Funny. Now we have a modalist unitarian, as if one misconception was not sufficient.
All Claims of The Son's Deity
- Thread starter Johann
- Start date
I think Jesus was sufficient about speaking of the Father and the distinct Holy Spirit as well as his own pre-existence. Your problem is your denial of passages showing Christ's divinity and of denying John 1, especially verses 1 and 18. Go figure.
Runningman
Active Member
You've rejected baptism in Jesus' name several comments ago.
Runningman
Active Member
Is the human Jesus god almighty in your organization? If no, then you have two Jesus'.
Runningman
Active Member
I think you are confusing your trinitarian handbook for the Bible. In the Bible, the Father is the Holy Spirit. Holy spirit is also a thing that someone can be gifted or filled up with, like an anointing or an empowerment. Don't confuse your theology for Scripture. Even Jesus himself received the Holy Spirit because he isn't God and didn't inherently have it.
Acts 2
33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Peterlag
Active Member
I wonder if this could end up ticking off a lot of trinitarians...
if they were to find out they denied the Christ since they did not even know who he was because they thought he was God.
Matthew 10:33
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
God is eternal and was not born. In contrast to the eternal God, Christ is “begotten” that is born meaning Jesus Christ had a beginning. Jesus is never called “God the Son” in the Bible, but he's called the “Son of God” more than 50 times, and a “son” has a beginning. The very fact that Jesus is the “Son of God” shows he had a beginning. Trinitarian doctrine denies this and invents the phrase “eternally begotten" but “eternally begotten” is not in the Bible, but was invented to help explain theTrinity and is actually a nonsensical phrase because the words are placed together but they cancel each other out. “Eternal” means without beginning or end and something that is “begotten” by definition has a beginning.
if they were to find out they denied the Christ since they did not even know who he was because they thought he was God.
Matthew 10:33
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
God is eternal and was not born. In contrast to the eternal God, Christ is “begotten” that is born meaning Jesus Christ had a beginning. Jesus is never called “God the Son” in the Bible, but he's called the “Son of God” more than 50 times, and a “son” has a beginning. The very fact that Jesus is the “Son of God” shows he had a beginning. Trinitarian doctrine denies this and invents the phrase “eternally begotten" but “eternally begotten” is not in the Bible, but was invented to help explain theTrinity and is actually a nonsensical phrase because the words are placed together but they cancel each other out. “Eternal” means without beginning or end and something that is “begotten” by definition has a beginning.
Runningman
Active Member
I mean it will probably tick them off rather than scare them into repentance. It's so confusing with them. I think most of them think they don't need to repent if they sin because they already believe in Jesus. Kinda like the license to sin.
Peterlag
Active Member
Oh no I don't mean me ticking off people by posting it. I mean trinitarians getting ticked off when Jesus denies them before the Father.
Victoria
Active Member
You're referring to yourself in the third person. I love it
First thing's first... which position (i.e. Oneness, Unitarian, etc.) do you hold? Victoria wants to know!
Victoria studies & rightly divides like 2 Timothy 2:15 commands to show herself approved
Victoria
Active Member
There's two sets of manuscripts, so it matters which set a Christian stands firm on
Victoria
Active Member
Mike, George Van Smith stood on the ERV translation committee w/ Westcott & Hort.
I don't know if you ever watched Robert Breaker's video or not. It's true.
Website link included below if anyone wants to read further.
George Vance Smith (1816-1902) was a Unitarian scholar who participated in the revision committee for the New Testament of the 1881 Revised Version. He was a Unitarian minister of St. Saviour’s Gate Chapel, York, who denied the deity and atonement of Jesus Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, and the divine inspiration of Scripture.
He wrote a book explaining that the new RV readings favor Unitarian doctrines. He called it: Texts and margins of the revised New Testament: affecting theological doctrine briefly reviewed. He shares some candid thoughts about the doctrinal impact or, potential doctrinal impact of changes in the RV, some of which reflect changes in the base-text and some of which are translational.
When an attempt was made to have Smith removed from the ERV translation committee, Westcott, Hort, Stanley, and Thirlwall stood by him and threatened that they would resign if Smith were removed. A.G. Hobbs in the foreword to the Centennial Edition of Burgon’s Revision Revised said:
“[Smith’s participation in the communion service] led to a public protest signed by ‘some thousands of the Clergy.’ The Upper House passed a Resolution that ‘no person who denies the Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ ought to be invited to join either company to which was committed the Revision of the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture: and that it is further the judgment of this House that any person now on either Company should cease to act therewith.’ This Resolution was also passed by the Lower House. And still they could not get this non-believer off the Committee. Here is a real shocker: Dean Stanley, Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Thirlwall all refused to serve if Smith were dismissed. Let us remember that the Bible teaches that those who uphold and bid a false teacher God speed are equally guilty. ‘For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds’ (2 John 9-11). No wonder that the Deity of Christ is played down in so many passages!” (A.G. Hobbs, Foreword, The Revision Revised Centennial Edition).
https://christianity.stackexchange....ain-1-timothy-316-which-says-god-was-manifest
Last edited:
Victoria
Active Member
Origen: The Father of Allegorical Interpretation
By Dr. James I. Fazio, Dean of Bible and Theology
By Dr. James I. Fazio, Dean of Bible and Theology
The title of this Summer’s Community Course is How to Study God’s Word. There will be two classes: Biblical Interpretation and Inductive Bible Study. In light of that, I’d like to introduce you to an important figure in the area of biblical Interpretation. That figure’s name is Origen. Origen is regarded as the chief popularizer of allegorical interpretation. While the allegorical interpretation of Scripture is fraught with problems, every Bible student has to have some familiarity with it. Consider this an introduction on the topic for your reading pleasure.
Origen (A.D. 185 – c. 254) was one of the most influential figures in the early centuries of the Christian church. He is generally regarded as one of the chief theologians and scholars of the early church, however he is notably distinguished for his unorthodoxy, which has landed him somewhere outside the pale of mainstream Christianity. Centuries after his death, Origen was denounced by Pope Theophilus of Alexandria (A.D. 400), and he was labelled “the hydra of all heresies.”[1] Origen was later denounced as a heretic by Emperor Justinian I (A.D. 543) at which point many of his writings were destroyed. Nevertheless, historian Donald McKim has remarked concerning this controversial figure: “in the history of biblical interpretation, Origen deserves to be recognized as the father of biblical criticism.”[2] The other area in which Origen greatly impacted Christian thought, was in his distinctively allegorical method of interpretation, which later influenced St. Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430).
Background
Origen was a Hellenistic scholar who was thought to have been born in Egypt and educated in Alexandria around 185. In his early life he was educated primarily by his father, Leonides, who was martyred in 202 under the persecution of Roman Emperor Septimius Severus (A.D. 193-211). It was Origen’s earnest desire to follow his father’s example of martyrdom to the point that “his mother had to prevent him forcibly from going out to seek martyrdom in the persecution in which his father was killed.”[3] In the year following his father’s death, Origen opened a school of rhetoric, during which period he was described as having “lived the life of a devoted ascetic, sleeping little and eating meager meals…perhaps his consummate (and possibly apocryphal) act was his self-castration, in response to Matthew 19:12”[4] Around 213, Origen became acquainted with Ambrose of Alexandria who committed to sponsoring Origen through publishing and promotion of his writings. In the following decades, Origen wrote extensively, “but because his teaching was later condemned, little survives in the original.”[5] However, McKim has noted that “nevertheless, modern scholarship has been able to reconstruct some of those writings, many of which focused on biblical interpretation.”[6] Origen was chiefly concerned with Scripture. “He devoted much of his life to establishing the definitive text of the Old Testament and to commentating or preaching on Scripture; his other works too are drenched in Scriptural quotes and imagery.”[7] The crowning academic work for which he is chiefly noted is a comparative study of various translations of the Old Testament into six columns called the Hexapla. “Also produced was an abbreviated version known as the Tetrapla, in which Origen placed only the translations in Greek parallels.”[8]
Besides being recognized as “the father of textual criticism,”[9] Origen is also remembered for his influence in popularizing the allegorical method of biblical interpretation. This interpretive method became more noticeable in his later years, and perhaps was an outgrowth of his failed attempt at living an aesthetic life. It has been suggested that “his later insistence that not all of the Bible is to be taken literally had some of its roots in his failed attempt to follow Jesus’ hard commands.”[10] Whereas his early days were characterized by his attempt to “follow the strict ethic of the Sermon on the Mount…Origen later wrote that the Sermon on the Mount represents an impossible ideal, one that no human being can hope to follow.”[11] Some have speculated that this may have been the result of “cutting himself” too deeply, in the manner which Paul spoke concerning the Judaizers in Galatians 5:12.
Origen’s Allegorical Interpretation
Origen has come to be popularly regarded as the father of allegorical interpretation; however, that is not properly the case. One author has noted “The school of Alexandria (in Egypt) embraced an allegorical approach…although this method was used by Clement of Alexandria, headmaster of the school (190-203), it was developed and popularized by Clement’s successor, Origen.”[12] Another has observed, “Origen did not invent his interpretive techniques but borrowed them from a complex hermeneutical environment that was already present in his day…allegorical interpretation was first developed in the Hellenism of ancient Greece. It attempted to bring ancient mythology and poetry into line with prevailing philosophical and moral opinions.”[13] Origen’s contribution to the Church’s view of biblical interpretation was not one of origination but of popularization. Concerning his influence, it has been said, “Origen, more than anyone else, became famous for making allegory the dominant approach to biblical interpretation down through the Middle Ages. It prevailed as the foremost method of exegesis in both theological and monastic literature, even though Origen’s theology was often opposed.”[14]
Conclusion
How then, should such a one be regarded by the church, today? It is the position of this writer that Origen’s contribution is both a bane and a boon to the Christian church. His high regard for the Bible is commendable and his commitment to textual criticism is exemplary. Unfortunately, the church of the Middle Ages chose to emulate his faulty interpretive method, rather than his appreciation for God’s Word. However, it would not be right to hold him responsible for the folly of others who succeeded him. Origen lived in a time when the church was seeking to establish herself within a Greco-Roman world. His misapprehension of normal-grammatical hermeneutical principles and the dispensational truth which it yields could not rightly be held against his account. However, the same cannot be said for those today who choose to follow in his steps, today.
https://www.socalsem.edu/origen-the-father-of-allegorical-interpretation/
Now, WHO you suppose would want to corrupt the inspired, preserved, infallible Word of God?
Nothing good ever came out of Egypt. You should see what God has to say on that topic.
Last edited:
Your arguments also proves Jesus' dual nature, the interchanging of His nature confirms it.
We cannot grasp God's foreknowledge. Knowing Jesus of being in two nature "Son of man" and "Son of God" even before He became flesh.
We don't know that. Only the supernatural God knows, revealed through His messengers.(Phil 2:6-8)
What we know naturally, dogs bears puppies, or cats produced kittens. That is if you know something otherwise?
Victoria
Active Member
God repented. Does this mean He sinned?
"And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." Exodus 32:14
"The LORD repented for this: It shall not be, saith the LORD... The LORD repented for this:
This also shall not be, saith the Lord GOD." Amos 7:3; 6
This sounds like Lordship Salvation. The word repent actually means a "change of mind/heart", not "turn away" from sin. Religion is like spraying cologne/perfume on a dead corpse, somehow thinking we can make ourselves acceptable in the flesh unto a holy God.
"Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" Galatians 3:3
If it's the death, burial, & resurrection + works of the flesh, you're lacking faith!
"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:" 1 Corinthians 15:1-4
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." Ephesians 1:13-14
"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." Romans 4:3-4
"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace." Romans 6:14
"And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." Romans 11:6
What the apostle Paul has to say regarding living in sin...
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=Sin*+God*+Forbid*&t=KJV&csr=12#s=s_primary_0_1
Last edited:
I don't believe Unitarians deny the Son. I believe we confess clearly that "Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know ---- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucifies and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be healed by it . . . Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirt, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing . . . Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ this Jesus whom you crucified" ----
^^^^^^^^ that is the Son of God "come in the flesh" but some say that Jesus is God come in the flesh------wouldn't that be rejecting/denying the Son? Because if God "came in the flesh" as his own Son and Jesus Christ is God then there is NO SON, NO MESSIAH, NO LAMB OF GOD ---- NO HOPE.
101G
Active Member
GINOLJC, to all.
ERROR, the Holy Spirit is the Father and Son, (manifested in flesh), who is JESUS the only true God. understand the Holy Spirit is in "Diversity" which is the G243 ALLOS of himself as the EQUAL SHARE of himself in flesh. this is the plurality of God as
H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m.
אֱלֹהֵי 'elohiy (el-o-hee') [alternate plural]
1. (literally) supreme ones.
2. (hence, in the ordinary sense) gods.
3. (specifically, in the plural, especially with the article) the Supreme God (i.e. the all supreme).
4. (sometimes) supreme, used as a superlative.
5. (occasionally, by way of deference) supreme magistrates, the highest magistrates of the land.
6. (also) the supreme angels (entities of unspecified type).
[plural of H433]
KJV: angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Root(s): H433
Compare: H5945, H7706, H8199, H4397
H433 is ..........
H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) n-m.
אֱלֹהַּ 'eloahh (el-o'-ah) [shortened (rarely)]
1. one with supreme strength and ability.
2. the Supreme Being, God the Creator, Yahweh by name.
3. a supreme entity, a god-like creature (that is, one of God's supreme creations, or one of man's inventions).
[probably prolonged (emphat.) from H410]
KJV: God, god.
Root(s): H410
see the plurality of, of, of, of H433...... not two or three persons, but only "ONE" person who is OF one person, hence the "EQUAL SHARE", just as John 1:1 clearly states and as Philippians 2:6 reveals.
101G.
101G
Active Member
(smile), Greeting in the name of the Lord Jesus. thanks for the reply.You're referring to yourself in the third person. I love it
First thing's first... which position (i.e. Oneness, Unitarian, etc.) do you hold? Victoria wants to know!
Victoria studies & rightly divides like 2 Timothy 2:15 commands to show herself approved
First, 101G is neither Oneness, Unitarian, or trinitarian. but 101G is what the Lord Jesus teaches, and what his disciples teaches, "Diversified Oneness". meaning God is the EQUAL SHARE of himself in flesh in ordinal designations of First and Last, LORD and Lord, Father and Son, Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End...... and THE "ROOT" and THE "OFFSPRING".
this is "Diversified Oneness". .... God shared himself in flesh.... the KEYWORDS of understanding this doctrine of oneness are, LORD and Lord / "Share", "With", "Fellow" just to get started.
101G.
Grace ambassador
Active Member
Precious friend, then what should we do? With All The Multitude (over 500+) of
Plain And Clear Scriptures That Show:
Why The Triune GodHead Is Correct!
Amen.
I guess you should continue to do what you do NOW - continue with your claim of Jesus being God. There are approximately 31,102 verses in the Bible - you'd need more than 500 to convince me. The #1 in your list 1 Tim. 3:16 - the translation is questionable . . .
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:
He [a] was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, [c] seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. (ESV) Footnote: [a] Greek who; some manuscripts God; others which - Or justified [c] Or vindicated in spirit
Thanks but I myself will continue to believe that there is one God, who is the Father, who is the one true God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Grace ambassador
Active Member
I think I really should do that. Q: Should I do it in accordance with this idea?:
Since I already gave over 500+ (from the Word Of God that I Do Not) 'question' [ like one Gen 3:1 did? ],
you say "they would convince you"? But, then you say you are "still not convinced"?
So, now one more question: Is it ok if I go ahead and question the remainder of the 499 verses, and
then find this out "At The LAST Day" standing Before God At The Great White Throne Judgment?
Who, Exactly "Is This God"?:
"I saw A Great White Throne, and Him That Sat on it, from Whose Face the earth
and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw
the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and
another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead Were Judged
out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up
the dead which were in them: and they Were Judged every man according to their
works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is The Second Death
[ God's UNDILUTED Wrath = PENALTY of sin, Correct? ].
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
(Revelation 20:11-15 AV)
God, The SON, The LORD Jesus Christ, Correct?:
"For The Father Judgeth no man, but Hath Committed All Judgment Unto The SON:
That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that
honoureth not The SON honoureth not The Father Which Hath Sent Him."
If I go ahead and question This Truth NOW, and Not "honor The SON [ 'rejecting/denying the Son?' ]",
What would the Eternal Consequences Be "At That Day Of His Judgment"?
Seems to me it would be better to "believe Truth NOW" Rather than find It out later, eh?
Grace, Peace, Mercy, And Love! + Handling The Precious Word Of Life!
