Can Someone be "Apostolic" and Deny Christ is God?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by notofworks

What's wrong with "Weird"? I'm weird. Come on, we go around all the time bragging about being a "Peculiar people."

OH NO! You do not actually think "peculiar people" means weird people?

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:


PECULIAR:
G4047
περιποίησις
peripoiēsis
per-ee-poy'-ay-sis
From G4046; acquisition (the act or the thing); by extension preservation: - obtain (-ing), peculiar, purchased, possession, saving.

It simply means a purchased people. Not WEIRD people.

LOLOLOL

I believe Timmy said it, or maybe it was PM, but Gods ways and thoughts are above ours. That's weird.

Do you see a boogeyman behind every corner? Timmy was just expressing his thoughts about the ways of God being different than ours.

Timmy tries to find fault in the God of the bible, bro. It underlies all he says. He means weird in attempts to criticize the character of the God of the bible.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I'm weird.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Timmy

And quite a few Apostolics! At least, they have a hard time articulating just what aspects of Christ are/were divine. Certainly not His flesh (or so the vote goes, so far). So, I guess if you had laid eyes on Jesus back in the day, before His death and resurrection, you wouldn't have said "I saw God". I guess.

That is the whole point. Most here think you cannot be apostolic and deny Jesus' deity.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mfblume

OH NO! You do not actually think "peculiar people" means weird people?

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:


PECULIAR:
G4047
περιποίησις
peripoiēsis
per-ee-poy'-ay-sis
From G4046; acquisition (the act or the thing); by extension preservation: - obtain (-ing), peculiar, purchased, possession, saving.

It simply means a purchased people. Not WEIRD people.

LOLOLOL



Timmy tries to find fault in the God of the bible, bro. It underlies all he says. He means weird in attempts to criticize the character of the God of the bible.

Enjoy your laughter.....hey is Rodney Howard Brown at your house?....but you know as well as i know that people go all over the place saying, "We're a peculiar people" and they say it as in, unusual, different, etc., and it's a very similar, if not identical use as "Weird". But thanks for the Strong's Concordance Greek lesson anyway.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mfblume

If you're normal?.....heck yeah, I'm weird!!!

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mfblume

OH NO! You do not actually think "peculiar people" means weird people?

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:


PECULIAR:
G4047
περιποίησις
peripoiēsis
per-ee-poy'-ay-sis
From G4046; acquisition (the act or the thing); by extension preservation: - obtain (-ing), peculiar, purchased, possession, saving.

It simply means a purchased people. Not WEIRD people.

LOLOLOL



Timmy tries to find fault in the God of the bible, bro. It underlies all he says. He means weird in attempts to criticize the character of the God of the bible.

But the deal is, you're trying to turn Timmy into this, "Oh my goodness, I'm quaking in my boots because I think Timmy just blasphemed" kinda thing. Mike, don't turn him into something he's not. He expresses, in an honest way, his doubts about a tangible relationship with God. I've had my doubts too....and please don't shudder.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by notofworks

But the deal is, you're trying to turn Timmy into this, "Oh my goodness, I'm quaking in my boots because I think Timmy just blasphemed" kinda thing. Mike, don't turn him into something he's not. He expresses, in an honest way, his doubts about a tangible relationship with God. I've had my doubts too....and please don't shudder.

Bro., you caused me to shudder a long time ago aside from any of this.

Sorry, as great as I am sure Timmy is as a person, he has an agenda to make the God of the bible look foolish. I do not hold it against him. But it is what it is.

Originally Posted by notofworks

Enjoy your laughter.....hey is Rodney Howard Brown at your house?....but you know as well as i know that people go all over the place saying, "We're a peculiar people" and they say it as in, unusual, different, etc., and it's a very similar, if not identical use as "Weird".

And they are as wrong as you were.

But thanks for the Strong's Concordance Greek lesson anyway.

Didn't think you would admit you were wrong.

Originally Posted by notofworks

If you're normal?.....heck yeah, I'm weird!!!

And yet no one can say you are A.D.D.

Hypocrisy. The sand box is down around the corner.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by tbpew

Prax,
I unequivically believe that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself. Is that enough deity for you to allow me to vote YES?

I believe in the deity of the Christ, the deity is the anointing that resulted in the anointed one; the Christos being Christos.

I do NOT believe GOD BECAME a man.

I believe God's word was made flesh at the conception in Mary's womb.

Peter's revelation from above was not "thou art the Christ, the living God"
but rather,
thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

God could have made your poll a lot more Apostolic Onenesss sounding if he had given Peter a revelation that left out the word "Son".

So Prax, if you tell me it is OK to vote YES, knowing that I believe that God was IN CHRIST, just let me know and I will log in an vote.

I wonder if God is Apostolic according to this poll?

Do you believe Christ IS God? Or rather God is Christ? Or is Christ someone other than God?

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Do you believe Christ IS God? Or rather God is Christ? Or is Christ someone other than God?

I plainly stated that I do not believe there is any scriptural record that provides a basis for teaching that God became a man or that God added to himself (his singular person) humanity.

So I do believe that the person of the Christ is someone other than the person of God.

I believe that the Christ is God's only begotten Son.

Apparently you do not, even though you constantly say you do. Your position is strange and incomprehenable; a philosophy established upon twisted word usage. A SON who is not really a SON by any plain and simple usage, because you insist on making the Son the exact same person as the Father. You are promoting a blantant twist of any simple word usage, rendering simple meanings with NO application in the strange light of your revelation.

I believe that God is Christ's heavenly father.

I believe that Jesus' heavenly father choose to make his abode within the temple of his son. Jesus was indwelled by his heavenly father. God was tabernacled within a willing vessel who choose not his own will, but chose rather the will of the one who sent him. The deity of the Christ was the Spirit of God that made his dwellingplace within the heart of his Son.

I get this understanding from the bible.

A Father NEVER has and NEVER WILL, become his own Son.
Son's (begotten) proceed forth and come from, their fathers (who beget).

God had access to the word "HIMSELF" in his lexicon, he did not need to wax the hallways of understanding by using FATHER and SON if he did not mean, FATHER and SON.

God becoming his own Christ would negate the witness of Peter's revelation concerning the Christ and the witness from the cloud at both the Baptism and transfiguration of the Christ.

SON is not a word that means "FATHER added to himself another form/nature.

You say you believe God has a Son, but the Son you say you believe God has is not like any Son in any other word usag in the human AND scriptural witness.

You have changed the simple meaning of words (Father and Son) into something completely alien to the witness of creation. The change is a causality of a dogma seeking to acknowledge a differentiation (father and son) strictly based on some methaphysical viewing angle.

Good for you.

I believe God really has a Son (the type that can be understood by the simple usage of a plain word).

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by tbpew

I plainly stated that I do not believe there is any scriptural record that provides a basis for teaching that God became a man or that God added to himself (his singular person) humanity.

So I do believe that the person of the Christ is someone other than the person of God.

I believe that the Christ is God's only begotten Son.

Apparently you do not, even though you constantly say you do. Your position is strange and incomprehenable; a philosophy established upon twisted word usage. A SON who is not really a SON by any plain and simple usage, because you insist on making the Son the exact same person as the Father. You are promoting a blantant twist of any simple word usage, rendering simple meanings with NO application in the strange light of your revelation.

I believe that God is Christ's heavenly father.

I believe that Jesus' heavenly father choose to make his abode within the temple of his son. Jesus was indwelled by his heavenly father. God was tabernacled within a willing vessel who choose not his own will, but chose rather the will of the one who sent him. The deity of the Christ was the Spirit of God that made his dwellingplace within the heart of his Son.

I get this understanding from the bible.

Father's to not become their own Son.
Son's (begotten) proceed forth and come from, their fathers (who beget).

God becoming his own Christ would negate the witness of Peter's revelation concerning the Christ and the witness from the cloud at both the Baptism and transfiguration of the Christ.

SON is not a word that means "FATHER added to himself another form/nature.

You say you believe God has a Son, but the Son you say you believe God has is not like any Son in any other word usag in the human AND scriptural witness.

You have changed the simple meaning of words (Father and Son) into something completely alien to the witness of creation. The change is a causality of a dogma seeking to acknowledge a differentiation (father and son) strictly based on some methaphysical viewing angle.

Good for you.

I believe God really has a Son (the type that can be understood by the simple usage of a plain word).

When you use the word "Son" you are thinking in human familial terms, correct? Like the offspring via procreation? If we keept he literal meaning of "son" we run the course of some potentially strange doctrines concerning Divine procreation, etc. So is "Son of" familial or something of form, where "Son of" usually designated "Flesh of."

Also, you said the Father indwelled Jesus, and then later said the Holy Spirit indwelled Jesus. Which was it?

What does "God manifested HIMSELF in Flesh" mean to you? Emmanuel? Fullness of the godhead in body form? The express image of the invisible God? The logos in flesh?