The Unitarian

[shunyadragon]

I believe the latest version of the Humanist manifesto is as follows:

Humanist Manifesto 2000


A Call for a New Planetary Humanism
Drafted by Professor Paul Kurtz, International Academy of Humanism, USA



In contrast all traditional Christian churches believe that 'salvation' is dependent on some form of sincere, Trinitarian belief in God, as described in the 'Apostles Creed.' Some churches like the Roman Church narrow the view of salvation to sincere belief and allegiance to that particular church. The Roman Church does allow for salvation outside the One True Church if their is no knowledge of the Church, or the person died below the age of consent.

[apostoli]

ROFL. I'm probably the only educated Jew that you know. In any case, this is way off topic and I'm not going to respond to it. I just gave an example for that henotheistic concept.

Hmmm. Would you consider the Chief Rabbi at the Greater Synagogue here in Sydney to be an educated Jew?

It seems plausible that either you have not attended Yeshiva or your teachers were particularly inadequate. Educated Jews know their history and know why the diaspora continues...and why Hashem had the temple destroyed three times...and why it will never be reconstructed with Hashem's permit...

[apostoli]

I do not see a necessary conflict between different religious views of the nature of human existence, because to a certain extent all these world views represent a limited human cultural view of the nature of God and our physical existences. There are elements of the truth of our spiritual reality in all the religions as we evolve universally as spiritual beings. The first mistake individual religion, churches and beliefs make is their view is the only possible true view of the nature of our spiritual and physical reality.



The present scientific view of the nature of the Quantum World is a very interesting topic, but I do not believe it can be concluded that the physical world is an 'illusion' as being absolutely nothing as the Vedic (Hindu) proposes based on this.

What is described as the illusion of the nature of our physical world is being actually physical in nature as we perceive it. The underlying reality of the physical world is the more nebulous and still physical Quantum World.

Of interest in Quantum physics all things are reduced to energy, which acquires mass where light is available. Makes me think on John 1:4-5.

[apostoli]

So you do not believe the first century Jews who were apart of the founding of Christianity believed the Torah

?off-topic.

Firstly, you have no authority or otherwise to determine what is or isn't off-topic in this thread. As owner of this thread that is exclusively my job...

Secondly, as the Jews are Unitarian and would fit into the scenario of Post #1, 37818 is on-topic (for a change). Whether he means to or not, he is asking whether the 1st century Christians were Unitarian.

It is an interesting question considering the advent of the Jamesean church, but note the last verses of the last chapter of Luke: "And [Jesus] opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures...repentance and remission of sins should be preached in [Jesus'] name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem...Now it came to pass, while He blessed them, that He was parted from them and carried up into heaven. And they worshiped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God. Amen".
________________

The majority of NT translations have "and they worshiped him" at Luke 24:52, the RSV 1971 edition is an exception. Anyone got any info on why?

[apostoli]

The Roman Church does allow for salvation outside the One True Church if their is no knowledge of the Church, or the person died below the age of consent.

Imu, that idea changed in the late 20th century ie: the teaching on Limbo. Imu, the RCC now teach that who is saved is at God's discretion...albeit those who empty themselves and walk in the footsteps of Christ have a major advantage...

[Scorching Wizard]

I did not say what the definition of salvation Christians use is what the Jews believe in, but it is actually variable among Jews as to what being saved means, but the following is consistent with many Jews:

[cite=http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/12-37.html]

IMO, this hits the target better:
http://www.jewfaq.org/search.shtml?Keywords=salvation

The concept of salvation from sin as it is understood in Christianity has no equivalent in Judaism.

Salvation from sin is unnecessary in Judaism, because Judaism does not believe that mankind is inherently evil or sinful or in need of Divine Intervention in order to escape eternal damnation. In fact, Judaism does not even believe in eternal damnation.

Judaism recognizes that people have sinful impulses, but Judaism also recognizes that people have an inclination to do good and be good, and that people are able to choose whether to follow the evil inclination or the good inclination.

It is within our ability to be righteous. The Torah itself says, "The word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." (Deut. 30:14). And if we miss the mark, when we fail to fulfill the good laws that G-d has provided for us, then we can obtain forgiveness through prayer, repentance and good deeds.

When the Torah speaks of G-d as our Salvation or our Redeemer, it is not speaking of salvation or redemption from sin; rather, it speaks of salvation from the very concrete, day-to-day problems that we face, such as redemption from slavery in Egypt, or salvation from our enemies in war.

[shunyadragon]

Imu, that idea changed in the late 20th century ie: the teaching on Limbo. Imu, the RCC now teach that who is saved is at God's discretion...albeit those who empty themselves and walk in the footsteps of Christ have a major advantage...

At God's discretion is a bit too vague, because of course everything in Creation is at God's discretion. The Doctrine and Dogma of the belief and teachings of the Roman Church are more specific as to what Salvation as to God's discretion would be, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus). Salvation beyond this is specifically defined by the Catechism and Vatican II.

This would be an interesting discussion in a thread of its own. Even though the Vatican II made an appeal to Eccumenism. The bottom line remained "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus."

[shunyadragon]

Firstly, you have no authority or otherwise to determine what is or isn't off-topic in this thread. As owner of this thread that is exclusively my job...

Secondly, as the Jews are Unitarian and would fit into the scenario of Post #1, 37818 is on-topic (for a change). Whether he means to or not, he is asking whether the 1st century Christians were Unitarian.

I believe the best word here is 'Monotheistic.' Unitarian today refers more to the Humanist movement associated with the Unitarian Universalist Church.

It is an interesting question considering the advent of the Jamesean church, but note the last verses of the last chapter of Luke: "And [Jesus] opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures...repentance and remission of sins should be preached in [Jesus'] name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem...Now it came to pass, while He blessed them, that He was parted from them and carried up into heaven. And they worshiped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God. Amen".

I believe the predominant belief among the first Christians was Jewish Monotheism, evidence indicates there was some variation in the beliefs. It was not until 200 to 400 AD that the Trinitarian belief became to be more dominant.
________________

The majority of NT translations have "and they worshiped him" at Luke 24:52, the RSV 1971 edition is an exception. Anyone got any info on why?

Some may comment further here, but the ancient text vary in this verse, some say 'they worshiped him and some do not.

[apostoli]

At God's discretion is a bit too vague, because of course everything in Creation is at God's discretion. The Doctrine and Dogma of the belief and teachings of the Roman Church are more specific as to what Salvation as to God's discretion would be, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus). Salvation beyond this is specifically defined by the Catechism and Vatican II.

This would be an interesting discussion in a thread of its own. Even though the Vatican II made an appeal to Eccumenism. The bottom line remained "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus."

I forget the exact details, the decree concerning the "abolition" of Limbo (as I know of it) occurred in the 1990s. I just checked google and they list a series of news articles from 2007...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...800-years.html

[apostoli]

I believe the best word here is 'Monotheistic.' Unitarian today refers more to the Humanist movement associated with the Unitarian Universalist Church.

To me it is all about word equivalence ie: monotheistic as opposed to tritheistic; unitarian as opposed to trinitarian or binitarian.

I believe the predominant belief among the first Christians was Jewish Monotheism, evidence indicates there was some variation in the beliefs. It was not until 200 to 400 AD that the Trinitarian belief became to be more dominant.

In terms of Binitarianism I trace the belief as far back as A.John and Ignatius. eg: John 1:1c is viewed by most authoritative grammarians as qualitative thus making the "o Logos" attributively equivalent to "o Theos". Such fits the theme of the Gospel. Especially, John 12:45 & 14:7 and makes sense of Thomas' declaration at John 20:28. We find additional support for the idea of the Son's theotēs (state of being God) at John 1:2-3; Col 1:16; 2:9; Heb 1:1-3 (especially vs3)...

Trinitarianism is a bit harder to tie down, but the anticipation of the Paraklete and the Holy Spirit's interaction can be traced back to A.John and A.Luke (Acts).

[shunyadragon]

To me it is all about word equivalence ie: monotheistic as opposed to tritheistic; unitarian as opposed to trinitarian or binitarian.

OK

In terms of Binitarianism I trace the belief as far back as A.John and Ignatius. eg: John 1:1c is viewed by most authoritative grammarians as qualitative thus making the "o Logos" attributively equivalent to "o Theos". Such fits the theme of the Gospel. Especially, John 12:45 & 14:7 and makes sense of Thomas' declaration at John 20:28. We find additional support for the idea of the Son's theotēs (state of being God) at John 1:2-3; Col 1:16; 2:9; Heb 1:1-3 (especially vs3)...

Trinitarianism is a bit harder to tie down, but the anticipation of the Paraklete and the Holy Spirit's interaction can be traced back to A.John and A.Luke (Acts).

This why I put a late date on the Trinitarian belief in Christianity. Up until it became the dominant Doctrine and Dogma of the Roman Church there were a variety of views among the early believers between ~70 AD to ~400 AD.

I do believe that Jewish Monotheism was the dominant belief among early Christians before ~100-150 AD.

[apostoli]

I do believe that Jewish Monotheism was the dominant belief among early Christians before ~100-150 AD.

From the scriptural witness I gave in my previous post I don't think your proposition is viable. For instance: A.Paul's declaration at Col 2:9 would negate your proposition. But drawing on a Jewish contemporary of the apostles and a bit of Jewish history there is a middle ground. Philo describes an entity who in one book he calls God (in addition to YHWH) and in another book he says of this entity "God but not properly so called". Also, apparently, in the near BCE years there was a Jewish cult that directed worship towards "the angel of YHWH's presence" (aka, from the Jewish Aramaic Targums the "memra of YHWH" = "the Word of God"). So, it is often speculated by Rabbi I've encountered that there was ripe territory from which the "Jesus cult" could spring.

[shunyadragon]

From the scriptural witness I gave in my previous post I don't think your proposition is viable. For instance: A.Paul's declaration at Col 2:9 would negate your proposition. But drawing on a Jewish contemporary of the apostles and a bit of Jewish history there is a middle ground. Philo describes an entity who in one book he calls God (in addition to YHWH) and in another book he says of this entity "God but not properly so called". Also, apparently, in the near BCE years there was a Jewish cult that directed worship towards "the angel of YHWH's presence" (aka, from the Jewish Aramaic Targums the "memra of YHWH" = "the Word of God"). So, it is often speculated by Rabbi I've encountered that there was ripe territory from which the "Jesus cult" could spring.

We may disagree, but yes what you cite may be the origins of the "Jesus cult" that resulted in the Trinitarian view. Some of what you cite I believe to be a minority view. I f what you say is correct Christianity began in a marginal minority Jewish worldview.

[apostoli]

We may disagree, but yes what you cite may be the origins of the "Jesus cult" that resulted in the Trinitarian view. Some of what you cite I believe to be a minority view. I f what you say is correct Christianity began in a marginal minority Jewish worldview.

From what I've read the accusation (usually by Jews) is that Christianities growth was amongst the Jews of the diaspora ie: the Hellenised Jews. Imu, these peoples (as today) were the majority of Jews... Imu, even as today, they were a fractious lot...

Anyway, I became curious and decided to rummage through my small library for some info...Apart from Josephus just a bunch of ancient histories I've read numerous times. So no luck...

I ended up dragging out my hardcopy of Yonge's translation of "The Works of Philo" and had a quick browse of my border notes (my impressions from 10 plus years ago). I thought you might be interested...

Seems the very Jewish Philo of Alexandria (20BCE - 50CE) not only conceived of a second God but also perceived, if not a Trinity, a Triad of the Father, the logos as a second God and Sophia as Lord...

On Abraham - the Triad (121) "...the one in the middle is the Father of the universe, who in the sacred scriptures is called by his proper name, I am that I am; and the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to the living God, one of which is called his creative power, and the other his royal power. And the creative power is God, for it is by this that he made and arranged the universe; and the royal power is the Lord, for it is fitting that theCreator should lord it over and govern the creature. (122) Therefore, the middle person of the three, being attended by each of his powers as by body-guards, presents to the mind, which is endowed with the faculty of sight, a vision at one time of one being, and at another time of three;

Questions and answers of Genesis, II, (62) Why is it that he [Moses] speaks as if of some other god, saying that he made man after the image of God, and not that he made him after his own image? (Genesis 9:6). Very appropriately and without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered by God, for no mortal thing could have been formed on the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only after the pattern of the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Beingwhat he here calls God is his most ancient word, not having any superstitious regard to the position of the names, but only proposing one end to himself, namely, to give a true account of the matter; for in other passages the sacred historian, when he considered whether there really was any name belonging to the living God, showed that he knew that there was none properly belonging to him; but that whatever appellation any one may give him, will be an abuse of terms; for the living God is not of a nature to be described, but only to be.

[shunyadragon]

From what I've read the accusation (usually by Jews) is that Christianities growth was amongst the Jews of the diaspora ie: the Hellenised Jews. Imu, these peoples (as today) were the majority of Jews... Imu, even as today, they were a fractious lot...

Initially the converts to Christianity were dominantly Jews with a few Greeks and Romans. Over the next ~200 years conversion shifted to Asia Minor Greece and Rome conversion shifted due to Paul's travels and efforts outside Israel. This conversion after about 200 AD the dominant growth in Christianity was among Romans and Greeks. By ~600 AD the only Jewish Christians were isolated minority populations on the edge of Christianity. As this shift took place Hellenist and Roman influence began to dominate Christianity resulting in Trinitarian beliefs, and a pantheon of Divinities including angels, devils, and demons depicted in statues.

Anyway, I became curious and decided to rummage through my small library for some info...Apart from Josephus just a bunch of ancient histories I've read numerous times. So no luck...

I ended up dragging out my hardcopy of Yonge's translation of "The Works of Philo" and had a quick browse of my border notes (my impressions from 10 plus years ago). I thought you might be interested...

Seems the very Jewish Philo of Alexandria (20BCE - 50CE) not only conceived of a second God but also perceived, if not a Trinity, a Triad of the Father, the logos as a second God and Sophia as Lord...

On Abraham - the Triad (121) "...the one in the middle is the Father of the universe, who in the sacred scriptures is called by his proper name, I am that I am; and the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to the living God, one of which is called his creative power, and the other his royal power. And the creative power is God, for it is by this that he made and arranged the universe; and the royal power is the Lord, for it is fitting that theCreator should lord it over and govern the creature. (122) Therefore, the middle person of the three, being attended by each of his powers as by body-guards, presents to the mind, which is endowed with the faculty of sight, a vision at one time of one being, and at another time of three;

Questions and answers of Genesis, II, (62) Why is it that he [Moses] speaks as if of some other god, saying that he made man after the image of God, and not that he made him after his own image? (Genesis 9:6). Very appropriately and without any falsehood was this oracular sentence uttered by God, for no mortal thing could have been formed on the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only after the pattern of the second deity, who is the Word of the supreme Beingwhat he here calls God is his most ancient word, not having any superstitious regard to the position of the names, but only proposing one end to himself, namely, to give a true account of the matter; for in other passages the sacred historian, when he considered whether there really was any name belonging to the living God, showed that he knew that there was none properly belonging to him; but that whatever appellation any one may give him, will be an abuse of terms; for the living God is not of a nature to be described, but only to be.

The way I view the history of religion is the trend in Revelation from God is to Reveal and affirm simple Monotheism (Unitarian God). The tendency of human influence is to corrupt Monotheism with variations of polytheism, such as; Henotheism, Binatarianism, Trinitarianism. The reaffirmation of pure Monotheism reasserted itself in Revelation of Islam and the Baha'i Faith