sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
They would very likely say “Jesus,” like every other believer.Maybe you could ask your acquaintances how they think salvation is achieved?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
They would very likely say “Jesus,” like every other believer.Maybe you could ask your acquaintances how they think salvation is achieved?
I am a unitarian universalist. So far I've learned that Universalist believe all people go to be with god and Unitarians believe there is no hell. They accept the role of jesus christ as a teacher depending on the church and where the members "lean." It's a highly humanist organization.
So there isn't a need for salvation since god, to many, approves all people equally. Our actions and communion determine how far we are from god but they don't confirm an eternal separation from god just a learning experience to be with him forever (which means a pleasant death for some or perfect joy to others).
While I'm not on the christian end of things, they have a varied of view-but the biggest difference is no hell and god saves all.
They would very likely say “Jesus,” like every other believer.
Then is Jesus Christ not worthy to be served as our God?
How does a believer receive the Holy Spirit if not through Jesus Christ?
The orthodox belief has always been that the holy spirit emanates from God.
The whole issue of the filioque added to the Creed, and the split with the Catholics
was caused by this.
I would suggest that the Holy spirit is always with us from birth. Christian or not, acknowledged or not.
It is the acknowledgement of the Holy Spirit and the acceptance of the teachings of Jesus that makes us Christian.
Salvation Theology is not at all universally accepted.
That would depend on the specific belief of the Unitarian.Then is Jesus Christ not worthy to be served as our God?
How does a believer receive the Holy Spirit if not through Jesus Christ?
The Holy Spirit does emanate from God; it comes from the Father, through the Son. That's why we must go to the one who has been given the authority to baptise with the Holy Spirit.
Rather than talking theology, let's talk scripture. People must be persuaded by the Word of God. Where in scripture do you get the idea that the Holy Spirit is with us from birth?
Of course you can believe what you like. But that does not square with any Unitarian belief that I know of.
I would suggest that the Holy Spirit has been with God since Creation. I do not accept that Jesus is God, as do not believe in the Trinity. Prior to the formulation of the Creed nor did many others. It is a later rationalisation, not found in the teachings of Jesus.
The real question is whether or not Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour. To be Lord and Saviour, he must be of God. This makes him worthy of our worship and service.
My issue is with those Unitarians that accept the scriptures (the Christian Bible) as the Word of God.Why would you suppose that a Unitarian would think that Jesus was a lord and Saviour. They may agree that Jesus was in some way the son of God, but more likely simply a son of God. Mostly they do not follow salvation theology at all.
My issue is with those Unitarians that accept the scriptures (the Christian Bible) as the Word of God.
Do you?
The Bible contains many truths . But has many authors some of whome have brought us the only known teachings of Jesus to come down to us.
It also contains errors and inconsistencies as do all writings. While the authors might have been inspired by God to write down what they had gathered and understood to be the truth, it is unlikely to be any more accurate than any other writings.
I wonder which version of the Bible you consider to be the word of God, and which books you include. Perhaps you only consider the comon western lexicon be true. And disregard the various and older eastern churches selections of books.
I believe that the Bible confirms the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit confirms the Bible. I don't see the errors and inconsistencies that you see in the received Hebrew and Greek texts!
As an English speaker, I personally like to read from the AV/KJV, but I'm fully aware that mistakes have been made by translators. The key, however, is that the KJV has been around for over 400 years and has been studied in minute detail by thousands of scholars attempting to ascertain an accurate meaning for each passage. The result of this diligent work is to be found in explanatory notes, dictionaries, concordances and the like; but the fruit is also found in the millions of people who have come to recognise Jesus Christ as Saviour through the words of scripture (using the KJV, and a whole number of other versions).
I no longer consider myself a person seeking after the truth. I believe that I have received the truth by faith. If I walk by the Spirit of Christ, then I walk in truth. If I walk by the flesh, I walk in sin.
If you are so sure that the Bible does not have a sound historical basis maybe you could give some examples of where it fails to match the facts!
Hundreds of books have been written attempting to show historical or scientific error, but they have all failed to convince.
Given the length of time that these scriptures have been in existence, you would have thought that some convincing evidence could have been produced, had the scriptures been erroneous!.
The challenge is yours. I have no significant issues with the Bible, only with interpretation.
I too read the KJV or the NRSV which is authorised by most protestant and catholic Churches.
However I have not read the Bibles of the Orthodox churches, including the Coptic, Syrian or Ethiopian Churches which all predate ours and contain a different set of Books.
I am also impressed with the Didache(Text, Translation, Analysis and commentary` by Aaron Milavec ) which covers the teaching of the new Christianity to the very early Judeo-Christian communities within the lifetime of those that witnessed Christs death. They were totally unaware of the later Trinity teachings or of the Salvation doctrine, Nor did they yet see Jesus as God. a concept that was still way in the future. as was any form of the Bible. though some of the letters and writings were written but not yet disseminated. the only texts available were the Jewish scrolls.
Hi,
For quite some time, I took the same view as you on the matter of water in John 3:5. But in the context of the discussion with Nicodemus, it now seems more likely, to me, that the reference is to child birth. The reason I would give is that in John 3:4 it says, 'Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?' It's in response to this that Jesus says, 'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'
I accept that all who come to Christ must repent of their sin, as stated in Acts 2:38, such that the human will shows a willingness to turn, to die to self, and walk instead in the light of Christ. It is only when this heart of repentance and willingness to follow Christ is made known to God that the Spirit falls, and that baptism in the Spirit takes place. Interestingly, repentance in the heart does not appear to be the same as the ritual of water baptism. The ritual is more for the sake of other members of the Church, that they might know a person's true intention. This is why, when Cornelius and his household received Christ as Saviour they were baptised in the Spirit before ever receiving water baptism [see Acts 10:44-48].
If Jesus is referring to repentance in John 3:5, then I'm happy to accept that, too. I know that repentance, and faith in Jesus Christ are necessary if one is to be born again and enter the kingdom of God, the Church.
Again, I accept much of what you say here. There are many versions of Trinitarianism! Yes, IMO there is only one God. Yes, the Father, God, dwells in the Son, a body of flesh and blood. The Father also dwells within members of the body of Christ, the Church. I'm very happy to dispense with the theological terminology if necessary!
My objection to traditional Unitarian belief is the refusal to accept Jesus Christ as worthy of worship and service. I believe Jesus Christ is my Lord, and my God. To deny that Jesus Christ is God (as the risen Lord) is, IMO, to fail to understand the redemptive plan with God as our Saviour.
The Bible lacks evidence outside the Bible for provenance and authorship. The Pentateuch and the Tanakh or called the OT in traditional Christianity was compiled and edited some time after about ~800-700 BCE. The New Testament is compiled, edited and redacted between 100 and 400 AD with absolutely no evidence of earlier scripture, though there is evidence of an earlier simpler gospel, some call Q.
Written by apologists in circular reasoning that the text of the Bible justifies the text of the Bible.
The Bible lacks evidence outside the Bible for provenance and authorship. The Pentateuch and the Tanakh or called the OT in traditional Christianity was compiled and edited some time after about ~800-700 BCE. The New Testament is compiled, edited and redacted between 100 and 400 AD with absolutely no evidence of earlier scripture, though there is evidence of an earlier simpler gospel, some call Q.
There is overwhelming scientific and historical evidence that Genesis is not a literal historical argument with Moses as author of most of it, and it cannot be literal history of Creation in any variation, and it is evolved text going back to Sumerian and Babylonian texts.
Interpretation is the biggest deal, and yours is on of thousands of conflicting and diverse interpretations.
The reason I know being born of the water is not referring to a natural birth is:
Our Saviour said you must be born of the water and of the Spirit to enter the kingdom.
Then the man given the keys to the kingdom (Peter) said to be baptized in the name for the remission of sins, and then you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (NOTICE how it lines up with what our Saviour said. Both baptisms are involved to get into the kingdom.)
In the book of Acts when there is a conversion, both are involved, as the following examples show.
Acts 10: 43-48 Notice - You have water baptism here, and they received the Holy Spirit. If it was just an outward sign as you say, why were they commanded to be baptized after they had received the Holy Spirit?
Acts 8:12 They believed and were baptized. (born of the water) Acts 8:14-17 The Apostles heard they had received the word, and sent Peter and John to pray for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. They received the Holy Spirit in verse 17. (born of the Spirit) Notice once again - both baptisms involved.
Acts 19:1-7 Here is an example of some that had been baptized unto John's baptism. When Paul found out they didn't understand about receiving the Holy Spirit. He explained things to them, and they were baptized again, this time in the name, for the remission of sins. Then they received the Holy Spirit in verse 6. (Notice once again how both water baptism, and baptism of the Spirit were involved.) If water baptism is just an outward sign as you say, why did they get baptized again a second time? After all, they were already believing disciples according to Acts 19:1-2
As far as the Godhead. If you believe in the Trinity - you are believing in more than one God. Because Trinitarianism is a belief in 3 separate distinct persons that are each God. (That makes 3 Gods - which is too many)
God is a Spirit - not 3 persons. The Holy Spirit is the Father, not another person.
The Bible is a sealed and complete work,
Absolutely no extra Biblical evidence to support this at the time it is claimed they were written. In fact the evidence has determined that it was compiled, edited and redacted without known authors nor original authored texts for most books.
The Bible is also geocentric as referred to in many citations and believed for the early Christian history history until astronomical evidence in the 17th century became undeniably overwhelming. Can you provide an early Christian reference that referred to sun centered solar system?