Posted by SB on 8/18/2001, 11:33 am

Yet more observations Posted by Steve B. on 6/30/2001, 9:19 am , in reply to "Re: Some observations..." Keith, You write 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. But by what strange course have you convinced yourself that those scriptures are obscure? The scriptures you refer to are not obscure at all—they're only “obscure” to you because their natural meaning contradicts your theology. Like the Pharisees (there's some people for you who believed in the “absolute singularness” of God!), you are outraged when you hear things that imply Jesus might be God. You then have to label certain verses as “obscure” or “difficult” because you think they contradict other things the Bible says, and you don't know what else to do with them, and so you have to begin the "beat to fit" process. That is, you have to intrepret verses to fit your theology, instead of letting the scriptures interpret themselves and only then forming a theology from them. By the way, isn't “the absolute singularness of God” an unbiblical term? I thought that was the thing you didn't like about trinitarian theology—always resorting to unbiblical terms in order to explain itself. Curious. Also, the thing I find suspicious and dishonest about the “Jesus is not God” group is that they ultimately don't have the courage of their convictions. They wish to be free to label the historical church as paganized because of its belief that Jesus is God, and though they they themselves say they do not believe Jesus is God, they don't want others to identify them that way. They slink away from being identified by that label although it is the thing that distinctively identifies their theology. Doesn’t that reveal something to you about this group that you've joined, Keith? It’s as if they subconsciously know there is something shameful about followers of Christ believing such a thing. However, when you write that trinitarians would not want to be known as the “God is three, not one” people, the reason is because that would be a flatly inaccurate characterization of their theology. They believe “God is three in one” and I doubt if any of them would object to this as a label for their beliefs. I certainly don't. That is, after all, pretty close to what the word "trinity" means. The “Jesus is not God” people, on the other hand, openly admit to believing that Jesus is not God, they just don't want that used as a label for their beliefs. But why not? I do not see that the label is misleading at all. Trinitarians and Oneness people also believe that God is in Christ and is revealed through him—the “Jesus is not God” folks are alone in disbelieving the deity of Christ in spite of this. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Posted by Keith on 6/30/2001, 6:06 pm , in reply to "Yet more observations" I disbelieve the Deity of Christ but not the Deity in Christ. How about calling me "the Jesus is not God but God dwells in fullness in Jesus and reveals Himself through Jesus person". The absolute singularness of God is another way of reiterating Deut 6:4 and the overwhelming abundance of clear implication due to the singular pronouns God used to describe Himself. All other instances MUST be God and someone else. When I said a few Scripture seem obscure you sure did jump on that, that really shows me something. The only ones that you brought that I have some question marks about are the ones where Jesus spoke about going back to where He was, etc. I don't have as big of an eraser as you seem to have to do away with hundreds of clear straight forward Scriptures to come to the conclusion you do concerning these. It just doesn't work Steve, you've convinced yourself it does, but the fact remains it doesn't. But my matter of factness probably help. ---------- Re: One more point Steve Posted by Keith on 6/30/2001, 10:36 pm , in reply to "Yet more observations" You said this: Doesn’t that reveal something to you about this group that you've joined, Keith? I haven't joined any group, the only group I've joined is about as Trinitarian as you can get. Throw the mud put me in the middle, my opinions are based on the Bible, which involves common sense and language as it is meant to be understood. I didn't write the Bible, somehow things have gotten off track, that won't be the case forever. ---------- Posted by Steve B. on 7/1/2001, 2:10 pm , in reply to "Re: One more point Steve" Keith, You write How about calling me "the Jesus is not God but God dwells in fullness in Jesus and reveals Himself through Jesus person". That would be too long for a good label. But otherwise it would be fine with me. You also write The absolute singularness of God is another way of reiterating Deut 6:4 and the overwhelming abundance of clear implication due to the singular pronouns God used to describe Himself. All other instances MUST be God and someone else. That's purely an assumption, an assumption that contradicts clear Biblical scriptures that show Jesus existed before his human birth with God and as God. I think you'd agree that it's best to go with what one sees the Biblical text saying instead of accepting somebody else's assumptions, wouldn't you? You also write The only ones that you brought that I have some question marks about are the ones where Jesus spoke about going back to where He was, etc. I don't have as big of an eraser as you seem to have to do away with hundreds of clear straight forward Scriptures to come to the conclusion you do concerning these. It's not that I want to erase any scriptures, just that I want to account for all of them in any doctrine I form concerning the relationship between God and Jesus. Your version of things leaves out certain key scriptures. I find that trinitarian doctrine does the best job I have seen so far of showing how all the passages describing God and Jesus can fit together. You also write It just doesn't work Steve, you've convinced yourself it does, but the fact remains it doesn't. Well, it seems to me that I haven't convinced myself of anything—the Bible has. I tried to sit down and read the Bible by letting it speak for itself instead of forcing doctrinal preconceptions on it, and when I did, I simply saw that the New Testament has no problem at all presenting Jesus as having a distinct existence apart from the Father before his human birth, and yet as also somehow being God in that state. That is simply the most straight-forward and natural meaning of at least a dozen scriptural passages, and there is no good textual reason to reject that reading. The only reason to deny this seems to be doctrinal prejudice. This is the only sense in which I've “convinced myself” that trinitarian doctrine is better than Oneness doctrine (and especially "Jesus is not God" doctrine)—I've decided that it is best to let the scriptures speak for themselves instead of letting my position be influenced by pre-determined conclusions about what the Bible “MUST” say Jesus can or cannot be. You also write (in your second posting) I haven't joined any group But you quite obviously have. You've joined those who have the dubious distinction of denying the deity of Christ. That was the group to which I was referring. Sincerely, Steve ---------- Posted by Cliff on 6/30/2001, 6:37 pm , in reply to "Re: Yet more observations" I agree with Keith and part of the "obscure", hard to read scriptures that explain it to me are: Jn 1:18 No man has seen God at any time, and further in scripture: When you have seen me you have seen the Father. What kind of a being is recognized by the Trinity in this situation? I see a man in whom God dwells. Who, by being God's Son, is the expressed image of the infinite spirit of God, and due to that indwelling can rightly be called God. But the man isn't God. The man is a man, and that's all we can see. Sure he is God with us. Sure he is My lord and My God. But at the same time one can say "our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ"...referencing to Jesus. But before we get astray....what is this being, as identified by a Trinitarian? Since God is an infinite spirit, and Jesus is not a shell, and God cannot change... ---------- Posted by Steve B. on 7/1/2001, 2:12 pm , in reply to "Re: Yet more observations" Cliff, You write I agree with Keith and part of the "obscure", hard to read scriptures that explain it to me are: Jn 1:18 No man has seen God at any time, and further in scripture: When you have seen me you have seen the Father. What kind of a being is recognized by the Trinity in this situation? I see a man in whom God dwells. I see the Logos of God, who existed with God and as God in the beginning, and so reveals him perfectly. I see the Son of God, who in the same scripture where he said the Father was in him, also said he was in the Father. So, instead of showing a picture of one person dwelling physically inside of another person, I would say we have a picture of two persons in an indivisible union with one another, sharing the same nature completely. One of these persons is the Father and one of these person is the Son, who in addition to sharing the deity of the Father was also made in the likeness of man (Philippians 2:5-8) for our salvation. Sincerely, Steve