Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
I ask of you the same forbearance and respect for those who, historically and today, have seen it differently.
***Such a thing is too much to ask from God Himself, clad in human flesh. Jesus called false teachers like you ‘sons of satan’ but you would ask FReepers for their forbearance and respect. You ask more of FReepers than God expected of Himself. You are properly labelled a God damned heretic.
I am merely asking your same forbearance and respect for those who read the New Testament correctly.
***Correctly? Your reading is heretical. Such a thing is too much to ask from God Himself, clad in human flesh. Jesus called false teachers like you ‘sons of satan’ but you would ask FReepers for their forbearance and respect. You ask more of FReepers than God expected of Himself. You are properly labelled a God damned heretic.
14,700 times
***Gee, where do you get that figure, other than by stalking me across threads?
Why are you aligning yourself with a pantheist? There is only one God. Judaism and Christianity agree on that. Or is your monotheistic judaism so cheap that you can throw it under the bus just for the chance to harass another Freeper?
Up till now, I've shied away from trying to explain John 1, for the simple reason I do not feel qualified, and doubted if you'd agree with my explanation anyway -- so what is the point?
However, that explanation is essential to this one, so... here goes:
Summarizing: "God's Word" (Logos) is God's Plan.
"Word made flesh" means God's Plan actualized.
"In the Beginning was the Word" means: God planned for Jesus, from the beginning.
So, a reference to Jesus as "First and last", refers to his existence as God's Plan from beginning to end -- alpha to omega.
We know that the speaker in Revelation 1:18 is not God Himself because he says: "I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore."
God cannot die, so that is Jesus talking.
How we get there, I grant you, is a fine line to draw, and many can't or won't see it.
Quoting from my Reference (see post #2,482), p174: "There is no doubt that for the early Christians Jesus had the value and reality of God.
This, however, does not mean they thought Jesus "was God".
They go on to say:
"We suggest that we should first see if John can be readily understood in terms of his otherwise very Jewish approach.
Why should we attempt to read John as though he were a student of the Jew Philo or of Gentile mystery religion?
Why should John be claimed as a supporter of the dogmatic conclusions of the much later church councils?
Should we not make sense of him from the Old Testament world of ideas?
'What we do know,' says a leading Bible scholar, 'is that John was steeped in the Old Testament Scriptures.
If we wish to understand the historical ancestry of John's Logos [word] concept as he himself understood it, we have to go back to those Scriptures.' "
Their conclusion is that earliest Christians saw Jesus as divinity, "the value and reality of God" , but not as Israel's God Himself.
In Jewish terms Jesus was God's Messiah/Christ, God's Logos-Word-Plan, God's intention from the Beginning.
That's why there is no explicitly Trinitarian language in the New Testament -- i.e., no words like "trinity", "God the Son", "God the Holy Spirit" or language that speaks of a "God-Head" of "three persons" & "one substance".
The modern term for Christians who try to see Jesus as his first followers did is "restorationists".
They have much in common with our Founders' Unitarianism, deism/theism and Freemason ideas.
They can be summarized by the term, "non-Trinitarian Christianity".
I believe they should be treated with forbearance and respect, especially on Free Republic's News/Activism threads.
redleghunter: "Upon further review from the 'booth', you lose a timeout."
Despite your infinitely inflated sense in self-importance, FRiend, you are not the "booth".
That would be God.
In this analogy: you redleghunter, are nothing but a sports team, playing to win the Big Game.
When two teams compete on a level playing-field, one plays to win, the other, if victory seems impossible, plays for respect as a worthy competitor.
I am here to ask for forbearance and respect for those, such as our Founders & today's "restorationists", who have historically expressed no interest or belief in the Trinitarian version of Christianity.
FRiend, repeating your false accusations does not make them any less false.
I am here to ask for forbearance and respect...
***Such a thing is too much to ask from God Himself, clad in human flesh. Jesus called false teachers like you ‘sons of satan’ but you would ask FReepers for their forbearance and respect. You ask more of FReepers than God expected of Himself. You are properly labelled a God damned heretic.
Sir you ignored the comparative texts. By your reasoning there would be more than one “First and Last.” That would mean two separate Deities. You keep saying “divine” but you were presented Colossians 2:9.
AS God Jesus Christ could not die, and that is the reason for the Incarnation. Spend time in prayer for the answer.
Your impotent and unholy Jesus makes about as much sense as Christian cannibalism.
Delightful read, sir. I’m not certain if I like you better as a historian or a scriptorian!
You are very thoughtful and tolerant. The religion threads generate a lot of heat, but very little light. I’m surprised at the number of dedicated and sincere Christians who deny the plain words of the Bible because it contradicts their chosen dogma. You are a bright light. Keep calm and carry on. ;-]
OT naming conventions were very important and very meaningful. Remember that Israel, the people, rejected Yahweh being their melek. They wanted human kings like all the other countries. Think of the foreshadowning to when Jesus came in the flesh and the remnant, Judah, rejected their Savior. That Isaiah verse is pregnant with meaning.
The interpretation I've presented and defended is that "First and Last" refers to Israel's God, Yahweh, or to God's plan (logos) for Jesus.
That is not two deities, it's one Deity with a Big Idea -- Jesus.
redleghunter: "You keep saying “divine” but you were presented Colossians 2:9."
But the issue there is not "Deity", it's "fullness".
And every time, without fail, I have referred you to the same "fullness" in Ephesians 3:19, which speaks of Christians' "fullness".
Plus, "fullness" appears in other verses (Ephesians 4:13, Collosians 3:10) where it refers to spiritual fullness, not one-becoming-the-other.
The fact remains that of all seven+ New Testament authors, the Trinity doctrine rests almost entirely on John's writings, and without John, there's no serious case to be made for it.
The question then remains: was John himself a real Trinitarian?
I think the case can be made and defended that he was not.
I am here to ask your forbearance and respect for those who believe the same way.
The oldest creed, the Apostles' Creed (circa 180 AD), says that Jesus:
Yes, I agree that much later creeds -- i.e., Nicaene, Athanasian -- blur or fuzzy-up the question.
But there can be no doubt whatever that the earliest Christians believed Jesus died on the cross.
Therefore, Jesus was not God Himself.
And does that not tell you something important about the religious beliefs of our Founding Fathers, like George Washington, who always (or nearly always) refused to take communion?
Sir, you misunderstand if you think I reject Trinitarianism entirely.
I have posted here now many times that I think Trinitarianism is a reasonable interpretation, but not the only one, and that historically the earliest Christians did not believe Trinitarian ideas.
Yes, they believed in Christ's divinity/deity, but did not see Jesus as God Himself.
Clearly, Jesus' earliest followers were not particularly troubled by such transcendental issues as might concern highly educated Greek theologians.
I am here to defend those who tried to see Jesus as his earliest followers did, and to request forbearance and respect for them on Free Republic News/Activism threads.
Thanks so much for your most kind words.
They are hugely appreciated!
And no matter how many times you are presented the fullness of the Godhead in Colossians 2:9 is not the same as Ephesians 3:19.
Of course it is, but you of course are free to deny it all you wish, and to believe whatsoever you desire about it.
I'm only asking your forbearance & respect for those who read these verses correctly.
I’m only asking your forbearance & respect for those who read these verses correctly.
***Your reading is heretical. You’re asking for forbearance & respect for pushing a heresy onto FR. Jesus didn’t have forbearance nor respect for false teachers, calling them “sons of satan”; so neither should we.
Forbearance & respect...
*** You’re asking for forbearance & respect for pushing a heresy onto FR. Jesus didn’t have forbearance nor respect for false teachers, calling them “sons of satan”; so neither should we.
Forbearance & respect...
*** You’re asking for forbearance & respect for pushing a heresy onto FR. Jesus didn’t have forbearance nor respect for false teachers, calling them “sons of satan”; so neither should we.
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.