Salvation and Unitarians

[Pancho Frijoles]

Projecting as expected. Your false christ the theirs are the same- bodiless and no longer a man denying the bodily Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus. I notice you keep deflecting the topic of the Resurrection which is the very core teaching and preaching of the gospel by the Apostles.

Your religion is no different than the spirit of antichrists as I demonstrated earlier since your belief about Jesus bodily Resurrection is the same as the JW's. Your Jesus is no longer a man, in the flesh- that's the spirit of antichrist at work. From this we know you do not and cannot speak for God.

hope this helps !!!

Dear Civic. I have two questions for you and our readers:

1- When was the last time you needed to hug Jesus, or to give him some pasta to eat, or to go swimming with him, as a condition to keep loving Him?

Neither you nor @Studyman have never needed Jesus body to love Him and follow Him. If you believe He has a human body, with knees, and hair, and kidneys, and lungs, and testis, good for you. But don't call the Jesus of @Studyman "false", because with or without a body, you and @Studyman follow Him all the same.

A second question:
You believe that Jesus will come again to this Earth.
2. Would you be able to recognize Him by his looks? His facial features, height, complexion, haircut? If He happens to look too young, or too dark-skinned, or totally shaved, are you going to reject Him?
There is nothing in Jesus physical appearance that an actor willing to deceive could not imitate, including holes in their hands and feet.

Mary did not recognize Jesus, His Master, at the resurrection. His disciples, who walked with Him to Emaus for, perhaps, two hours, did not recognize Him.
So, neither you nor @Studyman need the body of Jesus to recognize Him.
You recognize Jesus for what He does to your life. So, let's focus on the spiritual aspect of Jesus.

 

[civic]

Dear Civic. I have two questions for you and our readers:

1- When was the last time you needed to hug Jesus, or to give him some pasta to eat, or to go swimming with him, as a condition to keep loving Him?

Neither you nor @Studyman have never needed Jesus body to love Him and follow Him. If you believe He has a human body, with knees, and hair, and kidneys, and lungs, and testis, good for you. But don't call the Jesus of @Studyman "false", because with or without a body, you and @Studyman follow Him all the same.

A second question:
You believe that Jesus will come again to this Earth.
2. Would you be able to recognize Him by his looks? His facial features, height, complexion, haircut? If He happens to look too young, or too dark-skinned, or totally shaved, are you going to reject Him?
There is nothing in Jesus physical appearance that an actor willing to deceive could not imitate, including holes in their hands and feet.

Mary did not recognize Jesus, His Master, at the resurrection. His disciples, who walked with Him to Emaus for, perhaps, two hours, did not recognize Him.
So, neither you nor @Studyman need the body of Jesus to recognize Him.
You recognize Jesus for what He does to your life. So, let's focus on the spiritual aspect of Jesus.

Would you recognize Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Ezekiel , Isaiah, Peter, James, John, Paul etc ?

See how this works.

Oh and BTW everyone of the above mentioned people will have glorified human bodies in the Resurrection just like there Lord Jesus Christ now has in heaven.

The bodily Resurrection of Jesus and the saints is a core belief for all OT and NT believers.

Paul said if Christ is not Resurrected from the dead/Risen bodily your faith is in vain and you are still dead in your sins and your faith is worthless. See 1 Cor 15.

There is absolutely no compromising on this essential/core message of the gospel of Christ. They all ( His disciples/apostles) preached Christ risen from the dead BODILY.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Would you recognize Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Ezekiel , Isaiah, Peter, James, John, Paul etc ?

No, and that's why I don't need their bodies to listen to them.
Do you need the bodies of the authors of the Bible to listen to them?
So, what would be the case for debating harshly with a person who tells you that they are currently very tall, or transparent, or blue, or asexual, or sexual?

 

[civic]

No, and that's why I don't need their bodies to listen to them.
Do you need the bodies of the authors of the Bible to listen to them?
So, what would be the case for debating harshly with a person who tells you that they are currently very tall, or transparent, or blue, or asexual, or sexual?

read the rest of my previous post.

also see posts 363-368 that I posted in this thread from my in depth studies on the topic of the resurrection

 

[civic]

No, and that's why I don't need their bodies to listen to them.
Do you need the bodies of the authors of the Bible to listen to them?
So, what would be the case for debating harshly with a person who tells you that they are currently very tall, or transparent, or blue, or asexual, or sexual?

1 Cor 15 listen to Paul on the topic and its essential and mandatory belief in the doctrine or one is lost in their sins.

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleepin Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

 

[mikesw]

No, my friend.
I believe that works are not the cause, but the visible consequence of being saved.
That's why we know that if @Peterlag behaves as a saved man, is because he is in fact a saved man, regardless of whether his arguments are strong or weak, correct or mistaken.
If you meet a Jew or a Muslim or a Jehovah Witness who produces the fruit of the spirit, is because the spirit of God is in them, working.

The proof that the belief in the deity of Christ is not essential for salvation is the fact that people who do not believe in that doctrine also show the fruits of the spirit.

The same applies to you as a person.
I believe you are mistaken in regard to the Trinity.
But if I see you behaving like a person who follows Christ, that shows me that the spirit of Christ lives in you and that you are born again and saved.

So, that fact of me or you being theologically "right" or "wrong" does not determine our salvation.
We are not saved by works, and certainly we are not saved by our brilliant biblical exegesis.

The fact that there are saved Unitarians and save Trinitarians, and Unitarians who live in hell and Trinitarians who live in hell, proves that the doctrine has no direct relationship with salvation.

You seek to deny the Trinity by choice and preference. That is not odd because you do not even have a religion that follows the true God. You keep making religion a matter of behavior when Christ's action was instead to give grace through his death and resurrection. You keep trying to make some generic form of forgiveness that has no similarity to Christianity while trying to equate it. Then you deny the deity of Christ which is another sign of ignorance toward God. There is no way that such ignorance fits in with Christianity. God spoke a long time ago against making these false forms of worship of making strange fire, but you exalt strange fire all over the place.
So do not try to stand on sinking sand and tell people that it is a solid place to stand. You fail to make an argument against the verses that show the deity of Christ and therefore have proven the shallowness of your arguments. What should we then say but We are not saved by ignorance. Don't keep trying to put half-baked arguments out there.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

read the rest of my previous post.

Yes, I understand your point, civic.

I'm not debating the bodily resurrection (which by the way is not the topic of the thread) but the importance of conceiving a physical body to love Christ and to deem a brother of yours, like @Studyman, a follower of a false Christ or anti-Christ. That's my concern.

No Christian who believes in the bodily resurrection has ever been able to explain what a glorified body is.
No Christian who does not believe in a literal bodily resurrection has ever been able to explain what a spiritual body is.
Is it a body that defies physical laws? If it is, then what's the difference between talking of a physical body that is not ruled by physical laws, and a spiritual body?

 

[civic]

Yes, I understand your point, civic.

I'm not debating the bodily resurrection (which by the way is not the topic of the thread) but the importance of conceiving a physical body to love Christ and to deem a brother of yours, like @Studyman, a follower of a false Christ or anti-Christ.

read the posts I referenced with scripture that affirms what I stated was in the Bible - posts 363 - 368 I think.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You seek to deny the Trinity by choice and preference. That is not odd because you do not even have a religion that follows the true God. You keep making religion a matter of behavior when Christ's action was instead to give grace through his death and resurrection. You keep trying to make some generic form of forgiveness that has no similarity to Christianity while trying to equate it. Then you deny the deity of Christ which is another sign of ignorance toward God. There is no way that such ignorance fits in with Christianity. God spoke a long time ago against making these false forms of worship of making strange fire, but you exalt strange fire all over the place.
So do not try to stand on sinking sand and tell people that it is a solid place to stand. You fail to make an argument against the verses that show the deity of Christ and therefore have proven the shallowness of your arguments.

Well, I don't think so.
I think you have been unable to refute a single argument I have presented with solid rational and scriptural support.
I think your arguments keep being extremely weak, and your ability to think logically drastically limited.
Certainly, you may think the same about my arguments. No problem at all.

The focus or my interaction with you and our readers in this thread, then,will not be to point out whether the Trinity is true or false, but to point out that making the belief in the Trinity as a condition for salvation is not only mistaken and unsupported by Jesus, but extremely dangerous.

It would lead you to consider fair and just that hundreds of millions of your brothers and sisters get roasted in hell for ever due to their Unitarian theology.

 

[mikesw]

I don't understand what you mean.
The text reads: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonderful works in Your name?’ 23 But then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from Me, you who practice evil.

So, the reason Jesus is telling those people that Jesus never knew them, is because they practice evil.
In contrast, those who enter the Kingdom are those who do the will of The Father.

That's the same reason why Jesus tells the parable of the Judgement of Nations in Matthew 25, where sheep are separated from goats, isn't it?
Goats are not condemned for their theological view of Jesus, are they?
Why are they condemned, then? Well, for not doing what Jesus asked them to do: love their brother.

The same principle is presented over and over in the gospels. For example in John 3:19

This is the verdict, that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Look how the text doesn't say that men loved darkness because they had the wrong theology about the intimate nature of Christ, but because their deeds were evil. To be in darkness does NOT mean to be Unitarian or Trinitarian. It means to have an evil life.

I show that Mat 7:21-23 demonstrates there are people who thought they were following Christ but their hearts were not there. They were fake ones. It is lawless to disregard Christ's divine nature -- it is people who neglect what scripture says, but you equate even different religions to Christianity. What could be more lawless than that?
Such lawless behavior is demonstrated by people love darkness by denying the deity of Christ. We see that plenty in John 1 based on even the most basic reading of the text. And there is nothing to say about a misreading of the judgment of nations, so I will stop there.

 

[mikesw]

Well, I don't think so.
I think you have been unable to refute a single argument I have presented with solid rational and scriptural support.
I think your arguments keep being extremely weak, and your ability to think logically drastically limited.
Certainly, you may think the same about my arguments. No problem at all.

The focus or my interaction with you and our readers in this thread, then,will not be to point out whether the Trinity is true or false, but to point out that making the belief in the Trinity as a condition for salvation is not only mistaken and unsupported by Jesus, but extremely dangerous.

It would lead you to consider fair and just that hundreds of millions of your brothers and sisters get roasted in hell for ever due to their theology.

So you would be trying to help people roast in hell. That is not a very grand ambition. Not sure why you would do that except out of jealousy

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

So you would be trying to help people roast in hell. That is not a very grand ambition.

To do that, I would first need to believe that my Unitarian or Trinitarian brothers will roast in hell.
I don't.
Do you?

 

[synergy]

If that's the case then answer me the following questions:

1. Why the creation, certification and widespread usage of the Greek Septuagint by Diaspora Jews? The Septuagint was created and authenticated by Alexandrian Jews and used throughout the Empire by Diaspora Jews.
2. Why were the Diaspora Jews elected to be dispersed throughout the Greek Eastern Empire by God Himself? Their primary language being Greek.
3. Why did the Apostles endorse the Greek Septuagint by overwhelmingly quoting from it?
4. Why did God allow the Greek language to be the Lingua Franca of the Eastern Roman Empire - the very language that the Gospel was communicated to the world?
5. Why did the Apostles select the Greek language to write their Epistles?
6. Why did the churches, that the Apostles bequeathed to us, built on services that were structured in the Greek language?
7. and on and on.....

Cults are formed when people start to 2nd guess God and the Apostles. Many cults have pounced on the Judaizing way of thinking to form their cults. The JWs for example have adopted many Judaizing concepts in their formation. For example, they ridicule the fact that God's name was written in Greek in the NT by the Apostles. The Calvinints have tossed out the human (humanistic) side of our salvation. Islam is an utter disaster and the Baha'i faith unfortunately has several of its roots still in it.

Does that mean that everyone needs to know Greek to understand the NT? Not necessarily. Language structures, nuances, and ways of thinking can be transposed across languages.

Of course, Greece had its pagan past but Christianity "baptised" the language so that it was made to be the vehicle for the spread of the Gospel.

You need to read the Bible in its entirety. You can't just ignore verses like the ones I mentioned in entry #322 and cherry pick the ones you think promote your view.

As for 1 Cor 8:5-7:

1. The issue to begin with is "gods", Polytheism, not Trinitarianism. So right off the bat you're bringing in verses that have nothing to do with Trinitarianism. This is a typical cultist maneuver that tries to swoop down on people who are poor in language skills.
2. The original Greek had no commas in the sentence. The onus is on you to prove that the comma should be included as "one God, the Father" and not as "one God the Father".

Dear @Pancho Frijoles

I see you offered no more derogatory comments about the Greek Language as it relates to the topic of the Trinity after I asked you the following questions about the Greek language. Are we settled with this topic?

1. Why the creation, certification and widespread usage of the Greek Septuagint by Diaspora Jews? The Septuagint was created and authenticated by Alexandrian Jews and used throughout the Empire by Diaspora Jews.
2. Why were the Diaspora Jews elected to be dispersed throughout the Greek Eastern Empire by God Himself? Their primary language being Greek.
3. Why did the Apostles endorse the Greek Septuagint by overwhelmingly quoting from it?
4. Why did God allow the Greek language to be the Lingua Franca of the Eastern Roman Empire - the very language that the Gospel was communicated to the world?
5. Why did the Apostles select the Greek language to write their Epistles?
6. Why did the churches, that the Apostles bequeathed to us, built on services that were structured in the Greek language?
7. and on and on.....

Cults are formed when people start to 2nd guess God and the Apostles. Many cults have pounced on the Judaizing way of thinking to form their cults. The JWs for example have adopted many Judaizing concepts in their formation. For example, they ridicule the fact that God's name was written in Greek in the NT by the Apostles. The Calvinists have tossed out the human (humanistic) side of our salvation. Islam is an utter disaster and the Baha'i faith unfortunately has several of its roots still in it.

Does that mean that everyone needs to know Greek to understand the NT? Not necessarily. Language structures, nuances, and ways of thinking can be transposed across languages.

Of course, Greece had its pagan past but Christianity "baptised" the language so that it was made to be the vehicle for the spread of the Gospel.

 

[mikesw]

To do that, I would first need to believe that my Unitarian or Trinitarian brothers will roast in hell.
I don't.
Do you?

I'm speaking in terms of your language. You made the argument.
You are coming here as an opponent of Christianity while trying to speak against the divinity of Christ. I do not think you have even sought to make an argument against the passages pointing out the divinity of Christ. You, just like Peterlag, have tried to blithely point out the humanness of Christ and saying that is the whole argument. But we already recognize Christ's humanity. So there is no argument from your side.
Anyhow, I keep mentioning that people should not just come and try attacking at the edges. If someone has an alternative theory to the Triune nature of God. Build the case and come up against the theologians on it. Otherwise, there is no reason to take the ideas seriously.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I show that Mat 7:21-23 demonstrates there are people who thought they were following Christ but their hearts were not there. They were fake ones.

How did Christ know that they were fake ones? Did Jesus ask him to do a quiz on Theology?

It is lawless to disregard Christ's divine nature

No, it is not lawless.
There is no comandment that ask us to believe in the deity of Christ.
In contrast, Christ specific comandment is to love each other.

What could be more lawless than that?

I can think in thousands of things infinitely more lawless that denying the deity of Christ, even considering that the Trinity were true.
For example, giving your assent to the eternal torment of millions of Jews, Muslims and Jehovah Witness. That would be pro-genocide.

Such lawless behavior is showing people love darkness by denying the deity of Christ.

I already showed you that the Scripture defines the love for darkness in very, very, very different terms: doing evil.
Respect the Bible. Respect your rational mind. Respect your parents, who taught you to be good to people. Respect this Forum. Read the rules of the Forum. Read the commandments of Christ.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I'm speaking in terms of your language. You made the argument.
You are coming here as an opponent of Christianity while trying to speak against the divinity of Christ.

I am coming here to make people like you understand that Unitarians will not roast in hell for being Unitarians.
That's what I care about.
I care about you embracing @Peterlag as your brother, and respecting him as who He is: a beloved child of God, a child that God will rescue as God will rescue you and me.

Inasumuch as you put Peterlag a change in his theological view as a condition to be saved, you are not following the example of Jesus, who never put that as a condition.

So, what do you say?
Do you accept publicly that God will not burn in hell millions of people for not believing in the deity of Jesus, including members of this Forum?

 

[mikesw]

How did Christ know that they were fake ones? Did Jesus ask him to do a quiz on Theology?


No, it is not lawless.
There is no comandment that ask us to believe in the deity of Christ.
In contrast, Christ specific comandment is to love each other.




I can think in thousands of things infinitely more lawless that denying the deity of Christ, even considering that the Trinity were true.
For example, giving your assent to the eternal torment of millions of Jews, Muslims and Jehovah Witness. That would be pro-genocide.



I already showed you that the Scripture defines the love for darkness in very, very, very different terms.
Respect the Bible. Respect your rational mind. Respect your parents, who taught you to be good to people. Respect this Forum. Read the rules of the Forum. Read the commandments of Christ.

People loved the darkness. Darkness is lawlessness. When people intentionally deny who Christ is, that obviously is darkness. Do you need a simpler statement to understand the issue? That you can think of things worse than denying the deity of Christ, it means that darkness runs deep and you miss the sense of priorities.
Sorry if I have missed somewhere where you tried to make an argument about the love of darkness.

It also must be asked if you feel it was wrong for God to save the world by preserving Noah and seven others on the ark? God acts to that which preserves the world --as a better option than starting from scratch.

 

[mikesw]

I am coming here to make people like you understand that Unitarians will not roast in hell for being Unitarians.
That's what I care about.
I care about you embracing @Peterlag as your brother, and respecting him as who He is: a beloved child of God, a child that God will rescue as God will rescue you and me.

Inasumuch as you put Peterlag a change in his theological view as a condition to be saved, you are not following the example of Jesus, who never put that as a condition.

So, what do you say?
Do you accept publicly that God will not burn in hell millions of people for not believing in the deity of Jesus, including members of this Forum?

You do not know the future of them. You do not seem to be aware of your own dead end. Why do you think Peterlag can promote misconceptions about God (and that without sound arguments) and still be a child of God? There is a degree where it becomes quite contestable whether a person truly trusts in Christ.

Are you going to judge God for saving whom he can through Christ so creation is preserved? You are not in a position to judge God, my friend.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

People loved the darkness. Darkness is lawlessness. When people intentionally deny who Christ is, that obviously is darkness. Do you need a simpler statement to understand the issue? That you can think of things worse than denying the deity of Christ, it means that darkness runs deep and you miss the sense of priorities.

No, it just means you are confused about what lawlessness is and what the priorities of the Gospel are.

I'll call it a day. May God give you a pleasant night and a greater understanding of the supremacy of love over theology.

 

[mikesw]

No, it just means you are confused about what lawlessness is and what the priorities of the Gospel are.

I'll call it a day. May God give you a pleasant night and a greater understanding of the supremacy of love over theology.

When theology is giving proper knowledge of the source of love, accurate theology is critical for love. If I thought you loved eating rat poison and I therefore served you rat poison to the point of you becoming severely sick, that would not be good love toward you.
Sleep well. May you come to the true knowledge of God and Christ and by that knowledge avoid making strange fire to God.