-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Re: Complete ownership...
That they may know you(the Father) the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent
John 17:3
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
1Cor8:6
That they may know you(the Father) the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent
John 17:3
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
1Cor8:6
yawn...the catholics got it right with this arianism-sleight-of-hand.
Eunomianism
A phase of extreme Arianism
The dogmatic system of Eunomius is characterized at once by its presumptuous dialectics and its shallowness. His errors concerning Christ are founded upon his erroneous theodicy, which involves the assertion that a God of simplicity cannot be a God of mystery at all, for even man is as competent as God to comprehend simplicity.
In other words, God is essentially incapable of being begotten. Hence it is folly to speak of a God begotten, of a Son of God. The one God, agennetos and anarchos, unbegotten and without beginning, could not communicate His own substance, nor beget even a consubstantial Son; consequently there could be no question of identity of substance (homoousios) or of likeness of substance (homoiousios) between the Father and the Son. There could be no essential resemblance (kat ousian), but at most a moral resemblance. for the Son is a being drawn forth from nothing by the will of the Father, yet superior to all Creation inasmuch as He alone was created by the One God to be the Creator of the world.
Eunomianism
A phase of extreme Arianism
The dogmatic system of Eunomius is characterized at once by its presumptuous dialectics and its shallowness. His errors concerning Christ are founded upon his erroneous theodicy, which involves the assertion that a God of simplicity cannot be a God of mystery at all, for even man is as competent as God to comprehend simplicity.
In other words, God is essentially incapable of being begotten. Hence it is folly to speak of a God begotten, of a Son of God. The one God, agennetos and anarchos, unbegotten and without beginning, could not communicate His own substance, nor beget even a consubstantial Son; consequently there could be no question of identity of substance (homoousios) or of likeness of substance (homoiousios) between the Father and the Son. There could be no essential resemblance (kat ousian), but at most a moral resemblance. for the Son is a being drawn forth from nothing by the will of the Father, yet superior to all Creation inasmuch as He alone was created by the One God to be the Creator of the world.
Surely not Mark54????
Quoting the Bible to show that the Son is not God.
Haven't you listened to what people have told you? The trinity must be true because they teach it in Sunday school. And have taught it (sometimes killing those that didn't agree) for 1900 years.
Surely it must be true because the Sun worshiper Constantine said it was true at the time he gave power to those who often were followers of Plato's works.
Surely quoting the Bible in context to refute things directly is not as good as a couple of weak or questionably-translated verses?
I'm joking of course.
Well put comments.
And before I too am accused - I'm not a JW. They believe some wacky stuff. The funniest one I know of though is that Jesus has already returned (1914) and is invisibly starting to change the world - we're already 99 years into His 1000 year rule).
One of the few things I do credit the JW for though is that they quote the Bible when they say Jesus will reign on earth for 1000 years and then hand over power to God. It's Biblical and pretty much makes it clear that it's more "God ain't the Son" than the man-made idea of "God the Son"
Quoting the Bible to show that the Son is not God.
Haven't you listened to what people have told you? The trinity must be true because they teach it in Sunday school. And have taught it (sometimes killing those that didn't agree) for 1900 years.
Surely it must be true because the Sun worshiper Constantine said it was true at the time he gave power to those who often were followers of Plato's works.
Surely quoting the Bible in context to refute things directly is not as good as a couple of weak or questionably-translated verses?
I'm joking of course.
Well put comments.
And before I too am accused - I'm not a JW. They believe some wacky stuff. The funniest one I know of though is that Jesus has already returned (1914) and is invisibly starting to change the world - we're already 99 years into His 1000 year rule).
One of the few things I do credit the JW for though is that they quote the Bible when they say Jesus will reign on earth for 1000 years and then hand over power to God. It's Biblical and pretty much makes it clear that it's more "God ain't the Son" than the man-made idea of "God the Son"
Actually Jesus was born a man.
His deity (not being God but having the nature of God, which is what the word means) was granted to him when he ascended. The Bible makes it clear that God granted him powers and granted him a new name (in the bible the name is the power) and had him sit at God's right hand.
So God wasn't begotten.
But Jesus has been given his present position by His Father (God).
Jesus wasn't the creator of the world that is an intentional mistranslation. The world was created "on account of" Jesus, not "by" - look at concordance use of the word the trinitarian KJV scholars decided (in a non-inspired way) to back up their doctrine.
The plan of God (the logos) always had Jesus in it to redeem man. So God made things "on account of " Jesus.
His deity (not being God but having the nature of God, which is what the word means) was granted to him when he ascended. The Bible makes it clear that God granted him powers and granted him a new name (in the bible the name is the power) and had him sit at God's right hand.
So God wasn't begotten.
But Jesus has been given his present position by His Father (God).
Jesus wasn't the creator of the world that is an intentional mistranslation. The world was created "on account of" Jesus, not "by" - look at concordance use of the word the trinitarian KJV scholars decided (in a non-inspired way) to back up their doctrine.
The plan of God (the logos) always had Jesus in it to redeem man. So God made things "on account of " Jesus.
[SUP] [/SUP]Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? [SUP]21[/SUP]For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. [SUP]22 [/SUP]Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, [SUP]23 [/SUP]but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, [SUP]24 [/SUP]but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. [SUP]25 [/SUP]For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.
Re: Complete ownership...
Look at how you had to artifically insert the words 'the Father' in order for this verse to satisfy your world-view.
Pitiful.
Stop abrogating the word of God.
Leave it alone, as thus...in the PLAIN English like you said that you wanted...
That they may know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent
John 17:3
Look at how you had to artifically insert the words 'the Father' in order for this verse to satisfy your world-view.
Pitiful.
Stop abrogating the word of God.
Leave it alone, as thus...in the PLAIN English like you said that you wanted...
That they may know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent
John 17:3
For anyone who is interested
Arius maintained that the Son of God was a Creature, made from nothing; and that he was God's First Production, before all ages. And he argued that everything else was created through the Son. Thus, said Arius, only the Son was directly created and begotten of God; furthermore, there was a time that He had no existence. He was capable of His own free will, said Arius, and thus "were He in the truest sense a son, He must have come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was not, and hence He was a finite being."[SUP][19][/SUP] Arius appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I". And also Colossians 1:15: "the firstborn of all creation." Thus, Arius insisted that the Father's Divinity was greater than the Son's, and that the Son was under God the Father, and not co-equal or co-eternal with Him.
Arius maintained that the Son of God was a Creature, made from nothing; and that he was God's First Production, before all ages. And he argued that everything else was created through the Son. Thus, said Arius, only the Son was directly created and begotten of God; furthermore, there was a time that He had no existence. He was capable of His own free will, said Arius, and thus "were He in the truest sense a son, He must have come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was not, and hence He was a finite being."[SUP][19][/SUP] Arius appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I". And also Colossians 1:15: "the firstborn of all creation." Thus, Arius insisted that the Father's Divinity was greater than the Son's, and that the Son was under God the Father, and not co-equal or co-eternal with Him.
Which ties in with the idea of Jesus being an angel - like the JW believe.
Unlike what we are told
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,the man Christ Jesus;
The KJV (even though having trinitarian bias to the point of fraud in other places) states clearly "the man Christ Jesus" is our mediator now.
How can this imagined 'Jesus God' mediate between man and God?
How can one mediate between oneself and others? That is called direct contact.
Please folks read these verses with a view to what the writers were trying to tell you - instead of what you are told by 20th-21st century people that they mean.
Get it from scripture rather than another person's interpretation of scripture.
The power of God gave us the Bible - it did not give us passed down traditions of men...
Unlike what we are told
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,the man Christ Jesus;
The KJV (even though having trinitarian bias to the point of fraud in other places) states clearly "the man Christ Jesus" is our mediator now.
How can this imagined 'Jesus God' mediate between man and God?
How can one mediate between oneself and others? That is called direct contact.
Please folks read these verses with a view to what the writers were trying to tell you - instead of what you are told by 20th-21st century people that they mean.
Get it from scripture rather than another person's interpretation of scripture.
The power of God gave us the Bible - it did not give us passed down traditions of men...
Bookreader
Miracles I believe in, but-my faith(unfortunately) has its limits. It's very difficult to imagine people who believe you condemned, a heretic, and heading for hell having a 'road to damasus' experiance.
On the bright side, the Trinitarian ministers and their congreagations are far friendlier, and more easy going than some of their parishoners on the internet. In fact, this issue has never been raised in any Trinitarian church I have ever been to. Not once was it mentioned to me privately, nor did I ever hear it preached from the pulpit that a person must believe Christ is God Himself unto salvation
If only some of the Trins on the internet, could follow that good example
We can but live in hope
Miracles I believe in, but-my faith(unfortunately) has its limits. It's very difficult to imagine people who believe you condemned, a heretic, and heading for hell having a 'road to damasus' experiance.
On the bright side, the Trinitarian ministers and their congreagations are far friendlier, and more easy going than some of their parishoners on the internet. In fact, this issue has never been raised in any Trinitarian church I have ever been to. Not once was it mentioned to me privately, nor did I ever hear it preached from the pulpit that a person must believe Christ is God Himself unto salvation
If only some of the Trins on the internet, could follow that good example
We can but live in hope
Last edited: