Racists don’t get it that...

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, trinitarians and non-trinitarians can be found today. Although a lot of non-trinitarian groups that exist today have originated in 19-th century or later, and don't have connection to the Arians of the 3-rd century, although they hold similar beliefs. Basically there are three ways of thinking about Jesus:

1. Jesus is completely human and not God. This belief is held by Jehovah Wittnesses, Christadelphians and few others. This belief is also held by the Muslims as well, and yes it was held by the Arians.

2. Jesus and God is one and the same. So there is no such thing as God the Father and God the Son: there is only one single God who is Jesus. This belief is held by Apostolics and few others

3. On the one hand there is a divide between God the Father and God the Son (Jesus being God the Son) but on the other hand there is one God. In this case, one can go a bit further and

a) Articulate that there are exactly three entities: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. That would be "trinitarian" and that is the belief held by mainstream Christians

b) Only talk about God the Father and God the Son, that would be "bi-unity"

c) Point out that God doesn't have to be limitted to just two or three specific incarnations and can come in other forms (like burning bush in front of Moses).

Majority of Christians are Trinitarian -- meaning they believe 3a. But there are some sects that are not (for example Jehovah Wittnesses believe in 1, while Apostolics believe in 2).

As far as Messianics, the majority of them are split between 3a, 3b and 3c. However, there are exceptions as well, I seen some Messianics believing in 1 and 2.

An example of Messianics believing in 1 is www.torahofmessiah.com
An example of Messianic believing in 3c is www.therefinersfire.org
And I believe http://www.yashanet.com/studies/ was believing in 2 at least when I looked at it 15 years ago, but I would have to check

Majority of Messianic Jews believe in Jesus' divinity, but there are some Messianic Jews that don't. Where I am, in Albuquerque, there are two Messianic churches that believe in Jesus divinity ("Adat Yeshua" and "Olive Tree") and one Messianic church that doesn't ("Light of Torah"). I attended all three of them.

There are a lot more Messianic churches throughout the country, I just named the ones at the town I am currently at. I would say there are probably hundrids of Messianic churches by now, and majority believe in divinity of Jesus. I actually feel lucky that there was a Messianic church near my town that didn't believe in it.

Me personally, I am exploring both options and trying to compare and contrast what I find. On the one hand, in terms of fear of hell, I feel pressured to believe in divinity of Jesus. Because people that don't believe in divinity of Jesus oftentimes don't believe in hell either, so if they are right and I am wrong, I have nothing to lose. On the other hand, in terms of aesthetics, I feel drawn to the sects that deny the divinity of Jesus since that seems more palatable to me Jewishly plus it has an exotic taste to it (given that it disagrees with the majority).

On the one hand, the Messianic churches themselves are legal. But, on the other hand, Messianic Jews whose mother is Jewish lose their right of return. So yes, once they are there, they can do whatever they want. But there are steps that are taken to prevent them from being there. I guess some of the ways those Messianic churches are populated can be as follows:

a) If a Jew immigrates to Israel without believing in Jesus and then comes to believe in Jesus after they already have their Israeli citizenship, then they will end up staying there.

b) If a Jew is born in Israel and then comes to believe in Jesus

c) If someone who immigrates to Israel whose father is Jewish but whose mother isn't. In this case they have their right of return because of the Jewishness of their father, but at the same time they aren't held accountable for being loyal to Judaism since their mother isn't Jewish, and so it is fine for them to believe in Jesus.

The other thing to point out is that, even though the Messianic churches are legal there, distributting a New Testament to people under 18 is not. Now, distributing the New Testament is not the same thing as forcing one's own belief on the other person. You aren't forcing the other person to read it, you are just giving it to them. Yet its not legal.

I even heard that in the math classes in elementary school they use T instead of + in order not to remind the students of the cross.



I read that there was an incident where Messianic family received a present by mail for one of the high holy days with an explosive hidden in it, and it just happened that the little girl was the one who opened it so she got severely injured. That mail was sent to them from Orthodox Jews because they were Messianic.

I also seen a lot of youtube videos of where Orthodox Jews harass Messianic Jews.

I read the case where, in the Messianic synagogue, they were going to do some baptisms, so the Orthodox Jews surrounded that Messianic synagogue and started screaming "they are going to baptize them and kill their soul" amond other things.

Also I read that some Jews spit on the cross when they see it -- so in this case that would pertain to Christians rather than Messianics since Messianics don't usually wear crosses. In any case, I read of a situation where there was a Christian minister walking down the street, and an Orthodox Jew politely saying "excuse me, may you stop for a second", then he stopped, and then the Orthodox Jew spat on his cross.



But weren't you saying in your previous reply that you don't like when people say their belief is correct and other people's belief is wrong?

I was actually a little bit surprised when you said it. I mean, from the point of view of pure logic, if you believe in something, then of course you believe that your particular belief is correct -- which would logically imply that the other person's belief is wrong.



I realize they don't believe in sins. Yet, despite this, they also disapprove of Messianic Jews. And yes, it is a very good question as to why they disapprove of them if they don't believe in God anyway. Yet thats what happens.



Yeah, I realize you disagree with the Orthodox Jews: I remember you telling me over the PM that your group which studies Kabbalah is somehow distinct from the Orthodox. That was part of the reason I was asking you about your views of Jesus. I was wondering whether the group you belong to portrays Jesus in more positive light than other Jewish groups.

I have heard of the hard line fundamentalist protestants who are non trinintarian in that they view Jesus as the one and only God,so there would be no trinity,they profess Jesus to God manifest in the flesh,that Jesus is the highest name in heavan.But most Chistians believe in the Father,son,Holy Ghost theology.I did not realize there were any Christian sect that don't view Jesus as divine.

So why is the Oriental orthodox rejected by mainstream christianity if there trinitarian,they were the very first Christian church started in Armenia in 310AD.

There are trinitarian fundamentalists too. In fact, the word fundamentalist is usually applied to trinitarian. But then again you can assign to it a different meaning and then apply it to non-trinitarians. I guess the word "fundamentalist" the way I understand it is "overly strict adherence to mainstream dogma". Now there are Christians that are "overly strict" but their dogma isn't "mainstream", so they got the first part and not the second part. But you can then ask a question "in what way is it not mainstream?" If its not mainstream because its not in majority then its the question of numbers. So if you take some really small group like Jehovah Wittnesses, then they can't be viewed as mainstream by any stretch, but if you take a larger group, such as Apostolics, then you can argue that they are still mainstream. So in this sense you can call Apostolics fundametalist, which would justify the way you worded that sentense.



Jehovah Wittnesses is one of the blatant examples of such. Now, they aren't the only ones, there are others, such as Christodelphians. But probalby Jehovah Wittnesses are the most well known in this regard since they are the ones that knock on people's doors to argue about this very thing for hours.



I am not that familiar with Orthodox and Catholic, since I myself am a Protestant. However, I did think from time to time that maybe I should one day read church fathers and study more about Orthodox/Catholic; I just kept putting it off. I did, however, ran into two things that drew my attention:

a) Armenian Orthodox is the oldest Orthodox church there is. So that made me wonder why don't everyone looks up to it as the most reliable resource of the original teaching of the Apostles?

b) Ethiopian Orthodox abstain from pork as well as other non-kosher food. Also, they observe Saturday Sabbath. Although they observe Sunday as well, and Sunday plays a bigger role. But at least Saturday is still there which is something. And like I said since I am Messianic Jew, I am always attracted to any church that keeps Jewish practices since I want to compare and contrast them.

I didn't know they were rejected by other Orthodox churches though. But the fact that Ethiopian Orthodox keep parts of Jewish law I found surprising. Because you see, as an Orthodox church it is supposed to abide by everything church fathers say as well as to what is called "holy tradition" of Orthodox churches -- and all of this negate the Jewish law. Most Messianics, on the other hand, are Protestant, which means that they believe in Bible alone. if one looks at the Bible, then its possible to interpret the issue of Jewish law in different ways, so therefore its possible for some Protestants to keep the Jewish law and other ones not to. But if one looks at what church fathers were saying then you can't really interpret it in two ways, since they were a lot more explicit than the Bible (the Bible tends to be brief and often in parables while church fathers elaborate on their doctrine). Thats why it was so surprising that Ethiopians keep the Jewish law despite being Orthodox.

Perhaps this could be one reason why they aren't accepted by other Orthodox churches? Although the question of "how can an Orthodox church be rejected by other Orthodox churches" is another good question. After all, the definition of Orthodox includes approval by the other Orthodox churches.

But like I said, I haven't studied Orthodox churches that much, except for some brief reading on the Internet. So perhaps my questions have answers, and if someone on this board is more familiar with this than me I would gladly read what they have to say.

There are said to be 130 Christian denominations,most having different doctorine than the next.Its beyond confusing and it's no surprise that simple Jesus only Protestant sects are gaining follower's.Because keeping track of all the doctorines is impossible.

The second coming must be just around the corner

I don't think "Jesus only" makes it simple, since people are used to the trinity -- on which the majority of denominations agree. I think the simplest pick is probabably baptist, where you take good old trinity, together with "faith alone".

As far as the people that believe in "Jesus only", they are motivated by a strong opinion that the majority of Christians are mislead. So that is quite a bit different from just wanting to make it simple.

Maybe for a complete outsider "Jesus only" might look simple since trinity is a bit of a mystery (almost sounds like 3=1). But due to the "historical" fact that people are used to trinity generation after generation, its not that way any more.

I'm just curious, how do you reconcile being a rationale, logical and evidence based scientist with being a christian? Not judging, just wondering how you reconcile the obvious disparities.

I'm just saying what the trends are,I'm not saying where to go to church,I don't go to any church or place of worship.

Well, it also seems impossible to reconcile quantum mechanics and gravity. Yet they somehow coexist, we just don't know how. By the same token, science and religion can coexist even if it seems impossible. It's just one more puzzle to be solved.

To continue with this analogy, I can argue that since I, personally, can't visit all the laboratories where the laws of relativity and quantum mechanics were experimentally verified, maybe all the experimentalists conspired to lie about their reports? Maybe it's one big conspiracy? And then I can point to the apparent contradiction between quantum mechanics and gravity as an evidence for this claim. The reason I am not doing this is that I have an *axiom* that common knowledge is reliable. And that *axiom* supercedes the apparent contradictions between quantum mechanics and gravity that are needed in order to maintain that axiom. Well, by the same token, I have an *axiom* that the Bible is true, and that *axiom* supercedes the apparent contradictions between science and religion. Now, the purpose of the *axiom* that the common knowledge is reliable is to be able to feel oriented in this world. On the other hand, the purpose of the *axiom* that the Bible is reliable is in order to know what to expect in the world to come. And it's true I don't truly "know" since I don't have direct evidence that it's the Bible rather than some other holy book. But, by the same token, you can't truly "know" things like the moon landing is real, that anybody you see TV is real, etc. unless you make an axiom. Well, in addition to your axioms I also have the one about Bible being real.

If I stick to the rational thought, I know that I, personally, will die some day. I can't imagine the situation where my consciousness would disappear, yet science is *seemingly* telling me that this is what will happen. So then there is something else that I can't learn from science, thats what I am going to religion for.

Speaking of consciousness, science can't explain it either. What science is telling us is that living creatures possess artificial intelligence. And yes, artificial intelligence fits into natural selection perfectly: the robot with the best algorithm is the one that survives. That algorithm includes fighting mammals, building houses, making decisions, etc. In short it might require *looking* as if you have consciousness. But it *won't* require actually having it. Because you see, if someone without a consciousness behaves in the identical way as someone with the consciousness, their survival will be identical as well. As a matter of fact I can't prove to myself that anyone besides me has consciousness -- just like you can't prove to yourself that anyone besides you has consciousness. I only know that I do, and you only know that you do.

In any case, the existence of consciousness is where religion comes in. Because you can't build consciousness out of particles, you can only build an artificial intelligence out of particles. So one can speculate that the part that is responsible for consciousness is the soul, and that is religion.

Incidentally the question about after life is tied very closely to the question about consciousness. The reason it is so difficult to imagine that "I" will stop existing is because I possess a consciousness. After all, there is nothing difficult about imagining that my physical body will stop existing. But the fact that my consciousness will stop existing is a lot harder to imagine. But then, by the same token, one can ask how did my consciousness start existing to begin with if I am just a bunch of molecules? So the fact that it did implies that there is something besides molecules (namely, the soul), and that is what will answer the question as to what will be left after the structure built out of molecules disintegrates.

I was also saying what the trends are. When I talked to Jesus-only people they seemed quite passionate to make it a point that trinitarians are wrong. So it doesn't look like they were just looking for something simple since a simple minded person would just take live and let life point of view.

Also, Jesus-only belief systems oftentimes have other beliefs that differentiate them from mainstream. For example, Apostolics claim that salvation is not by faith alone but by faith plus baptism, and they tend to hold pentacostal beliefs as well. And yes *some* trinitarians hold them too, but for Apostolics it becomes "all" rather than "some" (but I am not too positive I will have to look into that).

This makes sense as there are plenty of scientists who are religious. Yes consciousness is outside of the realm of science, much of the talk of uploading our memories to robots is largely speculative pending us cracking the consciousness code.

You understand this stuff better than I do,not to put down Messianics but Rabbinical Judaism is easier to understand.Christianity is so confusing,if you accept this version of the gospel your going to hell by someone else's version of the gospel,which Christianity do you have to believe,of 130 world denominations all claiming to be the truth. So you have to believe 130 different gospels at the same time to avoid burning in 130 different lakes of fire.I'm not trying to put down that which I don't understand but I'm saying I don't get it.

Well, the number of views on who God is or who Jesus is is a lot less than 130. Similarly, the number of views on salvation (faith alone , faith+baptism, faith+works, etc) is a lot less than 130 as well. As long as you agree with a given denomonatoon on these two things they won't say you are going to hell. What makes it 130 are some tiny differences of opinion that won't affect the salvation.

The other point is that some answers to those questions are more common than the other ones. So, if you want to agree with *majority* of American Protestants, you would have to say that God is the trinity and the salvation is by faith alone. If you do that, then probably 80% of American Protestants will say you are saved. The remaining 20% will consist of various small groups like Apostolics, Churches of Christ, Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah Wittnesses, etc. But you don't have to worry about them so much since most mainstream Christians disagree with them.

Another alternative is to say that majority can be wrong and actually *look* for one of those small groups with unusual opinion. In this case I would say do that only if you have a good reason to look in one particular direction. Like in my case, due to my Jewish ancestry, I am looking in the direction of sabbaterian groups. Thats why I would give United Church of God and Seventh Day Adventists a lot of extra look -- although I ended up viewing both of them as false (I don't believe in modern prophets) -- but they have some good points I borrow. If you have another good reason to look in the other "unusual" direction, I would say go for it. If not, then follow the advice of the previous paragraph.

One more thing. If you look at the mainstream denominations, such as Baptists or Methodists, you can probably count them on your fingers, so I don't see how it can possibly be 130. But if you look at small sects, such as Mormons, Jehovah Wittnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. then yes there are a lot of them. So they are probably the main reason its 130. Now, the vast majority of Christians go to the former rather than the latter. So its more like there are 10 main denominations that 80% of Christians are going to, and the other 120 sects that the remaining 20% of Christians are split over. So if you are concerned about 80% of Christians rather than the remaining 20%, you should go to one of those 10 denominations.

That makes things a lot easier in the following way. If you look at the 120 sects attended by the remaining 20% of population, you will find a lot of the sects that insinuate that you have to be a member of that sect in order to be saved. Jehovah Wittnesses are a very good example of it. However, if you look at the 10 denominations attended by 80% of Christians they wouldn't say this. For example, if you ask Methodists whether or not Baptists are saved, they would say yes. Now, if you ask a Baptist whether or not Methodists are saved, you will get a bit of a "maybe" rather than "yes". So then just go with Baptists, and that way you will make sure everyone in those 80% believe you are saved.

But like I said if you have a reason to be more interested in some sect in those 20% rather than then 80% majority, then go for it (I kinda considering it myself). I am just trying to outline where the leaves fall.