What Unitarian Universalists Are Taught About Jesus Christ
Carl
Christ and justify their denials in so many unintelligent and ungodly ways.
Here's a short article on one such organization.
May God bless,
Carl
website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
What Unitarian Universalists Are Taught About Jesus Christ
By Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon
Unitarian Universalists have almost as many views of Jesus Christ as are
imaginable, but most of them see Him as a good man with good teachings, not
so different from the good and wise men in all ages. There is one consensus
about Christ, however, which seems to find universal Unitarian Universalist
[UU] agreement: He is not an atoning Savior. UU minister Waldeman Argow
declares of UU's: "They do not regard him as a supernatural creature, the
literal son of God who was miraculously sent to earth as part of an involved
plan for the salvation of human souls."1 In fact, Argow maintains
incorrectly that to accept the biblical portrait (which incidentally,
teaches both His full humanity and His undiminished deity), is to make Him
irrelevant, for then, supposedly, He is a God that man cannot relate to.
But if, as some early Christians began to do, you take a heathen view, and
make him a God, the Son of God in a peculiar and exclusive sense-much of the
significance of his character is gone. His virtue has no merit; his love no
feeling; his cross no burden; his agony no pain. His death is an illusion;
his resurrection but a show.2
(Theodore Parker, who originally made the above statement at his famous May
19, 1841, Boston lecture, surprisingly enough, began his sermon by quoting
Luke 21:33. This is where Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but
my words will not pass away"!) For most UU's today Jesus' words have passed
away and have little if any relevance.
While UU's of the religious persuasion claim to respect and revere Jesus, it
is principally a Jesus of their own making. They therefore discard those
historical events in the life of Christ which they dislike (particularly the
miracles), even while claiming they are "much more impressed by and
committed to the historical Jesus than by, or to the theological Christ," as
if the two ideas could in any sense be separated.3
Certainly, responsible recent biblical scholarship attempts no such
arbitrary division. The "theological" Christ is the historical Christ if we
are giving any deference at all to Scripture or facts of history.
At best, for UU's, Jesus is an example of one who had faith in humanity, but
never the object of faith for humanity (John 3:16) or a revealer of the one
true God (John 17:3). From "the babe in the manger legend" to the "symbolism
as poetry" of the resurrection, the life of the biblical Jesus is either
rejected or ridiculed.
Even as far back as 1867 (and before), Jesus Christ was being assaulted by
Unitarianism. The "Fifty Affirmations of Free Religion" of the Unitarian
Free Religious Association (1867) stated in point 34 their desire that "the
completion of the religious protest against authority must be the extinction
of faith in the Christian Confession [i.e., here, the belief that Jesus was
the Messiah]."4
By capitulating to and endorsing the highly dubious methods and findings of
higher criticism (e.g., The Jesus Seminar), most UU ministers and laymen
today believe they can know little or nothing of the "real" Jesus. They
support these methods despite a flood of apologetic material refuting the
biases and errors of such liberal scholarship. Perhaps with modern man in
general today we could say the average UU is not really interested in the
historic evidence for the biblical portrait, but that they believe what they
want to believe, because it allows them to live as they want. We again find
a refreshing frankness, at least occasionally:
I have my own picture of Jesus, a fictional picture of course, but as valid
for me as any of the other fictional pictures. It is based on descriptions
and narratives in the Gospels and I admit I have taken only those things
that I want for my picture and have ignored those things I do not want.5
To reject the deity of Christ, one must also logically reject every facet of
it, from predictive prophecy (Isa. 9:6; Mic. 5:2) to incarnation (Phil.
2:1-10) to virgin birth, miracles, atonement, resurrection and ascension;
other words one must reject the totality of His person and mission. Thus the
birth of Christ is nothing special: "many UU's hold in reverence the event
of Jesus' birth, although many more would say that not only his birth but
that of every child is holy."6
Neither is His incarnation unique. The most influential English Unitarian,
James Martineau (1805-1900), stated what has come to be a common belief
among UU's: "The incarnation is true, not of Christ exclusively, but of Man
universally."7 Neither is the Person of Jesus unique: "I admire the
spiritual force and ethical direction of the Nazarene, but he was neither
perfect nor infallible. He is not to be worshipped."8 This same minister
declares, "I accept Jesus as my Christ," and states he hopes to be "true to
his (Jesus Christ's) discipleship."
Ralph Waldo Emerson, biblical antagonist and leader of the transcendentalist
movement, spent two years in the Unitarian ministry. His famous July 15,
1838, "Harvard Divinity School Address" reflects the views of a majority of
modern UU's: "Historic Christianity has fallen into the error that corrupts
all attempts to communicate religion.. It has dwelt, it dwells, with noxious
exaggeration about the person of Jesus."9
The following statements are representative examples of various UU opinions
about Christ:
A rather ordinary human being.10
Jesus of Nazareth is regarded not as a supernatural being but as a
pre-eminently inspired and noble religious leader.11
In the providence of God, Jesus is but one of mankind's Christs-all times
and cultures have their anointed suffering servants.12
Jesus began his ministry with a sense of inadequacy. He went to the Jordan
to be cleansed for he knew his imperfection.13 (Few UU's have seen Christ as
sinless. Writers such as James Reilly contended that because Christ was a
man, he was guilty of the sin of Adam.14)
We do not seek to belittle Jesus but to exalt him as the great human he
was.... We do not dogmatize on his nature.15
Each person may imagine the historical Jesus as he wishes, and within the
broad limitations of scholarship and credibility, he will be as nearly right
about the matter as anyone else-probably not very nearly right.. The
important aspect. is not the historical Jesus.. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
put into their pictures of Jesus what they needed to have there in order to
make him what they believed him to be, the supreme human who was also God..
I find it exhilarating to believe that the perfection we have poured into
the figure of Jesus; has come from. human imagination, and ethical
aspiration. Today it is a greater perfection than it was for the gospel
writers.. I'm for a better and better Jesus, born from the aspiring heart of
humanity.16
Finally, UU minister and professor Jack Mendelsohn repeats the long
discredited "Paul invented Jesus" view for which there was never even a
shred of evidence:
Most of us believe that on the basis of the evidence available to us, Jesus,
at most, thought of himself as the Jewish Messiah. It was later followers
and interpreters, like the Apostle Paul, who transformed Jesus into a
Christian Savior atoning to God for the sins of mankind.
Thus Mendelsohn claims that the deity of Christ and the Trinity were never
believed in by Christians until officially formulated at the Nicean council
in 325 AD: "The deity of Jesus thus became the official orthodoxy of
Christian religion."17 This too, is proven incorrect by looking at numerous
early church Fathers who unequivocably defended Christ's deity.
Paul could hardly have invented a "new Jesus,18 for He was initially an
orthodox Pharisee who hated both Jesus and his followers. If anything, Paul
wanted Jesus kept in the grave. Yet soon after the crucifixion he was
proclaiming Jesus Christ as the resurrected Hebrew Messiah, Son of God, and
atoning Savior (Acts 9:20-29; Gal. 1:9-2:16). Paul had the means and the
ability to check his facts; he would not have endured a life of much
suffering and then died for Christ unless he was convinced He was indeed the
prophesied Messiah. Only a miracle could have transformed "Saul" into
"Paul." The position of unbelief is the one which must present some valid
evidence for its views, for the clear weight of the evidence favors Paul's
position, one that is in complete harmony with the teachings of the Jesus of
the Gospels. Thus, Christ himself was well aware he was the Messiah and that
He was to be the One making atonement for the sins of the world (Matt.
20:28; Jn. 10:17; Matt. 16:15-27; Jn. 1:29; 4:25-26, 10:33, 11:25, etc.).
He also knew He was deity (Jn. 5:18; 10:30), and it is a fact that the
earliest Christians believed in the deity of Christ and the Trinity. Nicea
did not "invent" the Trinity; it simply recognized "officially" the already
commonly accepted Christian beliefs. In fact, so many "unitarian" heresies
were spreading that it was necessary and wise to officially declare biblical
doctrines as a standard measure.
It is, of course, always simple to maintain a religious belief of one's
choosing: objectively documenting it is another story.
Notes:
1 Waldeman Atgow, "Unitarian Universalism: Some Questions Answered," UUA
pamphlet, p. 6.
2 Conrad Wright, Three Prophets of Religious LIberalism: Channing, Emerson,
Park, (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1978), p. 137.
3 Argow, op cit., p. 6.
4 David Parke, The Epic of Unitarianism Original Writings from the History
of Liberal Religion (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1969), p. 123.
5 Gilbert Phillips in Brandock Lovely (ed.), "Unitarian Universalist Views
of Jesus," pp. 7-8, UUA pamphlet.
6 H. Frost, "Unitarian Universalist Views of Christmas," UUA pamphlet.
7 Quoted by Richard Fewkes, in Brandock Lovely (ed), op cit., UUA pamphlet,
p. 4; cf. Parke, op cit., pp. 72-76.
8 Ronald Mazur, "Viewpoints Within Unitarian Universalist Christianity," p.
5, UUA pamphlet.
9 Conrad Wright, Three Prophets of Religious Liberalism, p. 99.
10 Harry Stokes, "Toward an Understanding of Christian Revelation, UUCF
pamphlet, p. 5.
11 John Booth, "Introducing Unitarian Universalism," p. 13, UUA pamphlet.
12 R. Mazur, in Lovely (ed.), op cit., p. 5, UUA pamphlet.
13 G. A. Marshall, "Unitarian Universalists Believe," p. 4, UUA pamphlet.
14 Ernest Cassar, Universalism in America (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1971),
p. 71.
15 G. N. Marshall, op cit., p. 4.
16 John MacKinnon, "Unitarian Universalist Views of Jesus," p. 6, UUA
pamphlet, May, 1976.
17 Jack Mendelsohn, Why I Am a Unitarian Universalist (Boston, MA: Beacon
Press, 1966), p. 43.
18 Machen's The Origin of Paul's Religion should be consulted for a thorough
refutation of this idea.
bob young
Carl wrote:
> I am constantly amazed at groups and cults who deny the deity of Jesus
> Christ and justify their denials in so many unintelligent and ungodly ways.
> Here's a short article on one such organization.
>
> May God bless,
> Carl
> website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
> blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
>
> ---
>
> What Unitarian Universalists Are Taught About Jesus Christ
> By Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon
>
> Unitarian Universalists have almost as many views of Jesus Christ as are
> imaginable,
Multiply this by the plethora of other splinter groups what do we get?
What we get is a perfect example of the penchant for some people to make up
religions,
proving further that it must have been going on for a very long time, based on
the number of gods we have created.
Here is just the 'A' section of one god list [we will never know the truth
about how many there were in total]
[PREFACE] "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one
fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
[Written earier by Stephen Roberts]
Aeron War [goddess] Wales War
Aeval [goddess] Love, Magic. Ireland
Ahura Mazda
Agrona [goddesss] Destroyer of life
Achall [goddess]Earth and Nature; unhappiness. Ireland
Achtan [goddess] Hunting and wild animals. Ireland
Allah
Adsullata [goddess]
Aphrodite, Ares, Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Abalim[Judaic] Abba Amona[Judaic]
Abraxis[Judaic]
Adam Beliyya'al'[Judaic] Adam Kadmon[Judaic]
Adonai[Judaic] Adonaiel[Judaic]
Aibell [goddess] Beauty; Arts; Magic
Aille [goddess]Justice. Ireland
Aige [goddess] Demi-animals
Aimend [goddess] Sun and Day. Ireland
Aine [goddess] Love and Sexuality
Ailinn [goddess] Love. Ireland
Aidin [goddess] [Aideen] Love and sexuality. Ireland
Aibheaog [goddess] Fire.
Airmed [goddess] Health and healing; Immortality Ireland
Aide [goddess] Water. Ireland - Wife of the Irish god Enna
Artio [goddess] Hunting and Wild Animals Switzerland
Akatriel-Yah[Judaic] Alitha[Judaic]
Alukah(Arpad Yiddish: Estrie)[Judaic] Anafiel[Judaic]
Angels[Judaic] Archons[Judaic] Asherah(Asherah)[Judaic]
Asmodeus(Asmodaios)[Judaic [goddess] Goodness. Ireland
Abaangui Guarani
Aba-khatun [goddess] Russia
Abaris Greek
Abas Greek
Abassi Nigeria/Africa
Abderus Greek
Abeguwo [goddess] Oceania
Abeona [goddess] Roman
Abere [goddess] Oceania
Ab Kin Xoc Maya
Abnoba [goddess] Celtic
Abraxas Roman
Abuk [goddess] Dinka/Africa
Abundantia [goddess] Roman
Acamas Greek
Acantha [goddess] Greek
Acat Maya
Acaviser [goddess] Roman
Acca [goddess] Roman
Acca Larentia [goddess] Roman
Achall [goddess] Irish
Achelois [goddess] Greek
Achelous Greek
Achilles Greek
Achtan [goddess] Irish
Achtland [goddess] Celtic
Acis Greek
Aclla [goddess] Inca
Acna [goddess] Maya/Mexico
Actaeon Greek
Adad Babylonian
Adamanthea [goddess] Greek
Adamisil Wedo [goddess] Haiti
Adapa Babylonian
Adaro Oceania
Adeona [goddess] Roman
Aditi [goddess] Asian
Adityas Asian
Admeta [goddess] Roman
Admete [goddess] Greek
Admetus Greek
Adonis Greek
Adrammelech Babylonia
Adrastus Greek
Adsagsona [goddess] Celtic
Adu Ogyinae Ashanti/Africa
Aeacus Greek
Aebh [goddess] Celtic
Aed Celtic
A don [goddess] Greek
Aedos [goddess] Roman
Aega [goddess] Greek
Aegeria [goddess] Roman
Aegeus Greek
Aegina [goddess] Greek
Aegir Norse
Aegis Greek
Aegisthus Greek
Aegyptus Greek
Aello [goddess] Greek Amazon
Aeneas Greek
Aeneas Roman
Aeolus Greek
Aero [goddess] Greek
Aeron Celtic
Aerope [goddess] Greek
Aesculapius Asclepius Greek
Aesir Norse
°s S£dhe Celtic
Aestas [goddess] Roman
Aether Greek
Aethra [goddess] Greek
Aetna [goddess] Roman
Afekan [goddess] Oceania
Agaman Nibo [goddess] Haiti
Agamedes Greek
Agamemnon Greek
Agasaya [goddess] Semite
Agave [goddess] Greek
Agdos [goddess] Asia Minor
Ag Dahomey/Africa
Aglaia [goddess] Greek
Aglauros [goddess] Greek
Agni India
Agwe [goddess] Benin/Africa
Agwe [goddess] Haiti
Agweta [goddess] Haiti
Ahat [goddess] Egypt
Ahau Chamahez Maya
Ahau Kin [goddess] Maya
Ah Chuy Kak Maya
Ah Cun Can Maya
Ahemait [goddess] Egypt
Ah Kinchil Maya
Ahmakiq Maya
Ahnt Alis Pok' [goddess] Mexico
Ahnt Kai [goddess] Mexico
Ah Puch Maya
Ahriman Persia
Ahsonnutli Navajo
Ahti [goddess] Egypt
Ah Uaynih [goddess] Haiti
Ah Uaynih [goddess] Guatemala
Ahuic [goddess] Aztec/Mexico
Ahulane Maya
Ahura Mazda Persia
Ahurani [goddess] Persia
Ah Wink-ir Masa [goddess] Guatemala
Ai-ada Turkey
'Aiaru [goddess] Oceania
Aigiarm [goddess] Mongolia
Ain [goddess] Celtic
Ainia [goddess] Greek Amazon
Airmed [goddess] Irish
Ai Tupua'i [goddess] Oceania
Aja [goddess] Babylonia
Aje [goddess] Yoruba/Africa
Aji-Suki-Taka-Hi-Kone Japan
Ajok Africa
Ajtzak AmerIndian
Ajysyt [goddess] Siberia
Aka [goddess] Turkey
Akert-khentet-auset-s [goddess] Egypt
Akewa [goddess] Argentina
Akhet [goddess] Egypt
Akhushtal [goddess] Maya
Akonadi [goddess] Ghana/Africa
Akongo Africa
Akuj Africa
Akusaa [goddess] Egypt
Akycha AmerIndian
Ala [goddess] Ibo/Africa
Alaghom Naom Tzentel [goddess] Maya
Alalahe [goddess] Oceania
Ala Muki [goddess] Oceania
Alator Britain
Alastor Greek
Alberich Norse
Albina [goddess] Roman
Albion Greek
Albunea [goddess] Roman
Alcestis [goddess] Greek
Alcibie [goddess] Greek Amazon
Alcimedes Greek
Alcippe Greek
Alcippe [goddess] Greek Amazon
Alcmaeon Greek
Alcmene [goddess] Greek
Alcyon [goddess] Greek
Alecto [goddess] Greek
Alectrona [goddess] Greek
Alectryon Greek
Alemona [goddess] Roman
Alinga [goddess] Australia
Alkaia [goddess] Greek Amazon
Alkonost [goddess] Russia
Al-Lat [goddess] Arabia
Almoshi [goddess] Russia
Alpan [goddess] Roman
Alphito [goddess] Greek
Altan-Telgey [goddess] Mongol
Altria [goddess] Roman
Alu Babylonia
Alvis Germanic
Ama [goddess] Russia
Amaethon Britain
Amalthea Greek
Amalthea [goddess] Greek
Ama no Uzume [goddess] Japan
Ama-terasu [goddess] Japan
Amatsu Mikaboshi Japan
Amaunet [goddess] Egypt
Amazons Greek
Ambika [goddess] Hindu
Ambrosia Greek
Amelia [goddess] Haiti
Amemet [goddess] Egypt
Ament [goddess] Egypt
Amenti Egypt
Amma [goddess] Norse
Amma Dogon/Africa
Ammavaru [goddess] India
Amit [goddess] Egypt
Ammit [goddess] Egypt
Amn [goddess] Egypt
Amon Egypt
Amor Roman
Amphitrite [goddess] Greek
Amphitryon Greek
Amset Egypt
Amymone [goddess] Greek
An Sumeria
Anagtia [goddess] Roman
Anahita [goddess] Persia
Ananke [goddess] Greek
Anansi West Africa
Ananta Shesha Hindu
Anapel [goddess] Russia
Anath Anat [goddess] Phoenician
Anatha [goddess] Egypt
Anatis [goddess] Egypt
Anatu [goddess] Mesopotamia
Anaxarete [goddess] Greek
Anceta [goddess] Roman
Anchises Greek
Andraste [goddess] Britain
Androgyne Greek
Andromache Greek
Andromache [goddess] Greek Amazon
Andromeda [goddess] Greek
Andromeda [goddess] Greek Amazon
Androphonos Greek
Angerboda [goddess] Scandinavia
Angerona [goddess] Roman
Angina [goddess] Roman
Angita [goddess] Roman
Angitia [goddess] Greek
Angpetu WiAmerIndian
Angus Celtic
Anieros [goddess] Roman
Anima Mundi [goddess] Roman
Anius Greek
Anjea [goddess] Australia
Anka [goddess] Egypt
Ankhtith [goddess] Egypt
Ankt [goddess] Egypt
Anna Perenna [goddess] Etruscan
Annapurna Hindu
Annwn Britain
Antaboga Indonesia
Antaeus Greek
Antaios Egypt
Antandre [goddess] Greek Amazon
Anteros Greek
Anteros Roman
Antevorta [goddess] Roman
Anthat [goddess] Egypt
Antianara [goddess] Greek
Antianara [goddess] Greek Amazon
Antibrote [goddess] Greek Amazon
Anticlea [goddess] Greek
Antigone [goddess] Greek
Antinuous Greek
Antiope [goddess] Greek
Antiope [goddess] Greek Amazon
Anu Babylonian
Anu Celtic
Anubis Egypt
Anuket [goddess] Egypt
Anunitu [goddess] Babylonia
An-Zu [goddess] Assyria
Apate [goddess] Greek
Apep Egypt
Aphareus Greek
Aphrodite [goddess] Greek
Apis Egypt
Apis Egypt
Apollo Greek
Apozanolotl [goddess] Aztec/Mexico
Appiades, The [goddess] Roman
Appias [goddess] Roman
Apsu Babylonian
Apunga [goddess] Abrigine
Arachne [goddess] Greek
Arahuta [goddess] New Zealand
Ararat [goddess] Anatolia
Ardwinna Celtic
Ares Greek
Arete [goddess] Greek
Arethusa [goddess] Greek
Areto [goddess] Greek Amazon
Aretz [goddess] Israel
Argonaut Greek
Argos Greek
Ariadne [goddess] Greek
Arianrhod Wales
Aricia [goddess] Roman
Ariki [goddess] New Zealand
Arinna [goddess] Hittite
Arion Greek
Arnamentia [goddess] Britain
Arne [goddess] Greek
Arohirohi [goddess] New Zealand
Arria [goddess] Roman
Arsino [goddess] Greek
Artemis [goddess] Greek
Artio Celtic
Aruna [goddess] Hindu
Aryong Jong [goddess] Korea
Asase Yaa [goddess] Ghana/Africa
As-ava [goddess] Russia
Ascanius Roman
Asclepius Greek
AsgardNorse
Asgaya Gigagei Cherokee
Asherali [goddess] Canaan
Ashiakle [goddess] Ghana/Africa
Ashnan [goddess] Sumeria
Ashtoreth Phoenician
Ashtoreth [goddess] Egypt
Ashur Assyria
Ashvins Hindu
Askr and Embla Norse
Astarte [goddess] Phoenicia
Asteria [goddess] Greek
Astraea [goddess] Greek
Astraeos Greek
Astrea [goddess] Roman
Asuras Asian
Atalanta [goddess] Greek
Atanea [goddess] South Pacific
Atar [goddess] Iran
Ate [goddess] Greek
At-Em [goddess] Egypt
Aten Aton Egypt
Athena [goddess] Greek
Athirat [goddess] Canaan
Athor [goddess] Egypt
Athtart [goddess] Canaan
Atl Aztec
Atlacamani [goddess] Aztec/Mexico
Atlacoya [goddess] Aztec/Mexico
Atlas Greek
Atlatonin [goddess] Aztec/Mexico
Atreus Greek
Atropos [goddess] Greek
Attis Roman
Atum Egypt
Auchimalgen [goddess] Chile
Au-Co Vietnamese
Audjal [goddess] Caroline Islands
Auilix Maya
Aura [goddess] Greek
Aurita [goddess] Roman
Aurora [goddess] Roman
Ausaitis Lithuania
Austeja Lithuania
Autolycus Greek
Autonoe [goddess] Greek
Auxesia [goddess] Greek
Averna [goddess] Roman
Avernales [goddess] Roman
Averruncus [goddess] Roman
Aversa [goddess] Roman
Awonawilona [goddess] Pueblo/Zuni
Aya [goddess] Mesopotamia
Ayaba [goddess] Dahomey/Africa
Ayauhteotl [goddess] Aztec/Mexico
Ayida [goddess] Haiti
Ayizan [goddess] Haiti
Ayt'ar Russia
Azacca Haiti
Aziri [goddess] Africa
Babaluaye, Bacchus, Baldur, Bast, Bellona, Brahma, Brigid,
Carl
"Christopher Morris" <Dra...@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
news:465b4598$0$4841$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> "<~(Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>"
> <onthe...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1180299802.7...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 27, 12:19 pm, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>>> I am constantly amazed at groups and cults who deny the deity of Jesus
>>> Christ and justify their denials in so many unintelligent and ungodly
>>> ways.
>>> Here's a short article on one such organization.
>>
>> Unitarians"? They have more in common with the UU's than either group
>> would like to admit (such as denying the deity of Jesus Christ), but
>> are more dangerous, IMO, because much of their talk mimics orthodox
>> Christianity.
>>
>> Take a look here:
>> http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/html/
>>
> What I find amusing is how little you Christians know of your own history.
Actually as evidenced by your own comments here, you know very little of
Christian history and understand very little of Biblical doctrine.
> The Earliest Christians in fact did not believe that Jesus was divine as
> they were all obeservant Jews and thus to defy Jesus would have violated
> the First Comandment. It is not until much later with the writtings of
> Paul of Tarsus we get this creep of an idea that Jesus was somehow more
> than a man. In fact one of the earliest Christian groups the so called
> Ebonites believed that God adopted Jesus as his son. There were a vast
> number of different beliefs about Jesus throughout the first several
> centuries of the Church and it was these disagreements that led to the
> fighting that finally led to the coming together in religous concils to
> dicuss and attempt to settle these matters. The matters of course were not
> and never will be settled as long as people have the free will to think
> for themselves and not just parrot what they are told like you and your
> ilk.
Your knowledge of Church history is greatly flawed.
Pastor Steve Winter
>Actually as evidenced by your own comments here, you know very little of
>Christian history
Here is some history:
The protestants worship the same three headed idol from Rome that
the Catholics do. All trinitarians are daughters of the RCC.
The false church is following a manmade teaching. They have to go
to "denominal opinions of men" that originated in the 2nd and 3rd
century to explain and discuss their beliefs. It is also
interesting that the same bunch at Rome that dreamed up the
trinity, also ushered in the dark ages by killing people for
possessing Bibles. It is important to realize that the Catholic
Church is the "Great Whore" in the book of Rev. and the "mother
of harlots" (the harlots being the denominations that retain the
trinity heresy). The harlot wants relationship with man, but
will not "take the man's name" and will not forsake her
worldly loves for her husband. Just as the harlot churches will
not use Jesus name in baptism, and will not forsake the sins of
the world.
Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written,
MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND
ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Here I will show some of the apostles writing that exposes
certain of the false doctrines taught by the harlot churches.:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The harlot trinity churches use the titles of their 3 gods if
they even baptise at all. They ignore Matt 28:19 in which Jesus
said to use a "name," and they just "parrot" the command instead
of obeying it.
Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in his NAME among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy
and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments
of the world, and not after Christ.
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth ALL the fulness of the Godhead
bodily.
The harlot trinity church doesn't believe that the fulness is in
Jesus, they don't believe that "ye are complete in him", they
teach the tradition of men from the 2nd and 3rd century.
Colossians 2:10 And ye are complete in HIM, which is the head of
all principality and power: Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation
in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given
among men, whereby we must be saved. Also Acts 8:16, 10:48,
10:43, 19:5, Col 3:17
Also here are some historical references showing where tradition
replaced apostolic truth.:
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Ed. Vol. 3 Page 365-366, "The
baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to
the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in
the 2nd Century." Vol. 3 Page 82 "Everywhere in the oldest
sources it states that baptism took place in the Name of Jesus
Christ."
CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, Page 53 -- "The early church
always baptized in the Name of Lord Jesus until the development
of the trinity doctrine in the 2nd Century."
HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION, Vol. 2 pages 377-378-389, "The
Christian baptism was administered using the Name of Jesus. The
use of the trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in
the early church history, baptism was always in the Name of the
Lord Jesus, until the time of Justin Martyr when the trinity
formula was used." Hastings also said in Vol. 2 Page 377,
commenting on Acts 2:38, "NAME was an ancient synonym for person.
Payment was always made in the name of some person referring to
ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus Name became his
personal property." "Ye are Christ's." I Cor. 3:23.
NEW INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA, Vol. 22 Page 477, "The term
"trinity" was originated by Tertullain, Roman Catholic Church
father."
TYNDALE NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARIES: "... the true explanation why
the early church did not at once administer baptism in the
threefold name is that the words of Mat 28:19 were not meant as a
baptismal formula. [Jesus] was not giving instructions about the
actual words to be used in the service of baptism, but, as has
already been suggested, was indicating that the baptized person
would by baptism pass into the possession of the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost."
THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS, James Hastings, p.384,
"there is no evidence [in early church history] for the use of
the triune name."
Pastor Steve Winter
--
Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry
http://www.apostolic.biz for Bible studies (text and audio)
Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?
http://tinyurl.com/mxu7o for trinity is antichrist sermon
"That's factual; but not true."- deceiver Robert Sowle 2007
bob young
Carl wrote:
> "Christopher Morris" <Dra...@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
> news:465b4598$0$4841$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> >
> > "<~(Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>"
> > <onthe...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:1180299802.7...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >> On May 27, 12:19 pm, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
> >>> I am constantly amazed at groups and cults who deny the deity of Jesus
> >>> Christ and justify their denials in so many unintelligent and ungodly
> >>> ways.
> >>> Here's a short article on one such organization.
> >>
> >> Have you ever done any research on another group, the "Biblical
> >> Unitarians"? They have more in common with the UU's than either group
> >> would like to admit (such as denying the deity of Jesus Christ), but
> >> are more dangerous, IMO, because much of their talk mimics orthodox
> >> Christianity.
> >>
> >> Take a look here:
> >> http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/html/
> >>
> > What I find amusing is how little you Christians know of your own history.
Did my God List letter 'A' have you stumped then Carl?
Christopher Morris
"Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
news:f3g2ej$kdk$1...@news.utelfla.com...
>
> "Christopher Morris" <Dra...@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
> news:465b4598$0$4841$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "<~(Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>"
>> <onthe...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:1180299802.7...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>> On May 27, 12:19 pm, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>>>> I am constantly amazed at groups and cults who deny the deity of Jesus
>>>> Christ and justify their denials in so many unintelligent and ungodly
>>>> ways.
>>>> Here's a short article on one such organization.
>>>
>>> Have you ever done any research on another group, the "Biblical
>>> Unitarians"? They have more in common with the UU's than either group
>>> would like to admit (such as denying the deity of Jesus Christ), but
>>> are more dangerous, IMO, because much of their talk mimics orthodox
>>> Christianity.
>>>
>>> Take a look here:
>>> http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/html/
>>>
>> What I find amusing is how little you Christians know of your own
>> history.
>
> Actually as evidenced by your own comments here, you know very little of
> Christian history and understand very little of Biblical doctrine.
That is funny coming from someone so blind. I know more about the Christian
History than you ever will because I do not seek to make it match some
preordained set of faith based "facts". As for Doctrine it has changed so
much over the last two thousand years I would say I could surpass you in
that as well.
>> The Earliest Christians in fact did not believe that Jesus was divine as
>> they were all obeservant Jews and thus to defy Jesus would have violated
>> the First Comandment. It is not until much later with the writtings of
>> Paul of Tarsus we get this creep of an idea that Jesus was somehow more
>> than a man. In fact one of the earliest Christian groups the so called
>> Ebonites believed that God adopted Jesus as his son. There were a vast
>> number of different beliefs about Jesus throughout the first several
>> centuries of the Church and it was these disagreements that led to the
>> fighting that finally led to the coming together in religous concils to
>> dicuss and attempt to settle these matters. The matters of course were
>> not and never will be settled as long as people have the free will to
>> think for themselves and not just parrot what they are told like you and
>> your ilk.
>
> Your knowledge of Church history is greatly flawed.
>
> May God bless,
> Carl
> website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
> blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
Thus says someone without being able to rebut a thing I have posted.
sai...@nettally.com
wrote:> > "Christopher Morris" <Drac...@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
> >news:465b4598$0$4841$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> >> "<~(Hey, WhaddyaKnow?JesusSaysI'mAWhosoeverToo!)~>"
> >>news:1180299802.7...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On May 27, 12:19 pm, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
> >>>> I am constantly amazed at groups and cults who deny the deity of Jesus
> >>>> Christ and justify their denials in so many unintelligent and ungodly
> >>>> ways.
> >>>> Here's a short article on one such organization.
>
> >>> Have you ever done any research on another group, the "Biblical
> >>> Unitarians"? They have more in common with the UU's than either group
> >>> would like to admit (such as denying the deity of Jesus Christ), but
> >>> are more dangerous, IMO, because much of their talk mimics orthodox
> >>> Christianity.
>
> >>> Take a look here:
> >>>http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/html/
>
> >> What I find amusing is how little you Christians know of your own
> >> history.
>
> > Actually as evidenced by your own comments here, you know very little of
> > Christian history and understand very little of Biblical doctrine.
>
> That is funny coming from someone so blind. I know more about the Christian
> History than you ever will because I do not seek to make it match some
> preordained set of faith based "facts". As for Doctrine it has changed so
> much over the last two thousand years I would say I could surpass you in
> that as well.
As evidenced by your earlier posts, your knowledge of Christian
history is flawed and biased. Plus your assumptions in the above
paragraph exposes your preconceived notions which further show you
tend to have conclusions based upon faulty premises.
>
> >> The Earliest Christians in fact did not believe that Jesus was divine as
> >> they were all obeservant Jews and thus to defy Jesus would have violated
> >> the First Comandment. It is not until much later with the writtings of
> >> Paul of Tarsus we get this creep of an idea that Jesus was somehow more
> >> than a man. In fact one of the earliest Christian groups the so called
> >> Ebonites believed that God adopted Jesus as his son. There were a vast
> >> number of different beliefs about Jesus throughout the first several
> >> centuries of the Church and it was these disagreements that led to the
> >> fighting that finally led to the coming together in religous concils to
> >> dicuss and attempt to settle these matters. The matters of course were
> >> not and never will be settled as long as people have the free will to
> >> think for themselves and not just parrot what they are told like you and
> >> your ilk.
>
> > Your knowledge of Church history is greatly flawed.
>
> > May God bless,
> > Carl
> > website --http://www.nettally.com/saints/
> > blog --http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
>
> Thus says someone without being able to rebut a thing I have posted.
No need to engage you in any discussion since you begin with a
scholarly dishonest premise to begin with.
@there Vernono O
Because it is difficult to rebut the disjointed and illogical.
EVERYTHING you have posed thus far is a series statements that defies all we
know of Christian history, even that which was written by secular sources.
One of your basics ALWAYS is cached in a complete disbelief of ALL
scripture.
So, you are not a Christian and are blabbing away in Christian News Groups.
More dominantly displayed in your postings is the lack of even general
education.
Christopher Morris
<sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
news:1180464628.6...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Therefore, when someone approaches with a differing view than you have it is
preconceived and not worth discussion. I will note your inability to discuss
the History of your faith for the future. As for others, there is a great
deal of scholarly information avilable now for those willing to not be
blinded like this gentleman. I would suggest as a good start two authors to
begin with and then expand from the there Karen Armstrong one of the
foremost scholars on the History of the three Monotheistic faiths she has
many works that are a bit dry but worth reading including a History of God.
Second, I would recommend reading the works of the noted Textual Critic Bart
D Ehrman. I further suggest reading the works of the Early Christians
themselves many of which have survived and readily accessible for your own
research. Poor student allows others to tell them how to think. One should
take the time to learn the information and then make their own minds up
along the ways.
Christopher Morris
"Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote in message
news:465c840e$0$13692$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
Again, the lack of a basic education is manifest within your statement. Just
because I am not a Christian does not mean I have no knowledge of and
ability to contribute to a Christian discussion. Secondly, you make vague
statements that you do not feel my knowledge of Christian History is correct
and yet do not attempt to show where I am wrong and you are correct.
Finally, I do not advocate abandonment of your sacred text, but I would
suggest looking to them as Spiritual inspiration with a message that speaks
to the heart and the soul and not as a guide of what all really happened in
History or how everyone else must live. It is not a science book, it is not
a history text it is a religious text with much to teach, but not to those
that read it blindly and legalistically. There is an old saying in Judaism
that I think would apply here:
The Torah has something to say to each generation, so it is up to each to
read it anew with new eyes and an open heart to the message that God sends
to you.
Do not read the Bible as though it has always been that way and it is
somehow unchanging in its lessons for you. The Divine speaks to all Mankind
in its own ways to some the message is easier to discover than for others,
but all have the same message just with a different perspective. Someday
Christianity may mature as a Faith, it is after all a young faith at only
2,000 years so maybe someday you will catch up with the rest of us.
Joe Bol
<Dra...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>Therefore, when someone approaches with a differing view than you have it is
>preconceived and not worth discussion. I will note your inability to discuss
>the History of your faith for the future.
That attitude should not be surprising.
Rule number one: My way is God's way.
Rule number two: Always refer to rule number one.
JB
------------
"ignorants is not an excuse"
---Dr. Raymond Knapp
"I don't believe that Jesus appreciates your ad hominems.
And you may have noticed, I'm not ad homineming."
---John Weatherly
"See you in court."
---David C.
Christopher Morris
"Joe Bol" <not...@notreal.com> wrote in message
news:8e4q531jbf7mkqcum...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 00:52:38 -0400, "Christopher Morris"
> <Dra...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
>>Therefore, when someone approaches with a differing view than you have it
>>is
>>preconceived and not worth discussion. I will note your inability to
>>discuss
>>the History of your faith for the future.
>
> That attitude should not be surprising.
>
> Rule number one: My way is God's way.
>
> Rule number two: Always refer to rule number one.
>
> JB
>
Therefore, you claim to know the will of the Divine very interesting I
myself would not be so arrogant as to assume I knew the full will of the
Divine. That does seem a bit arrogant after all what if you got the message
wrong, after all your faith is very new and while it contains a part of the
Spiritual Truth it does not have it all nor does it have a monopoly on such
Truth. All of us see through a glass darkly.
@there Vernono O
You just VERIFIED and I repeat
Christopher Morris
"Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote in message
Being as you are woefully ignorant of Christian History that is not a
statement that fits the reality. When a person goes into a concept of Church
History and is unwilling to see all of what is there one will see nothing. I
do not have a dog in this fight so thus I can look on the Christian History
without an agenda and let the Historical record speak for itself.
> More dominantly displayed in your postings is the lack of even general
> education.
>
> More dominantly displayed in your postings is the lack of even general
> education.
>
> More dominantly displayed in your postings is the lack of even general
> education.
>
Repeating the same lie three times does not make it anymore valid. I would
say that my own formal and informal education would surpass yours at every
mark. I do not look at History to confirm what I believe it should say I
look for the messsages that the Historical Record has to teach.
@there Vernono O
>
>
> I do not look at History to confirm what I believe it should say I look
> for the messsages that the Historical Record has to teach.
>
And you are a LIAR.
You look for very selective writing in history. This is proven by what you
quote.
Neither a purely Christian based history or a purely based secular history
would result in your statements.
AND
You are uneducated to say the least.
Christopher Morris
"Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote in message
This from someone whos little education seems to be from Bible College? You
are but a fool who is far out of your leauge for you lack even the
rudn=mentary tools with which to debate me on subjects of History as has
been shown here repeatedly.