As I said, I am happy to be called a heretic by a Trinitarian. It aligns you with the persecution of the faithful over the centuries by the RCC. Roman Catholics and the full range of different and opposing denominations also claim to be Christian.
Arianism, though persecuted, simply died out, from infighting. The fruit is either good or it is not.
No, I believe that Jesus is a unique human, a specially prepared man for the great work that he needed to accomplish Isaiah 11:1-5, and he is the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection.
Simply consider scripture:
I acknowledge Jesus says: John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and
to my God, and your God.
Okay, let's say with only this verse, like you, I'm an Arian such as yourself until I see something compelling to change my mind. The question is, do I?
Let's keep reading: John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
This is a very clear passage, so clear, any modern Greek will tell you it is exactly the right way to translate Greek into English with no variation.
If a Greek tells you that (and they all do), then you and I should pay attention, because any wiggle room is eliminated from the equation. The verse sets very clearly exactly as translated.
Okay, I thought for a moment I was Arian: Jesus said He had a God, and there can only be one God. Because my rational mind picks up on that, I can draw a conclusion BUT what if scripture itself says I am wrong? (it does). It means I have to entertain something different than 'my' rational mind is trying to make up. The problem with Arianism is that it is human rationalization, NOT scripture revelation. It may 'look' right, but clearly, if I follow, listen to, and obey scripture, I MUST entertain something else. That something else no Arian obeys. He/she rationalizes over and against further scripture revelation because he/she cannot 'rationalize' anything but what he or she thinks adds up in his or her mind. That is the problem of Arianism: It no longer seeks God in His revelation, but settles for what he/she wants to believe despite God saying something different. Read the verse in the very first post. It is rationally clear Paul is saying Jesus Christ is God. To dismiss this, is to dismiss based on 'intellectual preference' rather than scriptural evidence or God telling you something else. That is a deal-breaker. There is no rational discussion after someone says not only 'no' to me, but to the scriptures that say something different than what one chooses, stubbornly? to believe against His revelation. That's a huge problem, and one reason Arianism was persecuted. It was seen as it is: Willful stubbornness against scriptural givens nor desire to see anything else.
Jesus as the Son of God revealed God His Father.
John 14:8–11 (KJV): 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
Jesus is not revealing himself as God the Son, but as the Son of God he revealed the One God, Yahweh, God the Father, God His Father.
What do you do with John 8:58 with Jesus proclaiming He is Yahweh?
We could have a discussion of all the verses that would be used by Trinitarians and also those used by Unitarians and I suggest that most of these have been considered in other threads. I have also added a thread "The Yahweh Name" which is a major part of my understanding.
Psalm 8:4–6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
I suggest that Jesus is alluding to this, and uses the same type of language. God speaks in the past tense because of the surety of these things being fulfilled, and as such this would have been a great encouragement to Jesus in his sufferings.
He was human. He 'became' man. In order to 'become' anything, you either have to be none-existent or existent in some other form.
Philippians 2:6 "Being in very nature, God..." or Hebrews 1:3 "He is the EXACT representation of the Father..." And Jesus praying that we'd be One (not two) as He and the Father ARE one. I hear 'in purpose' all the time, but that is a rationalization, an add-on from a rationalization NOT found in the text to support a 'rationalized' idea rather than having a theology that represents the whole revelation of God. The fact is, we DO have scriptures that do not equivocate, that tell us plainly, somehow, Jesus is God. We HAVE these. To ignore them, imho, is a great sin. We reject revelation of God for our own pet ideas rather than seeking to glorify Him in His. His ideas are right. Ours? Should you and I be VERY careful proffering our ideas over and literally against scripture? Yes. Yes we should.
Romans 4:17 (KJV): 17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
Speaking of Abraham. What does it have to do with the discussion? Just pulling an idea to prop up your own idea? Wouldn't it be more godly to prop up His ideas? If your own ideas need propping, do you see a problem with it? Especially when it is twice removed from discussion?
