Posted by SB on 8/18/2001, 11:27 am

Some observations... Posted by Steve B. on 6/29/2001, 12:26 pm , in reply to "Re: from the Incarnation viewpoint" Keith, You write Clear straight forward Scriptures defend my position, little to no explanation is needed. That is fine, but I wasn't asking “Jesus is not God” people to defend their beliefs—I was asking what people thought was the difference between UROG and UPC theology. But since you make your arguments, I will comment on why I find them unconvincing. The basic reason is this: you focus on the clear, straight-forward scriptures that make a distinction between Jesus and God, but ignore or inadequately account for the clear, straight-forward scriptures that equate Jesus with God. The theory that Jesus is called God only because we see God exclusively through him does not carry enough weight, in my mind, to explain all the things the scriptures actually say in this vein. For example, the scriptures in John 1 that show Jesus as the logos that was with God in the beginning and that was God are not explained by your theory. Here, as in so many places, your theory, that says Jesus cannot be God because he is disinguished from God, is quite simply shown to not line up with the scriptures. Here, as in so many places, the Scriptures directly show that there is a sense in which Jesus can be distinguished from God, and yet can also be God in more than a merely figurative sense. This distinction, which hits almost everybody in the face when they take up the New Testatment, is simply denied by your theory, and that is one reason why I find it to be a boys’ theology, a crudely-constructed piece of work that takes more delight in mocking what it does not understand than in pursuing truth. I have never been able to take it seriously as a mature effort to actually come to grips with the meaning of the scriptures. And here are a few more scriptures that contradict your theory. The scripture in John 17:5 contradicts your theory. Here Jesus asks the Father to give him the glory that he had with the Father before the world was. This indicates that Jesus has a conscious memory of conditions before the creation of the world, and that he existed at that time distinct from the Father before he existed in human form. Also, John 6:62 contradicts your theory. Here Jesus tells his followers that he will ascend up to where he was before. Since the ascension was a literal ascension to a literal personal existence in heaven with the Father, the most straightforward meaning of the verse would be that "where he was before" was in the same kind of existence, an existence not as a man but yet with a personal identity distinct from the Father's. Similarly, John 16:28 contradicts your theory because Jesus tells his disciples that he came from his Father into the world, and that now he was leaving the world to go the Father. The leaving of the world and the return to the Father did not mean the end of his existence as a distinct person separate from the Father. The parallelism of the verse leads to the conclusion that neither did his entry into the world mean the beginning of his existence as a distinct person separate from the Father. And the scriptures in Philippians 2 that show Jesus as being in the form of God before he was made in the likeness of men contradict your theory. This shows that though Jesus existed in the likeness of men, this did not preclude him from having the nature of God before that time. And I do not see at all how your theory answers "Before Abraham was, I am." In fact, if Jesus is called God because we can see God exclusively through him, then wouldn't that imply that those in the OT who saw God must have been seeing Jesus not prophetically or figuratively, but as actually existing at that time? And the analogy made between Melchizedek and Jesus in Hebrews 7 could not be true unless the Son of God had no beginning and no end contradicts your theory, because by your theory Jesus can only be a man who had a beginning. And finally, if Jesus meant to “deny his deity” in the New Testament, then he missed the perfect chance when Thomas called him "my Lord and my God." But he didn't deny it, instead he commended Thomas’ confession by saying he was blessed, and that all who would have the same revelation would be blessed. This again contradicts your theory. I know that your cohorts in the “Jesus in not God” camp have an “explanation” for each of these verses, but to me it is just that—an explanation which makes each verse somehow fit their theology in spite of the verse’s apparent meaning, or at least papers a verse over with something that will let them save appearances in the face of an embarassingly explicit rebuttal of their theories. Study the Bible in order to find its meaning, Keith, not to save a doctrine. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Posted by Keith on 6/29/2001, 9:19 pm , in reply to "Some observations..." You have the right to come to the conclusion you do based upon the Scriptures you bring up, there is a little question mark in some of those. This back and forth, I don't think is necessarily going to convince either of us. But here I go again anyway. I do have answers for those Scriptures and some question marks. In an overall sense I don't think you have much to stand on, when God has previously established His absolute singularness plus Jesus clearly differentiates Himself from God (I didn't say the Father I said God, unless you read into it, God means all of God). You have to interpret John 1:1 in light of these clearly established and consistent facts that are seen throughout the Bible. John 1:1 and Thomas' "My Lord and My God" can easily be interpreted in light of this same Scripture: 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.". Therefore Thomas saw the Father, Who is the only God. We come to the Father through Jesus, that's what Jesus said, isn't that explanation enough? Do you think Jesus is the Father? No you don't, and you will give a read into the Bible explanation that gives explanation to the Trinity, Phil 2 being the basis and totally assumed. You have every right to hold to what to me is completely obscure due to a few Scriptures that are not easily understood and not as straight forward as the majority. You have that right but I think you have to paint a picture with a lot of blots all over the place. To say "the Jesus is not God people" is putting an emphasis that will bring about misunderstanding. Jesus is not God but Jesus is where we find God (the Father). When I stand in Jesus' presence I stand before God, God with us. I could say the "God is three not one" people, you would feel that is unfair. You know that brings up an age old argument in my mind the emperor has no clothes on, and the Trinity really amounts to three Gods. Even though none Scriptural terminology can explain around that. The Trinity just doesn't fit as far as I'm concerned no matter what size shoe horn is used. ---------- Personal observations Posted by Gordy on 6/29/2001, 1:54 pm , in reply to "Differences between UROG and UPC Oneness?" There were many more than just one UPC adherent that defended the "shell, thing or an it" reference to the physical body of Christ. The issue was debated many times over a course of two plus years. There was even a retired pastor of the UPC that defended the "shell" position. The humanity of Christ is a problem with those I have been exposed to in the UPC. Their desire to refute Trinitariansim causes them to swallow untenable positions apparently for no other reason than to disassociate their theology with the "Jesus is one head of a three headed God" theology. I also received many EM's, as the moderator, from people that did not post on the board.The majority seemed to be "Oneness" adherents of the UPC vein. They consistently maintained the "thing" status of the body Christ had on earth as did the ones posting on the board regularly. Many were articulate and didn't suffer from lack of knowledge. Many times they inquired about my position on things such as women speaking in church, length of hair, etc. I also had numerous EM's from Trinitarians appealing to the "shell, yoke and white" or "body, soul and spirit" "proofs". They obviously were just casually passing by and thought they would settle the issue once and for all. Since Bernard is the apparent voice of UPC Oneness theology I guess it would be of value to dissect what he is on record as far as teaching. From what I know right now, considering several months of discussions on the GH board, I still maintain there is a vast gulf of difference between the UPC and Chapel's Christology. The "shell" subject and "God's very own (literal) blood" alone make for a sizeable gap between the two camps. Gordy ---------- Re: Personal observations Posted by Steve B. on 6/29/2001, 2:51 pm , in reply to "Personal observations" Gordy, I guess we would have to distinguish between the popular view of such things and the "official" view of such things. It appears that the UPC man-in-the-street is just as uneducated as his Trinitarian counterpart about what the official theology of his church is. This is not to say that the pursuit of what the "average" church member believes is invalid, uninteresting, or unimportant. It's just that I myself am more interested in what the teachers or scholars of a church have to say on the subject. Sincerely, Steve