The Real John Milton
Well-known member
The saints don’t need help from a Hindu to tell us who the God of Israel is.
Next,
Next,
Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5
- Thread starter The Real John Milton
- Start date
If that is so, how come the Nestorian Jesus was evangelized to the whole continent of Asia for many hundreds of years? Perhaps the real Jesus thought the Nestorian Jesus wasn't nonsense.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
Your logic and your historical accuracy is as bad as your Jesus.
I don't think so. Nestorians evangelized Asia to the east coast of China long before Catholics ever set foot in the country. Even in the age of Ghengis Khan and Kublai Khan they were established in China and all over Asia. As for your logic, I've yet to see any. Dogmatizing that the Logos can't become flesh in opposition to the bible is rank heresy. Even your namesake, the original John Milton, is something of a nemesis for you, as controverting your errors.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
I am the “original John Milton.”
This is the original John Milton
John Milton - Wikipedia
and what should concern you is De Doctrina Christiana (1823), a Latin manuscript only belatedly published in 1825 in English entitled "Treatise on Christian Doctrine" in which he concedes that Jesus was the eternal Logos.
Last edited:
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
Lol, ok.. At Carm. I am the original JM. He was a JW btw., and is to be faulted for it.
JW didn't exist in his day.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
You know what I mean . What’s in a name ? Just like someone who believes that “God incarnated as a man” is a Hindu in all but name.
A lot is in a name. John Milton wasn't a socinian either. So many unitarians are socinians, which is a radical position that I deem incompatible with apostolic teaching and Jesus' words. You are evidently a socinian, which is incompatible with mainstream Christianity. John Milton attacked the philosophical trinity, not the biblical trinity. As such he still fell within what most would see as orthodoxy today: he just introduced subordination. Isaac Newton also cannot be regarded as a socinian from what he wrote, although his exact position is somewhat ambiguous due to censorship.
You don't appear to appreciate the radical extremism of your position: you should be called Fausto Sozzine.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
Who cares about John Milton’s philosoph, though I doubt very much he believed Jesus was God while on earth or even as you nonsensically believe, that he stopped being God while on earth.
My only concern is that the biblical Jesus was not God.
My only concern is that the biblical Jesus was not God.
Proving your concern is not in accord with what the Bible teaches.
Paul applies YHWH from Joel 3:5 (LXX) unto the Lord Jesus in Romans 10:13
Romans 10:8-14 (8) But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): (9) that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. (10) For with...
forums.carm.org
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
Not the bible but your itching ears have convinced you that Jesus is God.
You couldn't refute the information posted in the link. The above is the best you have - and it's awful.
Such is clearly not your only concern. Your primary concern is to maintain that Jesus was other than the redeeming Logos. This is misconceived ab initio.
Even if "God" is used in different ways in the NT, it is axiomatic that "God" can refer only to what is in heaven. So Jesus couldn't have been "God" in person. Yet he could still be the instrument by which the Father worked, both in heaven and on earth.
"For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself" 2 Cor 5:19 & "Through him God reconciled everything to himself" Col 1:20.
Nothing in the above suggests that Jesus couldn't have been the Logos in heaven as well as on earth (the agent of the power of the Father). Prior to his incarnation as the Son, the Logos was working his redeeming power in heaven. In Col 1:16. By "all things" is meant "everything invisible and visible" that tends to man's redemption, both before Christ's incarnation and after it. The Logos was the redeeming agent in heaven, working God's power, and then on earth.
But you Socinians have to effectively re-write the bible, carefully manipulating everything to reflect your misconceived position which diminishes both the Father and the Son, because it suggests his apostles were liars and that there was no redemption in the world prior to Christ, which is absurd. Paul concedes the universal redemptive intent of God in Acts 17:27 "God intended that they would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us."
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
However, it is an awkward listing, with God being in the middle. You would think it would be said dynamically, and primary.
And you simply break the connection with God and blessed.
However, I will note that you did try to come up with something for the apposition theory. Quite conjectural, no imperative involved.
If the text actually said that Christ and God are in apposition, then it should be accepted, it is not that way in my Authorized Version, which keeps the natural association of God and blessed
Romans 9:5 (AV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.
Amen.
No apposition!
Just to return to the OP.
if there is no apposition then Romans 9:5 is not a “Deity” verse.
It is axiomatic that "Christ" is not "God" in Pauline theology, but the "son of God" Rom 1:3,4, 2Co 1:19, Gal 2:20, Eph 4:13
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
I don’t respond to laziness,— to people who “argue” by “link.” You probably didn’t even read it.
The Real John Milton
Well-known member
What’s not clear about this ? If words have meaning, “ God” is not “son of God.”
No need to repeat the truth over and over to heretics who are going to deny it anyway.