Posted by CB on 8/15/2001, 12:58 pm

Posted by Steve B. on 6/25/2001, 9:52 am , in reply to "Re: begotten god, not begotten Deity" Cliff, You write I see the logos as the common greek definition of the work (shocking, eh?) The greeks use logos as an idea or concept, kept internal or outwardly expressed. I can see that all through John 1 and have no problem with Yahweh have an idea, concept plan through which he laid down all creation, that the focal point of his plan was his son to be born of Mary...Why does this sound so odd? It doesn't sound odd at all. The difference in our views is that I believe this logos was embodied by the Son of God before his human birth as well as after. The kind of things said in scripture about Jesus make this conclusion inescapable for me. You also write This "cult of oneness" is consistent with Judaism and Islam. This is supposed to be a recommendation of Oneness doctrine? I myself would rather find something that's consistent with the New Testament. The Jews were enraged at any suggestions that Jesus might be God, and ended up condemning him to death because of those claims. I do not want to put myself in those shoes. You ask Since he is resurrected, how would you describe His manhood now? I describe it as resurrected humanity. But he still remains both man and God. If you have understood Trinitarian theology to say that Jesus quit being either man or God after his resurrection (or since his ascension), than that is a misunderstanding. You also ask And what is God's name for you anyway? I still believe his name is Yahweh, but that is a name that is revealed also in the name of Jesus. I disagree with those who think they must always refer to God by using the name Yahweh. Jesus himself is never recorded as using the word, so it hardly seems to be a necessary approach to God. “Knowing God's name” does not mean using the word “Yahweh” when talking about Him, but rather means truly knowing him as He wishes to be known. And to me, trinitarian theology captures the essence of what the scriptures reveal about him much better than does Oneness theology. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Posted by Cliff on 6/25/2001, 3:07 pm , in reply to "Re: begotten god, not begotten Deity" I guess I have a hard time with the transitions. What is the Trinitarian description of Christ before the incarnation, then during, then after the resurrection in heaven? What is He at death on the cross? I see him as the focal point of creation, yet not existing before Mary. Then as the temple of God, and a man during His life on earth, then glorified Man, the embodiment of God, heir to all things, and Mediator after.... Since Christ came in his father's name and manifested His name...I believe they can both be called Jesus, for "I shall save my people" OT. Also the fact that the Jews were enraged with Jesus has nothing to do with their understanding of the nature of God. They just didn't recognize the container God came in. ---------- pre-existence Posted by lanny on 6/22/2001, 8:33 pm , in reply to "Re: begotten god, not begotten Deity" That is an excellent summary of the standard trinitarian position. I believe that those conclusions at each of those verses misses the crux of the whole ministry of Christ. It obscures the "mystery" that Paul refers to and misses the entire revelation of Jesus Christ. This is one of the main reasons that I believe that the trinity is so harmful. It completely misses God's entire plan for man as set forth in the life of Christ. Let me take each Scripture: Jn 17:5 here Christ is NOT praying for or about himself. He is standing in the stead of Adam praying for the whole human race. See the whole chapter as that sets the context for this conclusion. Also Christ did not "lose his glory before the world was..." Adam did at the fall. Christ lost his glory (by trinitarian definition) at his incarnation somewhere around 6BC. 6BC is not "before the world was." Christ in this whole chapter is praying for us, man, Adam. He is hardly praying, "help me get back to heaven..." Christ is laying down his life for us. It simply does not fit for him to be praying for himself at all. Jn 6:62 This is a spiritual passage following the typological teaching about the "bread that came down ..." It is hardly just "Christ came down and he will go back." "Eat my flesh," vs 55 is hardly meant to be taken literally and this is consistant thoughout the chapter. Vs 51, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven." Christ came down in the sense that his origin is from God just like the manna was also "sent down." I do not believe that the manna came from heaven (vs 31). It came from God who is in heaven just like Christ came from God and fulfilled the type as the true bread. There never was any manna in heaven nor was Christ ever in heaven. vs 62 is speaking typological Jn 16:28 as Christ came, Mt 1:20 "ek," "out of," the Holy Spirit, his origin was from God and to God he would be returning. It need not mean anything more than that. You and I came from an earthly father. Christ came from a heavenly father. That is the point. John continually points to Christ as far more than just a man. Jn 8:58 One of the many "I am's" in the book of John. The statement again is to point out Christ's divinity. That divinity is none other than the "I AM" Himself from Ex 3:14. Ph 2: I contest that this refers at all to Christ before the incarnation. This refers to Christ ON EARTH as a man. As a man he made the decision to humble himself. Simply, Christ chose the road to the cross instead of the road to fame and earthly glory. He did this on earth, not in heaven! There is nothing that makes this something he decided while in heaven prior to his incarnation. That misses the power and force of the entire passage. Get the revelation!!! God's plan for man includes such exaltation that we must surrender it to Him lest we get lifted up in pride. To be used of God and partake of the divine nature will take us to places of exaltation that we must lay back down again. Heb 5:7 this is typololocal and refering back to Melchesedic who has no lineage recorded in the Bible. The point is this: All earthly priests derived their office from their Aaronic lineage. Christ was from Judah. How then could he be a priest? Using a typological argument the writer says Christ is a priest after Melchesidek who also had no earthly lineage for the foundation of his priesthood. In fact Mel... is superior to Aaron in that Aaron (in the loins of Abrahan) paid tithes to Mel. All this is full of typology and revelation and has nothing to do with pre-existence. All of these passages provide important revelation about Christ that is lost by the trinitarian explanations of pre-existance. These passages can be interpreted totally differently than pre-existence. lanny ---------- Posted by Dave Kenady on 6/23/2001, 8:31 am , in reply to "pre-existence" I was thinking this morning along the same lines. My thoughts took me back to the gospel message itself. And it took me back to my days in California when I considered the very same things. And I thought to myself -- if this gospel message is simply that God the Son became a human, and that human life died on the cross and then He went back to where He was before, that, in my mind is no sacrifice. It's more like a slight-of-hand card trick. If I had the choice of being God and living for what must have seemed like a nanosecond as a human on earth, it would be more like a trip to Disneyland to feign a "great sacrifice" and then head back to the mansion. The types wouldn't fit, the prophecies would be a joke. The gospel would be an insult. But to consider that the Lamb of God, born of a woman, learned obedience in that which He suffered, gave His life for us. And I suspect that Don is right in his theory that Jesus, in His mind, was actually giving up His eternal life in order to save us -- now THAT is an awesome act of love! And worthy of exaltation. But, of course, one must truly be low in order to be exalted. My thoughts before I read Lanny's post here were one of incredible frustration that after all these years and all we have been through, that we are actually back to the position I was in California reconsidering the viability of the Trinity. And then I started thinking about what a sham the death and resurrection of Christ was if it was as I described above. This would be enough for one to consider another religion. I have to go with Lanny. Not only do the facts of the NT make much more sense, the entire OT types and shadows line up with the true Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the whole world, the man of sorrows, truly aquainted with [my] grief.