 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
- Christ could not ascend to himself.
- He could not be greater than himself.
|
||||
|
Did Jesus say He was God the Father?
The Bible shows God to be a distinct personage from Jesus Christ, who is a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and from the Holy Ghost according to the New Testament. Thus, the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate entities, perfectly distinct and in person independent from each other. This is the doctrine clearly stated by our Saviour. It is the doctrine proclaimed by his disciples in their epistles to the ancient saints. Any doctrine to the contrary contradicts what is plainly written and is a misinterpretation of these teachings. There was no confusion in the minds of Peter, John, and Paul. Consider what is written in the scriptures.
First, we have the occasion of the baptism of our Lord. According to Matthew, when Jesus was baptised he "went up straightway out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him; and lo, a voice from heaven saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." This scene is confirmed by Mark and Luke; but the account given by Luke is even more explicit. He says, "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." I will refer to this event and the conclusions we must draw from it later. Likewise, Matthew in relating the story of the transfiguration, says that while Jesus and his three disciples were with Moses and Elias on the mount, "There came a voice out of the cloud which said, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." This is also confirmed by Mark and Luke. On another occasion, as related in the 12th chapter of John, when Jesus was praying to his Father he said, "Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it and will glorify it again." Some of the assembled people "said that it thundered; others said an angel spoke to him." The very nature of the answer precludes the thought that it could have been the voice of any other than his Father. It is impossible to harmonise such statements in the scriptures with the prevailing notion that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are not separate personages. Our Saviour was not a deceiver; he did not resort to ventriloquism to confuse and mislead those who were with him. We must if we use our sense of reason conclude that on each occasion when the Father spoke to the Son he was in some other place, and the voice was not coming in some mysterious way from the Son. In John 14:28, the Saviour said to his disciples: "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." Naturally his Father would be greater because he is the Father, and this likewise teaches us the separate entities of the Father and the Son. Then we have the witness of Paul to the Corinthian saints, wherein he says Christ must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet, and when that time comes, he, Christ, "Shall have delivered up the kingdom to God the Father." Moreover, when the last enemy is destroyed and all things are put under the feet of God the Father, then, said Paul, "When all things are subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."--I Cor. 15:24-28. Then again, unto whom was Christ praying as recorded in the seventeenth chapter of John, when he said: "Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee…. And now O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." Surely he was not praying to himself. It is absurd to say that the mysterious essence called the Son was praying to the same mysterious essence called the Father. In the Garden the Saviour prayed saying, "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." Consistently we cannot say that he would utter such a prayer to himself. When Mary came to the tomb unaware of the Lord's resurrection, she found the sepulchre empty, but the risen Lord stood by. She thought him the gardener, and said: Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Surely if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are one person, then this remark by our Lord to Mary, is inconsistent. We must conclude, of course, that the Lord is consistent, and that only man is inconsistent. Said our Redeemer: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." There is not within the covers of the Bible one single passage which can properly be construed to uphold the erroneous doctrine that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are one in substance one, and merely a spirit, or essence, without body or parts or passions, incomprehensible and invisible. To the contrary, throughout the scriptures there is ample evidence in numerous passages, teaching that the Eternal Father and his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are separate entities, perfectly distinct and in person independent from each other. This is the doctrine clearly stated by our Saviour. Any doctrine to the contrary contradicts what is plainly written and is a misinterpretation of these teachings. When Stephen was being martyred he saw God: "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God." (Acts vii: 55, 56.) Nothing could be plainer and more convincing from the written Scriptures than that Stephen actually saw God, and that He and His Son were in the heavens in the presence of each other. Paul wrote to the Philippians as follows: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." (Phillip. ii: 5, 6.) And again in Col. 1.15, Paul said respecting the Saviour: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature." To the Hebrews the same apostle says, concerning Jesus: "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." (Heb. 1: 3.) These writings of Paul fully corroborate in doctrine all the quotations on the subject made from the Old and New Testaments. The Scriptures referred to show conclusively the personality of the Father, and a portion of the quotations presented, point to the fact that He is a separate personage, and entirely distinct in person from His Son Jesus Christ. MRGANITE |
||||
|
||||
 Originally Posted by RickJ
How can humans discuss this? That has never been a problem for humans. Jesus has said that we must not only discuss it, but that we MUST come to know God, and that we must become as he is. "This, then, is eternal life to know God, and Jesus Christ whom God has sent." "Be ye, therefore, perfect, even as you Father which is in heaven is perfect." Theology, is talking about God, and we do talk about God, discuss God, debate God and his nature, characteristics, attributes, being, will, mind, purposes, etc. etc. You are discussing the very thing you question whether human can discuss and question. Answers prove a little more elusive, but the discussions and debates are always fascinating. M:) |
||||
|
||||
|
Indeed. Fascinating and illuminating when done right. I'm glad you point out what I misunderstood.
I don't understand the statement "The Godhead is God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit, which are three separate and distinct persons "acting in the unity of the Godhead". What other words could you use to describe this unity? What fault do you find in the historic Christian explanation of this unity (which, as you rightly point out, we call the Trinity)? I am curious, too... if you don't mind disclosing: Are you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by RickJ
The unity to which I refer is of purpose and not persons. There are three persons in the Godhead who act in concert - hence unity of purpose and intent - although each has his separate being, and individual, discrete and independent personality and will, but the three Persons are not merely modes of activity of one indivisible God. The traditional Christian Trinity holds that there are not three separate distinct and individual persons in the Trinity, but God in one Person who sometimes behaves as God the Father, sometimes as the God the Son of the Father, and sometimes as the God the Holy Spirit, but whatever modality they act in at any given moment they are the one and same person. My objections to this traditional nonbiblical view is that it is a contradiction, and God is not the author of confusion; that the Trinity per se is not supportable from scripture; and that events recorded in the Bible militate powerfully against God and the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost being the same person or persons. Cogent examples are have provided in the posts divided into three parts on account of its length, and to which your refer in your questions. While it is sometimes possible to guess from content of posts the leaning or denomination of a poster, it is my experience that such revelations often cloud more important issues and head us into entirely wrong directions. The name of the church in your question was changed some six or seven years back to "The Community Of Christ" although they were previously styled as you have it. Please feel free to respond as you think . M:)RGANITE |
||||
|
||||
|
Not all Christians believe the holy spirit is a person. There are Christians who believe it to be the force God used to create the universe, which he also uses to strengthen, inspire, encourage, enlighten, his worshippers. This is not to say I am seeking debate on this issue since this is not a debating forum and debates rarely are productive and the debators rarely if ever accept the opposing view. Only to say that there are divergeant opinions on this matter.
Example of the opposing viewpoint can be found at the following websites: Excerpt: The Scriptures speak of the Holy Spirit in many ways that demonstrate that it is not a divine person. For example, the Holy Spirit is referred to as a gift (Acts 10:45; 1 Timothy 4:14). We are told that it can be quenched (1 Thessalonians 5:19), that it can be poured out (Acts 2:17; 10:45), and that we are baptized with it (Matthew 3:11). It must be stirred up within us (2 Timothy 1:6), and it also renews us (Titus 3:5). These are certainly not attributes of a person. IS THE HOLY SPIRIT A PERSON? http://www.ucgportland.org/popups/tl9.html What Is the Holy Spirit? http://www.guardian-ministries.org/nholyspirit.htm |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Starman
John 14:26 26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Early Christian art shows a three-faced God, one of whom is the Holy Ghost. This can be found on the front cover of Mircea Eliade's "The Sacred and the Profane," in the softback edition. I regret I have not time at present to provide further examples, but the creeds describe the Holy Ghost as a 'person' and that must speak for itself. M:) |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by morganite
This is one of the problems with debates whereby one asserts knowledge of the other's position. Thankfully, the doctrine of the Trinity is shared by Catholics and most Protestants. From the Catholic Encyclopedia: "The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system." For more, read here. And for an even deeper understanding of each of the Three - and their relationship, start reading here. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Morganite
Nano tech might eventually produce chips which might be implanted into the brain to teach us. Some programs even speaks its instructions as it teaches. My chess program does that. About the art and creeds, such as the Nicene (325/381) and Athanasian (circa 500), they are viewed as the result of a slow inexorable turning away from Christian original teachings as predicted by the apostle Paul. A warning unheeded. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. Also, one reason that the three-personed God is rejected it is that it poses an affront to OT and its writers. According to the Trinitarian view Abraham, Moses, Daniel, in short, all major and minor prophets were wrong in their view of who God really is. The viewpoint posits that they were inspired into error. Christians, mind you, have never accused the OT or the writers of the OT of being uninspired which is paradoxical to say the least. So the idea of a triune God creates contradiction which Christendom seems reluctant to face via ignoring it or continuing to accuse the Jews of misunderstanding their own sacred writings to the degree of not really knowing who the God they worshipped really was during all that time prior to Christianity. That viewpoint contradicts both Jesus' and the Apostles' respect the OT as evidenced by the frequency that it is quoted and the and referred to as the inspired Word of God which is part of the light that God shone on the minds of men prior to the coming of Jesus. BTW I agree with you that Jesus is not his own father and that Jesus and his Father are two persons and that their unity referred to is that of purpose and mind. The following scriptures along with the OT viewpoint should make that clear. The bolds are mine. John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." John 14:28: "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." 1Corinthians 8:5-6: "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), [b]yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." 1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by RickJ
You have posted the words, but I have posted their meaning. As the creed stands it is a direct contradiction. It says that there are three separate and distinct iPersons eaxch of which is God, and then contradicts that statement by insisting that these three truly distinct Persons, each of which is God, are not three Gods but One God. Calling a contradiction a 'mystery' does not clear up either the contradiction or the confusion. The implications of the creed are not supported by the Bible, and that is the point we need to come to terms with. The introduction of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was not the result of a journey arriving at a theological credal statement of belief, but the result of attempts to thwart pagan and Jewish taunts that Christians were polytheistic, while claiming they were monotheistic, because some Christians elevated Jesus to the same level as God, and some said he was the Father as well as the Son. It was a philosophic al destination embraced byChristian theologians in disarray that proceeded toward the compromise of the Holy Trinity. However, as previously stated, it does not rest on a secure scriptural foundation, rather it sits on a foundation of necessity. With the appearance of Konstantin on the scene, the doctrine also took a politoco-philosophical turn. In respect of this, Clement, he of the 'Clementine Recognitions,' speaking of philosophy's inroads into Christianity in his own time, said: "Most rightly, I said, has the omnipotent God hidden his will from you, knowing you to be unworthy from the first--as should be clear to any thinking person from your present behavior. For when you see preachers of the will of God coming to you, if their speech displays no familiarity with the grammatic art, but instead they tell you God's commands in simple unpolished phrases, so that anyone who hears them can follow and understand what they say, you make fun of these ministers and messengers of your salvation, forgetting . . . that a knowledge of the truth may be found among rustics and barbarians; yet you won't accept it unless it comes by one of your town and in your vernacular; and that is proof enough that you are not friends of truth and philosophers [seekers after wisdom] at all, but the dupes of men with big mouths, babblers yourselves, who believe that truth must dwell not in simple words but in shrewd and clever language." Even at this early day, Christianity and philosophy are on opposite sides of the fence, as Roman Catholic scholar Etienne Gilson has incontrovertibly shown. But it was not to be so for long. S. V. McCasland has noted that "[T]he older unspeculative conception of the creation of man in the image of God" was the original Christian doctrine, as witnessed "by unambiguous passages in the Clementine Homilies," which show how early that doctrine fell into disrepute. J. Morris has written, [/i] [Theophilus of Antioch] "altogether avoided mentioning that God had a son, let alone that a Crucifixion was involved." "With perfect impunity and the greatest of ease they proceeded to do violence to the scriptures," writes Eusebius of the period, "blithely disregarding the original teaching. . . . They never consulted the scriptures, but busily worked out elaborate structures of syllogisms. . . . They deserted the holy scripture for Euclid, Aristotle, and Theophrastus. . . . They cultivated the arts of the unbelievers and took to hair-splitting discussions about the once simple faith of the Holy Writ." They became imitators of Seneca, whose specialty, as Cochrane describes it, was "clothing in scintillating phrases the commonplaces of a shallow optimism, the beautiful day-dream of human perfectability and brotherhood under the Caesars"--later, we might add, under the imperial church. Justin Martyr, though he recognized the superiority of prophecy to philosophy, never gave up his philosopher's garb, of which he was very proud, and went all out to show that Plato, after all, taught no differently than Moses and Christ, that Heraclitus taught the same morality as Moses, and even that Plato's areté is nothing other than the Holy Ghost! At the same time, Irenaeus accused the Gnostics of dragging philosophy into the church. Their works, he says, "read like a patchwork made up from the philosophers as all those call themselves who do not know the true God, piecing together a doctrine from philosophical shreds and tatters with high-sounding eloquence." All the attributes of God, he notes, they derive from the philosophers, "and they hold forth with hairsplitting subtlety on philosophical questions, introducing, as it were, Aristotle into the faith." "O miserable Aristotle!" cried Tertullian shortly after, "who taught them [the Christians] dialectic, the art of proving and disproving, the cunning turn of sentences, forced conjectures, tough arguments, contrary even to itself." All heresies are suborned by philosophy, he says: from the philosophers they get the idea that the flesh is not resurrected - a thing on which all philosophers agree; hence, too, they get the doctrine of the baseness of matter and such set questions as whence is evil and why? - because these are old chestnuts in the Greek schools. Paul knew philosophy at Athens, Tertullian observes, and was not impressed by it. "What have Athens and Jerusalem in common?" he asks in a famous passage. "What the Academy and the Church?" But by the next century, Minucius Felix sees no difference between the teaching of the prophets and those of the philosophers and concludes "either that the Christians are now philosophers, or that the ancient philosophers were already Christians." And Clement of Alexandria sees in philosophy God's preparation of the human race for the Jesus' gospel: "Philosophy prepares the work that Christ completes." Yet that work having been consummated, it is not philosophy but the gospel that bows out of the picture, for Clement himself never mentions the millennium, softpedals the second coming of Christ, and allegorizes the resurrection. In a book on Clement of Alexandria, Walter Voelker writes: "In Clement of Alexandria, Stoic, Platonist, Mystic, etc., constantly shove against and overlap on each other and entangle themselves often in a narrow compass into a completely inextricable mess." Origen was just as bad, completely rejecting the old faith, as Schmidt notes, in favor of philosophy. "In his way of life," wrote Porphyry of Origen, "he lived like a Christian, which was misleading, since in actual fact and in his teachings about God he was a thoroughgoing Hellenist." It was he who introduced logic and dialectic into the church--those two obsessions of declining antiquity of which the early church had so prided itself of being free. It was he, you may recall, who told the pagan Celsus that all Christians would do nothing but study philosophy if they did not have to take time off to earn a living. Step by step we can trace the infiltration of philosophy into the church and its core beliefs, but freom the beginning it was not so. What was once a simple truth delivered by Jesus about his dependent and submissive relationship with the Father - "My Father and your Father, My God and Your God!" developed by the fourth Christian century in the crucible of bitter argument into the Trinity. A doctrine that is confusing, contradictory, and contrary to all that is found in the Bible. Whilst I agree that those not of a particular denomination do not always understand what it teaches, it is far from the truth to say that they cannot understand what it teaches. The issues, whilst far from clear or conscise are suifficiently well and reliably documented by those within and without the Catholic Church. Anyone sufficiently familiar with the history and literature can make valid statements. M:)RGANITE . |
||||
|
||||
|
Thankfully we have Christ's Church - and 2000 years of exposition and discussion - to help us with all of this.
As for me, I am with the historic Christian faith that recognizes in the New Testament the mysterious Trinity: One God in three Persons; separate and distinct yet one. |
||||
|
||||
|
What you refer to as "Christ's Church" along with the two thousand years of exposition have failed to satisfy the subject of the nature of God. Therefore it is a relevant subject for debate, speculation, discussion, and further exploration, but if your mind is satisfied then I am happy for you, but you will recognise that for some the questions are far from settled.
I am surprised that a supermoderator, a person one expects to be neutral on dogmatic and doctrinal grounds, seeks to limit discussion on a subject of such great importance. As I write, dissenters have often paid a price for daring to challenge the accepted view of insitutional Christianity. It is not too many years since some of the most brilliant theological minds of our times, massive intellects like Hans Kung and Edward Schillebecx, dared to dissent and were removed. If the subject embarrasses anyone, they need not respond, but there are many who are interested in the Trinity and its obvious contradictions and who, unless this forum is closed to them, should feel free to express themselves without the persecutions that marked the Inquistions. No one has to agree, but should we not at least expect contributors to the thread to add something to the debate? Vatican II opened the eyes of ordinary people to study theology, and the Council fathers' recognition of the myriad voices opened many fields of debate that had been closed for centuries. It would be sad indeed if the spirit of Vatican II was buried under slavish devotion to creeds that make no sense to many of the world's people. The Late pope decided should be a synod on Christian marriage. Why? Hadn't the matter been settled for two-thousand years? Hadn't it been put to the test by theologians and scholars and laid to rest? Apparently not, and the pope recognised this. He could have simply hjeld uyp his hand and said, "No discussion necessary. It is settled!" Instead, he recognised contrary opinions evenwihtin his own ranks. There were dissident theologians - even dissident bishops - who needed to be heard. Consequently, he calles a Synod, and to his amazement the synod considered views markedly dissimilar to his own. They concluded that the fact that Catholics don't practice birth control was something that must be given consideration. The synod could have said, 'Well these people are all misguided' or 'They're all sinners'; but such a response to what is undeniably a pressing situation would not serve the interests of the Catholic people well. They deserved better. The synod, against papal expectations, began from the real situation of the Catholic people, and tried to understand and help them. They could have said, 'Everything will be solved by your obedience to what had been decreed before. Go home and behave yourselves!" Sadly, despite the urging of the synond, the second was what the pope announced in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor . And this perhaps is one of the most unusual features of the pontificate. But perhaps the important encouraging thing is that he called the council and set them free to discuss ways and means, and that spirit of free enquiry is too precious to be squashed, whether by decree ex cathedra, or any other means, for it is that spirit that has moved the development of all the doctrines and dogmas of traditional Christianity. and which is yet active within the RCC in movements such as Liberation Theology, and the abandonment of Limbo, and it continues to question whether the Trinity is supported by the Bible. " ... he that is not against us is on our part." M:)RGANITE |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by RickJ
Although some denominations require their members to profess faith in the trinity, most mainline denominations have taken a "hands-off" policy on the subject of the trinity, realizing that since personal study and free thought have been encouraged for years, it is not surprising that some of the conclusions reached would be nontrinitarian. The recognition here is that the trinity is tool for pointing to a greater truth. In other words, Christianity has historically sought to look beyond its doctrines to the greater truth they are intended to address, IE God. It is not uncommon for a Methodist, Presbyterian, or Anglican to profess non-trinitarian views, even among the clergy. The response from the governing bodies of those denominations is usually neutral, so long as the disagreement is voiced in respect. Non-Trintarian groups - some of which are ancient, not modern objections, to Trinitarian position - include: * Monarchianism * Arianism * Arian Catholic Church * Socinianism * Church of the Blessed Hope (Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith) * Christadelphians * Jehovah's Witnesses * Bible Students * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) * Unitarian Christians * American Unitarian Conference * Living Church of God * Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship * Magi Network * Church of Christ, Scientist * Oneness Pentecostals * Unification Church * The Way The Church of Yahweh in Christ Jesus * Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith) * Polish Brethren * Doukhobors * Molokan * The Way International * Gospel Assembly Church * New Church * The Church of Jesus Christ * Creation Seventh Day Adventism * Iglesia ni Cristo * True Jesus Church Nontrinitarian people include: * Natalius[1], ~200 * Sabellius, ~220 * Paul of Samosata, 269 * Arius, 336 * Eusebius of Nicomedia, 341, who baptized Constantine * Constantius II, Byzantine Emperor, 361 * Antipope Felix II, 365 * Aëtius, 367 * Ulfilas, Apostle to the Goths, 383 * Priscillian, 385 * Muhammad, 632, * Ludwig Haetzer, 1529 * Juan de Valdés, 1541 * Michael Servetus, 1553, kindly burned at the stake under John Calvin * Sebastian Castellio, 1563 * Ferenc Dávid, 1579 * Fausto Paolo Sozzini, 1604 * John Biddle, 1662 * John Locke, 1704 * Sir Isaac Newton, 1727 * William Whiston, 1752 * Jonathan Mayhew, 1766 * Emanuel Swedenborg,1772 (The New Church) * Benjamin Franklin, 1790 * Joseph Priestley, 1804 * Joseph Smith, 1805 (Mormon) * Thomas Paine, 1809 * Thomas Jefferson, 1826 * James Madison, 1836 * William Ellery Channing, 1842 * Robert Hibbert, 1849 * Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1882 * James Martineau, 1900 * Charles Taze Russell, 1916 (Watchtower Co) * Neville Chamberlain, 1940 * William Branham, 1965 * Herbert W. Armstrong, 1986 (Church of God) * &c. Non-Trintarianism (I prefer that term to anti-Trinitariansim, because rejection does not mean hostility towards Trinitarianism, merely disbelief in it) is not confined to a single denomnation, person, or movement, but has been widespread since non-trinitarianism, the NT view, was overtaken centuries later by Trinitarianism. I am not, as you appear to believe, trying to start a war. I am openly positing the foundation for respectful and informed discussion by setting before you the non-Trinitatian position supported by cogent historical support, and I regret that you are unwilling to respond in that spirit. Opinions, however passionately and sincerely held, do not contribute to free and frank discussion unless they are supported, and while I am the first to welcome variant opinions, calling to each other across a divide without offering the light of explanation and evidentiary support is nothing but an exchange of heat, and I am not willing to engage in that kind of attack. M:)RGANITE . |
||||
|
||||
|
I don't see any heat or attacking. This sort of engagement is why I've started my own site that presents things as I see them.
With all respect, if this were just a discussion of what the writers of the NT really meant by their various descriptions of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then that would be one thing... but in your case aren't you arguing from the position of a group that claims special revelation regarding this issue and many others? With this being the case, then we pretty much have to leave history out of it, don't we? To get a fuller understanding of your position, I would like to read how your Church presents it. I couldn't find it at lds.org. Can you point me to something? |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Re-birth of Jesus
[ 29 Answers ]
I was wondering if there is any mention of re-birth of jesus in the scriptures regarding approaximate time and place of jesus's second coming. I've heard from various sources that there's a chance that Jesus may be born in the Indian sub-continent rather than in the West. So please do let me know...
Did Jesus Ever Say He was God?
[ 252 Answers ]
:confused: Is Jesus Christ God? Investigate these interesting claims... The earliest followers of Jesus all seemed pretty convinced that Jesus was fully God in human form. Paul said, "He is the image of the invisible God...in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell." John said...
Deity of Jesus
[ 52 Answers ]
If Jesus is not God, but a being created by God, and thus part of creation, how does that affect justification, atonement, and salvation?
Jesus and God
[ 12 Answers ]
1 John 2:1 MY little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: An advocate is someone who pleads another's case before a judge, in this case God. I remembered this verse two days ago and...
Jesus
[ 17 Answers ]
When did jesus learn he was christ?
View more questions Search
|
