jesus is not God

[GraceBeUntoYou]

now lets review the whole chapter please.

1. Thomas didnt want to believe that Jesus has been risen from the death, even when Jesus before he died had told them that he would arise after 3 days, this much faith did Thomas had,

proof?
2. Thomas said : But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” john 20:24

Jesus came to him and saidut your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” john 20:26
and Thomas wa shocked.


after we see something marvelous many people say my God, when 9 11 happend many people said My God .
but it doesnt mather the important thing is that it was Thomas (the unbeliever at that time ) saying,and not Jesus.

Jesus did not reward Thomas for his behaviour, because Thomas had to see it to believe it like we have people today.
Jesus said:“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”john 20:29

for you all the apostles were saints and speeking Word of God, but for Jesus they werent and neither for me, they were people like you and me in need of salvation.

please read the whole story in context and not the part you prefer

someone saw a enormous spider and said: my God
look at the situation the spider was enormous, the person was surprised. conclusion: the spider wasnt called God.

1.) Though this is quite a creative interpretation of the text, it really is no more than just a washed up argument that carries no weight. The verb εἶπεν (eipen, “said&#8221 followed by the dative singular pronoun αὐτῷ (auto, “to Him&#8221 indicates that Thomas’ words were directed at Jesus. This is undoubtebly why every English translation known to this writer renders the sentence to reflect as much. The phrase, “Thomas said to Him” is a vernacular method of presenting a response to the preceding speaker, which John customarily uses, always with the speaker’s words directed towards the person(s)who have just previously spoken, see John 1:48, 50; 2:18, 19; 3:3, 9, 10, 27; 4:10, 13, 17; 5:11; 6:26, 29, 43; 7:16, 21, 52; 8:14, 39, 48; 9:11, 20, 30, 34, 36; 12:30; 13:7; 14:23; 18:30; 20:28.

Secondly, you must take into account the Old Testament correlative found in the Septuagint's rendering of Psalms 34:23 which states,

ἐξεγέρθητι κύριε καὶ πρόσχες τῇ κρίσει μου ὁ θεός μου καὶ ὁ κύριός μου εἰς τὴν δίκην μου

Awake, O Lord, and attend to my judgment, even to my cause, my God and my Lord.

​

The consensus from a scholarly level, even from such critics as Bart Ehrman, is that John 20:28 applies the title θεός to Christ.

2.) [FONT=&quot]2 Peter 1:1 is yet another one of the clearest passages in Scripture that ascribes the title [FONT=&quot]θεός[/FONT][FONT=&quot] ("God") to Christ. This passage is an example of what is known as the Granville Sharp "The—Substantive—Kai—Substantive" construction. That is, when two singular personal nouns (not proper names, such as “Jesus Christ,” "John," "James," "Peter," "Paul") are connected by "kai" ("and"), and the article "ho" ("the") or any of its cases ("ton," "tou") precedes the first noun/participle, both nouns refer to one singular person/individual.[/FONT] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Or as Granville Sharp himself defines it,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e., it denotes a farther description of the first named person” (Granville Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament: Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, From Passages Which are Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version, [Philadelphia: B. B. Hopkins and Co., 1807], p. 3).[/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]For instance, consider 2 Peter 1:11,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] tou Kuriou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou [/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]Literally rendered as, "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Both, "Lord" ("Kuriou") and "Savior" ("Soteros") are personal singular nouns with reference of the same Person, to Christ Jesus. The article before Kuriou (tou, "the") is dropped from English translations, because we would not say, "our the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," rather, we would say, "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It's vital to understand that there are passages such as Matthew 21:12 ("tous polountas kai agroazontas” ["those who were buying and selling"]), and Mark 11:15 ( “tous polountas kai agroazontas” [“those who were buying and selling”])[FONT=&quot] which appear to have a very similar structure to Sharp's TSKS construction, though, they do not fit the rule, due to the fact that they do not use singular personal nouns as defined by the rule, rather, plural participles. Let me reiterate for clarity sake that there are three essential things that must be stressed when determining whether a passage is a valid example of the rule:[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1.) The passage possesses two singular personal nouns, i.e., “God,” “Lord,” “Master,” “King,” “Savior,” et al (i.e., "tou Kuriou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou")[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A.) This excludes,[/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]a.) proper names, such as, “Jesus Christ,” "Paul," "John," "Peter” [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b.) impersonal nouns, such as, “gold,” “stone,” “rock,” “tree”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]c.) plural participles, such as, “generals,” “kings,” “princes,” “buying-ones,” “selling-ones”[/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]2.) The copulative "kai" connects the two singular personal nouns (i.e., "tou Kuriou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou")[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3.) The article "ho" ("the"), or any of its cases, precedes the first noun/participle (i.e., "tou Kuriou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou")[/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]There are a total of five Granville Sharp constructions in the Book of Second Peter alone (1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 3:18). In three of those five examples, Jesus is referred to as "our Lord and Savior," and in four of those constructions there is an exact one-to-one word correspondance (with the exception of "God" being present in 2 Peter 1:1 rather than "Lord"):[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2 Peter 1:1 - tou Theou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou ("our God and Savior Jesus Christ")[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2 Peter 1:11 - tou Kuriou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou ("our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ")[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2 Peter 2:20 - tou Kuriou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou (“our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ&#8221[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2 Peter 3:18 - tou Kuriou hemon kai Soteros Iesou Christou ("our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ")[/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]One would hardly object that 2 Peter 1:11, 2 Peter 2:20, or 2 Peter 3:18 apply the nouns "Lord" and "Savior" to Christ, or that 1 Peter 1:3 applies "God" and "Father" to the Heavenly Father; however, when applying the exact same rule of thumb to 2 Peter 1:1 ("our God and Savior Jesus Christ") — ah, a theological conundrum occurs. Peter consistently uses the "The—Substantive—Kai—Substantive" construction to refer two singular personal nouns to one individual — "Lord" and "Savior" (2 Peter 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 3:18); "God" and "Savior" (2 Peter 1:1); "God" and "Father" (1 Peter 1:3).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Some have attempted to argue that 2 Peter 1:1 refers to two people, the Father, and the Son, in unison with v. 2. However, the distinction in v. 2 does not preclude Peter from calling Christ “God” in v. 1. First, it is simply undeniable that Peter consistently uses the "The—Substantive—Kai—Substantive" construction to refer to one individual. Second, this view would assume Unitarianism, and that the New Testament cannot affirm both that Jesus is God, and that He is distinct from God the Father. And thirdly, it should be rightly pointed out that the additional article in v. 2 denotes "Lord" as a second subject, adjacent to "God" -- the very thing Peter could have done in v. 1, had he wished to refer to two Persons. The apparatus’ used in the translation of the King James (Thomas Beza’s Greek text of 1589 and 1598) features an additional “hemon” (“our&#8221 before “Iesou Christou” in v. 1 so that it reads, “tou Theou hemon kai Soteros hemon Iesou Christou” (“our God and our Savior Jesus Christ&#8221, which would be yet another possibility Peter could have employed should he had wanted to refer to two individuals here. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In attempt to make it appear as if 2 Peter 1:1 refers to two individuals, two standard arguments are often offered:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1.) The proper name “Jesus Christ” restricts the application of “Savior” and so removes this example from Sharp's rule. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]2.) [FONT=&quot]"God" functions as a proper name, isolating it from "Savior Jesus Christ," which acts as a second subject.[/FONT][/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]However, I’d just like to point out two quick things in response to these arguments:[/FONT]

1.) Not only does Peter consistently use the TSKS construction of one individual, but i[FONT=&quot]n the entirety of the New Testament “Savior Jesus Christ” never occurs outside of the TSKS construction, and of the four occurrences in the Book of Peter, three of the occurrences (2 Peter 1:11; 2 Peter 2:20; 2 Peter 3:18) unanimously signify a mutual identity with the preceding (or “head&#8221 noun. [/FONT]

2.) [FONT=&quot]The possessive pronoun (“our&#8221 in this verse militates against [FONT=&quot]θεός[/FONT][FONT=&quot] functioning as a proper name. One would not use possessive pronouns in conjunction with proper names (i.e., “our Peter,” “our John," et al.), but only in conjunction with personal noun titles (i.e., “our Lord,” “our Savior,” “our King,” “our God&#8221. That said,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]θεός [/FONT]is used in a plethora of TSKS constructions throughout the New Testament, such as, 1 Thessalonians 3:11; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 11:31; James 1:27; Galatians 1:4; Colossians 2:2, and if we do away with all the Christological significant texts, it is always ascribed to one individual. This extraordinary occurrence is not true of any other proper name in like construction -- every occurrence which involves genuine proper names always indicates that two individuals are in view.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]The variant reading here at 2 Peter 1:1 which reads [FONT=&quot]κύριος[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (“Lord&#8221 instead of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]θεός[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (“God&#8221 as found in a few witnesses such as the Sahidic, and Sinaiticus clearly shows that scribes also saw this passage in reference to one Person, in so much that they felt the need to harmonize the passage with 2 Peter 1:11, 2:20, and 3:18, as scribes often times did. Unfortunately, while [/FONT][FONT=&quot]κύριος is found in a few MSS, θεός[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is well attested for in two of the earliest witnesses of 2 Peter 1, known as Papyrus 72 (~3rd century), and Codex Vaticanus (4th century), as well as the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus, not to mention it is the most widely attested reading, existing not only in two of the earliest witnesses, but also in the majority.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There can be no doubt that Peter, a strict monotheistic Jew, was calling Christ “our God and Savior” in this passage. It seems to be very apparent that in vv. 1-2 that we have two people that are identified as God. This does not mean that there are two Gods, but only indicates that [FONT=&quot]“God”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] can refer to the Trinity as a collective whole, or to each Person of the Trinity individually, with or without exclusion of the others.[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

what is this about Jesus being God and three persons etc.


Im a follower of Jesus christ and have read the bible and I hear people saying Jesus is God why?????

please explain short and clearly,with scripture proof.

thank you.

Dear truthfull: What does the Bible say about Jesus Christ. Here is one passage about what the Bible

says about Jesus Christ:

"For let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, Who, existing in the form of God, deemed it

not a prize to be seized to be equal with God; but He emptied Himself and took the form of a slave, and

came to be in the likeness of men. And having been found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself

and became obedient even to death -- indeed, the death of a cross. Wherefore God also exalted Him

exceedingly, and freely gave to Him a name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every

knee should bow, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth; and every tongue should

confess for itself that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:5-11 ONT

Orthodox New Testament, Volume 2, page 297. Buena Vista, CA: Holy Apostles Convent, 2000.

In Erie PA USA January 2012 AD Scott R. Harrington

 

[resurrection33]

its could also mean

Jesus coming was the new covenant that God is with us.

SAMUEL wich means God has heard
do you now believe that samuel was also God ??

there are many names with EL in the bible and thora

There is a difference between “God with us” and “God has heard.”

 

[wwjd_kilden]

If Jesus was with God in the beginning, the He must be God, or in the least Divine

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understooda it.



12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”


1 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, 2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to [a]all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. 3 This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4 I glorified You on the earth, [b]having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

Yes, that is a definition of the trinitarian doctrine. It is not the truth.


That's right. Jesus was Baptized; the Holy Spirit descended; the Father spoke. You say it represents the trinity. The bible does not say that.


Some older texts read "baptize them in my name".


God is the author of salvation, Jesus Christ is the agent (means) of salvation, holy spirit is the gift we receive when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 10:9)


Amen! And God is God.

I never care to read any arguments about the Deity of Christ; I should as soon think of reading a book which sought to prove the existence of my mother. None the less, I just wanted to take a little time to interact with a couple more comments, namely, (1) your interpretation of John 10:30-37, and (2) the claim that the word[FONT=&quot]s, “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" are excluded from "some older texts" as you espouse.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1.) [FONT=&quot]As you probably already know, as Trinitarians, we affirm that Jesus is not the Father. Yes, John 10:30 does speak of "unity,” but the precise nature of this unity must be derived from context. [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Jesus has just spoken not about His union with the Father's purpose, but with His Father's power (vv. 28-29). Christ has said that no one can snatch those that the Father has given Him from His hands, and that He gives eternal life to His sheep. He then repeats this statement, but this time, it is the Father who retains them -- the Father who is "greater than all." And it is in this context that He says, "I and the Father are One." Jesus equates Himself to the Father, who is "greater than all," in both giving eternal life to the sheep and in the power to hold them fast.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Jews knew that the Father was greater than all, but they had rebelled against Jesus saying that He and the Father shared this power to preserve the saints, and it is that which prompted the Jews to pick up stones (v. 31), and charge Him with blasphemy (v. 34).[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But it is the next eight verses of the chapter have sparked much discussion,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS’? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp. (John 10:32-39, NASB)[/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]If the interpretation which you espouse is correct, and it was common practice to refer the judges of Psalms as gods, which in and of itself not thought to be blasphemy, why did the Jewish authorities object when this term was applied to Jesus? If Christ was only saying, “I’m a god just like you guys are called ‘gods,’” then the reactions in vv. 31, 34, and 39 simply do not fit, nor do His statements which are found in vv. 28-30, where Christ claimed far more than merely being "a god" in the sense the Judges were "gods.” The judges of Psalm 82 are not said to grant eternal life to their followers, nor to be equal to the Father in their power to hold them fast. [/FONT]

When rightly understood this is a common form of rabbinic argumentation known as qal wahwmer, also commonly known as “lesser to the greater” (c.f. Matthew 6:26, 11:22, 2 Corinthians 3:7-11). Simply put, if it is permissible to call men “gods” simply because they were the vehicles of the word of God, how much more admissible is it to call Him who is the Word (John 1:1), the Son of God, “God”?

[FONT=&quot]2.) [FONT=&quot]The exclusion of the words, “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" are not found in any single Greek, Latin, Slovanic, Etheopian, Armenian, Georgian, or Coptic manuscript, rather, they are included in every noted manuscript containing Matthew 28:19, including but not limited to, the Diatessaron (2nd century), Codex Vaticanus (4th century), Codex Sinaiticus (4th century), Codex Alexandrinus (5th century), the Syriac Peshtta (5th century), the Sahidic Coptic (4th century), et al., and is found in a hearty number of early patristic resources, such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Cyprian. I’ll put it to you in simpleton’s terms: 1 John 5:7, which does at least have some 5th c. Latin MSS support, has more credibility than the claim that Matthew 28:19 is lacking in some ancient manuscripts. The argument you espouse for the exclusion of, “in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” is based solely off Frederick Conybeare’s faulty reading of Eusebius’ quotation of Matthew 28:19.[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[theBibleisawsome]

Jesus is God and the Father Son and Holy Ghost is all one they are not seperate.proof-in Genesis God said let us make man in our image.that doesn't mean God and somebody else that means God's inside and outside. We have a flesh and spirit and so does God because were made in his image.God is a Spirit the Bible says and Jesus said himself when two or more are gathered in my name I will be among them.not physically because he already cMe an left but he will be there spiritualy.the other point I wanna make is right now I have a dad so that makes me a son if I have a kid that makes me a Father and I have a spirit inside of me as we all do God breathed the breath of life in mans nose and man became a living soul also in Genesis. Father and son is not a name its a title just because im a father and a son doesn't make me two different people im still one.as is God God is the Father he came in the flesh as the Son and he is a Spirit .thats in regard to the trinity .God is Jesus look at Johnn 1:1 the word was with and was God verse 14 the Word became flesh.Johnson 14:7 show us the Father and it will sattisfy us have I been so long time with u and yet u haven't known me phillip whoever seen me seen the Father.Isaiah 9:6 unto us a child is born and a son is given and His name shall be called everlasting Father and the Almighty God.there is many more Scriptures to prove this but I tryex to keep it small I hope this helps u.In Jesus name God bless u

 

[truthfull]

twist the scripture and you can make everything god

"god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ. 2 cor 4.4.
Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 2 tim 3.12.
...and followed other gods, the gods of the people that were round about them. judges 2.12.

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable twist, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2 peter 3,16

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out demons? and in your name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity matt 7.22

 

[Nalu]

If a person does not Believe Jesus is God, then they ain't saved (period).

Why are we tip toeing around this subject.

I am gonna say it again, if Jesus ain't God, then you ain't Saved.

 

[Nalu]

I am normally a fun loving guy, but when its comes to tampering with the deity of Jesus Christ my smile goes away and I lose my sense of humor.

 

[mori]

If a person does not Believe Jesus is God, then they ain't saved (period).

I have to wonder about this. In a number of cases in the Bible, his divinity didn't seem to be a necessary point of discussion. The thief on the cross, for example, didn't seem to identify Jesus as God, even if he recognized him as Messiah. In the conversation with the rich young man, Matthew 19 for example, I don't really see his divinity asserted. If it was necessary for salvation, why didn't Jesus say so when the man asked?

There are a number of cases in which a person meets Jesus, has a life-changing encounter, and then apparently parts from his presence, never to be mentioned again. Missing from these is the supposedly necessary conversation about the divinity of Jesus. What do we make of these? That they concluded that Jesus was God, but it was for some reason omitted?

 

[theBibleisawsome]

Yeah u can make anything a god but there's only one God in heaven and he is Jesus and on the earth there is the devil so the devil acts like he's God but he's not the god of this world will burn for eternity when the last day comes so the devil is nothing compared to God the last thing in the last day everything will be revealed and there will be a lot of dissapointed people in Jesus name may God reveal who he is to us may he shine his light upon us all Jesus said I am the light of the world in Jesus name God Bless

 

[StMichaelTheArchangel]

I have to wonder about this. In a number of cases in the Bible, his divinity didn't seem to be a necessary point of discussion. The thief on the cross, for example, didn't seem to identify Jesus as God, even if he recognized him as Messiah. In the conversation with the rich young man, Matthew 19 for example, I don't really see his divinity asserted. If it was necessary for salvation, why didn't Jesus say so when the man asked?

There are a number of cases in which a person meets Jesus, has a life-changing encounter, and then apparently parts from his presence, never to be mentioned again. Missing from these is the supposedly necessary conversation about the divinity of Jesus. What do we make of these? That they concluded that Jesus was God, but it was for some reason omitted?

This is Arianism you are talking about, a heresy which was condemned in the Church:
Arianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Saint Athanasius of Alexandria was roused to make a discourse in refutation of this false belief, he single handedly saved Christianity.

Chapter I.—Introduction. Reason for writing; certain persons indifferent about Arianism; Arians
not Christians, because sectaries always take the name of their founder.

1. "Of all other heresies which have departed from the truth it is acknowledged that they have
but devised1821 a madness, and their irreligiousness has long since become notorious to all men. For
that1822 their authors went out from us, it plainly follows, as the blessed John has written, that they never thought nor now think with us. Wherefore, as saith the Saviour, in that they gather not with us, they scatter with the devil, and keep an eye on those who slumber, that, by this second sowing of their own mortal poison, they may have companions in death. But, whereas one heresy, and that the last, which has now risen as harbinger1823 of Antichrist, the Arian, as it is called, considering that other heresies, her elder sisters, have been openly proscribed, in her craft and cunning, affects to array herself in Scripture language1824, like her father the devil, and is forcing her way back into the Church’s paradise,—that with the pretence of Christianity, her smooth sophistry (for reason she has none) may deceive men into wrong thoughts of Christ,—nay, since she has already seduced certain of the foolish, not only to corrupt their ears, but even to take and eat with Eve, till in their ignorance which ensues they think bitter sweet, and admire this loathsome heresy, on this account I have thought it necessary, at your request, to unrip ‘the folds of its breast-plate1825,’ and to shew the ill savour of its folly. So while those who are far from it may continue to shun it, those whom it has deceived may repent; and, opening the eyes of their heart, may understand that darkness is not light, nor falsehood truth, nor Arianism good; nay, that those1826 who call these men Christians are in great and grievous error, as neither having studied Scripture, nor understanding Christianity at all, and the faith which it contains."

Notes

1821 ἐπινοήσασαι. This is almost a technical word, and has occurred again and again already, as descriptive of heretical teaching in opposition to the received traditionary doctrine. It is also found passim in other writers. Thus Socrates, speaking of the decree of the Council of Alexandria, 362, against Apollinaris; ‘for not originating, ἐπινοήσαντες, any novel devotion, did they introduce
it into the Church, but what from the beginning the Ecclesiastical Tradition declared.’ Hist. iii. 7. The sense of the word which will come into consideration below, is akin to this, being the view taken by the mind of an object independent of (whether or not correspondent to) the object itself. [But see Bigg. B. L. p. 168, sq.]
1822 τὸ γὰρ ἐξελθεῖν…δῆλον ἂν εἴη, i.e. τῷ and so infr. §43. τὸ δὲ καὶ προσκυνεῖσθαι…δῆλον ἂν εἴη.
1823 de Syn. 5.
1824 Vid. infr. §4 fin. That heresies before the Arian appealed to Scripture we learn from Tertullian, de Præscr. 42, who warns Catholics against indulging themselves in their own view of isolated texts against the voice of the Catholic Church. vid. also Vincentius, who specifies obiter Sabellius and Novation. Commonit. 2. Still Arianism was contrasted with other heresies on this point, as in these two respects; (1.) they appealed to a secret tradition, unknown even to most of the Apostles, as the Gnostics,
Iren. Hær. iii. 1 or they professed a gift of prophecy introducing fresh revelations, as Montanists, de Syn. 4, and Manichees, Aug. contr. Faust. xxxii. 6. (2.) The Arians availed themselves of certain texts as objections, argued keenly and plausibly from them, and would not be driven from them. Orat. ii. §18. c. Epiph. Hær. 69. 15. Or rather they took some words of Scripture, and made their own deductions from them; viz. ‘Son,’ ‘made,’ ‘exalted,’ &c. ‘Making their private irreligiousness as if a rule, they misinterpret all the divine oracles by it.’ Orat. i. §52. vid. also Epiph. Hær. 76. 5 fin. Hence we hear so much of their θρυλληταὶ
φωναὶ, λέξεις, ἔπη, ῥητὰ, sayings in general circulation, which were commonly founded on some particular text. e.g. infr., §22, ‘amply providing themselves with words of craft, they used to go about,’ &c. Also ἄνω καὶ κάτω περιφέροντες, de Decr. §13. τῷ ῥ& 208·τῳ τεθρυλλήκασι τὰ πανταχοῦ. Orat. 2. §18. τὸ πολυθρύλλητον σόφισμα, Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 14. τὴν πολυθρύλλητον διαλεκτικήν, Nyssen. contr. Eun. iii. p. 125. τὴν θρυλλουμένην ἀποῤ& 191·οήν, Cyril. Dial. iv. p. 505. τὴν πολυθρύλλητον φώνην, Socr. ii. 43.
1825 Job xli. 13 (v. 4. LXX).
1826 These Orations and Discourses seem written to shew the vital importance of the point in controversy, and the unchristian character of the heresy, without reference to the word ὁμοούσιον. He has [elsewhere] insisted that the enforcement of the symbol was but the rejection of the heresy, and accordingly he is here content to bring out the Catholic sense, as feeling that, if persons
understood and embraced it, they would not scruple at the word. He seems to allude to what may be called the liberal or indifferent feeling as swaying the person for whom he writes, also infr. §7 fin. §9. §10 init. §15 fin. §17. §21. §23. He mentions in Apollin. i. 6. one Rhetorius, who was an Egyptian, whose opinion, he says, it was ‘fearful to mention.’ S. Augustine tells us that this man taught that ‘all heresies were in the right path, and spoke truth,’ ‘which,’ he adds, ‘is so absurd as to seem to me incredible.’ Hær 72. vid. also Philastr. Hær. 91.





CHURCH FATHERS: Discourse I Against the Arians (Athanasius)


Watch this:


[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9IpJX8sbUM[/video]

 

[mori]

This is Arianism you are talking about, a heresy which was condemned in the Church:

I believe you may have misunderstood what I was writing. I did not talk about those who actively disputed the divinity of Jesus, for example, but those who did not appear to even discuss it. I gave several examples of people who neither practiced Arianism nor acknowledged the divinity of Jesus.

 

[shroom2]

If a person does not Believe Jesus is God, then they ain't saved (period).

Why are we tip toeing around this subject.

I am gonna say it again, if Jesus ain't God, then you ain't Saved.

No tiptoeing here... Your statement is false.

Deut 6:4) Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

1 Cor 8:6) 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.

Rom 5:
14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Adam was the figure of him who was to come. Adam was a man.

15) But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

God is not a three-personed being. He is ONE. Jesus Christ is His only begotten Son, our savior, the Messiah. Holy spirit can either refer to God Himself, or to that which He gives people when they believe on His son.

The bible NOWHERE says "If a person does not Believe Jesus is God, then they ain't saved".

What is does say concerning salvation is this:

Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

 

[StMichaelTheArchangel]

This one is better:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmEXAtjnrcI[/video]

 

[mori]

The bible NOWHERE says "If a person does not Believe Jesus is God, then they ain't saved".

What is does say concerning salvation is this:

Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Thank you for this; it clarifies my objection above. There are plenty people who believed in the content of that verse, but hadn't yet heard Jesus' claims to divinity. Many thought he was the Messiah and trusted in him in that sense; I shudder to think they relied on his sacrifice for salvation, but their faith failed because it missed one crucial aspect that they may not have understood.

 

[shroom2]

Quote from the second video referring to the trinity: "We don't understand it".

That about sums it up.

 

[StMichaelTheArchangel]

No tiptoeing here... Your statement is false.

Deut 6:4) Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

1 Cor 8:6) 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.

Rom 5:
14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Adam was the figure of him who was to come. Adam was a man.

15) But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

God is not a three-personed being. He is ONE. Jesus Christ is His only begotten Son, our savior, the Messiah. Holy spirit can either refer to God Himself, or to that which He gives people when they believe on His son.

The bible NOWHERE says "If a person does not Believe Jesus is God, then they ain't saved".

What is does say concerning salvation is this:

Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

God is one and three, undivided but separate persons of the God-head. Conerning this, read St Gregory of Nyssa's work "ON NOT THREE GOD's" NPNF2-05. Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, Etc. | Christian Classics Ethereal Library


It is indeed a requirement for us to acknowledge Jesus as very God and very man. God manifested in human flesh. Besides, we should not be looking for the bare minimum requirements that are needed in order to get to Heaven, this is a futile occupation. Instead, we should be looking for the complete Truth about God and Who God is. That is why it is important to study the writings of the Church Fathers, for they knew what the Truth of God was a wrote about it (based on Scripture).

 

[theBibleisawsome]

There is nowhere in the Bible that it says there are 3 gods.whoever says there r 3 gods r wrong.the Bible says so many times God is one.ill put up examples soon to prove it there is nowhere that says there r 3 gods that 3 gods is a devil teaching lets be honest if anyone says there r 3gods they believe in devil teaching a demon in disguise a wolf in sheep's clothing. There is only one God not 3 and the only God is Jesus ill post more on this topic soon hope this helps u God bless

 

[shroom2]

God is one and three, undivided but separate persons of the God-head.

That is religion, and makes no sense.

Conerning this, read St Gregory of Nyssa's work "ON NOT THREE GOD's" NPNF2-05. Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, Etc. | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Why do EOC members always reference ancient documents authored by men, rather than the bible?

It is indeed a requirement for us to acknowledge Jesus as very God and very man.

That claim is not in scripture. Nor is the statement that Jesus is "very God and very man".

God manifested in human flesh. Besides, we should not be looking for the bare minimum requirements that are needed in order to get to Heaven, this is a futile occupation. Instead, we should be looking for the complete Truth about God and Who God is.

Agreed!

That is why it is important to study the writings of the Church Fathers, for they knew what the Truth of God was a wrote about it (based on Scripture).

It's far more important to study scripture itself rather than what men say about it.