What is a liberal Christian theology?

[childeye]

again, that is authoritarian! and I don't have liberal tendencies.

No it isn't, it is a subjective view and objective view perceived both at once, with Love being the motive. It is empathy. The problem with being too authoritarian is that we draw lines for others to meet that we ourselves don't even keep. That is hypocrisy. That is why God desires mercy and understanding rather than sacrifice.The Christ was crucified by the authoritarians not the liberals.

the bible has grey areas.

That's because the letter of the law can never produce the Spirit that keeps the intent of the law. God/Love cannot be written down.

im honest to see those as they are. the jews in jesus day did the same. read up on shimei and hillel, and they both were Pharisees and what the Pharisees asked were to see which rabbi he sided with(hillel). sure they didn't want to serve god but the questions were to see ho jesus taught torah!

I'm going to look into hillel and shimei.

 

[jasonc]

you make god sound gnostic that is why free is asking you what you believe.

why then did paul say we don't have the full picture? its in 1 corithians. we see in a mirror darkened. that means God didn't tell us. he doesn't want us to know the whole thing.if you think you have got revalation down packed let me know where you fully understand something that john himself didn't.

 

[childeye]

you make god sound gnostic that is why free is asking you what you believe.

why then did paul say we don't have the full picture? its in 1 corithians. we see in a mirror darkened. that means God didn't tell us. he doesn't want us to know the whole thing.if you think you have got revalation down packed let me know where you fully understand something that john himself didn't.

Thanks Jason. I want you to know, that I truly appreciate the candor of you and Free saying I sound like a gnostic. Brothers should not be afraid to speak their hearts amongst brothers.

"Gnostic", just another word to dissect, with many both negative and positive inferences and connotations. It actuality means "to know". As in Jesus said my sheep know my voice and they will not follow a stranger. Or as in, to come to the knowledge of God is to know God. Or as in, you shall know the Truth and the Truth will set you free. Or as one of my favorite bible verses says:

Jeremiah 31:33-34New International Version (NIV)
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

Of course you are correct that there are things I don't see. I never claimed I see everything. Nor do I therefore seek to proclaim to everyone what is the orthodox way to know God, other than through the body and blood of Christ, the food and drink that gives Eternal Life. Respectfully however, I will not be bullied into surrendering what I do know as Truth, just because you or free or anybody else, have a negative connotation or inference of the word Gnostic. And just as you have been forthright and honest with me, as a brother in Christ should be, I also wish to be forthright with you, in saying that I have nothing to hide, and I have everything to proclaim, as in the light of day and without any fear.

But enough about me. What about this op? For those who in Nicaea sought to write the orthodoxy of Christianity, why did they try to do this? Was it out of the Love that would sacrifice one's self for others as we see in Christ? Or was it for the sacrificing of others for one's self, through the politicizing of God in blaspheme of His Name?

For we know that the New Covenant is about each man knowing God for himself, as is shown in Jeremiah above. We know that those who are called and shepherded by Christ will not come at the call of any other shepherd. And also, we see that Arius was condemned and we know that most of his teachings don't exist because they were ordered burned. It has even been reported that anyone hiding his teachings would be put to death by order of the Emperor of Rome. Therefore I know, that this spirit is not the Spirit of Christ. For The Truth fears no writings. Truth does not uphold it's self in men's hearts through the fear of death and through threat of execution. But we clearly can see, that the culmination of this path that first began in trying to write the orthodoxy, ended in people being burned alive for not accepting the Papacy that was in Rome. You shall know the false teachers by their fruits.

Now on this thread, it seems I am the only one writing in opposition to the terms liberal or orthodox being placed in front of Christian. And since I know Satan plays both ends against the middle, I am declaring that there is no such thing as orthodox or liberal Christians, and that these terms are used by Satan to cause division. I've made my stand, I have drawn the line with my soul in the balance. Why? Because I know God knows, that I know better. Now I understand that you, Free, and Jack Hectorman, are wondering whether I am nuts or know what I am talking about. You all have shown by your responses, that you care what I say. And I hope you all know, that I wrote this Post, because I truly care what you all think of me.

 

[jasonc]

Thanks Jason. I want you to know, that I truly appreciate the candor of you and Free saying I sound like a gnostic. Brothers should not be afraid to speak their hearts amongst brothers.

"Gnostic", just another word to dissect, with many both negative and positive inferences and connotations. It actuality means "to know". As in Jesus said my sheep know my voice and they will not follow a stranger. Or as in, to come to the knowledge of God is to know God. Or as in, you shall know the Truth and the Truth will set you free. Or as one of my favorite bible verses says:

Jeremiah 31:33-34New International Version (NIV)
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

Of course you are correct that there are things I don't see. I never claimed I see everything. Nor do I therefore seek to proclaim to everyone what is the orthodox way to know God, other than through the body and blood of Christ, the food and drink that gives Eternal Life. Respectfully however, I will not be bullied into surrendering what I do know as Truth, just because you or free or anybody else, have a negative connotation or inference of the word Gnostic. And just as you have been forthright and honest with me, as a brother in Christ should be, I also wish to be forthright with you, in saying that I have nothing to hide, and I have everything to proclaim, as in the light of day and without any fear.

But enough about me. What about this op? For those who in Nicaea sought to write the orthodoxy of Christianity, why did they try to do this? Was it out of the Love that would sacrifice one's self for others as we see in Christ? Or was it for the sacrificing of others for one's self, through the politicizing of God in blaspheme of His Name?

For we know that the New Covenant is about each man knowing God for himself, as is shown in Jeremiah above. We know that those who are called and shepherded by Christ will not come at the call of any other shepherd. And also, we see that Arius was condemned and we know that most of his teachings don't exist because they were ordered burned. It has even been reported that anyone hiding his teachings would be put to death by order of the Emperor of Rome. Therefore I know, that this spirit is not the Spirit of Christ. For The Truth fears no writings. Truth does not uphold it's self in men's hearts through the fear of death and through threat of execution. But we clearly can see, that the culmination of this path that first began in trying to write the orthodoxy, ended in people being burned alive for not accepting the Papacy that was in Rome. You shall know the false teachers by their fruits.

Now on this thread, it seems I am the only one writing in opposition to the terms liberal or orthodox being placed in front of Christian. And since I know Satan plays both ends against the middle, I am declaring that there is no such thing as orthodox or liberal Christians, and that these terms are used by Satan to cause division. I've made my stand, I have drawn the line with my soul in the balance. Why? Because I know God knows, that I know better. Now I understand that you, Free, and Jack Hectorman, are wondering whether I am nuts or know what I am talking about. You all have shown by your responses, that you care what I say. And I hope you all know, that I wrote this Post, because I truly care what you all think of me.

logically fallacy, we don't know what the Pharisees actually taught and yet we believe the bible right? well if one wants to believe the Pharisees as via the Talmud we do have their views. so then its not of god to execute sinners? yes jesus did do that and im all for the separation of church and state, but in days of rome that didn't occur to man.

 

[childeye]

logically fallacy, we don't know what the Pharisees actually taught and yet we believe the bible right?

I'm not following you here.
#1. It seems you are changing the subject of my post. As if you don't want to deal with the self evident Truth.
#2. What does what the Pharisees taught have anything to do with what I said in my post?

well if one wants to believe the Pharisees as via the Talmud we do have their views.

I don't care about the Pharisees views. I care about knowing God for myself as per the New Covenant.

so then its not of god to execute sinners?

We"re all sinners whom the Lamb of God died for. God desires mercy and understanding, not executions.

yes jesus did do that and im all for the separation of church and state, but in days of rome that didn't occur to man.

Jesus did what?
So you're saying that in the days of Rome there was no Holy Spirit of Truth so they couldn't know any better? There was no New Covenant in existence where men were not supposed to be told how to know God by other men? Are you Christian?

 

[jasonc]

I'm not following you here.
#1. It seems you are changing the subject of my post. As if you don't want to deal with the self evident Truth.
#2. What does what the Pharisees taught have anything to do with what I said in my post?


I don't care about the Pharisees views. I care about knowing God for myself as per the New Covenant.

We"re all sinners whom the Lamb of God died for. God desires mercy and understanding, not executions.

Jesus did what?
So you're saying that in the days of Rome there was no Holy Spirit of Truth so they couldn't know any better? There was no New Covenant in existence where men were not supposed to be told how to know God by other men? Are you Christian?

#1, the fact that used said we have little of arias means that you aren't willing to see that problem. whom put together the bible? !!!!!!!!! the same church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon
the pharissees were called heretic by jesus, where do you see that problem? you take that by faith right? so how do you know you right? oh wait the holy spirit. but then say the arian controversy is a lie and we don't know and jesus at the time told Jerusalem that he would slay them.

read matthew 23, 24 in context. why did the jews die then didn't repent? simple they were judged. whom slayed them? rome under the power given to them by JESUS. so you know think that if the councils as I have posted shouldn't have put the bible together?

new flash, the earliest bibles by the time of Justin did have some extra books. yet some canons don't. which is right?

and st.Jerome, whom was there to deal with arius, coined the vulgate that had no extra books. be careful with that desire to be right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

 

[childeye]

#1, the fact that used said we have little of arias means that you aren't willing to see that problem. whom put together the bible? !!!!!!!!! the same church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon
the pharissees were called heretic by jesus, where do you see that problem? you take that by faith right? so how do you know you right? oh wait the holy spirit. but then say the arian controversy is a lie and we don't know and jesus at the time told Jerusalem that he would slay them.

read matthew 23, 24 in context. why did the jews die then didn't repent? simple they were judged. whom slayed them? rome under the power given to them by JESUS. so you know think that if the councils as I have posted shouldn't have put the bible together?

new flash, the earliest bibles by the time of Justin did have some extra books. yet some canons don't. which is right?

and st.Jerome, whom was there to deal with arius, coined the vulgate that had no extra books. be careful with that desire to be right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Nonsense. The writings in the bible, called the New Testament, existed long before the bible was put together and long before the council in Nicaea. Jesus never gave power to Rome as you errantly claim. If you are right, then Jesus is all for burning people alive who don't accept Rome as God. The Christ didn't torture and slay those in opposition to him. He submitted to torture and death, then prayed for forgiveness for those who tortured and crucified him. That is why he is the Christ because that is how God is. So now you're saying Jesus burns people alive who don't believe in him? That this is how God is because this is what the Christ does? If you believe that, then you have a false image of god ruling in your reasoning.

We know enough about Arius and Nicaea to know why he was condemned despite most of his teachings being burned. We also have letters written to other bishops relating his sentiments on the matter. That is all that is necessary to know concerning the issue of why he was condemned.

 

[jasonc]

Nonsense. The writings in the bible, called the New Testament, existed long before the bible was put together and long before the council in Nicaea. Jesus never gave power to Rome as you errantly claim. If you are right, then Jesus is all for burning people alive who don't accept Rome as God. The Christ didn't torture and slay those in opposition to him. He submitted to torture and death, then prayed for forgiveness for those who tortured and crucified him. That is why he is the Christ because that is how God is. So now you're saying Jesus burns people alive who don't believe in him? That this is how God is because this is what the Christ does? If you believe that, then you have a false image of god ruling in your reasoning.

We know enough about Arius and Nicaea to know why he was condemned despite most of his teachings being burned. We also have letters written to other bishops relating his sentiments on the matter. That is all that is necessary to know concerning the issue of why he was condemned.

nonsense? yes he does, its called judgement when all men die. what did jesus say about being lost? and

matt 23 ylt

Because of this, lo, I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes, and of them ye will kill and crucify, and of them ye will scourge in your synagogues, and will pursue from city to city;
35 that on you may come all the righteous blood being poured out on the earth from the blood of Abel the righteous, unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar:
36 verily I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation.
37 `Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that art killing the prophets, and stoning those sent unto thee, how often did I will to gather thy children together, as a hen doth gather her own chickens under the wings, and ye did not will.
38 Lo, left desolate to you is your house;
39 for I say to you, ye may not see me henceforth, till ye may say, Blessed [is] he who is coming in the name of the Lord.'

I didn't say men ought to do it today only that one could make a case what does the bible say about dealing with heretics? expel them from the church. it didn't say anything about how to govern a nation, make laws on which a nation should stand. btw Calvinism which you adore. didn't exist in teachings until calvin was teaching it. he also had a man executed for heresy.

Babylon a rough and crude nation was used by god to judge isreal.

do you believe that jesus wouldn't judge man at his return?

poisoning the well , eh? you claimed that the bible was put together before nicea? show me that? there isn't one!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

393 is the earliest found. the book were around but which books were to be used?

 

[childeye]

nonsense? yes he does, its called judgement when all men die. what did jesus say about being lost? and

matt 23 ylt

Okay, I think I misunderstood you. If I read you right, you're saying Rome's destruction of Jerusalem was accomplished because of judgment against Jerusalem for killing the men of God sent to Jerusalem.
I agree with that. But the Spirit of Christ is not who killed the prophets and men of God that came to Jerusalem including himself. That was a Satanic spirit under a Satanic image of god that killed the prophets and the Christ. Nor is it the Spirit of Christ who carried out the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans who were pagans. Nor is it the Spirit of Christ that burns people alive to protect the orthodoxy established in Rome under a Pope.

I didn't say men ought to do it today only that one could make a case what does the bible say about dealing with heretics? expel them from the church. it didn't say anything about how to govern a nation, make laws on which a nation should stand.

Arius was not a heretic. Nor were the people that were burned alive for not accepting the Papacy. Do you not know the difference between God and the devil? Between Light and dark? Well here is the difference. The Kingdom of Light is seen in the Spirit of Christ who would sacrifice himself so as to save those lesser than himself, even the unrighteous. The kingdom of darkness is seen in the spirit of Satan that would sacrifice everybody else including God to save himself. Now which one does burning people alive who don't accept the papacy look like?

btw Calvinism which you adore. didn't exist in teachings until calvin was teaching it. he also had a man executed for heresy.

I'm not a Calvinist. I've told you that many times. In fact every time you've said that I am, which are many times, I have told you that I'm not, each and every time. I don't adore Calvin. I have read maybe one page of anything he has written.

poisoning the well , eh? you claimed that the bible was put together before nicea? show me that? there isn't one!

No, not poisoning the well. Just saying the truth. I didn't say "the bible" was put together before Nicaea. I said "the writings" existed long before Nicaea. In other words, the bible consists of writings that existed long before Nicaea.

 

[jasonc]

its wasn't a bible.then what does bible mean? a collection of books. the bible officially then was the tanach. not the new testament which were penned orally verified testimonies and epistles. the tanach was added to in the same manner but the problem is that sinful men wrote the bible.

if you were a Christian prior to the protestant reformation, you wouldn't be teaching limited free will, eternal security as those ideas while supportable weren't taught in the rcc. or orthodox and easter churches. however, st Augustine did have a close idea.

so I don't need to believe in jesus as fully god and man? funny you just said I have to. that is what arias said.

 

[childeye]

if you were a Christian prior to the protestant reformation, you wouldn't be teaching limited free will, eternal security as those ideas while supportable weren't taught in the rcc. or orthodox and easter churches. however, st Augustine did have a close idea.

If I were a Christian at any time, I believe would be teaching the same thing I teach now.

so I don't need to believe in jesus as fully god and man? funny you just said I have to. that is what arias said.

Okay, so you haven't answered the question I asked about which kingdom you saw in those who burned people alive for the orthodoxy of the papacy, darkness or Light? Why? Are you afraid to say what is Christ and what is Satan? It sets a person free to be able to know the Truth from lies. I wonder, do you have the Holy Spirit? Can you tell the difference between Truth and lies?

Instead you wish to discuss Arius. Okay. First tell me where you get this from that you claim Arius said. As for your other claim, I don't know where you get that I said you don't need to believe in Jesus as fully god and man. Here is what I said in post 155:

The issue is therefore the nature of Jesus, is he divine or a mere man? This question doesn't account for any consideration that as the Logos, Jesus could be both. It is therefore a false dichotomy that can only end in hypocritical reasoning.
Semantics are clearly the problem, and Satan uses the fealty of words to cause division. Hence the Nicene creed claims Jesus was "begotten not made". However scripture claims Jesus was the Logos "made" flesh. Consequently both are true in different connotations and inferences. Jesus was both the son of God as the logos begotten not made, and the son of man as the Christ which was the Logos made flesh.

 

[jasonc]

If I were a Christian at any time, I believe would be teaching the same thing I teach now.

you wouldn't, you wouldn't be able to read the bible. Tyndale died for that freedom to read the bible. and many others. afraid? show where im saying that im. I am telling YOU despite mans failings god has used us for us his purposes.

Okay, so you haven't answered the question I asked about which kingdom you saw in those who burned people alive for the orthodoxy of the papacy, darkness or Light? Why? Are you afraid to say what is Christ and what is Satan? It sets a person free to be able to know the Truth from lies. I wonder, do you have the Holy Spirit? Can you tell the difference between Truth and lies?

Instead you wish to discuss Arius. Okay. First tell me where you get this from that you claim Arius said. As for your other claim, I don't know where you get that I said you don't need to believe in Jesus as fully god and man. Here is what I said in post 155:

The issue is therefore the nature of Jesus, is he divine or a mere man? This question doesn't account for any consideration that as the Logos, Jesus could be both. It is therefore a false dichotomy that can only end in hypocritical reasoning.
Semantics are clearly the problem, and Satan uses the fealty of words to cause division. Hence the Nicene creed claims Jesus was "begotten not made". However scripture claims Jesus was the Logos "made" flesh. Consequently both are true in different connotations and inferences. Jesus was both the son of God as the logos begotten not made, and the son of man as the Christ which was the Logos made flesh.

again arius denied that. there were GNOSTIC gospels that weren't put in canon and were in writ within the apostles lifetimes. why weren't those added they were read. yet god used a group of men to finally quell that and YOU seem to argue that isn't of the Holy GHOST.

those were the GOSPELS OF THOMAS, PETER, James.

if they killed a man for denying the fact that jesus was the son of god, and then did so not in the spirit of god(and the papacy didn't exist when they did this)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_papacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes
later on the rcc made them popes. peter if he was the first pope then we have a problem. we both know he wasn't called that.



I aslo call all that deny the deity of jesus, lost. yet you don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius

signed former non-trinatarian and also a man who had revalation by prayer that the trinity and hell were in fact doctrine, from the holy ghost.

 

[childeye]

you wouldn't, you wouldn't be able to read the bible. Tyndale died for that freedom to read the bible. and many others. afraid? show where im saying that im. I am telling YOU despite mans failings god has used us for us his purposes.

The scriptures testify to the Christ. He is the Word of God. He existed before the scriptures. I use the scriptures to verify, so as to compare the testimonies of those who testify to Christ in scripture. To verify and compare what? My own testimony of Christ apart from the scriptures. Those things I teach were taught to me by God not by scripture. And scripture verifies that this happens, by saying, they shall all be taught by God. Therefore I would be teaching the same things since I learned them from God without the scriptures. Even as those who wrote the scriptures, did hear from the Holy Spirit. I'm not saying that God cannot or does not use the scriptures to teach. I'm just saying He could do it without the scriptures, otherwise the scriptures could never have been written.

again arius denied that.

Arius did not deny that. Even this excerpt from the Wikipedia page you cited doesn't claim he denied it.

Although virtually all positive writings on Arius' theology have been suppressed or destroyed, negative writings describe Arius' theology as one in which there was a time before the Son of God, when only God the Father existed.

And finally here is a letter written from Arius's point of view on the matter, in his own words. I highlighted in red his descriptions of the views he is disagreeing with, and the dark bold are his own views.

(2.) Since my father Ammonius is going to Nicomedia, it seemed reasonable and proper to greet you through him, remembering at the same time the innate love and affection which you have for the brothers on account of God and his Christ, because the bishop [Alexander] is severely ravaging and persecuting us and moving against us with every evil. Thus he drives us out of every city like godless men, since we will not agree with his public statements: that there was “always a God, always a Son;” “as soon as the Father, so soon the Son [existed];” “with the Father co-exists the Son unbegotten, ever-begotten, begotten without begetting;” “God neither precedes the Son in aspect or in a moment of time;” “always a God, always a Son, the Son being from God himself.”
(3.) Since Eusebius, your brother in Caesarea, and Theodotus, and Paulinus, and Athanasius, and Gregory, and Aetius and all those in the East say that God pre-exists the Son without a beginning, they have been condemned, except for Philogonius and Hellenicus and Macarius, unlearned heretics some of whom say that the Son was “spewed out”, others that he was an “emanation”, still others that he was “jointly unbegotten.” (4.) We are not able to listen to these kinds of impieties, even if the heretics threaten us with ten thousand deaths. But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? — that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, full <of grace and truth,> God, the only-begotten, unchangeable. (5.) Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted; you know the rest.

So Jason, we see above that Arius believed the son was begotten as noted in bold at the beginning of (4). That the son was God, full of grace and Truth, noted at the end of (4).That the son had a beginning, which was the only difference between the son and God as noted in the beginning of(5). And finally, that the son is not a portion of God which means the son is equal to God not a portion, but a fullness.

We also see that Arius believes he is fighting against the belief that being equal to God meant there was no beginning to the son because there was no beginning to God. Hence the entire controversy is arguing semantics, misunderstanding, carnal pride, and not of the Holy Spirit. God is not the author of confusion.

there were GNOSTIC gospels that weren't put in canon and were in writ within the apostles lifetimes. why weren't those added they were read. yet god used a group of men to finally quell that and YOU seem to argue that isn't of the Holy GHOST. those were the GOSPELS OF THOMAS, PETER, James.

I am not privy to all the manuscripts that were not canonized. I find nothing wrong with the one's that are. I also would have had the same reservations about the same gnostic writings you have listed that were left out. I have never argued that Jerome was not led by the Holy Spirit when he put the bible together. That is a made up controversy just like the Arius controversy.
I claimed and argue that those who exiled Arius over a misunderstanding and those who burned people alive for not accepting the orthodoxy of the Papacy were not led by the Holy Spirit.

if they killed a man for denying the fact that jesus was the son of god, and then did so not in the spirit of god(and the papacy didn't exist when they did this)

But that's the point, Arius never claimed Jesus was not the son of God as shown in his letter above.

I aslo call all that deny the deity of jesus, lost. yet you don't.

Of course they are lost. Those in the kingdom of darkness are always lost since they can't see.

signed former non-trinatarian and also a man who had revalation by prayer that the trinity and hell were in fact doctrine, from the holy ghost.

Arius never claimed there was no trinity nor a hell. Nor have I. Pray in Jesus' Name and ask God to show you if those who burned people alive for not accepting the orthodoxy of the Pope as their Holy Father, were led by the Holy Spirit or were of the kingdom of darkness.

 

[jasonc]

read this again.

5.) Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted; you know

and I aslo stated clearly the rcc didn't exist then. I posted links. so arius therefore wasn't a Trinitarian! that above is exactly what the jw' s teach

 

[childeye]

read this again.

and I aslo stated clearly the rcc didn't exist then. I posted links. so arius therefore wasn't a Trinitarian! that above is exactly what the jw' s teach

Of course I know the rcc didn't exist then in name and organization.

(5.) Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted; you know the rest.

1) What is a Trinitarian?
2)How does anything said above mean Arius was not a Trinitarian?

I see nothing wrong with what is said above by Arius. I can agree with all of it, and yet I believe in the Trinity. Let me ask and answer these questions:

Did God speak and all things were created through His Word that proceeded from His Voice? Yes.
So was there a time before God spoke, before He uttered His voice? Yes.
So did His Word exist before He spoke? As pertains to this creation, No. for He hadn't spoken yet as pertains to this creation before it was created by His Word.
Did Jesus exist as a man the son of God? Yes.
Did Jesus exist as a man the son of God, before the creation? No.
Did Jesus exist as a man after the Creation? Yes.
Was He the same Word that created all things that was made into a man? Yes.
Is there a Holy Spirit that testifies to the Father and son? Yes.
Is the Holy Spirit a creation? NO.
Is the Word of God a creation? No since it is the power of creation.
Is Jesus a creation within the creation? Yes.
How was Jesus conceived and created? Through the Holy Spirit which testifies to the Father and the son.
Was Jesus the son equal to the Father? Yes, for the son is the voice of the Father made flesh.

None of the answers above disagree with Arius statement nor with the scriptures. Arius was therefore not a heretic.

P.S. I've never studied any jw teaching.

 

[jasonc]

uhm, jesus isn't co eternal. jesus was created by god. therefore jesus isn't a god.

per john 1:1 in beginning was the word, and the word was god and the word with god, and the word became flesh.

arius wouldn't agree with that. the son of god is coeternal, the son of god is also the WORD.

of course you had to agree then and deny the trinity. jesus is always the son and never the father. he has the nature of god. you are one confused Christian and that is what im addressing. I fully agree with the idea of the trinity and don't understand it. the son of god wasn't created. he preexisted the entire creation. he wasn't made. he made it all with the Father, The Holy spirit.

genesis one, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,
genesis 3 let US make man in our image. now then we can debate the Hebrew on that but even if its a singular emphatic tense other parts of the bible make it clear. a created being cant be a GOD. he is not a god. the son did exist as God, you like arius are confusing things. only begotten is referring to the jewish concept of having the nature of the father so that an inheritance can be passed down and also establishes legal authority in the house. which is exactly what jesus does as he gives out torah.

 

[jasonc]

I add to make the case where arius erred and why the were right to say that. Hebrews one kjv

Hebrews 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

God cant have a beginning nor end. yet arius said the son clearly did have a beginning. the Son per verse 8 is GOD!

 

[childeye]

uhm, jesus isn't co eternal. jesus was created by god. therefore jesus isn't a god.

The scriptures use the terms Father and son to describe Eternal things in the form of temporal terms. This causes semantics. The Word and God are the same entity, the distinction being that one is God and the other is God's expression of Himself. Therefore God can create a means of expressing Himself and it is still God in that it is His expression of Himself, yet it is not God but the expression of God. Semantics.

per john 1:1 in beginning was the word, and the word was god and the word with god, and the word became flesh.

arius wouldn't agree with that. the son of god is coeternal, the son of god is also the WORD.

I still think semantics are the problem. Perhaps Arius didn't agree because he felt God's expression didn't actually become manifest until Jesus came in the flesh. Hence he says: but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, full <of grace and truth,> God, the only-begotten, unchangeable.

What do you suppose in the beginning means? The beginning of eternity? The beginning of God? No. it probably means the beginning of creation. Therefore I read it as such. In the beginning of creation was the Word, the expression of God, and the Word was pointing to God and the Word was God. The Word is Eternal in the sense that it is the expression or essence of God who is Eternal. But to whom is God expressing Himself? Let US make man in our image. Why? To see who we are.

of course you had to agree then and deny the trinity.

I never denied the Trinity. I have openly confessed God the Father and the son and the Holy Spirit all over this forum.

jesus is always the son and never the father. he has the nature of god.

Sure, Jesus the Word made flesh is always the son and never the Father. Hence he sits at God's right hand where he makes intercession for us. But as God's expression of Himself, he and the Father are one.

you are one confused Christian and that is what im addressing. I fully agree with the idea of the trinity and don't understand it.

Are you saying you don't understand the trinity? Because I feel do understand it. Here's a question that shows the problem with semantics. Can God (plural) create Himself in His Creation and make Himself flesh? Of course He can, and He did so in His son. But for what purpose? To reveal His incorruptible nature in the midst of a corrupt world. That is why the Holy Spirit would not testify to Himself but only to the Father and the son. That makes sense to me. That's what I feel matters concerning the understanding of the Trinity. I don't care to argue which came first the chicken or the egg.

the son of god wasn't created. he preexisted the entire creation. he wasn't made. he made it all with the Father, The Holy spirit.

We are arguing semantics. The Word was created when God spoke. The Word was made flesh. The Word was perfected through the cross. Death was swallowed by life.

genesis one, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,
genesis 3 let US make man in our image. now then we can debate the Hebrew on that but even if its a singular emphatic tense other parts of the bible make it clear. a created being cant be a GOD. he is not a god. the son did exist as God, you like arius are confusing things. only begotten is referring to the jewish concept of having the nature of the father so that an inheritance can be passed down and also establishes legal authority in the house. which is exactly what jesus does as he gives out torah.

Jason, I understand what begotten applies to and I agree with you. But consider this, God created us through the rebirth as children of God and He calls all of us gods, "ye are all gods". Show me where in scripture it says that no created being can become god. We are more than just flesh after the rebirth and probably before the rebirth. Christ is quickening something inside of us. Why do I have the Spirit that calls God Father if I am not also His son? Read the parable of the tares where the children of God are the wheat, and the children of the devil are tares. Where does the seed come from? Is it not from God's expression of Himself? Let US make man in our image could be referring to angels for all we know. In Job it says the sons of God were all gathered and Satan was there. Who are these sons?

 

[jasonc]

that you are mistaken. I can use easily the NWT to show that God is a triune being despite their twisting to their views.

yet that would cause confusion. its because I know the bible well and the differences of the cult and the truth.

the son existed with god, that isn't semantics yet you call jesus not existant prior to the incarnation. oh the YHWH is jesus, the el-shaddai is Jesus. jesus claimed that. if you claim the trinity to be understand then you haven't really read your bible much.

for example

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand

5 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?
3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints

what exactly is jesus in this vision? an lamb with seven eyes, heads or HIM whom sent on the throne which is shown in the same book? answer BOTH! the father isn't mentioned much in the tanach, if it all, all visions are of Jesus, this book shows Jesus only. what does God the father Look like and the Holy Spirit?

I can use semantics easily, since you went there. jesus is considered by jw to be an angel and so he is, yes he is a messanger of God. that is what an angel is. yet is he just that? semantics! that is all he is. he didn't exist before the birth, therefore that is all he is. he is shown and called the Malak YHWH, received worship then too. so how isn't that a jw isn't a Christian? he isn't. jesus isn't an angel only, he is God. He was god before it was made and was the son then and now. jesus isn't the father and the son can be created.

you said. per here

Did God speak and all things were created through His Word that proceeded from His Voice? Yes.
So was there a time before God spoke, before He uttered His voice? Yes.
So did His Word exist before He spoke? As pertains to this creation, No. for He hadn't spoken yet as pertains to this creation before it was created by His Word.
Did Jesus exist as a man the son of God? Yes.
Did Jesus exist as a man the son of God, before the creation? No.
Did Jesus exist as a man after the Creation? Yes.
Was He the same Word that created all things that was made into a man? Yes.
Is there a Holy Spirit that testifies to the Father and son? Yes.
Is the Holy Spirit a creation? NO.
Is the Word of God a creation? No since it is the power of creation.
Is Jesus a creation within the creation? Yes.
How was Jesus conceived and created? Through the Holy Spirit which testifies to the Father and the son.
Was Jesus the son equal to the Father? Yes, for the son is the voice of the Father made flesh.

uhm if jesus is the WORD, which in Hebrew is meribah=YHWH he cant be a created being, he created it all neither was created and god. jesus took on man's nature. he didn't loose His diety, he didn't loose his nature. he always is and was god.

 

[childeye]

that you are mistaken. I can use easily the NWT to show that God is a triune being despite their twisting to their views.

yet that would cause confusion. its because I know the bible well and the differences of the cult and the truth.

I am mistaken about what? I have never suggested nor has it even come to mind that you can't show that God is a triune being in the NW despite the way they interpret it. I am saying there are semantics that confound the discussion of the issue. There were semantics then in the time of Arius and before Arius, and there are semantics now.

the son existed with god, that isn't semantics yet you call jesus not existant prior to the incarnation

.
No I did not. You only think I did.

See, this is what I mean about semantics. Let me try putting it this way; In the eternal, Jesus has always existed with the Father. But in the temporal, Jesus did not exist until
after he was born, lived, and was slain.

oh the YHWH is jesus, the el-shaddai is Jesus. jesus claimed that. if you claim the trinity to be understand then you haven't really read your bible much.

for example
what exactly is jesus in this vision? an lamb with seven eyes, heads or HIM whom sent on the throne which is shown in the same book? answer BOTH! the father isn't mentioned much in the tanach, if it all, all visions are of Jesus, this book shows Jesus only. what does God the father Look like and the Holy Spirit?

I agree with you, they are both, which is why there are semantics. But you bring up a more important point when you ask what does God the Father and the Holy Spirit look like? Words do not do justice, since we are talking about the substance of Spirit, and not physical substance. It is made clear that these are spiritual inferences, when John says the seven eyes and horns are the seven Spirits of God. So it is that the lamb slain is the image given to express "Who" the Father is, not "what" the Holy Spirit and the Father look like. The Holy Spirit is the testimony to the Father and the son. That is why I call the Christ the true image of God sent by God. Below is more spiritual interpretation with differing imagery.

Revelation 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. 2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. 3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. 4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold. 5And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.

We see in this imagery that the body of Christ is before the throne described just like the Menorah. That's the seven churches. We also see the voices and lightning's and thundering's emanating from the throne, as in Jesus can only do God's will and not his own. Lo, I come to do thy will oh Lord.

I can use semantics easily, since you went there. jesus is considered by jw to be an angel and so he is, yes he is a messanger of God. that is what an angel is. yet is he just that? semantics! that is all he is. he didn't exist before the birth, therefore that is all he is. he is shown and called the Malak YHWH, received worship then too. so how isn't that a jw isn't a Christian? he isn't. jesus isn't an angel only, he is God. He was god before it was made and was the son then and now. jesus isn't the father and the son can be created.

I don't want to go there as you imply in regards to semantics. Semantics occur regardless of my desire to avoid them.

I know nothing about Jw's. But semantics are probably the problem whether in misinterpretation or miscommunication. So ask the question, is Jesus just a messenger? Then point out to the Jw, that the premise of this question is an assertion that Jesus is more than just physical substance which the word messenger implies. What about the spiritual substance? Jesus therefore is the message.

you said. per here

uhm if jesus is the WORD, which in Hebrew is meribah=YHWH he cant be a created being, he created it all neither was created and god. jesus took on man's nature. he didn't loose His diety, he didn't loose his nature. he always is and was god.

Again semantics there are semantics in your statement which can't be helped. Yes I know all this, but that is no different than saying God always is, was, and is going to be God. It is necessary that we distinguish between Father and son which is for the Spiritual understanding contained therein. After all it is presented in this manner to us, otherwise we miss the entire purpose or point of the trinity. Father and son explicitly means a singular, as in the only direct descendent. The Father has to come first in this scenario regardless of the fact that they are both the same essence, which is what the Holy Spirit testifies to.

The Father preceded the son. That is all I hear Arius saying when he says, that Jesus was not un-begotten. That is the consequence of contemplating the trinity, unless we wish to assert that the son sired the Father.

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. — 1 Corinthians 2:10-14