Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

I submit that the divinity of Jesus is the central concept of Christianity.

Q. What do we mean when we say that Jesus is the only Son of God?
A. We mean that Jesus is the only perfect image of the Father, and shows
   us the nature of God.

Q. What is the nature of God revealed in Jesus?
A. God is love.

Q. What do we mean when we say that Jesus was conceived by the power
   of the Holy Spirit and became incarnate from the Virgin Mary?
A. We mean that by God's own act, his divine Son received our human
   nature from the Virgin Mary, his mother.

Q. Why did he take our human nature?
A. The divine Son became human, so that in him human beings might be
   adopted as children of God, and be made heirs of God's kingdom.

Q. What is the great importance of Jesus' suffering and death?
A. By his obedience, even to suffering and death, Jesus made the
   offering which we could not make; in him we are freed from the
   power of sin and reconciled to God.

Q. What is the significance of Jesus' resurrection?
A. By his resurrection, Jesus overcame death and opened for us the
   way of eternal life.

Q. What do we mean when we say that he descended to the dead?
A. We mean that he went to the departed and offered them also the
   benefits of redemption.

Q. What do we mean when we say that he ascended into heaven and is
   seated at the right hand of the Father?
A. We mean that Jesus took our human nature into heaven where he now
   reigns with the Father and intercedes for us.

Q. How can we share in his victory over sin, suffering, and death?
A. We share in his victory when we are baptized into the New Covenant
   and become living members of Christ.

I personally do believe in the divine nature of Jesus Christ.

At the same time I do not insist that others do.

Jesus said, "Follow me!"  This imperitive seems, at least to me, to have
been of greater emphasis than what some may claim as Jesus saying, "I am
God Incarnate."

Peace,
Richard

    The divinity of Jesus is a defining attribute of Christians.  Those who
    believe it are Christians.  Those who do not are not Christians.
    
    Jesus is a real, historical figure.  (Conceded by even the atheists)
    
    Jesus taught that he himself was God.  The clear evidence in Scripture
    for this is overwhelming.  Where is the scriptural support of the
    negation of this?  Even an atheist can read and see that Jesus taught
    that he himself was God. 
    
    The followers of Jesus believe all that Jesus taught.  (by defintion of
    "follow")
    
    The label "Christian" applies to the followers of Jesus. (by usage
    throughout history)

"Reverend, I'm having a little trouble with my faith.  You see, I believe
that Jesus was the Son of God.  I even believe Jesus rose from the grave.
But I just can't accept the part about Jesus being born of a virgin or
that Jesus was the same as God."

Well, Reverend, what'll we do with this one?  What would you as a Christian
say or do in response?

Peace,
Richard

The witness of St. Basil the Great against the Arian heresy (which denied the
divinity of Christ) is instructive for us.  I quote from a sermon delivered
by Fr. Andrew Mead, Rector of The Church of the Advent, Boston, to delegates
at a meeting of conservative Episcopalians:

We must be strong and of good courage.  But we need to remember that this
taking courage, though we are in such a great encouraging company, is done
how? -- one by one!  So now let me [tell] the story of how a great bishop,
St. Basil of Caesarea, called "Basil the Great," took courage and witnessed
to the truth when called upon to do so.

St. Basil is one of the so-called Cappadocian fathers of the Church.  He
was born into a Christian family.  His grandfather had fled to the wilder-
ness because of the persecution of Christians by the Roman emperor
Diocletian.  His grandmother was accounted a saint.  His father was an
estimable lawyer of some wealth and of high character; his mother was also
worthy in person and character.

Basil received the best education that could be obtained then for a
Christian youth, at Caesarea, at Constantinople, and at Athens (where he
met Julian, afterward the apostate emperor, and the great St. Gregory of
Nazianzus, another Cappadocian father).  Basil's sister, Macrina, and his
brother, Gregory of Nyssa (another Cappadocian father), and another brother,
Peter, are all accounted saints in the ancient Orthodox churches.

Basil was ordained June 14, 364; we celebrate his feast day on that date. 
He was elected bishop of Caesarea, metropolitan of Cappadocia, in a hotly
contested and narrowly won election between Arian heretics and Catholics.
The "Lesser Feasts and Fasts" of the Episcopal Church says that Basil was

  relentless in his efforts to restore the faith and discipline of the
  clergy, and in defense of the Nicene faith.  When the Emperor Valens
  (an Arian) sought to undercut Basil's power by dividing the See of
  Cappadocia, Basil forced his brother Gregory to become Bishop of Nyssa.

One day the Emperor Valens dispatched a legate to Caesarea to attempt to
persuade its bishop, whose personal attractiveness, persuasiveness, and
holiness was becoming a major nuisance to the Establishment, to adopt the
new establishmentarian religion in place of Catholic orthodoxy.  Basil
proved inflexible (or should I say resolute and resilient!), and the legate
lost his patience.

"Do you not know," said the frustrated officer, "that I am armed with power
to make you wince?"

"What power is that?"

"I can order confiscation of goods, banishment, tortures, and death."

"Find out some more powerful menace," was Basil's reply.  "As for confisca-
tion -- he who possesses nothing can lose nothing; all you can take from me
is the wretched garment I wear and the few books that are my only wealth.
All my treasure is within.  As for exile, the earth is the Lord's, and all
people everywhere are my brothers and sisters; I shall be home wherever you
send me.  As for death, that would be a mercy; it would admit me to a life
for which I have been preparing all my days, having died to the world quite
some time ago."

The legate said he was not used to being spoken to in such a fashion.

"Perhaps you have never fallen in before with a bishop" was the answer. 

The legate returned to the emperor, saying, "We are beaten; the man is
beyond our threats."

Basil lives in the heart of the Catholic Church; Arianism, an old form of
new heresies, in history's dustbin.

        Richard,

        Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is divine. That is he is the 
	*image* of the only true God. As Hewbrews 1:3 NWT puts it "the exact 
	representation of is very being"

        So could you clarify what you mean by divinity? Do you mean that
        Jesus is godlike or God? . If God, please could you change the title
        to "The Deity of Jesus - How important is it?" this would be more
        explicit.

        Thanks

        Phil.

Remember Basil!

Don't change the title.

Don't let the Jehovah's Witnesses draw you into the Arian heresy -- JWs
view Arius as a forerunner of Charles Taze Russell.

Uphold the Christian Faith as affirmed in the Nicene Creed.

Jesus is fully God and fully Man.  Of one substance with the Father.

/john

    The Latin root for divine is divus, God.
    The Latin root for deity is deus, God.

    No distinction exists between the words in English.  God's Will is the
    Divine Will.

    This is all connected to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and I'm
    sure the our moderator will point us to the note where this has been
    discussed.

re last two

	My dictionary defines divinity as "The state of being divine"
	and also "God" and "a deity"
	Divine is defined as "of or belonging to God" etc..

	Now we are not talking about any deity, but the only true God, 
	so we need to be specific.
 
	For example the faithful angels are divine, are they not?
	Psalms 8:5 NWT reads "You also proceeded to make him a little
	less than than god-like ones," Here angels are referred to
	as god-like, with this in mind would you call into question
	their divinity? eg "state of being divine".

	Phil.

    The unanswered question still remains:  what, in general, makes a
    doctrine a criterion for separating Christians from non-Christians?
    What are the characteristics of that doctrine that give it this special
    status, which various other doctrines lack?

    When I have attempted to bring this question up before, I was told that
    it was irrelevant.  So, without the explicit information to proceed,
    the best I can do is infer from what people have written what the
    attributes of these defining doctrines might be.  My inferences may
    indeed be wrong, but without the full information I'll have to just
    muddle along the best I can.

    We start with the doctrine that Jesus is divine, since that is the one
    that is being offered as a just such a defining doctrine.  If we accept
    that a "follower" by definition accepts *everything* taught by the
    person being followed (a rather strong definition, to say the least,
    but we'll accept it here for the sake of argument), and if we also
    accept that Jesus claimed to be God, then several questions still
    remain.  What is it about this doctrine that distinguishes it from
    other doctrines about other things that Jesus taught or did, but which
    are not offered as criteria for distinguishing Christians from
    non-Christians?

    What I infer from other people's statements is that Jesus's divinity is
    a defining doctrine because the evidence is so overwhelming that he
    claimed to be God.  By inference, then, those other doctrines, which
    don't have this special status, have less biblical support.  One would
    therefore be conceding that other Christians can legitimately disagree
    over those doctrines because there is the possibility that one might be
    wrong and that other Christians would be right.

    For example, the Catholic Church teaches that it is the one true
    church. The Catholic Church believes that there is biblical support for
    the view that Jesus founded the Catholic Church (the "upon this rock"
    passage in Matthew is often cited as an example.)  But the Catholic
    Church also believes that non-Catholics can be Christians.  Therefore,
    it follows from the premise above that the Catholic Church believes
    that the biblical support for this doctrine is less solid than the
    biblical support for the divinity of Jesus, since the certainty of the
    biblical support for Jesus's divinity is what is being used to justify
    its use as a defining criterion for who is and isn't a Christian.
    
    There exist many examples of disagreements among Christians over
    doctrines.  For example, the question of baptism was especially
    important to the Protestant church I was brought up in.  I was taught,
    in no uncertain terms, that a) baptism meant immersion rather than
    sprinkling, and b) it was a conscious decision to be baptized, so
    infant baptism was wrong.  I was taught that there was biblical support
    for this view.  However, Christian denominations disagree considerably
    over this question.  Many denominations practice sprinkling or infant
    baptism, which my childhood church abhorred, and yet argue that these
    practices are completely justified.  Quakers don't even practice water
    baptism at all.  Now if the question of baptism is not a criterion for
    separating Christians from non-Christians, and if the certainty of
    biblical support is what characterizes just such a defining criterion,
    then apparently it is conceded that this issue is more open to question
    than others, and that its biblical support is less clear than the
    biblical support for Jesus's divinity.

    Now maybe the premise that I used above (the solidity of the biblical
    support for a doctrine) is actually *not* the characteristic that makes
    belief in Jesus's divinity a defining characteristic of Christians.  If
    so, then I would be interested in hearing just what it is that gives a
    doctrine that special status.

    -- Mike

>    it follows from the premise above that the Catholic Church believes
>    that the biblical support for this doctrine is less solid than the
>    biblical support for the divinity of Jesus

Not quite.  "Biblical support" is important, but there are first principles
and other principles.

The truths about God and Salvation, the things that are clear in the bible
and that were agreed upon in the councils of the undivided church are "first
principles."  Salvation is defined in terms that require Christ to BE God.

But obedience to ecclesiastical authority, though important, is not a
"first principle."  It's a desirable goal, but it's not as important
as obedience to God, to "first principles."

>   Now if the question of baptism is not a criterion for separating
>   Christians from non-Christians, ...

The criterion is "Baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost."

That said, I think the symbolism of immersion is wonderful -- the candidate
descends into water, in which human life is not possible, and dies to previous
sin, emerging out of the water to a new life in Christ.

/john

    
    Hi Mike,
    
    >What I infer from other people's statements is that Jesus's divinity is
    >a defining doctrine because the evidence is so overwhelming that he
    >claimed to be God.  
    
    I am not convinced that Jesus claimed to *be* God.  (Here I would agree
    that what is being discussed here is the deity of Jesus , i.e., "same as
    God, one with God," rather than the divinity of Jesus.)
    
    *If* my memory serves me, many of the Biblical texts that have Jesus
    claiming to be God were written "late" or apparently were inserted into 
    existing texts by the early Christians.  I'm not saying that *all* such 
    claims attributed to Jesus fall in this category, but that I believe many 
    do.  Thus, I don't believe that "the evidence is so overhelming that
    he claimed to be God."
    
    Just wanted to express a differing perspective, :-)
    Nancy
    
    PS - It's been many years since I've studied that kind of detail
    and I haven't the time or energy to research it now, so I won't be
    attempting to defend this note.

    Nancy, I am not disagreeing with you.  I was only acepting the
    assertion that Jesus claimed to be God for the sake of argument,
    because that has been claimed here; my goal was to try to figure out
    how one comes up with belief in Christ's divinity as a defining
    criterion for Christianity.
    
    John's response to this actually presents a different view than what I
    was using for the sake of argument. His point appears to be that the
    way to delineate which beliefs are necessary for Christianity is by
    adherence to all the creeds laid down by the church authorities in the
    first few centuries after Christ.  (Those creeds may indeed have strong
    biblical support, but the difference here is that all debate over
    biblical interpretation would have to be consistent with those creeds,
    which would have final authority over all such questions.) 
    
    That view seems more logical to me.  However, it *is* worth pointing
    out that the church was only undivided if you omit those who were
    defined to be "heretics" and thus excluded from the church.  Like the
    winners in history always get to do, the victors in those early
    controversies got to define who was a Christian and who wasn't.  The
    cynic would say that, through their lack of required political strength
    in the early church, the "heretical" doctrines were thus excluded for
    the rest of history from consideration as Christian.  The faithful
    believer would probably respond that it was the Holy Spirit that
    ensured that the right views had the necessary political strength to
    prevail.

    By the way, since I belong to a non-Creedal denomination, I do find it
    interesting that Christianity is being defined in terms of strict
    adherence to a set of creeds.

    -- Mike

    I find it interesting that no one thus far has addressed the situation
    posed in 496.5.  Perhaps it's because it's imbedded in the string rather
    that having its own basenote.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Don't all the replies in this whole topic address the Christian belief that
Jesus is God?

/john

Note 3.91

>    While Christianity has much to offer in terms of moral values, I cannot
>    accept those which are based strictly on dogma, which, in my opinion
>    are unrelated to anything but perpetuation of the various Christian
>    organizations.

Mike,

	Interestly enough, I'm rapidly coming to much the same conclusion.

	Based largely on what I've witnessed recently in this conference,
I'd say that the imposition of dogma benefits no one, not the believer, not
society, not the world, and certainly not God.

Shalom,
Richard

    The Messiah is God: Isaiah 7:14 ("Immanuel", meaning God is with us,
    9:6 ("Mighty God"), Micah 5:2; John 1:1, 8:58, 17:5 many others.

    There is no evidence to suggest that these were "inserted" by early
    Christians.  Certainly, the Book of Isaiah was written hundreds of
    years earlier. From day one, Christians believed as Jesus taught them,
    that Jesus is God.

    Arius came along centuries later.  Arius would have "had the time" and
    have been able to "study in detail" whatever written record may have
    existed from apostolic times to support his denial of the divinity of
    Jesus, but since there was none, he rested his heretical belief on
    other arguments.

    There is abundant evidence that the New Testament is authentic to the
    teaching of Jesus as the gospels and epistles were circulating among
    the apostles and disciples who had living memory and could give oral
    testimony of what Jesus taught.  The New Testament is the inspired and
    inerrant revealed truth regarding Jesus.

re: Note 496.5 by Richard "Climb aboard the Peace Train!" 

Well, I'm game...

>"Reverend, I'm having a little trouble with my faith.  You see, I believe
>that Jesus was the Son of God.  I even believe Jesus rose from the grave.
>But I just can't accept the part about Jesus being born of a virgin or
>that Jesus was the same as God."
>
>Well, Reverend, what'll we do with this one?  

>What would you as a Christian say or do in response?

I'd probably begin something like this... 

"Let's explore this...First, I want to say that I think it's wonderful that 
you are having trouble with your faith.  It shows me that it is something very 
important to you, otherwise you would not be bothering yourself with these 
sorts of questions.  Faith is not easy.  It's something to wrestle with, and 
that struggle with strengthen both you and your faith.  It's something that
you need to answer for yourself, between you and God.  I'm hear to listen to
you share your thoughts, your doubts and questions, and I will share mine with
you.  It's an individual odyssey that, when shared, can produce great 
fruit..." 

Actually, Richard, at that point, I'd need more information, some feedback.  
*Why* does this person believe what they do, and *why* can't they accept what 
they can't.  

Yours is a question that I believe can only be answered by dialogue.  (And 
it;s a very good question.)

Peace,

Jim

p.s.  

By the way, I'd also want to make it clear that both the person asking the
question and myself may well have our perspectives changed in the process of
exploration. 

Peace,

Jim

    I like it, Jim.  In your response there is not a hint of condemnation or
    criticism for the inability to swallow the doctrine whole.  You haven't
    declared the inquirer to be a heretic or an infidel, or even
    *un-Christian*.  I commend you.
    
    I actually heard this question posed.  One of the wisest replies I've
    ever heard was this: "Then believe it as much as you can."
    
    Peace,
    Richard

   A Jewish leader asked Jesus, "Good Teacher, what must I do to receive
eternal life?"
   "Why do you call me good?" Jesus asked him.  "No one is good except
God alone.  You know the commandments: 'Do not commit adultery; do not
commit murder; do not steal; do not accuse anyone falsely; resepct your
father and mother.'"
   The man replied, "Ever since I was young, I have obeyed all these
commandments."
   When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "There is one more thing you need
to do.  Acknowledge me as God Incarnate.  It's just as important as that
other stuff."

	Wait a minute!  Wait a minute!  It doesn't say that!  What it _does_
say is that Jesus told him to sell everything he owned, give the proceeds
to the poor, and then, when purge of his belongings, to **follow him**.

	It seems to me that Jesus placed the greater emphasis on following him.
The problem is most Christians don't follow him closely enough!  Jesus becomes
this tiny figure on the horizon, when the optimum thing would be to actually
walk in Christ.

Peace,
Richard

It's not "just as important as that other stuff".

It's part of that other stuff.

Remember Basil.  Stamp out the Arian heresy.

/john

re Note 496.23 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Remember Basil.  

        Every time I make pesto.

    Bob (.24),
    
    You made my day, cause everytime I saw the name Basil, I thought of
    cooking too.  8^)
    
    Ro
    

    Jesus didn't teach that in order to be saved the rich young man must
    believe him to be Lord and God  (Mt 19:16)...

    because he did not reveal to all what was meant by "follow me" until
    later.

    Jesus did accept the profession of St. Peter "Who do you say I am?"
    "You are the Christ.  The Son of the living God." _earlier_ in Mt
    16:16. "Then Jesus gave the disciples strict orders not to tell anyone
    he was the Christ." Mt 16:20, and then a second time not to reveal what
    they had seen after He spoke to Moses and Elijah, Mt 17:9

    We know as St. Thomas knew that Jesus is Lord and God (John 20:28).

    St. Basil is honored as a bishop, confessor, and theologian of the
    fourth century Christian Church against the Arian heresy.  He defended
    successfully  the Christian faith from the established Arian heresy led
    by the Emperor Valens.  The Arians claimed that Jesus whad only a human
    nature like any other man.

    I would like to inform my vast throngs of notes followers that they may
    call themselves Mike-ians without believing that I am divine; nor need
    they agree with every single thing that I say in order to qualify as
    Mikeians.
    
    -- Mike

    Phew.  That's a relief Mike.  Thank you.
    
    Karen

    Mike, like Karen, I'm relieved! Bon

    Mike,
    
    Ok if I just remain a Friend? :)

In the last few replies we have just seen a good example of why it is
important that

Our	Lord Jesus Christ,
	the only Son of God,
	eternally begotten of the Father,
is	God from God, Light from Light,
	true God from true God,
	begotten, not made,
	of one Being with the Father.

For, if this were not so, there would be no inherent reason to be a
Christian rather than a Mikeian or a Whateverelseian, especially if
Mikeianity appears easier to follow, giving us easier requirements.

/john

    Of course, Nancy!  :-)  An important element of Mikeianity is that it
    doesn't expect or require everyone to be a Mikeian.
    
    Of course, if you want to make a cash contribution to the Church of
    Mikeianity, the church's lord and spiritual leader (namely, me) would
    not object one bit.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

I fail to understand why one must believe in the divine nature of Jesus,
and if one doesn't, one's whole faith foundation is destroyed.

Now, perhaps this is because I do believe in the divine nature of Jesus,
I don't know.  But I can see how someone who does not believe that Jesus
was God Incarnate can nevertheless fully accept Jesus as Christ, Savior,
and Lord.

Peace,
Richard

"If Jesus wasn't God Incarnate, what's the use of believing him and
believing in him?"

Is this the question being asked?

Peace,
Richard

    Part of my difficulty is semantic (after all, I'm a writer -- what do
    you expect?)!
    
    "God Incarnate," Deity of Jesus, etc., seems to me to deny Jesus'
    humanity.  
    
    Divnity of Jesus seems to me to allow for incarnation and still allow
    for his humanity, too.
    
    I have trouble with the idea of Jesus' pre-existence with God and with
    the idea that Jesus knew (or thought or believed) that he was one --
    in essence, in substance, equal to, etc. -- with God.  
    
    But that's me and where I am -- I hold more to an "adoptionist" belief.
    
    Back to your discussion,
    Nancy

    RE: Nancy,
    
    		Is it possible that Jesus was both and our finite minds
    have trouble concieving it?   Thats how I understand it.  The human
    condition seems to deny what it cannot understand even when it jumps up
    and "smacks" us in the face. :-)
    
    Dave

    re: .36, Dave --
    
    Sure, that's possible.  And, if I discover in the hereafter that it's 
    true, then that is fine with me.  But I don't believe that my salvation 
    depends on whether or not my mind accepts that as fact!  Nor does my lack 
    of "belief" in that particular doctrine affect my love or commitment to
    Christ.
    
    Nancy

    RE: .37  Nancy,
    
    			I think your right.  Understanding the fact and
    really believing it are two different things.  I just try to trust God
    and let those things be "given" to me if it is right. :-)
    
    Dave

    
    I would not follow Christ if he were not also God.  Only God can save
    me, something a mere man cannot do.  Only God has the words of life,
    the truth - this is what I desire.  And only Jesus (being God) could live
    the perfect, sinless life including obeying God to the point of being
    crucified on my behalf so that God could impart His righteousness and
    grace to me - a sinner certainly destined for everlasting hell, apart
    from the grace God has shown me.  This grace is nothing less than the
    blood of Jesus.  And if Jesus's blood had not flowed, no man or woman
    would see eternal life in heaven, only eternal damnation.  And if Jesus
    had not been divine (God) his blood would not have been adequate to
    appease God's wrath toward humanity.  Many men have been crucified but
    only one God - Jesus.
    
    jeff 

	Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord
	teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus
	Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood,
	truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul
	and body; of one substance (homoousios) with the Father as
	regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance
	with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart
	from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before
	the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men
	and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer
	(Theotokos); one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten,
	recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change,
	without division, without separation; the distinction of
	natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the
	characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming
	together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or
	separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-
	begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets
	from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ
	himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed
	down to us.
				-- Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD

    In 9.276 John Covert writes "Belief that Jesus is God is the worldwide
    belief of ALL Catholics and Protestants." 
    
    In 9.290 Nancy Smith writes "Please be more careful/accurate in your
    statements.  This simply is not true."
    
    What aspect of this statement is not true?  What Catholic or Protestant
    religion denies that Jesus is God?  Aren't Protestant religions those
    which rejected Roman Catholic doctrine in favor of the doctrine of the
    reformers, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and others in the 16th Century?
    
    Or will we need to argue about a more "inclusive" definition of
    Protestantism?

    For what it's worth, there is a Unitarian Christian denomination in the
    Transylvanian region of Romania.  They trace their heritage back to
    certain individuals who led a unitarian movement during the time of the
    Reformation.  One, whose name escapes me at the moment, was burned at
    the stake by the Calvinists in Switzerland, because he would not recant
    this "heresy".

    This discussion of "heresy" reminds me of a joke that Emo Phillips
    tells.  I don't remember the details, but it involves his meeting a
    stranger who was a Lutheran like he was.  As they talked, they
    discovered, to ever increasing excitement, that they were in the same
    sub-denomination, and sub-sub-denomination, and so forth.  After all
    this narrowing down of their brand of Lutheranism continued for a bit,
    with so much in common between them, they finally discovered that they
    belonged to different sub-sub-sub-sub denominations.  Emo then pushed
    the other off the bridge, and said, "Die, heretic!"

    The problem with saying that virtually all Christians believe X, and
    therefore it is impossible for a non-Christian not to believe X, is
    that the whole history of the way that "heresy" has been defined makes
    this entire discussion tautological.  The Church historically was
    intolerant of diversity in opinion, so whichever theological view had
    the political strength to win out on a particular point of dispute
    merely had to define its views as Correct Doctrine, the other views as
    "heresy", and then kick out of the church (or worse yet, burn at the
    stake) anyone who had a different opinion.  So of course the vast
    majority of Christians believed non-heretical views--this uniformity
    was forced upon the denomination from above!

    And once those with the necessary political strength to define heresy
    made their decision, it was then cast in stone for all eternity.  One
    now need only cite the great Saint Basil, or any other Saint who is
    appropriate to the particular "heresy", and that settles the issue once
    and for all.  No such issue can ever be re-examined; to settle an
    argument, one need only mention that a belief was once defined as
    "heresy",  and no further discussion is necessary.  Dogmatic adherence
    thus substitutes for thinking.  And why not--the whole premise behind
    defining something as a "heresy" is to put a clamp on unfettered
    thinking.  Once something becomes a "heresy", it is unthinkable.  It
    sets a boundary against which a Christian is expected to be terrified
    against treading across.  Is Christian a religion for thinking people? 
    Obviously not. Oh yes--you are allowed to think--as long as you think
    the right things!  

    -- Mike

    This requires on bit more research on your part.  For centuries,
    Romania has part of the Eastern Orthodox world, and Eastern Orthodoxy
    was the established religion there.
    
    I thought the Unititarian movement began in the late 18th/early 19th
    century.  The Reformation took place in the sixteenth century.

His name was Michael Servetus, I believe, and this happened in the 1500's.
It is true there was a Unitarian movement in Transylvania at that time.

The Unitarian movement of the late 18th/early 19th centuries was in
England and America.


Ben

    No, there was a unitarian movement in Europe during the time of the
    reformation.  What may have confused you was that the North American
    denomination with the name Unitarian was formed during the early 18th
    century.
    
    -- Mike

    Yes, Ben, I believe that was his name.  Thanks.
    
    -- Mike

    SDSVAX::SWEENEY,

    I have never heard of a Michael Soviets, although, as I am sure you can
    infer as easily as I can (and in fact I suspect you already have), that
    name may be a variation on the name Michael Servetus, in which case
    they would be the same person.  The other significant unitarian from
    that era who comes to mind went by the name of Socinus, as I recall
    (not sure if that is the exact spelling.)  I'm not sure off the top of
    my head what the relationship between those two men was, if any.  As
    far as I know, the Transylvanian unitarian denomination traces its
    origins continuously back to that era, but this is all from memory,
    lacking any reference materials at my fingertips, so of course I could
    be mistaken.  And it doesn't really matter whether or not they considered
    themselves Christian or not, since we all know that they *weren't*
    Christians by virtue of having the wrong opinions about the divinity of
    Jesus.  :-)

    One point worth mentioning is that not all non-Catholic Christians
    consider themselves Protestants.  Quakers, for example, have not
    considered their denomination to be Protestant.  

    -- Mike

    Is the religion that I asked for in an earlier reply the theology of
    Michael Servetus (1511-53)?

    How many and for how long did the community of followers of Soviets
    exist?  Did this community make an explicit claim to be both Protestant
    and Christian, or is this a 20th century deconstruction?

>    One point worth mentioning is that not all non-Catholic Christians
>    consider themselves Protestants.  Quakers, for example, have not
>    considered their denomination to be Protestant.  

Nor do all Quakers consider their denomination to be Christian.

>      <<< Note 496.41 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Patrick Sweeney in New York" >>>

>    In 9.276 John Covert writes "Belief that Jesus is God is the worldwide
>    belief of ALL Catholics and Protestants." 
>    
>    In 9.290 Nancy Smith writes "Please be more careful/accurate in your
>    statements.  This simply is not true."
    
>    What aspect of this statement is not true?  What Catholic or Protestant
>    religion denies that Jesus is God?  
    
    In the first place, John refers to all Catholics and Protestants
    (people!) not all Catholic and Protestant *religions*!  That is why
    I protested.
    
    However, I can think of nothing in my own denomination (United
    Methodist) that says you must believe in the *deity* of Jesus (i.e.,
    Jesus = God).  The "believer's prayer" of more fundamentalist faiths
    (including the more fundamentalist UM groups) does not mention any
    theological belief *about* Jesus, just the acceptance by faith of
    Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
    
    Even the Apostle's Creed, which is recited weekly in some UM churches, 
    does not address the "substance" of Jesus in stating belief in Jesus 
    as "His only begotten Son" (though there is one historic credd -- is it 
    the Nicene? -- that does).
    
    Nancy

If the United Methodists include the Nicene Creed among the creeds of their
faith, which all my reference material indicates that they do, then it is
an article of faith that

	Jesus Christ [is] the only-begotten Son of God;
	Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God,
	Light of Light, Very God of Very God; Begotten, not made;
	Being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things
	were made.

I would be most surprised to find out that the belief that Jesus is God
is not central to the teaching of the United Methodist Church.  I might
have to consider whether I am still willing to help raise money to fight
world hunger through the United Methodist Committee on Relief.  I'm
fairly certain that I won't have to face this question and decision.

/john

    John,
    
    The Methodist doctrinal foundation is the Anglican Thirty-Nine
    Articles.
    
    Pat Sweeney

Well then.  Thank you, Pat.  Article II is:

II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man.

The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the
Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father,
took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so
that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood,
were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one
Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead,
and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only
for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.

    Regarding COVERT::COVERT's earlier remark, Quakerism was traditionally
    a Christian denomination, and it has only been in recent years where
    certain segments of Quakerism have move away from being universally
    Christian.  Nevertheless, Quakerism, even at a time when all of its
    adherents were Christians, often did not consider itself a Protestant
    denomination.  The point thus remains that not all non-Catholic
    Christian denominations need consider themselves Protestant.

    -- Mike

    I checked my copy of George Marshall's introduction to Unitarian
    Universalism, and he describes briefly the Unitarian movement in the
    16th century.  Michael Servetus came from Spain; Marshal mentions that
    he was forced to change his name (not to mention flee his country and
    change his profession), so the name may be his alias.  In any case, he
    wrote the books "On the Error of the Trinity" and "The Reconstitution
    of Christianity".  From the title of the latter book it is possible to
    infer that he considered himself a Christian.  As one might imagine, he
    met with considerable hostility, and when he went to meet with Calvin
    he was arrested for heresy.  He was burned at the stake with his books
    tied to his waist.   One interesting result of this horrible
    persecution was that the people of Geneva were apparently so offended
    by it that they built a statue to him after Calvin died.  One of
    Calvin's lieutenants, Castellio, was quoted as saying in response to
    the burning, "To burn a man is not to prove a doctrine; it is to burn a
    man!"

    The other significant Unitarian leader of that era was Faustus Socinus. 
    Having inherited some unitarians writings from his uncle, he became
    convinced himself of unitarianism, and wrote a book "On Christ as
    Savior."  Like Servetus, he had to flee his homeland (he was from
    Italy), and he ended up in Poland, where he founded over 300 Unitarian
    Churches.  He was latered arrested and tried, and his books were burned
    in the public square and Cracow.  He was threatened with burning
    himself unless he recanted his beliefs, which he refused to do. 
    Fortunately for him, some Jesuits of conscience rescued him--in
    Marshall's words, "giving illustration again that good men rise above
    teh systems and organizations of which they are members."

    Marshal writes that "Francis David in Transylvania and Hungary
    proclaimed Untarianism between 1566-1579."  It isn't clear from
    Marshall's brief description who Francis David was, or what his role
    was there.  Marshall also reports that King Sisimund of Transylvania,
    who was a Unitarian, enacted an edict of religious toleration in 1568. 
    Marshall then adds, "the Unitarian movement in Transylvania and Hungary
    is still strong."

    As a footnote, I had heard that these churches had suffered a great deal
    during the last days of Ceacescu's rule in Romania.  I don't know how
    things are going with them right now.

    -- Mike

    Well, there was a "David of Dinant" (c.1210) according to Britannica
    a "materialistic pantheist", burned in Paris 1210.

    It was worth it to know that Servetus from Catholic Spain would end up
    being burned by Calvin.  Calvin, I want to emphasize, was a leader of
    the Protestant Reformation.

    These people, including, Origen of the 3rd century, prefigure the
    development of the founders of the Unitarians and Universalists who are
    generally regarded as having a continuous existence from the 18th
    century. 

    I don't think it is unusual in the history of ideas for
    cross-pollination to occur, across boundaries of time and culture.  It
    is possible for later adherents to claim an affiliation with historical
    persons who preceded them, whether or not they form a direct and
    contiguous historical line back to those earlier people.  Modern day
    North American Unitarians may very well cite historical movements that
    may not directly relate to the 18th century North American movement
    that goes by that name, but which share important similarities.  

    That is probably why North American Unitarians feel an affiliation with
    the Transylvanian Unitarians, even though the Transylvanian Unitarians
    are a much older denomination that goes back to the time of the
    Reformation.  I suspect that in many ways the two denominations are
    dissimilar (I have heard, for example, from a UU who has been to
    some Unitarian churches in England, that English Unitarianism is more
    conservative and much closer to traditional Christianity, in ways that
    seem a bit alien to American UUs.)

    -- Mike

    RE: .51 & .52
    
    UM is a relatively open and pluralistic denomination.  We cherish our
    rich theological history and many historical creeds are published in
    our liturgical materials.  However, I maintain and insist that there 
    is no requirement for members to ascribe to any specific doctrinal 
    statement other than profession of faith in Jesus Christ and commitment 
    to discipleship.
    
    I understand that the meaning that both of *you* bring to such a
    profession includes belief in the deity of Jesus.  However, that is
    *not* necessarily the case for UM's and that theological belief is
    *not* required of a UM member!
    
    

    Does Unitarianism define as doctrine how Jesus Christ has revealed
    himself to the world?  Or is this a matter that is left up to each 
    believer?

>    Does Unitarianism define as doctrine how Jesus Christ has revealed
>    himself to the world?  Or is this a matter that is left up to each 
>    believer?

Unitarianism (at least UUism) doesn't define _any_ doctrines, or even expect
its members to believe that Jesus Christ exists.

/john

Re:  496.50       

Nancy,
    
  >However, I can think of nothing in my own denomination (United
  >Methodist) that says you must believe in the *deity* of Jesus (i.e.,
  >Jesus = God).

  John Wesley was an Anglican.  Anglicans accept the Trinity.

  All Protestant churches that I know accept the first 4 Councils
as authoritative.  I believe the Trinity was defined as a fundamental
truth during the third council.  (It was certainly one of the four.)

  From the Book of Discipline, 1984, paragraph 68 Article II.

"The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal
God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb
of the blessed Virgin; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is
to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together on one person,
never to be divided; wherof is one Christ, very God and very Man, who truly
suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us,
and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for the
actual sins of men."

  The dictionary definition (American Heritage) of Lord is "God".  To
call Jesus Lord (Phil 2:11) is to call him God.

Collis

    There continues to be some confusion here in the use of the word
    "Unitarian".  The question arises as to which meaning of the word
    "Unitarian" is being described here.

    Unitarian Universalism is a twentieth-century North American
    denomination that formed from the merger of two denominations, the
    Unitarians and the Universalists.  This church is, as COVERT::COVERT
    pointed out, without creeds, and does not require its members to have
    any particular beliefs about Jesus.

    One of the two original denominations that formed the UU denomination
    was, obviously, the Unitarian church.  This church was formed in the
    early 1800s from a split of the liberal branch of the Congregationalist
    church.  The name Unitarian, as you might infer, came from the
    unitarian Christian beliefs of its members.  The word "unitarian" in
    this case is in contrast to "trinitarian".  However, over the years the
    church has evolved away from its roots in Christianity to the point
    where very few of its members would identify themselves as being
    associated specifically with the Christian tradition.  So the word
    "Unitarian" has come to mean two things:  1), a rejection of the
    doctrine of the Trinity, and 2) a particular U.S. denomination that
    goes by that name.

    Although the name "Unitarian" has stuck over all those years, it is no
    longer useful as an adjective to describe what the denomination is all
    about, since the UUA no longer states *any* particular doctrine about
    God's nature--many UUs may not even believe in God!  It is thus a bit
    confusing to describe this denomination in terms of a word that
    identifies a particular belief about God and Jesus.

    That is why I prefer to use lower-case "unitarian" as an adjective that
    refers to those who do not believe in the trinity; when referring to
    Unitarian Universalism as a denomination, I generally just use the
    abbreviation UU.  One reason why this may be useful is that Unitarian
    denominations in Europe, from what I have gathered, tend to be more
    conservative and closer to traditional Christianity than North American
    UUs are.  It is also useful because there are unitarians (lower case)
    who do not belong to the UU denomination.

    -- Mike
    

    Re .62,
    
    Thanks for the clarification, Mike.  Trying to keep track and
    distinguish doctrinal differences among various denominations 
    seems a pretty intricate process. :-)
    
    Karen 

re: .62

Good clarification, Mike.  I couldn't have done as well, and
I belong to a UU church!

By the way, the current president of the UUA, Bill Schultz, has
travelled extensively to visit unitarian and other like-minded
churches worldwide during his tenure.  He has gone to (as I recall)
Hungary, Romania, Russia, and Japan to create closer ties with
churches of similar beliefs and ideals.

Ben

    'The dictionary definition (American Heritage) of Lord is "God".  To
    call Jesus Lord (Phil 2:11) is to call him God.'

    My copy of the AHD lists "God" as the fourth definition; there are
    three other definitions there as well.  The first one is "A person
    having dominion over others; ruler or master."

    Calling Jesus "Lord" may indeed, for many worshipers, mean calling him
    God; but clearly it need not be so, and could just as easily mean
    nothing more than an affirmation of Jesus's primacy and authority.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  496.58

Nancy,

  >However, I maintain and insist that there is no requirement for members to
  >ascribe to any specific doctrinal statement other than profession of faith
  >in Jesus Christ and commitment to discipleship. 

From the same Book of Discipline, pp. 73-74

  United Methodists never undertake the task of theologizing as a
totally new venture.  We share a common heritage with all other Christians
everywhere and in all ages.  There is a core of doctrine which informs in 
greater or less degreee our widely divergent interpretations.  From our
response in faith to the wondrous mystery of God's love in Jesus
Christ as recorded in Scripture, all valid Christian doctrine is born.  
This is the touchstone by which all Christian teaching may be tested.  This 
is the focus of catholic belief by which United Methodists identify 
themselves with all other Christian bodies.

  With them we acknowledge belief in the triune God - Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit.  We hold common faith in the mystery of salvation in and through 
Jesus Christ...

Collis

Re:  496

From the United Methodist Hymnal, copyright 1989

	Affirmations of Faith (listed in order)

 - The Nicene Creed
 - The Apostles' Creed, Ecumenical Version
 - A statement of Faith fo the United Church of Canada
   (We believe in God:  who has created and is creating, who
    has come in Jesus, the Word made flesh...)
 - A Statement of Faith of the Korean Methodist Church
   (We believe in Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh...)
(others follow these four)


All 4 Baptismal Covenants contained in the United Methodist Hymnal
contain the following questions and responses:

Do you believe in God the Father?

  I Believe in God, the Father Almight, creator of heaven and
  earth.

Do you believe in Jesus Christ?

  I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, [who was
  conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered
  under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he
  descended to the dead.  On the third day he rose again; he
  ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father,
  and will come again to judge the living and the dead.]

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?

  I believe in the Holy Spirit, [...]

Collis

Re:  496

defintions of Lord (with a capital L)

  1.  (no capital L definitions)

  2.  British.  The general masculine title of nobility
      and other rank...

It seemed obvious to me that Jesus was not claiming a British
nobility title.

  3.  God.

  4.  Lord, plural.  The House of Lords.

That's all, folks.  Jesus is either God or a British noble.
Take your pick.  :-)

Collis

    Yeah, and I suppose that when people recite the 23rd Psalm, they
    believe that Jesus is literally out in a field somewhere tending sheep.
    :-)

    Yes, the dictionary does say that the usage of "Lord" as a title for
    nobility is chiefly British; this probably has just a teeny weeny bit
    to do with the fact that there is no royalty in the United States. 
    There were lords in other nations with a feudal past, but the AHD is a
    dictionary of the *English* language, not other languages--and Lord is
    a word in the English language.  Lord is a title of nobility, not
    necessarily restricted the British, as far as I know from what little I
    know of feudalism.  The use of "Lord" as a title to describe Jesus *is*
    a claim of his nobility, and the last I heard Jesus *was* a male.  It
    would seem that he fits that definition for many believers quite well. 
    Thus it is clear that one *can* refer to Jesus as Lord, as a title,
    without considering him God, although obviously most Christians do mean
    it that way.

    The AHD does not include "Jesus" in its definition for the word
    "Savior", either, but Christians regularly use the word to describe
    Jesus, not merely as a common noun, but in fact as a title.  Titles do
    get capitalized that way--that is how the English language often works. 
    Many terms to describe Jesus, like King, Lord, Savior, are titles that
    reflect the roles, often metaphorically expressed, that people believe
    that Jesus holds for them.  Terms of royalty as theological expressions
    express a metaphorical understanding that comes from a given time and
    place where royalty was accepted implicitly as part of human
    relationships.  Thus we are back to the point, that to believe that
    Jesus is their Master or Lord may also mean, for that believer, that
    Jesus is God for them--but not necessarily.

    -- Mike

There's no point in arguing over the meaning of English words when you're
trying to understand the New Testament.  What word was used in the orginal
Greek, and what was the meaning of that word at the time the New Testament
was written?

The translation of the word as "Lord" rather than "lord", and the
dictionary definition of "Lord" (with a capital L) may both be colored by
the belief that Jesus is God.

				-- Bob

The word in the original Greek was Kyrie.

As in the trinitarian formula:

Lord, have mercy upon us.		Kyrie eleison.
Christ, have mercy upon us.		Christe eleison.
Lord, have mercy upon us.		Kyrie eleison.

Refering to the Lord: God the Father, Christ: God the Son, and Lord: God
the Holy Ghost.

/john

    A dictionary can also by colored by late 20th Century hostility to
    Christianity.

    Lord in Greek (in the Latin alphabet) is Kyrie.  One of the great
    prayers of the Mass begins with this "Lord have mercy..."

    Lord in Latin is Dominus.

    Jesus is prophet, priest, and king.
    Jesus is the Lord.

    I see, if the dictionary doesn't include the definition you want,
    then you just assert that it is a proper definition anyway.
    
    The issue is relevant about the English word "Lord" since much of
    the discussion has to do with United Methodist doctrine which
    explicity uses the English word "Lord".  I agree, Bob, that the
    New Testament usage in Phil 2:11 (as well as I'm sure hundreds of
    other places) needs to be interpreted in light of the meaning of
    the word at the time.  Supposedly that's what translators do -
    and these translators have translated it "Lord" i.e. God in many
    places in just about every translation published.
    
    It seems to me that people are trying desperately to believe whatever
    they choose to believe without taking an objective look at the
    facts.  But maybe that's just my own biased viewpoint.
    
    Collis

    Yes, Collis, that is your own biased viewpoint.  But thanks for sharing
    it with us.
    
    It is interesting that my first reaction to Collis's assertion that
    "the" dictionary definition of "Lord" meant God, while conveniently
    ignoring three other definitions that didn't suit him, was to note that
    he was being quite disingenuous, but I refrained from using that
    adjective, since I hoped that maybe, just once, the discussion could
    continue on some level without personal comments on the people
    expressing their opinions.  So instead I simply offered my own view on
    the subject in response.  He now responds here, in a wonderful
    expression of his Christian love, by accusing me here of intellectual
    dishonesty.
    
    Isn't Christianity a wonderful religion?
    
    -- Mike

    Collis,
    
    I have already acknowledged that several creeds (including the Nicene)
    are in the UM Hymnal.  
    
    I have already acknowledged that we cherish our Christian history, 
    including its theological history.
    
    I have already pointed out that the Apostles' Creed, which is quoted in
    the answers you printed from the baptismal covenant, does *not* discuss
    the *deity* of Jesus.
    
    I have only two things further to say in response to your notes on
    UM's:
    
    1) I know few, if any, UM's who have read the Discipline before they
       professed faith and joined the church.  In fact, I bet that 80% or
       more of them do not know (nor particularly care) what theological
       doctrines are there.
    
    2) Belief in the Trinity does not = belief that Jesus = God.

    The Apostle's Creed is three paragraphs.
    
    I believe in God, the Father almighty...
    I believe in Jesus Christ...
    I believe in the Holy Spirit...
    
    The Apostle's Creed is a statement of the Christian belief in the
    Trinity.  The Apostles taught that God was present in the Father, Son,
    and Holy Spirit.

    I have no disagreement at all with .77

Which is why the Nicene Creed is part of Christian Doctrine.

    This series of replies by the "Biblical" Experts, nit pickers, and spell
    checkers, is yet another example of why this notes file is turning
    people *away*.
    
    More and more, people are becoming "read only's" while the self
    proclaimed keepers of the faith continue to argue away and make points
    for themselves.
    
    Good grief...give it a break!
    
    Marc H. 

Re:  496.76

  >I have already acknowledged that several creeds (including the Nicene)
  >are in the UM Hymnal.  
    
  >I have already acknowledged that we cherish our Christian history, 
  >including its theological history.

You have acknowledged these bare facts, agreed.  It is the 
implications of these facts which you deny.
    
  >I have already pointed out that the Apostles' Creed, which is quoted in
  >the answers you printed from the baptismal covenant, does *not* discuss
  >the *deity* of Jesus.

Since the Apostle's Creed clearly reveals Jesus as Lord and since the
only applicable definition of this word is God, you are simply wrong
about this.  The Apostles' Creed, far from not discussing the deity
of Jesus, proclaims Him to be God.

Even if you somehow continue to choose to believe that there is some
other reasonable definition of "Lord", I don't see how you can believe
that those who wrote this creed and wrote the Baptismal service could
*possibly* have had any other meaning in mind.  In the context of Jesus
Christ and basic beliefs, why would they be using a term which clearly
can (and does) mean "God" when they did not mean it to mean "God"?
It makes no sense whatsoever.
    
  >1) I know few, if any, UM's who have read the Discipline before they
  >   professed faith and joined the church.

Of course they don't read The Book of Discipline.  But whether they
read it or not, The Book of Discipline (as I understand it) considers
the deity of Jesus Christ to be a foundational doctrine.
    
  >In fact, I bet that 80% or more of them do not know (nor particularly 
  >care) what theological doctrines are there.

I can certainly understand why many people would not care about
most theology.

I would certainly be saddened to discover the people who join
Methodist churches don't care if the Jesus they worship is or is
not God (particularly since worship is reserved only for God).

  >2) Belief in the Trinity does not = belief that Jesus = God.

You know not of what you speak.

The belief of the Trinity is a combination of exactly seven beliefs,
summed up under one title.  There is only one definition of the
Trinity that I have ever been exposed to, no one before you has ever 
suggested to me that there is any other definition.  Please share
with me your definition of the Trinity, if you have one, and the
source for such a definition.

These seven beliefs are:

	1)  There is one God.
	2)  The Father is God.
	3)  The Son is God.
	4)  The Holy Spirit is God.
	5)  The Father is not the Son or the Spirit.
	6)  The Son is not the Father or the Spirit.
	7)  The Spirit is not the Father or the Son.

Collis

Re:  496.75

    
  >It is interesting that my first reaction to Collis's assertion that
  >"the" dictionary definition of "Lord" meant God, while conveniently
  >ignoring three other definitions that didn't suit him, was to note that
  >he was being quite disingenuous...

I can understand why you might first think that.  But then when
you realized that the defintions of "lord" and "Lord" are all contained
under the same heading and that there are only *two* definitions of
"Lord" according to the American Heritage definition, one which can
reasonably said to not apply, then I was thinking your opinion of
my reasonableness may have changed.  Apparently not.

  >...continue on some level without personal comments on the people
  >expressing their opinions.  

My comment was not meant to insult you, but rather to point out what
you were doing - making a new definition that did not exist.  I
apologize for attacking your motives and sincerity.  I believe that
you are sincere.  I also believe that you are blinded so that you
don't even *realize* that your defintion of "Lord" does *not*
fit in with the dictionary definition and that you are therefore
creating a new definition as the need has arisen.

  >He now responds here, in a wonderful expression of his Christian love, 
  >by accusing me here of intellectual dishonesty.
    
I apologize.  I realize now that you are attempting to be intellectually
honest; I believe you are simply blinded by what you want to believe.
(Yes I know, you believe the same about me.  :-) )

Collis

Re: .72 John

>The word in the original Greek was Kyrie.
>
>As in the trinitarian formula:

Was Kyrie used in the New Testament to refer to anyone other than the
Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit?  (This might not be easy to answer
unless someone has access to a Greek concordance or at least a Greek New
Testament.)

Re: .74 Collis

>    The issue is relevant about the English word "Lord" since much of
>    the discussion has to do with United Methodist doctrine which
>    explicity uses the English word "Lord".

I thought Jehovah's Witness doctrine was also part of this discussion.
Anyway, the creeds etc. use "Lord" because that's how Kyrie was
translated.  What's important is the meaning of Kyrie, not the meaning of
Lord.

My understanding of United Methodism is that belief in the Trinity (which
includes the belief that Jesus is God) is a teaching of the church, but
that individual United Methodists aren't obligated to accept all of the
church's teachings.

>  I agree, Bob, that the
>    New Testament usage in Phil 2:11 (as well as I'm sure hundreds of
>    other places) needs to be interpreted in light of the meaning of
>    the word at the time.  Supposedly that's what translators do -
>    and these translators have translated it "Lord" i.e. God in many
>    places in just about every translation published.
    
But most or all of the translators believed that Jesus is God.  I'm trying
to get some kind of objective confirmation that their translation was the
best one.

				-- Bob

Re:  496.80

Hi Marc,

  >This series of replies by the "Biblical" Experts, nit pickers, and spell
  >checkers, is yet another example of why this notes file is turning
  >people *away*.

As I see it there are two choices.  We can discuss the issues on the
table each believing what we choose while disagreeing with the
contradictory claims presented.  Or we can *examine* the claims.

I choose the second course.  Indeed, it is impossible to do this
without being considered a nit picker.  I accept that as a consequence
of truly examining the facts and the logic behind the arguments.

My agenda?  Truth.  I certainly don't always succeed.  Indeed, I
admit failure in not showing love and compassion in my replies.  I
will try to work at that while continuing to pursue truth.

However, the methodology of examining the facts and logic is an
appropriate one, in my opinion, and I plan on continuing to do this.

Collis

    RE: .84
    
    O.K. Collis,
      I understand you much better now. Thanks....
    
    Marc H.

    
    
    
    I've not been here in a long time...
    
    But in all these replies I think only one (was it .38 or .39) hit the
    nail on the head.
    
    If Jesus was not divine we are still living in our sins, and redemption
    is unobtainable and not accomplished.
    
    Get back to fundamentals.
    
    Our sin is an infinite offense against God - finite man cannot make
    reparation for that sin - hence Jesus, Son of the Living God, of one
    substance and being, who himself being divine made perfect atonement
    and reparation for sin - no other way, or person ever created could 
    possibly achieve this.  If they could then why wasn't the sacrifices
    of the Jews sufficient, or the martyrdom of the prophets etc,etc.
    
    Peace,
    		
    	Tom
    
                                                                     

re Note 496.86 by IRNBRU::FYFE:

>     Our sin is an infinite offense against God - finite man cannot make
>     reparation for that sin - hence Jesus, Son of the Living God, of one
>     substance and being, who himself being divine made perfect atonement
>     and reparation for sin - no other way, or person ever created could 
>     possibly achieve this.  If they could then why wasn't the sacrifices
>     of the Jews sufficient, or the martyrdom of the prophets etc,etc.
  
        Excuse me for speaking about that which I really don't know,
        but I think JW's believe that Jesus is divine and of
        infinitely more worth than all of humanity, but not the same
        being as the almighty God the Father.

        They do not appear to put Jesus on a par with the prophets, a
        "very good person", or even (just) a perfect person.

        The issue hangs on whether God could create a divine being.

        Bob

    
    
    I'm sorry Bob now you've lost me. If Jesus is divine and the Father is
    divine and the Spirit is divine - then they MUST be ONE, because there
    is ONLY ONE infinity !!
    Jesus is eternally begotten, the Father eternally begets the Son in the
    union of the Holy Spirit.
    
    Maybe I'm missing some aspect of this....
    
	Peace,
    		Tom                        

re Note 496.88 by IRNBRU::FYFE:

>     I'm sorry Bob now you've lost me. If Jesus is divine and the Father is
>     divine and the Spirit is divine - then they MUST be ONE, because there
>     is ONLY ONE infinity !!
  
        I do know that mathematicians recognize many types or orders
        of infinity -- whether that has any relevance to this topic,
        I don't know, but it is a distinction used in very rigidly
        logical discourse.

        (By the way, I was not in any way defending the Jehovah's
        Witnesses' interpretation -- only saying that your statement
        was not a fair characterization of the JW position.)

        Bob

re .87 and .89

	Bob,

	Just would like to say thank you for your remarks. 

	Phil.