Posted by CB on 8/12/2001, 7:22 pm

Posted by Steve B. on 6/22/2001, 1:49 pm , in reply to "Re: Some comments..." Keith, You write 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 am suprised to hear you and Dave (in a previous posting) ask, because I already explicitly did this in the same posting in which I made that claim. I wrote (in response to Chris' question, “If you only use the words that God has written...how can you describe God's nature?”): One says that he is revealed by his logos, Jesus Christ, that was with God in the beginning, and was God. When the time had come, the logos became flesh and visited his own people as their only savior, as God had promised. One can also say that Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and the Father is God, and that there is yet one God. Every word in those sentences is in the Bible. You also write 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. You also write 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. Well, obviously that's not what I think I'm doing. Very much the opposite, in fact. One of the first steps in my dissatisfaction with the Oneness doctrine was realizing that some ex-Chapel people were using it to teach the lie that Jesus is not God. Another step was the discovery that the historical documentation upon which the Chapel built its Oneness version of church history contained blatant lies, and that Don altered quoted scholarly sources to accomplish those lies. (As you know, but Cliff may not, I've posted here a document that supports this claim and it's also posted on my Web site (http://www.seanet.com/~srborn/) in the Spirituality/Wrong Turns/Oneness section titled, "Its Use of History" ). Further, Oneness doctrine at the Chapel hardly proved itself to be a life-giving truth in my life. The Chapel promised us that the Oneness doctrine would not only give us a truer picture of God's relationship with his people (and thus help protect us from false doctrine), but that it would also prove to be indispensable in leading us to be part of the bride of Christ. But instead it played a part in leading us into false doctrine and into one of the most sordid scandals in the contemporary church. You also ask Again I would ask why does the Bible continually differentiate God (why can we assume it means less than all of God?) and Jesus. Because, based on the kinds of things it says, the distinctions between them must be important to understand properly. But none of those distinctions say that Jesus is not also God. (For, as well as continually differentiating Jesus from God, the Bible also continually makes statements that equate Jesus with God.) If John 1:1 says that the logos that became flesh is Jesus, and that this logos was facing God in the beginning, and was God, then there are obviously some kind of distinctions to be made among the things that can be said to be God, and it is important to understand them. John the apostle differentiates the logos from God, and yet calls the logos God, and draws attention to it by placing it at the very opening of his gospel message—I didn't make up that claim, and neither did the trinitarians. We simply find that trinitarian doctrine accounts for this statement more adequately than Oneness doctrine does. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Your statement Posted by Dave Kenady on 6/22/2001, 2:15 pm , in reply to "Re: Some comments..." One says that he is revealed by his logos, Jesus Christ, that was with God in the beginning, and was God. When the time had come, the logos became flesh and visited his own people as their only savior, as God had promised. One can also say that Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and the Father is God, and that there is yet one God. Every word in those sentences is in the Bible. I absolutely agree with this statement but somehow don't feel like a Trinitarian. But if we both absolutely agree with this statement, why is there such a chasm between us? Because it is NOT the facts stated in this statement that we disagree with. It is that which is found between the lines of these words. And people like Rob Bowman think that is enough to exclude Oneness people from the church and call them cultic. ---------- Posted by Steve B. on 6/22/2001, 2:53 pm , in reply to "Your statement" Dave, You write ...if we both absolutely agree with this statement, why is there such a chasm between us? Because it is NOT the facts stated in this statement that we disagree with. It is that which is found between the lines of these words. That “between the lines” stuff that we disagree about is called the definition of words. For example, Oneness and Jesus is not God people insist on excluding all notions of personality from the definition of the word logos. They would accept the above statements only if allowed to strictly limit its meaning to something abstract like “the plan of God.” Trinitarians say it includes that, but also more. They think the Bible shows that the word of God existed as the Son of God before as well as after his human birth. You also write And people like Rob Bowman think that is enough to exclude Oneness people from the church and call them cultic. But don't forget that it's also enough for many "Jesus is not God" people to call all trinitarians apostate and deceived by paganism, and to keep themselves separate from the church. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Re: My Lord and My God Posted by Steve M on 6/22/2001, 12:32 am , in reply to "Some comments..." Thomas' statement should be taken in context of other Scriptures. For example, Jesus said, "he that has seen me has seen the Father". Would it not be reasonable to conclude that Thomas saw the Father in Jesus? Scripture teaches that Jesus is the temple, that God speaks in him, and that his words were not his own, but the Father's. In other words, God was in him. Peple worshipped God in him. Consider also Revelation 3:9, "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee." What are we to make of people worshipping at the Philadelphians feet, made to do so by the Lord? ---------- Posted by Steve B. on 6/22/2001, 1:52 pm , in reply to "Re: My Lord and My God" Steve, You write Thomas' statement should be taken in context of other Scriptures. For example, Jesus said, "he that has seen me has seen the Father". Would it not be reasonable to conclude that Thomas saw the Father in Jesus? Scripture teaches that Jesus is the temple, that God speaks in him, and that his words were not his own, but the Father's. Yes, of course all these things are true. But the thing I have come to understand is that these scriptures cannot be used to overrule other scriptures that show in addition to being all of these things, Jesus is also God, in the form of the eternal Son of God who had a conscious existence before his human birth. You also write Consider also Revelation 3:9, "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee." What are we to make of people worshipping at the Philadelphians feet, made to do so by the Lord? I see that the Philadelphians stand with Jesus, so that when the Jews fall before Jesus to worship him, they are worshipping before the feet of the Philadelphians. It is purely an assumption that worshipping “before the feet” of the Philadelphians means to worship them instead of Jesus. Such an unlikely assumption (unlikely, of course, because of the emphatic prohibition from Jesus himself of worship offered in a spiritual context to anybody but God) could be made only if one wanted to escape the implications of the worship of Jesus shown consistently throughout the New Testament. Sincerely, Steve