• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Prophet or disciple ?

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
i would call john a prophet.but why would each of his disciples be called a prophet?
 

Linus

Well-Known Member
Good point HelpMe. A prohet is one who tells of something to come. So His disciples would only be followers, not foretellers. There is no reason to call them prophets unless I missed something.
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
Linus said:
Good point HelpMe. A prohet is one who tells of something to come. So His disciples would only be followers, not foretellers. There is no reason to call them prophets unless I missed something.
I guess I have a different definition of prophet. A prophet is someone who is chosen by God to relate the word of God to the people. They're role isn't so much to predict the future as it is to tell people when they have strayed from the correct path. Since Christians say that Jesus was God and Jesus told his disciples to go spread the word, it would make his disciples prophets.
 

Linus

Well-Known Member
lilithu said:
I guess I have a different definition of prophet. A prophet is someone who is chosen by God to relate the word of God to the people. They're role isn't so much to predict the future as it is to tell people when they have strayed from the correct path. Since Christians say that Jesus was God and Jesus told his disciples to go spread the word, it would make his disciples prophets.
You do have a point here, but I think that prophets functioned while God was not on the earth. All the Old Testament prophets prophesied when God (Jesus) was not on the earth. But maybe when Jesus came to earth, they were no longer prophets. I don't know the answer for sure. There is a passage in Ephesians (Eph. 4:11) that says that Jesus, in order to prepare the Church for His departure, set up some people to be prophets and others apostles. So, there is clearly a difference.
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
HelpMe said:
*trinitarians* believe jesus was equal to his father.
Most self-identified Christians are trinitarians. And most trinitarian Christians would say that unitarian Christians aren't really Christian. If one rejects what is generally considered to be the central core of Christianity, how can one be a Christian?
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
so yeshua was not a jew for he rejected many of the erronous jewish teachings of his time?i'm not a unitarian, i'm an arian(Joh8:38/1Joh1:3).the central core of christianity as layed out by the bible is more important than popular concensus, which centuries ago was to commit genocide(inquisition), simply because x amount of people do something does not make it alright.the trinity is not central, nor is their existence of it in the church prior to the third century.

the statement "most trinitarian Christians would say that unitarian Christians aren't really Christian" proves nothing for it may well be assumed 'most unitarian christians would say that trinitarian christians aren't really christian'.
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
HelpMe said:
so yeshua was not a jew for he rejected many of the erronous jewish teachings of his time?
Where did I say anything like that?

HelpMe said:
i'm not a unitarian, i'm an arian(Joh8:38/1Joh1:3).
First, I did not mean Unitarian as in member of the Unitarian church, which is largely non-Christian anyway. I meant unitarian, as opposed to trinitarian - someone who espouses the unity of God. The Arians were unitarians.

Second, you claim to be an Arian. But no Arian would claim that the central core of Christianity was to be found in John, which more than any of the other gospels presents Jesus as God incarnate.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:16

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. John 6:51

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. John 11:25


HelpMe said:
the central core of christianity as layed out by the bible is more important than popular concensus, which centuries ago was to commit genocide(inquisition), simply because x amount of people do something does not make it alright.the trinity is not central, nor is their existence of it in the church prior to the third century.
What is the central core of Christianity? I tried looking up the verses that you reference - near as I could make them out - but they didn't make sense to me.

HelpMe said:
the statement "most trinitarian Christians would say that unitarian Christians aren't really Christian" proves nothing for it may well be assumed 'most unitarian christians would say that trinitarian christians aren't really christian'.
I did not state it as "proof" of its veracity. I stated it because it is the most commonly accepted definition of Christianity. You can argue that true Christians are the ones who accept what you deem to be the central core of Christianity. And other people will argue that true Christians are the ones who accept what they deem to be the central core of Christianity. As a non-Christian, I will go with the consensus as to what Christianity is, just as a matter of definition, having nothing to do with the truth or falsity of either position.

Moreover, you still have not explained your view of what "Christ" is. If you call yourself a Christian, I would think that by definition you must believe in Christ.
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
lilithu said:
Where did I say anything like that?
you said i wasn't christian because i don't embrace mainstream christian theology.this is the same logic, applied to another for the cause of showing it's fault.as is evident by your response.
lilithu said:
First, I did not mean Unitarian as in member of the Unitarian church, which is largely non-Christian anyway. I meant unitarian, as opposed to trinitarian - someone who espouses the unity of God. The Arians were unitarians.
there is the belief that jesus was a mere man that lived a perfect life, he had no prior existence.the arian belief system believes he existed priot to his coming to earth.there is a distinction.i was not referring to uni uni, i was referring to this not you.
lilithu said:
Second, you claim to be an Arian. But no Arian would claim that the central core of Christianity was to be found in John, which more than any of the other gospels presents Jesus as God incarnate.
you are entitled to your opinion, i suggest you recognize though that it is your opinion.i LOVE to debate the trinity, you can use every verse you want, but this is not the proper place for it so i will suggest you take it into the biblical debate section if you really believe the nonsense you just spewed in my direction suggests what you think it does.do you honestly think i haven't seen those verses before?what was your goal in posting them?i participated in a lengthy discussion regarding john1:1(and i would assume more john verses) here.
lilithu said:
What is the central core of Christianity? I tried looking up the verses that you reference - near as I could make them out - but they didn't make sense to me.
the core of christianity is the messiah's teachings, not his identity.the verses i cited layed out yeshua's pre-human existence as clearly inferior to his father, they were not about the core of christianity.

Mt.22:39-And
yahushua.gif
said to him, “ ‘You shall love
yahweh.gif
your Elohim with all your heart, and with all your being, and with all your mind.’ 38“This is the first and great command. 39“And the second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ 40“On these two commands hang all the Torah and the Prophets.”

Mr12:30,31;Lu10:27

christianity by scriptural definition is only to follow christ(it is not by definition to believe he is equal to his father).
lilithu said:
Moreover, you still have not explained your view of what "Christ" is. If you call yourself a Christian, I would think that by definition you must believe in Christ.
christ or messiah, jesus or yeshua, is the son of el shaddai
yahweh.gif
[hwhy].the payment for the sins of those whom it was appointed(i, not being the judge, am not in a position to elaborate).
john5:26-For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself.
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
HelpMe said:
you said i wasn't christian because i don't embrace mainstream christian theology.this is the same logic, applied to another for the cause of showing it's fault.as is evident by your response.
No, it's not the same logic. There is a difference in rejecting what is mainstream versus rejecting what is core. One can debate any number of beliefs held within mainstream Christian theology and still be a Christian; but once one rejects the core, it is perfectly valid for another person to question the validity of the label.

Second, I did not say "you're not Christian." I questioned the validity of your using that label. Subtle difference, perhaps, but there is a difference. I do not tell people that they are not what they self-identify to be, since I have no authority over such matters. But I will question why someone uses a label that may likely be misleading to others.


HelpMe said:
there is the belief that jesus was a mere man that lived a perfect life, he had no prior existence.the arian belief system believes he existed priot to his coming to earth.there is a distinction.i was not referring to uni uni, i was referring to this not you.
The point of contention is whether you are the kind of unitarian that I defined in my last post. Thus, you pointing to and denying a third kind of unitarian is not relevant. I was and am refering to a functional definition of the word unitarian, not a self-identified label applied to any religious group. If you say that God is one, then you are a unitarian, just as if you say that God is three-in-one, then your are a trinitarian. Since you denied the trinity, I assumed that you believe that God is one, and are thus a unitarian. Also, since you called yourself an Arian, this also leads me to believe that you are a unitarian. However, you and I seem to have different views on what an Arian believes, so it may be that you indeed are not a unitarian. Do you affirm the unity of God? If so, then you are a unitarian, regardless of whatever else you call yourself.

HelpMe said:
you are entitled to your opinion, i suggest you recognize though that it is your opinion.
No, it's not, actually. I would not have an opinion on Arianism at all if it weren't for historical and religious books that have discussed the issue. My view of Arianism is what I've learned from mainstream academics. It is not just me deciding what Arianism is or is not.

HelpMe said:
i LOVE to debate the trinity,
So you just threw your first post out there to be provocative hoping that someone would bite?

HelpMe said:
you can use every verse you want, but this is not the proper place for it so i will suggest you take it into the biblical debate section if you really believe the nonsense you just spewed in my direction suggests what you think it does.do you honestly think i haven't seen those verses before?what was your goal in posting them?
Nonsense? Spewed??! If this is your style of debate - to bring it to this low a level so quickly when I have said nothing personal against you - then we need not continue this discussion.

I have no personal stake in the gospel of John or the trinity, being that I am a Unitarian, afterall. My reason for posting those verses was to show that the view of Christ presented in the gospel of John is of someone who pre-existed before the historical Jesus. That runs counter the doctrine of Arianism, as presented by Arius. I'm assuming that you call yourself an Arian because you consider yourself to be a follower of the Arian doctrine. If what I have been taught in books and school is mistaken, you might show me how - from Arius' writings - instead of accusing me of spewing nonsense.

HelpMe said:
the core of christianity is the messiah's teachings, not his identity.the verses i cited layed out yeshua's pre-human existence as clearly inferior to his father, they were not about the core of christianity. ]Mt.22:39-And
yahushua.gif
said to him, “ ‘You shall love
yahweh.gif
your Elohim with all your heart, and with all your being, and with all your mind.’ 38“This is the first and great command. 39“And the second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ 40“On these two commands hang all the Torah and the Prophets.”
These are not uniquely Christian commands. These are from the Hebrew bible. To follow these commands does not distinguish someone as being Christian from being Jewish. If you insist that these teachings are the core of Christianity then Christianity as a religion does not exist, it is nothing but another form of Judaism.

HelpMe said:
christianity by scriptural definition is only to follow christ(it is not by definition to believe he is equal to his father).
I never asserted otherwise. I noted that you did not follow mainstream doctrine and then asked you to define the way in which you are a Christian. When I did not get a response from you the first time around, I asked again what Christ means to you.
HelpMe said:
christ or messiah, jesus or yeshua, is the son of el shaddai
yahweh.gif
[hwhy].the payment for the sins of those whom it was appointed(i, not being the judge, am not in a position to elaborate).
john5:26-For as the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself.
Thank you!
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
lilithu said:
One can debate any number of beliefs held within mainstream Christian theology and still be a Christian; but once one rejects the core, it is perfectly valid for another person to question the validity of the label.
as i stated, and tried to show you with scriptural verses, the identity of the father or the son is not the core.it is only the core of trinitarianism.
lilithu said:
But I will question why someone uses a label that may likely be misleading to others.
i follow he whom is referred to as jesus christ, i am therefor a christian.if 6 billion people disagreed with me, it would change nothing.
lilithu said:
I was and am refering to a functional definition of the word unitarian, not a self-identified label applied to any religious group. If you say that God is one, then you are a unitarian, just as if you say that God is three-in-one, then your are a trinitarian.
there are many elohim.and so as to not object scripture(De4:35,mt6:24), trinitarians claim that 'god is one' so as to be aligned with that first cited verse.
lilithu said:
Do you affirm the unity of God? If so, then you are a unitarian, regardless of whatever else you call yourself.
if you say so, then trinitarians are unitarians as well.
lilithu said:
I would not have an opinion on Arianism at all if it weren't for historical and religious books that have discussed the issue. My view of Arianism is what I've learned from mainstream academics. It is not just me deciding what Arianism is or is not.
i did not say that it was only your opinion, but the fact remains, it is an opinion, widespread or not.
lilithu said:
So you just threw your first post out there to be provocative hoping that someone would bite?
actually it was my second post, and i only posted it to clarify an often overlooked point.if i were trying to goad people into trinity discussions, i would jump at alot more posts, and would likely have a reference in my profile to something concerning the matter.
lilithu said:
If this is your style of debate - to bring it to this low a level so quickly when I have said nothing personal against you - then we need not continue this discussion.I have no personal stake in the gospel of John or the trinity, being that I am a Unitarian, afterall.
actually you questioned my christianity first.something that, by your own admission, you are not in a place to debate about.
lilithu said:
My reason for posting those verses was to show that the view of Christ presented in the gospel of John is of someone who pre-existed before the historical Jesus. That runs counter the doctrine of Arianism, as presented by Arius. I'm assuming that you call yourself an Arian because you consider yourself to be a follower of the Arian doctrine. If what I have been taught in books and school is mistaken, you might show me how - from Arius' writings.
my only claim to arius' writings or calling myself arian is that it is what trinitarians acknowledge me or jw's(for example) as.it is not because i believe in everything the presbyter thought.me, and jw's for that matter, do believe in a pre-historical yeshua unlike the unitarians i thought you were referring to.there is no instance of equality between the two in scripture(to be elohim is not the be almighty).i do not deny yeshua's deity or divinity according to the technical definitions since neither mentions 'uncreated'.i'm sorry if you are upset that i have no interest in documents of arius'.if your assertions on what arianism is are correct, then i apologize as i was mislead ironically by trinitarians(if).your definition of 'unitarian' does not unify said subject to christianity, right?
lilithu said:
These are not uniquely Christian commands. These are from the Hebrew bible. To follow these commands does not distinguish someone as being Christian from being Jewish. If you insist that these teachings are the core of Christianity then Christianity as a religion does not exist, it is nothing but another form of Judaism.
judaism does not believe in the NT, and many many torah teachings are against that which was layed out as the 'core of christianity'.and yes, christianity is an extenstion(or 'another form') of the former judaism.

a christian is not a trinitarian as the words are not interchangable.a christian is not a unitarian or arian either.this is a precise example of why the doctorine of the trinity is not clear nor called the doctorine of jesus christ or is it layed out in scripture.if we were to continue the discussion, i would suggest that you use names instead of titles('God') so as not to confuse(mislead) people.


what would you call someone who believes 'jesus' existed prior to his life on earth, but not as his father's equal?
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
HelpMe said:
actually you questioned my christianity first. something that, by your own admission, you are not in a place to debate about.

I asked why someone who rejects the central tenet of Christianity calls him/herself a Christian. I was requesting clarification. If you want to equate that with accusing someone of "spewing nonsense," so be it.

My interest is in using terms in such a way that we understand each other better, not to obscure understanding. I have no stake in whatever it is you choose to believe, only that you use your terms clearly. If you're unclear on what Arius actually taught, it might make things easier for all concerned in the future for you to not identify yourself as an Arian.
 
Top