Where Is Everyone From?

[jimmywilletts]

Hi all

Just wondered where everyone was from. I'm from Gloucestershire, England, UK.
It's in the centre of the Cotswolds....very nice :D .

http://www.the-cotswolds.org/

o:)

[David Kone]

Greatings from Eastern Long Island, NY, which is about an hours drive from New York City. I am originally from the very rainy and green State of Oregon on the other side of the continent.

Peace be with you :)

[Augustines Error]

I'm originally from Shreveport, Louisiana but currently reside in Huntsville, Alabama :reveek:

[christopher]

i live in wichita, kansas in the united states right smack dab in the center of the country

[Archbishop Michael-John]

Hello,

I was born near Europe's largest village: Cottingham in East Yorkshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Riding_of_Yorkshire). I now live in Hessle (pronounced "Hezzle," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessle) near to the Humber bridge which is said to be an old Viking settlement once called "Hazl" :vbgrin: and was a Roman settlement before that.

I have taken "Michael John" as my Oblation name, my full name is Brian Brendan Michael John Mackenzie-Hanson, I am a proud member of the Clan Mackenzie and a descendant of the Mackenzies of Strath Garve in the Scottish Highlands.

Most of my spare time is pretty much taken up by the Arian Catholic Church, reading theology and looking after my beloved wife and five year old daughter, although I am also a keen Genealogist. Outside my Ecclesiastical duties I also work as a Systems Administrator.

My work and personal life frequently take me to other places such as York, Leeds, Whitby, Manchester, Edinburgh, St Albans, London, Inverness and Applecross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applecross).

My religious awakening was inspired by the visit of Karol Józef Wojtyła (pseudo pope John Paul II) to Britain in 1982 where I immediately began to question how the church could claim that Jesus was God! Even to this day no one has been able to give me a clear nor convincing answer!

In the grace of our heavenly Father, through Immanuel,

[Masamune]

From Tennessee, the buckle in the Bible Belt and home of the Volunteers.

[Br. Thomas]

I am also from Tennessee, (West Knoxville)!:reveek: Would love to open communications with my fellow Tennessean.

With the Lvoe of Christ,

+Br. Thomas

[ariuswasright]

San Antonio, Texas.

[Augustines Error]

Huntsville, AL. here

[nuntym]

Quezon City, the Philippines

[LeviathanNI]

Belfast, Northern Ireland here

[RabbiBarry]

I live in Kansas City, Missouri. I have been the Rabbi and Mebakker (Bishop) of the Nasoreans in Kansas City for the past 21 years.

[dark_knight]

>:-O

I hail from Finland, Nordic (western culture) country. We belong to European Union. Otherwise the question were we're all from is interesting. Alongside with standard finnish ancestry I have Swedish, Norman/Anglo-Saxon, Russian and Romani (so called gypsy) blood in me.

[Jason]

Wyoming, USA

[RabbiBarry]

Hi, I am in Kansas City.

[Danage]

Worchestershire (sp?) UK

[LeviathanNI]

I should have added that in regards to religion as a whole, I was born into a Church of Ireland (Anglican) family, but baptised as a Methodist (apparently the minister of the CoE didn't rate my mother because she is from Northern Ireland). As a child I was an attender of the Free Presbytarian Church here in Northern Ireland, but lost all interest in that particular 'brand' of Christianity at a very young age, especially when I started to understand the civil strife we had here.
Since my teens I have looked into other religions, from Buddhism to Judasim... indeed, up until a year ago I would have said I was like a new age Jew (copyrighted by my wifes priest).
Now, since I discovered the ACC (and I thank God for one of the Fathers posting in the UK Unitarian forums), I am basically a sponge.. or Jonny 5, always needing more imput. I can truely say I have never felt so uplifted and sure about my religious conviction, as I do now.

Of course, I still have questions, and am naturally conservative and even suspicious, but any question I have asked, has been answered, with citation.
I feel like I am home.

[Jesus John]

Dear Friends, Dear forum users,

I am from Turkey. I live in a city called Izmit where the earthquake was in 1999. I am a Muslim. I read a article about Arius's life and the Nicaea consil. This made me a member of your forum.

Nice to meet you,

With Love,

Oguzhan

[miseretur]

Hello! I´m from Finland and I live city of Oulu, I am 24 years old. I have been in Luteran Church member and when I was child I was in Luteran child parish club, and when I was teenager I go confirmation class that is wery generally in finland, almost 95% young peoples go that. Nowadays I am not member of that Church, except I join the areion Catholic Church and it is good thing that this kind of parish is exist:)
I study in open university at subject general theologi. Last summer I take adult baptism, I just await right momenth, No days I am in fate and very happy for it that God want me to do His Job like St paul.

I think God save me when he called me in fate, my life was so Chaos, I was in jail and lots of other thingns what I dont want to say in public forum. But why I tell this? It is my Christian duty to tell one of God´s mircle and Power of Fate and how Lord is so good Hi change the bad things to good. The bible tell us it is Living God, and that is Fact.
for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
and
I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.
These words are true and we mus trust that, that is Fate...

[yngwie7]

I live near Albany, New York, USA.

[Reality]

Hello,

My husband and I live in Roseville, Minnesota where it is quite cold for now.

We are enjoying reading all the topics here, and are learning so much.

Reality

[brotherkev]

I live in Kansas City, Missouri. I have been the Rabbi and Mebakker (Bishop) of the Nasoreans in Kansas City for the past 21 years.

Nasoreans?

like these guys...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10705a.htm

[brotherkev]

I am from the land of 10,000 lakes...as some of you have maybe already noticed

[Postulare42]

I'm from the Central Coast of California . . . the "land of fruits, nuts and flakes". :D

[Visigodo]

Hi all

Just wondered where everyone was from. I'm from Gloucestershire, England, UK.
It's in the centre of the Cotswolds....very nice :D .

http://www.the-cotswolds.org/

o:)
I´m from Fuerteventura, Canary Islands, Spain.

[Matt2817]

I live in northwestern Illinois about 140 miles due west of Chicago.
Baptised in the Lutheran church, spent my adolescence in the Methodist and Pentecostal tradition; arrived in the anglican fold by age 20.

I was ordained a priest via Old Catholic succession in 2004. I was abbot of The Order of Saint Austine of The Rosary (http://www.freewebs.com/orderofsaintaugustineoftherosary/) for more than one year - This only to discover through much study and heart-rending prayer that most of what I had been catechized into believing was flawed; the Trinity for example.

Though I hold graduate and post graduate degrees to include Biblical Studies, Divinity, Metaphysics, Ministry, and Theology; I count them all nearly worthless. Whatever grace has come from them, is held in full knowledge that they speak to "what not to cling too tightly to in regards of historical propaganda." Yes, I value my religious training, but I have come to understand that seminaries and colleges mostly spout stale doctrine.

My pilgrimage of faith has dropped me on the doorstep of primitive catholic understanding; the Arian understanding of what it means to be a follower of Christ Jesus, the Messiah, and son of God.

I would look forward to dialoguing with any who wish to correspond or reply.

In blessing, bless,

Wayne Matthew Mari

[Stephen_Webb]

Ahi! It is such a breath of fresh air to finally find a group that maintains a clear view of the truth! My name is Stephen Webb, and am a native of West Chester, Pennsylvania in the U.S.A. I look forward to reading more of your inspired entries and will, undoubtedly, be adding some of my own.
Peace be with you all, as it is well with your soul.
-Stephen Webb

[Yochanan]

I have borne at Yêrushalayim, Israel like many of my ancestores, at my youth (five years old) I went to Portugal to study at the country of the first Hebrew grammars and Hebrew history of literatures also the country were the Massoreth have developed the hebrew vocalic signals and others for musical entonation, etc.
At 1970 and during the Portuguese dictatorship I have been bounce from the country and I went to Sweden. Now and since 1977 I live in Portugal each year during six months and the other six we live in Sweden.
:krazz:Yochanan

[Rachel]

I am from Washington, USA. Glad to see that we now have a group which does not agree with Trinity! It sure would be nice to find some local Catholic church.

[mnmgross]

My name is David Gross. I am originally for Maryland but moved to Florida when I was very young. I come from a deeply religious family and have been hearing "the message for Jesus" my whole life, mainly form my grandparents and father. For a long time I never put much thought to any of what I was being said. I didn't think that their could be a world outside of what I know or was told. When I got a little older...late teens I began to think more deeply about life, religion and God. The whole Idea of God coming to earth in the form of a man did not sit well with me. It actually did not make any sense to me at all. Also, the Idea that God had to sacrifice an innocent person in order to forgive the sins or Sin of men sounded like something from mythical story. After reading the Qur'an and understanding it's message I empraced Islam at the age of 21. Isalm give answers and explinations to all of these issue in a way that is clear and makes perfect sence. I am now on the eve of my 29th birthday and am living in Egypt studying Arabic as to better understand the Qur'an in it's language. Oh not to forget...I am married for 7 years and have a 6 year old son whose name is Isa (Arabic for Jesus).

Peace to all
David M Gross

[pre-nicean berean]

I am from Missoula , Montana.

God Bless , Grey Yates

[Danage]

Worchestershire (sp?) UK

Sorry, I can now correct that spelling mistake to Worcestershire, but I was born in Birmingham and lived from birth there for nine and a half years before moving to Worcestershire on Friday 5th December 1997 (how exact is that? :))

[Pike]

Hello,

Born ans raised in New Orleans
I just finished two years of teaching in Cote d'Ivoire and will begin another two year contract for Dubai in August 2008.

I am currently "base" out of Chicago- moved there from New Orleans in 2001.

[Danage]

Welcome to the forums Pike.

[Daniel70]

I'm from Detroit Mi, USA born and raised

[TwoWitnessesUSdotcom]

I was born and raised in Michigan. I then went to Delaware (in the USAF) for 15 years. After that I was sent to Florida (Homestead) where I retired. I now life in North Central Florida (not far from Gainesville) and my life is taking care of my 9 year old son.

I was raised Southern Baptist, converted to pentecostal at 17, was ordained as a "prophet" in that church. It was at that same time I began to hear from the spirit that something was terribly wrong and through intense scripture study realized that Messiah is not "God incarnate." I was then driven (eventually) from every church I attended and persecuted greatly my entire life.

I married a woman who had been raised Catholic in 1985 (and who's family were staunch and faithful Catholics). It was then that I learned the roots and the Roman influence on Christianity. Around 1989 I discovered that the trinity and the "triune God" status of Messiah was most likely predicted by the apostles themselves.

By the time I was 30 years old I could no longer "fit in" anywhere in Christianity because the light shined on me more and more and I began to realize just how terrible is the trinity heresy and what a detrimental affect it has on the life of the believer.

I began fellowshipping with arian "Sabbath Keepers" I had found on the internet in the early 2000's. After not very long, however, I found terrible heresy in that group as well (denying the literal death of Messiah on the cross and the resurrection).

I once again found myself "alone in the world" seemingly.

[Postulare42]

Welcome.

You are never alone if the holy spirit of truth is foremost and lives in your thoughts and other actions. With that spirit, you are in union with the true nature of all that is. Inseparable.

Again, Welcome!

[TwoWitnessesUSdotcom]

Though I hold graduate and post graduate degrees to include Biblical Studies, Divinity, Metaphysics, Ministry, and Theology; I count them all nearly worthless. Whatever grace has come from them, is held in full knowledge that they speak to "what not to cling too tightly to in regards of historical propaganda." Yes, I value my religious training, but I have come to understand that seminaries and colleges mostly spout stale doctrine.



Your learning is only worthless if you put your faith in them rather than in the pure wisdom that comes from Christ!

[Kymbo]

Hello all,

This is my first post. My name is Kym; I will be 50 in August and live in Adelaide, South Australia. (Yup - Downunder. Orstralia. Bottom of the world - that is unless you're a kiwi from the `shaky isles'!) Originally a New Ager (I lived in a commune for a while as a teenager), I am a disenfranchised Seventh Day Adventist who would be disfellowshipped from my Church for heresy if I ever decided to return to it. This chances of this occuring are remote, as I believe that the rank heresy of Trinitarianism is rooted in Greek neo-platonic philosophy. (Until the end of the 19th century, most S.D.A's regarded the Trinitarian doctrine as the foundation upon which all Romish errors are derived from.) As Athanasius' writings on the human incarnation of Christ reveal that he subscribed to the `world-soul' view (read `Gaia'; he would be regarded as a `New Ager' today); Athanasius had in fact drunk deeply of the intoxicating waters of pantheism. Thus the neo-platonism of early Church `Fathers' such as the `sainted' Augustine dramatically affected not only the manner in which doctrine hs been formulated, but more importantly, false concepts of the character of God. In revealing to the world the love which God has for fallen man, all Churches, both Catholic and Protestant ascribe (in a diluted form) to the error that "God is `eros' "; an error which originated with Plato; which the Romish Church further defines as `Caritas'. (The First Encyclical Letter of Ratzinger, or `Pope Benedict the 16th', as he is now known, confirms this.) As the Churches which deem themselves `Protestant' (but are instead caricatures of their former selves) also subscibe to this Romish error, then it just as surely follows that the doctrine of these Churches has been dramatically affected as well. But although I personally refute Trinitarianism, that is not to say that I subscribe to the full blown Arian view of the ontological relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, either. May the Lord bless you all as you seek after truth.

Kym.

[Jesus John]

Dear Kym,

You are welcome to the forum. Please feel free and enjoy your stay.
I always loved to be here, hope you also will.

[Kymbo]

Dear Kym,

You are welcome to the forum. Please feel free and enjoy your stay.
I always loved to be here, hope you also will.

Thankyou for welcolming me into the forum, my brother. Is Jesus John your real name? I notice you are Muslim. Although our perceptions on the nature of God and the manner in which God has manifested Himself may differ, that is not to say that we cannot treat each other in love and respect. As it looks like this is supposed to be a quick message, I will type out a statement of my belief structure elsewhere.

[LeviathanNI]

Welcome Kim, I hope you add more to our deliberations and debates.

:reveek:

[Kymbo]

Thank you brother, for your kind words.

Yes (providing I can find the time, which is at a premium), I most certainly do intend to join in with the discusssions and debates here. As long as I'm not booted off this forum for heresy, that is! Not being a Trinitarian, I get used to all types of `anethemas' pronounced upon me! And the position I have ultimately taken on the ontologoical relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (perhaps which I will state sometime future in another post) is a logical development of theology which I believe is Biblical - which depicts the High Priest of the Sanctuary in the Old Testament as a type of the anti-type of Christ our High Priest ministering for our sins in the Heavenly Sanctuary. Christ is the `second Adam' (or `representative man' of humanity), Who, on the cross at Calvary, represented the entire race. As the disobedience of one (Adam) consigned all men to death by the inheritance of a sinful nature, a better inheritance and a better Name has been given to us `in Christ'. `By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.'

`For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound' (Rom. 5: 19,20.)

In Christ grace did abound `much more'.

`For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8 3,4.)

My view on the atonement is that in order for fallen man to be saved from sin (and not saved `in sin', as the antinomians believe), Messiah must assume (or become) that which is to be saved; as that which is not assumed cannot be saved. There is nothing we can do which has merit in our salvation; for if it could, then we would not need a Saviour, and the `good' works which we produce would be sufficient enough to atone for our `deficiencies' - which is what the Platonists believed in their philosophies on the transmigration of the soul; which, by the way, heavily influenced the manner in which the early Church began to perceive the inter-relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit from as early as the 2nd century. Simply put, if works had merit in my salvation, then Christ is dead in vain, for I could save myself - just as the Greeks believed, by doing `good' works as I recover the lost knowledge (gnosis) of the Divine Spark, or Self within, which is my `guide' to a true realization of Self and my inherent Divinity. Now, if that sounds like New Age philosophy (have you ever studied Maslow's `Hierarchy of Needs' and the self-actualized man?), it most certainly is; there is nothing new under the Sun - day.

But as our carnal nature (or `old man' of sin) which we have received by inheritance from `Adam the first' determines that of ourselves our righteousness is as filfthy rags and we are helpless to do anything other than sin (Isaiah 64: 6), then the `agape' love which the Father and Son have for fallen man compelled Them to send Christ to us as our Saviour, so we can be `helped' by One who has been `tempted in all points, yet without sin'.

`For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched by the feeling of our infirmities; but he was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.' (Heb. 4:15.)

Christ was not merely tempted by the `innocent infirmities' of hunger, thirst etc.; which is what the heresy of `vicarious substitution' teaches - which, by the way, is a further doctrinal explanation of the Chalcedonian Creed; which is of course derived from the Nicene Creed - the error of which is ultimately derived from Greek neo-platonism. He was tempted in all points, yet without sin! No, the Bible tells us in the strongest language that can possibly be used that He was `behoved' (which means compelled; or `no other way by which we might be saved') in all things to be `made like unto his brethren':

`Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in all things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people' (Heb. 2: 17).

And so, being `made like unto his brethren':

`And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (Phillipians 2:8).

In this context, the `death of the cross' is the death which Christ `tasted' so that we might not have to taste it ourselves:

`But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.' (Heb. 2: 9)

Again, if this was merely the death we all die at the end of our lives, then this would not be sufficient for Messiah to save us `to the uttermost'. He must instead die the death which the guilty and the wicked are consigned to, which is the `second death' described in Revelation 20: 6. This is eternal separation from the Father, the Giver of life Himself. Christ did indeed go to the grave experiencing this on behalf of corporate humanity; it did indeed `behove' Him to be `made like his brethren in all things, yet without sin', and `taste death' for us; `even the death of the cross'; we see this when He cried out `Father, why have You foresaken me?' And then, `It is done.'

Could He have done otherwise in order to save us? He is the Righteous One, the Branch, who knew no sin and the power of death could not hold Him, for the devil had no claim to him. And so by the might of His own power, the Father justly raised Him to life on the third day; He is a merciful High Priest Who ministers for our sins and sits at the Fathers right hand in heaven.

`Wherefore he is also able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever lives to make intercession for them.' (Heb. 7: 25.)

Coming from Belfast, you must have seen and experienced some terrible things in your time. Blessings be to you, brother.

Kym.

[Hermes]

Yes (providing I can find the time, which is at a premium), I most certainly do intend to join in with the discusssions and debates here. As long as I'm not booted off this forum for heresy, that is! Not being a Trinitarian, I get used to all types of `anethemas' pronounced upon me!

Don't worry, no one has been kicked off because of heresy yet! Only by harassing, using disrespectful and foul language, and generally just being a jackass towards other people seem to be reasons for getting banned.

And welcome from me as well! Hope you stay and check out all the cool topics, and start your own!

[Kymbo]

:cool:

Thankyou brother indeed for your kind words. As I have already told brother Neill, I shall try not to be a jackass, nor harass people, as I would hope that most of the people who are on this forum are sincerely searching after truth. It is also fairly obvious that many here have endured their fair share of persecution and don't need that continued here - I know I have! While I may at times vehemently disagree with a brother on this forum, or they may disagree with me, the main thing is that we treat each other with respect. If I were to boast that my particular slant on salvation is `all truth' - then I will have disrespected my Lord and have essentially have formed a Creed; thus shutting out any more light He may send me - which is what every Church on this earth which deems itself `Christian' has done. Well, its nice to know that I won't get kicked off of here for heresy, for most of the people here will probably think that I'm a heretic, as I am semi-Arian by belief and don't subscribe to the view that Arius had, as I see it as an extreme view that emphasises too heavily the `example theory of the atonement'; with the danger of falling into legalism as we try to overcome sin as Christ overcame, with little success. (Been there, done that!) On the other hand, I find that the pendulum swings too far with Trinitarianism - once one gets past the obvious error of being saved by the sacraments of the Catholic Church - the substitutionary aspects of this view on the atonement ultimately leads to antinomianism in Protestantism and Spiritualism in both Protestantism and Catholicism; which is found in the Trinitarian interpretation of the Holy Spirit. And I will also state that as Athanasius subscribed to pantheism, then it should come as no surprise that the Trinitarian view of the Godhead also lends itself to the type of ecstatic transcendentalism found in the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, and the New Age Movement as well! For me, therefore, the means by which I personally avoid these pitfalls and achieve what I believe to be is a balanced view of the atonement, is by partaking of the is semi-Arian view, which I think Lucian of Antioch, Arius' teacher aligned himself with; although it is hard to be certain. (And I don't mean the confession found supposedly after his death - that is a corruption which I believe Athanasius produced, or altered in his name!)

Trinitarianism has destroyed the gospel, for `God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten (or only Son) to us'. In the Trinitarian view, the titles `Father' and `Son' are roles which these divine actors take upon themselves, so we might understand the plan of redemption. They make the Bible into a lie, for they undermine the quality of the love which the Father has for us, by teaching that we weren't really given the Son at all. For if Christ wasn't really the Son to Father, and never came all the way down from the lofty heights of heaven to give us help to overcome sin where we need it most; `in the likeness of sinful flesh', then how much do they really love us? For if the Trinitarian conception of god is indeed true, then that God is a caricature of the God I know, and is not worth worshipping! I think that perhaps I should begin a thread on what really took place at Calvary, a divine or a human sacrifice, and if human - then are our own works sufficient to atone for sin our sins? Or does the death of Christ provide merit in our salvation, and the deficet is either provided by the Church, us, or a combination of both?

Kym.

[Danage]

:cool:

Thankyou brother indeed for your kind words. As I have already told brother Neill, I shall try not to be a jackass, nor harass people, as I would hope that most of the people who are on this forum are sincerely searching after truth. It is also fairly obvious that many here have endured their fair share of persecution and don't need that continued here - I know I have! While I may at times vehemently disagree with a brother on this forum, or they may disagree with me, the main thing is that we treat each other with respect.

Hi Kym,

My welcome to you. You will find that we all respect each other's faiths. We come from various religious backgrounds. For example, I was a Trinitarian, became a Biblical Unitarian (after finding faith in Jesus again, after having what I called 'Jewish beliefs') and then I converted to Judaism. Your words, however, have got me thinking about Jesus again, so thanks (and I mean that. I want to be a Christian, as, even though you should keep the Law, the unforgivable sin of Christianity is fairer than the one for Judaism).

If I were to boast that my particular slant on salvation is `all truth' - then I will have disrespected my Lord and have essentially have formed a Creed; thus shutting out any more light He may send me - which is what every Church on this earth which deems itself `Christian' has done. Well, its nice to know that I won't get kicked off of here for heresy, for most of the people here will probably think that I'm a heretic, as I am semi-Arian by belief and don't subscribe to the view that Arius had, as I see it as an extreme view that emphasises too heavily the `example theory of the atonement'; with the danger of falling into legalism as we try to overcome sin as Christ overcame, with little success. (Been there, done that!)

Are you a Binitarian? I might note that Binitarianism has more basis in the Hebrew than than the Arian, although I do tend towards the Biblical Unitarian. However (grammar mistake, I know), I have come to the conclusion that Binitarianism has a point.

I just wonder what you mean by Semi-Arian, as it has various meanings depending on who you ask?

Thanks.

On the other hand, I find that the pendulum swings too far with Trinitarianism - once one gets past the obvious error of being saved by the sacraments of the Catholic Church - the substitutionary aspects of this view on the atonement ultimately leads to antinomianism in Protestantism and Spiritualism in both Protestantism and Catholicism; which is found in the Trinitarian interpretation of the Holy Spirit. And I will also state that as Athanasius subscribed to pantheism, then it should come as no surprise that the Trinitarian view of the Godhead also lends itself to the type of ecstatic transcendentalism found in the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, and the New Age Movement as well! For me, therefore, the means by which I personally avoid these pitfalls and achieve what I believe to be is a balanced view of the atonement, is by partaking of the is semi-Arian view, which I think Lucian of Antioch, Arius' teacher aligned himself with; although it is hard to be certain. (And I don't mean the confession found supposedly after his death - that is a corruption which I believe Athanasius produced, or altered in his name!)

Trinitarianism has destroyed the gospel, for `God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten (or only Son) to us'. In the Trinitarian view, the titles `Father' and `Son' are roles which these divine actors take upon themselves, so we might understand the plan of redemption. They make the Bible into a lie, for they undermine the quality of the love which the Father has for us, by teaching that we weren't really given the Son at all. For if Christ wasn't really the Son to Father, and never came all the way down from the lofty heights of heaven to give us help to overcome sin where we need it most; `in the likeness of sinful flesh', then how much do they really love us? For if the Trinitarian conception of god is indeed true, then that God is a caricature of the God I know, and is not worth worshipping! I think that perhaps I should begin a thread on what really took place at Calvary, a divine or a human sacrifice, and if human - then are our own works sufficient to atone for sin our sins? Or does the death of Christ provide merit in our salvation, and the deficet is either provided by the Church, us, or a combination of both?

Kym.

It will be interesting to hear your thoughts, as it is with anybody else's. Feel free to post your thoughts on what happened at Calvary. :)

[Kymbo]

Hi Kym,
My welcome to you. You will find that we all respect each other's faiths. We come from various religious backgrounds. For example, I was a Trinitarian, became a Biblical Unitarian (after finding faith in Jesus again, after having what I called 'Jewish beliefs') and then I converted to Judaism. Your words, however, have got me thinking about Jesus again, so thanks (and I mean that. I want to be a Christian, as, even though you should keep the Law, the unforgivable sin of Christianity is fairer than the one for Judaism).

Thanx, Dan. As I have said before, I was originally a New Ager and when I was younger lived on a commune for a while. (As I said to Neil - `Aging Hippie!' It's not really something to be proud of!) I ended up as a Seventh-Day Adventist for many years and initially fell into legalism as I didn't understand the relationship between sin, the law, grace & redemption. Nor did I understand restoration; that is the restoration of truth and the manner in which erroneous doctrines present a flawed view of the character of God. This then reflects upon the manner in which we approach Him. For instance, if I perceive God as far removed from my trials and tribulations and that He is angry with me because I sin, then I will approach Him out of fear and believe that He is waiting with a sledgehammer to bash me over the head the moment I fall into sin. . . . On the other hand, if I view the Ten Commandments as `The Ten Suggestions', then obviously this will affect the manner in which I approach God and the doctrines which I invariably believe. There must, instead, be balance. And if we truly believe that God is a God of love, Who is longsuffering in His forebearance with us, then that love must be tempered with justice.

What do you mean by `the unforgivable sin of Christianity is fairer than the one for Judaism? I don't understand.


Are you a Binitarian? I might note that Binitarianism has more basis in the Hebrew than than the Arian, although I do tend towards the Biblical Unitarian. However (grammar mistake, I know), I have come to the conclusion that Binitarianism has a point.

I just wonder what you mean by Semi-Arian, as it has various meanings depending on who you ask?

Thanks.

Binitarian? No. It's just another variation of the Trinitarian doctrine, with two consubstantial co-eternal self-existent Gods instead of three. As my theology developed, initially I thought I was; but at that time I didn't understand that this creed nullified the relationship between the Father and Son. I now completerly understand why Muslims regard the Trinitarian doctrine as blasphemy and see Christians as idolators. It really is not far removed from Tritheism.

When you say that `Binitarianism has more basis in the Hebrew than the Arian', is this because of `Elohim' (or is it `Eloheem'?), which means more than one? Or Genesis 3:22, which states:

`And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us,to know good and evil, and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.'

Although I haven't checked out the concordance for the word `us', I assume it means more than one God. As I believe in the pre-incarnate Christ - that it was the pleasure of the Father to grant to Him all of creation and Who thereby `made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of the waters' (Rev. 14:7), I don't have a problem with the text.

I loosely term myself semi-Arian because, as Paul said:

`For unto which of the angels said he at any time, You are my Son, this day have I begotten you? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?' (Hebrews 1:5.)

But of course, to imply that Jesus is a Son to the Father in His pre-existence (bearing in mind that Paul also tells us in verse one that it is through Christ that the Father made the worlds, and I haven't even started with the Old Testament); implies that He cannot be an eternal self-existent God, which is why Arius ended up with the theology he believed. But there is something there which Arius missed, which restores balance! For starters, if Christ is our Judge, then this alone implies divinity. But I was left with a conundrum. How could Christ be a literal Son to the Father and therefore have a beginning, yet be divine and be `Full God' and not `strong god' - i.e a demiurge. For it is an implicit fact that only a divine sacrifice can atone for the broken law. If that were not true, then my works would have merit in my salvation, and if in following Christ as my example I were able to `keep' the law completely without sinning, then I would not need a Saviour at all. (Or so I did, and still do believe!)

My answer was in the theology which I have been presenting to you. That is, the Hebrew mind is different to the western mind. While the Hebrews tended to see the tribe as a corporate whole (with the High Priest representing all of Israel on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement; if the High Priest sinned, the people were accounted as sinning, with the opposite just as true), the typical western mind tends to think of people as individuals.

Thus we see Eve taken from Adam; with the two regarded as a complete whole - and marriage symbolic of the Lord as a `husband' to His people. We see Adam the first representative man, and Christ as the second. And we also see the Son in the Father and taken out of His bosom, or side and proceeding forth from Him. (John 8:42.) You will remember the verse in Hebrews that I spoke of, which speaks of the Hebrew mind accounting those things which do not exist as if they do:

`And as I may so say, Levi also, who receives tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him' (Hebrews 7:9,10).

For me, Christ was accounted as being `in' the Father from eternity, just as Levi met Melchisedec, while `he was yet in the loins of his father'. It is exactly the same theology of which I have already written, except in this instance it is applied to the relationship of Christ and the Father. So as far as I am concerned, it is immaterial that Christ had a beginning when He proceeded from the Father (Proverbs 8: 22-31). For even though He may have not yet existed, His Father accounted Him as existing`in' Him from eternity, and thus sharing in His divinity, while still being subordinate to Him as His only Son! Christ and the Father are one in mind and purpose. For this reason Christ said `If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.' And bear in mind that these verses in Proverbs which speak of the pre-incarnate Christ do not stop there, for verse 35 and 36 speak of Christ in this way:

`For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all that hate me hate death.'

According to this verse, life can only be found through Christ, which implies that He then, must also be our Judge; a function which only God can employ. But I have already said that! (Hebrews chapter 7 also speaks of Melchisedec, who was `without beginning and without end' as a type of Christ as our High Priest.)

And so my semi-Arianism recognizes that Christ had a beginning, and is a literal Son to the Father. But I am also compelled to see Him as divine, as only God Himself can atone for the broken law. So as you can see, in this view of the `corporate whole', or `solidarity'; as I first wrote - the theology is consistent. Even when applied to the Father and Son - and especially so! And of the Holy Spirit? Not as an impersonal `force'; which is what is generally believed of people who are pejoratively called semi-Arians; which is a byword for heresy in `orthodox' Christianity. Instead,the `Comforter' is much more personal than we think:

`But all of you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also restore life in your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you.' (Rom. 8: 9-11.)

As you can see, the Holy Spirit is interchangeable with the Spirit of God (the Father) and the Spirit of Christ. So the `Comforter' (Holy Spirit) is primarily Christ Himself `in Spirit'; as it is Christ to Whom the Father has given this world. As He could not be with us all personally in His human incarnation; His human body limited Him from this, He had to go away (was crucified at Calvary), and return `in Spirit', so that He could be with all men.

Peace be with you brother,

Kym.

[Postulare42]

Brother Kymbo,

"Hebrews" is generally viewed to be pseudepigraphic, and the seed of marcionism.

With regard to "Elohim" it might be helpful to understand it as a plural-collective, much as the Egyptian word "Pharoah" was; referring to the entire family of which the person on the throne was the visible epitome.

The Jewish understanding is subtle and rich.

Dan, could you clarify something for me? Is Elohim a feminine in this usage?

[Archbishop Michael-John]

An example of the usage of Elohim in contrast with the other forms of El and YHWH can be found in Deuteronomy 5:9...

"I, the LORD (YaHWeH) your GOD (Elohim), am a jealous God (El)"

"El" literally means: "Strong one" and refers to a god in the most general sense and can also refer to a false god. [Masculine]

"Elohim" is the masculine plural form of El. It does not mean "gods" when referring to the true Supreme God Almighty, since the name is mainly used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular (e.g. Genesis 1:26). It's meaning relies on the context of the passage but is generally representative of an intensified form of the Supreme God, a plural of majesty indicating His power and preeminence. It also occurs in the form "ha-elohim" meaning: "the one true God." It can also refer to human leaders (Exodus 21:6 and Psalm 82:1) as an honourific term meaning "Sons of God" or literally: "Mighty ones." In its plural form in ancient Hebrew it can also mean: "Children of God" in terms of heavenly beings or angels (Psalm 8:5, 135:1); this is because angels are great in power and might and because God is pleased to make use of their service in the government of this lower world.

"YaHWeH" is a specific personal name for GOD, mostly used to express GOD's unoriginated, immutable, eternal and self-sustained existence, particularly in relation to humanity; literally: "I am, that I am" (Exodus 3:14, 6:3). Notice it doesn't mean: "We are, that we are!" It is often translated in English as: "LORD" in capitals, not to be confused with "Lord," which is translated from "Baal," a Phoenician and Canaanitish supreme male divinity, but also the root of many terms connected with man, husband or master.

See also Joshua 22:22 "The LORD God of gods!" El Elohim YeHoWaH, literally: "The strong God, Elohim YaHWeH."

[Kymbo]

Brother Kymbo,

"Hebrews" is generally viewed to be pseudepigraphic, and the seed of marcionism.

Hullo brother,

Thankyou for your thoughts. It is indeed interesting that you view Hebrews in this way, when I have personally found that the richness of the Hebrew culture is reflected in that epistle. If it were not for Hebrews, I (as a Gentile) would have no understanding of the Sanctuary and its services at all. Even so, I have barely scratched the surface! Although my knowledge of Marcion is scant (for instance, I don't know if `Hebrews' was one of the 10 epistles he redacted), one might say of Marcion that Marcionism is the seed of antinomianism - and one distinguishing factor of dispensationalism is a bizarre hatred of all things Jewish. My brother, if we did not have the Old Testament, then how would we know how to interpret the New? I think that the heresy of dispensationalism is a primary reason why so-called `Protestants' have confused grace with (the excuse to) sin, and have belittled the Law of our Father as `That Jewish law. It no longer applies to us'. Those who believe such worship a `strange god' without knowing it, for such a God is not to be found in the Scriptures.


With regard to "Elohim" it might be helpful to understand it as a plural-collective, much as the Egyptian word "Pharoah" was; referring to the entire family of which the person on the throne was the visible epitome.


That has been my impression of the pluralality of the word for many years. Your statement of that and the manner in which the Hebrew people referred to `Pharoah' reinforces my opinion and adds weight to my perception of the atonement. (I am assuming that you are a Jew and therefore have a much better knowledge of Aramaic than I do. If I am wrong about your heritage, please forgive my impertinence.) Trinitarians of course illogically insist that pluralality of the word means three. This idea of the plural-collective being referred to as the `Family of God' eventually found expression in the almost now defunct `World-wide Church of God' (Herbert Armstrong).


The Jewish understanding is subtle and rich.

You are indeed correct on this, my brother. Perhaps you can help me with some of the subtlteties of the Sanctuary service that I do not yet grasp.

Kym.

[Danage]

Thanx, Dan. As I have said before, I was originally a New Ager and when I was younger lived on a commune for a while. (As I said to Neil - `Aging Hippie!' It's not really something to be proud of!) I ended up as a Seventh-Day Adventist for many years and initially fell into legalism as I didn't understand the relationship between sin, the law, grace & redemption. Nor did I understand restoration; that is the restoration of truth and the manner in which erroneous doctrines present a flawed view of the character of God. This then reflects upon the manner in which we approach Him. For instance, if I perceive God as far removed from my trials and tribulations and that He is angry with me because I sin, then I will approach Him out of fear and believe that He is waiting with a sledgehammer to bash me over the head the moment I fall into sin. . . . On the other hand, if I view the Ten Commandments as `The Ten Suggestions', then obviously this will affect the manner in which I approach God and the doctrines which I invariably believe. There must, instead, be balance. And if we truly believe that God is a God of love, Who is longsuffering in His forebearance with us, then that love must be tempered with justice.

What do you mean by `the unforgivable sin of Christianity is fairer than the one for Judaism? I don't understand.

The unforgivable sin of the Qaraim is consuming blood, while in Christian religion (that's the first two Christian religions) the unforgivable sin is ignoring the Holy Spirit.

Binitarian? No. It's just another variation of the Trinitarian doctrine, with two consubstantial co-eternal self-existent Gods instead of three. As my theology developed, initially I thought I was; but at that time I didn't understand that this creed nullified the relationship between the Father and Son. I now completerly understand why Muslims regard the Trinitarian doctrine as blasphemy and see Christians as idolators. It really is not far removed from Tritheism.

While I do agree that Binitarianism is where Ditheism is gotten from, and Trinitarianism from Tritheism, the whole idea of God is as singular and plural, representing many beings, all holding the title of God. The Sons of God (Psalm 82:6, a.k.a. angels) are regarded as God by God Himself (Genesis 1:1, 1:26, Deuteronomy 6:4 (where we get our Shema from) and practically the entire Tanakh). The whole idea of God is singular and plural. To Binitarians this is interpreted as uni-plural. While I don't agree with it, it is obvious to me that they are trying to do is keep to the faith.

When you say that `Binitarianism has more basis in the Hebrew than the Arian', is this because of `Elohim' (or is it `Eloheem'?), which means more than one? Or Genesis 3:22, which states:

`And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us,to know good and evil, and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.'

Although I haven't checked out the concordance for the word `us', I assume it means more than one God. As I believe in the pre-incarnate Christ - that it was the pleasure of the Father to grant to Him all of creation and Who thereby `made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of the waters' (Rev. 14:7), I don't have a problem with the text.

I loosely term myself semi-Arian because, as Paul said:

`For unto which of the angels said he at any time, You are my Son, this day have I begotten you? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?' (Hebrews 1:5.)

But of course, to imply that Jesus is a Son to the Father in His pre-existence (bearing in mind that Paul also tells us in verse one that it is through Christ that the Father made the worlds, and I haven't even started with the Old Testament); implies that He cannot be an eternal self-existent God, which is why Arius ended up with the theology he believed. But there is something there which Arius missed, which restores balance! For starters, if Christ is our Judge, then this alone implies divinity. But I was left with a conundrum. How could Christ be a literal Son to the Father and therefore have a beginning, yet be divine and be `Full God' and not `strong god' - i.e a demiurge. For it is an implicit fact that only a divine sacrifice can atone for the broken law. If that were not true, then my works would have merit in my salvation, and if in following Christ as my example I were able to `keep' the law completely without sinning, then I would not need a Saviour at all. (Or so I did, and still do believe!)

My answer was in the theology which I have been presenting to you. That is, the Hebrew mind is different to the western mind. While the Hebrews tended to see the tribe as a corporate whole (with the High Priest representing all of Israel on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement; if the High Priest sinned, the people were accounted as sinning, with the opposite just as true), the typical western mind tends to think of people as individuals.

Thus we see Eve taken from Adam; with the two regarded as a complete whole - and marriage symbolic of the Lord as a `husband' to His people. We see Adam the first representative man, and Christ as the second. And we also see the Son in the Father and taken out of His bosom, or side and proceeding forth from Him. (John 8:42.) You will remember the verse in Hebrews that I spoke of, which speaks of the Hebrew mind accounting those things which do not exist as if they do:

You do have a few points. We Qaraim also, it might be noted, see both male and female as equal (and I agree with this completely, hence why I am a Qara'i Jew). We even have female hakhamim (wise men, our rabbis, it could be said).

`And as I may so say, Levi also, who receives tithes, paid tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him' (Hebrews 7:9,10).

For me, Christ was accounted as being `in' the Father from eternity, just as Levi met Melchisedec, while `he was yet in the loins of his father'. It is exactly the same theology of which I have already written, except in this instance it is applied to the relationship of Christ and the Father. So as far as I am concerned, it is immaterial that Christ had a beginning when He proceeded from the Father (Proverbs 8: 22-31). For even though He may have not yet existed, His Father accounted Him as existing`in' Him from eternity, and thus sharing in His divinity, while still being subordinate to Him as His only Son! Christ and the Father are one in mind and purpose. For this reason Christ said `If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.' And bear in mind that these verses in Proverbs which speak of the pre-incarnate Christ do not stop there, for verse 35 and 36 speak of Christ in this way:

`For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all that hate me hate death.'

According to this verse, life can only be found through Christ, which implies that He then, must also be our Judge; a function which only God can employ. But I have already said that! (Hebrews chapter 7 also speaks of Melchisedec, who was `without beginning and without end' as a type of Christ as our High Priest.)

And so my semi-Arianism recognizes that Christ had a beginning, and is a literal Son to the Father. But I am also compelled to see Him as divine, as only God Himself can atone for the broken law. So as you can see, in this view of the `corporate whole', or `solidarity'; as I first wrote - the theology is consistent. Even when applied to the Father and Son - and especially so! And of the Holy Spirit? Not as an impersonal `force'; which is what is generally believed of people who are pejoratively called semi-Arians; which is a byword for heresy in `orthodox' Christianity. Instead,the `Comforter' is much more personal than we think:

I think I see what you mean. Do you mean that you believe that while Jesus had a beginning that he was God in the sense that the angels are regarded as God (see above).

`But all of you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also restore life in your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you.' (Rom. 8: 9-11.)

As you can see, the Holy Spirit is interchangeable with the Spirit of God (the Father) and the Spirit of Christ. So the `Comforter' (Holy Spirit) is primarily Christ Himself `in Spirit'; as it is Christ to Whom the Father has given this world. As He could not be with us all personally in His human incarnation; His human body limited Him from this, He had to go away (was crucified at Calvary), and return `in Spirit', so that He could be with all men.

Peace be with you brother,

Kym.

Thank you. Shalom aleichem.

Brother Kymbo,

"Hebrews" is generally viewed to be pseudepigraphic, and the seed of marcionism.

With regard to "Elohim" it might be helpful to understand it as a plural-collective, much as the Egyptian word "Pharoah" was; referring to the entire family of which the person on the throne was the visible epitome.

The Jewish understanding is subtle and rich.

Dan, could you clarify something for me? Is Elohim a feminine in this usage?

It is male to the best of my knowledge. Elohim means 'Mighty Ones', and refers both to God and those of whom are regarded as God. Your analogy is a good one, however.

An example of the usage of Elohim in contrast with the other forms of El and YHWH can be found in Deuteronomy 5:9...

"I, the LORD (YaHWeH) your GOD (Elohim), am a jealous God (El)"

"El" literally means: "Strong one" and refers to a god in the most general sense and can also refer to a false god. [Masculine]

"Elohim" is the masculine plural form of El. It does not mean "gods" when referring to the true Supreme God Almighty, since the name is mainly used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular (e.g. Genesis 1:26). It's meaning relies on the context of the passage but is generally representative of an intensified form of the Supreme God, a plural of majesty indicating His power and preeminence. It also occurs in the form "ha-elohim" meaning: "the one true God." It can also refer to human leaders (Exodus 21:6 and Psalm 82:1) as an honourific term meaning "Sons of God" or literally: "Mighty ones." In its plural form in ancient Hebrew it can also mean: "Children of God" in terms of heavenly beings or angels (Psalm 8:5, 135:1); this is because angels are great in power and might and because God is pleased to make use of their service in the government of this lower world.

"YaHWeH" is a specific personal name for GOD, mostly used to express GOD's unoriginated, immutable, eternal and self-sustained existence, particularly in relation to humanity; literally: "I am, that I am" (Exodus 3:14, 6:3). Notice it doesn't mean: "We are, that we are!" It is often translated in English as: "LORD" in capitals, not to be confused with "Lord," which is translated from "Baal," a Phoenician and Canaanitish supreme male divinity, but also the root of many terms connected with man, husband or master.

See also Joshua 22:22 "The LORD God of gods!" El Elohim YeHoWaH, literally: "The strong God, Elohim YaHWeH."

Whoops. I see it has already been explained.

[Kymbo]

The unforgivable sin of the Qaraim is consuming blood, while in Christian religion (that's the first two Christian religions) the unforgivable sin is ignoring the Holy Spirit.

Hi Dan,

The life is in the blood; to ignore the Holy Spirit is to ignore God Himself pleading with our Spirit that we might return to Him. To ignore the promptings of the Spirit is to refuse the free gift of salvation and for those who continue on this path there remains no longer a sacrifice for sins.

In regard to consuming blood, the original diet was vegetarianism; man only began to consume meat after the fall, when the slaughter of innocent animals began. Logically, the Commandment `Thou shalt not kill' not only applied to humans killing humans, as is commonly assumed, but also to the killing of any living creature. This commandment was not broken until Cain slew Abel and this then spread to the killing and consumption of animals as well. When the children of Israel pleaded with Moses and the Lord for meat during the Exodus, eventually He conceded to their wishes and gave it to them. The diseases and fevers which they contracted from it more or less killed them on the spot. In time, the commandment to allow the Chosen People to eat meat was introduced into the laws governing the consumption of food. But as a Jew, you know that the dietary laws concerning the eating of meat are very strict - the meat is boiled first, so that the blood is removed from it completely! I don't know if you have ever tasted cardboard, but that's how meat tastes like after the blood has been boiled out of it! It's almost tasteless and should be reason enough to put you off eating meat forever. Unless of course you have tried eating meat with the blood still in it. Not only is the life in the blood, but the blood itself is for some reason addictive; hence the cravings of Israel for meat. They had become corrupted by the Egyptians while in captivity to them. It was never the Lord's intention that mankind should eat the flesh of animals. He desired that we remain vegetarians and although I have no direct evidence relating to this - it is common sense to believe that His wish for us is that we return to our original diet. I think that perhaps this will help you on wondering if the dietary laws still apply - the only reason these laws were given in the first place is because the Lord conceded to the wishes of His people. This alone indicates that they were of a temporary nature which really had nothing at all with Calvary, apart from the fact that although Christ was the fisher of men and helped His disciples in casting their nets, and fed the five thousand (was that with fish as well as bread?), nowhere can I find an instance in which He Himself consumed flesh. But I could be wrong; if He did, it would have been `kosher'. The Lord desires that we return to our original diet, for disease is also in the blood of the flesh and in not eating meat, we are blessed with better health than what we would otherwise have.



I regard Binitarians as confused; they have'nt thoroughly thought out their position. But you are correct on this point - they are seeking the Lord in faith.

You do have a few points. We Qaraim also, it might be noted, see both male and female as equal (and I agree with this completely, hence why I am a Qara'i Jew). We even have female hakhamim (wise men, our rabbis, it could be said).

That is interesting! I would never have thought to find this in a Jewish culture! Please don't misunderstand me - that this is not meant to mean that I regard Jews as chauvinistic or sexist; I don't - but as the High Priest was always male (as he represented Christ), then women play a subordinate role to the Priesthood'. But this does not mean that they are nevertheless equal to men in other respects.

So in the Priesthood, women play a subordinate role. I think that this is because just as in the sense that Adam represented Eve when she sinned, (she was originally taken from the side of Adam; his rib) the Father also represents Christ - some texts say that Christ was in the side of the Father, or in His bosom, before He proceeded from Him. (We see again this concept of all men being either `in' Adam or `in' Christ being applied to Christ being `in' the Father from creation.) We also see this concept in the esoteric religions, where the relationship between Christ and the Father has become corrupted by the confused ideas of ancient Babylon. In these systems of worship, Christ is always represented as a female emanation, or attenuation (such as in Aphrodite); it is because traditionally in all cultures the female priesthood is represented as being subordinate to the High Priest, who was also known as the Pontifex Maximus; which is of course a title the Pope takes upon himself - which is but one reason why he is represented as the `man of sin' in 2 Thessalonians. As far as the Greeks are concerned, an analogy was drawn between Sophia (also known as `Wisdom') and Christ, in which she, being the weakest of the divine emanations,`fell' into this plane of existence when she aspired to hidden knowledge (Gnosis) which had been forbidden to her. Now, we of course see this in Eve aspiring to `hidden' knowledge when she ate from the tree of life. So in ancient Babylon, where this gnosticism first began and was later refined by the Greeks, we see this confusion begin with man, the creature, confusing man with the Creator.

[quote=Danage;4634 I think I see what you mean. Do you mean that you believe that while Jesus had a beginning that he was God in the sense that the angels are regarded as God . . . . .

No. I regard Jesus as God in a similar sense that Trinitarians do, but in a much more refined sense without the confusion which they unnecessarily create. You might say my position is the half-way point between Trinitarianism and Arianism. (Eeeek! :eek: There is a (gasp!) Trinitarian in our midst! lol!!!!!) Historically, some of my people took this position late in the nineteenth century, and as nobody really understood what they believed because of their own pre-conceived ideas on the inter-relationship of the Godhead, some thought they were Trinitarian and others thought they were semi-Arian with a diminished view of the divinity of Christ. I don't really belong in either camp. And so it still stands today. Except I think that these days certain people who hold positions of power in my Church do understand, but have a hidden agenda to cover up truth which is embarrassing to them. They deliberately employ falsehoods to my people (lie to them) as they have formed a Creed. To back down and actually study the word of God and form a different opinion is too embarrassing for them. So the leadership continue following after Babylon and lead my people astray. In a figurative sense, they, the Priesthood sin, so therefore my people sin, as our sins begin with their wrong conception of God. This then filters down to their perceptions of soterieology.

You know that the term `sons of God' is rather ambiguous and this ambiguity can also apply to how the nature of angels is perceived. While the term `Sons of God' can mean literal sons of God, it is also an honorific title which is bestowed upon men when they are adopted into the `family' of God. While no angel is regarded as the `only-begotten' Son of God, a distinction is made with Christ. By inheritance, He has a better name than the angels.

`Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they' (Hebrews 1:4).

When we look at the very first verse of the Bible, we read:

`In the beginning God created the heaven and earth: and the earth was without form and empty, and darkness on the face of the deep,and the Spirit of God moved gently upon the face of the waters.'

Now, as I don't know Hebrew, I am forced to use a concordance.

The Hebrew word for `in the beginning' is `reyshith'. When we look at Proverbs 8:22; which (in the Masoretic Text) reads:

`The Lord `Yehovah' possessed `qanah' `me in the beginning' reyshith of his way. derek

Possessed `qanah' suggests `to get, by acquisition or creation'. Here is the interesting point. The next phrase is `in the beginning of his way' and is precisely the same word as the very first word in Scripture - `reyshith'!

It means beginning, first, best, chief - and also firstfruits. Now, although in Genesis 1:1 pluralality is indicated for `God' I would humbly suggest that there is an alliteration here; as Proverbs 8:22 links directly to Genesis 1:1. I therefore suggest that an accurate translation for Genesis 1:1 would be `In the beginning of his way', suggesting that the first element of creation by the Father is the `creating' of Christ i,e - the procession of the Son from the Father, while the first act of creation by the Father and Son is the rest of the first verse of Genesis 1:1. The Hebrew language is indeed rich and subtle in its variation!

While this might seem like mere semantics, to me, the Son shares in the same `substance', or mind of the Father, as He proceeded directly from Him (in other words He is a literal Son to the Father, in the same sense that we have children), but also of the same mind as the Father, while the angels were created by Christ Himself. (He was created `outside' time, before time began and life anywhere, including angels, existed.) I hope this helps you to see more clearly where I am coming from.

Blessings,

Kym.

[Postulare42]

" ... The unforgivable sin of the Qaraim is consuming blood, while in Christian religion (that's the first two Christian religions) the unforgivable sin is ignoring the Holy Spirit ... "

Uh . . . lying is my understanding.

[Danage]

" ... The unforgivable sin of the Qaraim is consuming blood, while in Christian religion (that's the first two Christian religions) the unforgivable sin is ignoring the Holy Spirit ... "

Uh . . . lying is my understanding.

Yes, denying what the Holy Spirit tells you is the unforgivable sin in Christianity. Ignoring (or blaspheming) the Holy Spirit is another way of putting it.

[Danage]

Hi Dan,

The life is in the blood; to ignore the Holy Spirit is to ignore God Himself pleading with our Spirit that we might return to Him. To ignore the promptings of the Spirit is to refuse the free gift of salvation and for those who continue on this path there remains no longer a sacrifice for sins.

In regard to consuming blood, the original diet was vegetarianism; man only began to consume meat after the fall, when the slaughter of innocent animals began. Logically, the Commandment `Thou shalt not kill' not only applied to humans killing humans, as is commonly assumed, but also to the killing of any living creature. This commandment was not broken until Cain slew Abel and this then spread to the killing and consumption of animals as well. When the children of Israel pleaded with Moses and the Lord for meat during the Exodus, eventually He conceded to their wishes and gave it to them. The diseases and fevers which they contracted from it more or less killed them on the spot. In time, the commandment to allow the Chosen People to eat meat was introduced into the laws governing the consumption of food. But as a Jew, you know that the dietary laws concerning the eating of meat are very strict - the meat is boiled first, so that the blood is removed from it completely! I don't know if you have ever tasted cardboard, but that's how meat tastes like after the blood has been boiled out of it! It's almost tasteless and should be reason enough to put you off eating meat forever. Unless of course you have tried eating meat with the blood still in it. Not only is the life in the blood, but the blood itself is for some reason addictive; hence the cravings of Israel for meat. They had become corrupted by the Egyptians while in captivity to them. It was never the Lord's intention that mankind should eat the flesh of animals. He desired that we remain vegetarians and although I have no direct evidence relating to this - it is common sense to believe that His wish for us is that we return to our original diet. I think that perhaps this will help you on wondering if the dietary laws still apply - the only reason these laws were given in the first place is because the Lord conceded to the wishes of His people. This alone indicates that they were of a temporary nature which really had nothing at all with Calvary, apart from the fact that although Christ was the fisher of men and helped His disciples in casting their nets, and fed the five thousand (was that with fish as well as bread?), nowhere can I find an instance in which He Himself consumed flesh. But I could be wrong; if He did, it would have been `kosher'. The Lord desires that we return to our original diet, for disease is also in the blood of the flesh and in not eating meat, we are blessed with better health than what we would otherwise have.

Interesting theory, and I think you are right. Humans were originally vegetarians, despite what it shows in the Simpsons (lol). In that episode Homer (representing Adam (pronounced as the name 'Adama' from BSG (without the 'a), in Hebrew, which means 'Humanity') ate pork. Not only is this a breach of the Kashruth (food) Laws, but also a breach of the text itself. You are right in saying that the original humans were vegetarians, and ate no meat.

The problem I see is that the Kashruth Laws were given in haTorah, and mentioned no abstinance from meat. While I have not been ill since keeping to the Kashruth Laws (apart from eating some chicken that had gone off) I do realise that veganism is more healthy for humanity than say eating meat. The other problem I have with the whole idea of veganism is that Buddhism and other Dharmic religions are mostly vegan. While their diet is indeed healthier than say mine, veganism is something I see as an aspect of the Dharmic religion.

An interesting thing to note is that farmers have been mixing beef into the food of the cow (hence making them cannibals), creating beef and milk that is more unhealthy for the general populace than other meat.

I regard Binitarians as confused; they have'nt thoroughly thought out their position. But you are correct on this point - they are seeking the Lord in faith.


That is interesting! I would never have thought to find this in a Jewish culture! Please don't misunderstand me - that this is not meant to mean that I regard Jews as chauvinistic or sexist; I don't - but as the High Priest was always male (as he represented Christ), then women play a subordinate role to the Priesthood'. But this does not mean that they are nevertheless equal to men in other respects.

The original Jews, i.e. the Qaraim, see all humanity as equal, male and female God created them, and in no place in the Hebrew Bible did it explicitly state that man was superiour to woman.

So in the Priesthood, women play a subordinate role. I think that this is because just as in the sense that Adam represented Eve when she sinned, (she was originally taken from the side of Adam; his rib) the Father also represents Christ - some texts say that Christ was in the side of the Father, or in His bosom, before He proceeded from Him. (We see again this concept of all men being either `in' Adam or `in' Christ being applied to Christ being `in' the Father from creation.) We also see this concept in the esoteric religions, where the relationship between Christ and the Father has become corrupted by the confused ideas of ancient Babylon. In these systems of worship, Christ is always represented as a female emanation, or attenuation (such as in Aphrodite); it is because traditionally in all cultures the female priesthood is represented as being subordinate to the High Priest, who was also known as the Pontifex Maximus; which is of course a title the Pope takes upon himself - which is but one reason why he is represented as the `man of sin' in 2 Thessalonians. As far as the Greeks are concerned, an analogy was drawn between Sophia (also known as `Wisdom') and Christ, in which she, being the weakest of the divine emanations,`fell' into this plane of existence when she aspired to hidden knowledge (Gnosis) which had been forbidden to her. Now, we of course see this in Eve aspiring to `hidden' knowledge when she ate from the tree of life. So in ancient Babylon, where this gnosticism first began and was later refined by the Greeks, we see this confusion begin with man, the creature, confusing man with the Creator.



No. I regard Jesus as God in a similar sense that Trinitarians do, but in a much more refined sense without the confusion which they unnecessarily create. You might say my position is the half-way point between Trinitarianism and Arianism. (Eeeek! :eek: There is a (gasp!) Trinitarian in our midst! lol!!!!!) Historically, some of my people took this position late in the nineteenth century, and as nobody really understood what they believed because of their own pre-conceived ideas on the inter-relationship of the Godhead, some thought they were Trinitarian and others thought they were semi-Arian with a diminished view of the divinity of Christ. I don't really belong in either camp. And so it still stands today. Except I think that these days certain people who hold positions of power in my Church do understand, but have a hidden agenda to cover up truth which is embarrassing to them. They deliberately employ falsehoods to my people (lie to them) as they have formed a Creed. To back down and actually study the word of God and form a different opinion is too embarrassing for them. So the leadership continue following after Babylon and lead my people astray. In a figurative sense, they, the Priesthood sin, so therefore my people sin, as our sins begin with their wrong conception of God. This then filters down to their perceptions of soterieology.

You know that the term `sons of God' is rather ambiguous and this ambiguity can also apply to how the nature of angels is perceived. While the term `Sons of God' can mean literal sons of God, it is also an honorific title which is bestowed upon men when they are adopted into the `family' of God. While no angel is regarded as the `only-begotten' Son of God, a distinction is made with Christ. By inheritance, He has a better name than the angels.

I see your point.

`Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they' (Hebrews 1:4).

When we look at the very first verse of the Bible, we read:

`In the beginning God created the heaven and earth: and the earth was without form and empty, and darkness on the face of the deep,and the Spirit of God moved gently upon the face of the waters.'

Now, as I don't know Hebrew, I am forced to use a concordance.

The Hebrew word for `in the beginning' is `reyshith'. When we look at Proverbs 8:22; which (in the Masoretic Text) reads:

`The Lord `Yehovah' possessed `qanah' `me in the beginning' reyshith of his way. derek

Possessed `qanah' suggests `to get, by acquisition or creation'. Here is the interesting point. The next phrase is `in the beginning of his way' and is precisely the same word as the very first word in Scripture - `reyshith'!

It means beginning, first, best, chief - and also firstfruits. Now, although in Genesis 1:1 pluralality is indicated for `God' I would humbly suggest that there is an alliteration here; as Proverbs 8:22 links directly to Genesis 1:1. I therefore suggest that an accurate translation for Genesis 1:1 would be `In the beginning of his way', suggesting that the first element of creation by the Father is the `creating' of Christ i,e - the procession of the Son from the Father, while the first act of creation by the Father and Son is the rest of the first verse of Genesis 1:1. The Hebrew language is indeed rich and subtle in its variation!

While this might seem like mere semantics, to me, the Son shares in the same `substance', or mind of the Father, as He proceeded directly from Him (in other words He is a literal Son to the Father, in the same sense that we have children), but also of the same mind as the Father, while the angels were created by Christ Himself. (He was created `outside' time, before time began and life anywhere, including angels, existed.) I hope this helps you to see more clearly where I am coming from.

Blessings,

Kym.

Interesting theory. I will have to give that some thought.

[Postulare42]

Yes, denying what the Holy Spirit tells you is the unforgivable sin in Christianity. Ignoring (or blaspheming) the Holy Spirit is another way of putting it.

That is a traditional understanding, but in this case I take a more literal view . . . it is lying, plain and simple. I do not "personalize" the "holy spirit of truth" as an extension of the "Holy Wisdom" as is prevalent in trinitarianism.

[Kymbo]

That is a traditional understanding, but in this case I take a more literal view . . . it is lying, plain and simple. I do not "personalize" the "holy spirit of truth" as an extension of the "Holy Wisdom" as is prevalent in trinitarianism.

My brother,

That's not quite what trinitarians believe. The Holy Spirit is not personalized as the Spirit of Christ or the Spirit of the Father at all. In trinitarianism, the Holy Spirit is regarded as the Third Person of the Godhead and is therefore accorded worship and prayer. It is this conception of the Holy Spirit which has given rise to Pentacostalism and glossalia, which is not far removed from the `New Age Christ'.

[Postulare42]

Brother Kymbo,

The personalisation of the holy spirit of truth was an evolution from the Jewish metaphor of Holy Wisdom as expressed in the Hebrew wisdom literature. The two became conflated in the first centuries of the common era. Some early traditions saw Yeshua as an earthly avatar of Holy Wisdom.

I was raised in a RC family.

P42

Pax Intrantibus
Pax et Bonum

[Kymbo]

Brother Kymbo,

The personalisation of the holy spirit of truth was an evolution from the Jewish metaphor of Holy Wisdom as expressed in the Hebrew wisdom literature. The two became conflated in the first centuries of the common era. Some early traditions saw Yeshua as an earthly avatar of Holy Wisdom.

I was raised in a RC family.

P42

Pax Intrantibus
Pax et Bonum

Hello brother P,

Interesting thought. I do know that some scholars believe that the Greeks imbibed from the Hebrew `wisdom' literature their notion of Wisdom and imprinted upon this their own belief system, which was then refined with the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato. Eventually, Christ became identified with Sophia (wisdom), the last and weakest of the divine emanations, and was also identified as Aphrodite in the divine `pairing' of Aphrodite and Zeus. This rather confused system of belief was further conflated with Sophia being regarded as initiating the fall when she aspired to hidden knowledge (Gnosis).

The early traditions you speak of, do you mean Christian traditions? And can you also tell me what your view is of the Shekinah Presence of the Lord, which dwelt in the Most Holy Place behind the Ark of the Covenant?

It is this I have connected with texts such as Romans 8: 9 - 11, in which the Spirit of God (the Father) is interchangeable with `the Spirit of Christ'. (Not that I would expect you to regard the Pauline epistles as authoritive; I thnk you probably see this as the result of the conflation which you speak of.)

`But all of you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also retore life in your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you.'

But I stand by what I said before. The modalism of Trinitarianism demands that the `actuator', or Holy Spirit can by no means be identified with Christ or the Father; this is regarded to be heresy, as the Holy Spirit is regarded as a separate self- derived hypostasis, yet of the same essence; as the First and Second Persons of the Godhead. Obviously, this doctrine cannot be understood completely.

By the way, you still haven't told me what your sign out signature means - I don't read Latin!!

[Kymbo]

The problem I see is that the Kashruth Laws were given in haTorah, and mentioned no abstinance from meat.

Thats right. But they did have to boil the meat first, so that the blood might be removed from it. This was my point in the first place.


While I have not been ill since keeping to the Kashruth Laws (apart from eating some chicken that had gone off) I do realise that veganism is more healthy for humanity than say eating meat. The other problem I have with the whole idea of veganism is that Buddhism and other Dharmic religions are mostly vegan. While their diet is indeed healthier than say mine, veganism is something I see as an aspect of the Dharmic religion.

I tend to see things like that as the enemy seeking to ensnare those who would otherwise set their feet upon the right paths to follow, and dissuade them from seeking after the God of the Scriptures! (We will have to discuss who Lucifer is, as depicted in Isaiah 14:12, sometime.)

[Postulare42]

You have your historicals fairly well sewn up. I can agree with them with some variants. I have read claims that the Greeks were influenced by Hebrew writings, but support seems sparse and contrived. Influence in the other direction appears much more clearly.

"Shekinah" in the simplest sense is the sign of "glory" or imminent presence which appeared above, rather than behind, the "mercy seat" of the ark. The contemporary usages of the translation "glory" are far from the Hebrew original, even in later mystical writings.

We are accustomed to languages which are far more subtle and rich in vocabulary than was available at the times under discussion. It seems to me that many concepts that we have were not available as discrete words in the languages. I find that it is very important to understand this when reading early attempts to forge new concepts within a limited lexicon. The result takes on the allusive character of poetry more than prose. Hardly precise. This is one of the difficulties of translation.

I suggest that "spirit" carries with it the connotation of person, but should probably be viewed instead as an attempt to express the force or operation of a transcendent principle. I have little patience for the nitpickings of that period, and have little trouble accepting a fuzzy penumbra around certain issues.

It is ironic yet ubiquitous that practitioners of a given behavior frequently attempt to deflect from their own behaviors by claiming that they are those of someone else. If we take as part of the definition of gnosticism (in a Xian sense) the belief that salvation comes from knowledge, then one could identify many of the orthodox canonicalists as such. The records indicate that Yeshua had other emphases and criterion.

Are you acquainted with this source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmachus_the_Ebionite

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1208&letter=S

Regarding my signoff quotes, they are fairly easy to locate through clusty.com.

"Pax Intrantibus" means "Peace to all who enter(here)" and is found over the gates and doors of Trappist (Benedictine) monastery guest houses.

"Pax et Bonum" is of Franciscan origin, and means "Peace and (all) Goodness(benefices/blessings)".

Postulare42; GFT II (hons)

Pax Intrantibus
Pax et Bonum

( "postulare" in this usage means "It is asserted". "42" is from a book by Douglass Adams)

[Kymbo]

You have your historicals fairly well sewn up. I can agree with them with some variants. I have read claims that the Greeks were influenced by Hebrew writings, but support seems sparse and contrived. Influence in the other direction appears much more clearly.

Hello brother `Postulare',

You are indeed correct. Influence and corruption flowed from the Hebrews to the Greeks and vice versa. It is around this period of time (about the 5th or 6th century) that the Hebrews first imbibed of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul from the Greeks which also led to mysticism in some quarters. Previously to this, they believed in annihilationism. (Scriptural references abound with the phrase `Slept with his fathers'.) This doctrine formed the basis of the doctrine of the resurrection - i.e the conditional immortality of the soul, which is conditional upon the acceptance of Christ as one's Saviour and hence immortality. The Greeks, of course imbibed of the `wisdom' literature of the Hebrews, and incorporated this into a conflated view of their idea of God. I would even go so far as stating that this conflation amounted to their polygamist views of God which they had inherited from the plains of Shinar were melded with the Hebrew idea of one God. This eventually achieved expression in the One pantheistic God - many Gods in One. The `New Platonism' which this ultimately led to heavily influenced the formation of the creeds of faith of the western Church and in particular the environs of Rome and Alexandria. This is not to say that Antioch was left untouched by gnosis. But the argument for that is beyond the scope of this posting!


"Shekinah" in the simplest sense is the sign of "glory" or imminent presence which appeared above, rather than behind, the "mercy seat" of the ark. The contemporary usages of the translation "glory" are far from the Hebrew original, even in later mystical writings.

Makes sense. `I beheld the glory of the Lord'.


We are accustomed to languages which are far more subtle and rich in vocabulary than was available at the times under discussion. It seems to me that many concepts that we have were not available as discrete words in the languages. I find that it is very important to understand this when reading early attempts to forge new concepts within a limited lexicon. The result takes on the allusive character of poetry more than prose. Hardly precise. This is one of the difficulties of translation.

Paradoxically, I find (through the use of a concordance) that the sparsity of the language lends itself to many subtle variations when even one word is considered.


I suggest that "spirit" carries with it the connotation of person, but should probably be viewed instead as an attempt to express the force or operation of a transcendent principle. I have little patience for the nitpickings of that period, and have little trouble accepting a fuzzy penumbra around certain issues.

Does this mean that you are conceding that there could be some common ground in the manner in which we view the "spirit"? Mind you, some would say that the difference between `person' and `personality' is merely a question of semantics.


It is ironic yet ubiquitous that practitioners of a given behavior frequently attempt to deflect from their own behaviors by claiming that they are those of someone else. If we take as part of the definition of gnosticism (in a Xian sense) the belief that salvation comes from knowledge, then one could identify many of the orthodox canonicalists as such. The records indicate that Yeshua had other emphases and criterion.

While an argument could be built for James, Luke and in particular the disciple John in view of his constant use of the word `Logos' (with the defence being that he spoke to the Greeks in terminology which they would understand - which of course could also be considered as a weak argument), I don't believe that the same can be said of the Pauline epistles, particularly when Paul states:

` For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness . . . ' (1 Cor. 1: 22 - 23.)

Paul of Tarsus was well acquainted with Greek sophistry and knew that the Greeks viewed the resurrection as `foolishness', as they believed that the souls of men are immortal. As far as they were concerned, to teach the heresy that one should die so that they might achieve immortality was - foolishness!


Are you acquainted with this source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmachus_the_Ebionite

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1208&letter=S


I am aware of the influence of Symmachus on Codex B. This, when coupled with his inclusion in Origen's six-column Hexapla, as well as his influence on the formation of the Vulgate is an indicator that his `copious use of a wide range of Greek particles to bring out subtle distinctions of relationship that the Hebrew cannot adequate express' may well have betrayed a tendency to allegorization. The fact that he was most likely a Samaritan, a people which, although originally Jewish - had long since given themselves over to idolatry and intermarriage with the Assyrians supports this hypothesis.


Regarding my signoff quotes, they are fairly easy to locate through clusty.com.

"Pax Intrantibus" means "Peace to all who enter(here)" and is found over the gates and doors of Trappist (Benedictine) monastery guest houses.

"Pax et Bonum" is of Franciscan origin, and means "Peace and (all) Goodness(benefices/blessings)".

Postulare42; GFT II (hons)

Pax Intrantibus
Pax et Bonum

( "postulare" in this usage means "It is asserted". "42" is from a book by Douglass Adams)

42. Really??? lol!!!! I think I need a larger computer, to work that one out. Perhaps one the size of planet earth! Now, let me think . . . . . Is there really a restaurant at the end of the universe? Don't worry, brother - your `secret' is safe with me! The mice will never know!

[Postulare42]

Bro Kym,

The Hebrews appear to have been exposed to the idea that god would create something which he cannot lift from the Egyptians, Sumerians, et. al. long before any contact with the Hellenes. Surviving Hellenic writings and artifacts betray little of Hebrew thought. Certainly not among the Athenians. Mention of the people prior to the Alexandrian period is non-existent. The reverse is less unclear.

The Samaritans were indeed a mixed bag, but were a people who held to the pre-Judahite, pre-federalist tribal traditions of their own prophets and holy places.

[Kymbo]

Bro Kym,

The Hebrews appear to have been exposed to the idea that god would create something which he cannot lift from the Egyptians, Sumerians, et. al. long before any contact with the Hellenes. Surviving Hellenic writings and artifacts betray little of Hebrew thought. Certainly not among the Athenians. Mention of the people prior to the Alexandrian period is non-existent. The reverse is less unclear.

Brother P,

Except perhaps of the `wisdom' literature which well suited their philosophical bent. I really don't think it is a coincidence that both the Hebrews and the Greeks conveyed the idea of `wisdom' in relation to their conception of God. I think I might have given you the wrong impression of what I was trying to convey. While I certainly agree that the Hebrew people first came into contact with the Greeks during the Alexandrian period (I remember that scholars in my own Church also believe this), I did state that the Greeks received much of what they initially believed pre-Plato in regard to polytheism from Assyria, Babylonia, etc. If we are to go by the Biblical record, the grafting on of poytheism onto the religion of the Hebrew people simply did not take place. While at times they slid into apostacy, they were eventually corrected of this, as the Presence of God tabernacled with them and they were under direct instruction from the Lord. It wasn't until after the destruction of the temple of Solomon, when the Shekinah Presence no longer tabernacled (as you corrected me) above the mercy seat and the two cherubim (there is such deep spiritual significance there!) that some elements of the Hebrew people began a permanent slide into apostasy, as they were no longer guided by the Presence of the Lord. I might add that once they imbibed of that most poisonous doctrine of all; the doctrine of the `immortality of the soul', they were then open to any and all pernicious doctrines which please the carnal mind.


The Samaritans were indeed a mixed bag, but were a people which held to the pre-Judahite, pre-federalistic, tribal traditions of their own prophets and holy places.

They were an object lesson of what happens when the chosen people of the Lord separate from Him. Israel is another example of this; we see what happened when the United Monarchy failed and they followed after Baal. It would seem reasonable to assume that not long after the return from the Exile, certain factions of the Hebrew people started imbibing of philosophies from the Greeks. While one could postulate they also imbibed of erroneous beliefs from the Samaritans, which were then living in the homes of their grandfathers - this is unlikely as they were hated for reason of mingling their seed with foregin nations.

[Postulare42]

Bro Kym,

The creation of "wisdom literature" (at least that which we have copies or reference to) all seems to postdate the Alexandrian expansion. To my knowledge, there have been no copies, records or references (or quotes therefrom) to any Hebrew writings among artifacts from surrounding cultures.

Myths aside, Hellene philosophy possessed a subtlety that far outstripped the relatively simple moralisms and dogmatisms of the contemporaneous Hebrew writings. Admittedly superior to the morally and ethically void records we have of the Egyptians, and terse legalisms of the cultures further to the east, it isn't until the near-Alexandrian period tale of Job that we begin to see the Hellenic influence of philosophic debate. Sharing even a few elements of the buddhist Melindapanna, it still devolves to resolving it's questions with a deus ex machina fiat. The remaining works, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus are hardly philosophical in structure or content, but ethical and pedantic..

Reference to the Hebrew writings are helpful that certain places existed and that certain major events occurred. These have often been supported by archaeological discovery. The problem is with the ethnocentric, ideosyncatic, and almost narcissistic (and definitely ideologic) nature of the interpretations expressed in them. References, where they occur, in the records of other cultures seldom reflect their bias. In some instances they contradict simple facts.

(We really need to continue this on another thread. This one is really for people to introduce themselves. If you like, we can ask "Archbishop" to move these posts to another locale.)

P42; GFT (hons)

PeB
PI

[Danage]

I should have added that in regards to religion as a whole, I was born into a Church of Ireland (Anglican) family, but baptised as a Methodist (apparently the minister of the CoE didn't rate my mother because she is from Northern Ireland).

Shabbat shalom my good friend,

I also was born into an Anglican family, but my mother is a Methodist (she is a Methodist because her adopted mother is a practising Methodist), and I was also baptised (first) as a Methodist.

[Ben baruach]

I grew up in Upper Michigan, but now live in Kentucky.

[Just Plain Dave]

Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rather diverse group we have here. Great to see!

[Danage]

Thats right. But they did have to boil the meat first, so that the blood might be removed from it. This was my point in the first place.

Forgive me, but I must point out an error in this line of thinking. The modern day Jews do not boil their meat to get rid of the blood. Instead we wash the meat to get rid of the blood. As a slight aside, the European Qaraim also see Halal meat as kosher, for Halal meat contains little, if any, blood in the meat.

Again, I must say the Jews do not boil meat to get rid of blood; instead, we wash it.

[jacobpressures]

I live in Mobile, Alabama.

[Postulare42]

Welcome, Jacob.

[jacobpressures]

Thanks for the welcome. I feel much better at home here than with the Socinians. Plus people here have a more academic knowledge. When i questioned the Christadelphians they didn't even know what a Socinian is.

[Postulare42]

WHerever did you find active Socinians in this day and age? Romania?

[Hermes]

WHerever did you find active Socinians in this day and age? Romania?

I am really fond of the "Socinians" of Romania, although I would not call the Unitarians of Transylvania with that term. In America the only ones that could be classified as "Socinian" are Christadelphians, Buzzardites (Church of God Abrahamic Faith/General Conference) and the Biblical Unitarian movement. And a part of the Unitarian Christians as well I suppose, though I doubt they are being referred to here, as he refers to bad experiences.

The word Socinian is mostly used in the sense of "does not believe in pre-existence". Poland actually has (a) revived Socinian/Arian group(s), the Polish Brethren Unitarians.

[jacobpressures]

I am really fond of the "Socinians" of Romania, although I would not call the Unitarians of Transylvania with that term. In America the only ones that could be classified as "Socinian" are Christadelphians, Buzzardites (Church of God Abrahamic Faith/General Conference) and the Biblical Unitarian movement. And a part of the Unitarian Christians as well I suppose, though I doubt they are being referred to here, as he refers to bad experiences.

The word Socinian is mostly used in the sense of "does not believe in pre-existence". Poland actually has (a) revived Socinian/Arian group(s), the Polish Brethren Unitarians.


Oh wow, Hermes! Are the Polish Brethren back??? I thought they were completely disappeared after the attack by the Trinitarians during the 1600 or 1700s. Do you have any websites or additional info? Is Socinianism large in Romania? Does Arianism live alongside it?

[Hermes]

Oh wow, Hermes! Are the Polish Brethren back??? I thought they were completely disappeared after the attack by the Trinitarians during the 1600 or 1700s. Do you have any websites or additional info? Is Socinianism large in Romania? Does Arianism live alongside it?

Well, they moved to other countries and kind of did disappear. They melded into other Unitarian groups. There was a Polish congregation even in Transylvania until 1782 (when they had probably already become Hungarians), and in Prussia until 1803. It was refounded in Poland after the first world war, and there is some activity there now. The Polish spokesman was quite pessimistic of the situation when he was presenting their situation in an international conference. Links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAoMda3P4_A
http://www.icuu.net/membergroups/memberpages/poland.html
http://szlakbracipolskich.prv.pl/
http://omen.aplus.pl/braciapolscy_intro/
http://stowarzyszenieszlakbracipolskich.prv.pl/

As for Transylvania (http://www.unitarius.org/), there are somewhere between 66000-100000 there. About 5% of the Hungarian population, which means some villages are fully Unitarian (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Unitarieni_Romania_%282002%29.png). The official theological work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Universae_Theologiae_Christianae_secundum_Un itarios) is "Socinian" and the Catechism "Non-Adorantist", but in general they don't question so much whether one is an Arian or a Socinian or a Non-Adorantist. I don't know about how many believe in an Arian way, probably not so many. They are quite interested in all Unitarian forms.

[jacobpressures]

Thanks so much for the information Hermes, I'll check it out. It is greatly appreciated.

[yahzidky]

I'm Tai by name, from Lagos, Nigeria. A spiritual Nazirite by calling. I so much believe in the monotheistic worship of YHWH the Father of our High Priest and Elder brother, Yahuahsha haMashiach

[Postulare42]

You are very welcome, Brother Tai.

May you show the Father's love for His creation in all your interactions.