Arianism.
- Thread starter Lazy afternoon
- Start date
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Correct,...Arianism held reign during the Great Controversy for some years, relapsed then came back again a few times as some of the emporers/rulers held Arian sentiments. Just like so many Christological perspectives can be maintained by 'biblical support',....so can Arianism.
Ever notice that the 'orthodox' and almost every 'heterodoxical' view has their 'proof-texts'?
[MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION]... Do you believe scripture is revealed by God?
Would you answer to the implications of several scriptures in a yes or no fashion?
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
I'm well aquainted with both Unitarian and Arian theology
- and no EE,...I'm not interested at this time engaging the usual polemics and all the propaganda that goes with it. I'm withdrawing some, so please respect my efforts at consolidating my contributions. Its an interesting season at the moment, and Spring is on the way too,...a time of resurrection/regeneration. I dont see anything wrong with a Unitarian based Theology. And that is that, because of what I KNOW thus far of all that the theology implies. There is no problem or resistence from me whatsoever....on any point actually,...since if one CHOOSES to hold a trinitarian view...that is FINE too. - I see the whole spectrum of possibilities,....but also transcend them all...because....as you know....DEITY is INFINITE. :idunno: - all else is grasping at straws more or less. I can philosophize and theologize with the best of em....but please grant me a break. I will add little oracles as I can....but have alot on my plate. - I gave you the answer, and all you can do is prove that you are everything you accuse Dagg of.
LA
Do you believe Jesus is YHWH?
And again...
Exodus (34:14)
Does Jehovah share worship?
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
EE,
Its hard to quote your content, when the whole post is in a quote box. You should also know a Unitarian answer is simple...and is just redundant.....of course there is only One God, and One special and Unique Son of God, Jesus. God shares his glory with his Messiah-Son....he share his glory and inheritance with His Messiah-Son (which make up the collective of his people)....hence the Son inherits all the Father has.
(Exodus 34:14) (Malachi 4:3)
Are these verses true?
I'll link the box and add it here.
I'll speak simple and brief...
[MENTION=10015]Lazy afternoon[/MENTION] ... [MENTION=18157]marhig[/MENTION] ... [MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION] would you answer some scripture questions?
May I ask you a series of yes or no questions linked to one scripture at a time? Maybe a couple 1 or 2 word response questions as well.
I'll give you the first one and you can go from there...
(Exodus 34:14)
Does God share His worship with anyone else?
And... (Malachi 3:6)
Does God ever change?
And....
Who's name was Paul Baptizing In?
(1 Corinthians 1:13)
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
I think my former statement holds as sufficient
I dont think we can limit 'God' to human sentiments or emotions, so I'm not sure 'jealousy' is an attribite of God really. Its figurative in that passage to express the sentiment by the writer, of God's love being 'possessive',..but as u may know from personal experience....'jealousy' can have a dark side. Dont we make 'God' into our own image enough as it is?
The verses you quote do not disprove a Unitarian view of God and his Son. God is still God, and He has a Son. There is need for any contest since no one is being deprived of anything except in one's own perception. Perceptions always undergo some degree of distortion, therefore everything is 'relative' to your own scope of perception, factors which condition such. You can continue to enjoy your Bible study and expand your own 'God-consciousness' and all shall be fine
Deity is unchanging in his essence, his essential nature...but creation is ever expanding, inter-relating, changing, transforming. - in fact the constant law of nature in the matterial world is CHANGE
Your last verse goes without saying.
I think my former statement holds as sufficient
I dont think we can limit 'God' to human sentiments or emotions, so I'm not sure 'jealousy' is an attribite of God really. Its figurative in that passage to express the sentiment by the writer, of God's love being 'possessive',..but as u may know from personal experience....'jealousy' can have a dark side. Dont we make 'God' into our own image enough as it is?
The verses you quote do not disprove a Unitarian view of God and his Son. God is still God, and He has a Son. There is need for any contest since no one is being deprived of anything except in one's own perception. Perceptions always undergo some degree of distortion, therefore everything is 'relative' to your own scope of perception, factors which condition such. You can continue to enjoy your Bible study and expand your own 'God-consciousness' and all shall be fine
Deity is unchanging in his essence, his essential nature...but creation is ever expanding, inter-relating, changing, transforming. - in fact the constant law of nature in the matterial world is CHANGE
Your last verse goes without saying.
I will ask you this... Do you evade answering to evade... because you know the answer and want peace over scriptural understanding... or because you have compassion for the lost and want them to feel supported?
I think my former statement holds as sufficient
I dont think we can limit 'God' to human sentiments or emotions, so I'm not sure 'jealousy' is an attribite of God really. Its figurative in that passage to express the sentiment by the writer, of God's love being 'possessive',..but as u may know from personal experience....'jealousy' can have a dark side. Dont we make 'God' into our own image enough as it is?
The verses you quote do not disprove a Unitarian view of God and his Son. God is still God, and He has a Son. There is need for any contest since no one is being deprived of anything except in one's own perception. Perceptions always undergo some degree of distortion, therefore everything is 'relative' to your own scope of perception, factors which condition such. You can continue to enjoy your Bible study and expand your own 'God-consciousness' and all shall be fine
Deity is unchanging in his essence, his essential nature...but creation is ever expanding, inter-relating, changing, transforming. - in fact the constant law of nature in the matterial world is CHANGE
Your last verse goes without saying.
[MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION]
Why do you defend those that deny God Loved us enough to walk amongst us?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Let us look how Paul used the term "son of..." when speaking to a sorcerer named Elymas:
"O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord?" (Acts 13:10).
Of course Paul was not saying that Elymas was a literal son of the devil. Instead, he was saying that the "nature" of Elymas is that of the devil. So when it is said that the Lord Jesus is the "son of man" what is being said that His nature is that of man. And when it is said that He is the "son of God" what is being said is that His very nature is that of God.
Let us look at the way that the Unitarians understood the term "son of man" in regard to the Lord Jesus. The say:
"He did not 'toot his own horn,' but instead called himself 'the son of man,' which, in the Aramaic language he spoke, meant 'a man'" (biblicalunitarian.com).
Since in the Aramaic language the term "son of man" means "man" then we can understand that in the same language the term "son of God" means "God."
The same can be said about the way the Lord Jesus used the word "Father" when speaking to unbelievers:
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it" (Jn.8:44).
The Lord Jesus was not saying that their real father was actually the devil. Instead, he was saying that their "nature" is that of the devil.
When the Lord Jesus told the Jews that God was His Father they knew that He was claiming to be God:
"But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God" (Jn.5:17-18).
If this was just a misunderstanding and the Lord Jesus is not equal to God then there can be no doubt that He would have cleared up this misunderstanding and said that He was not claiming to be God. However, what He told them only made it plainer that He was claiming to be God.
First, He told them that He had the same power to raise up the dead as does the Father (v.21). He then said that all judgment has been committed to Him (v.22). Then He told them this:
"That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him" (Jn.5:23).
There can be absolutely no doubt that by those words the Lord Jesus was confirming the Jews' idea that He was making Himself equal to God. And there is no reason at all why He would say those things unless He is God.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
I do no such thing, and let my words speak for themselves. May God grant all the means of comprehrending what is shared
No 'christian' (so called) denies that 'God' was in 'Christ' reconciling himself to all men (within the world), neither does any 'christian' deny that God indwelt the man Jesus and was 'Immanuel'. So much is just 'interpretation' here and presuming various views that in turn insist that something be only translated or meant to infer only one particular interpretation. I dont see any problems with what I just shared, or continue to share. Any problems arise from 'interpretational' issues.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Sorry JS,
Not going thru all this AGAIN with you. My former commentary stands, let each decide their own view as to what is more proper a translation, and then continue to remain open to learn more by progressive revelation. God bless. - dont forget even "NOW we are the sons of God",...does that mean we are 'God'? - even so,...as we walk in the Spirit and the Spirit of Christ is glorified in us....we are 'gods' or 'elohim' - this is true too,...so split hairs all you like
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Religious Politics.......
Religious Politics.......
A person that is 'begotten' of 'God', is generally distinct from the Begetter who would be the Father-personality (assuming here that 'God' is a personality, and is the Father of all personality...and all personalities). The Son then can only be 'God' in as much as he bears the image, likeness, qualities, attributes or nature of 'God'. BUT, this person can never be the same person as 'God' the Father.
One that is generated from 'God', is generally a distinct creation or offspring from the Original Generator. The problem with the Son being the Son (by inevitable default) is that he is 'begotten' which forever places him as that being which proceeds from The Father. The Father retains eternal primacy being the Ancestor of all. The element or sense of 'time' is always there by the very designation of the Son being a 'son'. We cant escape this by the definition of language. So, the 'Son' is defined by 'time'! (at least one sense of his existence, having a beginning-point,...and this is one of the main points of contention within the Arian Controversy....the view that the Son did NOT exist at one point in time,....but was brought into existence, was born, begotten at some point in time, before the material creation, and was then the Agent thru which God the Father created the worlds. A logical view to assume, chronological in fact.
The Trinitarians didn't like this idea, so made up a doctrine of the Son being 'eternally begotten' in God the Father's bosom, so the Son was always part of the Godhead, as an eternal Son, always existing (later defined as 'God the Son' in the trinity complex). - Now the difference between each view as far as the Son's existence is concerned is only a difference of time of origin, from the chronological perspective. - So what if the Son or the logos had a beginning at some point in time before creation, OR whether he eternally existed with 'God' as part of a Godhead? God still brings all things into being thru the logos,...the logos is the creative word, the 'agency' thru which God creates.
While the depth and breadth of our contemplation of the Son of God is most wonderful, we see that doctrinal debates in the past were to define doctrines to sanction only a particular 'correct' view of how God and his Son were RELATED. It is all a matter of assumption of relation...which would then affect whether Jesus could be called 'God' or not, or merely the Son of God. This filters down to other levels as 'religious politics'. And you thought to avoid those two subjects of 'religion' and 'politics',....well...engaging the Unitarian/Trinitarisn debate is a classic example of their wedding. The pomp and fanfare may have died down a little after the 4th and 5th centuries although Arian groups and then semi-arian influences flourished here and there, and today we have a good number of Unitarian Christians of one brand or another. But I propose part of all this is a subtle activity of 'religious politics'. If you cut to the core or 'true religion' and transcend the sometimes petty differences within the 'technology' of 'Christology',....you still have the essential ethic and principles of true religion at the core, which 'Christ' is the archetype and prototype for man to follow, wherein he puts on Christ, and by that union is adopted into 'sonship', and thereby lives the precepts of 'true religion', where the Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man can be become a reality, because he then lives by God's law within, his conscience purified and empowered by the Spirit of God. - this is what is 'essential' if you would be a real follower of truth.
Religious Politics.......
A person that is 'begotten' of 'God', is generally distinct from the Begetter who would be the Father-personality (assuming here that 'God' is a personality, and is the Father of all personality...and all personalities). The Son then can only be 'God' in as much as he bears the image, likeness, qualities, attributes or nature of 'God'. BUT, this person can never be the same person as 'God' the Father.
One that is generated from 'God', is generally a distinct creation or offspring from the Original Generator. The problem with the Son being the Son (by inevitable default) is that he is 'begotten' which forever places him as that being which proceeds from The Father. The Father retains eternal primacy being the Ancestor of all. The element or sense of 'time' is always there by the very designation of the Son being a 'son'. We cant escape this by the definition of language. So, the 'Son' is defined by 'time'! (at least one sense of his existence, having a beginning-point,...and this is one of the main points of contention within the Arian Controversy....the view that the Son did NOT exist at one point in time,....but was brought into existence, was born, begotten at some point in time, before the material creation, and was then the Agent thru which God the Father created the worlds. A logical view to assume, chronological in fact.
The Trinitarians didn't like this idea, so made up a doctrine of the Son being 'eternally begotten' in God the Father's bosom, so the Son was always part of the Godhead, as an eternal Son, always existing (later defined as 'God the Son' in the trinity complex). - Now the difference between each view as far as the Son's existence is concerned is only a difference of time of origin, from the chronological perspective. - So what if the Son or the logos had a beginning at some point in time before creation, OR whether he eternally existed with 'God' as part of a Godhead? God still brings all things into being thru the logos,...the logos is the creative word, the 'agency' thru which God creates.
While the depth and breadth of our contemplation of the Son of God is most wonderful, we see that doctrinal debates in the past were to define doctrines to sanction only a particular 'correct' view of how God and his Son were RELATED. It is all a matter of assumption of relation...which would then affect whether Jesus could be called 'God' or not, or merely the Son of God. This filters down to other levels as 'religious politics'. And you thought to avoid those two subjects of 'religion' and 'politics',....well...engaging the Unitarian/Trinitarisn debate is a classic example of their wedding. The pomp and fanfare may have died down a little after the 4th and 5th centuries although Arian groups and then semi-arian influences flourished here and there, and today we have a good number of Unitarian Christians of one brand or another. But I propose part of all this is a subtle activity of 'religious politics'. If you cut to the core or 'true religion' and transcend the sometimes petty differences within the 'technology' of 'Christology',....you still have the essential ethic and principles of true religion at the core, which 'Christ' is the archetype and prototype for man to follow, wherein he puts on Christ, and by that union is adopted into 'sonship', and thereby lives the precepts of 'true religion', where the Fatherhood of God and Brotherhood of Man can be become a reality, because he then lives by God's law within, his conscience purified and empowered by the Spirit of God. - this is what is 'essential' if you would be a real follower of truth.
As I understand Jesus is god not the God.
Isaiah 45:5
5 I am the Lord, and there is no other;
There is no God besides Me.
I will gird you, though you have not known Me,
Deuteronomy 6:4
4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!
John 10:30
30 I and My Father are one.”
Matthew 11:27
27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
Exodus 33:20
20 But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no MAN shall see Me, and live.”
Both you and Freelight don't understand.
Sorry JS,
Not going thru all this AGAIN with you. My former commentary stands, let each decide their own view as to what is more proper a translation, and then continue to remain open to learn more by progressive revelation. God bless. - dont forget even "NOW we are the sons of God",...does that mean we are 'God'? - even so,...as we walk in the Spirit and the Spirit of Christ is glorified in us....we are 'gods' or 'elohim' - this is true too,...so split hairs all you like
You do realize that Freelight is a believer in the Urantia book, right? He's an eclectic Cult/Occultist.
I will speak my heart on this matter. To acknowledge that the Almighty dwells within us is TRUTH about (Romans 8:9).
The importance of recognizing the utter truth of (Deuteronomy 6:4) is for our benefit and understanding of God's revealed Love for us through (1 Timothy 3:16 and Titus 2:13)
The importance of recognizing that we are "in" Christ alone... and thus... He is our Head... while recognizing that Christ alone is "in" The Father... thus making "Avi-'ad" His head... is crucial.
It is (Isaiah 14:14) to say we are any form of Elohim... lowercase or otherwise. This is why the distinct difference is critically laid out all throughout the NT. John... Unapologetically reveals that Jesus is the I AM... but... he goes further to reveal that there is a MAJOR distinction between being "In" the Son and thus "sons" and Being "IN" the Father (John 14:11) thus being ... GOD.