Posted by CB on 8/12/2001, 7:13 pm

Posted by Steve B. on 6/21/2001, 7:33 pm , in reply to "Man, O Man!!" Dave, You write ...your conclusion here with your superior hermaneutic is that Jesus was a man before He was born. I thought your primary concern with people on the board was the tendency to deny the Deity of Christ and see Him only as a man. Now you are saying He was a man before He was born? No—you've badly misread the sentence, but now that I reread it myself I can see that its construction does allow for the ambiguity which steered you wrong. In the sentence, "as man" was meant to pertain to "his birth," not to "Jesus existed." That is, I meant to say (following John 1) that before Jesus' birth as a man, he existed with God in heaven, and was God. As he said (John 6:62), what would you say if you saw him ascend up to where he was before? You also ask ..consider a verse like Deut 6:4. Is there a case that is so compelling that this should be seen as a unity of the Trinity, rather than to simply say that God is numerically One? First of all, trinitarians do believe that God is numerically one, in the sense that there is only one of the Triune God. This is precisely because we believe that "God is one" pertains numerically to God's identity as God (i.e., there is only one God, no other gods really exist) instead of being a statement about his nature. And, in my opinion, there are many compelling verses in the New Testament, this first chapter of John being only one of them, that show God should be considered a unity of three. You also ask If Jesus is co-equal with the Father and the HS, why was He subject to the Father? Because he voluntarily submitted himself, providing (among other things) the example of humility spoken of in Philippians 2. This answer is not hard to find either in the Bible or in Trinitarian literature, and I have certainly given it here and over on the Godhead board at least a half dozen times, so I am puzzled why you write of "Trinitarians blowing off" your questions. That has not been my own experience as I investigated the subject over the past two years or so. Instead, I have found the trinitarian literature to be very thorough and biblically-based, very unlike what the Chapel had told me trinitarian reasoning was like. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Posted by Cliff on 6/21/2001, 8:13 pm , in reply to "Re: Man, O Man!!" Hmmm. Sure the Trinitarians believe God is One, as long as the number one is defined as a unity of 3. The Jews, who had the Old Testament for quite a while never came up with that interpretation of their word "echad" or the number "one". This is retrofitting the interpretation of their language. If a lawyer writes a contract with the number one defining something...when you go to court, that is all it says. This is blatant dishonesty of interpretation. If trinitarians have a "revelation" of definitions that overrides the people who wrote the language in order to prove the point...why do Oneness people accept all language definitions of the original sources of the language? Under that consideration, can you find just one Jewish scholar who would allow you do what you do to his language? ---------- Present company excluded Posted by Dave Kenady on 6/21/2001, 11:06 pm , in reply to "Re: Man, O Man!!" I have certainly given it here and over on the Godhead board at least a half dozen times, so I am puzzled why you write of "Trinitarians blowing off" your questions." I tend not to include you in my mind with other Trinitarians. You are not them for 2 reasons: 1)You are a fellow ex-Chapelite, so you have a unique perspective with the rest of us here on the board and 2)Your view does not seem to be orthodox Trinitarianism, but your own view. You can take this as a compliment. ---------- Posted by Author Unknown on 6/22/2001, 5:14 am , in reply to "Present company excluded" I’ve dealt with some Trinitarians in the last five years who hold important positions in the publishing industry. B.R. said, “Jesus is God because no man could live 30 years without sinning.” However, the Bible makes a big thing about Christ’s righteous, yet in Barbara’s eyes it was no big deal. In her eyes the Temptation was a mere ceremony with no real significance! What a poor understanding of Scripture. Also in her eyes, I was the one who believed in a cultic doctrine, Because I believe that The Hallmark of Christianity falls short of legitimacy. Especially when we consider the vast amount of Scriptures speaking of Christ’s resurrection. Why does the Bible make such a big thing about the resurrection of Jesus Christ? From a Trinitarian point of view this doesn’t make any sense. ---------- Posted by Steve B. on 6/22/2001, 2:23 pm , in reply to "Re: Man, O Man!!" Cliff, I don't think you realize that I have no argument with your point. My claim is not that the Old Testament Jews believed God to be three in one. The number one does mean “one” numerically—it means there is only one of whatever kind of thing you're talking about. However, the fact that there is only one of something says nothing about the nature of that thing. The Jews did not know that the nature of the one God included the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit until Jesus revealed it. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Posted by Keith on 6/21/2001, 8:04 pm , in reply to "Some comments..." I too would like to hear you explain the Trinity using only Bible terminology, just once, put it in text you can reuse it. I know my replies come across as harsh at times, but to hear you run over what (to me) is so obvious and simple to understand with what is scholarly sounding confusion. I couldn't convince myself that a God that understands His creation (namely man) would say one thing but later obscurely try to explain He meant something else through the church Fathers. They got the Trinity right but somehow they messed up a bunch of other pretty important doctrines. It's somewhat frustrating to see someone like yourself throw away tremendous life giving truth in the Bible for a lie that completely distorts Who the true God is and how He has revealed Himself through His perfect son Jesus. JN 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Again I would ask why does the Bible continually differentiate God (why can we assume it means less than all of God?) and Jesus. One random example: 2TH 1:2 Grace and peace to you from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. As simple as it can get.