/ Newsgroups > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.bible, alt.messianic, alt.religion.christian, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 25 Dec 2011 /
/ Fantastic Forum > Fantastic Pub > Religion & Metaphysics / Thread was > Re: Behold the Ungodly elder child / Topic >
] Paulos say: I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ, and turning
] to a different gospel. Not that there is another gospel; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the
] gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we
] preached to you, let him be accursed. -- Gal.1:6-8 / RSV (slightly altered by tx)
.
cybrwurm say: So perhaps it is the hurried and demanding nature of the web that encourages the cyber-saints to resort to questionable means and methods in their various e-exchanges and sundry e-dialogues. Talk is cheap, to be sure, but e-talking on the web is cheaper still. Twitter and other such like etalk-fests encourage, and even demand, conciseness in all messaging activities thereon. Talk is cheap, but even so, you have to keep it short and sweet as well! Get straight to the point, make the point, and then amscray on the double, eh.
.
Well, what do you expect when you're talking with thousands of e-friends. Time and bandwidth are precious resources that everyone needs, so make your bark and then step aside for the next barker in the online line ... Don't get me wrong, global communication by speed-of-light texting is an awesome and liberating thing, and I'm all for everyone getting connected to the power and resources and knowledge available to users on the great AI-free web-machine (aka. the Internet). All that aside, I'm still none too thrilled with the unfortunate tendency to make a virtue of excessive conciseness in the realm of logical argument. Case in point:
.
] On 20Dec J.W. Sheffield wrote: Ex 3:14 - And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he
] said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
.
] John 8:58 - Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
.
] John 20:28 - And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. <snip remainder>
.
In this 3-step line of reasoning we start with god, and end with god: 'God=I Am' + 'JC=I Am' means that Jesus=God! The logic is iron-clad and obvious, and no more need be said. It's done, finished, case closed! Well, it certainly does appear to be a slam-dunk for the trinitarians ... But appearances can be deceiving, and such a matter requires investigation regardless. So what lies beneath this seemingly unassailable logic? Well, one assumption built into this sequence of bible-bytes is that John was a good and loyal trinitarian; for that (we assume) is the "proof" which JW is concerned to demonstrate.
.
But in order to justify such an assumption one must first examine the entire gospel (and its cover letter). And that is a very tall order, no doubt. But before we do all that, we can first point out that in v.20:28 John is NOT declaring that Jesus is God. It is Thomas who declares it; and Thomas represents not just the "doubters" but the entire generation of believers who walked with Jesus. Therefore, Jesus immediately presents Thomas with a larger vision of such things: Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." (20:29/RSV)
.
Moreover, another meaning of v.20:28 lies in its connection to the previous two verses in JW's textual-trinity: 'My Lord and my God' > Lord and God > Lord-God. So 'lord-god' is another hebrew name for the OT deity. In other words, Thomas recognizes that Jesus is the same I AM who spoke to Moses. But this OT i-am is NOT god the cosmic-father (as witnessed to in the NT), but rather it was the divine Logos that created the world, and also sent Moses. Thus the Logos (according to John) is the mediator who stands between god and the world ...
.
And also between god and the prophets (ie. those who are sent); for "the Word" is also a creative and spoken/written word. That is, the Logos/Word manifests communication and revelation as wisdom-literature and prophetic-literature. This is because language is (mostly) a product of human rationality, which can be used badly or well. When used well you get literature that can serve as a vehicle for communicating grace and truth. And so the written-word (ie. sacred scripture) is basically the result of cooperation between the minds of men and the prophetic-word/spirit.
.
Anyway, all believers (and many non-believers too) know WHO the Christos is (the prophet Joshua of Nazareth), but the early greek-speaking believers (being urban citizens of the Roman Empire) did not know about messiahs in the same intimate way that the earlier generation of jewish-believers did. So the question keep cropping up almost with every new convert. The perennial question of the Faith: WHAT is the Christos (ie. the Messiah)?
.
The author of John's "good news" (and its introductory epistle, 1John) attempts to answer this vital question in a manner somewhat different from the two earlier gospels (ie. Mk and Mt). [Of course we can't look at the entire gospel in just one or two meager postings, but we can surely manage a peek at seven not-so meager verses.] So for John, the 'Christos' is the cosmic-mediator (between god and world), in the form of this personal manifestation of god's wisdom and truth. But of course this rather elevated vision of the cosmic-christos goes far beyond the previous understanding of Messiah as the chosen uber-prophet and redeemer. So now (ie. just 30 years after Mk) Jesus has become nothing less than the Logos personified! A very *very* different gospel indeed ...
/ Newsgroups > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.bible, alt.messianic, alt.religion.christian, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ Date > 25 Dec 2011 / Fantastic Forum > Fantastic Pub > Religion & Metaphysics / Topic > On Spreading the Word - 2 of 2 /
And so the evangelist called John elects to begin painting his new and unique portrait of the
Messiah by introducing us to a rather unusual being:
.
] Gospel say: In the beginning was the Logos [hereafter translated], and the Way-of-Reason was with the God. And
] divine was the Way-of-Reason, for this one was from the beginning with the God. All things through him came to
] be, and without him not one thing came to be. That which came into being in him was Life, and the life was the
] light of human being. And the Light in the darkness shines, and the darkness did not grasp it ... He was the Light
] (the true one) which enlightens every one coming into the world ... And the Way-of-Reason became flesh, and
] tabernacled among us, and we gazed upon the glory of him (glory as of an only one from the Father), full of grace
] and truth. -- John 1:1-5,9,14 / Prophet Version
.
It shines indeed, but 74% of the universe is now known to be on the Dark-Side (ie. made up of so-called 'dark-energy' and/or 'dark-matter') ... Hmmm? ... Now that's rather odd; our late-1C egyptian-evangelist appears to have the same problems with brevity and conciseness that the cybr-saints have. How does *that* work, eh? :) He also has the same problem as the first generation of believers as regards getting kicked out of the jewish community. First the early greek-speaking hellenistic-jewish believers were kicked out of Jerusalem for their bold statements and radical ways, and now (at the height of the 'parting of the ways' (when the Faith was forced to find its own way as the new religion called christianity) believers were barred from the synagogues.
.
Being kicked out of conservative traditions and orthodox places seemed to be a bad habit for the early believers. Nevertheless, for John now, as for Paulos and Silvanus then, there were also problems with the consequences of being kicked out; namely, they were angry about it. And all this prophetic anger is reflected in some of their texts, and should be born in mind whenever the reader comes across the odd harsh statements regarding 'the Jews'. In any case, this matter is obviously not pertinent to these seven gospel-opening verses ...
.
So it is clear from John's text that the author is talking about large cosmic events and basic ontological realities; or to put it another way, theology and metaphysics. And because the Logos is here understood as "the rational principle that governs and develops the universe" lovers-of-J.gospel are compelled to admit philosophy into the Faith by way of the scriptures and the biblical-theology that flows from them. They have to admit Sophia (wisdom) into the prayers and practice of religious living, and (I would also add) into christian discipleship in general.
.
Now I know that many of our more literal and (shall I say?) semi-focused brothers and sisters are violently opposed to the very idea of philosophy having any relevance whatsoever to the Faith. And in truth this anti-philosophy business is a "christian" tradition that stretches back over many centuries all the way to the earliest centuries of the common-era, when "christians" proved their devotion to religion by expressing their hatred of philosophy by burning down libraries and destroying philosophy-texts wherever they found them.
.
And in the end they were so successful that the writings of Epicurus were blotted out of the book of life! Are the fundies still proud of this achievement? Do bible-believing christians still view philosophy with scorn and contempt? What does Jerusalem (or Rome) have to do with Athens? Well, I dare say that any believers who base their faith upon an absolute rejection of philosophy are spitting in the face of Christ, and shitting on his religion of love, peace, and non-violence. Oh yes, a very long and very proud *anti-christian* tradition this is!
.
So maybe it's time for believers to get over it; for the believer "who sacrifices the Logos principle sacrifices the idea of a living God, and he who rejects the application of this principle to Jesus as the Christ rejects his character as Christ" (Paul Tillich). Why so? Because there is no better philosophical and theological understanding of who and what the Christos is. And the Logos is an idea that was already centuries old when the evangelist got hold of it. In fact, the Logos teachings entered John through three living and growing literary-traditions: philosophy, judaism, and hellenistic-judaism (especially as at first century Alexandria) ...
.
] Logos definition at www.answers.com (American Heritage Dictionary) say: Philosophy: In pre-Socratic philosophy,
] the principle governing the cosmos, the source of this principle, or human reasoning about the cosmos. Among the
] Sophists, the topics of rational argument or the arguments themselves. In Stoicism, the active, material, rational
] principle of the cosmos; nous. Identified with God, it is the source of all activity and generation and is the power
] of reason residing in the human soul. Judaism: In biblical Judaism, the word of God, which itself has creative power
] and is God's medium of communication with the human race. In Hellenistic Judaism [eg. Philo of Alexandria]: a
] hypostasis associated with divine wisdom. <snip>
.
Obviously, ancient believers did not hate and attack philosophy. No, that, alas, is a "christian" invention. :( But this is not a tradition, nor less a way of being christian, for any true believer who takes the scriptures seriously. But those who truly love the 'word of god' are compelled to accept the long and fruitful logos-traditions, all three of its sources, and NOT arbitrarily exclude philosophy because you may happen to suppose that philosophy is 'not for me'. Ignorance is no excuse; not when it comes to something as vital to the Faith as this. Who is 'anti-christ' if not those who hate philosophy? And who is the liar but those who deny that Jesus Christ is the Logos? ... Well, trinitarians SAY that the Eternal Son is also the Word, but then the Word is emptied of all meaning until it becomes a worthless and meaningless title, a mere jewel for the Eternal Son to add to his royal cloak. Thus the Trinity is, in effect, an outright denial of the Way-of-Reason.
.
] Glossary Definition of Logos at www.pbs.org say: ...The Greek philosopher Heraclitus appears to be the first to have
] used the word logos to refer to a rational divine intelligence, which today is sometimes referred to in scientific
] discourse as the "mind of God." The early Greek philosophical tradition known as Stoicism, which held that every
] human participates in a universal and divinely ordained community, then used the Logos doctrine as a principle
] for human law and morality. The Stoics believed that to achieve freedom, happiness, and meaning one should attune
] one's life to the wisdom of God's will, manifest in the second distinction (above) of Logos. The Christian church then
] extended the Stoic idea of the universal community by claiming the universal nature of salvation and the potential
] for all humans to participate in it. <snip>
.
And now we come to a most unpleasant (but necessary) truth; namely, that some philosophers (like Heraclitus, Socrates, Epicurus, etc) are also sages and prophets; 'pre-christian christians' as they used to be known among the theologians. Heraclitus and Philo can also be considered to be prophets of the Way-of-Reason every bit as much as the J.evangelist. And if this be so, it means that their writings (ie. the relevant bits) can likewise be considered to be authoritative sacred-scripture every bit as inspired and significant for Faith as the third gospel (that's Jn, NOT Lk).
.
As for the Holy-Ghost (the third person of the triune-godhead), this is where the trinitarian theology really breaks down. For the divine-spirit is more of a universal force or presence than a person as such. Yes, we can *say* that the spirit is personified, as in the divine Sophia (who manifests herself through all manner of wisdom and prophetic literature), but this is just a way of speaking, of applying human concepts and imagery to the more universal aspects of being. Thus the Spirit is not something or someone acting upon the world and people from someplace out-there and beyond. No, rather the Spirit moves and lives within the context of human-being, for this is her home: the 'wisdom of god' unfolding within the world, and within the minds of all rational and loving peoples. But the Holy Ghost is an "invisible" god-person acting upon the world.
.
It is a subtle distinction perhaps, but an important one; for all these things (Life, Light, Sophia, Word, Spirit, Nous, God, etc) are not separate and distinct and autonomous entities or cosmic-realities far beyond the meager scope of human perception. Rather, they ALL point to the *same* basic universal and human realities (ie. the same fundamental ontological categories). The 'Way of Love & Reason' shows us what it means to be a child of god, a disciple of Jesus, and a good christian believer; and it is the *same* way-of-life for all races and religions and civilizations and cultures and peoples. Yes, Love and Reason are divine; not because they are OF god, but because they are the essential nature of human-being as well. This is the good news according to the prophet John. [Note: Not the one who wrote Revelations; that's a completely different and other prophet John.]
P.S. ... and so this christosmas the wurm gives all true-believers the gift of sacred-scripture, free and awesome additions to the bible that you never even knew were there all along. Yes, gifts for the old-testament (Heraclitus) and the new (Philo); for prophetic literature cannot be bound up by childish canons and narrow-minded theological creeds. Instead the Word embraces all manner of wisdom literature be it ancient or modern (eg. Kierkegaard and Tolstoy), sacred or secular, or even something in-between (eg. see 'Life of Brian' and 'The Thin Red Line'). So do enjoy all these various and thought-provoking sacred-texts as befits the meaning of the season. The prophets would like to wish merry christmas to the whole crazy self-destructive global-village, and may all you avid consumers-of-debt have a very *restrained* new year! :DP.P.S. "Resistance is fubar." -- Claptrap (from Borderlands)
/ Newsgroups > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.bible, alt.messianic, alt.christnet.philosophy, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ Dat > 30 Dec 2011 / Fantastic Forum > Fantastic Pub > Religion & Metaphysics / Topic >
Q: When does 3 = 1 ?
.
A: When the gospel according to the prophet John says so, that's when! ... So who are you going to believe when it comes to saying who and what Jesus Christ is, eh? ... Actually, you have a rather
easy choice to make. You can go with nearly two thousand years of grossly uninspired and totally fubar traditions ... OR ... You can put your trust in the inspired word-of-god :
.
the Life + the Light + Joshua Christos = the Logos ...
.
aka the 'way-of-reason'.
PS & BTW: This is NOT the end of theology; but only the beginning of a truly universal christian theology. You can make it happen ...
/ Newsgroups > alt.christnet.philosophy, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible, alt.messianic /
/ Thread > when does three equal one / Date > 5 Jan 2012 / Topic >
] Redeemed Clay wrote: glue sniffers make more sense ...
.
wurm say: Yeah, RC is right. My teachings are pure nonsense; especially when compared to those of someone
like RC here; who is obviously the very soul of clarity, discernment, and perception:
.
] RC: if this person had any respect for God at all he would have at least capitalized His Name.
.
You consider such trivialities to be VERY IMPORTANT do you, RC?
.
] and what connection is their
.
Do you mean "is there"? Yes? ... And I suppose such trivialities as using words properly is also very important?
.
] between "reason" and Jesus Christ ? ... none.
.
Well, RC, I do believe that some of the NT prophets will disagree with you on that matter. Check out the first
chapter of the Gospel of John; though frankly, I doubt it will make much of an impression upon you.
.
A vessel must first be made fit to receive the word of truth ...
.
] and he wouldn't be claiming "John says so" when all the while it is God who is the Author of
] Holy Scripture, Jer.36:1-8, and His prophets and apostles are mere scribes taking His dictation.
.
So then the prophets and apostles (ie. prophets of christos) are NOT *really* prophets at all, but rather they are "mere scribes ... taking dictation"? Is this what you truly believe, RC? If this is so, then I pity you your unbending and invincible stubborness.
.
How can the light-of-reason shine in such a dark-place as a mind so closed-up as this? Would you buy a used car from this dude?
.
] if Holy Scripture was based on what man thinks then man would
] understand the Holy Scriptures, but he doesn't because he can't ...
.
Not without A LOT of help from the divine-Logos and his prophets, that's for damn-sure! :D
.
] it's purely spiritual and purely alive and man is dead in sin unless God causes him to come to life, Eph.2.
.
"life", you say? As in the "Way of Life and Light", who is none other than the divine-Logos (being also the Way-of-Reason) who was made flesh in the person of Jesus Christ? So Life & Love, and Light & Reason, all come to us from the same source: namely, the cosmic-father acting in and through the Way-of-Reason (ie. Logos/Word).
.
And it is Jesus the Messiah (or Christos) who shows us what all this high-faluting theology actually means to believers within the context of their own personal faith and daily lives. Yes, the way-of-love&reason is the religion of Jesus manifested in all true believers in all the generations since the beginning of the common-era . . .
.
And maybe even before then too!
P.S. ... Amen!
/ was Thread > Re: Behold the Ungodly elder child / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian, alt.christnet.philosophy /
/ Christian Forums > Theology Christian Only> Unorthodox Theology / Date > 16 Feb 2012 / Topic >
> On 20Dec 2011 friend J.W.Sheffield say: Mesitate on this [ie. the Athanasian Creed] ... <snip irrelevant remainder>
.
wurm say: Okay, JW. Since you asked for it, let's mesitate on that. First off, there seems to be some confusion lately about the date of origin of this important document, the third great creedal declaration of "orthodoxy". The traditional view connects it closely with Bishop Athanasius, and so dates it "from 361ce". Others are more doubtful of such an early dating, and say that the creed was most likely written sometime after 450 (but well before 670ce). So the creed was written at some time between 361 and 660? Are you kidding me? Three centuries? That's quite a spread there! It almost makes me wonder what the problem is ??? ... Anyway, let's get on with the mesitating:
.
] Athanasian Creed (4C-7C!?!?): Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he
] hold the catholic faith; which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled,
.
wurm observes: The assumption here is that "the catholic faith" is a finished and unchanging product that one can hold and keep intact through all the passing generations. Something like a creed, perhaps, that sets forth theological propositions in a fixed format that can (mostly) withstand the textual-ravages of time and circumstance and outrageous textual-fortune. Well, that's just fine and dandy. Creeds are certainly useful *aids* to our collective Faith; BUT to say that theology *necessarily* comes "before all things" is sheer nonsense. On the road to salvation an ounce of love outweighs a ton of theology.
.
Read the texts, all you lazy believers U!
.
] without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
.
Typical episcopal fear-mongering ...
.
] And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither
] confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
.
So that's the catholic faith, is it? Perhaps it would be far more *honest* if the good bishop Athanasius of Alexandria called this by its true name: the *Episcopal* Faith! For it is very obviously NOT the faith set forth in the various sacred and inspired documents that make up the text-collection called the New Testament (ie. for there is no mention of any Trinity therein). Clearly, the good bishops want us to believe that these wise and all-knowing bishops are FAR more inspired than the mere authors of the recognized greek-scriptures (who consistently tell us that God is the heavenly Father). What colossal arrogance it takes to so casually brush aside the testimony of the founders, makers, and shapers of the Christian religion! :(
.
] For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the
] Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is
] the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
.
Well, why stop there? The Old Testament speaks of the Wisdom of God as a person in her own right; identified as the divine Sophia in Orthodox theology. In the same way, the long tradition of Logos-theology treats the 'Reason of God' as a distinct (and divine) entity. These two have just as good a claim to the godhead as our misty and nebulous "Holy-Spirit"; perhaps even a better claim. So why stop there? The godhead is clearly lop-sided without a feminine-aspect to join the family. Why then is Sophia left out of the loop? Especially in light of the fact that wisdom-literature is even older than the first prophets of ancient Egypt? Or is it the case that the Holy Spirit is meant to take on this role as well? But then why doesn't the creed make it plain that the *person* of the HS is a *she* and NOT a he at all? But it doesn't,
.
... and so here we are heaping confusion upon confusion upon more confusion!
.
... and all of this is supposed to be "necessary"? ... Oy Vey! :(
.
] The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
.
And yet the Father is NOT incomprehensible! The nature and being of the-god was revealed to the world (and to all true-believers too) by the divine-Logos through the Anointed One (who was Jesus of Nazareth). Yes, this is *why* we can call the-god by the name of "ABBA" (being also the 'cosmic-Father'). Amen! ... And neither are the Son and Spirit "incomprehensible", when we understand them as the NT authors do.
.
For example, the Way of Love & Reason does not ask us to twist and bend our minds in an orgy of confusion and misunderstanding, and
then declare it all a glorious Mystery! No, indeed. For the divine-Logos and the prophetic-spirit that one sends upon us are both eminently sensible beings who do NOT strive for the glory of godhood, but rather empty themselves and take on the forms of slaves ...
But this silly 'Trinity' concept? That indeed is incomprehensible to all but the bishops! (And not always even there :)
.
] The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
.
So they are unified in, by, and/or through time? Uh, okay. We don't quite see why all this must *necessarily* suggest a trinity to anyone, but then the episcopal-mind works in mysterious ways. So whatever ...
.
] As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the
] Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
.
So where is the sense in pretending that 3=1? Oh, oh, a triangle has three corners but is still one triangle. That's not incomprehensible.
But when you say that three triangles are "really" one triangle, well, that's not so much incomprehensible as utterly absurd!
.
] So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
.
The NT teaches that the Father is *the-god*, that Jesus is *Lord*, and that the spirit is OF and FROM the-god. And what does this same NT tell us about those who would teach otherwise? That they are liars, deceivers, and false prophets! So why is it the case that those believers who claim to base their faith, creeds, and theology "solely" upon the sacred-scriptures nevertheless remain faithful sons and daughters of these *incomprehensible* bishops? :(
.
] And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord,
] and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
.
Yeah, right. A three-headed "divine" monstrosity!
.
] For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
.
Yes, we're sure the fundies and scribes just *love* to hear this bit.
.
] so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say 'There are three Gods or three Lords'.
.
There is only one god: the-god, the *one* & *only* god, the-god of Jesus Christ; namely, ABBA(aka the heavenly Father). This is what the NT teaches with one unanimous voice. And *this* is precisely what the episcopal absurdity called Trinity denies. So either you believe the inspired testimony of the christian prophets who gave us the sacred-scriptures that shaped the Faith of the earliest believers, *OR* you believe the foolish creeds of the lying bishops. Any believer who thinks that they can hold and keep both sets of beliefs *at the same time* is a foolish-believer to Nth degree!
.
] The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The
] Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
.
IF by "the Son" you mean "the only begotten one" (ie. the divine-Logos) and/or the "Son of Man", then this statement
is perfectly acceptable. But if not, then ... JC was a man born of woman (just like all other men and women), hence
'the son' is indeed 'created' in this obvious sense. This is what it means to call Jesus the 'Son of Man'.
.
] The Holy Spirit is of the Father
.
There you go. That's what the scriptures say. So you see how the bishops like to mix in a little truth with their lies,
so as to create the illusion that they know what they are talking about.
.
] and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
.
Once again we have no problem with this statement as it stands. And once again we fail to see why or how this "spiritual fact" *must* (in any way) suggest or require this proposed Trinity creature in order to be true. Surely the spirit is Of the-god. And surely it proceeds FROM the-god, because it is an emanation (or 'outpouring') of the-god. And since it is the divine-Logos that is the *active* aspect of divine- manifestation within the context of Creation, that quality or emanation naturally flows from the-god through the divine-son and down into our lives (in various ways, and by various means). But to go on from all this and say that the spirit is *necessarily* a separate and distinct person is to completely miss the point ...
.
] So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons;
] one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
.
Wow! Who can argue with logic like that? :D
.
] And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another, but
] the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the
] Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved
] must thus think of the Trinity.
.
I think of the Trinity. I think it's a misguided and ignorant episcopal fantasy that no sensible believer could
stomach for more than a minute ... Does that mean I'm not saved? :(
.
] Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation
] of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus
] Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. <snipsome> This is the catholic faith, which except a
] man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.
.
Why Mr A, I do believe that you have changed the biblical teaching. What is *necessary* is love and faith! Theology is secondary, NOT primary. Nor does the scripture teach that Jesus is "god and man". It teaches that Jesus is the Christos, the Messiah, the Anointed One.
You (and the other overseers) are the ones who say that this means that Jesus is both god and man.
.
And yet the good and true prophet John says that it means that JC is the manifestation of the divine-Logos. Obviously, then, you must think that John is wrong. Tell me again why I should toss the prophet's teachings? Well, okay then, let's *say* he's wrong, and the bishops are right. Soooo, now what? We should all just go ahead and throw John's writings into the fires and shredders, and place all our trust in your sort? ... And in your fancy creeds now?
.
Right. And that's *exactly* what most of the Empire's christians did. And then they also waged war on Epicurus to emphasize the *necessity* of ignorance and darkness. And just look where all THAT has got us ... The Lord is very NOT pleased! :(
P.S. "True knowledge derives from existing things." -- Epicurus
.
P.P.S. Remember that the three creeds/pillars were very deliberately designed to put an end to the ongoing theological warfare. But in this they did NOT succeed; for the theological warfare never stops, never ceases, never quits, and never ever surrenders. And it's *all* just SO wasteful and unnecessary; for the Way of Love & Reason embraces all truth, all wisdom, all knowledge, all salvation, all liberty, all grace ...
