Arianism - still kicking

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 24 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to posts by windword and Blue_Jay33
 


In fact, I am arguing for community over doctrine and not the other way round as some of you seem to think. A minimum of mutually agreed belief is necessary for a religious community to exist; otherwise, it breaks up into doctrinal factions.... The Nicene Creed has been tremendously successful....
The Council of Nicaea was a political process that resulted in a political compromise....the Creed that emerged from it was a very good and successful compromise, precisely because it defined the essentials of Christian faith so accurately. Despite what some of you are claiming, all established Christian churches today accept the Creed.....

You won't find that in the Bible. You will find it in the Nicene Creed.....

On a personal level, Christianity means nothing to me, so I am an unlikely defender of the faith.



I do not accept the creed, nor do millions of Christians today that have awoken to this false dogma, and since Christianity as you say means nothing to you, it surprises me you want to defend such dogma.
Your statements actually help to strengthen my points, so thank you.




posted on May, 24 2012 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


We believe in one God,

the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen

Which parts of that do you not believe in?

(The words 'catholic and apostolic' do not refer to any denomination, they simply mean that the church is universal and was started by the Apostles.)



posted on May, 24 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


We believe in one God,

the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen

Which parts of that do you not believe in?

(The words 'catholic and apostolic' do not refer to any denomination, they simply mean that the church is universal and was started by the Apostles.)




The embolden parts, Jesus Christ is the first creation of God before anything, before Genesis 1:1, he is the master worker, he made everything, but God was the architect of it all, they are separate entities, but unified in thought and purpose having spent billions of years together, they have the closest possible relationship of any being alive today or will ever live. With unlimited holy spirit, which is not a person but a force, Jesus has godlike powers, beyond any angel. God has given Jesus second rank only to himself for all eternity. But Jesus Christ wasn't always an immortal being, he could die and did. After that God rewarded him with what only he had possessed until then, immortality. An immortal being can't die, otherwise they wouldn't be immortal.
Jesus really died for humanity, not God. If a person denies that then they deny the ransom itself.

As for the Catholic church I have family that were nuns and priests, so I know all about it. Jesus didn't say persecute and kill those that disagree with you, and that is what the Catholic church did to the real Christians that tried there best to read and apply the bible through the ages.
Catholic priests were still burning bibles in the 20th century !



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Jesus Christ is the first creation of God before anything, before Genesis 1:1

Then you are not a Christian but an Arianist. Thanks for posting; you've just proved the OP right.

edit on 25/5/12 by Astyanax because: of a botched quote.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Jesus Christ is the first creation of God before anything, before Genesis 1:1

Then you are not a Christian but an Arianist. Thanks for posting; you've just proved the OP right.



I can't for the life of me figure out why folks refuse to acknowledge that "firstborn" is not a western term. It's a Hebraism for "greatest born". King David was also referred to as the "firstborn", yet he was the youngest son of Jesse. When Christ is referred to as "firstborn" it's talking about when He added humanity to His pre-existant divinity at the incarnation in Bethlehem.




posted on May, 25 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


No, I am a Christian because I fully believe and follow all the teachings of Christ that are actually in the bible.
And I accept Christ as my ransomer that actually died for all humanity, God never died for humanity, Jesus died.

I only reject the non-biblical conclusions the Councils came too, because of pagan and political influences.
Trinitarians actually have less accurate Christian doctrine than Unitarians because of this.
edit on 25-5-2012 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Who raised Jesus from the dead?
The Father (Rom 6:4, Acts 3:26, I Thes 1:10)
The Son (John 2:19-21, 10:17-18),
The Spirit (Rom 8:11) or
God (Heb 13:20,Acts13:30,17:31)

Who is God?
The Father (Eph 4:6)
The Son (Tit 2:13, John 1:1, 20:28, 9:35-37)
The Spirit (Gen 1:2, Ps 104:30) or
God (Gen 1:1, Heb 11:3)

Who saves mankind?
The Father (I Pet 1:3)
The Son (John 5:21, 4:14)
The Spirit (John 3:6, Tit 3:5) or
God (I John 3:9)

Who justifies man?
The Father (Jer 23:6, II Cor 5:19)
The Son (Rom 5:9, 10:4, II Cor 5:19,21)
The Spirit (I Cor 6:11, Gal 5:5) or
God (Rom 45:6, 9:33)

Who sanctifies man?
The Father (Jude 1),
The Son (Tit 2:14),
The Spirit (I Pet 1:2) or
God (Ex 31:13)



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You don't think I have read all those scriptures, yet I have come to a different conclusion.
I could post and quote just as many scripture denying the trinity, but it still would never change most peoples minds.
To admit a fundamental belief is wrong, is emotional devastation that would rock the core of a persons spirituality.
And leads to "what else is wrong with my belief system". It's very scary to even consider.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I can't for the life of me figure out why folks refuse to acknowledge that "firstborn" is not a western term. It's a Hebraism for "greatest born". King David was also referred to as the "firstborn", yet he was the youngest son of Jesse. When Christ is referred to as "firstborn" it's talking about when He added humanity to His pre-existant divinity at the incarnation in Bethlehem.

Cool. So how many "greatest born"/firstborn sons did God have? There is Israel in general, there is Ephraim among Israel. Then speaking of David, it is interesting to know that he is the "begotten" son of God. So what alternate meaning is there of "begotten" for hebrew? Apparently "son" meant something else as well, considering how many sons God had.
Kind of throws a damper in "only begotten son", no? You can sort of understand where the whole Arianism thing sprang from, then.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



You don't think I have read all those scriptures, yet I have come to a different conclusion.


You must use a Bible that comes from a different manuscript than the TR then. Be careful for those Gnostic manuscripts originating from Alexandria Egypt, you'll get some crazy Theology Proper and Christology from them. Here is a Hebrew language nugget:

The word "Elohim". It roughly translates to "Gods" in the English. Anything with an "im" ending in the Hebrew is a plural. And here is the really significant thing about the Hebrew. that language has something called a "duo" verb which is for things that are in numbers of 2 only. The best English equivalent of a duo verb would be the word "both". So, in Hebrew for there to be a "plural" noun it would signify at least 3 minimum. Every time you see "Elohim" in the OT is technically a grammatical error. It's in the singular context and used as a plural noun.

It would be similar to saying this in English:

"Today I went to the car dealership and bought myself one trucks."



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


Christ is the only "begotten" son of YHVH. Not even Adam is called a "begotten" son of YHVH even though he is a direct creation of God. "Firstborn" is a Hebraism. Don't look at the term from a Hellenistic mindset, you'll come away with a different connotation that the intended Semitic one. Christ is the pre-eminent, greatest-born creation of God. And that's only talking about the humanity He added to His pre-existent divinity at the incarnation.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


it is NOT a grammatical mistake



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

No. David is also a begotten son. It says exactly that. God telling him "You are my son, this day I have begotten you".



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




You must use a Bible that comes from a different manuscript than the TR then.

You are correct, translation is an issue, I give you John 1:18 as a prime example.
You will take the ones that support your viewpoint and I will take the ones that support my viewpoint.
So we are both back to square one in this discussion.

edit on 25-5-2012 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   


I live in a country where the great majority of people are non-Christians, but which was once ruled by Europeans; although no-one seriously wants the imperialists back, many of us deeply regret the decline in public institutions and ethics that attended the eclipse of Christianity here. My country is poor, riddled with corruption and superstition and eternally poised between tyranny and anarchy.

Yours, I presume, is a little more stable. But even in the West, and particularly in America with its drive-in churches and obsession with material self-aggrandizement, civilized values and institutions are crumbling. Buffet Christianity is a symptom of this erosion.
reply to post by Astyanax
 



Things are crumbling because we are living in the last days.

Churches are crumbling because they are not teaching what is in the bible.

That started along time ago when Christianity was mixed with Greek philosophy and pagan religions. Christians can not celebrate an Easter Bunny and claim to follow a path of pure worship.



If you were to claim to be a physicist, you're foundation would be based on mathematics.

If a council of physicists started teaching that 1+1+1= 1 they would be denying the foundation and authority of their field of study.



Jesus Christ himself, railed against the religious leaders of his day. They were arrogant and their "understanding" of scripture was flawed. These leaders missed the most important points of the scriptures, and denied him.

I do not think Jesus is impressed with the "learned" men that lived in the centuries that followed.




As to your culture Astyanax.

If the European imperialists truly followed Christ, they would have given there possessions to your people, and became your servants.


Did they teach you about God's Kingdom?

Or did they teach you, about their own kingdom?



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 


Things are crumbling because we are living in the last days.

People have been saying that since the first days. One day it will be true, but for the present we are still here.


Churches are crumbling because they are not teaching what is in the bible.

What churches are crumbling? The Catholic and Orthodox communions are as strong as ever. Born-again mountebanks in the US and elsewhere are raking in megabucks. The Anglican church may be in decline at home, but it is very powerful in Africa and Asia. Only the 'reformed' churches are having trouble, partly due to the rise in secularism in Western Europe and partly because in America they have lost followers to the consumer megachurches, which offer a pandering, lowest-common-denominator distortion of the same version of Christianity. Actually, consumer Christianity is thriving around the world.


That started along time ago when Christianity was mixed with Greek philosophy and pagan religions.

Then it started at the beginning. Christianity is essentially a collection of Greek ideas grafted onto Judaic myth. It did not come into existence until about a century after Jesus Christ is supposed to have been crucified.


If the European imperialists truly followed Christ, they would have given there possessions to your people, and became your servants.

They did.


Did they teach you about God's Kingdom? Or did they teach you, about their own kingdom?

Well, I was born after independence, but as far as my parents' generation and the foregoing ones are concerned, both were taught, as you might expect.

edit on 25/5/12 by Astyanax because: of consumer Christianity.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




You must use a Bible that comes from a different manuscript than the TR then.


You will take the ones that support your viewpoint and I will take the ones that support my viewpoint.
So we are both back to square one in this discussion.



You took the ones expurgated and grossly edited by the Gnostics at Alexandria Egypt. Just remember this, they removed anything that dealt with the deity of Christ, the blood atonement, His substututionary atonement, the resurrection, and on and on because those themes never aligned with Gnostic dogma. Prime example is the last chapter of Mark, yet Irenaeus quotes from that chapter in his commentary on Mark in 177 AD.

You must reject the Alexandrian MSS as corrupted. Plus, if you get into this level of study, only the TR aligns with the 7-fold heptadic structure underlying the entire text of the NT. You almost have it right, I also prefer the TR because the early church fathers condemned the Alexandrian MSS as corrupted by the Gnostics and warned very vocally against them.


"Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all, and curtailing the gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic which they themselves have shortened." ~ Ante-Nicene Fathers; Vol. I; pp 434-435



No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.


God the Father. And I agree, no man has ever seen Him at any time. But you have a problem now if there is no such thing as the Trinity. Adam and Eve "walked with God", Abraham and Sarah met "face to face" with God in Genesis 18, Joshua met God in Joshua 5 "The Angel of the Lord" who told him to remove his shoes for he was standing on "HOLY ground", Jacob wrestled with God on Mt. Moriah, Elijah saw God seated on His throne, Moses met with God on Jabal al Lawz in Saudi Arabia (Median).

So how can you reconcile the verse you mentioned with all these men seeing and interacting with "God" or "The angel of the Lord" who accepted worship from man in the OT? Jesus said no man had ever seen the Father, which is true, the Father is a Spirit. No man has ever seen Him except the Son. But MANY folks in the Bible saw the Son, and He too IS GOD. It's called a "Christophany".

Great verse!!! I'd like to see how you reconcile what it says with all the OT examples of men and women meeting/talking/interacting with/seeing God. You either have to admit Christ was lying, or these people met someone called "God" who wasn't the Father YHVH.


edit on 26-5-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

No. David is also a begotten son. It says exactly that. God telling him "You are my son, this day I have begotten you".


That's prophetic writing, the Father speaking to the Son. The Psalms are chock-full of prophecy. Psalm 22 was written first person singular as if Christ hung on the cross, and Psalm 2 is an end-times conversation between the three members of the Trinity. Psalms are some of the richest prophetic writing in the Bible bro. And that's a product of intimacy. God reveals things to those who pursue Him with all their heart. Davidic worship today reveals the prophetic. (Praise/ worship & intercessory prayer)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


it is NOT a grammatical mistake


Okay, well you tell that to Hebrew folks. In English when writing out Hebrew plurals take on an "im" ending, in Hebrew it would be written as "hyim" example:

Cherub ----> 1
Cherubim ---> 3 or more Cherub

Seraph ----> 1
Seraphim ---> 3 or more Seraph

El ----> 1
Elohim ---> 3 or more


Elohim is a plural noun for "El" that's always used in the singular context when speaking about the true God of the Jews in the OT. It's technically a grammatical error every time it appears and is talking about the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Sorry, learn Hebrew.

edit on 26-5-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The Psalms were written by David. That is David talking there. Do you have any scriptural backing for the claim you have made (that the "Psalm 2 is an end-times conversation between the three members of the Trinity")? Because otherwise it is a pretty far out claim to have come up with on your own.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join