Sarah Kanary wrote:
>  wrote in message
> news:crgsut$o7v$1{at}nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net...

First off, I really don't wish to protract this thread, esp now that we
are entering into more of a Christological subject.

Second, I find it most interesting what you have choosen not to reply
to.
>
> >
> >> And lying has no 'degrees'.
> >
> > Sure it does.  What about Rahab's lie?
> >
only silence
>
> > What was the point being made?  Why did I mention Christ's
conversation
> > with Nicodemus?  Jn 3:12.   What is the principle?  The principle
is
> > that if you cannot provide an answer to the little things like the
> > constructs of the universe, then why should we believe you when you
> > speak of the greater thing, the Constructor of the universe?
>
> When did the topic of this conversation become "the constructs of the

> universe" and who is "we"?
>
That was the point.  Didn't you understand that.  Rom 1 clearly teaches
that the constructs of the universe are a true reflection of its
Creator.  So much so, in fact, that judgment will come in regards to
its revelatory nature.  The principle of Jn 3:12 is not a NT principle.
It was a principle established by God Himself before creation ever
took place.   They "constructs of the universe" clearly reflect a unity
within the diversity.  This is everywhere evident.  It is evident in
the physics of the universe, this is evident in society of man.  How do
you explain this if there is no diversity within the Godhead.  Which
brings us to you unexplainable next point......
>
> Btw, Arius believed Christ to be God.  Jehovah's Witnesses do *not*.
>
Obviously you have never read any of his letters.  "We acknowledge one
God, Who is alone ingenerate, alone eternal, alone without beginning,
alone true, alone possessing immortality, alone wise, alone good, alone
sovereign, alone judge of all, etc."  This he wrote in a letter to the
Bishop of Alexander.  If you, who detests theology, cannot understand
what he is attesting to, let me spell it out for you.  He is
theologically expressing the idea that because God is unique,
transcendent, indivisible, immutable, the thought of the being or
essense of the Godhead being shared or communicated is beyond the
question.  God, being solely one, that is, only of one person, the
Father, He cannot share any substance with another, which would imply
divisiblity according to his thinking.  He reacts against any such
thought as implicating duality which would betray His unique nature.

Arius and his followers held that the Logos (a term he argued was an
incorrect title) must have been created by God Himself.  And like JW's,
he understood "begat", (gennan) as applied to the Logos' generation, to
be purely figurative and to mean "make" (poiein).  Thus his conclusion
was that to suggest that the Logos was an extension or an emanation rom
or a consubstantial portion of the Father was to reduce the Godhead to
purely physical categories (read Athanasius, de syn. 16)

But this is typical of you Sarah.  Of you and other JW's who are by
nature revisionist.  Kelly writes:

"The Arians' denial of His divinity, for example, was closely connected
with, and may have been a corollary of, their preconcieved ideas about
the union of the Word with the human element in Christ."  (p. 280)

"Preconceived," as Kelly puts it, "presuppositional" as
I term it.
Either way, your are predisposed in your inclination when coming to the
pertainent passages of scripture which teach that Jesus was Deity by
nature.

Again, you have no answer for the implication of Heb 1:3.  How could
the Logos "exactly represent" God, who is by nature, infinite, if He
Himself is not infinite?  This goes against all the laws of the natural
universe.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics establishes the fact that the
lower power cannot ascend to the higher power of its own accord.
Mathematics establishes the fact that a finite number can never truly
transcend into infinity.  I've stated this sociologically in the
ethical dilemma of absolute law where if we have every human being who
ever lived believing murder was wrong, that such a belief does not
establish a transcendental ethich, but rather a sociological
statistical average.  Finity can NEVER produce infinity.  Infinity can
cloak itself but finity can never, even temporarily, pretend to
represent exactly infinity.

Absolute singularity of persons in the Godhead simply doesn't reflect
the design of the universe, which as initially pointed out, is a
divinely established standard by which judgment of the creature is
based.

You have no answer for such things.  Your theology is an airplane
without wings.  That it does not conform to what is, it cannot fly,
therefore it is a lie.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/9/05 10:39:23 AM