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

Re: Christian Monotheism/Unitary Monotheism & the Biblical Monotheistic Way of Life

Expand Messages
  • Isa
    Hi, Jamey: After seriously studying the problem of the One God of the Shema of the Jews and the Doctrine of the Trinity of Christianity, I have come to the
    Message 1 of 50 , Jul 31, 2011
      Hi, Jamey:

      After seriously studying the problem of the One God of the Shema of the Jews and the Doctrine of the Trinity of Christianity, I have come to the conclusion of the TRINITY as the One Infinite God's FINITE, thus Personified, Manifestation of the One God's INFINITE REALITY without which manifestation/revelation we would never know the EXISTENCE and NATURE of the One Infinite God.

      And these were the One God's revelation of His essence/nature:

      (1) God the Father as the One God's personified CREATIVE WILL (willing out whatever the One Infinite God desires),

      (2) God the Son as the One God's personified CREATIVE WORD (calling out all things the Father wills) and

      (3) God the Holy Spirit as the One God's CREATIVE POWER bringing into reality what the Father willed and the Son called out.

      All Three working things out in complete UNITY or as ONE!

      I believe that Yahweh/Jehovah of the OT, being also DEFINED IN FORM, as Moses attested, was also GOD THE SON, also the WORD in non-human FORM, also the CHRIST Spirit in form prior to His incarnation as the Man Jesus.

      This is the way I see it, supported by the Bible, to make sense of the Oneness of God and the God-Man nature of Jesus.

      God bless,

      ISA
      ------

      --- In Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com, "james m clark jr" <Yaakov2819@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > Well I suppose that would leave me out, I do need to go back over much of the Unitarian and other simular nonUnitarian forms within Christian Monotheism anyway. It appears that I was in error regarding the Pentecostal Oneness doctrine as Unitarian in much the same way that Wiki places some in error of a New Age Movement such as The Swedenborgians. Perhaps in a modern sense it is why Catholic theologians and others do not refer to the Swedenborgians today as it was precived in Thomas Jeffersons day. Ironically making this mistake is basically stating what many have come to believe a modern projection of the past that's more like reciting comic traits of helpless heros.
      >
      > Isa stated:
      >
      > It took the best minds of the Church 325 years to come up with the doctrine of the Trinity to explain and smooth out the seemingly apparent contradictions in the Bible as regards the MAN-GOD
      > Jesus.
      >
      > If this is even remotely true where is the Man-Mother-Jesus G-d-godess in all this smoothness in those trying times of martyrdom and blood shed. It would seem more reasonable to associate Spirit with Word. Some do refer to the Bible as the Word of G-d and it is G-d breathed by most breathern/saints somewhat like the Breath of G-d. Yet ironically many fumble regarding the word sent to John by a personal angel a spokesperson/messenger according to John called the Revelation of Jesus Christ which was not intended for nonbelievers or as some commentators have it as best be left alone. Yet this angel is also Jesus? So in all this smoothness really you have Word-Jesus-Angel Mikha'el goddess G-dfather family? A created being who had to be born of a woman before becoming the only begotten Son to this very day. That is more than a remarkable feat. And it gets really chaotic Jehovah is the Father and the Holy Spirit is an IT. It however seems to be the Fathers it and it had to be given to Jesus to be given to most of us. That is unbelivable G-d has a Spirit that is that humble.
      >
      > Contrary to popular belief regarding Unitarians there are many Christians who worship Jesus and Praise him because he alone is worthy among men and it is through G-d's Spirit that we also abide in both Scripture & the Blood Covenant which was bound by Love & Blood according to Law. So if you think about it some Synods and many creeds are relitively also New Age of the old world. No wonder there is a wrath to come to set smooth things straight again we are just incapable of literally saving ourselves yet we proclaim true salvation. You know as far as the so called anti trinty concept where is my antimostiy. Is it as you think my salvation is incomplete because I'm a Unitarian or rather a nonTrinitarian therefore I am incapable of leading others to salvation. I know first hand the depths of deception. Avoiding that again is always in question.
      >
      > be well,
      > jamey
      > --- In Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com, "Isa" <isalcordo@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Geoff:
      > >
      > > Instead of telling me to do an in-depth study of the preposition "with", why don't you give me your understanding of the verses in discussion to justify that the "WORD" is "the One and only God" or "is the One Father God" or "is the Trinity," as Peter claims. if you are a Trinitarian Christian
      > >
      > > Isa
      > > --------
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Geoff <geoff@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > You really ought to not base your theology on what the english meanings
      > > > of words are..
      > > > ESPECIALLY when you are picking holes in such an important passage of
      > > > Scripture.
      > > >
      > > > The word translated as "with" has far more depth to it.
      > > > At it's most basic (but I recommend you do a more indepth word study):
      > > > Definition: 1) to the advantage of 2) at, near, by 3) to, towards,
      > > > with, with regard to
      > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > a strengthened form of4253 <http://net.bible.org/#>; a preposition of
      > > > direction; forward to, i.e. toward (with the genitive case, the side of,
      > > > i.e. pertaining to; with the dative case, by the side of, i.e. near to;
      > > > usually with the accusative case, the place, time, occasion, or respect,
      > > > which is the destination of the relation, i.e. whither or for which it
      > > > is predicated):-about, according to , against, among, at, because of,
      > > > before, between, (where-)by, for, X at thy house, in, for intent, nigh
      > > > unto, of, which pertain to, that, to (the end that), X together, to
      > > > (you) -ward, unto, with(-in). In the comparative case, it denotes
      > > > essentially the same applications, namely, motion towards, accession to,
      > > > or nearness at.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > On 31/07/11 12:28, Isa wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Hi, Peter:
      > > > >
      > > > > Let me repeat your quote of Genesis: "In the beginning was the Word,
      > > > > and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was
      > > > > with God in the beginning."
      > > > >
      > > > > Please note: ". . . the Word was WITH God." And "He was WITH God in
      > > > > the beginning." How could the WORD (Jesus) be WITH Someone if He alone
      > > > > was ONE? How could the WORD (Jesus) be the TRINITY and at the same
      > > > > time one of the Trinity?"
      > > > >
      > > > > Also, explain to me Jn 20:17 which I quote: Jesus said, "Go instead to
      > > > > my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your
      > > > > Father, to my God and your God'" (NIV). . . . If JESUS IS THE ONE GOD,
      > > > > IS THE TRINITY, WHO MUST ALSO BE THE FATHER?
      > > > >
      > > > > Open your mind. It took the best minds of the Church 325 years to come
      > > > > up with the doctrine of the Trinity to explain and smooth out the
      > > > > seemingly apparent contradictions in the Bible as regards the MAN-GOD
      > > > > Jesus. And the Church continue to claim the Trinity as the One God
      > > > > instead of being a mere collective term for the
      > > > > Three-Finite-Manifestations of the One Infinite God, hence absolutely
      > > > > UNKNOWABLE and UNPERCEIVABLE - unless He reveals Himself to His finite
      > > > > creatures by emanating finite manifestations of His infinite REALITY -
      > > > > each having the essence and the fulness of the One God but doing
      > > > > assigned roles in full UNITY in creation and salvation history!
      > > > >
      > > > > The greatest mystery is NOT the Trinity, as the present churches
      > > > > claim, but the ONE INFINITE GOD! The Shema declares, "Hear of Israel,
      > > > > the LORD your God, the LORD is ONE!"
      > > > >
      > > > > You should read my full exposition of "The Case for the One Infinite
      > > > > God behind the Trinity" in my website:
      > > > > http://www.layadvocacyforchristianunity.org
      > > > >
      > > > > ISA
      > > > > ------
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > <mailto:Christian-Philosophy%40yahoogroups.com>, Peter Silverstone
      > > > > <ongeasana@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Isa, Listen:
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > 1In
      > > > > > the beginning was the Word, and the
      > > > > > Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was
      > > > > > with God in the beginning.
      > > > > > 3Through
      > > > > > him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been
      > > > > made. 4In him
      > > > > > was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the
      > > > > > darkness, but the darkness has not understooda it.
      > > > > > 6There
      > > > > > came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a
      > > > > witness to
      > > > > > testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might
      > > > > believe. 8He
      > > > > > himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The
      > > > > > true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.b
      > > > > > 10He
      > > > > > was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the
      > > > > world did not
      > > > > > recognize him. 11He came to that which
      > > > > > was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who
      > > > > > received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right
      > > > > to become
      > > > > > children of GodâEUR" 13children
      > > > > > born not of natural descent,c nor
      > > > > > of human decision or a husbandâEUR^(TM)s will, but born of God.
      > > > > > 14The
      > > > > > Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his
      > > > > > glory, the glory of the One and Only,d who came from the Father,
      > > > > full of grace and truth. John 1:1-14
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Thannk,
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Peter
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > ________________________________
      > > > > > From: Isabelo S Alcordo <isalcordo@>
      > > > > > To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > <mailto:Christian-Philosophy%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2011 4:28 AM
      > > > > > Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Christian Monotheism/Unitary
      > > > > Monotheism & the Biblical Monotheistic Way of Life
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Â
      > > > > > H, Peter:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Jesus is MAN-GOD. According to Jesus himself. God is (a Spirit - KJV
      > > > > or Spirit- NIV) pure Spirit and that we should worship this One God in
      > > > > spirit and in truth!
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Jesus is the incarnation of the God the Son (or Son of God) of the
      > > > > Trinity of Finite Manifestations (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) of the
      > > > > One Infinite God to mankind, but Jesus is not the One God nor is he
      > > > > the Trinity as you claim, although Jesus is all that mankind will ever
      > > > > know of the One Infinite God or of the Father or of the Holy Spirit!
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Remember: "He who has seen me has seen the Father?" Or, "The Lord is
      > > > > the Spirit?" But Jesus is NOT the One Infinite God!
      > > > > >
      > > > > > ISA
      > > > > >
      > > > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > > > >From: Peter Silverstone <ongeasana@>
      > > > > > >Sent: Jul 29, 2011 12:50 AM
      > > > > > >To: "Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > <mailto:Christian-Philosophy%40yahoogroups.com>"
      > > > > <Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > <mailto:Christian-Philosophy%40yahoogroups.com>>
      > > > > > >Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Christian
      > > > > Monotheism/Unitary Monotheism & the Biblical Monotheistic Way of Life
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >Hey Isa,
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >You said, "I claim that there is a very strong spiritual "Case for
      > > > > the One God behind the Trinity."
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >I agree with you completely. The One God, behide the Trinity, is
      > > > > Jesus Christ. He, is the Trinity Manifest.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >Peter
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >________________________________
      > > > > > >From: james m clark jr <Yaakov2819@>
      > > > > > >To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > <mailto:Christian-Philosophy%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > > > >Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 5:29 PM
      > > > > > >Subject: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Christian Monotheism/Unitary
      > > > > Monotheism & the Biblical Monotheistic Way of Life
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >Â
      > > > > > >Shalom,
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >Whatever that case is I'm sure that I would agree with some
      > > > > precepts. However, I see no reason to forsake the doctrine of
      > > > > assurance of the only begotten. I fully understand trintarian views I
      > > > > think to a degree, but I represent a Christian form of Unitarian
      > > > > Monotheism that I did not select overnight because of what I was
      > > > > tought or believe. Jesus as most Christians call the son of G-d
      > > > > without a doubt is worthy of due praise and worship and aknowledgment
      > > > > of not only contrubutions of his earthly efforts & purpose but also
      > > > > his honest deeds to face strife created within reigion as it wasn't
      > > > > ment to be either in Judaism or among his followers we call Christians
      > > > > for the past 1,670 years and then some as regarding the Christian
      > > > > origin as some of the classical writers themselves atest to before
      > > > > much of dominate establishments came into existance.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >be well,
      > > > > > >jamey
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >Unitarian Monotheist
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >--- In Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > <mailto:Christian-Philosophy%40yahoogroups.com>, "Isa" <isalcordo@> wrote:
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >> Hi, Jamely and all:
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >> The Bible, both the OT and the NT, cannot be understood nor its
      > > > > contradictions explained and made understandable without the doctrine
      > > > > of the TRINITY. It took the best minds of the CHURCH 300 years to come
      > > > > up with the TRINITY doctrine so as to reconcile the Man-God nature of
      > > > > Jesus of Nazareth, which is a very obvious claim of Jesus according to
      > > > > His words and as perceived by the Bible writers, particularly Saint Paul.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >> To this day, for the Church to abide by the doctrine of the "ONE
      > > > > GOD" (MONOTHEISM) of the Shema, the Church claims that the One God is
      > > > > the TRINITY which is in error, the Trinity being simply man's
      > > > > collective term for the finite manifestations of the One God's
      > > > > INFINITE REALITY, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which
      > > > > will remain forever unknowable without them.
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >> I claim that there is a very strong spiritual "Case for the One
      > > > > God behind the Trinity."
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >> See: http://www.layadvocacyforchristianunity.org
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >> ISA
      > > > > > >> -----
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >> --- In Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > <mailto:Christian-Philosophy%40yahoogroups.com>, "james m clark jr"
      > > > > <Yaakov2819@> wrote:
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> > Shalom Haverim, [Hello Friends]
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> > Within the last half decade or so, not much could be found on
      > > > > the internet regarding Unitary Monotheism. The term as I use it from a
      > > > > Christian perspective 'Unitarian Monotheist' may have become more
      > > > > widely used following 9/11.
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> > There has always been Unitarian Monotheism. It is relavent to
      > > > > the great triune nature of the religions of Monotheism: Judaism,
      > > > > Christianity & Islam.
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> > Personally this new concept 'Chrislam' is it, is more than
      > > > > likely not related to Biblical Monothesism as Judaism as well as
      > > > > Christianity could be.
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> > Perhaps one Christian church of the few I would consider
      > > > > Unitarian Monotheist and no affileation to other Unitarians in the
      > > > > Southeastern United States is Yahwah Ministries at Yahwah
      > > > > Ministries.org. Their concern is focused on the errors of the Oneness
      > > > > doctrine of Pentecostal origin. According to them it is Shem Tov or
      > > > > "The Name" whom they call both Yahweh & Jesus - Yahwah.
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> > You have to admit that is a bit differant than other arguments.
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> > Unitariam Monotheism is not confined to the boarders of the U.S.
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> > The following is to a Unitarian Monotheists website.
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4TIbtEhc_H0J:www.christianmonotheism.com/php/media_center/media_displayer.php%3Fmode%3Ddisplay_all+unitarian+monotheism&cd=20&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
      > > > > <http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4TIbtEhc_H0J:www.christianmonotheism.com/php/media_center/media_displayer.php%3Fmode%3Ddisplay_all+unitarian+monotheism&cd=20&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com>
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> > You can read or listen what you want if the Trinity doctrine is
      > > > > a bit confusing. Unitarians are no alway just plainly clear either.
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> > Now I must reselect the sermon originally preached at the Red
      > > > > Words Church on 2-May-2010 in Melbourne, Australia.
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > http://www.christianmonotheism.com/media/audio/Steve%20Katsaras%20--%20Unitarian%20Monotheism.mp3
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> > be well,
      > > > > > >> > jamey
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4TIbtEhc_H0J:www.christianmonotheism.com/php/media_center/media_displayer.php%3Fmode%3Ddisplay_all+unitarian+monotheism&cd=20&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
      > > > > <http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4TIbtEhc_H0J:www.christianmonotheism.com/php/media_center/media_displayer.php%3Fmode%3Ddisplay_all+unitarian+monotheism&cd=20&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com>
      > > > > > >> >
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Peter Silverstone
      Steve, Thanks. I think I mention that I do not hold rigidly to any opinion, including what I now embrace. But unless and untill someone else convinces me of a
      Message 50 of 50 , Aug 11 9:38 PM


        Steve,

        Thanks. I think I mention that I do not hold rigidly to any opinion, including what I now embrace. But unless and untill someone else convinces me of a better idea, I have nothing else to hold on to. So far, what I believe in is what now makes sense, at least to me. And for now, at least you have met a "panthist" "monist" who does not begrudge you. I do not use my freedom to undermine others. I use it to understand myself, others, and the universe.

        Peter


        From: "Sbkidde@..." <Sbkidde@...>
        To: christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 8:29 PM
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Christian Monotheism/ ... Christ Incarnates & Resurrects, One Godhead, Trinity

         
        Peter,
         
        It is good to know that you can respect the right of others to disagree with your opinion.
         
        Fear is a major concern with pantheistic monism. It is feared that agreement with the position is required by the one who is advocating the philosophy.
         
        My position on human rights is that each person earns the right to respective freedoms by showing respect for the rights of others.
         
        My sense is that you have respect, but I have to warn you that you are using a dangerous philosophical position. It indicates a single party orientation in politics. Single party enthusiasts do not make things work in a democracy. They keep things from working for anyone except for those who are in the party. This kind of position uses freedom to undermine the freedom of others. That is the reason that I object to pantheism and monism. It is not because it is for a party other than my own.
         
        Steve K.


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Peter Silverstone <ongeasana@...>
        To: Christian-Philosophy <Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thu, Aug 11, 2011 12:14 pm
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Christian Monotheism/ ... Christ Incarnates & Resurrects, One Godhead, Trinity

         

        Steve,

        I respect your decision, and I respectifully disagree

        Peter


        From: "Sbkidde@..." <Sbkidde@...>
        To: christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:28 AM
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Christian Monotheism/ ... Christ Incarnates & Resurrects, One Godhead, Trinity

         
        I don't always condemn that with which I don't agree. I maintain the right to disagree with that which is false.
         
        The false beliefs are: 1) Everything is God. (Pantheism)
                                       2) Only the One is real. The many are illusion. (Monism)
         
        Steve K.


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Peter Silverstone <ongeasana@...>
        To: Christian-Philosophy <Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Wed, Aug 10, 2011 12:32 pm
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Christian Monotheism/ ... Christ Incarnates & Resurrects, One Godhead, Trinity

         

        Steve,

        You did not explain what these false believes are. Besides, one should not have a branket condemnation of believes, just because he disagrees with some ideas there in. 

        Peter


        From: "Sbkidde@..." <Sbkidde@...>
        To: christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2011 8:34 PM
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Christian Monotheism/ ... Christ Incarnates & Resurrects, One Godhead, Trinity

         
        I disagree with the most basic definitions of pantheism and monism. It is difficult to agree with much of anything in the belief systems if the premises are false. Conclusions drawn from false premises are only correct by accident.
         
        Your statements regarding the trinity are conditioned by your agreement with pantheists and monists. All you have to do to correct false arguments is agree that they are false. Then look for statements that are true (closer to the truth).
         
        Steve K.


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Peter Silverstone <ongeasana@...>
        To: Christian-Philosophy <Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2011 2:42 pm
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Christian Monotheism/ ... Christ Incarnates & Resurrects, One Godhead, Trinity

         
        Steve you said,

        Pantheists say everything is god. Monists say only the One is real. Everything else is illusion. You seem to be blending the two.

        Yeah. actually, I am. I am searching for logic. If I find it with Pantheists, I take it. If there is some of monists ideas fits somewhere, I take it. I do not, and will not take any rigid stand on anything untill, I understand the Truth. Sorry, if my logic makes you think I am high on something. I cannot hold rigidly to anything and hope to learn much. So, what do I beleive so far? Well, you will laugh, but its ok.  I believe that we are all in a dream state. Monists are right. Everything is an illusion. Pantheists are also right, Everything is God. And christians are right, God, is a Trinity.

        Peter

        From: "Sbkidde@..." <Sbkidde@...>
        To: christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 11:53 PM
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Christian Monotheism/ ... Christ Incarnates & Resurrects, One Godhead, Trinity

         
        Peter Silverstone,
         
        Is there some kind of drug called silver that you smoke to get stoned? Just kidding.
         
        I am not surprised that you have a problem with the divine community. Monists and pantheists are all about number one. I am wondering what distinction can be drawn between pantheists and monists. Pantheists say everything is god. Monists say only the One is real. Everything else is illusion. You seem to be blending the two.
         
        While monists and pantheists are distinct in basic definitions they seem to hang in the same circles. They frequent extremist bars. Go to extremist nightclubs. Pursue partners to dominate them. Drink Silverstone ale. Sorry. Kidding again...but they do seem to share an everything is all about the One attitude.
         
        Steve K.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Peter Silverstone <ongeasana@...>
        To: Christian-Philosophy <Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Wed, Aug 3, 2011 12:31 pm
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Christian Monotheism/ ... Christ Incarnates & Resurrects, One Godhead, Trinity

         

        Steve,

        You said, The Trinity is a divine community.

        I do not think the Trinity is a community. The Trinity, is One God, in three persons, They are not separate. They are differenciated. Its One and the same Godhead. In fact, when you said," God generated from God; Light from Light; True God of True God" You are right. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is One and the same God.  He is Jesus. When you call Him community, I have a problem with that.

        Peter


        From: "Sbkidde@..." <Sbkidde@...>
        To: christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2011 3:13 AM
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Christian Monotheism/ ... Christ Incarnates & Resurrects, One Godhead, Trinity

         
        Peter,
         
        Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He was incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. He became truly human. He is the only begotten of the Father: God generated from God; Light from Light; True God of True God. 
         
        The Trinity is a divine community. Belief in the Trinity promotes the resurrection and the life of the community of faith.
         
        Keep working on that distinctiveness between persons and natures.
         
        Steve K.


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Peter Silverstone <ongeasana@...>
        To: Christian-Philosophy <Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tue, Aug 2, 2011 11:31 am
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Christian Monotheism/ ... Christ Incarnates & Resurrects, One Godhead, Trinity

         
        The only being who incarnates, and resurrects, is the Christ. He incarnates, in each one of us, and resurrects to eternal life. That's the Way, the Truth, and the Life, of One Godhead, the Trinity.

        Peter


        From: "Sbkidde@..." <Sbkidde@...>
        To: christian-philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2011 2:23 AM
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Christian Monotheism/Unitary Monotheism & the Biblical Monotheistic Way of Life

         
        The Father is sometimes referred to as the Arche or source in Greek texts. The Son was generated from the Father. The Spirit proceeds from the Father. Thus, the Father was regarded as the Source.
         
        The incarnation of the Son includes the adoption of human nature by a divine person of the Trinity, but I don't think that the post that asserted that divine persons are finite is correct. Even in Hindu theology regarding incarnation, the bodies adopted by divine emanations from the Godhead into incarnate forms are finite, not the god that was being emanated.
         
        Steve K.


        -----Original Message-----
        From: Roger Clough <rclough@...>
        To: Christian-Philosophy <Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sun, Jul 31, 2011 11:01 am
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Christian Monotheism/Unitary Monotheism & the Biblical Monotheistic Way of Life

         
        
        John starts his gospel with the trinity: 
         
        In the beginning was the word (Jesus)
        And the word was with God (Holy Spirit)
        And the word was God (God).
         
        roger
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: 2011-07-30 16:53
        Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Christian Monotheism/Unitary Monotheism & the Biblical Monotheistic Way of Life

         
        The opening passage in the gospel of John as cited by Peter is dedicated to the proclamation of the Word as a divine person.
         
        The Word is equated with the Son. The Son is the second of three persons with the one divine nature in trinitarian doctrine. 
         
        The doctrine of the Logos as presented in the gospel of John is believed to have been written after the synoptic texts. It is also believed that it was written during a period of persecution, but it was probably written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
        http://www.theopedia.com/Gospel_of_John#Date
         
        Why was Jesus identified with the Logos in the gospel of John? The gospel associated the Son of God with the Word. Heraclitus was a Greek philosopher who had made statements about the Word.
        http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heraclitus/#Met
         
        The association of the Son with the Word is controversial. Heraclitus proclaimed doctrines about the constancy of change, but his advocacy was against information gathering, a trend in Greek thought and a requirement in investigation. "You can't step into the same river twice" is a statement that is associated with him. The emphasis of this statement is on the change due to the flow of water in any river. Once the water has passed the observer, the river has changed. It is no longer the same. Naturally, a broader perspective ascribes the sameness of the river to its location.
         
        He also referred to the lack of understanding as a form of blindness. (This was consistent with the theme as expressed in Greek literature and drama where the blind seer Tiresias miraculously "saw" things with insight.) It also explains the accounts of miraculous healing of those afflicted with blindness in the gospel. Blindness is a physical condition, but it is also metaphor for understanding belief in God.
         
        Many people go to worship God in a temple or profess belief in God, but haven't experienced the benefits of the belief. They can repeat phrases associated with faith, but they don't understand the meaning of the statements experientially. It is healing from this kind of malady that is addressed in the miracle stories. I was blind, but now I see. This is not especially controversial unless the blindness is specifically attributed to Judaism. The gospel of John makes statements that promote that interpretation. It is a clarification of bias according to difference in belief, but it is also sectarian.
         
        Even more offensive however is the view of human nature promoted by Heraclitus. He is an elitist and a monist. He may be as bad as Plato in that regard. They viewed other humans as stupid morons.
         
        The gospel of John is more expository than the other gospels. It explains the theology of the gospels before applying it to the gospel stories. It gives the accounts a stronger sense of historical efficacy, but it is more strident in the appeal to the leadership of the Greco-Roman society of the time.
         
        Steve K.
         
         


        -----Original Message-----
        From: james m clark jr <Yaakov2819@...>
        To: Christian-Philosophy <Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sat, Jul 30, 2011 3:47 pm
        Subject: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Christian Monotheism/Unitary Monotheism & the Biblical Monotheistic Way of Life

         
        ...word in the Gk is word or in gk logos. other expressions in greek are also according to the gospel of John and elsewhere are used in the same sense, since there are no elementry explainations of upper case & lower case existaning in Koine Greek. In the Latin Vogate these letters and others later including John's were not yet deemed as works of the Blood Covenant according to the origial Latin cannon, but they are now and have been some say by the advent of the mid 2c. as there were much more to decifer from and study. That of course is in question although there are many other manuscripts to consider most of which are still in question; currently, such as those of the codex sinaiticus which is not approved by certain Christian authorites with their inspirational seal of approval... at any rate, the manuscripts used now are where most of us recieved our trainning wheels- which lead to the advent of A New Trestament term which was not reconized until 400 A.D.

        Wiki

        This gospel [John's] begins with a philosophical prologue and ends with appearances of the resurrected Jesus. eoq

        Just as today the philosophical influences of Philo is nearly just as convincing & accepted by many respected forms of polytheism and monotheism in the past 1,700 plus years - Christianity included although it wasn't until [according to Wiki, was] ...reconfirmed (for Roman Catholicism) in the 16th century with the Council of Trent (also called the Tridentine Council) of 1546 (Wiki, New Testament).

        The Letter to the Philippians [Polycarp] although not included as a part of the Blood Covenant certainly portrays Jesus as the son of G-d always and the logos as concurring with the intended message of John's gospel including the letters ascribed to Jesus favorite disciple in I II & III which he [Polycarp]

        Wiki

        "...does not quote from the Gospel of John in his surviving letter, which may be an indication that whichever John he knew was not the author of that gospel, or that the gospel was not finished during Polycarp's discipleship with John. Weidmann suggests (Weidmann 1999:132) that the "Harris fragments" may reflect early traditions: "the raw material for a narrative about John and Polycarp may have been in place before Irenaeus; the codification of the significance of a direct line of succession from the apostle John through Polycarp may arguably be linked directly to Irenaeus".

        Polycarp didn't need to quote John for his discipleship wasn't based in Western traditions but common in the eastern relms of the empire among Jews & Greeks.

        also at Wiki

        Polycarp is regarded as a saint in [Unitary Monothesim and always has been not to be confussed with Unitarian Universalist]

        The bible that pilgrams brought with them to the eastern seaboard in the United States was the Geneva Translation.

        It still says the same things ... In the begining was the word...
        except for the online text translated by Ukrainians? This certianly isn't the same Geneva rendering that Dean Brown of Brown University/Harvard University read in his day.

        In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.

        http://new.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&old_q=In+the+begining&search_form_type=general&q1=John+1%3A1&s=2&t1=en_gen&ns=0

        Nothing against Ukranians it's just a bit difficult to understand their use of English. And I thought the Genneva Bible was finally online. Perhaps one of the most protected translations there is.
        Perhaps there is or at least will be a better transliteration in English now that they have permited this rendering.

        ... well, Wycliff's translation doesn't seemed to be tampered with regarding inital Welsh/English basics in compliance with the Greek language rather than what I consider Greek philosophical mythology influence regarding some trinitarian & Unitarian perspectives as far as the logos doctrine. I'm more anti-paganistic than anti- trinitarian with some acceptions of course.

        Those of the Pentecostal "Oneness" doctrine may enjoy what the Welsh Pentecostal Movment brought to the South & Mid Western United States.

        In the bigynnyng was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word.

        http://new.studylight.org/desk/index.cgi?sr=1&search_form_type=general&q1=John+1%3A1&s=2&t1=en_wyc

        In other words, in my opinion as far as how some Unitarian Monothesist may define the logos doctrine. The world in which Jesus created was spoken of from the begining not only from G-d but also from G-d's prophets and to whom we are due to Jesus, now that we are citizens of that prophetic world which is also an age to come on earth with the Messiah. There is I believe a vast difference between the Kingdom of Heaven & the Kingdom of G-d and it wont matter who disapproves of either neither Kingdom is a house for the dead.

        be well,
        jamey

        --- In Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com, Peter Silverstone <ongeasana@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > Isa, Listen:
        >
        >
        > 1In
        > the beginning was the Word, and the
        > Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was
        > with God in the beginning.
        > 3Through
        > him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him
        > was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the
        > darkness, but the darkness has not understooda it.
        > 6There
        > came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to
        > testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He
        > himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The
        > true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.b
        > 10He
        > was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not
        > recognize him. 11He came to that which
        > was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who
        > received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become
        > children of Godâ" 13children
        > born not of natural descent,c nor
        > of human decision or a husbandâs will, but born of God.
        > 14The
        > Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his
        > glory, the glory of the One and Only,d who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.  John 1:1-14
        >
        >
        > Thannk,
        >
        > Peter
        >
        >
        >
        > ________________________________
        > From: Isabelo S Alcordo <isalcordo@...>
        > To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2011 4:28 AM
        > Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Christian Monotheism/Unitary Monotheism & the Biblical Monotheistic Way of Life
        >
        >
        >  
        > H, Peter:
        >
        > Jesus is MAN-GOD. According to Jesus himself. God is (a Spirit - KJV or Spirit- NIV) pure Spirit and that we should worship this One God in spirit and in truth!
        >
        > Jesus is the incarnation of the God the Son (or Son of God) of the Trinity of Finite Manifestations (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) of the One Infinite God to mankind, but Jesus is not the One God nor is he the Trinity as you claim, although Jesus is all that mankind will ever know of the One Infinite God or of the Father or of the Holy Spirit!
        >
        > Remember: "He who has seen me has seen the Father?" Or, "The Lord is the Spirit?" But Jesus is NOT the One Infinite God!
        >
        > ISA
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > >From: Peter Silverstone <ongeasana@...>
        > >Sent: Jul 29, 2011 12:50 AM
        > >To: "Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com" <Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com>
        > >Subject: Re: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Christian Monotheism/Unitary Monotheism & the Biblical Monotheistic Way of Life
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >Hey Isa,
        > >
        > >You said, "I claim that there is a very strong spiritual "Case for the One God behind the Trinity."
        > >
        > >I agree with you completely. The One God, behide the Trinity, is Jesus Christ. He, is the Trinity Manifest.
        > >
        > >Peter
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >________________________________
        > >From: james m clark jr <Yaakov2819@...>
        > >To: Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com
        > >Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 5:29 PM
        > >Subject: [Christian-Philosophy] Re: Christian Monotheism/Unitary Monotheism & the Biblical Monotheistic Way of Life
        > >
        > >
        > > 
        > >Shalom,
        > >
        > >Whatever that case is I'm sure that I would agree with some precepts. However, I see no reason to forsake the doctrine of assurance of the only begotten. I fully understand trintarian views I think to a degree, but I represent a Christian form of Unitarian Monotheism that I did not select overnight because of what I was tought or believe. Jesus as most Christians call the son of G-d without a doubt is worthy of due praise and worship and aknowledgment of not only contrubutions of his earthly efforts & purpose but also his honest deeds to face strife created within reigion as it wasn't ment to be either in Judaism or among his followers we call Christians for the past 1,670 years and then some as regarding the Christian origin as some of the classical writers themselves atest to before much of dominate establishments came into existance.
        > >
        > >be well,
        > >jamey
        > >
        > >Unitarian Monotheist
        > >
        > >--- In Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com, "Isa" <isalcordo@> wrote:
        > >>
        > >> Hi, Jamely and all:
        > >>
        > >> The Bible, both the OT and the NT, cannot be understood nor its contradictions explained and made understandable without the doctrine of the TRINITY. It took the best minds of the CHURCH 300 years to come up with the TRINITY doctrine so as to reconcile the Man-God nature of Jesus of Nazareth, which is a very obvious claim of Jesus according to His words and as perceived by the Bible writers, particularly Saint Paul.
        > >>
        > >> To this day, for the Church to abide by the doctrine of the "ONE GOD" (MONOTHEISM) of the Shema, the Church claims that the One God is the TRINITY which is in error, the Trinity being simply man's collective term for the finite manifestations of the One God's INFINITE REALITY, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which will remain forever unknowable without them.
        > >>
        > >> I claim that there is a very strong spiritual "Case for the One God behind the Trinity."
        > >>
        > >> See: http://www.layadvocacyforchristianunity.org
        > >>
        > >> ISA
        > >> -----
        > >>
        > >> --- In Christian-Philosophy@yahoogroups.com, "james m clark jr" <Yaakov2819@> wrote:
        > >> >
        > >> > Shalom Haverim, [Hello Friends]
        > >> >
        > >> > Within the last half decade or so, not much could be found on the internet regarding Unitary Monotheism. The term as I use it from a Christian perspective 'Unitarian Monotheist' may have become more widely used following 9/11.
        > >> >
        > >> > There has always been Unitarian Monotheism. It is relavent to the great triune nature of the religions of Monotheism: Judaism, Christianity & Islam.
        > >> >
        > >> > Personally this new concept 'Chrislam' is it, is more than likely not related to Biblical Monothesism as Judaism as well as Christianity could be.
        > >> >
        > >> > Perhaps one Christian church of the few I would consider Unitarian Monotheist and no affileation to other Unitarians in the Southeastern United States is Yahwah Ministries at Yahwah Ministries.org. Their concern is focused on the errors of the Oneness doctrine of Pentecostal origin. According to them it is Shem Tov or "The Name" whom they call both Yahweh & Jesus - Yahwah.
        > >> >
        > >> > You have to admit that is a bit differant than other arguments.
        > >> >
        > >> > Unitariam Monotheism is not confined to the boarders of the U.S.
        > >> >
        > >> > The following is to a Unitarian Monotheists website.
        > >> >
        > >> > http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4TIbtEhc_H0J:www.christianmonotheism.com/php/media_center/media_displayer.php%3Fmode%3Ddisplay_all+unitarian+monotheism&cd=20&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
        > >> >
        > >> > You can read or listen what you want if the Trinity doctrine is a bit confusing. Unitarians are no alway just plainly clear either.
        > >> >
        > >> > Now I must reselect the sermon originally preached at the Red Words Church on 2-May-2010 in Melbourne, Australia.
        > >> >
        > >> > http://www.christianmonotheism.com/media/audio/Steve%20Katsaras%20--%20Unitarian%20Monotheism.mp3
        > >> >
        > >> > be well,
        > >> > jamey
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >> >
        > >> > http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4TIbtEhc_H0J:www.christianmonotheism.com/php/media_center/media_displayer.php%3Fmode%3Ddisplay_all+unitarian+monotheism&cd=20&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com
        > >> >
        > >>
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >













      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.