Posted on 06/23/2003 2:36:07 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid
I think we'd more properly call it Arianism. It's what the Nicean Creed was written against.
SD
Mt 28:18,19 18 And Yahshua came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Finally, we have here in verse 18 another clear statement by Yahshua that his power had been GIVEN to him. The one giving and the one being given are separate entities, thus proving the giver (God) and one given (Yahshua) are NOT the same - Yahshua is NOT God. Christians discard the gifts of common sense and reason as they choose to accept the "unexplainable mystery" even though a very explainable and FAR more Biblical alternative exists.
Verse 19 is the only verse in the New Testament that talks of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" together. If anyone knows of another please inform me. 1 John 5:7 has been proven by most scholars to be a corrupting addition to the Scriptures. Only the most ultra-biased reject that fact. Thus, there appears to be no verse but this one that even hints at a "trinity". However, that "hint" is only arrived at by assumption. The verse could just as easily be referring to the concept that the Father, who is Spirit (John 4:24), has empowered Yahshau with all authority. Therefore, the "name" (authority) of the Son IS the authority of the Spirit Father.
A sterling example of "apatheism."
SD
Thanx for the concern. But don't worry. I believe I'm pursuing truth.
I saw the word in Polycarp's tagline. I asusme he coined it.
It's a combinaiton of apathy (not caring) with theism (beliefs in god). You have shown that you are apathetic about this particular subject area. So the term fits.
Whether you should take it as in insult or not is up to you. I am perplexed why anyone would care enough to announce that he doesn't care. I mean, if you don't care, why would you bother posting anything?
Obviously, to many people this is an important facet of theology. Apathy is not an adequate resolution to the dispute. Truth demands more than a simple indifference.
SD
Steven, have you become an Arian? And what does that have to do with the Perpetual Virginity of the BVM.
Steven now denies the Virgin Birth altogether. And the parts of the New Testament that don't fit his "Torah" philosophy. Only the Hebrew Bible is inspired.
SD
You are a heretic. Your words say you believe God turned into carnal flesh. Rather, God took humanity to himself. God was "made flesh" (John 1.14), he did not "become flesh". You believe like the Pagans, who believe their gods transformed into humans and back to gods again, while we believe in a God who perfected His creation by uniting it to Himself in the Person of His Son. You speak of God "allowing" His Son to become Incarnate (you make it sound as though poor Jesus had to beg the Father like a teenager asking for $20 and the car keys!). You don't realize it was always God's plan that Jesus become incarnate.
"Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself." (Athanasian Creed)
well, I don't think He would be too upset to see Mary and Joseph have a loving, conjugal relationship during the course of their marriage (post Jesus' birth).
Homosexualist doublespeak.
Loving relationships certainly do not need sex. I very much love my children and my parents, just as I love my wife.
Mary's having given birth to Christ made her perpetually holy. It boggles the mind to imagine her and Joseph needing the mutual companionship of sex when they had the perfect companionship of God Almighty dwelling under their roof. You imply something would somehow be lacking in having God as a member of your family, that only sexual relations could fulfill. This seems sacrilegious and blasphemous to me.
Well, The Virgin Birth of itself doesn't demand anything. After all, Heracles, according to Greek mythology. had such a birth, What demands this is the personal relationship of Mary and Joseph to their God. Yahweh, unlike Zeus, cares for his people. Mary became the spouse of the Holy Spirit, not merely his tool, and therefore Joseph became her guardian and the guardian of her child, who is Yahweh incarnate. It is not required that Joseph be a virgin, but that he be ever afterwards chaste, for to be otherwise is not to fulfill his role. I think that all of this is consistent with the content and tone of the first two Chapters of Luke: Mary and Joseph--and their Golden Child.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.