Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).
“And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth, and there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit." (Rev. 9:1)
In his Concise Commentary Matthew Henry identifies falling stars as tepid, indecisive, weak or apostate clergy who,
"Having ceased to be a minister of Christ, he who is represented by this star becomes the minister of the devil; and lets loose the powers of hell against the churches of Christ."
John identifies antichrists, in this case clergy who serve the devil rather than Christ, sequentially. First, like Bultmann, Teilhard de Chardin, Robert Funk, Paul Tillich, and John Shelby Spong, they specifically deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern pantheist conceptions. Though God the Father Almighty in three Persons upholds the souls of men and maintains life and creation, His substance is not within nature (space-time dimension) as pantheism maintains, but outside of it. Sinful men live within nature and are burdened by time and mortality; God is not.
Second, the specific denial of the Father logically negates Jesus the Christ, the Word who was in the beginning (John 1), was with God, and is God from the creation of all things (1 John 1). In a pre-incarnate theophany, Jesus is the Angel who spoke “mouth to mouth” to Moses (Num. 12:6-9; John 9:20) and at sundry times and in many ways “spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all…” (Hebrews 1:1) Jesus the Christ is the incarnate Son of God who is the life and light of men, who by His shed blood on the Cross died for the remission of all sins and bestowed the privilege of adoption on all who put their faith in Him.
Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,
“…every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).
According to Peter (2 Peter 2:1), falling stars will work among the faithful, teaching damnable heresies that deny the Lord, cause the fall of men into unbelief, and bring destruction upon themselves:
“The natural parents of modern unbelief turn out to have been the guardians of belief.” Many thinking people came at last “to realize that it was religion, not science or social change that gave birth to unbelief. Having made God more and more like man---intellectually, morally, emotionally---the shapers of religion made it feasible to abandon God, to believe simply in man.” (James Turner of the University of Michigan in “American Babylon,” Richard John Neuhaus, p. 95)
Falling Stars and Damnable Heresy
Almost thirty years ago, two well-respected social science scholars, William Sims Bainbridge and Rodney Stark found themselves alarmed by what they saw as a rising tide of irrationalism, superstition and occultism---channeling cults, spirit familiars, necromancers, Wiccans, Satanists, Luciferians, goddess worshippers, 'gay' shamans, Hermetic magicians and other occult madness at every level of society, particularly within the most influential--- Hollywood, academia and the highest corridors of political power.
Like many scientists, they were equally concerned by Christian opposition to naturalistic evolution. As is common in the science community, they assumed the cause of these social pathologies was somehow due to fundamentalism, their term for authentic Christian theism as opposed to liberalized Christianity. Yet to their credit, the research they undertook to discover the cause was conducted both scientifically and with great integrity. What they found was so startling it caused them to re-evaluate their attitude toward authentic Christian theism. Their findings led them to say:
"It would be a mistake to conclude that fundamentalists oppose all science (when in reality they but oppose) a single theory (that) directly contradicts the bible. But it would be an equally great mistake to conclude that religious liberals and the irreligious possess superior minds of great rationality, to see them as modern personalities who have no need of the supernatural or any propensity to believe unscientific superstitions. On the contrary...they are much more likely to accept the new superstitions. It is the fundamentalists who appear most virtuous according to scientific standards when we examine the cults and pseudo-sciences proliferating in our society today." ("Superstitions, Old and New," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. IV, No. 4; summer, 1980)
In more detail they observed that authentic ‘born again’ Christians are far less likely to accept cults and pseudoscientific beliefs while the irreligious and liberalized Christians (i.e., progressive Catholics, Protestant emergent, NAR, word faith, prosperity gospel) are open to unscientific notions. In fact, these two groups are most disposed toward occultism.
As Bainbridge and Stark admitted, evolution directly contradicts the Bible, beginning with the Genesis account of creation ex nihilo. This means that evolution is the antithesis of the Genesis account. For this reason, discerning Christians refuse to submit to the evolutionary thinking that has swept Western and American society. Nor do they accept the evolutionary theism brought into the whole body of the Church by weak, tepid, indecisive, or apostate clergy.
Over eighty years ago, Rev. C. Leopold Clarke wrote that priests who embrace evolution (evolutionary theists) are apostates from the ‘Truth as it is in Jesus.’ (1 John2:2) Rev. Clarke, a lecturer at a London Bible college, discerned that evolution is the antithesis to the Revelation of God in the Deity of Jesus Christ, thus it is the greatest and most active agent of moral and spiritual disintegration:
“It is a battering-ram of unbelief---a sapping and mining operation that intends to blow Religion sky-high. The one thing which the human mind demands in its conception of God, is that, being Almighty, He works sovereignly and miraculously---and this is the thing with which Evolution dispenses….Already a tremendous effect, on a wide scale has been produced by the impact of this teaching---an effect which can only be likened to the…collapse of foundations…” (Evolution and the Break-Up of Christendom, Philip Bell, creation.com, Nov. 27, 2012)
The faith of the Christian Church and of the average Christian has had, and still has, its foundation as much in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis, the book of beginnings revealed ‘mouth to mouth’ by the Angel to Moses, as in that of the person and deity of Jesus Christ. But how horrible a travesty of the sacred office of the Christian Ministry to see church leaders more eager to be abreast of the times, than earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). It is high time, said Rev. Clarke, that the Church,
“…. separated herself from the humiliating entanglement attending her desire to be thought up to date…What, after all, have custodians of Divine Revelation to do making terms with speculative Biology, which has….no message of comfort or help to the soul?” (ibid)
The primary tactic employed by priests eager to accommodate themselves and the Church to modern science and evolutionary thinking is predictable. It is the argument that evolution is entirely compatible with the Bible when we see Genesis, especially the first three chapters, in a non-literal, non-historical context. This is the argument embraced and advanced by mega-church pastor Timothy J. Keller.
With a position paper Keller published with the theistic evolutionary organization Bio Logos he joined the ranks of falling stars (Catholic and Protestant priests) stretching back to the Renaissance. Their slippery-slide into apostasy began when they gave into the temptation to embrace a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis. (A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople,” Lita Cosner, Sept. 9, 2010, creation.com)
This is not a heresy unique to modern times. The early Church Fathers dealt with this damnable heresy as well, counting it among the heretical tendencies of the Origenists. Fourth-century Fathers such as John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and Ephraim the Syrian, all of whom wrote commentaries on Genesis, specifically warned against treating Genesis as an unhistorical myth or allegory. John Chrysostom strongly warned against paying heed to these heretics,
“…let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.” (Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, Fr. Seraphim Rose, p. 31)
As St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote, higher theological, spiritual meaning is founded upon humble, simple faith in the literal and historic meaning of Genesis and one cannot apprehend rightly the Scriptures without believing in the historical reality of the events and people they describe. (ibid, Seraphim Rose, p. 40)
In the integral worldview teachings of the Fathers, neither the literal nor historical meaning of the Revelations of the pre-incarnate Jesus, the Angel who spoke to Moses, can be regarded as expendable. There are at least four critically important reasons why. First, to reduce the Revelation of God to allegory and myth is to contradict and usurp the authority of God, ultimately deny the deity of Jesus Christ; twist, distort, add to and subtract from the entire Bible and finally, to imperil the salvation of believers.
Scenarios commonly proposed by modern Origenists posit a cleverly disguised pantheist/immanent nature deity subject to the space-time dimension and forces of evolution. But as noted previously, it is sinful man who carries the burden of time, not God. This is a crucial point, for when evolutionary theists add millions and billions of zeros (time) to God they have transferred their own limitations onto Him. They have ‘limited’ God and made Him over in their own image. This is not only idolatrous but satanic.
Additionally, evolution inverts creation. In place of God’s good creation from which men fell there is an evolutionary escalator starting at the bottom with matter, then progressing upward toward life, then up and through the life and death of millions of evolved creatures that preceded humans by millions of years until at long last an apish humanoid emerges into which a deity that is always in a state of becoming (evolving) places a soul.
Evolution amputates the entire historical precedent from the Gospel and makes Jesus Christ unnecessary as the atheist Frank Zindler enthusiastically points out:
“The most devastating thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus…into the ranks of the unemployed. I think evolution absolutely is the death knell of Christianity.” (“Atheism vs. Christianity,” 1996, Lita Cosner, creation.com, June 13, 2013)
None of this was lost on Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1985). Huxley was thoroughly familiar with the Bible, thus he understood that if Genesis is not the authoritative Word of God, is not historical and literal despite its’ symbolic and poetic elements, then the entirety of Scripture becomes a collection of fairytales resulting in tragic downward spiraling consequences as the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation makes clear in part:
“By denying the historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis, theistic evolutionism has fostered a preoccupation with natural causes almost to the exclusion of supernatural ones. By denying the several supernatural creative acts of God in Genesis, and by downplaying the importance of the supernatural activity of Satan, theistic evolutionists slip into a naturalistic mentality which seeks to explain everything in terms of natural causes. Once this mentality takes hold, it is easy for men to regard the concept of spiritual warfare as a holdover from the days of primitive superstition. Diabolical activity is reduced to material or psychological causes. The devil and his demons come to be seen as irrelevant. Soon ‘hell’ joins the devil and his demons in the category of antiquated concepts. And the theistic evolutionist easily makes the fatal mistake of thinking that he has nothing more to fear from the devil and his angels. According to Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, there is a tremendous increase in diabolical activity and influence in the formerly Christian world. And yet most of the bishops of Europe no longer believe in the existence of evil spirits….To the Fathers of the Church who believed in the truth of Genesis, this would be incredible. But in view of the almost universal acceptance of theistic evolution, it is hardly surprising.” (The Difference it makes: The Importance of the Traditional Doctrine of Creation, Hugh Owen, kolbecenter.org)
Huxley had ‘zero’ respect for modern Origenists and received enormous pleasure from heaping piles of hot coals and burning contempt upon them, thereby exposing their shallow-reasoning, hypocrisy, timidity, fear of non-acceptance, and unfaithfulness. With sarcasm dripping from his words he quipped,
“I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how any one, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the “ten words” were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated? And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?” (Darwin’s Bulldog---Thomas Huxley, Russell Grigg, creation.com, Oct. 14, 2008)
Pouring more contempt on them he asked,
“When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah’s wife, and his sons’ wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask what sort of value, as an illustration of God’s methods of dealing with sin, has an account of an event that never happened? If no Flood swept the careless people away, how is the warning of more worth than the cry of “Wolf” when there is no wolf? If Jonah’s three days’ residence in the whale is not an “admitted reality,” how could it “warrant belief” in the “coming resurrection?” … Suppose that a Conservative orator warns his hearers to beware of great political and social changes, lest they end, as in France, in the domination of a Robespierre; what becomes, not only of his argument, but of his veracity, if he, personally, does not believe that Robespierre existed and did the deeds attributed to him?” (ibid)
Concerning Matthew 19:5:
“If divine authority is not here claimed for the twenty-fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis, what is the value of language? And again, I ask, if one may play fast and loose with the story of the Fall as a “type” or “allegory,” what becomes of the foundation of Pauline theology?” (ibid)
And concerning Cor. 15:21-22:
“If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” comparable to the profound Promethean mythus, what value has Paul’s dialectic?” (ibid)
After much thought, C.S. Lewis concluded that evolution is the central, most radical lie at the center of a vast network of lies within which modern Westerners are entangled while Rev. Clarke identifies the central lie as the Gospel of another Spirit. The fiendish aim of this Spirit is to help men lose God, not find Him, and by contradicting the Divine Redeemer, compromising Priests are serving this Spirit and its’ diabolical purposes. To contradict the Divine Redeemer is the very essence of unfaithfulness, and that it should be done while reverence is professed,
“…. is an illustration of the intellectual and moral topsy-turvydom of Modernism…’He whom God hath sent speaketh the Words of God,’ claimed Christ of Himself (John 3:34), and no assumption of error can hold water in the face of that declaration, without blasphemy.” Evolutionary theists are serving the devil, therefore “no considerations of Christian charity, of tolerance, of policy, can exonerate Christian leaders or Churches who fail to condemn and to sever themselves from compromising, cowardly, shilly-shallying priests”---the falling stars who “challenge the Divine Authority of Jesus Christ.” (ibid)
The rebuttals, warnings and counsels of the Fathers against listening to Origenists (and their modern evolutionary counterparts) indicates that the spirit of antichrist operating through modern rationalistic criticism of the Revelation of God is not a heresy unique to our times but was inveighed against by early Church Fathers.
From the scholarly writings of the Eastern Orthodox priest, Fr. Seraphim Rose, to the incisive analysis, rebuttals and warnings of the Catholic Kolbe Center, creation.com, Creation Research Institute, Rev. Clarke, and many other stalwart defenders of the faith once delivered, all are a clear, compelling call to the whole body of the Church to hold fast to the traditional doctrine of creation as it was handed down from the Apostles, for as God spoke and Jesus is the Living Word incarnate, it is incumbent upon the faithful to submit their wills to the Divine Will and Authority of God rather than to the damnable heresy proffered by falling stars eager to embrace naturalistic science and the devil's antithesis--- evolution. But if it seem evil to you to serve the Lord,
“…you have your choice: choose this day that which pleases you, whom you would rather serve….but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15
Yes and right from Psalm 45:
6 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. 7 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of joy above Your fellows. 8 All Your garments are fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia; Out of ivory palaces stringed instruments have made You glad. 9 Kings’ daughters are among Your noble ladies; At Your right hand stands the queen in gold from Ophir.
Or setting traps.
That's a major error on your part. In John 3:16 the Apostle labeled Jesus Christ the only-begotten Son of God. The Greek for only-begotten is monogenes (mono = one) and (genes - kind). John was clearly stating Jesus was the UNIQUE Son of God, deity from deity.
You're simply pettifogging the issue.
The claims of Christ are many and varied. He said that He existed before Abraham (John 8:58), and that He was equal with the Father (John 5:17, 18). Jesus claimed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5–7), which the Bible teaches was something that God alone could do (Isaiah 43:25).
The New Testament equated Jesus as the creator of the universe (John 1:3), and that He is the one who holds everything together (Colossians 1:17). The apostle Paul says that God was manifest in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16, KJV), and John the evangelist says that “the Word was God” (John 1:1). The united testimony of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament is that He was more than mere man; He was God.
Which Christ? The Bible is very explicit there are many Christs, but only one true Son of God.
First, Ms boop, it's most curious that in not one of your frequent efforts to summarize my opinions did you get it right, and here again.
The truth here is that I've been hoping you'd post the opposite: that our Founders were good & decent people with Christian religious beliefs which, while not 100% orthodox, were at least worthy of understanding and respect.
And people such as Kevmo & others on this thread who would refer to Founders as "God Damned Heretics" are way off base.
That's the truth of this matter, and I've been hoping you'd eventually see and confirm it.
betty boop: "First you lump all the Founding Fathers together into a "group," so to speak of "their" religious views.
As if such were monolithic.
Among the Founding Fathers are to be found Trinitarians, Unitarians, and/or Deists."
No, I've been totally factual, for example, in post #2,465 I provided links to lists of Freemason Founders, Deistic Founders, Unitarian-Christian Founders and one discussing George Washington's own religious beliefs.
Yes, it turns out that the lists of Founders in one or more of these categories is larger than a list of major traditional Christian Founders (i.e., John Jay).
But those are facts of history, not some "twisted, specious logic" of mine.
betty boop: "A Christian by definition is a Trinitarian.
For a Christian to deny the divinity of Christ might be heretical."
Certainly by your definition, but since Day One, there have been many followers of Christ who, while affirming Christ's divinity, did not believe full-blown trinitarianism.
Yes, these people were often persecuted, murdered & exterminated by "good Christians", but some survive, even to this day, under the category called: Restorationists.
Those are the people I am here to defend, because for one: they included many of our Founding Fathers.
betty boop: "John 1:1–5 — and not notice that it declares Jesus Christ, the Word and Son of God, is "One" with the Father from the Beginning.
That He is of the same divine substance as the Father, and thus Himself fully divine."
As explained in post #2,579 there are three reasons why I haven't delved into explaining John 1:
If I could just convince you to post that our Founders were not, in Kevmo's words: "God Damned Heretics", then I'd consider my efforts here a success.
Will you do that for me, Ms boop?
betty boop: "Evidently, BroJoeK, you need to see "Jesus Is God" spelled out for you in the Holy Scriptures in just so many words.
Since that statement is not there (AFAIK "in so many words"), you feel you have reason to doubt."
But I don't "doubt", I know for a fact: there's not a Trinitarian word in the whole New Testament, and the reason is simple: no NT writer was a Trinitarian.
Yes, they all believed in the divinity of Christ and the Unity of God, but not one used full-blown Trinitarian language, which took over 300 years to fully develop.
That's why I say the trinity should be optional: if you want it, fine then believe it.
But don't be condemning to hell as "God Damned Heretics" people who see no need for such theological constructs.
The New Testament writers didn't use them, so why should we?
Oh, so you acknowledge there is "trap setting" going on here? If so, by whom, and for what purpose???
Please be explicit in your reply. I'm sick of stumbling around in the fog....
And again, we have the lexicon define "O God" as 'elohiym' as well as 'elohiym' is used for God in many other places in the OT:
The KJV translates Strongs H430 in the following manner: God (2,346x), god (244x), judge (5x), GOD (1x), goddess (2x), great (2x), mighty (2x), angels (1x), exceeding (1x), God-ward (with H4136) (1x), godly (1x).
In the 2,346 times 'elohiym' is used for God (with a capital G in our language) Psalm 45 is an instance of the use for God, not gods or a god. The Psalm 82 reference is clearly "gods" and not God. To continue to use the God vs. Jesus Christ is "a god" argument you would have to explain some sort of pantheon explained in the OT scriptures. There is no such pantheon.
Now in the Greek used in Hebrews 1:
Again, 'theos' is used:
The KJV translates Strongs G2316 in the following manner: God (1,320x), god (13x), godly (3x), God-ward (with G4214) (2x), misc (5x).
If you select 'god' for this verse in Hebrews, then you will have to change many more throughout the NT.
Now to compare the Greek with the Hebrew between passages in the OT and NT we use this:
Revelation 1:(LEB and KJV given below for comparison)
8I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, the one who is and the one who was and the one who is coming, the All-Powerful.(LEB literal translation)
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord,which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Compare with the following:
Isaiah 44:(KJV, LEB and and KJV used for comparison)
6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
7 And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them.
8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.(KJV)
Now the LEB:Isaiah 44:
6 Thus says Yahweh, the king of Israel, and its redeemer, Yahweh of hosts: “I am the first, and I am the last, and there is no god besides me. 7 And who is like me? Let him proclaim it! And let him declare it and set it in order for me since I established an eternal people and things that are to come, and let them tell them the things that are coming. 8 You must not tremble, and you must not be paralyzed with fear. Have I not made you hear from of old and declared it, and you are my witnesses? Is there a god besides me? And there is no rock! I know none!”(LEB)
Is it The Father in Revelation 1 and Isaiah 44 or the Son?
I'm sick of stumbling around in the fog....
To: tacticalogic
Eventually you will be caught in the trap, troll. T4BTT, despicable long term anticonservative troll
2,541 posted on Sunday, December 29, 2013 9:25:31 PM by Kevmo
Founders and church affiliation
They either followed the confessions of their faith or led some secret society life.
How very noble of you, dear BroJoeK!!!
Unfortunately for you, I doubt there was even one FReeper on this thread that believed the Founders were in need of any "defense" at all — until you came along with your strawman argument....
You and I have great difficulty understanding one another. I think that may be mutually allowed. And the reason for that, I do believe, is that you and I do not stand on the same ground of being. Which for me, ultimately is the Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, One with the Father, Logos Alpha to Omega, my ultimate Savior, Lord and Judge.
You are, it seems, at least a skeptic. But there is worse to fear: You might be a nihilist.
Get a grip, my friend!!!
Oh, thank you so much, redleghunter, for the link to "Founders and church affiliation" — a most valuable resource!
I excerpted the above from it.
FRiend, posters here like Kevmo and spirited irish accuse yours truly of being a "God Damned Heretic" based on their assertions that I have "denied the divinity/deity of Christ".
But the truth is, I haven't done that, not ever.
Instead, I've fully affirmed what the NT clearly says about Jesus -- Son of God, sent by God to be our Messiah/Christ/Savior.
What the New Testament does not give us is explicit Trinitarian language saying that Jesus is God Himself.
That idea took centuries of theological noodling to arrive at, and even then, many did not agree -- and suffered for it.
In this particular example, your idea that Jesus was God's unique Son is fully consistent with John's gospel and indeed the entire New Testament.
But it contains no hint of a suggestion that Jesus was God Himself.
You are welcome. There is a great deal of data at the site. I pinged the site owner who is a ThD.
Of course the New Testament writers agree that Jesus was "more than mere man", that he was in some sense divine, even deity.
But they never say that Jesus was God Himself, and that for them was an important distinction.
Certainly, I "get" that a divine Jesus who is not God Himself can lead to certain theological "problems," problems the Church Fathers noodled & debated for centuries.
And I'm not even claiming those good Fathers didn't find the best available solutions to their theological "problem".
I am saying those "problems" didn't bother either NT writers or earliest Christians, and I see no particular reason why they should bother us.
So, if you want a trinity, then by all means believe it.
But your belief should not be an excuse for condemning to hell as "God Damned Heretics" people whose beliefs are actually closer to the original than yours.
Do you disagree?
Love to meet him!
Again, THANKS, redleghunter!
You know, after awhile, you become very familiar with these verses, and their references...
Begin here: in John 10:34, Jesus refers to himself as "Son of God" in the same sense as humans are called "gods" in Psalm 82:6.
It's a title of utmost respect, not a claim of deity.
In Hebrews 1:8 the author (Paul?) refers to Jesus using quotes from Psalm 45:6 in which, again, a human king is referred to as "God" -- a title of utmost respect, not a claim of deity.
FRiend, the Jews were then, and remain today, very particular on this point: there is only One God, and no matter what exalted titles we might give anybody else, they are not Him.
redleghunter: "Psalm 45 is an instance of the use for God, not gods or a god."
And yet, "God" in Psalm 45 clearly refers to a human king -- it's a title of utmost respect.
In that same sense, the OT Hebrew word for "worship" also means to bow down to a king.
So the author of Hebrews (Paul?) is telling us that Jesus Christ deserves the same level of respect as shown the king in Psalm 45.
redleghunter: "The Psalm 82 reference is clearly "gods" and not God.
To continue to use the God vs. Jesus Christ is "a god" argument you would have to explain some sort of pantheon explained in the OT scriptures.
There is no such pantheon."
But Psalm 82:6 is the reference Jesus makes in John 10:34, to demonstrate that the title "Son of God" is not blasphemy.
If humans can be called "gods", Jesus says, then his title "Son of God" cannot be blasphemy.
So, in both Psalms 45:6 and 82:6, the word "god" or "God" is a title of utmost respect for a human being, a title the New Testament writers believed also appropriate for Jesus.
redleghunter: "If you select 'god' for this verse in Hebrews, then you will have to change many more throughout the NT."
No, the appropriate understandings are the words and their contexts from the Old Testament Psalms, where "god" or "God" were used as terms of utmost respect for a human king.
redleghunter: "Is it The Father in Revelation 1 and Isaiah 44 or the Son?"
Is this a trick question?
Isaiah 44:6-8 obviously and only can refer to the God of Israel, as arguably does Revelation 1:8.
Your list of Declaration signers shows John Adams & Robert Paine as Unitarians, plus Benjamin Franklin & Thomas Jefferson as Deists.
As it happens, Franklin, Adams & Jefferson wrote the Declaration, a matter of some significance.
Now, compare your list to the links in my post #2,548 where Freemason, Unitarian and Deist Founders are shown, not only amongst Declaration signers, but also the Constitution Convention and Continental Army officers.
There were large numbers who fell into one or more of these categories, enough to make the term "many" appropriate.
Indeed, amongst the "top tier" of Founders, it takes some looking to find those who did not.
redleghunter: "They either followed the confessions of their faith or led some secret society life."
This link provides a discussion on George Washington's religious beliefs.
Note that he was regarded as a devout official in his church, but was also a Freemason and influenced by certain deistic ideas.
If that qualifies, in your mind redleghunter, as "some secret society life", then so be it -- however it was entirely typical of most of our Founders, in one form or another.
You cannot be serious! What mere man has a kingdom that will last forever and ever? What mere man would Almighty God call, "God"? The writer of the book of Hebrews says Almighty God is referring to the Son when he says that. We read in Psalm 93:1,2, "The LORD reigns, He is clothed with majesty; The LORD has clothed and girded Himself with strength; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved. Your throne is established from of old; You are from everlasting." Again, what mere man could be spoken of here?
Your contention that Jesus was not committing blasphemy when he called himself the Son of God, flies in the face of the religious leaders gathered around Him several times intending to stone him because, "For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
Yes, you keep-on keeping-on with claiming "straw man argument", but the great issue on this thread, from its very inception is just who, exactly, are in Kevmo's delightful sobriquet: the "God Damned Heretics"?
That's not a "straw man", it's the reason we are here.
I have argued logically, that if yours truly, BroJoeK, qualifies as a "God Damned Heretic" then so do many of our Founding Fathers, plus around 50 million non-Trinitarian Christians world-wide.
This would seem to me a problem on a site like Free Republic, which does after-all have some interest in matters political, and is not totally unaware of potential conservative political allies...
betty boop: "You are, it seems, at least a skeptic."
Then you misunderstand.
I'm neither "skeptical" nor "doubtful".
Instead, I'm satisfied that my understandings of what the Bible says meet both it's requirements and mine.
So my purpose here is to plead for forbearing and respect for Christians -- such as our Founding Fathers -- who didn't or don't share your traditional Trinitarian beliefs.
In a thread whose title is "Damnable Heresy", I'm here to speak for at least some of those "God Damned Heretics" -- our Founders.
Why won't you, Ms boop?
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.