Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Is Jesus God?

Expand Messages
  • retrofit1965
    Hello George, You ask = If Jesus is God and Jesus had a God how many Gods are there? The Scriptures tell us how many there are in 1Cor. 8:5. You then follow
    Message 1 of 35 , Jul 3, 2011
    • 0 Attachment

      Hello George,

      You ask = "If Jesus is God and Jesus had a God how many Gods are there?"

      The Scriptures tell us how many there are in 1Cor. 8:5.

      You then follow that with verse 6 to learn the specifics.

      And finally conclude it with verse 7 (the first part) to learn why there is such a lack of understanding on the subject.

      This is what the Holy Spirit has revealed.

      Faithfully in His Truth,

      Kevin

      ==============================================

      --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, "george.smith" <gmswds-truthortradition@...> wrote:
      >
      > If Jesus is God and Jesus had a God how many Gods are there?
      >
      > In Christ, George...
      >

    • Shelley Cartwright
      kay marie, i totally belive that jesus is not god....i know thiis in my heart and what ive reaserched , but thanks for your comment From: Doyle
      Message 35 of 35 , Aug 28, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        kay marie, i totally belive that jesus is not god....i know thiis in my heart and what ive reaserched , but thanks for your comment

        From: Doyle <DBishopRogers@...>
        To: Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 7:02 PM
        Subject: [Biblical_Unitarian] Re: Is Jesus God?

         
        Shelley...if Jesus were not God, He would have nothing to offer us. Many men die every day. Their blood has no power. They are not sinless, and their death does nothing for us.

        He came to be a willing sacrifice for us, and He did just that. "The just shall live by his faith." When we accept His sacrifice BY FAITH we become a new creature. We ARE forgiven. Don't let anyone cause your faith to be shaken.

        KayMarie

        --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, Shelley Cartwright <glitterprincess8787@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi!! im learning here so i need to do some reaserch first before i answer you...baby christian here...i ment good christians that are my friends:)
        >
        >
        > From: retrofit1965 <retrofit1965@...>
        > To: Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 3:51 PM
        > Subject: [Biblical_Unitarian] Re: Is Jesus God?
        >
        >
        >  
        > Hello againShelley Cartwright,
        > Thank you for responding to my question concerning the source of your knowledge that "Jesus wasnt GOD". Who do you consider to be "good Christians": those who follow, for example, what Jesus said in John chapters 13 through 17 or those who agree with you theologically?
        > And why do you say I am wrong? I did not make any claims to be right or wrong about. I quoted two verses of Scripture to you and asked two questions concerning them. Are you saying that those passages are wrong as quoted? Or are you saying what I said about Jesus' name is wrong? Or is it perhaps because I asked the questions incorrectly?
        > Will you be giving an answer to the two earlier questions I asked you?
        > Faithfully in the Truth,
        > Kevin
        > =====================================
        > --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, Shelley Cartwright <glitterprincess8787@> wrote:
        > >
        > > you are wrong my friend, ive obtained this info from learning from other good christians and the bible, jesus wasnt GOD!!
        > >
        > >
        > > From: retrofit1965 retrofit1965@
        > > To: Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com
        > > Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2011 2:16 PM
        > > Subject: [Biblical_Unitarian] Re: Is Jesus God?
        > >
        > >
        > >  
        > > Hello Shelley Cartwright,
        > > You state that Jesus is not God. From where did you obtain that information? Could you clarify?
        > > I have the following information regarding this subject, how would you explain passages such as these:
        > > Mat. 1:23= "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanu-EL," which translated means, "GOD with us."
        > > Matt. 1:21= "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."
        > > Do you know what the name JESUS means? It is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew YOSHUA or YEHO-SHUA which means YAHWEH-SAVIOUR.
        > > What is the name of the God of Israel?
        > > Faithfully in His Truth,
        > > Kevin
        > > =====================================
        > > --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, Shelley Cartwright glitterprincess8787@ wrote:
        > > >
        > > > jesus is not god :)
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > From: retrofit1965 retrofit1965@
        > > > To: Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com
        > > > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 1:34 PM
        > > > Subject: [Biblical_Unitarian] Re: Is Jesus God?
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >  
        > > > Hello Greg,
        > > > Well, it sure is good to know that that there are others, besides me, who also get "ism-ized" now and then.
        > > > You Say= One thing we definitely disagree on is the fact that you keep stressing that you are not interpreting scripture but rather are simply taking the Bible for what it says.
        > > > Yes, that is what I have said all along.
        > > > You Say= I happen to think that we all have filters through which we view things.
        > > > Nothing wrong with "filters" as long as the filtering is taking place through the Scriptures. That way, one can ensure he will always be in the TRUTH. However, most first filter the TRUTH through their TRADITIONS in order to find support for those traditions and, as a result, make the TRUTH of no effect (Mark 7:9-13; Matt. 15:3-6).
        > > > You Say= Every readingof Scripture, in my opinion, is an interpretation of Scripture. 
        > > > That depends on the "reader". An iNTERPRETER is one who does exactly that, he INTERPRETS what another has said or written by coloring the interpretation with his own thoughts or ideas, which may or may not be foreign to the original intent. To me, the interpreter works under the concept of: this is what was MEANT here.
        > > > A TRANSLATOR, on the other hand, is a "reader" who faithfully TRANSLATES what has been said or written without taking away or adding to the original thoughts and ideas because the instant he does so, he becomes an INTERPRETER.
        > > > This is what God has said about His "Thoughts and Ideas":
        > > > 2Peter 1:20= "……….you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet'sown interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit".
        > > > 2Tim. 3:16= All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
        > > > And this is how the Bereans "FILTERED" what others said about the Scriptures through God's "Thoughts and Ideas":
        > > > ACTS 17:11= Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day TO SEE if what Paul said was TRUE.
        > > > You Say= So, for instance, you believe something akin to Arianism because you say it is what is clearly taught in Scripture.
        > > > Two things to comment about here, first: I believe that the One Who became Jesus the Christ pre-existed as the beginning, the FIRST ONE (in time and order) of THE God's creation. He is the Firstborn of every creature. He was the FIRST of the Sons of God.
        > > > And second, I have never said that something akin to Arianism is clearly taught in the Scriptures, even though I understand why you want to express it that way, as you explained. You either have God-Breathed TRUTH or you have TRADITION. You either have men speaking Words as they were carried along by Holy Spirit or as they are carried along by their Traditions. There is no in-between.
        > > > You Say= But, in my view, when it says all things are from the Father, and all are through Jesus Christ, you are interpreting the text by taking "through Jesus Christ" to mean he literally preexisted and was the channel through which God commenced the Genesis creation. 
        > > > You have made an incorrect assessment. I am not "interpreting" as explained above. I have done the Berean Thing" by examining the Scriptures to see if those things you have said are True, as I did with the "bosom" passage you brought up in an earlier post.
        > > > I know you and I have already discussed this topic previously, however, if you will check, you will find that the Holy Spirit caused that Greek word (dia) to be used 678 times. Why not do a study of all those occurrences and see how the Holy Spirit inspired its usage in their CONTEXTS?
        > > > You Say= You saythat I'm not taking Scripture at face value by rejecting such a reading, but in fact, I am taking Scripture at face value.
        > > > LOL!! Now, here is a perfect example of "interpretation" versus "translation". From which one of my posts did you "interpret" that I was in reality saying that you are "not taking the Scripturesat face value"??
        > > > You Say= The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke and the Old Testament prophecies that declare that a man, a genuine human being (not some preexistent spirit) to be the Messiah, someone who had an origin, a beginning, which was at his conception in his mother's womb.
        > > > That is correct, concerning Jesus the Christ. Matthew traces His genealogy back to Abraham and connects Him to the nation of Israel and the tribe of Judah as their King and Priest.
        > > > Luketraces his lineage back to Adam and connects Him to all of humanity.
        > > > John, on the other hand, goes even further back than that and traces His origin back God the Father Himself, to His Divine state as the FIRST ONE (in time and order) of THE God's creation, before He took on flesh and became Jesus the Christ, which is perfectly summarized in:
        > > > Phil. 2:5-8= For let this attitude (disposition, mind)be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, Who, being in the form of God (likeness, shape, appearance), did not consider it robbery (pillaging, grasping, identity theft)to be equal with God, but emptied himself (Lit. poured Himself out, made himself void of the FORM of God, relinquished the FORM of God), taking the form of a slave (likeness, shape, appearance. He exchanged His FORM of God for that of the FORM of a slave)and coming in the likeness of humanity. And being found in appearance as a human, He humbled Himselfand became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (Comments in parenthesis are mine)
        > > > Combine that with:
        > > > John 1:1-2= In beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and the word was God. the same was in beginning with the God.
        > > > John 1:14= And the word became flesh, and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the father, full of grace and truth.
        > > > John 8:58 = Jesus said to them, "truly, truly, i say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.
        > > > And you have a major revelation of Truth. What is so difficult and is not clear about what is being made known in those passages?
        > > > You Say= There's no other way to read Matthew and Luke in my view. 
        > > > Yes there is, by way of the inspired context.
        > > > You Say= They describe the absolute beginning point at which Jesus came into existence.
        > > > Concerning the beginning of Jesus the man, yes, concerning the Beginning of the Word, no, that was for the Apostle John to do.
        > > > You say= The very first line of the New Testament reads, "The book of the genesis of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham."  "Genesis" means origin, beginning. 
        > > > Yes it can mean that but it does not in this case because the very next thing that Matthew launches into after he "geneseos" Jesus Christ is His lineage, genealogy. Ditto for Luke.
        > > > The Greek word geneseos was inspired to be used in only two instances, Matt. 1:1 and James 3:6.
        > > > You Say= Even the TNIV, a translation dominated by Trinitarians, has in the footnotes that this passage could read, "the origin of Jesus Christ".
        > > > The key word there is "COULD" but what actually follows in Matthew and Luke is the GENEALOGY of Jesus the Christ and that is what the context supports.
        > > > You Say= Now to me, "origin" is straightforward. 
        > > > Only when the inspired context allows such a meaning.
        > > > You Say= I don't read into the Scripture that it must mean only a certain kind of origin, namely the bringing into the world a human being who actually preexisted as a spirit being prior to the conception. 
        > > > But you just did exactly that! You did not allow the inspired context to lead you into the Truth.
        > > > You Say= I take it to mean the origin of a human being such as takes place when any mother conceives a child -- that is, that a new life is beginning at that moment. 
        > > > Consider what you have just tried to explain to me concerning your interpretation of the Greek word "geneseos". You have been trying to demonstrate that it means "origin, beginning" and here you finally define what "origin, beginning" means to you. You say that you interpret that word to mean: "………when any mother conceives a child -- that is, that a new life is beginning at that moment." 
        > > > You have pointed me to Matthew and Luke. Matthew takes me back to Abraham. Do you then interpret that to mean that Sarah "conceived" Jesus and that is the moment His new life began?
        > > > Luke takes me back to Adam. Do you also then interpret that to mean that Eve "conceived" Jesus and that is the moment His new life began?
        > > > All I am seeing here is tradition interfering with the Truth!
        > > > You Say= I follow the hermeneutical principle that states we should interpret the difficult passages from the perspective of the clear passages.
        > > > It is only difficult because you don't "see" it yet.
        > > > Faithfully in the Truth,
        > > > Kevin
        > > > =============================
        > > > --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, "Gregory H" johannwilhelm1932@ wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Hi Kevin,
        > > > >
        > > > > Your dislike of labels led me to believe that you thought I had ill
        > > > > motives in trying to classify you. I'm sorry if this was a wrong
        > > > > impression on my part. I absolutely agree with what you wrote in your
        > > > > second paragraph. Christians are quick to label other Christians they
        > > > > don't agree with as heretics and cultists. This is a sad, sad reality
        > > > > as far as I'm concerned, and frankly, it has more than once nearly
        > > > > turned me off from Christianity. Don't worry -- that is NOT the game I
        > > > > play. I simply wanted to be able to "label" you so that I could better
        > > > > understand your beliefs, not to put you in a box and condemn you to hell
        > > > > for it. One time I was having a very calm, rational discussion about
        > > > > the nature of God with someone on a forum and when I revealed my
        > > > > non-preexistence unitarian views I was automatically charged with being
        > > > > a JW and reading their version of the Scripture exclusively! Talk about
        > > > > jumping to conclusions!
        > > > >
        > > > > Anyway, it is obvious that there are some fundamental things that you
        > > > > and I disagree on, but that's okay by me. As I said, each person has to
        > > > > follow his conscience and be convinced in his mind. One thing we
        > > > > definitely disagree on is the fact that you keep stressing that you are
        > > > > not interpreting scripture but rather are simply taking the Bible for
        > > > > what it says. I happen to think that we all have filters through which
        > > > > we view things. Every reading of Scripture, in my opinion, is an
        > > > > interpretation of Scripture. So, for instance, you believe something
        > > > > akin to Arianism because you say it is what is clearly taught in
        > > > > Scripture. But, in my view, when it says all things are from the
        > > > > Father, and all are through Jesus Christ, you are interpreting the text
        > > > > by taking "through Jesus Christ" to mean he literally preexisted and was
        > > > > the channel through which God commenced the Genesis creation. You say
        > > > > that I'm not taking Scripture at face value by rejecting such a reading,
        > > > > but in fact, I am taking Scripture at face value -- the birth narratives
        > > > > in Matthew and Luke and the Old Testament prophecies that declare that a
        > > > > man, a genuine human being (not some preexistent spirit) to be the
        > > > > Messiah, someone who had an origin, a beginning, which was at his
        > > > > conception in his mother's womb. There's no other way to read Matthew
        > > > > and Luke in my view. They describe the absolute beginning point at
        > > > > which Jesus came into existence. The very first line of the New
        > > > > Testament reads, "The book of the genesis of Jesus Christ, son of David,
        > > > > son of Abraham." "Genesis" means origin, beginning. Even the TNIV, a
        > > > > translation dominated by Trinitarians, has in the footnotes that this
        > > > > passage could read, "the origin of Jesus Christ". Now to me, "origin"
        > > > > is straightforward. I don't read into the Scripture that it must mean
        > > > > only a certain kind of origin, namely the bringing into the world a
        > > > > human being who actually preexisted as a spirit being prior to the
        > > > > conception. I take it to mean the origin of a human being such as takes
        > > > > place when any mother conceives a child -- that is, that a new life is
        > > > > beginning at that moment. Likewise, Luke uses the word "begotten" to
        > > > > describe the holy child's miraculous conception. Begotten means
        > > > > "brought into existence." I take Luke and Matthew at face value, then,
        > > > > because those seem to me to be the clear passages, where others
        > > > > throughout the New Testament that seem to hint at Jesus' preexistence
        > > > > seem to me to be the more difficult texts. I follow the hermeneutical
        > > > > principle that states we should interpret the difficult passages from
        > > > > the perspective of the clear passages. So, in my view, when all factors
        > > > > are taken into consideration, the scale tips in the favor of Jesus
        > > > > beginning his existence in his mother's womb.
        > > > >
        > > > > So, naturally, I disagree with you when you say that the Socinian view
        > > > > is not taught in the Scriptures. But I do understand the reasoning
        > > > > process that has led you to reject that view.
        > > > >
        > > > > By the way, I really do not like the term "Socinian," for two reasons.
        > > > > One, it implies that this belief system goes back no further than
        > > > > Socinus in the 16th century, and two, Socinianism entails any number of
        > > > > different doctrinal beliefs, many of which I do not subscribe to. But I
        > > > > tend to keep using the term because I haven't run across an alternate
        > > > > term which describes my view. I could call myself a "unitarian" or
        > > > > "biblical unitarian", but obviously some unitarians believe in the
        > > > > preexistence of Christ, so that doesn't really work.
        > > > >
        > > > > Greg
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, "retrofit1965"
        > > > > retrofit1965@ wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Hi Greg,
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You Say = "You seem to imply that I had ill motives in classifying
        > > > > > you as an "Arian"…….
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Sometimes it is so difficult to communicate concerning theological
        > > > > > matters without someone becoming offended at something that is said.
        > > > > > What in my comments would have caused you to think such a thing?
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You aren't the first one that has labeled me an Arian. In most of
        > > > > > the other forums that I participate in, one of the very first things
        > > > > > that happen, as soon as I disagree with someone concerning a subject
        > > > > > such as this one, is the application of an "ism". I have been
        > > > > > accused of being a Polytheist, a Monotheist, a JW, a Oneness, a SDA,
        > > > > an
        > > > > > Arian, a Universalist, a Mormon, etc. even a Trinitarian! And they
        > > > > > almost always follow the "ism" label with the word
        > > > > > "cult". They have condemned and sent me to their "hell"
        > > > > > so many times, I think they might be praying to God to have a
        > > > > especially
        > > > > > "hot" section in that "hell" set aside for me. You are
        > > > > > not going to do that, are you? LOL!
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Anyways, my wondering about your "ism" labeling has now ended
        > > > > > since you explained why you did so. By the way, the comment about
        > > > > > "TRUTH-ism" was just a tongue-in-cheek comment related to the
        > > > > > "ism-izings" that was going on.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You Say = "Don't we all aspire to be Scriptural "Truthists"?
        > > > > >
        > > > > > One would certainly expect that to be the case. Jesus Christ is the
        > > > > Way,
        > > > > > the TRUTH and the Life (John 14:6). He is the Word of God and His Word
        > > > > > is TRUTH (John 17:17). There is no other Way. But unfortunately, many
        > > > > > prefer the word of men over the Word of TRUTH (1Thes. 2:13).
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You Say = "Yea, some folks would prefer to cling to their traditions
        > > > > > over Scripture, but I think you get my point."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Yes I know, like the Pharisees and those who followed them clung to
        > > > > > their traditions over what Jesus told them. (Mark 7:13)
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You Say = "Every sincerely seeking person I've ever met, regardless
        > > > > > of what "categories" they fit in, consider themselves in line with the
        > > > > > Truth of Scripture."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > They may consider themselves to be in line with the Truth, but do they
        > > > > > really believe and follow the One Who has said He is the Way, the
        > > > > TRUTH
        > > > > > and the Life rather then follow the words of men (1Thes. 22:13; John
        > > > > > 8:24)?
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You Say = "You are convinced that your interpretation of the
        > > > > > Biblical data is correct……."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I don't do "interpretations", I quote Scripture and filter
        > > > > > what others quote and tell me through those same Scriptures. The ones
        > > > > > that do "interpretations" are those who quote Scripture and then
        > > > > > tell you "it means this" and "it means that."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You Continue = "……..and that it's absolutely clear what the Bible
        > > > > > teaches……."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Why of course it IS clear, especially on this subject. It is very
        > > > > clear
        > > > > > if you have the eyes to "see".
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You Say = "So, from the perspective of a non-Christian who is coming
        > > > > > to the Bible and Christianity for the first time, what he sees is a
        > > > > vast
        > > > > > array of different camps that believe different things about God,
        > > > > Jesus,
        > > > > > the nature of salvation, the content of the gospel, the relationship
        > > > > of
        > > > > > law and grace, etc., etc., all of whom claim that their beliefs are
        > > > > the
        > > > > > correct ones and that, furthermore, Scripture clearly teaches them."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > There is no doubt that such ones would face a Christianity with a
        > > > > > "Babel" like belief system. That is why they need the Word of
        > > > > > God and not the words and traditions of men and that Word is Jesus
        > > > > > Christ, Who is the Way, the TRUTH and the Life. However, in our
        > > > > > discussion we were talking about a very specific topic, the Shama, as
        > > > > > quoted by you, that those non-believers would read.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You Say = "You have yet to demonstrate to me why you are any
        > > > > > different than anyone else in this respect."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Read my posts and follow the Scripture references.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You Say = "So you are an Arian, whether you like that term or not.
        > > > > > Fact is, you fall in line with traditional Arian teachings. Good, I
        > > > > now
        > > > > > have a framework within which to understand your views."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > No, I am not and it has nothing to do with liking it or not. It is
        > > > > just
        > > > > > a man-made slogan. Nevertheless, if an "Arian" person's
        > > > > > belief lines up with what God has revealed in His Word, then that
        > > > > > "Arian" person is in THE TRUTH, just as it would for a
        > > > > > "Socinian" person. It is as simple as that.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You Say = "But significantly, you then say you believe this "Because
        > > > > > that is exactly what God has revealed in His Word."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You have quoted me accurately.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You Say = "You then add, "But you don't believe what He has revealed
        > > > > > in His Word. Why not?" I honestly don't know whether I should chuckle
        > > > > > or get a bit angry here."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You ought not get "angry" Greg, not even a little bit. I was
        > > > > > honestly seeking to find out why it is you will not believe the
        > > > > abundant
        > > > > > Scriptural evidence that has been provided and is available concerning
        > > > > > the pre-existence of the One Who became Jesus the Christ (John
        > > > > 8:42-43,
        > > > > > 45, 57-58).
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You Say And Ask = "You wrote regarding John 1:1 and the Word, "What
        > > > > > John therefore, is relating is that at some beginning point in time or
        > > > > > at some starting point was THE Word." I have read Trinitarian scholars
        > > > > > who conclude just the opposite of what you conclude here; they insist
        > > > > > that the construction of the sentence indicates that in fact there was
        > > > > > not a point in which the Word came into existence. So what do you say
        > > > > > to this?"
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I say 1Cor. 8:7 applies to those scholars.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You Say = "That dozens of very intelligent and spiritually committed
        > > > > > Trinitarian scholars are simply mistaken? Or, rather, that they offer
        > > > > a
        > > > > > valid alternative interpretation to yours?
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Yes they are mistaken. Just as dozens of very intelligent and
        > > > > > traditionally committed Pharisee scholars were plainly mistaken
        > > > > > concerning Jesus Christ. In fact, one of the most zealous Pharisee and
        > > > > > one of the best educated, the Apostle Paul, found out just how
        > > > > mistaken
        > > > > > he really was. He ultimately ended up concluding that all of that
        > > > > > scholarly knowledge and training he had received was nothing but DUNG!
        > > > > >
        > > > > > And yes, those "Trinitarian scholars" do offer an
        > > > > > "alternative" view but it is not Scripturally valid because, as
        > > > > > you say, it is their "interpretation".
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You Ask = "So, that brings me back to the fundamental question:
        > > > > > which interpretation of Scripture is correct?"
        > > > > >
        > > > > > "Interpretation" is one thing translation is quite another. And
        > > > > > again, I do not interpret. Instead, I do this (Acts 17:11) with
        > > > > > translations.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You Say = "But I would never say that my Socinian view is "clearly
        > > > > > taught" in the Bible to the exclusion of all other views. That would
        > > > > be
        > > > > > absurd and arrogant."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > And you shouldn't because it is not clearly taught in the
        > > > > > Scriptures. And why would speaking truthfully about something be an
        > > > > > "absurd and arrogant" thing to do? That doesn't make sense.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You Say = "So forgive me if I don't agree with you that the Arian
        > > > > > view is what is "clearly revealed in God's Word."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Forgive you for what? I did not demand that you agree with me. On the
        > > > > > other hand, the TRUTH about Christ's pre-existence IS clearly
        > > > > > revealed in the Scriptures. The thing is that many fall under the
        > > > > > category mentioned in (1Cor. 8:7). That is why they don't
        > > > > > "see" it.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You Say = "Now, given my failure to see eye to eye with you, you now
        > > > > > have to explain why that is the case."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Shucks no Greg, I don't have to do any such thing. The One you need
        > > > > > to see "eye to eye" with is our Mediator, Christ Jesus, Who is
        > > > > > the Way, THE TRUTH, and the life. The reason you don't "see"
        > > > > > is because you also fall under this category (1Cor. 8:7) at this time.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You Say = "I suppose you'll declare that it's the result of me
        > > > > > falling under the influence of Satan, or bad teachers, or not praying
        > > > > > enough, or relying too much on human reason, or not being one of God's
        > > > > > chosen, or...and so on."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You should not be making suppositions that are not true.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You Say = "Whatever the explanation, it will make you feel good to
        > > > > > think that you are, on the other hand, one of those special people on
        > > > > > planet earth who has come to understand God's Truth."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You also can come to a realization of God's TRUTH. All you have to
        > > > > > do is ask Him, for yourself and others. You can do something similar
        > > > > to
        > > > > > this:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Eph. 1:16-17 = Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you
        > > > > > in MY PRAYERS; That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of
        > > > > > glory, may give unto you the spirit of WISDOM and REVELATION in the
        > > > > > KNOWLEDGE OF HIM.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You Say = "We all have to be convinced in our own minds."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Yes, that is true. It is THROUGH His Holy Spirit that He does His
        > > > > > convincing.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Faithfully in His Truth,
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Kevin
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > ========================================
        > > > > > --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, "Gregory H"
        > > > > > johannwilhelm1932@ wrote:
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Kevin,
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Human beings classify data, that's just how we are. Creating
        > > > > > > categories, "isms" if you will, helps us to organize our thoughts.
        > > > > You
        > > > > > > seem to imply that I had ill motives in classifying you as an
        > > > > "Arian",
        > > > > > > but that couldn't be further from the truth. I was simply trying to
        > > > > > > understand where you are coming from, based on the various options
        > > > > we
        > > > > > > have and how they are traditionally labeled (Trinitarian,
        > > > > Binitarian,
        > > > > > > Arian, Oneness, Socinian).
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Now, you say that if I would like to "brand" you with an ism, you
        > > > > > > "wouldn't mind the label of being a Scriptural TRUTH-ism." Don't we
        > > > > > all
        > > > > > > aspire to be Scriptural "Truthists"? Yea, some folks would prefer to
        > > > > > > cling to their traditions over Scripture, but I think you get my
        > > > > > point.
        > > > > > > Every sincerely seeking person I've ever met, regardless of what
        > > > > > > "categories" they fit in, consider themselves in line with the Truth
        > > > > > of
        > > > > > > Scripture. You are no different. You are convinced that your
        > > > > > > interpretation of the Biblical data is correct, and that it's
        > > > > > absolutely
        > > > > > > clear what the Bible teaches, but as I have pointed out over and
        > > > > over
        > > > > > > again, this is what everyone believes. So, from the perspective of a
        > > > > > > non-Christian who is coming to the Bible and Christianity for the
        > > > > > first
        > > > > > > time, what he sees is a vast array of different camps that believe
        > > > > > > different things about God, Jesus, the nature of salvation, the
        > > > > > content
        > > > > > > of the gospel, the relationship of law and grace, etc., etc., all of
        > > > > > > whom claim that their beliefs are the correct ones and that,
        > > > > > > furthermore, Scripture clearly teaches them. You have yet to
        > > > > > > demonstrate to me why you are any different than anyone else in this
        > > > > > > respect.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > You responded to my assessment of what you believe (that the Father
        > > > > > > existed alone initially, then brought forth the Word as his first
        > > > > > > creation, etc.) by confirming that that is in fact what you believe.
        > > > > > So
        > > > > > > you are an Arian, whether you like that term or not. Fact is, you
        > > > > fall
        > > > > > > in line with traditional Arian teachings. Good, I now have a
        > > > > framework
        > > > > > > within which to understand your views. But significantly, you then
        > > > > say
        > > > > > > you believe this "Because that is exactly what God has revealed in
        > > > > His
        > > > > > > Word." You then add, "But you don't believe what He has revealed in
        > > > > > His
        > > > > > > Word. Why not?" I honestly don't know whether I should chuckle or
        > > > > get
        > > > > > a
        > > > > > > bit angry here. There are lots of people, Kevin, who would disagree
        > > > > > > with you that Arianism is "exactly what God has revealed in His
        > > > > Word."
        > > > > > > I have studied these issues myself very thoroughly, and I also
        > > > > > disagree
        > > > > > > with that assessment. The fact is, there are many different ways to
        > > > > > > interpret the Biblical text, and the Arian view is not necessarily
        > > > > the
        > > > > > > most natural or obvious reading.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Your analysis of John is certainly plausible. I don't deny that it
        > > > > is
        > > > > > > possible that the Arian interpretation of John 1 is correct.
        > > > > However,
        > > > > > > surely you will admit that Socinians and Trinitarians, among others,
        > > > > > > have their own interpretations, too, and it is not at all clear
        > > > > which
        > > > > > > one is correct. In other words, it is quite obvious that no
        > > > > particular
        > > > > > > view is "obviously correct" or else everyone would accept that view.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > You wrote regarding John 1:1 and the Word, "What John therefore, is
        > > > > > > relating is that at some beginning point in time or at some starting
        > > > > > > point was THE Word." I have read Trinitarian scholars who conclude
        > > > > > just
        > > > > > > the opposite of what you conclude here; they insist that the
        > > > > > > construction of the sentence indicates that in fact there was not a
        > > > > > > point in which the Word came into existence. So what do you say to
        > > > > > > this? That dozens of very intelligent and spiritually committed
        > > > > > > Trinitarian scholars are simply mistaken? Or, rather, that they
        > > > > offer
        > > > > > a
        > > > > > > valid alternative interpretation to yours? I think the latter is the
        > > > > > > case.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > So, that brings me back to the fundamental question: which
        > > > > > > interpretation of Scripture is correct? I lean towards a Socinian
        > > > > view
        > > > > > > (that the Father alone is God and that Jesus began his existence in
        > > > > > his
        > > > > > > mother's womb) because, as a result of my studies, I have concluded
        > > > > > that
        > > > > > > it makes the best sense of the Biblical testimony as a whole (which
        > > > > I
        > > > > > > can go into more detail about later). I understand and appreciate
        > > > > the
        > > > > > > Trinitarian and Arian arguments even though I don't believe they are
        > > > > > > true. But I would never say that my Socinian view is "clearly
        > > > > taught"
        > > > > > > in the Bible to the exclusion of all other views. That would be
        > > > > absurd
        > > > > > > and arrogant.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > So forgive me if I don't agree with you that the Arian view is what
        > > > > is
        > > > > > > "clearly revealed in God's Word." Now, given my failure to see eye
        > > > > to
        > > > > > > eye with you, you now have to explain why that is the case. I
        > > > > suppose
        > > > > > > you'll declare that it's the result of me falling under the
        > > > > influence
        > > > > > of
        > > > > > > Satan, or bad teachers, or not praying enough, or relying too much
        > > > > on
        > > > > > > human reason, or not being one of God's chosen, or...and so on.
        > > > > > > Whatever the explanation, it will make you feel good to think that
        > > > > you
        > > > > > > are, on the other hand, one of those special people on planet earth
        > > > > > who
        > > > > > > has come to understand God's Truth.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > So be it. We all have to be convinced in our own minds.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Greg
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > --- In Biblical_Unitarian@yahoogroups.com, "retrofit1965"
        > > > > > > retrofit1965@ wrote:
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Hi Again Greg,
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > YOU SAY = "It seems to me that you are espousing a brand of
        > > > > > > > Arianism……"
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > That is interesting. Why is it that fellow Christians always feel
        > > > > > the
        > > > > > > > need to "classify" someone who has a different understanding of
        > > > > > > > Scripture other than their own, into one of those "isms" they
        > > > > > > > themselves patronize? Is it because they do not understand what is
        > > > > > > being
        > > > > > > > pointed out to them and are uncomfortable with something that has
        > > > > > not
        > > > > > > > been "isom-ed"? Or is it because it will make them feel superior
        > > > > > > > when comparing to their own "ism"? Just wondering.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > By the way, I am not of that particular "brand" of "ism"
        > > > > > > > you mentioned but if you would like to "brand" me with one, I
        > > > > > > > wouldn't mind the label of being a Scriptural TRUTH-ism".
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > YOU ASK = "Is this an accurate description of what you believe?
        > > > > > > > ...............where at one time in eternity past the Father
        > > > > existed
        > > > > > > > alone, and then at some point before the creation of all else he
        > > > > > > > "brought forth" his Word, his firstborn son, and through this Word
        > > > > > > > created all else. In this view, then, the Son hasn't always
        > > > > existed
        > > > > > as
        > > > > > > > a distinct personal hypostasis, but did preexist his human life on
        > > > > > > earth
        > > > > > > > as Jesus the Christ. "
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > YES! Because that is exactly what God has revealed in His Word.
        > > > > But
        > > > > > > you
        > > > > > > > don't believe what He has revealed in His Word. Why not?
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > YOU SAY = "Every teacher I've studied who is espousing one of
        > > > > these
        > > > > > > > views thinks the Scriptures are "beautifully plain and clear" on
        > > > > the
        > > > > > > > matter and they provide Scripture to back up their claims."
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Yes, I know they do and that is why Paul was inspired to write
        > > > > that
        > > > > > > not
        > > > > > > > all possess this particular knowledge of God and His Christ.
        > > > > (1Cor.
        > > > > > > 8:7)
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > YOU ASK = "What makes you conclude that there is no way that
        > > > > kolpos
        > > > > > > > "could possibly suggest a plan in God's mind, not even remotely"?
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Why the CONTEXT does, of course! But since you asked, let's take a
        > > > > > > > look at the six occurrences of "kolpos" in the NT:
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > John 13:23 = "There was at the table reclining in Jesus' bosom
        > > > > (Gr.
        > > > > > > > kolpo) one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved."
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Surely you are not going to suggest that the disciple reclining on
        > > > > > > > Jesus' bosom at that particular time was only "in God's mind
        > > > > > > > and plan", a mere "potentiality" as you put it, are you?
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Luke 16:22-23 = "And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and
        > > > > that
        > > > > > > > he was carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom (Gr.
        > > > > kolpon):
        > > > > > > and
        > > > > > > > the rich man also died, and was buried. And in Hades he lifted up
        > > > > > his
        > > > > > > > eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus
        > > > > in
        > > > > > > his
        > > > > > > > bosom (Gr. kolpois).
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Same question applies here concerning Lazarus.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > LUKE 6:38 = "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure,
        > > > > > > > pressed down, shaken together, running over, shall they give into
        > > > > > your
        > > > > > > > bosom (Gr. kolpon). For with what measure ye mete it shall be
        > > > > > measured
        > > > > > > > to you again."
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Are these blessings and all of those other things Jesus mentioned
        > > > > > only
        > > > > > > a
        > > > > > > > mere "plan in God's mind"?
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > ACTS 27:39 = "And when it was day, they knew not the land: but
        > > > > they
        > > > > > > > perceived a certain bay (Gr. kolpon) with a beach, and they took
        > > > > > > counsel
        > > > > > > > whether they could drive the ship upon it."
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Was this bay also only a "potentiality" and which only existed
        > > > > > > > as a "plan in God's mind" at the time Paul and those sailors
        > > > > > > > saw it?
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > JOHN 1:18 = "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten
        > > > > > > > GOD, who is in the bosom (Gr. kolpon) of the Father, he hath
        > > > > > declared
        > > > > > > > him."
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Please note that word that was translated as "SON" here is the
        > > > > > > > Greek word THEOS which means God. HUION is the Greek word for
        > > > > > > > "SON". And that is all that needs to be said about this one.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > YOU STATE = I think such usage harmonizes quite well with the
        > > > > > Socinian
        > > > > > > > view that God's Word, which ultimately expressed itself in the
        > > > > > person
        > > > > > > of
        > > > > > > > Jesus Christ, existed in God's "bosom" in a unique and special way
        > > > > > --
        > > > > > > as
        > > > > > > > potentiality.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > But of course it would…….in the "ism" of
        > > > > > > > "Socinianism" it probably does "harmonize", but it most
        > > > > > > > certainly does not "harmonize" with "Scriptural
        > > > > > > > TRUTH-ism".
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > YOU ALSO SAY = "The Word was with God and was God, because it was
        > > > > > > > his very own Word -- not a distinct, conscious hypostasis. Only
        > > > > with
        > > > > > > > the conception of Jesus in his mother's womb did the Word come to
        > > > > be
        > > > > > a
        > > > > > > > distinct person, a center of consciousness all its own. And of
        > > > > > course
        > > > > > > > this does not mean that the Word was exhausted in the person
        > > > > Jesus.
        > > > > > > God
        > > > > > > > will always have his Word, just as you and I will always have our
        > > > > > > Word,
        > > > > > > > even though the Word "became flesh" in Jesus."
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Well now, let's really take a close look at John 1:1 -2 and THE
        > > > > Word
        > > > > > > > and THE God and just God:
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > "In beginning was.………"
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > First of all, the Greek definite article "ho" or "THE"
        > > > > > > > was not inspired to be used here which indicates that this is not
        > > > > an
        > > > > > > > ABSOLUTE beginning but just a beginning of which the Scriptures
        > > > > > > mention
        > > > > > > > several. What John therefore, is relating is that at some
        > > > > beginning
        > > > > > > > point in time or at some starting point was THE Word. Second,
        > > > > > YAHWEH,
        > > > > > > > the Most High God, had no beginning but the Word most certainly
        > > > > did.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > "……the Word…….."
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Now here, the Greek definite article "ho" or "THE" was
        > > > > > > > definitely inspired to be used and therefore it is referring to
        > > > > the
        > > > > > > > ABSOLUTE or unique Word of God, and which did have a beginning.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > "……and the Word was with……."
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > The Greek word "pros" (with) indicates direction or pointing
        > > > > > > > towards someone or something.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > "………THE God….…"
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Here also, the Greek definite article "ho" or "THE" was
        > > > > > > > inspired to be used, but not translated, indicating that it is
        > > > > > > referring
        > > > > > > > to the ABSOLUTE God and that the Word was pointing towards or in
        > > > > the
        > > > > > > > direction of this Most High God.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > "……..and God was the Word."
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > The way I have shown the above is the correct word order in the
        > > > > > Greek.
        > > > > > > > Note that the Greek definite article "ho" or "THE" was
        > > > > > > > not inspired before the word "God", indicating that even though
        > > > > > > > the Word was God; it was NOT THE Most High God.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > "The same was in the beginning with THE God."
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > But here, the Greek definite article "ho" or "THE" was
        > > > > > > > again inspired to be used in conjunction with the word "God",
        > > > > > > > indicating THE Most High God.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Putting it all together this is how John 1:1-2 reads to me:
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > At some beginning point in time, (or to start with), was THE Word,
        > > > > > and
        > > > > > > > THE Word was directing us towards THE God and a God was THE Word.
        > > > > > This
        > > > > > > > same THE Word was at some beginning point in time directing us
        > > > > > towards
        > > > > > > > THE God.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Then in John 1:14 the Apostle explains that this Word, Who was
        > > > > God,
        > > > > > > but
        > > > > > > > not THE GOD, became flesh.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > YOU SAY = "When you disparagingly claim that I am espousing belief
        > > > > > > > in only one elohim……"
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > How unfortunate that you concluded so. I am sorry that you mistook
        > > > > > my
        > > > > > > > comments concerning your quote of a portion of Mark 12:32 as
        > > > > > > > "disparaging". That certainly was not my intent. Nevertheless,
        > > > > > > > you did miss the point I was trying to make. Here, let me try and
        > > > > > > > clarify it further for you. This is what you posted earlier:
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > "I think the monotheism of the Bible -- in both Testaments --
        > > > > > > > demands that we approach the issue very carefully and seriously,
        > > > > for
        > > > > > > God
        > > > > > > > is one and there is none other but he."
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Now let's say that someone, such as a new Believer or even a
        > > > > > > > non-believer, were to read the above, what impression do you
        > > > > suppose
        > > > > > > > they would come away with? Wouldn't they not conclude that
        > > > > biblical
        > > > > > > > monotheism, as you suggested, consists of the understanding that
        > > > > > there
        > > > > > > > is ONE GOD and NO OTHERS but Him?
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > But that is not what the "Shama" teaches, as I attempted to
        > > > > > > > show, apparently unsuccessfully. What would those same individuals
        > > > > > > come
        > > > > > > > away with when they read the same thing in this way?:
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Deut. 6: 4 = "Hear, O Israel: YAHWEH our God is one YAHWEH."
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Deut. 6: 13-15 = "Thou shalt fear YAHWEH thy God; and him shalt
        > > > > thou
        > > > > > > > serve, and shalt swear by his name. ye shall not go after other
        > > > > > gods,
        > > > > > > of
        > > > > > > > the gods of the peoples that are round about you…………."
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Would they not conclude that even though there are other gods,
        > > > > there
        > > > > > > is
        > > > > > > > only ONE GOD Whose Name is YAHWEH and He is not only the God of
        > > > > > Israel
        > > > > > > > but the God of all of the other gods? Isn't that exactly the same
        > > > > > > > thing Paul said in 1Cor. 8:5-6? That is all I was trying to get
        > > > > at.
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > YOU ASK = "……..are you suggesting that all these other elohim
        > > > > > > have
        > > > > > > > eternally existed with God?"
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > How can you possibly ask me a question like that after having read
        > > > > > my
        > > > > > > > last post to you? Seriously now, did you really read the whole
        > > > > post?
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > > Faithfully in His "Truth-ism",
        > > > > > > >
        > > > > > > &g

        (Message over 64 KB, truncated)
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.