Arianism - still kicking

reply to post by OhZone

Gets the name for Arius Piso.

I can buy the book for only $25.00?

Please.......

Ever hear of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Originally posted by HardToStarboard

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by HardToStarboard
reply to post by dusty1

 

I've talked at length with some friends who are United Pentecostal who don't believe in the Trinity either. It's certainly an interesting viewpoint and I see how one can come to that conclusion. It's always a huge can of worms when a specific term isn't in the Bible and people start to use it (e.g. - the word "rapture"). I don't want to splinter the thread off into sola scriptura though.

Thanks for the post.

They aren't "United Pentecostals", you're talking about "Oneness Pentecostals". And they have a heretical view of the nature of God.

I always thought the two were synonymous. I've heard "oneness" used and assumed it was UP. Thanks for the clarification.

No, think of the Oneness branch as the folks who think the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. I have no idea how they explain the baptism of Christ though, or who Christ was praying to in the garden, but whatever. lol

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by HardToStarboard

 

I've talked at length with some friends who are United Pentecostal who don't believe in the Trinity either. It's certainly an interesting viewpoint and I see how one can come to that conclusion. It's always a huge can of worms when a specific term isn't in the Bible and people start to use it (e.g. - the word "rapture"). I don't want to splinter the thread off into sola scriptura though. Thanks for the post.

Thank you for the thread!


I believe that Jehovah or Yaweh, is God Almighty. The same way that Abraham understood God.

Christ assumes the same Title in Revelation.

Holy Spirit is God's active force, but not an individual

How can one "grieve" something that isn't an individual?

God Almighty, being one God, is the original view of His existence.

Progressive revelation reveals there are more than 3 persons to the Godhead.

Anything else came thousands of years later.

Or hundreds of years after Christ.

False. The revelation of all 3 came while Christ was still alive, and especially during the 1st century when the epistles were written.

Originally posted by OhZone
Gets the name for Arius Piso.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

LOL. The Arius we are speaking about was a 4th century figure in the Alexandrian church. C+ for effort though.

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by OhZone

 

Gets the name for Arius Piso.

I can buy the book for only $25.00?

Please.......

Ever hear of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Look at the title of that booklet, then ask yourself if any NT books were found at Qumran.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Look at the title of that booklet, then ask yourself if any NT books were found at Qumran.

I realize the gospels were not part of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I read the whole thread and the link.

It said that prophesies concerning Jesus were later inserted in the old testament by this guy Arius, as well as the whole idea of Satan.

Thus my reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls......

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Look at the title of that booklet, then ask yourself if any NT books were found at Qumran.

I realize the gospels were not part of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I read the whole thread and the link.

It said that prophesies concerning Jesus were later inserted in the old testament by this guy Arius, as well as the whole idea of Satan.

Thus my reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls......

Oh, well that idea is easily refuted by the Septuagint (LXX). The prophecies concerning Christ were in black and white in 270 BC, 3 centuries before He was born. You'll never stop folks from grasping at straws. There is this dude in another thread who is going on and on and on about how Sir. Francis Bacon edited the KJB, but is completely oblivious to the fact that the Greek manuscripts are still available for anyone to look at today and nothing of significance is different. lol

reply to post by NOTurTypical

How can one "grieve" something that isn't an individual?

A person could be grieving the fruits of the spirit. The spirit is God's active force, an extension of Him, in effect grieving God Himself.


But how can you be "filled" with "anointed" or 'baptized" with an individual?

The bible gives God's name, the Son's name, but why not the holy spirits name?

Mathew 12:32 says

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Link

If the Son and Holy Spirit are equal, why would speaking against the Son be forgiven, but speaking against the Spirit would not? Would that not mean that the Spirit is greater than the Son?

If the Spirit belonged to God, it would indeed be greater than the son.

Mods, please edit out the username from my initial post on this thread. Thank you.

Originally posted by HardToStarboard
reply to post by dusty1

 

I've talked at length with some friends who are United Pentecostal who don't believe in the Trinity either. It's certainly an interesting viewpoint and I see how one can come to that conclusion. It's always a huge can of worms when a specific term isn't in the Bible and people start to use it (e.g. - the word "rapture"). I don't want to splinter the thread off into sola scriptura though.

Thanks for the post.

First you say you've never heard of it, then you say you've talked at length with people who say the same thing... why do you keep contradicting yourself???

reply to post by dusty1

The bible gives God's name, the Son's name, but why not the holy spirits name?

"Ruach Ha'Kodesh". And that's the point. The entire purpose of the Holy Spirit is to point to the cross. he's specifically and purposely not given a Name or a face. And no, it's not talking about grieving the fruits of the Spirit. It specifically says we grieve the Holy Spirit Himself.

reply to post by HardToStarboard

can of worms when a specific term isn't in the Bible and people start to use it (e.g. - the word "rapture")

Oh, please never fall for that nonsense. It's true the word "rapture" isn't in the English version of the Bible, however, that's just an English theological term we commonly use for the catching away of the saints, or the Greek term "harpazo". You can tell those folks they are correct, the term "rapture" is nowhere in the English Bibles, but remind them the term comes from the LATIN and it's right there in the Latin translation of the Greek.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by HardToStarboard
reply to post by dusty1

 

I've talked at length with some friends who are United Pentecostal who don't believe in the Trinity either. It's certainly an interesting viewpoint and I see how one can come to that conclusion. It's always a huge can of worms when a specific term isn't in the Bible and people start to use it (e.g. - the word "rapture"). I don't want to splinter the thread off into sola scriptura though.

Thanks for the post.

First you say you've never heard of it, then you say you've talked at length with people who say the same thing... why do you keep contradicting yourself???

What are you talking about? I see no contradictions of his posts in here.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by HardToStarboard
reply to post by dusty1

 

I've talked at length with some friends who are United Pentecostal who don't believe in the Trinity either. It's certainly an interesting viewpoint and I see how one can come to that conclusion. It's always a huge can of worms when a specific term isn't in the Bible and people start to use it (e.g. - the word "rapture"). I don't want to splinter the thread off into sola scriptura though.

Thanks for the post.

First you say you've never heard of it, then you say you've talked at length with people who say the same thing... why do you keep contradicting yourself???

What are you talking about? I see no contradictions of his posts in here.

She stated she never heard of anyone not agreeing that the father and the son were not one and the same, then researched arianism, then went on to say just a few posts back that she spoke at length to other people who say the father and son are not one and the same.
I see that as the contradiction. First saying you never heard of it, then saying you had long conversations before about the very topic you claimed to know nothing about. ...could be some carry-over from the other thread that you may not have seen.

reply to post by PurpleChiten


I think you misunderstood what he/she was trying to say. At any rate, why are you getting so defensive? Are you Arian?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by HardToStarboard

 

can of worms when a specific term isn't in the Bible and people start to use it (e.g. - the word "rapture")

Oh, please never fall for that nonsense. It's true the word "rapture" isn't in the English version of the Bible, however, that's just an English theological term we commonly use for the catching away of the saints, or the Greek term "harpazo". You can tell those folks they are correct, the term "rapture" is nowhere in the English Bibles, but remind them the term comes from the LATIN and it's right there in the Latin translation of the Greek.

It just always seems to come up when sola scriptura is discussed.

Originally posted by HardToStarboard

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by HardToStarboard

 

can of worms when a specific term isn't in the Bible and people start to use it (e.g. - the word "rapture")

Oh, please never fall for that nonsense. It's true the word "rapture" isn't in the English version of the Bible, however, that's just an English theological term we commonly use for the catching away of the saints, or the Greek term "harpazo". You can tell those folks they are correct, the term "rapture" is nowhere in the English Bibles, but remind them the term comes from the LATIN and it's right there in the Latin translation of the Greek.

It just always seems to come up when sola scriptura is discussed.

Just laugh at those people, they are ignorant. You could take it to it's logical conclusion and point out there were no English words at all in the original Greek and anyone who uses any English words are not preaching/teaching the Bible.

See how absurd it is?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

I think you misunderstood what he/she was trying to say. At any rate, why are you getting so defensive? Are you Arian?

I understood it quite well and have seen it unfold several times.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

"Ruach Ha'Kodesh". And that's the point. The entire purpose of the Holy Spirit is to point to the cross. he's specifically and purposely not given a Name or a face. And no, it's not talking about grieving the fruits of the Spirit. It specifically says we grieve the Holy Spirit Himself.

What is the source of your position?

The bible does not use the term "Himself" when referring to God's holy spirit.

Mathew 12:32
Ephesians 4:30

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

"Ruach Ha'Kodesh". And that's the point. The entire purpose of the Holy Spirit is to point to the cross. he's specifically and purposely not given a Name or a face. And no, it's not talking about grieving the fruits of the Spirit. It specifically says we grieve the Holy Spirit Himself.

What is the source of your position?

The bible does not use the term "Himself" when referring to God's holy spirit.

Mathew 12:32
Ephesians 4:30

I didn't mean that literally. That was a rebuttal to your claim that we don't grieve the Holy Ghost, but that we grieve the fruits of the Spirit. Not true, the Word says that we grieve the Holy Spirit when we commit certain sins.