Salvation and Unitarians

[synergy]

You have your religion Civic, one that promotes and implies many things not found in scriptures, as has been shown to you over and over, such as Abraham, Isaac, Caleb, Joshua, Zacharias, Simeon and others cannot enter the Kingdom of God because they were not "born again". And that no man born before John the Baptist has ever been "born again". Now you are free to promote such things, and certainly Jesus warns of such men "who come in His Name", but should you really disparage a man simply because he believes all that is written, over this world's popular religious philosophies?

For Calvinists, Pentecost was just another day in the office.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You have your religion Civic, one that promotes and implies many things not found in scriptures, as has been shown to you over and over, such as Abraham, Isaac, Caleb, Joshua, Zacharias, Simeon and others cannot enter the Kingdom of God because they were not "born again". And that no man born before John the Baptist has ever been "born again". Now you are free to promote such things, and certainly Jesus warns of such men "who come in His Name", but should you really disparage a man simply because he believes all that is written, over this world's popular religious philosophies?

So just because you don't believe David, when he said in Psalms 110: The LORD said unto "my Lord", Sit thou at "my" right hand, until "I make" thine enemies thy footstool, doesn't mean David isn't speaking God's Truth.

For Calvinists, Pentecost was just another day in the office.

I happen to disagree with both @civic @synergy on this but I do understand their position. It is important to recognize that Pentecost was important and that all men were "captive" until the death and resurrection of Christ. I simply believe that "born again" was always the targeted position of humanity. That man was "born again" before the Incarnation of Christ. Even now, those born again still wait for future completion relative to the Resurrection. I don't believe there is a huge discrepancy here.

Believing that Jesus Christ isn't who He said He is....

That is much more important.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Both can be true. You shouldn't treat such as being impossible.

I should treat it as an impossible and everyone should treat it as impossible. Otherwise, we can believe any illogical proposition.
For example, we could believe that God is eternal but not eternal at the same time. Good but not good at the same time.

So, God cannot be a Person and an Assembly of Persons at the same time.
I have chosen to worship a Person, not an Assembly.

 

[Studyman]

Impossible. The Scriptures are clear. No interpretation needed. Accepting the clearly written and understandable statements made by the prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ Himself leave no room for contrary claims concerning the importance of Jesus Christ.

Can you please show me ONE PLACE where Poncho rejected the "Importance of Christ"? I have read his posts, and I can't find any comments where HE is denying or rejecting the importance of Christ. I could have missed it though, so please show me where he did what you have attributed to him. And thanks in advance.

No one but God Incarnate can save mankind. He appealed to a bull that is dead in what He quoted for forgiveness.

Where did Ponch appeal to a bull that is dead for forgiveness?

Are you really preaching to others that Psalms 51, inspired by the Spirit of Christ that was in David, appealed to a bull that was dead for forgiveness?

16 For You do not desire sacrifice, or I would give it;
You do not delight in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and a contrite heart,
O God, You will not despise.

Really PY?

Only the death of God Incarnate could grant Eternal life to sinful humanity.

So you don't think the Spirit in David understood this?

No one said there wasn't a difference between the Son and The Father. There is most certainly a difference. However, they can still be "ONE".

Sure, like a husband and wife are ONE. But the Husband doesn't become the wife, and the wife doesn't become the husband. As it is written;

1 Cor. 11: 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

If Jesus is my head, and HE tells me to Worship the Father, then shouldn't I worship the Father through Him? That is what I see Poncho saying and what I see Jesus saying. How is this disparaging Jesus?

Which is why I said what I said. Your equation denies this. Jesus speaks as a Son. The Father speaks as a Father. In Unity, they speaks as ONE. There is not separation between them at all. None.

According to what is written, it is the Father who gives me to the Son, to show me in the way that I should go. It is the Father who gives His Son the Words that His Son Jesus is to give to me. It is the Father's program that is to be walked in, even as His Son, the Lord's Christ walked in them.

Does the Son teach something different than the Father? Of course not. Can the Son exist without the Father? I don't believe so. Does the Son teach the Father? It says God is the "Head" of the Son, therefore, the Son is "Learned of the Father".

Therefore, as it is written, "THE LORD", said to His Son, "MY LORD", sit at My feet.

If Jesus didn't want me to believe these things, why did HE teach me these things?

 

[Studyman]

I happen to disagree with both @civic @synergy on this but I do understand their position. It is important to recognize that Pentecost was important and that all men were "captive" until the death and resurrection of Christ.

I understand the point and I agree. But the Scriptures do say that Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world. Jesus Himself said Abraham "Saw His Day", which couldn't and wouldn't exclude His Death and Resurrection of Christ, in that Abraham was Glad to see it. And it is written, Gen. 22: 8 And Abraham said, My son, God will "provide himself a lamb" for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

So given these Scriptures and others, I believe Abraham was "Freed" by the same Blood that Paul was Freed by. And Certainly Caleb, Joshua, Zacharias, Simeon and the Wisemen all had the same "FAITH" as Abraham and the church of God in Acts 2.

These are undeniable Biblical Truths, and I will believe them until someone shows me they are not true.

I simply believe that "born again" was always the targeted position of humanity. That man was "born again" before the Incarnation of Christ. Even now, those born again still wait for future completion relative to the Resurrection. I don't believe there is a huge discrepancy here.

Amen, that is my understanding as well.

Believing that Jesus Christ isn't who He said He is....

That is much more important.

I agree. And "who He is" should be determined by who HE said He is. That's my position.

 

[Studyman]

For Calvinists, Pentecost was just another day in the office.

How can a man know or understand "Feast of Weeks" AKA, Pentecost if he rejects and ignores "Feast of Unleavened bread"? How can they even know when it is? It seems Calvinists are not the only religion who diminishes the Feasts of the Lord.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Peter below identifies Jesus as His God and Savior. Paul does this in His writings as does the Apostle John in His epistle.

2 Peter 1:1
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:11
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:1
our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

2 Peter 1:11
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

Thank you, Civic.
Peter 1:1 is one of the only 3 verses in which, when the words God and Christ are presented together, Christ receives the title of God.
This makes 2 Peter 1:1 one of the verses that constitute about 5% of all verses in which, when God and Christ are put together, God is presented as a different Being, separate from Christ.

So we come here with two alternatives:

• Such 5% represents from a manipulation of the text, and the 95% is real teaching
• Such 5% represents the real teaching, and the 95% was manipulated.

In addition to the obvious choice, I have 4 other reasons to believe that 2 Peter 1:1 was manipulated:

REASON 1. The same author, on the same epistle, makes the very same distinction we have observed in the other 95% of verses, giving The Father, but not the Son, the title of "God"

For we have not followed cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received honor and glory from God the Father when a voice came to Him from the majestic glory, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (1: 16,17)

REASON 2. Throughout the epistle, the author gives Christ the titles "Lord" and "Savior" over and over, and in none of them, the author repeats the title that we read in 1:1. In parallel, the author mentions God several times, and in none of them, except 1:1, he assigns that title to Christ.

REASON 3. Just after Peter 1:1, in the following verse, the author repeats the same salutation that Paul made over and over, making a distinction between God and Jesus. Grace and peace be multiplied to you through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord

REASON 4. The only verse that all Trinitarian scholars agree that is spurious, the Joanic comma, is an attempt to bring to the Bible the doctrine of Trinity. So, if some manipulation from the sacred text is expected, is not in favor of God as One Single Person, but in favor of God as a Collective.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Can you please show me ONE PLACE where Poncho rejected the "Importance of Christ"? I have read his posts, and I can't find any comments where HE is denying or rejecting the importance of Christ. I could have missed it though, so please show me where he did what you have attributed to him. And thanks in advance.

I thank your intervention very much, Studyman.

This take us back to what should be the focus of this particular thread.

Trinitarians and Unitarians are both committed to follow Christ, and to make his teachings, love and example the center of their lives.

If the importance of Jesus resided on his deity, then his deity would be the fundamental, explicit, repetitive teaching of the whole Bible, let alone the New Testament. But this is not the case. The importance of Jesus in our lives has nothing to do with his deity. Never his deity was taught as a must-believe-to-be-saved.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I should treat it as an impossible and everyone should treat it as impossible. Otherwise, we can believe any illogical proposition.
For example, we could believe that God is eternal but not eternal at the same time. Good but not good at the same time.

What a terrible conflation from you. I never even implied that accepting God is evil is possible. What nonsense from you.

I say very clearly that God can be both Singular and Plural. Plural includes singular.

So, God cannot be a Person and an Assembly of Persons at the same time.
I have chosen to worship a Person, not an Assembly.

You can choose whatever you want to choose. Rejecting God's Son as being in Perfect Harmony with the Father is your damnation. Not mine.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Impossible. The Scriptures are clear. No interpretation needed. Accepting the clearly written and understandable statements made by the prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ Himself leave no room for contrary claims concerning the importance of Jesus Christ. No one but God Incarnate can save mankind. He appealed to a bull that is dead in what He quoted for forgiveness. Only the death of God Incarnate could grant Eternal life to sinful humanity.

Probably you have been taught that way, but if that had been the case, believing in the deity of the Messiah as a condition for forgiveness would have been stressed over and over across the Tanakh, and over and over in the gospels.

God saves you because He loves you. Because He is merciful. Because He is willing and powerful enough to erase your sins.
He doesn't need to become flesh.
Doesn't need sacrifices.
Doesn't need a payment in blood.
Doesn't need your baptism or any ritual whatsoever.
Doesn't need your verbal confession of any creed.
Doesn't need your good deeds or your knowledge.
Doesn't even need your faith: he gives you the faith you need if you just want it to receive it.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I understand the point and I agree. But the Scriptures do say that Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world. Jesus Himself said Abraham "Saw His Day", which couldn't and wouldn't exclude His Death and Resurrection of Christ, in that Abraham was Glad to see it. And it is written, Gen. 22: 8 And Abraham said, My son, God will "provide himself a lamb" for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

So given these Scriptures and others, I believe Abraham was "Freed" by the same Blood that Paul was Freed by. And Certainly Caleb, Joshua, Zacharias, Simeon and the Wisemen all had the same "FAITH" as Abraham and the church of God in Acts 2.

These are undeniable Biblical Truths, and I will believe them until someone shows me they are not true.




Amen, that is my understanding as well.



I agree. And "who He is" should be determined by who HE said He is. That's my position.

Good. We can continue our discussion....

I will just say that Abraham wasn't lead "captive" until after the offering of Christ. The death of Christ made a huge difference.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

What a terrible conflation from you. I never even implied that accepting God is evil is possible. What nonsense from you.

My brother: If you don't accept that God can be good and evil at the same time, why then do you believe that God can be One Person and an Assembly of Persons at the same time?

One person cannot be three persons. You know it, as you know that God cannot be good and evil at the same time.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

No one said there wasn't a difference between the Son and The Father. There is most certainly a difference.

I'm talking about a difference between the Son and God.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Probably you have been taught that way, but if that had been the case, believing in the deity of the Messiah as a condition for forgiveness would have been stressed over and over across the Tanakh, and over and over in the gospels.

To be clear, I abandoned most every doctrine I considered Orthodoxy when I was a young man. That was a very long time ago. I decided to know the subjects myself. I don't base anything solely upon the words of another alone. I have made my own educated choices.

God saves you because He loves you. Because He is merciful. Because He is willing and powerful enough to erase your sins.
He doesn't need to become flesh.
Doesn't need sacrifices.
Doesn't need a payment in blood.
Doesn't need your baptism or any ritual whatsoever.
Doesn't need your verbal confession of any creed.
Doesn't need your good deeds or your knowledge.
Doesn't even need your faith: he gives you the faith you need if you just want it to receive it.

I get it now. I see why you've chosen your position.....

Do tell. I suppose you believe Jesus lied when He spoke of the essentials of His death?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Yeah. Maybe we can convince him otherwise. Not sure. He seems rather certain. Sad.

Why sad, praise_yeshua?
It would be sad if you knew that @Studyman is living in a way opposite to the way Jesus taught us to live. That would be sad.
Doctrinal differences should not lead us to sadness, unless they reflect in how we live.
There are million of things in the world that should cause us to be sad... sad enough to act.

 

[praise_yeshua]

My brother: If you don't accept that God can be good and evil at the same time, why then do you believe that God can be One Person and an Assembly of Persons at the same time?

One person cannot be three persons. You know it, as you know that God cannot be good and evil at the same time.

Two shall become one flesh. How is that possible?

There are many that do not understand the context of "Person" used in the teaching of the Trinity. As such, I have long accepted that "Person" might not be the best choice of words.

What is it about "Person" that you can't accept. Be specific. I will listen.

 

[synergy]

How can a man know or understand "Feast of Weeks" AKA, Pentecost if he rejects and ignores "Feast of Unleavened bread"? How can they even know when it is? It seems Calvinists are not the only religion who diminishes the Feasts of the Lord.

In that line of thinking, how can a man know or understand that Christ is the Uncreated Divine Word of God if he is ignorant of the multiple appearances of the Word of God to OT Prophets which are called "Theophanies"? It seems Calvinists are not the only religion who diminishes the fact that Christ is God.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Why sad, praise_yeshua?

I'm concerned for your position with the Father. You're not "one" with the Father if you're rejecting our Master Jesus Christ.

Joh 13:13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

It would be sad if you knew that @Studyman is living in a way opposite to the way Jesus taught us to live. That would be sad.
Doctrinal differences should not lead us to sadness, unless they reflect in how we live.
There are million of things in the world that should cause us to be sad... sad enough to act.

I'm sure you have a very long list of "conditions" that must be meet in order to please God. Your requirements are many and difficult.

I have one. Only one. That a person believe in the Character of Jesus Christ.

The Person of Jesus Christ is unique yet He shares a singular "Character" with the Father. No divisions. No separation. If you knew the Character of God like I do from the Scriptures. You would agree. @civic have discussed this topic for many years. We disagree in some contexts but I don't know of a individual that understands it more than him. He is talented and well learned on the subject.

 

[praise_yeshua]

In that line of thinking, how can a man know or understand that Christ is the Uncreated Divine Word of God if he is ignorant of the multiple appearances of the Word of God to OT Prophets which are called "Theophanies"? It seems Calvinists are not the only religion who diminishes the fact that Christ is God.

Amen!

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Two shall become one flesh. How is that possible?

Metaphorically. It is possible ONLY metaphorically.
I am married. My wife and I are not one flesh.

Jesus also prayed to his God that we all could become one with Him and with God. Do you remember?
Did Jesus mean that we would become part of the Deity?

There are many that do not understand the context of "Person" used in the teaching of the Trinity. As such, I have long accepted that "Person" might not be the best choice of words. What is it about "Person" that you can't accept. Be specific. I will listen.

I agree. Sometimes I prefer to use the word "Mind", or "Will" or "Agent".

If Jesus had his own individual mind, his own individual volition ("will") and God has his own individual mind, his own individual volition, then Jesus can't be God.

I am using the adjective "individual" in the sense of "can't be divided", which is the original sense of the word.