Posted by A2 on 4/17/2001, 2:49 pm

Posted by Steve B. on 3/27/2001, 7:48 pm , in reply to "Fellowship with the glorified Son of man" A2, You ask Is Steve asserting that we are worshiping His human nature alone? Yes. I don't know who you include in the "we" here, but I am saying that Don's theology opened the door to the possibility that some would make the attempt to worship a Jesus that they thought could be worshipped “as humanity” alone, not that everyone who heard him necessarily did so, or wanted to. The best that can be said is that Don's teaching did not close the door firmly enough on the possibility that some might worship Jesus as man alone, and that when connections came many tumbled through the door he left imperfectly closed. (As I read through all of the notes I took in Bible college and in church services, I do in fact see that they are very inconsistent on what they mean by the two natures of Jesus. Sometimes they are said to refer simply to Jesus being fully man and fully God, and sometimes they are said to mean that deity dwells in a man. This in itself left the door open to confusion as to who we worship when we worship Christ). You then ask How is that gotten from the evidence given above? Because Don, to start off his sermon on “Having Fellowship with the Son of Man,” asked the question “Is Jesus worshipped as deity only, or also as the Son of Man?” Then Don answers his own question by stating that “Christ” does not refer to deity, but to humanity. To worship Christ therefore means in Don's teaching to worship the humanity and not the deity. In Oneness theology, worshipping Jesus “as deity” can only mean worshipping God who is in the man Jesus Christ; while worshipping Jesus “as humanity” can only mean worshipping the man himself. There is a division there that is not possible if Jesus is seen as one person. One wouldn't have a choice between worshipping Jesus “as deity” or “as humanity.” The question Don asks would be recognized as ridiculous. One can only worship him as the person Jesus. You also write Does Jesus want us to consider His human nature when we fellowship with Him. YES! He was “the Son of man.“ I agree. My posting was not directed against the consideration of his human nature. It was directed against the notion that we could worship him as either deity or humanity, and against the notion in Don's sermon that worshipping Christ does not mean worshipping the deity. Sincerely, Steve Born Email: srborn@seanet.com Home page: http://www.seanet.com/~srborn/ ---------- The point is the extent to which Jesus’ humanity is recognized Posted by Anon.II on 3/28/2001, 1:01 pm , in reply to "Re: Fellowship with the glorified Son of man" In the doctrine of the Trinity I do not see Jesus' full humanity because His personality is split to accomodate the doctrine. Where did Don's teaching cross the line from always considering Jesus' human nature to worshiping Him as humanity alone? Or, when did Don, convey "the notion" that worshipping Christ does not mean we worship Deity? In fact, from the evidence submitted, Don asked: Is Jesus worshipped as deity only, or also as the son of man? Don asked "also". This means that deity is included in the worship, yet it is asserted that there is a "notion" that Don was essentially teaching "not also". I don't get it. Oneness does not have to avoid scriptures that teach God “in” Christ in order to recognize that He was also fully God. The concept of God “in” Christ is scriptural, and shouldn’t be avoided. 2 Corinthians 4:6 2 Corinthians 4 2 Corinthians 4:5-7 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Incidentally, your phrase "One can only worship him as the person Jesus" too would be recognized as ridiculous to Oneness, because that would mean that you are worshipping His "humanity" ALONE. Ironic, isn’t it? ---------- Posted by Steve B. on 3/28/2001, 8:48 pm , in reply to "The point is the extent to which Jesus’ humanity is recognized" A2, You write Don asked "also". This means that deity is included in the worship, yet it is asserted that there is a "notion" that Don was essentially teaching "not also". I don't get it. It's because he answered his question by saying “Christ” does not refer to deity. In the context of the question he asked, then, he was saying that to worship Christ means, not worship of Christ as deity, but worship of him as man. Further, the mere word “also” is not unambiguous enough to build a case upon in regard to the meaning of the rest of Don's sermon. The word “also” could mean that 1) we are worshipping Christ always as both—as God and also as man, or 2) Christ can be worshipped as either— we usually are worshipping him as God, but we could also worship him as man. Don's subsequent words do not give us enough information to decisively say in which sense they are meant. That is whay I say that at best he was negligent in closing the door on the possibility that Christ could be worshipped as man alone. At worst, the rest of his sermon can be seen as supporting the notion that the important thing about worshipping Christ, and fellowshipping with him, is that we are primarily, if not exclusively, relating to his humanity. Finally, Lanny's words below about Jesus sitting on the throne of David “strictly as man” tend to confirm that in UROG doctrine we were taught to see Jesus himself as man alone, his deity being attributable only to God dwelling inside of him. You also write Oneness does not have to avoid scriptures that teach God “in” Christ in order to recognize that He was also fully God. The concept of God “in” Christ is scriptural, and shouldn’t be avoided. My point is not that “God in Christ” is unscriptural, but that it is not the grounds for Jesus’ deity. The grounds for Jesus’ deity are that he is the Word that was with God in the beginning and that was God, that he is without beginning and without end, and that he was by very nature God before he was made in the likeness of man (to cite a few of the more obvious scripture passages). All of these are plain statements that involve no very great complexities of language or meaning, but, looking back in my Bible college notes, I find they were either avoided or twisted in Oneness theology. You also write Incidentally, your phrase "One can only worship him as the person Jesus" too would be recognized as ridiculous to Oneness, because that would mean that you are worshipping His "humanity" ALONE. Ironic, isn’t it? It depends upon how important you think it is to find out the meaning of words, and the sense in which people use them. If you don't care to find out what other folks mean by the words they use, then you can probably amuse yourself with imagined ironies all day long. If, on the other hand, you are concerned not merely about words but also about meaning, then your entertainment might be less but the rewards in your understanding would be greater. To explain in this case, by saying Jesus is a “person” I do not imply that he is limited to human nature, even if you wish to make me mean that because of your theological conditioning. My statement follows from Philippians 2 where Jesus is said to have been in the “form” (Grk. morphe, which means a manifestation of inner nature) of God even before he was made in the likeness of man. It was just another way of saying that Jesus’ deity is not due to God dwelling in him—therefore we can't distinguish between a worship directed to his deity and another kind of worship directed toward his humanity. There is simply one worship of the one Jesus, who is both God and man. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Since Oneness believes Phil.2 says Jesus by nature is God, Posted by Anon.II on 3/28/2001, 9:37 pm , in reply to "Re: The point..." Why do you keep insisting that Oneness ONLY believes Jesus is God because God is "in" Christ? ---------- Christ does refer to His human nature Posted by Anon.II on 3/28/2001, 10:00 pm , in reply to "Re: The point..." How does Don's acknowledgement of Jesus human nature "prove" that Don taught us to worship His humanity "alone"? You plainly see that there is NO EVIDENCE of your accusation when you stated: "Don's subsequent words do not give us enough information to decisively say in which sense they are meant". Your statement: "That is whay I say that at best he was negligent in closing the door on the possibility that Christ could be worshipped as man alone.", is the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad ignorantium, which is an argument that a proposition is true because it has not been shown to be false, or vice versa. Ad ignorantium arguments are also known as "appeals to ignorance". This fallacy has two forms: 1. It is true that Don taught to worship humanity alone because it has not been proven false. 2. It is false that Don did not teach to worship humanity alone because it has not been proven true. Inability to refute is taken as demonstration of their views. This is a common tactic with crackpots and conspiracy theorists. (theology.edu/logic/logic23.htm) Having the resemblance of a double standard, how come when a Trinitarian considers Jesus humanity it’s OK, but when Don or Oneness does, it’s neglecting deity? Honestly, if Trinitarians can consider Jesus’ human nature, than Oneness surely can.