Yellum Notnef

Of course you do. You both think Jesus is the bees knees although you couldn't disagree more about who or what he was.

No Robots

I do recognize that Trinitarianism is a distorted version of a profound truth:

At the bottom of superstition's most ridiculous dispute over Monarchianism or Hypostasianism (the One God or the Three Gods, Father, Son and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father) there lies the profound truth that no one knows the Father (the Cogitant) except the Son and he to whom the Son reveals it by the Holy Spirit. Translated into our language this means that even the spiritually receptive person "whom the Father draws" has need of the productive genius.--Constantin Brunner / Our Christ, p. 339.

dog-on

Nah, it means that the Hebrews only knew the demiurge, unless Moses was a liar...

No Robots

I don't know what you're on about, but since you mention Moses and his understanding of God:

Jahveh ehad, cried Moses: "Hear O Israel, Being is our God, Being is One" (Deut. 6:4).

Yet this quotation provides precisely the historically monstrous example of how Israel hears and how the truth is straightway transformed into superstition in Israel's ears. For this magnificent saying is at once a hymn of exultation and a wrathful protest against idol worship of any kind; but despite this protest, it now signifies—in the conception of Israel, the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Israel—the well-enough known, imbecilically wrong translation: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our god is the only God!" (Brunner, Spinoza gegen Kant, page 43). Moses said that thou shalt not make unto thee any image of this Jahveh, no imagination of it, i.e., it is that which cannot be thought as things are thought, as if it had the same sort of being as things—I am that I am (Ex. 3:14)! Jahveh, Being, is the term for the wholly abstract spiritual; it has no relation to the relative world. By Jahveh, the wholly great is meant. It means the same thing as Spinoza does in his great—his absolutely great expression, Ens constans infinitis attributis (Absolute Being with infinite attributes.) And Jahveh Tsebaot, Jahveh of infinite powers, is nothing but the mystical expression of the same thing as is expressed philosophically by Ens constans infinitis attributis. The whole tremendous concern of Judaism lies in this phrase Jahveh ehad [Ehad=one and only. Pronunciation; with a gutteral 'kh', accent on the second syllable], in that single word Jahveh, which was ultimately forbidden even to be pronounced, and to pronounce which was a deadly sin. The mystical primordial character of Judaism—so naturally mystical that the Jews, in spite of their having made Jahvism into religion, never established a mythology, even while their Jahveh always remained exalted as God over every god of other religions, so that other ancient civilizations did not recognize him as a god, and said the Jews were without religion and atheistic—the mystical primordial character of Judaism expressed itself in this, its ineffable holy word.—Constantin Brunner / Our Christ, p. 157-8.

JoeWallack

JW:
Yes and unlike Calvin, Servetus was related to Jesus.


Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

avi

Sorry, I am so stupid. I don't understand.
Is it a joke? It is awful to be so dense.

Servetus was a real person, murdered by the Protestants in a grotesque, inhumane fashion, but he would have been gladly executed in the same beastly manner by the Catholics, the Muslims, or the Jews, had they been given the opportunity, for Servetus' religious convictions were in conflict with all of the major western religious groups of his era.

Jesus, whose genome is unknown, since his very existence is unknown (therefore, one obviously does not know whether Servetus is genetically related to the myth or not,) was also, by tradition, tortured and executed unfairly, at least according to legend. Was that the implication of your suggestion, Joe? In such a case, we could rather assign the name of Spartacus, another real person, instead of Jesus, a mythical creature....

Or, was your statement focused rather on Calvin? Were you seeking to highlight Calvin's enormous hypocrisy, and that of all the Protestant "true believers", including Martin Luther, who personally sanctioned Servetus' execution for supposed heresy.

Were you attempting, obliquely, to herd all the Christians, of all denominations, into the same pen, where they could then shout amongst one another, while milling about, demanding blood, and attacking whoever happened to be most accessible, not unlike the ancient jews, murdering as many non-jews as possible?

Sorry, I just can't figure out what you mean by this sentence, unless you are juxtaposing a man of good faith, of honorable intentions, a man of compassion, who believes in justice, a man of empathy for the downtrodden, (Servetus, Spartacus, Tyndale) with a wealthy burgher (Calvin, Luther, the poope, & "Sir" thomas more) who cares only for his own family, his own canton, his own village, and to hell, quite literally, for anyone challenging the status quo...

Tristan Scott

So what's the difference between all of this and Unitarianism?

Toto

Unitarians honor Servetus but - Modern evangelicals who oppose this modern Servetus point out that his theology is close to Islam.

No Robots

Which is a far cop. After all, Islam is really just a kind of Unitarianism. In opposing Unitarianism, the Evangelicals have to disavow many of the founders of the United States:

I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian.--Thomas Jefferson

aa5874

This passage is really meaningless.

If Christ of the NT is discarded, then Christ was nothing. How can Christ be the Master after having rejected him?