Michael Servetus was burnt at the stake in Calvin's Geneva in 1553

quote:

---

Please don't put religious topics in the Coffeehouse to avoid the PNT process.

---

OK... If so, there is no need to clutter it up with your incessant googling sources, cutting, and pasting. If its personal, perhaps a better topic title and a bit less googling, cutting, and pasting. Avoiding the PNT process is questioning authority. At least you are honest about that! In contrast, most of my topics are like that. OK, viva la diversity...let the personal discussion commence. Use more of your own words, however. So far you are doing rather well..... Edited by Phat, : spelling

Which gives credit to jars basic argument concerning John and the redacted new religion of paul vs the traditional one of Jesus. Personally, I see nothing wrong with a trinitarian explanation for a monotheistic belief. the trouble starts when confusion arises over the need of having a trinity in the first place.One argument centers over jesus divinity and the importance of such a belief.Another focuses on Mans ability to commune (or get personal) with GOD...which is what jar and i are discussing now.LNA, are you still interested in zoroastrianism? What does that belief have to say about the idea of a personal relationship with GOD and whether it is possible or desireable to obtain?

Is the question directed only to those who are not identified with the majority culture which unfortunately still exists in our world today? (Though it is diminishing)

You are starting to sound a bit authoritarian. Which begs the question of precisely who among us has been brainwashed. Or perhaps you can elaborate on why your point is irrefutable and what specifically it is.

OK, LNA, I owe you at least one good post. I'm going to be honest with you, however...so if it causes an argument between us, I cant come at you with my big Admin Stick if I am participating as member: Phat. Your reply to me (and others, in this thread)will determine if I end up accepting you as an honest member of EvC or a troll and how I will deal with you in the future. Deal?The overall theme in this topic sheds some light on your beliefs, and while I don't have you figured out just yet, I am working on it. (I could, of course, be way off the mark, however) You know how we members of the dominant culture unknowingly put ourselves above other sociological cultures and beliefs! I mention it as an unfortunate facet of my personality---I admit to being biased in favor of the W.A.S.P. version of Christianity that I was raised with. Putting all of that aside as much as I can, allow me to answer your questions.So I just read the article, Remembering Servetus: The One God Movement Among Evangelical Christians. ( Keep in mind that my answers are formed based on all that I have read (and chosen to read) over the past 24 years.)
In reading this article, I noted the following: Curious, I followed the links in that article and came upon Kermit Zarleys website. After reading that a bit, I proceeded to follow some of the links that he mentioned there. I was a bit prejudiced in favor of Trinitarianism as an unthreatening concept, however...and have never been persuaded by either islamic friends or Jehovahs Witness friends that Trinitarianism was necessarily wrong. So my first question is why was I brainwashed simply by being exposed to mainstream cultural beliefs? How is a Trinitarian concept/definition of GOD any less monotheistic than ...for example...Islam? Or JW's Jehovah and their (in my opinion) erroneous conclusion that Jesus was the first created being, as an angel? So your beef with NoNukes is that he likely has been brainwashed, or indoctrinated by the majority culture (as I have) and won't admit it....right? You certainly got a bit arrogant and uppity when replying to him. You are starting to act like a Trump supporter, although my guess is that you yourself likely have an ethnic cultural background...which few Trump supporters have. I encourage you to be nice. I DO respect that you read a lot, and although your copy-pasta annoys me, I can tell that you are a serious student of discovery. OK, I think I see your point. Perhaps you do have an irrefutable point in this regard. I would use the word indoctrinated by the majority culture rather than brainwashed...but others may disagree. I don't know about him, but I will admit that I don't have a desire to learn too much if it causes me to seek what I already thought I had the answer for.... I never read them before, but I forced myself to follow LNA's links here. They are not as jumbled as I thought they would be....lets see how this topic turns out. I wouldn't call him a buffoon. We need to respect LNA enough to engage in (or attempt to engage in) an honest dialogue with him. How he responds will determine his standing, as is true with all of us here at EvC.Now, LNA, to answer your questions:

When did you start to question the idea that all (or most) of the Biblical author's had views which were inline with "Trinitarian" type Christology.
Really, when did it un-Trinitarian interpretations even dawn on you as a possible interpretation?

To be honest, I never questioned my beliefs that much until I met jar and a few others here at EvC. I knew that Jehovahs Witness and Arianism dismissed the Trinity, but I dismissed them as a cult. I still do. As for Zoroastrianism, I never studied it much. I understand that it is part of your religious background. Comments?

​

LNA writes:

​

When did you first become aware of the possibility that every Biblical author did not think of Jesus to be God?

jar first brought it to my attention by explaining that Saul/Paul was Jewish and likely didn't see Jesus as God. He claims that John was redacted and that there was a rift in the early Christians between reformed Judaism and the marketing of a new Christianity. So that is the first I had heard of it.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

I don't believe that He intended to be GOD in human flesh. Metaphorically i have heard the Trinity concept expressed analogous to the Sun, the Light (Natural daylight) and the Heat...which is the source for nearly all the warmth which allows life to exist on this planet.So am I a Trinitarian? What does it imply or promise apart from understanding the concept of a communion between a man and GOD?I'm tired though---its nearly midnite and i work again tomorrow. so we can talk later.

What Ehrman says about Paul in his Blog was an eye-opener. Specifically You quoted it earlier and it caught my attention. The JW's always believed that "angel crap" (you can see my bias showing) and yet I never imagined that Paul would see it the same way. I am still skeptical of some of this writing...though not as insistently literal as Faith, I do share her belief that there is a spiritual battle of sorts regarding the truth and regarding what actually is true vs what authors, historians, and researchers manage to dig up and propose. I will admit that what I want and hope to be true may not actually be what is true...but how would we know?

These beliefs dont seem right to me. Why do you like them?

In these discussions, I look at the bigger picture. For me, learning about other persons (or cultures) beliefs is secondary to learning about that person themselves. LNA has been at this forum for a couple of years now, and I only now am reading some of his posts. There does seem to be a common theme, but it is respectfully clarifying LNAs beliefs.
We can all ask questions all day about early beliefs vs latter beliefs, but to me, the age of a belief is irrelevant. What is relevant is finding common ground for a discussion regarding why one belief means more to an individual than another belief.LNA clearly is unimpressed with the western "Early Church Fathers" so I asked myself what it is that he is trying to teach us. So far it appears to be this:
1) Respect the knowledge of other cultures. Don't assume that you or your culture or religion know it all or have the right truth.
2) Learning is a love. The excitement is in the hunt...the googling, the discovery of what historical people said about faith & belief...specifically Jesus, James the Just, and the early Jewish Christians.

Good point. LNA likely identifies more with the Mid East cultural interpretations of belief rather than the European model and certainly not the Biblical Christians of today.

I don't believe the reincarnation stuff. Looks as if many did, but I think that is distracting. Ultimately, my beliefs or your beliefs will be uniquely our own, not those of someone who lived 1800 years ago. I'm reading some of your cut n paste pasta, but it is still too overwhelming. Cant you just provide the links and skip the pasting? Makes for shorter tidier posts.

Which brings up the question that if the BCP was simply thrown together for a political purpose, how much value can it have?Same with any Bible or religious philosophy.And this gets back to my argument regarding the motives of redactors, editors, and Canon committees.

There is that word again. Ringo said it earlier in another topic: So lets go with #3.Why is reincarnation more plausible than resurrection? Is incarnation plausible?
Are you aware of the differences between Eastern and Western belief systems?
Is one group more plausible than the other?jar has a logical argument in that much of what shaped doctrine was political. You also have an argument that the dominant European culture called the shots on doctrine more than the minority cultures and their Christian (or Jewish Christian) communities. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.