Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
you are an outright liar (on multiple levels) with that statement - but it’s okay because you’re so cluelessly amusing it’s lovable - God bless! Continue to ignore the commandments that you find troublesome XOXOXO
Nicely presented metmom - just so!
Beautifully stated, m’Lady. There is a certain little valley on the drive up to Green Bank Observatory, which struck me in awe one night.
metmom: "Except here....." lists eight proof-texts.
FRiend, none of the proof-texts you quote actually say, "Jesus is God Himself".
All of them can be, and have been, interpreted to mean something other than what you claim.
For example, I've already addressed at some length your second quote, John 10:30: The Father and I are one," in posts #1,940, #2,304 and others.
Some of these discussions can become quite lengthy, and your list in post #2,306 is only a partial list.
So, if you truly wished to go through these on a one-by-one basis, we can, but I doubt if you would find the exercise enlightening.
Your mind is doubtless made up, and so you just will never "see" what some others have.
And indeed, unlike for example, Kevmo, my purpose here is not to proselytize you, only to defend our Founders against spurious charges of being, in Kevmo's words, "God Damned Heretics".
This does not require that you, metmom, agree with me, only that you recognize the point of view I defend (that of many Founders) as legitimate enough to belong in the Free Republic family of conservatives.
Do you?
My word "many" clearly refers to all three categories I mentioned: Unitarians, deistically-inclined and Freemason Christians.
Those categories do include "many" Founders, indeed, only a few fall into none of them -- Washington's friend, John Jay comes to mind.
George Washington himself is an excellent example, clearly a devout Christian and a leader in his church.
But he was also a leader amongst deistic-Freemasons, he often referred to the protections of "Providence", but never (so far as I know) to the deity of Christ.
It is also said that while Washington attended various church services -- including Catholic -- he refused to take communion.
Bottom line: while Washington was not Unitarian, he was a deistically influenced Freemason Christian.
Others like Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were less traditional Christian and more influenced by Unitarian, deistic Freemason ideas.
Do you disagree?
Simply not true, FRiend.
In fact, the beliefs I defend here reflect the Unitarianism of some Founding Fathers, plus what are today known as "Restoration Churches" -- i.e., Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, New Apostolic Church, etc. -- a total of circa 50 million Christians worldwide.
I think most of these people qualify as genuine conservatives, and therefore deserve respect and a welcome home on Free Republic.
Do you disagree?
Agreed, and thank you.
MHGinTN: "What Jesus had related to Philip was the truth that the entirety of what the disciples could sense of the multi-dimensional God was what they could sense in Jesus."
At this point we are into some very fine theological hair-splitting, about which much speculation has been written.
But the bottom line is suggested here, even in your words: Jesus is not necessarily claiming to be God Himself.
What Jesus certainly did call himself is: Son of God, Christ/Messiah, all in the traditional Old Testament senses of those words.
No Jew, then or now, could ever claim to be God Himself.
The necessity for proclaiming Jesus "God the Son" of the triune God-head, arises out of much-later challenges from Greek philosophy, and if I dare say this: Roman Empire politics.
I already (briefly) addressed your quote from John 20:28 in my post #2,197.
If you wish a more detailed discussion, we can do that, but I'd have to ask you: why?
There is no possibility my words could change your mind, and that is not my intention.
I am only here to defend the views of many Founding Fathers, who were Freemasons, Unitarians or otherwise deistically influenced Christians.
If I can get you to treat their views with a modicum of respect (see Kevmo's post #1,983), then my purpose is accomplished.
It's important to note that the majority of those quotes (5 of 8) come from the Gospel Writer John.
So, if John's gospel is properly understood, then most of the justification for full-blown trinitarianism disappears.
Christian denominations known as "restorationists" begin to understand John by going first to his final words on this subject: John 20:30-31:
John does not say he wants us to believe that Jesus is God Himself.
From this perspective, when we re-examine all those other proof-texts to see if John ever violated his own intentions, it turns out, he did not.
Arguments which you, Ms boop, have so far proved unable to summarize accurately.
betty boop: "And so, BroJoeK is looking there for the explicit positive statement: Jesus is God.
He does not find that statement in so many words — notwithstanding metmom's insightful list of citations on this very point.
Therefore, BroJoeK evidently feels himself entitled to "skepticism" on this point."
FRiend, I am not "skeptical" -- I am here to defend the religious views of (among others) our Freemason, Unitarian or deistically inclined Christian Founding Fathers.
Many of these beliefs are also found amongst nearly 50 million "restoration Christians" worldwide today.
I believe they deserve both fair hearings and respectful treatment here on Free Republic.
Do you agree?
betty boop: "I imagine most Christians are not as "sola scriptura" in their approach to the biblical idea of human existence as BroJoeK seems to be."
You are absolutely entitled to believe whatever you wish on these subjects.
I am only here to defend and seek some respect for beliefs of others (i.e., our Founders) who saw things differently.
betty boop: "Of course, I suspect that BroJoeK is a poseur, just here to stir up trouble and set off bombs...."
"Poser" for defending our Founding Fathers?
"Stir up trouble" by explaining their beliefs?
"Set off bombs" by linking them to around 50 million other non-Trinitarian Christians, world-wide?
Ms. boop, I ask again: what exactly is your problem?
betty boop: "BJK's main position appears to be this: All Christians are "wrong" in their belief, and one can use a selective culling of evidence from the Holy Scriptures to prove it.
And not just positive evidence; but negative evidence as well — i.e., that the Bible doesn't explicitly say "Jesus is God," in so many words."
In fact, I've several times posted the opposite -- i.e., quoting my post #2,143:
Most important point here: that's why our Founding Fathers' first clause of their First Amendment says:
betty boop: "In so many words, BJK is telling us that Christianity is basically a "dead letter"; but to say this, he has to "forget" that the people who live in Faith find that letter — the Word — very much alive in their hearts, in their direct experience, in their acts...."
Of course, I've said nothing of the sort, shame on you, Ms boop.
I refer you to the "living Faith" of around 50 million "restoration Christians".
Do you have a problem with them?
No one on this thread has denied the divinity of Christ.
But many followers of Christ -- now and historically -- do not agree that "divinity" necessarily means Jesus was God Himself.
In historical fact, Jesus was the "heretic" -- the "blasphemer" -- of his day, who was being "rooted out" by the Kevmo's and spirited irish's of the time.
Historically, the charge of "heresy", like "blasphemy" was a threat of murder, a spirit clearly seen in Kevmo's own language: "God Damned Heretic", i.e., posts #1,983 & #2,327.
In historical fact, there is no explicit Trinitarian language in the New Testament, and no Christian confessed full-blown trinitarianism for not just decades, but centuries after Christ.
Yes, of course, I agree that trinitarianism is a logical conclusion to be drawn from New Testament texts, and possibly even necessary in response to various theological arguments.
But, it is not the only possible conclusion, and those who believed otherwise (including some of our Founders) should be treated with more respect than they sometimes receive.
Please see my posts #2,197 & 2,255 among others.
Jesus was then responding to people who charged Jesus with "blasphemy" -- threatening murder -- equivalent in those days to your charge of "God Damned Heresy".
In fact, Jesus was not guilty of "blasphemy", since he was speaking the truth.
I have merely tried to speak the truth about Jesus, as it is reported in the New Testament.
Your bitterly foul language towards yours truly, BroJoeK, notwithstanding, the fact remains that historically and even today, millions of people have not interpreted those words in the same way you do.
And historically many of those were persecuted and murdered for their "heretical" beliefs.
So I am here to tell you, Kevmo, that neither they nor I deserve the verbal abuse you've dished out.
Jesus had no contempt for the New Testament.
I have denied nothing the New Testament says about Jesus.
Your claims to the contrary, from the beginning have been false accusations.
Your false accusations are what make Kevmo equivalent to those who accused Jesus of "blasphemy".
Indeed, proselytization is obviously the purpose of Kevmo, spirited irish & others on this News/Activism thread.
It appears they have grown weary of their own Religion Forum's many restrictions, and wish to unleash their "inner satans" on somebody, anybody, they can find to condemn as "God Damned Heretics".
This is their big break-out, and one can clearly sense their excitement.
tacticalogic: "Didn't happen."
Lots of very fine hair-splitting going on here.
The New Testament is full of language about Jesus which can be interpreted according to its original Old Testament definitions of terms, or according to centuries-later theological formulations.
The original Old Testament definitions are often today referred to as, "God Damned Heresies".
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.