CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
The Roman Catholics started the holiday around 320.
Where do you see Easter in these verses? This is solid Passover.
You have no defense for the KJV.
Are You Saved Because You Believe OR Do You Believe Because You Are Saved?
- Thread starter prism
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Roman Catholics started the holiday around 320.
Where do you see Easter in these verses? This is solid Passover.
You have no defense for the KJV.
I do not need to defend the kjv. it can defend itself quite nicely. It is like saying, defend this lion from the attacks that are being laid against it. The lion can defend itself quite nicely. It stands as the most inspired Bible created to date.
if you dont believe in Christ the Lord or Savior his deity--------------> YOUR NOT A CHRISTIAN YOUR LOST YOU HAVE TOOK AWAY FROM THE Bible
Soverign Grace
Well-Known Member
That's a good point because we shouldn't think that we were saved because of our own "ingenuity, religious status and privilege, keen intellect" as you say. God hates pride in every form - even "religious pride." We saw it at work even in the disciples when they asked to sit next to Christ. So that should alert us to watch for it:
Mark 10:37 "They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory."
I'm unsure which came first. It may be that those most convicted of their sin will more easily respond to that drawing because we know how much we need Him. Looking back on my own salvation, I saw that I was a sinner and that made me seek Him - although I believe that the Holy Spirit had removed the veil and I was able to see that I was a sinner. But those who don't see themselves as a sinner will have no need - no desire to seek Him. So I'm unsure what came first to be honest; whether it was my seeking or my seeking after the Holy Spirit had removed the veil.
Marymog
Well-Known Member
- Mar 7, 2017
- 11,452
- 1,704
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
LOL.....you don’t have a clue why I posted that...Do you???
I was showing how context is important......You took my post out of context and went on a silly rant.......soooooo congratulations....You proved my point once again....
Mary
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
That is your opinion.
Last I looked it had fallen to third place in most used Bibles. The NIV being first.
Harvest 1874
Well-Known Member
I’m not sure where exactly you get your facts, but no, Arianism does not deny the divinity of Christ.
There are many propaganda sites out there spewing out all manner of lies and deceit none so profoundly as the great Antichrist system itself in its vain effort to distort and hide the truth from the Lord’s true people, but we are living in the age of the pouring out of the sixth plague, the information age and everything that was hidden is becoming known, despite all the efforts of orthodoxy to conceal it.
Understand that just because we hold to the Arian view on this particular issue does not in any way mean that we hold to all that Arius taught, no more than the fact that we believe what Luther taught with respects to justification by faith implies that we believe everything else he taught, Luther still held many of the errors taught in the Church of Rome. Both Arius and Luther were subject to the truths then due at their time, they did not have all the truth on every subject as it was not the time for such to be known.
We believe in the divinity of Christ as confirm in Col 2:9 and Heb 1:3; however it is exactly when this divinity began which distinguishes us from orthodoxy and our Trinitarian friends.
We believe that in our Lord’s pre-existence that is his existence prior to having taken the form of a bond-servant, that he was THE Chief Arch-angel, the Logos or Word of God, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)
There is no question as to the pre-existence of our Lord it is the clear teaching of Scripture (Compare John 1:1-3; 3:13; 3:17; 6:38, 51, 62; 8:58; 17:5).
In every one of these texts it is evident that the Son of God existed, had life, before his life on earth as the man Jesus. The difficulty arises when Christendom declares that that life which he previously had was divine.
There is no scripture that supports such a declaration. This is merely a supposition proposed by those who adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity.
To understand the Son’s preexistence nature it is necessary to understand the various natures that exist in the heavens and on the earth.
In the earthly realm, humans stand at the top, all other earthly life, animal and plant, being subordinate (Gen 1:28). In the heavenly realm the Bible reveals two levels of spiritual life, angelic and divine. The angelic, like human life, is mortal—it requires sustenance, an outside source to sustain its life and existence.
“You alone are the Lord; you have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host… and You preserve them all…” (Neh 9:6)
"Praise ye him, all his angels . . . for he commanded, and they were created" (Psa. 148:2-5).
The divine life, the life of God, is immortal—it requires no sustenance. No outside source for its existence.
"The Father hath life in himself (life inherent, self-existent life)" John 5:26
It is manifest that the Son, in his preexistence, did not enjoy divine life. He was a glorious spirit being, the beginning of the creation of God (Rev. 3:14). Everything from that time on was created through him (Eph. 3:9). And even yet he was still only a mortal being, for only by being mortal was he able to do his Father’s will (Heb. 10:9). Only by being mortal could he give up his spiritual existence in heaven, become and earthly being (Rom. 8:3), and the die as a man.
"For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor" (2 Cor. 8:9).
"Who, being in the form of God [a glorious spirit being] … made himself of no reputation, and took upon himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Phil. 2:6, 7).
After being "made perfect" (Heb. 2:10; 5:9), after proving his worth (Rev. 5:9), the Father gave to the Son to have life in himself (inherent life, immortality, the divine nature) John 5:26
"Being made so much better than the angels (other spirit beings), as he hath obtained by inheritance a more excellent name than they" (Heb. 1:4)
"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name" (Phil. 2:9)
Jesus was resurrected not as a human, not as an angel, but as a divine being; and so, death hath no more dominion over him (Rom. 6:9). Here is where his divinity began; He is no longer a mortal being.
"[God] raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named" (Eph. 1:20, 21).
The Son was made divine. He is a creation of his Father. As the Lamb he was found worthy (Rev. 5:9); thus, he was greatly exalted by God (Acts 5:31).
You assert that, Arianism is an ancient heresy.
Only because the Church of Rome deemed it so, the very same church the reformers exposed as the Antichrist.
We assert that faith in the Trinity is heresy, a byproduct of a corrupt church which integrated, Hellenistic, Pagan and Platonic philosophies into its beliefs in order to appease the masses.
Yet you profess to be a Christian, a follower of Christ, of the LORD and His truth?
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
from the page you provided this is from another page : Arianism is a heresy named for Arius, a priest and false teacher in the early fourth century AD in Alexandria, Egypt. One of the earliest and probably the most important item of debate among early Christians was the subject of Christ’s deity. Was Jesus truly God in the flesh, or was Jesus a created being? Was Jesus God or not? Arius denied the deity of the Son of God, holding that Jesus was created by God as the first act of creation and that the nature of Christ was anomoios (“unlike”) that of God the Father. Arianism, then, is the view that Jesus is a finite created being with some divine attributes, but He is not eternal and not divine in and of Himself.
Arianism misunderstands biblical references to Jesus’ being tired (John 4:6) and not knowing the date of His return (Matthew 24:36). It may be difficult to understand how God could be tired or not know something, but these verses speak of Jesus’ human nature. Jesus is fully God, but He is also fully human. The Son of God did not become a human being until a specific point of time we call the Incarnation. Therefore, Jesus’ limitations as a human being have no impact on His divine nature or His eternality.
Early Christian History / Heresies: Arianism
Arianism
by Matt Slick
Arianism developed around 320 in Alexandria Egypt and concerning the person of Christ and is named after Arius of Alexandar. For his doctrinal teaching, he was exiled to Illyria in 325 after the first ecumenical council at Nicaea condemned his teaching as heresy. It was the greatest of heresies within the early church that developed a significant following. Some say, it almost took over the church.
Arius taught that only God the Father was eternal and too pure and infinite to appear on the earth. Therefore, God produced Christ the Son out of nothing as the first and greatest creation. The Son is then the one who created the universe. Because the Son relationship of the Son to the Father is not one of nature, it is, therefore, adoptive. God adopted Christ as the Son. Though Christ was a creation and because of his great position and authority, he was to be worshiped and even looked upon as God. Some Arians even held that the Holy Spirit was the first and greatest creation of the Son.
At Jesus' incarnation, the Arians asserted that the divine quality of the Son, the Logos, took the place of the human and spiritual aspect of Jesus thereby denying the full and complete incarnation of God the Son, the second person of the Trinity.
In asserting that Christ the Son, as a created thing, was to be worshiped, the Arians were advocating idolatry.
as matter fact yes i am see i dont cling to some Lucy goose/ doctrine . i dont follow Lutheran or any other man made theology
People really do tend to be abrasive when they are posting on Christian Message Boards...and I am beginning to grow tired of it. If not for the fact that I am called to be a watchman on these boards, I would give up on ministering here. I guess that the proverbial statement that "sheep bite" holds true here...but the way that people show their attitudes on boards like these is dishonouring to Christ impaho.
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
The NIV is very much like a paraphrase: it is not a word-for-word translation but thought-for-thought.
Harvest 1874
Well-Known Member
No you just blindly follow the teachings of the Antichrist, and as such bare the mark of the beast.
The Antichrist has not shown up as yet. The Mark of the Beast is in the future.
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
There is no such thing as a word for word. It is impossible to do. Language to language does not allow for it.
Harvest 1874
Well-Known Member
Harvest 1874
Well-Known Member
Let’s examine some of this Arianism according to Matt Slick.
This first statement doesn’t even make any sense at all.
“God the Father was eternal and too pure and infinite to appear on the earth. Therefore, God produced Christ the Son out of nothing as the first and greatest creation”.
This statement implies not only that the earth was created prior to our Lord, but that it was likewise somehow corrupted and unfit for the Father's person.
How did it become corrupt? Sin had not even entered the world at that time; in fact Lucifer himself was not yet created.
Next he states: “Because the Son relationship of the Son to the Father is not one of nature, it is, therefore, adoptive. God adopted Christ as the Son.”
That’s not what the scriptures teach. Our Lord never was anything other than a Son. In no sense was He an adopted Son. God sent His Son into the world. When in the world He was a Son. His Son-ship never ceased. He remained a Son, faithful, unto the death of the cross. When God raised Him from the dead, He still was a Son, raised up to the highest glory.
He is a begotten Son, the only directly begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father’s spirit, in no way an adopted Son.
“For the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came forth from God.” (John 16:27)
A distinction should be made between what Arius himself taught and believed and what his subsequent followers professed to believe.
Arius taught that in the beginning there was only one God (Jehovah) who at some point brought forth his "Son" into existence.
Through this Son, God created all things.
"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Cor 8:6).
However, the Son, being created by God, was subordinate to God.
This is a reasonable assumption, should the pot be esteemed equal with the Potter?
“…I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is GREATER THAN I”. (John 14:28)
The Son, or Christ, became human by being born of the Virgin Mary.
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…" (John 1:14)
While on earth, Christ then died for the sins of the world and was raised from the dead.
"Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." (1 Cor 15:3-4)
Because of his obedience to God, he was granted divine status to sit at the right hand of God.
"He [Jesus] humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.” (Phil 2:8-9)
Arius' understanding was popular in certain areas because it logically explained how Jesus could be first human THEN divine. However, the Arians were a political problem to the stability of the Roman Empire. The Emperor Constantine saw the wisdom of solidifying Christian belief as a means of solidifying his empire and called for a council in 325 A.D. to rule on the true nature of Jesus.
A charming, bold deacon from the Church of Alexandria named Athanasius championed the opposing view that Christ was both human and divine at that same time -- an oxymoron. Not only did Christ have a pre-human existence as Arius believed, but Athanasius advocated Christ never had a beginning! He always existed and was always divine. Pushing the distinction even further, Athanasius believed that Jesus Christ was the same essence (Greek homoousios) as God the Father. Athanasius' view became the basis of what is later became known as the doctrine of the Trinity. It was not till 381 A.D. at the Council of Constantinople that the holy spirit was ruled in as part of trinity of a three–in-one God -- co-equal and co-eternal. These three were not three gods, but one -- made manifest in three persons. It was only a matter of time when the trinity as a basic doctrine of the Papacy was ensconced in Rome at the defeat of the Arian Ostrogoths.
CoreIssue
Well-Known Member
I I and many others believe he is on the earth in the EU. But it's not been revealed to the world yet.
And most assuredly not the way Russell has taught you.
Similar threads
