted Nestorianism. Firstly, because the whole idea of the Trinity is a variant of Nestorianism, in that it paints the Father and Jesus as distinct persons. And secondly, because Practical Modalism also paints God as having distinct natures, with his human form being called “Jesus Christ”.

In fact, it may be more accurate to label modern Christianity as Nestorianism, and not Trinitarianism. This is because Trinitarianism is only a sub-variant of Nestorianism, and the many modern Christians who believe in Practical Modalism do not actually believe in Trinitarianism and only say that they do because they are uneducated.

Therefore, in this dream the term “Nestorian” I believe refers to the modern Christian belief that God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same being.

This dream appears to be forecasting a time where this view is codified into Government law.

To some degree, this is already starting to happen: just a few days ago the Pentagon stopped classifying Mormons as Christians – which almost certainly is because Mormons don’t believe in the Trinity. Which reminds me of Dream of American Civil War, a dream which strongly implied that one faction of the civil war would be opposed to Mormonism – again almost certainly because Mormons reject the Trinity.