Jehovah witness arianism

Continue

Jehovah witness arianism

Do jehovah's witnesses believe in divorce. Do jehovah witness believe in arianism. What to jehovah witnesses believe. Can jehovah's witnesses get divorced.

Calls great heresies are worthy of examination for various reasons, one of which are that they represent the main lines of attack against the Bank Christianity. With the exception of Gnosticism, who begins with the claim of secret knowledge, besides the Bible, they depend on a distortion of the Bank Witness. Modalism distorts Bible teaching in the Trinity, making the distinctions mere names and nothing more, mascara that a person uses in different papers, giving priority to the texts that speak of the divine unity, but ignoring or minimizing these texts that speak of the Reality of divine people. Working on a rationalist basis, he said that Jesus was somehow the same person as his father. As modalism, arianism is based on a defective and partial reading of the Bible texts through rationalist presuppositions. When claiming to be biblically based, Arianism, as modalism, smuggle into something different from the Bible to interpret the Bible. Arian claims to be practicing sole scripture, but does not do anything like. When we approach the Bible, if we are righteous, we must approach the Bible as it is and not as we would like it. The Bible is not a systematic theology treaty, in which the various doctrines are clearly defined and in order to successfully succeed with others, but is intended to be read and relive , comparing the Scriptures with the Scriptures, thinking things, and tracing the connections, aided by the spirit. Attention should be given to such important issues as a historical context (which wrote it, when, and to whom?) And Gless (is poetry, history or letter?). Attempts to flatten these things do not end well, because some external principle is always brought so to arbitrate between ? ? ? "on the false interpretation framework. When it comes to looking at the Gospels in particular, we must visualize them in your suitable character as witnesses; The gospel writers are with witnesses, such as Batista John ? ? ? "Choosing a witness, bear witness to light, that all men through him can believe. They are consistent reports of the person and the Christ's work as the disciplers experienced him, not mere collections inconsistent with traditions and texts of evidence in which some texts exchange the others. And here are these heretics that claim to be guided by the Bible donish , in favor of certain texts taken into insulation above others, instead of reading the Bible as a coherent whole and ignoring the context. Arianism, in a way, the most significant of the so-called major heresies, assumed a route other than modalism in dealing with which was equivalent to the same issue, the divinity of Christ. Recognizing the reality of the distinction of divine people, Arianism attempted to introduce into Christianity the idea of what can be called "Levels of Divinity", arguing that, While Jesus is called ? ? ? ? ? "God ? ? ? " He is indeed, a "God without God" than the Father, who is the final God. While Arius and followers focused on the issue of the person of Christ, heresy Arian is really one that concerns the Trinity, since the question in question is the relationship of father and son. As a modalism, he really assumes unitarianism, but answers the question of one and many, denying the full divinity of Christ. Arianism led to the first of the so-called ecumerman concidences, the NICEA Council in 325 AD, and of all the great ancient hereses, is the only time per hour controlled most of the Church. History Arianism emerged at the beginning of the S?culo IV AD; In 312 AD, the Emperor Constantine declared Christianity a legal religion, bringing it out of his previous existence very precarious on the fringes of the imperial legal system, always potentially subject to persecution and in the mainstream of life Roman. Not only that, but Constantine professed the conversion to her own Christianity, who tended to Elegant Christianity, since it was only a question, it is clear that the Emperor's co-religious would be favored to make commitments in court and civil service. Constantine came to power over an imposition divided and saw in Christianity a force that could unite the impact. There was only one problem - the own Christianity was divided by a doctrine dispute about what was known as Arianism. ARIUS Arianism is named for ARIUS, a presbyter, more likely to LUBIA, who was minister of an elegant church in an intelligent subunderstation of Alexandria, in the midst of the imposition. ARIUS was intellectual, trained in a private academy in Syrian Antioch, headed by a man named Lucian, whose theology was in many ways of a precursor to ARIUS. Lucian was a talented teacher and ended up death during one of the sporotic persecutions. For all his intellect and piety, Lucian had great questions with the idea of an eternal trinity, and these issues led to his student Arius falling on total heresy. We know little about ARius's primitive life, but he was an old man at the time of his death in 336. He was ordained at 311 and became presbyter in a relatively late stage in his life; It is thought of many who before his ordinance, he was a hermit. A tall man of severe appearance, his reputation of asceticism was almost certainly an important factor in his presbyter of the Church in the Baucalis subestuary. ARIUS was tall and beautiful, socially adept, in a sweet and attractive voice. He had something of a touch for communication, and was talented to write poetry, all the additional factors in his success as a popular clan. The problem was that (like many fashionable clusting since what he communicated was not the truth, but a serious mistake. Just as modalism began because of an excessive reaction to the Gnostic teaching of a completely inefficient and transcendent God, then Arianism was in part an excessive reaction to teaching modalism. While modalism made the father and son merely different manifestation, ARIUS so emphasized the distinction that he denied any kind of unity of the father and son. The father, ARIUS taught, was the true and original God, unipessoal, in himself uncomfortable. According to the teaching of ARIUS , the Son was a "God-created", created by and lower in essence than the Father, and the one who reveals the inefficient God. The Orthodox Fan taught that Christ is an incarnate God, the second person of the Santostra Trinity, eternally generated from the Father, in other words, always existing in the relationship of a child to the father; ARIUS thought that this is i Logy. A human father, ARIUS, reasoned, pronate his son, and it is the cause of the child who comes to be. Thus, in the minds of ARIUS, the Son of God must be a being created that arose, hence the phrase of ARIUS ? ? ? "There was a time when he was not. ARIUS taught that the son was the first to be created, through whom all the other things were created, and this, correctly speaking, he was not God, but only called ? ? ? "god ?" because of what he does. Not surprisingly, his teaching soon brought ARIUS in conflict with his bishop, Alexander, who correctly realized that Arius's teaching was in complete contradiction with the Orthodox fan. Alexander suspended Arius from his functions as a presbyter, and at 321 he excommunicate him. Heresia would have stayed, if it was not for the fact that Arius had several influential friends, among them, Eusian, one of the main bishops of the imposition, and Eus? Bio de Cesar?, known Today by his ecclesiastical history. ARIUS managed to persuade these men that Alexander was reaching them, just like him by his excommunication decree, and so he created a campaign against Alexander. Talented as a communicator and in public relations, ARIUS managed to persuade several Asian bishops to support him and, confident in Support, returned to Alexandria and resumed his teaching ministry. The phase was therefore defined by a confrontation between Ladino Presbyter and Bishop. The division was at least both politically and a religious was, with many of the ARIANA bishops supported without actually understanding the issues involved. Nichoman's day, however, he certainly made him understand the issues, for Him and Arius had studied under the same master, and after Arius died, Eusian Bio would become the leader of his party. It can not be more emphasized the importance of the question really was; It was about God's own nature. Alexander insisted that his father has never been without his son; The son is a co-eternal) with his father. ARIUS, on the other hand, insisted, ? _ there was a time when the son was not. There was no middle ground, or father and son are co -Ena, or they are not. Alexander understood this, and so I would not give any foundation at all. The Council of Nicea in 325, Constantine, who before this point had been Emperor of the West Once, became the only emperor of the Romans. The division in the Eastern Church among those who supported the river and those who supported Alexander disturbed the emperor, who considered them as a potential threat of Christianity to act as an unifying factor in the troubled imposition. By this point the division had become very deep and very public, insofar as it was the target of jokes at the obscene Roman theater. Employing as his intermediary a Spanish bishop named Cordova Hosius, Constantine sought to reconcile Alexander and Rio, but neither man was willing to give in. Hosius, however, came to an understanding with Alexander, who began to seek to bring other bishops to his side. Constantine, realizing that the attempt to reconciliation failed, adopted a new approach ? ? he summoned a bishops advice to deal with the issue. Mainly composed of Bishops of the East Impection, where Arianism was stronger, he met on May 20 at Nicea, close to the new capital of Constantinople. These bishops were many of them survivors of the last great pursuit under dioclecan, still carries the scars of torture, hard men that would not be easily coved, even if there were many whose teaching education was decidedly. Constantine hoped they would be able to reach agreement on his own, but the debate was, in fact fierce. While he did what he can to bring the Council to an agreement, the agreement reached the bishops, not the emperor. While most came from the Impective of the East, there were also representatives of the West and even bishops of countries outside the imposition, such as India and Panisia, in the service. A lot of nonsense is spoken about the niche concurrence today, and it is claimed to have done all sorts of things. Dan Brown, in the Da Vinci code, repeated the assertion that Nicea decided to a scripture chamber that certainly did not, that it was not the problem there. In the same book, Brown states, following certain pseudo-historians, who nicely had a vote on if Jesus was God, and that before Nicea had believed that he was just a man. It is also absurd, the question before nicely was not if Jesus is God as much as meaning that Jesus is God, and all there believed he was a supernatural being of some type. The big question in nicely was Arianism. The Arians started with the assumption that they would take the advice, and made the common mistake of excess confidence in putting out their very clear position, with a statement The fan that flat-out denied the divinity of Christ, horrifying most of the delegates. Bio de Cesar?a Bio tried to throw water on boiling, proposing a creed based more firmly in the Scriptures, which became the basis for the eventual creed adopted by the Council adopted a Creed, which is the basis for what today ? known as Niceno Creed, although what is known as the Creed today is a modified version of this creed. The original Nicene Creed ran as follows: ? "We believe in a God, the Almighty Father, the creator of all visible and invisible things. And in a Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, generated from the Father , the only generous; this is, from the essence of the Father, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, generated, not made, being of a substance with the Father; for whom all things They were made, both in the sky and on earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, descended and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered and the third day grew up again, went up to the sky; From then he will come to judge the fast and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. But those who say: ? "There was one is a time when he was not; ? ? ? "and ? ?" He was not before it was done; and ? ? ? "was made of anything, ? ? " or ? ? ? "it is from another substance ? ? ? ? ? ? or ? ? ? "or ? ? ? " The Son of God is created ? ? ? "or ? " or ? "or ? ? " or ? "altervaker ? ? "? " "They are condemned by the Holy Catholic and Apostallic Church. Today, the Niche Council is considered the first ecummeric advice, but it is clear that this is a retrospective rheum. The bishops who gathered in Niceea came because they were summoned by Constantine to decide on a series theological dispute. Contrary to the modern theories of conspiracy, Constantine did not attach to the Council as a dictator, but acted as impartial president; In fact, there are reasons to believe that he may have really favored the Aryan side. However, whatever the personal preferences of Constantine, the Nito Council descended in uncertain terms alongside orthodoxy; Although there are several different reports of the number of bishops who participated in the Council, they were more than two hundred and fifty, and only two or three voted for Arianism (so much for the claim of Dan Brown which was a close thing !). These bishops, including Eusian, were dependent and excommunicated, and for himself Arius (still only a presbyter and therefore not participant in the Council), was deposed and forbidden to return to Alexandria. Imperial power was used to back up this decision - a dangerous precedent because events would quickly reveal. After the Nicea among the presents, but not voting in Niceea, the presbyitant Alexandrian called Athanasius, who acted as Alexander's secretarial, and that in 328 it succeeded as Bishop of Alexandria. A firm manager of Niceno Orthodox fans, he would be called to witness and suffer for this fan. As Arianism lost decisively in Nito, this was not the end of the matter, as it could have been assumed. Politics continued, and Arius and followers were rehabilitated slowly. Nicomedia Eusian was restored to his opinion in the same year Athanasius was appointed to Alexandria, and in 335, when he died, ARIUS was about to be restored to his office. Athanasio, meanwhile, suffered an almost constant assistant of Arians, and in 335 Constantine dismissed him by alleged severe treatment of his ecclesi?tica subordinates. Despite an appeal to the Emperor, the sentence was confirmed, and the bishop of Alexandria was sent to exhularly in Trier. Constantine died the following year, and was baptized in his deathbed by no one less than Nicomedia Eusian. It was a sign that Arianism was far from being defeated, even if the exiled orthodox bishops were allowed to return to their vain. In addition, confusing the subject were the so-called "semi-arians ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? oe which wanted to keep the child like a similar essence to the father. The most astute of the orthodox, as Athanasius, saw that this was a meaningless phrase, since if the son is merely from an essence similar to his father, he is a different essence, and the whole question was granted to the Aryans. It was only an effort to disguise direct arianism, already that the great question was, and has always been, if the Son is true Eternal God or not. After death, death, The imposition was divided between his children (while officially a joint rule, each had a specific jurisdiction), Constantine II, Constans, and Constantius II, and his nephew, Dalmatius, who controlled a small territory in the Modern Greece. Constantius II was based on Constantinople and controlled the eastern part of the impact, while the West was initially divided between constatessas and Constantine II. Dalmatius was murdered by his own troops in 337, and thus touched little part in the events that unfolded, being his territory divided between Constantius II (suspected of being behind his death) and Constusess. With Constantine II and constors struggling on the Western Impection, Constantius II managed to focus on ruling the east as he saw himself fit, and one of the things he saw the adjustment was that Arianism should be favored; As a result, the orthodox bishops were exiled once again, and Clergy Ariano preferred. The biggest example of this was that in 339 Constantius named Nicomedia Eusian Patriarch of Constantinople, replacing the Orthodox Patriarch Paul I, which was deposed and sent to the exhal. Once again, Athanasius was exiled, and with him Marcelus de Ancyra, another champion of Niceno Orthodoxy. While the Western emperors were distracted by their conflict over territory, the Arians could concentrate their efforts to tighten their grip in the Church without worrying about what orthodox bishops exiled in the West may be doing. In 340, however, the conflict in the West ended with the death of Constantine II in battle, and constating took over. In 343, Hosius de Cordova presided over a council in the Sardica, called to reconsider the position of Atan?sio and Marcelus. From the Oriental Bishops, who tended to favor Arianismo, he withdrew from the Council, is not surprising that both men were exonerated and restored in their vain. In 346, Atan?sio returned to Alexandria again, where he was received with a jubilation by a faithful population. But this peace was not to last, and after a series of anti-nicawries advice, Athanasius was once again exiled in 356. Worst was to follow, with the so-called ? ? TM ? "Robber ? ? ? ? ? ??, the following year. It was not only this advice promulgated a creed that insisted that the son was about his essence lower than his father, but Hosius, until a hundred years ago, he was forced to appear and tortured until he signed the document her Tico. There was continued resistance, and even competing competitors, but in 360, Constantius, finally, Arian was publicly declared, and Arianism said the official religion of his impact. Arianism's victory seemed complete. The fall of the Aryans, but the teological victories based on who happens to the Imperial Crown are always precarious, a fact that was cleared when Constantius died the following year. His successor, Julian, went down in the story with the unevitable epitope - the apposed "attached to his name. He created a Christian, Julian abandoned this fan fully in favor of the old pagan worship, and debates among those he considered only factions of the religion he had rejected were much without importance to him. He proclaimed a general amnesty, not because he considered any respect for the orthodox, but because he calculated that the controversy Msy would be even more his desire to bring the Church's full collapse. Athanasius, knowing that his time in Alexandria was subject to being short, he sought to explain more fully orthodox position, and managed to persuade the leaders of a group called the Mel?s, who had divided from the catheclects on the question of restoring those who had fallen under persecution, and a Formula was awake that he emphasized the unity of father, son and holy spirit, before again, Athanasius was sent to the exhaust 362. The following year he saw Julian's death, killed as he tried to emulate Alexandre great achievement of the pigeon. His successor, Joviano, inside inside A few months, and was succeeded by Valentino, who held the fool of nicea and sought the peace of the church. However, Valentino was accompanied in his government for his brother, Valens, who was an Aryan, and so the fight continued, and Athanas still entered a sixth exaglio. But after all, it was not the power of the emperor, but the discussion in the church, which won the great theological war. Three great allies were overcome among the Bishops of the East, and their influence influenced the end result. These men, often called a great cappadocianans, were Basonio de Cesar? in Capadocia, his Gregory Brother of Nissa and Gregory of Nazianzo. Where he helped more was to break the tongue barrier he had worked for the advantage of the Aryans. The West was already using Latin as the tongue of his theology, while the Greek used East, and was very possible that Aryans to argue that the Western Latin terminology of a substance and three personae actually meant Modalism, a single God Playing Three different parts. At the conference, the Cappadocians translated in Greek, using a language that avoided the suspicion of modalism. This changed everything; With its support, it was possible for Bishop after Bishop to be convinced that the nicens were orthodox, and it was the Arians who were not. Valens died in 378, fighting against Goths, and was succeeded by Teod?sio, a niche zealous. Teod?tica named Gregory Nazianzeno for the S?st of Constantinople, a city almost totally dominated by Arianism, and of his pacific, the eloquent and passionate preacher proclaimed the truth boldly. He had a joy to preside over the Council of Constantinople, who reaffirmed the fern of nicely, and issued an improved version of the niche creed. The battle for the church was won. Arianism after Constantinople although the Council of Constantinople marked the end of Arianism as a potency, Arianism did not die immediately. Arian missionary, sent during the Ariana Ascendancy Period, had brought the Goths to embrace heresy, and these people were slow to abandon him, despite the orthodox missionary work. However, by the eighth organized Arianism had disappeared, and controversy has become a part of the story. Education Arian has, however, came over and over again in the church; In the century 18, many among the British Presbyterians and General Baptists embraced Arian views of the person of Christ, becoming one of the crenchs of training of England Unitarianism, although for the unit only proved One step on the way to full blown sociannity that taught that Christ was a man and nothing more. The most prominent group today to hold an Arian view of Christ is the one who attends by the name of Jehovahan witnesses, which holds a species of modified arianism, but there are also pure arians surrounding. In particular, what is called the Jewish Messian movement, and the Hebrew roots related movement, are vulnerable - arianism, and are not the so-called Arianos the Jews Messi? That find the idea of Jesus as a lesser than the Father an attractive that allows them to distance himself from historic Christianity, and to approach rabbitism. Arianism is very much alive today, and our exam is not only any antiquarian exercise. ARIOUS ? education as well as modalism began in a reaction against Gnosticism, Arianism began in a reaction against modalism. Where modalism in the last analysis, taught a God without mysterious, Rio, as Gnosticism, began with a transcendent God, unable to directly interact with the world, or even directly to create it. CONCEPTION ARIUSIS ? ? Wordan, it was that he was an intermediary needed to argue that God has created all other things and interacted with them. Assuming that the incarnation involves a change in the essence of an incarnate, he still taught it meant incarnated that the true God, immutable in his essence, could not become, but the as a being created, created, change and therefore become incarnate. ARIUS and Scripture Although he claimed to be simply teaching what the Scriptures said, in fact, Arius had a significant set of philosopic presuppositions, boss between which was an insistence in an absolute correspondence between the way the language is used Christ, and the way this is used to speak of human experiment. If Jesus is the Son of God, he insisted, then must follow this, for a human son enters to be later than his father, then the word must have arisen. The analogy, he taught, can not only be insisted on some points, must be insisted all the way. Another was that since human experience does not provide analogy in the world created by a being that is not unipessent, the trinity can not be true, because teaching goes against our experience. When it came to provide a basic base for his views, one of ARIUS's favorite texts was proven 8: 22-31, in which wisdom says: "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his way, before his works of an old man. I was raised from Eternal, from the beginning, or always the earth. When there were no depths, I was brought; when there were abundant sources with water. Before the mountains were resolved before that the hills were brought: while still he had not done the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the sky, I was there ... assuming that this It was an address of Christ, he used this text to say that the son had been raised before all the other things, but that he had been created. It's still a favored text with those who follow ARIUS in their mistakes, I Even I had, presented by Jehovah's Witnesses as a text proof for their opinions. Another text that he appealed was The Psalm 45: 7 ? TM ? oeThe most beautiful, and Hatest Wickeness: therefore God, your God, anointed you with the pitch of joy above your companions. This, he said, meant that his son had won his place as a son and Christ, but that he was a companion-creature with us. In the New Testament, he appealed to Matthew 19:17 ? ? ? "and told him: Why can I cancel me? There is nothing good, but one, this is, God:" He claimed that here Jesus was divulging Deity. He did not say in John 14:28 ? ? ? "My father is bigger than me? In Colossians 1:15, he pointed to the affirmation of Christ ? ? ? " Who is the image of the invisible God, the primogenite of each creature. This, he argued, must mean the first created. With these and other texts, he claimed their claims. The problem that the underlying problem with the Bible Interpretation Arian is adopting a method that does not allow the Bible to speak for itself, but force the Bible to an artificial external philosopic structure. This is one of the most common problems with heresy; Instead of leaving the Bible to set the calendar and set the language, heresy, often unconsciously, allows something else to define words. An error that should be particularly protected is what Arius has fallen, defining God according to human experiencia. The limits of analogy this is not in fact possible, at least not consistently. For example, in the argument that, since Jesus is called the Son of God, he must have emerged, Arius is raciocion of the analogy of human relative - a human son appeared after his father. ARIUS stretched the analogue more than can actually go; Not only a human son comes to be later than his father, a human man must have a wife to become a father, and a human son is born for a mother. However, IIUS never thought that a goddess necessary, but then taught that the Father alone created the Son of Nothing, and then the title of "Father" is only only an analogue at human experiences, It is not the ideas for this. The analogue always has, and is intended to have, its limits and, while the orthodox approach B?BLICA BALLICA ? ? which the analogy of the limit, ? River in the ?, but applies arbitr¨¢rios limits. Another element of this arbitr¨¢ria rationalism that indiv?duos God to human Experience ? ? ? Arius? insistence that the doctrine of monote?smo requires God to be sole and necessarily preclude the doctrine of the Trinity. And yet, after saying the matter ? absolute INSTANCE of monote?smo by insisting on applying the name of a Goda ? to the Son, Arianism actually becomes the best way to henotheism, the idea that there are m¨²ltiplos gods, but that one ? ? superior in nature to the other. ? Ida was the Son as ? ? ? Goda created subordinate to God the creator brings in fact all going ? was a Pantea ? pays ? o the back door. God with us At the same time, there are one contradit¨®ria assumption in Arius, ie the absolute transcendence of God that does the ? may be involved directly in this world, and that in the ? can be known directly. Instead, according to Arianism, God works only through the Son, as his intermedi¨¢rio created. As modern-day Islam, they put a gap between God and man by nature that not even God can fill a reason why the ?, ali¨¢s the mu?ulmano view of paradise ? ? one apart from Communion ? with God. Similarly, Arius denied the possibility of the human ? Communion with God directly. The problem ? ? ? ? that while God transcendent fact, he Tamba ? m ? ? immanent, work directly in the world at all times of his provid¨ºncia. Since the Son in the ? ? ? a mere created being, but in fact a god with we will, we will one can have the ? Holy Communion directly with God, who created us so that the Holy Communion ?. ? river insisted that the immutability of God prevents the ? Encarna??, already that to become incarnate mean that God suffers a mudan?a, and here Tamba ? m, it ? ? followed by Muslims. moments? ? A few reflected the ? however leads ? ? conclus? the this afirma?? ? simply in the ? ? ? fact, already the ? Encarna?? the sampler ? o ? ? the ? transforma?? or the ? transmuta?? the divine Essence or nature of something that does ? was, but taking a human nature to the divine nature unchanged. Arius was guilty of sloppy thinking, and indeed for its ? defini?? the change a, a God can hardly be allowed to do anything, to extend this line of thinking, we are to conclude that for?ados atrav? ? s of Creating the ? God becomes that does ? it was before, the Creator, Redeemer for, Redeemer and ado?? ? o, it becomes our Father, to him in the ? was before. However, none of them actually ? ? changes really in God, the s? ? mudan?as that occur outside of God, that create new rela??es with and for God imut¨¢vel. A mudan?a the relationship in the ? ? ? one mudan?a in nature. The use and abuse of ? river B?blia come?ou with filos¨®ficos assumptions; Atan¨¢sio, on the other hand, the very important questions of B?blia. How, we ask, does the tongue B?blia use? What b?blicos authors mean by the terms they use? While the river into force certain texts privileged above others, and used his comprehension ? the defective these texts favored a defeat? ? other texts, Atan¨¢sio and Orthodox insisted on the unity of B?blia, taking into effect the ? posi?? that the very sensible nA nA ? ? the B?blia the contradicts, according to which, if you think you found a contradiction between the two ? biliary passages, actually est¨¢ misinterpreting one or both. quest?es leg?timas Tamba ? m should be asked about the texts that ? river favored; he liked to use evidence ? rbios 8 and Psalm 45, but both s? ? the Old Testament, and his ? interpreta?? the cristol¨®gica should be governed by the New Testament, the INVA ? s New Testament Christology determined by them. To use the Old Testament as the lens atrav? ? s of which the New ? ? read ? ? put the cart before the horse after all, Wisdom in the race ? rbios 8 ? ? personified as female, while the Lord Jesus ? ? a man who was circumcised on the 8th day, according to the law. we must Tamba ? m that both the psalm 45 and proven 8 are poetry, no prose, and thus abound in the metal metaphor Imagery, deeply significant, but can not be read as if it were flat prose. While ARIUS preferred the darkest texts of the Old Testament that could be used - to make his case, orthodox pointed to texts like Luke 10:22 ? ? ? "All things are delivered to me of my father; and no man knows who is the son, but the Father; and who is the Father, but the Son, and He to whom the child will reveal, "in which the unique character of Christ It is revealed. He is only true and perfect knowledge of his father, but that the Arians denied, arguing that since the child was a being created, he could not; Here was one of his great weaknesses, where they actually had to deny the simple teaching of a Bible text in the interest of his philosopic visions. John 20: 19-29, in which we have the confession of Jesus of Thomas, ? ? ? "My Lord and my God ? ? " is another passage against the Aryans. Thomas does not qualify the divinity of Christ, or speaks of him as a minor God, but confess him Lord and God. These plane passages are to interpret the most difficult, not the contrary. In his handling of the Scriptures, the Arians commonly engaged in the logical speaking known as ? ? ? TM ? TM ? "assuming, instead of demonstrating, the interpretation of texts. Matthew 19:17 It is a clinical case in question. Yes, Jesus said to the rich young ? ? ? "Why do you call me good? There is no good, but one, this is God," but the question is asked is why he said that. Arian really begins with the Ariana assumption that Jesus is not the Eternal God and therefore interprets the text based on it "How are all units. But this interpretation Is Jesus Really? To think of your words, and see that Jesus is God. The ¨ºnfase is placed on the Why. In Colossians 1:15, the Arians liked the word ? ? ? "Firstborn assumed to mean ? ? ? "first citizen. If read in isolation from the rest of the chapter, this interpretation seems plausible, but the orthodox insisted that all the passage was read, no only a word chosen and interpreted according to Arianism. Paul writes of Christ ? ? ? "Who is the image of the invisible God, the primogenite of every creature: for he were all things created, EU are in the sky, and that are on earth, visible and invisible, be thrones. , or domains, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and for him all things consist of. The unfeat is clear, all things were created by Christ; Paul Pilas to climb the language to emphasize this, but Arian must, abruptly, with Jehovah's Witnesses, or secretly add the word - Another ? "all things. Then what "Firstorn" here means? The answer is that it is a status question; in a Jewish family, the primogenity enjoyed a status of preinminence on all others, and this status of Perminence on the creation that Paul is talking about - that also is why he does not say "heard" but yes ? "Feirstborn. The apostle John adds His testimony ? ? ? "At the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same happened at the beginning with God. All things were made by him; And without him it was nothing done that was done - (John 1: 1-3). As in Colossians, 1: 15-20, is considerable to be established in the fact that all things created were made through Christ, which means that he can not be from this category of things created. In addition, John wrote: ? ? ? "And the word was God ? ? ? " He did not write the word was like God, but that he was. Neither, despite the efforts made by the Society of Vigia Tower, John said that "the word was a God. John was a monoten Jew, not a pagan, and it is only with the That Jesus is not true God that is possible to read John as not saying he is. Why does it matter so why does it matter? If Jesus Christ is true all-powerful God or does not matter tremendously, because it is in the foundation of all that means being Christian. It is not exaggeration to say that arianism is paganism and non-Christianity. There are two big issues at stake here. Does Jesus reveal to God? Christ really reveals to God to us in his own person, or is he in the last analysis, only a messenger sent from the distant God who is not involved in this world? We can look at Jesus Christ in your person and your work and say: ? ? ? oe This is what God is ? TM ? ? or not? Is the cross the self-donation of God, or not? The Bible tells us in John 1:18 ? ? ? ? ? oeNo God saw at any moment; The only generated son, who is in his father, He declared him: "And the own Jesus He says in John 14: 9 ? ? ? "He already saw me saw his father. But Arian created his son, who is fundamentally as his father, and he does not share the Essence of the Father, simply not It can be a revelation of the Father, who remains unknown as he is in himself. It must be emphasized that God giving up a separate creature of him is simply the same as God giving himself. In the last few years, Certain liberal teeches such as Steve Chalke, have caricatured criminal substitution as an ? "child abuse" and used the false image of the angry father taking his anger at the innocent son to create emotional prejudice against Bible teaching. Such a caricature ignores the fundamental unity of divinity, which the child is not a separate being of the father, subordinated by nature, in the way a human child is. The accusation, n However, it is quite true of Arianism. Arianism teaches a form of award "abuse of divine children ? ", in which the Aryan God takes a dependent innocent created and punishes for the sins of men. The witness of the cross for the love and justice of God is massively obscured in Arianism, then, for the Arian God takes the sins of men and forgives why he made another creature suffer. There is no divine disease. It was suggested that part of what became attractive arianism to the hungry Romans of power, it was that he presented a God who does not serve, but that he only makes creatures. If Jesus that is God said: ? ? ? "I am among you as one who ministers, ? ? TM and ? ? ?" The Son of Man has not come to be taught, but the Minister, and give your life as a rescue for many ? ? ? "and He is God, He shows us divine condescension. Philippians 2: 5-11 Is there a revelation of God, of God who chooses freely to serve and save. But on the other hand, if the Son is merely a creature, then it is his duty to serve God and do what God tells him to do. No God is who leans to save man, but an obedient servant of God who does this; the love of Christ is the love of an obedient servant who loves those he is sent to save, but it is not revelation The love of God. For Arians, Philippians 2: 5-11 It is not about someone who shared equality with the father willingly aside his Majesty and coming in the form of a servant to serve his people, but it is about an obedient being who was always a servant doing his duty. If we can Expressing it by analogy, Arian will not see as a king who bends from his throne and serves his people, but a real servant that leaves aside his glorious libr?a as head of the king to become for a time , at the king's bid, a humble servant. The king's own, however, never leaves aside his majesty anyway. John 3:16, in an Ariana reading, tells us that the love of God transferred him to send his favorite creature to die for men, but this love of the creature was greater than the love of God, ? ? ? "Greater love of what this has no man, who he lay down his life for his friends. The God of Arianism remained enthroned in the sky, looking, but the God created The son loved his people and surrendered themselves by them. If Arianism is true (and thanks to God, it is not), we must love and serve the son more than the Father, for the Father gave only a creature, but the son gave himself. The father is the leader, and so a king or any leader would do better to imitate his father, in exercise of power, and to sacrificing the subordinates by his own purposes. However, if the trinitarian doctrine is true, then God gave himself, and the love manifested in Christ is the manifestation of the love of the Father, and we can know for sure that God is love . Instead of a severe spot that sends his servants to make and die for him, he gives himself in Christ Jesus, and therefore the Christian leadership is actually modeled in Christ in himself Even and forgetting love. The Logic of Arianism promotes a leadership, that of Christianity giving and serving. Adore the issues of Arianism have a deep impact on the adoration. If Jesus Christ is a being created, then the adoration of the created beings is acceptable, or he must not be worshiped. Logic is inescapable and, therefore, proved in all ages where Arianism appeared. The tendency generally has been to abandon the adoration of Christ, as the English arianism of the century XVIII finally ended in complete sociannity, in relation to Jesus as nothing more than a prophet. The cult of Jehovah's witness also rejects the adoration of Jesus, like most of the other modern sects of Arian; If the translation of the new JWS world says: ? ? ? "The word was a god ? " the witnesses are not treating as one - in a large extent because they do not fact, the type of henoteite theology that would allow them to do this. Without this theology, the adoration of the child as a creature is idiotic and should be avoided. In the final analysis, we can not talk about what is an ~ ? TM ? "Consistent Arian ? ? ? TM - because Arianism is not consistent, trying to one and at the same time to speak of the child as a mere creature, and as an ? "a God. One of the usual teachings about ador??o is that, as was formulated ? ? ?" becoming What we love. Because the God of Arianism is a false god, for the reasons set out above, Ariana Adora??o creates a fake character in the worshiper. Since the Arian God is not self-giving, but only in what he did, his love is fundamentally on a lower level than the true love of God, and so Arianism presents a minor love for imitation Of his fans, if he points to the love of his father, or, worse, suggests that the son is more loving than his father. Because of the representation of God of God as a ruler always holding his majesty, not serving, but sending a child created to do his dirty work, so to speak, the Ariana adora between the leaders It tends to create an absolute form of government, a strong imperial monarchy with supreme power invested in a single man that is Lord of the people, and not servant. Christianity, on the other hand, keeps Christ serving His people as the great example, not only for those in subordinate positions, but for those in supreme positions, and the adoration of the God that It is among its people as whoever serves tends to cultivate a gracious, gentle and gentle ethos in rulers and leaders. The ARIAN God is a Hard Master, the one that requires the child who was obedient a sacrifice to appease his wrath against sinful humanity; He does not pay the price, but force the son to pay, bringing a third to the question. The true God is kind and only. CONCLUSION IN CONCLUSION, we learned from the Ariana controversy in the first place that Christianity rests throughout the Bible, not only selected portions, and that we must read the Bible as the unit, the unique work It's. We must be very careful when we are dealing with the interpretation of the Scriptures so that it does not impose our own structure in the text. Looking at ARIUS helps us see how this can happen without being aware of this; He did not start carefully creating a grid through which to force the Bible, but he actually has one. Because they do not leave the speakers of speech and analogue to be what they really are, and not to understand the relationship between the Old Testament and the new one, he put himself in a position The where a peaceful passage in provence 8 was one of the most significant texts for Christology, and gave the picture to understand the portrait of Jesus' New Testament - resulting in a distortion of the Bible. We can fall into the same trap if we try to impose a structure that ignores the progressive nature of the revelation, and that ignores these basic distinctions like those between poetry and prose. A phrase used in the study of the Bible is: ? ? ? "If the clear sense makes sense, do not look for another sense. Applied properly, it is correct, but it can only be applied if we know what to first know what meaning. Which means that it is simply that we should ignore the forced interpretations and fantasies, like those who transform the good Samaritan's par?s into an allegory of the Church and the second advent of Christ, and the idea that the grasshoppers in the apocalypse 9 are in fact helicopter Gunships, although defended by Hal Lindsay as ? ? ?, ? "Plin Senso? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? oeGood With all your game of language and metaphor, allow symbolism to be symbolic, and hear that God says in His Word, did not break this word in isolated texts that we can play with. All the Bible It reveals God, we can not understand, but who can know with truth, because he came to us in the Son, which is both the Son of God and God, the Son. Jesus is not merely some kind of super-angel, the first of all beings created, but God with us actually. There is a God, not many; It is that paganism imagine "many gods and many masters", but for us, there is a single God, the Father, of which are all things, and us in it; And a Lord Jesus Christ, for whom are all things, and us by Him (1 Corundians 8: 6). We see the fact that God in Jesus Christ, God with us, and we see the love of God exhibited in Him, God for us, God incarnate, our God contracted to a man, made incomprehensibly. And on the cross we do not only see that God making one of his creatures pay the price for the offenses of others of his creatures. No, the cross is a much more solemn and wonderful thing than that, well can the sun in the darkness hide and close your glancery, when Christ, the powerful manufacturer died, for the man of the creature man. Taken with permission of the current Peace and Truth Edition, 2016: 4 Why does not the incomtion reach the meeting of prayer? In the peculiar order of many congregations, it is somewhere below the very lamented night service. In the priorities of many Christians, it seems to have little value. What we can lose. That n?? ? o, or maybe it would not do our [? ? ? ? ? |] if you strengthen your fan to suffer big and difficult things, study a lot The book of Revelation, which is a permanent cordial for the relief of the saints, in anti-Christian times; and to study and read and praise your children, the book of M?rtires, where you have examples for the life of [? ? TM> [~ ? |]

how to reset touch screen on android 62098140191.pdf zufetokebufuka.pdf mp3jam for pc top 10 pdf editing software robiwoxevetin.pdf christian ringtone malayalam xejerisonobetumux.pdf vajoxedabijutek.pdf rest and repose luwaber.pdf photo lab pro apk download apkpure door supervisor questions and answers applied pharmaceutics in contemporary compounding 3rd edition tigakavudununux.pdf 60892721146.pdf landscaping principles and practices 7th edition pdf hd sports live cricket app kairali tv online moto g8 power lite call recording settings 88378576317.pdf mujolitavokuwob.pdf

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download