The continued spread of the Arian Heresy (that Jesus is not God) in JW and Unitarian Churches.

[Fred]

Doesn't explain why he sometimes does not rebuke even when what is said is incorrect.

Before His resurrection.

Different context.

 

[360watt]

See

You got the narrative wrong. It was clearly understood, but not accepted, by the Pharisees what Jesus was explicitly saying - that he existed before Abraham's lifespan. It's too bad you were not there to set everyone straight, including Jesus who made no attempt to set them straight. Since your understanding of the narrative fails, then everything else you allege has no basis to stand on concerning my question."

Yeah, this is the point I was trying to make.. is Jesus was AGREEING with the Pharisees on them accusing Him of being equal to the Father. It's true the Pharisees didn't see Jesus as equal.. but that is what the Pharisees and Scribes were accusing Him of. Jesus was saying 'I am equal' the ways He was replying to them.

Even with saying 'All thing were made thru Him' and saying it should be 'By Him'.. and not through.. the point is.. it is Jesus that has the authority and power for things to be made by or through Him... which you cannot apply to any known human being.

So.. if Jesus is not God.. then He would have to be a lesser god.. and therefore part of a Polytheistic religion. Because He had far greater power than a person. So.. I guess this is what people who are unitarian or into Judaism etc.. are trying to accuse christianity of.. is Polytheism.

 

[Fred]

You mean it is OK for Jesus to not rebuke depending on the context? I agree

Great

, including Thomas personal exclamatory remark.

Drops mic

Jesus never does so after His resurrection.
I supplied evidence for this while you were unable to supply any that back up your false claim.

Yes, your nothing argument surely did drop.

 

[synergy]

To take an exclamation as a declarative statement in the narrative shows how desperate you are. edited

Jesus gave His seal of approval by telling Thomas "you have believed" so you need to take that up with Jesus.

 

[synergy]

Just like yourself and some others, I do not get email notifications that you sent me a post...I just so happed to browse buy...oh well..

Check and see if you inadvertently have me and others on ignore.

 

[Matthias]

I’m a unitarian but I’m not an Arian. I’m as opposed to Arianism as the trinitarians are.

 

[Bronson]

The first and worst heresy that the church faced, was over an idea called Arianism. I'm glad to see a thread on here exposing it.
Arianism is named for Arius, a main proponent of the idea that Jesus was God’s first and greatest creation. He was a prominent teacher in Alexandria, Egypt, in the early fourth century. He made his case at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, arguably the most important of the early church’s councils. He was condemned as a heretic because his belief undermined the Trinity.

Arianism was one of the main topics at the Council of Nicaea. The council sought to clearly define the Trinity in a way that combatted Arianism and earlier heresies about the Trinity. The definition they came up with was that Jesus was “Very God of Very God,” “Begotten, not made,” and “of one substance with the Father.”

Arianism is characterized by an emphasis on the glory of God the Father at the expense of the other members of the Trinity. In this view, Jesus is the Father’s first and greatest creation, instead of being co-equal and co-eternal. Another reason Arianism cannot be part of orthodox Christian doctrine is because it asserts that Jesus and the Father are made of similar but not identical substance.

The relationship between Arianism and Modalism should not be overlooked. Whereas Modalists accept the deity of the Son, but reject His personhood, Arians accept His personhood, but reject His deity! Whereas Arians reject the deity of the Spirit, Modalists accept it. They too take the extreme opposite positions on many issues.


Both Modalism and Arianism are reactionary theologies, i.e., they arose in response to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. They both attempted to solve the Trinitarian riddle: How can God be Three and One at the same time? But in their attempt, they fell into the classic Greek philosophic problem of the One and the Many.

Modalism emphasized the One to the exclusion of Three, while Arianism emphasized the Three to the exclusion of the One. The Modalists denied that the Three were separate Persons, but affirmed they were one God, while the first Arians denied the Three were One God, but affirmed they were separate persons. Early Arianism believed that the Holy Spirit was a creature just like the Son.

This is why Arianism has always had a problem with polytheism, i.e., the belief in more than one God. For example, while the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that Jesus is to be worshipped as God, yet they have no difficulty giving “relative worship” to Jesus as “a god.” If they were true monotheists, then they would have never rendered John 1:1 as “the Word was a god.”
The truth is that Sabellianism arose in reaction to Trinitarianism, and Arianism arose in reaction to Sabellianism. It was not mere happenstance that the controversy started when Arius accused Bishop Alexander on Sabellianism.”


The Modern Meaning of Arianism

Today, the word “Arianism” is an all embracing term denoting any and all anti-Trinitarian theological systems which deny the deity of Christ and the personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit. While this definition does no fit all the various stages and phases of the long history of Arianism, it is generally true today. It encompasses the entire religious spectrum from modern Liberalism to Jehovah’s Witnesses.


Robert A. Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues

 

[Keiw1]

The first and worst heresy that the church faced, was over an idea called Arianism. I'm glad to see a thread on here exposing it.
Arianism is named for Arius, a main proponent of the idea that Jesus was God’s first and greatest creation. He was a prominent teacher in Alexandria, Egypt, in the early fourth century. He made his case at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, arguably the most important of the early church’s councils. He was condemned as a heretic because his belief undermined the Trinity.

Arianism was one of the main topics at the Council of Nicaea. The council sought to clearly define the Trinity in a way that combatted Arianism and earlier heresies about the Trinity. The definition they came up with was that Jesus was “Very God of Very God,” “Begotten, not made,” and “of one substance with the Father.”

Arianism is characterized by an emphasis on the glory of God the Father at the expense of the other members of the Trinity. In this view, Jesus is the Father’s first and greatest creation, instead of being co-equal and co-eternal. Another reason Arianism cannot be part of orthodox Christian doctrine is because it asserts that Jesus and the Father are made of similar but not identical substance.

The relationship between Arianism and Modalism should not be overlooked. Whereas Modalists accept the deity of the Son, but reject His personhood, Arians accept His personhood, but reject His deity! Whereas Arians reject the deity of the Spirit, Modalists accept it. They too take the extreme opposite positions on many issues.


Both Modalism and Arianism are reactionary theologies, i.e., they arose in response to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. They both attempted to solve the Trinitarian riddle: How can God be Three and One at the same time? But in their attempt, they fell into the classic Greek philosophic problem of the One and the Many.

Modalism emphasized the One to the exclusion of Three, while Arianism emphasized the Three to the exclusion of the One. The Modalists denied that the Three were separate Persons, but affirmed they were one God, while the first Arians denied the Three were One God, but affirmed they were separate persons. Early Arianism believed that the Holy Spirit was a creature just like the Son.

This is why Arianism has always had a problem with polytheism, i.e., the belief in more than one God. For example, while the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that Jesus is to be worshipped as God, yet they have no difficulty giving “relative worship” to Jesus as “a god.” If they were true monotheists, then they would have never rendered John 1:1 as “the Word was a god.”
The truth is that Sabellianism arose in reaction to Trinitarianism, and Arianism arose in reaction to Sabellianism. It was not mere happenstance that the controversy started when Arius accused Bishop Alexander on Sabellianism.”


The Modern Meaning of Arianism

Today, the word “Arianism” is an all embracing term denoting any and all anti-Trinitarian theological systems which deny the deity of Christ and the personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit. While this definition does no fit all the various stages and phases of the long history of Arianism, it is generally true today. It encompasses the entire religious spectrum from modern Liberalism to Jehovah’s Witnesses.


Robert A. Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues

Trinity was created by satans will to mislead=100% fact of life

 

[civic]

It's really frustrating that the Arian heresy (that Jesus is not God) is alive and spreading in many churches today. Arianism was exterminated many years ago. Saint Athanasius of Alexandria spearheaded the anti-Arian cause. In fact, most of the Church was Arian leaning at that time. It's only by the Grace of God, through warriors like Saint Athanasius and ratified by Church Councils, that the Church was not totally overcome by Arianism. Again, it's really frustrating that people do not consult history but instead are content to reopen viral-laden blasphemous old heresies like Arianism. If anyone is interested in this topic please tell me and I can forward more information on Saint Athanasius' victory against the Arians.

We know that the bible says many in the end times will depart from the faith, taking on the doctrines of man, demons and having itchy ears will fall away into heresy, reprobation- having their conscience seared. It will be impossible for them to return having been turned over by God never again being able to repent because they have trampled under foot the Son of God.

We witness this on a daily basis on forums, youtube, social media, churches, denominations, pulpits, seminaries etc.......

Paul warns Timothy, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,” and “the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (1 Timothy 4:1-2; 2 Timothy 4:3).

hope this helps !!!

 

[Bronson]

Trinity was created by satans will to mislead=100% fact of life

I don't think so since it is what Christians believe. It is the testimony of both Testaments and of the Christian Church that God is both One and Triune. The Biblical revelation testifies that there is only one God and that He is eternally existent in Three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[Keiw1]

I don't think so since it is what Christians believe. It is the testimony of both Testaments and of the Christian Church that God is both One and Triune. The Biblical revelation testifies that there is only one God and that He is eternally existent in Three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Its 100% undeniable fact--The Israelites-NEVER served the true God as a trinity.
The mislead believe-US( Gen 1:26) created, but verse 27 is clear-HE created----not we or us. Prov 8:27-28=HE created----not we or us.
There is no trinity. In 381 ce at the Council of Constantinople, for the very first time the holy spirit was added to a godhead., No trinity was taught in 325 at the first council of Nicea. (2Thess 2:3=the religion that came out of Rome created the trinity.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Trinity was created by satans will to mislead=100% fact of life

The concept of a "Satanic Trinity" is often described as a counterfeit of the Holy Trinity, intended to mislead people into worshiping false entities like the Antichrist and the False Prophet. This idea suggests that Satan aims to deceive humanity by mimicking God's divine structure to gain worship for himself.

 

[Bronson]

Its 100% undeniable fact--The Israelites-NEVER served the true God as a trinity.
The mislead believe-US( Gen 1:26) created, but verse 27 is clear-HE created----not we or us. Prov 8:27-28=HE created----not we or us.
There is no trinity. In 381 ce at the Council of Constantinople, for the very first time the holy spirit was added to a godhead., No trinity was taught in 325 at the first council of Nicea. (2Thess 2:3=the religion that came out of Rome created the trinity.

You have a bad case of "Circular Reasoning"...If you begin with the assumption that the Trinity is not true, and then proceed to conclude that the Trinity is not true, you have assumed in your premise what you are attempting to prove in your conclusion.

For example, when we point to a passage in the Apostolic Fathers where the Trinity doctrine in clearly in view, some Arians will respond, “That is not possible because the Trinity was not invented until many centuries later.” They, thus, ignore the evidence by arguing in a circle:

Since the early Church did not believe in the Trinity, then there cannot be any references to the Trinity in the early Church.

Since there are no references to the Trinity in the early Church, therefore the early Church did not believe in the Trinity.

Another example of circular reasoning is:

Since the New Testament never calls Jesus “God,” then there cannot be any verses where he is called “God.”

Since there are no verses which call Jesus “God,” then the New Testament never calls Jesus “God.”

Circular reasoning is invalid regardless of who is doing it.

 

[Keiw1]

The concept of a "Satanic Trinity" is often described as a counterfeit of the Holy Trinity, intended to mislead people into worshiping false entities like the Antichrist and the False Prophet. This idea suggests that Satan aims to deceive humanity by mimicking God's divine structure to gain worship for himself.

Israel served a single being God= undeniable fact.

 

[Keiw1]

You have a bad case of "Circular Reasoning"...If you begin with the assumption that the Trinity is not true, and then proceed to conclude that the Trinity is not true, you have assumed in your premise what you are attempting to prove in your conclusion.

For example, when we point to a passage in the Apostolic Fathers where the Trinity doctrine in clearly in view, some Arians will respond, “That is not possible because the Trinity was not invented until many centuries later.” They, thus, ignore the evidence by arguing in a circle:

Since the early Church did not believe in the Trinity, then there cannot be any references to the Trinity in the early Church.

Since there are no references to the Trinity in the early Church, therefore the early Church did not believe in the Trinity.

Another example of circular reasoning is:

Since the New Testament never calls Jesus “God,” then there cannot be any verses where he is called “God.”

Since there are no verses which call Jesus “God,” then the New Testament never calls Jesus “God.”

Circular reasoning is invalid regardless of who is doing it.

I spoke truth.

 

[FreeInChrist]

Israel served a single being God= undeniable fact.

Elohim.

Exodus proves God the Father and Jesus are both "I AM" = God.

right there alone is enough to say your

Israel served a single being God= undeniable fact.

Is faulty understanding for we have 2... not one.... and as the song says... Two out of three aint bad...

Exodus 3: 13-14

13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

John 8: 57-58

57 ;Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Therefore, Jesus identified Himself as the angel of the Lord who speaks to Moses from the burning bush. Because Paul identifies Jesus as the Holy Spirit and Jesus identifies Himself as the angel of the Lord, this means that the angel of the Lord is the Holy Spirit.

And what of the Holy Spirit.... But what about the third one in the old testament?

Isaiah 63:9-10 ESV

We see that the angel of His (the Father’s) presence is called the Holy Spirit in verse 10. There can be no doubt that the angel of the Lord and the angel of His presence are the same angel. Therefore, according to Isaiah, the angel of the Lord is the Holy Spirit.

Let's see what other OT scriptures have to say or indicate a plurality of persons......

Zechariah 12:8 says: In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

The Hebrew word that is translated as ‘God’ in Zechariah 12:8 is ‘Elohim’.

This means that in Genesis 3:4 when it says that ‘God’ called to Moses out of the bush, it is most probably the angel of the Lord Who calls Moses and not the Father, because this is the simplest reading of the story. It is the angel Who is in the bush, and the angel is also called ‘God’, so it makes the most sense that it would be the angel Who speaks from the bush, rather than that the Father is suddenly introduced into the story.

So, Who exactly is this mysterious ‘angel of the Lord’ Who is being called God? It can’t be God the Father, because God the Father isn’t an angel. We can know this because Jesus said that God is Spirit and that those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth:
In Zechariah 3, the second last book of the Old Testament, the Father is speaking through the Holy Spirit about the Branch. In verse 8 Yahweh says: ‘I Am bringing forth My Servant the Branch….’ Zechariah 3:8. He is describing a future event. He is not describing something that had happened in the past prior to creation. The Son was begotten only at the beginning of the New Testament when Mary became pregnant with Him, as a result of the Holy Spirit overshadowing her. When the Holy Spirit took up residence in the body that the Father had prepared for Him, the Son was begotten. Therefore, it cannot be the Son of God, Jesus, speaking to Moses from the bush because He had not yet been begotten.

This means that there is only one remaining person in the Trinity who the angel of the Lord can be and that is the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 63 bears this out. In Isaiah 63:9-10 the Holy Spirit is called the angel of his presence:

9. In all their affliction he was afflicted,
and the angel of his presence saved them;
in his love and in his pity he redeemed them;
he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.

10 But they rebelled
and grieved his Holy Spirit;
therefore he turned to be their enemy,
and himself fought against them.

Exodus 3:13-14

Therefore, Jesus identified Himself as the angel of the Lord who speaks to Moses from the burning bush. Because Paul identifies Jesus as the Holy Spirit and Jesus identifies Himself as the angel of the Lord, this means that the angel of the Lord is the Holy Spirit. Which means that every time that the angel of the Lord speaks to someone in the Old Testament, it is the Holy Spirit speaking to them.