Christadelphians and John1

[AVmetro]

The following is a rather rough outline of an argument in the works, which resulted from several debates with Unitarians on the preexistence of Christ in regards to John1:1-14. There are still three aspects of the argument which need to be addressed [as listed at the end], which I will add in later. I hate writing "articles", so the below is essentially in a "objection/reply" format. I've seen the activity of christadelphians and the like increase on several forums, and thought the below result of my own experiences might prove helpful to some.

There are still some areas which are tentitive. For instance, I'm not certain if I want to refer to the 'logos' as "titular" in regards to Christ, or express it in a much *deeper* sense.

Anyhow...

[AVmetro]

John Chapter 1 and the Christadelphians

Probably the most debated verse in support of the deity of Christ is John1:1 which is thus;

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses [JW], the Christadelphians [CD] do not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, and in turn do not believe that the 'Word' in John1 is the person of Jesus, but the literal spoken word of the Father..e.g...Gen1:2 etc. They attempt to support this with the literal creation accounts in addition to various occurences of the literal 'dabar' [word] in the OT.

It is important to note that the prime focus is not on the rendering of the second occurence of "God" [theos] in vs1, as is the primary focus when concerning Arians. Rather, we will set our attention on the surrounding context in addition to scriptural harmonization in order to demonstrate the role of Jesus as the 'Word of God' in the Johanne prolouge.

There are several objections against the Trintarian (and even Arian to a degree) view of John1.

Objection:

The Greek word logos, although masculine, does not entail a personal being based upon the gender influenced rendering of "He", but should be honestly translated as "it". See William Tyndales's version of the John.

Response:

This objection is essentially fallacious as the immediate context is the prime factor in deciding the rendering of "He" in reference to the 'Word'.

They are, in fact, correct in that the 'gender' of a Greek word has little bearing on the actual "sex" of the subject itself. There are three possible genders for Greek words which are masculine, feminine, and neuter.

If Trinitarians apply the same "sex based on word gender" principle that CDs allude to then the 'neuter' terms would be referenced with an 'it'.

In fact neuter terms are used in reference to the following:

Infants cf..Luke1:41,44; 2:16; 18:15
Children cf..Mark5:39-41
Girls cf..Matt9:24,25; Mark5:41,42
Angels cf..Heb1:14

But yet they are personal beings.

Would referencing the 'Word' in Jn1 as an "it" exclude a personality? Read:

John6:39 "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."

In the above we see that the 'to be resurrected believers' are referenced to as an "it".

Malachi 4:2 " But unto you that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings; and ye shall go forth, and gambol as calves of the stall."

What is interesting in the above is the reference to the Messiah i.e. "the sun of righteousness" and the reference made with "it". Would the CD exclude this reference as one to a personal being? Not on any reasonable basis. The same fallacy would in turn be applied to the 'Word'.

There is no argument from this vantage point. In fact it is based more on presuppostions and bias rather than any form of legit reasoning.

Objection:

CD's will often cite a particular scripture usually dealing with creation and a literal 'dabar' [Word] and then give the following explanation in support of their view that a 'literal word' is being referenced in Jn1. Let's read one of these examples:

Psalm 33:6-9 "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast."

Their prime objection in this instance being:

The "word" is clearly defined here as the spoken word of God - the "breath of His mouth", and His literal command. The text leaves no room for the word as a personal being. Your interpretation of John 1 stands in contradiction to the OT.

Response:

Is this accurate in exluding the 'word' as it is being used in passages such as Rev19:13?

Read:

Isaiah48:13 "Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens..."

Did YHWH literally create the universe with His hands? If the CD asserts that an OT creation account such as Ps33 is to be taken as nothing but literal, then they must also in turn understand the others to be taken as such. In fact it is less "literal" than it is "figurative". Other examples follow suit:

Job 37:10 By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is straitened.

In fact this line of reasoning backfires on the opponent as the Messiah [Jesus] is often described as being an ontological 'part' or aspect of YHWH in the OT. For example:

Isa 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD
revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a
dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no
beauty that we should desire him.

See also:

Jer10:12 "He hath made the earth by His power, He hath established the world by His wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion."

..cf..

1Cor1:24 "....Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God."..cf..Prov8:22

[Note: For an excellent article on Jesus as God's Wisdom, read the material at the following link: http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html ]

Figures of speech in Ps33 etc.. no more excludes Jesus from the picture than does;

Isaiah59:16 "And He [YHWH] wondered that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore His arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained Him."

..or..

Isa 40:10 Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.

....exclude Jesus as being YHWH's "arm". (See Is59:16)

When speaking of Jesus as the 'Word' you may also want to note the following use of titular titles:

Lion of Judah.. cf..Rev5:5
Stump of Jesse.. cf..Is11:1
Branch of David.. cf..
Word of God.. cf..Jn1:1; 1Jn1:1-2; Rev19:13

Excluding Jesus from Psalm33 etc,. is based more on presupposition that anything else. The basis of rejection lies in a "YHWH" or "God" speaking within the passage and that this must therefore mean that Jesus is not in view. This line of reasoning is merely assuming what one already holds to i.e. "the Father only is God" and excluding the possiblilty that the Son is also God.

As far as the Trintarian view goes we could have the following:

Psalm 33:6-9 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his [Jesus] mouth.
He [Jesus] gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he [Jesus] layeth up the depth in storehouses.
Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him [Jesus].
For he [Jesus] spake, and it was done; he [Jesus] commanded, and it stood fast.

Or the Father vice versa. This is the Trinity working in harmony as we also see the Spirit's work in Gen1:2, Job33:4 etc,.

Jesus is the intermediate agent of creation. He was the means through [Gk: 'dia'] which God made the heavens and the earth. See this consistent language used in 1Cor8:6, Heb1:2..cf..Heb11:3, Col1:16, Heb1:10-12, Eph3:9.

In light of this, a "God said.." does not exclude Jesus from being the speaker or mover. To do so is based on the presupposition that Jesus is not God.

An argument can also be demonstrated from the theophanic view, or even merely from the perspective of "represention and agency". Read:

Exo 3:2 And the Angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

Note that the 'Messenger of YHWH' is the one who is said to appear within the flaming bush. Now compare with:

Exo 3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

Note here that the voice coming from the bush is identified as being that of YHWH.

Although it is the "Angel of the Lord" speaking, it is accredited to 'God'. See also the attributation of 'God' or 'YHWH' to Jesus in the following cross-references: Mark12:26..cf..Acts7:30-31; Zech14:3-4..cf..Acts1:11-12.

With this in mind let's read once more and compare:

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Cf..Jn1:1-3

Ex 3:4 God called unto him out of the midst of the bush.. Cf..vs2

[AVmetro]

Objection:

Of course one of the following replies you may recieve to the above is something likened unto this:

You claim that Jesus IS the Word, while the OT says that the Word was God's spoken word. The Word is therefore defined for us by the OT. You attempt to redefine it in John 1, but that won't work.

Response:

This of course assumes that the 'Logos' is meant to be a literal 'word' such as one spoken into the air.
Jesus being titled as the 'Word' no more excludes Jesus as the 'speaker of the word' any less than the 'sower' is excluded from 'doing the sowing'.

In fact it is wholly appropriate for the Apostle John to address Jesus as the "Word" in that a look at the OT will demonstrate a stark representation of the character of Christ. Read the following and compare to the mission and character of our Lord:

The Word:

Heals-
Psa 107:20 He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.

Is a light-
Psa 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Is that in which people put their hopes-
Psa 119:114 Thou art my hiding place and my shield: I hope in thy word.
Psa 119:147 I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried: I hoped in thy word.

Highly exalted-
Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Eternal-
Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever.

Note the resemblance to Christ's ministry-
Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

See also the parallels to God's 'Wisdom':

Pro 8:30 "..even I [Wisdom] was a workman at His side; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him.." MKJV

Note in the above the resemblance to Jn1:1-3 in regards to being the agent in God's creation.

Pro 8:35-36 For whoever finds me finds life, and shall obtain favor from Jehovah.
But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul; all who hate me love death.

Note the resemblance to the Jesus Christ [Word]. Finding 'Wisdom' is finding 'Life'.
Compare with Jn1:4..cf..Jn8:12..cf..Matt4:16.

The bottom line is; If the CD wants to assert that the 'Word' in Jn1 is the "literal atmosphereic vibrations" of the Father from the OT, then they must present you with a direct parallel between the account of Jn1 and the OT in it's entirely concerning the "word".

For example. Assuming they take the view that a 'literal breath of air' is in question, have them explain to you where vs'4-12 are and demand the "consistence with the OT". They can't do it.

See also this article on the Memra (http://www.cliffordaweber.com/memra.htm)

Objection:

One might try to present the following argument:

The really fascinating part is that nobody's ever explained to me why John would call Jesus logos in his prologue if he actually meant "Jesus"!

Response:

This, of course, is simply ludicrus. Let us note the double-standard here. Read:

Isaiah53:1- “Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of YHWH been revealed? He grew up like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.”

...or once again..

Isaiah59:16 "And He [YHWH] wondered that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvagion unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained Him."

...another example...

Mal4:2 "But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in it's wings." ..cf..Is9:2, Luke1:78-79.

By their logic, the "sun" here must be literal and not figurative of the coming Messiah.

One must now ask the CD how the authors of the above meant to convey the idea of Jesus without using the name "Jesus" or even "Messiah" within the context.

Note that although the text speaks of the coming Jesus, neither the words Jesus nor Messiah appear here. In fact most Messianic prophecies have dual applications and are therefore not even initially fulfilled in Christ.

We could even take ourselves to the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah9:6 to see the same.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

No sign of "Jesus" here. Another example:

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and
bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Even in the 'virgin birth' prophecy we see neither of the words 'Jesus' nor 'Messiah' in the text.

The fact of the matter is; the above references were only revealed to us as being applicable to Christ from the revelation of the NT, same as with Jn1:1.

[AVmetro]

Objection:

The 'Word' in Jn1 is merely a personification. The context in no way implies the person of Jesus until vs14.

Response:

Let's read:

Johns gospel was composed after the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. Therefore note carefully the allusions within the context:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, (Genesis 1:26) and the Word was God (Jn20:28, etc…).”
He was with God in the beginning (Prov8:30).”
“Through him all things were made; (1Cor8:6) without him nothing was made that has been made (1Col1:16). In him was life, (Jn5:26, Jn5:39, 1Jn5:11), and that life was the light of men (Jn3:36…I’ve provided many scriptures demonstrating Jesus as the “Light”). The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it (..cf..Jn3:19; Heb1:2).
“There came a man who was sent from God (Isaiah40:3..cf..Mal3:1..cf..Jn20:28). He came as a witness to testify concerning that light (Jn5:31-33).., so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not that light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world (1Jn1:8-9).
“He [Word] was in the world, and though the world was made-(note the “literalism” then the jump in the second half to an action of Jesus…)- through him, the world did not recognize him [Word]. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him (Jn19:15-16..). Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his [Word] NAME (Jn20:31), he gave the right to become children of God, children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God (Jn3:16).
“The Word became flesh (1Tim3:16 “He [Jesus] appeared in a body..” Phil2:6) and made his [Word] dwelling among us. We have seen his [Word] glory, the glory of the One and Only.”

Note the scriptural parallels within the NT. Take care to see how the entire ministry of Jesus Christ is summed up in John's prolouge. You cannot divorce the reference to the Word as creator from the attributation of Savior from within the very context prior to vs14.

Jesus states many of these allusions himself as well as the NT authors . Read:

Jn8:12 “When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, ‘I AM the LIGHT of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

Jn11:25 “Jesus said to her, ‘I AM the resurrection and the LIFE….”

1Jo 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of LIFE;

Jesus is that light and life; the Word. Remember that Jesus said that HE was the ‘manna’ that came down from heaven.

Jn6:32 “I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the TRUE bread FROM HEAVEN. For the bread of God is HE who comes DOWN FROM HEAVEN and gives LIFE to the world. ‘they said….from now on give us this bread.” Then Jesus declared, “I AM the BREAD of LIFE….”

More on Jesus as the ‘Light’; the ‘Word’.

Matthew 4:16 "...the people living in darkness [b]have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned."..cf..[ 4:16 Isaiah 9:1,2]

John 9:5 "While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

John 12:35 "Then Jesus told them, "You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going...cf..Jn15:4-6.

John 1:7 "He came as a witness to testify concerning that light [Jesus], so that through Him all men might believe."

Notice how John was to testify of the light [Jesus] the light which is the world..cf..Jn1:10.

Jesus is the word. The context states it too clearly.

Additionally, if anyone wants to make a desperate stab at "personification" or mere "representation" with the above, merely direct their attention to vs12 where the 'Word' has a name on which to believe. Read:

Joh 1:12 But as many as received him [Word], to them gave he [Word] power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his [Word] name.."

..cf..

Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.


Objection:

Another significant point - the "world" here (kosmos) is said to be made through the light, not by the light. The light, therefore, is not the primary agent of creation - which, no matter how much you squirm - does not fit the Trinitarian model. Trinitarianism requires Jesus (in his capacity as "God the Son") to have created the world ex nihilo. Simply arguing that he did this on behalf of the Father, doesn't cut it. You need Christ to be the prime mover, because unless he is the prime mover, there is no way you can claim that he is the creator of the world in any literal sense at all. And yet, Scripture precludes this hypothesis.

Response:

This is merely gross misrepresentation of what Trinitarians believe and teach. Citing

Robertson's Word Pictures of the NT:

By him (di' autou). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John’s explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Heb_1:2) names God’s Son as the one “through whom he made the ages.” Paul pointedly asserts that “the all things were created in him” (Christ) and “the all things stand created through him and unto him” (Col_1:16). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In 1Co_8:6, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (ex hou) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (di' hou).

As Robertson notes we see this same word 'dia' used to protray Christ as the 'intermediate agent of creation' in passages such as Col1:16; Heb1:2..cf..Heb11:3; 1Cor8:6.

Interesting enough, Prov8-22-30 also portrays Christ as "a workman at His [YHWH's] side" i.e. an 'agent' in the process of creation.

Objection:

In citing John1:1-4:

"The 'Light' [Jesus] is said to be IN the Word, but not the Word itself. You can't be IN something and BE that something."

Response:

This is a rather easy to refute. Simply read the following scriptures:

Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Here we see from the above that the 'Life' is interchangeable with 'Light'.

Jn8:12 “When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, ‘I AM the LIGHT of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the LIGHT of LIFE."

Jn11:25 “Jesus said to her, ‘I AM the resurrection and the LIFE….”

In the above we see only a couple of emphatic statements that Jesus IS the 'Light and Life'. Now compare with the below:

Joh 5:26 "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life IN himself.."

Yet here we see that the Son also is said to have the "Life" IN Himself.

Does this mean that Jesus is not the Life? Not at all as the above scriptures have demonstrated.

Harmonize John1:4 with 1John1:1-2..cf..5:11. The 'Word' in John1 that had the "Life" IN Him is the said to be Jesus, who has the Life IN him.

Objection:

Coming at a later date...

1.] John1:10 and "What 'world' is in question here"
2.] John1:14 and "ginomai sarx; does this exclude the preex of the Word as being Jesus?"
3.] John1:18 and "No man has seen God"

[AVmetro]

I really would liked to have spent more time on the 'Wisdom', 'Memra', and potential 'Metatron' aspects of the article, but for now this ought to help. The CD position is really quite easy to refute. Take John1:10 for example. From vs12 we know the 'Word' to have a name on which to believe Cf..Jn20:31. From this it is easy to conclude that vs10 is (as is obvious anyway) a reference to the Son. In fact, Evangelion once admitted this, but had to sidestep by insisting that there were three different meanings for the word 'world' all within the same passage! :o You can't attribute any "new worlds to come" here, as this in turn means this "new world' "..knew Him not". :hrm:

[Piebald]

This is outstanding, thanks for posting this! :thumb:

[Jaltus]

I'll try to critique this later this week. Remind me if I do not post by Thursday night.

[AVmetro]

Thanks Hamster and Jaltus. I could really use some refinement here other than going another three rounds with 50 CDs. ;)

[Wonder Woman]

AV,

Have you waved this carrot under Evangelion's nose yet?

He hangs out at ChristianForums.com quite a bit I think. And he also has started his own Christadelphian forum.....

(BTW, not to hijack your thread or anything, but have you had a look at Christian Forums? I was pretty horrified - it is full of Christians trying to justify homosexuality 'till the cows come home. I mean, heck, nobody would call me a fundamentalist, and I was completely shocked.....) :hrm:

[AVmetro]

Have you waved this carrot under Evangelion's nose yet?
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/34121-3.html :)
Now if only he could address the actual context of John, we'd all be fine.

He hangs out at ChristianForums.com quite a bit I think.
And from his behavior, he's about to be banned.
And he also has started his own Christadelphian forum.....
From which I was banned during a 'latrueo' debate I had engaged him in. Curious coincidence, eh? ;)

(BTW, not to hijack your thread or anything, but have you had a look at Christian Forums? I was pretty horrified - it is full of Christians trying to justify homosexuality 'till the cows come home. I mean, heck, nobody would call me a fundamentalist, and I was completely shocked.....)


Ack! :eek: I've never seen how this could possibly be done in harmony with the scriptures :dunce:. I think James White has a book addressing their arguments at his site: www.aomin.org

God bless you!

[yxboom]

Great Article AVM :thumb:

[dizzle]

Hmm, AV does he know about us yet??

[Jaltus]

Major Critique I

Your argument neglects the truth that John 1-18 is a chiasm, something that would lend strength to the argument and take away from your detractors.

Let me show you what I mean:

A 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.

B 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

C 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

D 6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John.
7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.


E 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.


F 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.
11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.


X (center) 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--


F' 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

E' 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

D' 15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'"

C' 16 From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.

B' 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

A' 18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.


Obviously, you can see the correlation between John not being the light since Christ is the light (D, vv. 6-7) and Jesus coming into the world as flesh (D', vs. 14). The light made its dwelling in flesh, which means God instantiated Himself in the flesh (for God is the light, I John 1:5), which is who Jesus is.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey Jaltus, excellent point. on the side, have you ever investigated the possibility that the whole of John (- ch. 21) might be a chiastic narrative modelled after the prologue? a fascinating book on this subject is Bruno Barnhart's _The Good Wine: Reading John from the Center_. its an old-school way of reading Scripture (a good move in my opinion), but the thrust of the argument is definitely worth consideration.
peace in Christ.

[AVmetro]

Good point. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for posting. ;)

Phantaz-

Quit adding books to my wishlist. :read:

[Jaltus]

Major Critique II

I am going to deal with this point:

CD's will often cite a particular scripture usually dealing with creation and a literal 'dabar' [Word] and then give the following explanation in support of their view that a 'literal word' is being referenced in Jn1. Let's read one of these examples:

Psalm 33:6-9 "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast."

Their prime objection in this instance being:

The "word" is clearly defined here as the spoken word of God - the "breath of His mouth", and His literal command. The text leaves no room for the word as a personal being. Your interpretation of John 1 stands in contradiction to the OT.
While your reply is good, it could indeed by much stronger.

Look at the use of LOGOS TOU QEOU (and derivative forms) in Acts, and you will see that it is used as a character in the narrative. While Paul goes out and comes back, the word only goes out, never coming back. The word is also said to do things in a strange way. It is nearly always the subject of a passive verb, with no agency in the actual sentence, giving the idea that it is moving itself.

Why is this striking? Because the Father and Son do not appear in narrative after the ascension!

For a look at this idea not totally in full bloom, see David Pao Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus, chapter 3.

[AVmetro]

Hey, excellent Jaltus. Keep 'em coming. I implemented your last suggestion in a post @ CF. I'll tell you how that went when and if he [Ev] addresses it. :thumb:

[phantaz sunlyk]

Quit adding books to my wishlist.

**7** d'oh! sorry dude.

[AVmetro]

**7** d'oh! sorry dude.

Ah, that's okay ;). We just applied for a new credit card..just......for .......emergencies...:noid:

[George Blaisdell]

[QUOTE]02-12-2003 @ 09:20 PM
phantaz sunlyk:

> ... have you ever investigated the possibility that the whole of John (- ch. 21) might be a chiastic narrative modelled after the prologue?

Hey, Ger! Long time no see! Nice to 'hear' your voice again...

I have argued this [the chiastic understanding of John] from day one of reading it some 7 years ago or so in Greek.

> [snip] its an old-school way of reading Scripture

Indeed I encountered it first in reading the Greek of the philosophers and poets of some 400-900 years before Christ...

And from the way that folks post on this forum about chiasms, I had assumed they were pretty conversant in it at least, and some seem really competent in discerning its appearance and significance.

John is the best, for the chiasm of the prologue, while a model for the whole, is itself modeled in the opening of the prologue. eg:
A:B::B:C::C':B::B':A::C

A=beginning
B=Logos
B'=hOUTOS [ie Logos-Theos]
C=God [arthrous]
C'=God [anarthrous]

The "left over C" demonstrates the focus of the impact point of the opening, for it [ eg the C:C' connection of identity and incarnation] is what the whole of this gospel is about...

John Breck as well wrote on these matters more generally, and he literally looks to read chiastic sentences from the center outward in spiralling fashion, arguing that in preliterate cultures this is how they are 'heard' and understood, but that we have lost this skill with our 35 meg hard-drives and universal literacy.

Thus the prologue above would be understood to read C'-C-B-B-B'-B-A-A in western linear fashion... And can equally well, in western linear fashion, be understood from the outside spiralling inward... It certainly can prove key in translating and understanding... Pre-literate cultures have different thought structures than us computer minded geekers - The closest we have any more to these seems to be dislexics and ADDs... I pay close attention to when these folks speak...

The Shape of Biblical Language: Chiasmus in & Beyond the Scriptures
Author: John Breck

My apologies to your wish-lists...

[AVmetro]

My apologies to your wish-lists...

Hey, I learn something new everyday ;) Great post.

[Jaltus]

You may want to check out an article by Culpepper. I'll try to find it (I have a copy of it somewhere in my files). I think it is JBL.

[Athanasian]

So after reading all that, I find that what you're saying is:

1) Jesus is the arm of God.

2) Jesus is the breath of God.

3) Jesus is the wisdom of God.

4) Jesus is the word of God.

...but not that Jesus is God! :argh:

You have argued comprehensively that Jesus is an agent of God. You have also separated him from the Godhead - every time you distinguish Jesus from God (instead of saying 'God the son'), you treat the Father as the only person in the Godhead. Using creedal language will correct this tendency to err.

Three questions:

1) Why do you insist that Jesus is a mere agent of God?

2) When Genesis 1 says that God did actually create everything with the breath of His mouth (as in, He said it and it happened), why don't you take this literally? Instead you tried to dodge all around it and say it wasn't literal. You also tried to argue that the corroborating quote in Psalm 33 wasn't literal. How can you pick and choose like that? It's very simple - the 'God' in Genesis 1 is Jesus. Have a look at John 1, Colossians and Hebrews.

3) Are you a JW?



PS - What's a 'Christadelphian'?

[Athanasian]

02-13-2003 @ 08:25 PM
Jaltus:

Major Critique II

I am going to deal with this point:

While your reply is good, it could indeed by much stronger.

Look at the use of LOGOS TOU QEOU (and derivative forms) in Acts, and you will see that it is used as a character in the narrative. While Paul goes out and comes back, the word only goes out, never coming back.

Personally, I think you're trying too hard. The reason why 'the word only goes out, never coming back' is in Isaiah 55:11, which is definitely not talking about Jesus.

Even a simple reading of Acts shows that the 'logos' here is the gospel message - it is preached by the apostles. It's used this way right throughout the New Testament. There's no need to create some fanciful argument where nothing exists to support it. It's only discrediting.

[Jaltus]

As I said, read David Pao's book. I would say he argues for it quite persuasively.

Remember, one can be a character in a narrative without actually being a real being. Note the use of the One Ring in The Lords of the Rings, the movie version.

[AVmetro]

So after reading all that, I find that what you're saying is:

1) Jesus is the arm of God.

2) Jesus is the breath of God.

3) Jesus is the wisdom of God.

4) Jesus is the word of God.

...but not that Jesus is God!
The Christadelphians do not believe in the preexistence or deity of Jesus Christ. Therefore they take the "Word" in John1 to be a *literal* "spoken word" or "thought/plan", but not the Messiah. Being that we're dealing primarily with the first chapter of John, there is not a lot of room to discuss deity outside of how the second occurence of "theos" is to be rendered and what it implies. Being that the CD does not believe in the preex of Christ in the first place it is more appropriate to settle that matter first, *then* proceed to the topic of his deity. As I stated before, the CD believes the 'Word' in John to be *literal*. Therefore by demonstrating that Christ is represented by such things as "rock", "arm", "wisdom" we can ask on what basis the CD interprets the 'word' to be literal and reject the Trin/Arian interpreatation as "ridiculous". There is none. Especially none to be had from the immediate context.
Why do you insist that Jesus is a mere agent of God?

Jesus *is* the agent of God, but this in no wise excludes him from being "very God". See vs18 "..the Son has explained him" etc,. What I'm trying to emphasize in the outline is the fact that whether or not Christ is deity has no bearing on whether or not He preexisted prior to his birth in Bethlehem.
2) When Genesis 1 says that God did actually create everything with the breath of His mouth (as in, He said it and it happened), why don't you take this literally? Instead you tried to dodge all around it and say it wasn't literal. You also tried to argue that the corroborating quote in Psalm 33 wasn't literal. How can you pick and choose like that? It's very simple - the 'God' in Genesis 1 is Jesus. Have a look at John 1, Colossians and Hebrews.
I don't believe I rejected a literal interpretation and, if I remember correctly, actually pointed out that the Anti-Trin must bring in their own presuppositions into the text in order to exclude Jesus as being the actually speaker i.e. 'YHWH' in Ps33. The alt. explanation of non-literalism was really meant to be more of an "if you insist, then..". God made the world by his hand. Is this literal? Christ is said to be the arm of God. Is this literal? No. I was merely stating that Christ could be represented as the "breath of God" as he is in Prov8:22 as the "Wisdom of God". etc,.
You're right though. I should probably nix the reference to non-literalism in the case of Ps33. ;)
3) Are you a JW?
No :-). You're probably confused from the fact that I am [in the outline] trying to emphasize the preex of Christ without going off on a tangent issue discussing His deity. The guy I debated most over this passage was a CD who had a bad habit of not being able to stay on topic. I eventually had to keep it to one point at a time. He was also a skilled rationalizer. For instance, he asserted that the second "world" in John1:10 was the "new world to come" and that the third was the "world of humanity." One can easily feel my frustration. :)
PS - What's a 'Christadelphian'?

They're a lot like JWs in that they do not believe in 'hell', the 'Trinity', the existence of the 'soul' after death, etc,. Two prime differences being, they do not believe in the preexistence of Christ, nor the existence of a personal being named "Satan." Ludicrus? I know ;).

Thanks and God bless

[Athanasian]

03-18-2003 @ 11:16 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=39190#post39190)
AVmetro:


The Christadelphians do not believe in the preexistence or deity of Jesus Christ. Therefore they take the "Word" in John1 to be a *literal* "spoken word" or "thought/plan", but not the Messiah.

How do you understand Genesis 1? Did God speak and it was so? I don't see the problem.

Being that we're dealing primarily with the first chapter of John, there is not a lot of room to discuss deity outside of how the second occurence of "theos" is to be rendered and what it implies.

Ok.

Being that the CD does not believe in the preex of Christ in the first place it is more appropriate to settle that matter first, *then* proceed to the topic of his deity.

Ok.

As I stated before, the CD believes the 'Word' in John to be *literal*.

I can believe that and still be a Trinitarian. Other Trinitarians believe this. What's the problem? It agrees with Genesis 1, Psalm 33, and all the other places where God is said to have created by speaking things into existence. The only matter to be settled is which person of the Godhead spoke - and the NT says it was Jesus.

Therefore by demonstrating that Christ is represented by such things as "rock", "arm", "wisdom" we can ask on what basis the CD interprets the 'word' to be literal and reject the Trin/Arian interpreatation as "ridiculous". There is none. Especially none to be had from the immediate context.

But there is one - there is Genesis 1 itself. It says right there that God spoke, and things were created. He created all things with His word. I don't see the problem. Psalm 33 says the same thing. Hebrews 1 says the same thing. Where's the problem?

Don't you take Genesis 1 as a literal account? Is that it?

Jesus *is* the agent of God, but this in no wise excludes him from being "very God".

No, no! Jesus can be the agent of the Father, but not the agent of God!

The agent of X is not X. The messenger of Harold is not Harold. The agent of Harold is not Harold. The realtor agent of my mother is not my mother. My attorny is my agent, but he is not me. You're confusing the persons!

See vs18 "..the Son has explained him" etc,.

That says that the son is the agent of the Father - which is what I'm happy with. It doesn't say that Jesus is the agent of God!

What I'm trying to emphasize in the outline is the fact that whether or not Christ is deity has no bearing on whether or not He preexisted prior to his birth in Bethlehem.

I don't understand what you mean here. Why not?

I don't believe I rejected a literal interpretation and, if I remember correctly...

Are you saying you don't know what the passage means? But you're arguing as if you do! You're arguing that it's a non-literal interpretation, and your argument depends on this.

...actually pointed out that the Anti-Trin must bring in their own presuppositions into the text in order to exclude Jesus as being the actually speaker i.e. 'YHWH' in Ps33.

Now you're talking! It's simpler when you take the Bible for what it says. Why get into long and complicated arguments when you can avoid it all by saying that Jesus is the creator in Genesis 1? We find Jesus as creator in Colossians, and Jesus as creator in Hebrews 1 (upholding all things with the word of his power - Jesus upholding all things with Jesus? :D), so what's the problem?

The alt. explanation of non-literalism was really meant to be more of an "if you insist, then..". God made the world by his hand. Is this literal? Christ is said to be the arm of God. Is this literal? No.

We know that these aren't literal, because the record in Genesis 1 demonstrates that they are not literal. God created all things by speaking - with His literal word.

I was merely stating that Christ could be represented as the "breath of God" as he is in Prov8:22 as the "Wisdom of God". etc,

But he can't. Genesis 1 precludes it. And in Hebrews 1 we're told that all things are upheld by the word of Jesus. Does that mean 'the Jesus of Jesus'? I'm confused as to how you intepret 'word' in the OT and NT. You seem to flip back and forth. How can you tell when it's literal and when it's not?

You're right though. I should probably nix the reference to non-literalism in the case of Ps33. ;)

It's a usual Hebrew parallelism, and the fact that it's literal is illustrated by Genesis 1. Why fight against an argument which doesn't matter anyway?

No :-). You're probably confused from the fact that I am [in the outline] trying to emphasize the preex of Christ without going off on a tangent issue discussing His deity.

Ok.

The guy I debated most over this passage was a CD who had a bad habit of not being able to stay on topic. I eventually had to keep it to one point at a time.

Is this the guy that you proved Jesus was worshipped to? I read about that argument on another board. Apparently he wanted to see where 'latrueo' (spelling?), was used to refer to Jesus in the NT, and you showed him! LOL! Bet he had egg on his face! Where's the original argument? And what are the quotes you used?

He was also a skilled rationalizer. For instance, he asserted that the second "world" in John1:10 was the "new world to come" and that the third was the "world of humanity." One can easily feel my frustration. :)

Yeah, but I don't have a problem with that. Culpepper's chiasm allows for that (even if he doesn't interpret it that way), and the Greek here is apparently the same as the passage which says that the sabbath was made for man. But we don't translate that passage 'the sabbath was made by man'. I don't see the point in getting into arguments which go nowhere.

They're a lot like JWs in that they do not believe in 'hell', the 'Trinity', the existence of the 'soul' after death, etc,. Two prime differences being, they do not believe in the preexistence of Christ, nor the existence of a personal being named "Satan." Ludicrus? I know ;).

Not entirely. Seems I agree with them on some things. If we have an immortal soul, then there's no point in God promising us immortality as a reward. And if we have an immortal soul, then anyone of us could have given the sacrifice which Jesus gave - an infinite life force sacrificed for inifinite sin. :huh:

[AVmetro]

I can believe that and still be a Trinitarian. Other Trinitarians believe this. What's the problem? It agrees with Genesis 1, Psalm 33, and all the other places where God is said to have created by speaking things into existence. The only matter to be settled is which person of the Godhead spoke - and the NT says it was Jesus.
But the use of 'Word' in John1 is titular, not "literal". Otherwise you assume that Jesus is a vibratious breath of air from God's mouth. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God."

But there is one - there is Genesis 1 itself. It says right there that God spoke, and things were created. He created all things with His word. I don't see the problem. Psalm 33 says the same thing. Hebrews 1 says the same thing. Where's the problem?

Don't you take Genesis 1 as a literal account? Is that it?
I agree that a literal spoken word was used in Gen1 to create the world. But I do not believe that 'Word' in John1 is what is in view here. Like you said, it is a matter of "who" spoke in Gen 1. Jesus is called the 'Word' of God (Rev19:13) probably because he was the spokeman for the 'Godhead' including Gen1 (see Gen1:26 etc,. ).

No, no! Jesus can be the agent of the Father, but not the agent of God!


"Godhead" may have been a more appropriate term in being more clear. But see below.

The agent of X is not X. The messenger of Harold is not Harold. The agent of Harold is not Harold. The realtor agent of my mother is not my mother. My attorny is my agent, but he is not me. You're confusing the persons!
Rev3:12. Here Jesus refers to the Father as "God". Yet we know that Jesus is very God himself ontologically and in oneness. The 'Harold' analogy you presented above would almost have to assume Unitarianism to work. The reason Jesus can be an agent of 'God' and yet still BE God is because God is a Triunity.

I don't understand what you mean here. Why not?

The JWs believe in the preexistence of Christ, but not in his identity as "God." What I'm trying to say, is that preexistence in and of itself does not suffice in *proving* Christ's absolute deity to the Anti-Trin. To tie in Christ's deity with an argument for his preexistence will only serve to open up tangent routes to argue.
Once I prove the biblical basis for Christ's preexistence, THEN the argument for his full deity will follow much easier. Fictional example:

Trin: I believe Christ's participation in the act of creation yields weight to the argued fact that he is very God.

ATrin: Maybe, but this can only be said under the *assumption* that Christ preexisted.

See what I mean? And this has happened numerous times during the debates I've had with Unitarians.

Are you saying you don't know what the passage means? But you're arguing as if you do! You're arguing that it's a non-literal interpretation, and your argument depends on this.


I'm arguing a possible alternate view. But I'll probably take your advice and nix it in the finished version. It is rather unecessary! :)
It's simpler when you take the Bible for what it says. Why get into long and complicated arguments when you can avoid it all by saying that Jesus is the creator in Genesis 1? We find Jesus as creator in Colossians, and Jesus as creator in Hebrews 1 (upholding all things with the word of his power - Jesus upholding all things with Jesus? :D), so what's the problem?
And those are all excellent and unrefutable. Can they be rationalized out? Yes. Perhaps I need to point you to some of the debates I've had on this verse so you can view for yourself just how far the Unitarian will go in order to fudge these passages. Hebrews1 is the "new world to come", Col 1:16 is the "new world to come" etc,. All it takes is a little harmonization to nix these. For example compare Heb1:2 with Heb11:3 etc,.
We know that these aren't literal, because the record in Genesis 1 demonstrates that they are not literal. God created all things by speaking - with His literal word.

The problem here is, that in John1, the Word does not represent a "literal spoken word" but Jesus. I take Gen1 to be literal and to be done with the literal spoken word. The probem is, that the Unitarian will deny that the titular use of "Word' in John 1 represents Jesus. This is what has to be demonstrated in order to aid the case for Christ's preexistence.
The CD will argue that the 'Word' in John1 is a "literal breath of air". If you take this interpretation then there is no need for Jesus to be in view. Of course this interpretation does not hold water with context or harmonization.

But he can't. Genesis 1 precludes it. And in Hebrews 1 we're told that all things are upheld by the word of Jesus. Does that mean 'the Jesus of Jesus'? I'm confused as to how you intepret 'word' in the OT and NT. You seem to flip back and forth. How can you tell when it's literal and when it's not?
The Unitarian seems to use the line of reasoning that all the "literal" occurences of 'word' in the OT must necessitate what 'word' in John 1 represents. Whereas I demonstrate that 'Word' can be used in the titular sense (1Jn; Rev19). I probably look like I'm flip flopping back and forth because I'm demonstrating the *range* of use for "Word" (Something CDs fudge). Does it mean the 'gospel?', 'a literal breath of air?', 'Jesus?' etc,.
Is this the guy that you proved Jesus was worshipped to? I read about that argument on another board. Apparently he wanted to see where 'latrueo' (spelling?), was used to refer to Jesus in the NT, and you showed him! LOL! Bet he had egg on his face! Where's the original argument? And what are the quotes you used?
Yep, that's it. I demonstrated that 'latreuo' is given to Jesus in Dan7:14 of the LXX. You can see it given to him in Rev22:3, but I never made it to that step of the debate. I was banned from his board (oddly enough ;)), so I can't give a URL. Ask Dee Dee Warren.
Not entirely. Seems I agree with them on some things. If we have an immortal soul, then there's no point in God promising us immortality as a reward.
The question is, where will your immortality be spent ;). All are to be resurrected.
I should have stated "existence of the soul after death."
And if we have an immortal soul, then anyone of us could have given the sacrifice which Jesus gave - an infinite life force sacrificed for inifinite sin.
Not at all. Mankind is sinful. Each and everyone of us. None can provide an *unblemished* sacrifice, which is the whole point of Jesus' sinlessness.

[Jaltus]

Hey AV,

I may have a few tidbits running aorund that could help you. Let me see what I can find and I'll give you some more stuff.

Athanasius,

Can you give me the bibliographic info on Culpepper's article? I lost my copy of it and need to make another.

[Athanasian]

Today @ 05:38 PM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42474#post42474)
Jaltus:
Can you give me the bibliographic info on Culpepper's article? I lost my copy of it and need to make another.

'The Pivot of John's Prologue', New Testament Studies 27/1 (October 1980): 1-31.

[AVmetro]

Thanks, Jaltus.

[Athanasian]

Yesterday @ 04:11 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=42431#post42431)
AVmetro:
Yep, that's it. I demonstrated that 'latreuo' is given to Jesus in Dan7:14 of the LXX. You can see it given to him in Rev22:3, but I never made it to that step of the debate. I was banned from his board (oddly enough ;)), so I can't give a URL. Ask Dee Dee Warren.


Um, why did you wait so long to give him the verses? Why not just hit him with a big list? I would have done that first up, and left him no room to move. :thumb:

By the way, I looked in my LXX, and I didn't find the word 'latrueo' in Daniel 7:14. Do you have a special version? :huh:

I also looked in my modern Bible versions for Revelation 22:3, and they say this:

Contemporary English Version

3 God’s curse will no longer be on the people of that city. He and the Lamb will be seated there on their thrones, and its people will worship God

New Century Version

Revelation 22:3-4 (NCV)

3 Nothing that God judges guilty will be in that city. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be there, and God’s servants will worship him.

It seems pretty clear that 'God' here refers to the Father, and 'the lamb' refers to the Son. And these translations indicate that 'latrueo' is being given to the Father.

I'm not sure of that one. :eek:

What were the other quotes you used? Could you give me the list?

Oh, and where's this 'Christadelphian' forum? Do you need an invitation to join? :brow:

[AVmetro]

Um, why did you wait so long to give him the verses? Why not just hit him with a big list? I would have done that first up, and left him no room to move.

I'm very methodical in my debates. And in the case of this guy a steady pace was necessary as you will note if you read the exchange itself.

By the way, I looked in my LXX, and I didn't find the word 'latrueo' in Daniel 7:14. Do you have a special version?

You're probably using Theodotian's translation, which was written after Christ. Theo's version also renders 'almah' as 'young woman' rather than 'virgin.' The LXX I'm using is found in, I believe, Codex B.

8<

It seems pretty clear that 'God' here refers to the Father, and 'the lamb' refers to the Son. And these translations indicate that 'latrueo' is being given to the Father.

I'm not sure of that one.

What were the other quotes you used? Could you give me the list?

Read the article found here (http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Jesus_Latreuo.htm).

Oh, and where's this 'Christadelphian' forum? Do you need an invitation to join?

Don't know the URL off hand. May want to ask Dee Dee Warren.

-God bless-

[Athanasian]

Ok, so now I'm a bit confused. And a bit annoyed, to be straight with you. :hrm:

I was under the impression - from another thread I read - that this guy had asked you for a list of passages in the NT where 'latrueo' is used of Jesus.

I also read that you handed it to him on a plate, and that you were banned when he started losing. This all gave me the impression that you had a list a mile long, and that you had answered him straight up, and he had then got angry and banned you.

In fact, when I said:

Is this the guy that you proved Jesus was worshipped to? I read about that argument on another board. Apparently he wanted to see where 'latrueo' (spelling?), was used to refer to Jesus in the NT, and you showed him! LOL! Bet he had egg on his face!

...you did nothing to persuade me otherwise.

I also asked:

Where's the original argument? And what are the quotes you used?

But now I find out that:

1) You only provided him with one quote, from some version of the LXX, while another version of the LXX doesn't have the same text.

2) You were apparently going to provide him with another one, but didn't get around to it. This quote was going to be from Revelation 22:3, which no modern Bible I can find applies to Jesus.

Now I feel a bit ripped off here. I was set to take your argument to a friend of mine. I was pretty excited about this huge smackdown - and pretty impressed.

Instead, I find out that it consisted of two quotes, one of which wasn't from the NT, isn't supported in some other copy of the LXX, and the other of which you didn't even use - and isn't translated the way you need it in modern versions.

I nearly used this argument! I would have looked like a right pillock! :argh:

Why didn't you warn me about the two versions of the LXX earlier? And why didn't you tell me that your interpretation of Revelation 22:3 isn't supported by modern versions?

This is a real let down, and I nearly made a fool of myself because of it. :eek:

Apparently you say you were 'winning' the argument when he banned you. I told that to people! I told them what you said! But now I find out that you didn't even get around to giving him one verse in the NT? What's with that? :argue:

I don't have a problem with you not being able to make much of an argument with one word - heck, I was amazed enough to hear that you'd given a Unitarian such a smack in the face - but I do have a problem with people overstating their arguments, especially when others of us might be going to use them.

There seems to be a bit too much braggadocio on these forums. I wish people would spend more time preaching instead of arguing. It seems that they get into the habit of not being able to admit they're in the wrong. I've been happy to give ground before when my arguments haven't proved accurate, but I don't understand why other people can't do that.

:bawl:

Yesterday @ 08:35 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43067#post43067)
AVmetro:
Read the article found here (http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Jesus_Latreuo.htm).


I read the article. Is it yours? It spends a lot of time saying that the only places where 'latrueo' appear to be used of Jesus are:

1) In some version of the LXX.

2) In Revelation 22:3.

In both cases, either the text or the reading of the text is disputed. I think that the article makes a fuss about nothing. It's a let down. It spends pages making a non-argument.

I have been down the road of 'textual' arguments which been based on faulty readings, disputed passages, or just plain interpolations.

I don't want to go there again! It made me feel like an idiot! :argh:

Can't people make a list of these things so we can stay away from them? I read Dee-Dee-Warren's argument about Alpha and Omega and it was the same. Page after page which sounded real convincing until you realise she admitted:

1) That she was relying on a reading of Revelation 1:11 which modern textual research does not support (she sounded like a KJV-onlyist. is she?).

2) That she was linking this with a reading of Revelation 22:13 which she agreed could be referring to either the Father or the Son.

I spent a quarter of an hour ploughing through that?! It could have been summed up in 2 sentences! Why do people seem to have this desire to make a fifty page argument out of a disputed reading and a textual aberration?

Why can't I find some good, sound, simple arguments for the Trinity here? I've read what that Sunlyck guy writes, and most of the time he's incomprehensible.

He's some kind of Christian mystic, and claims to be Catholic but believes in private interpretation of the Creeds (:rofl:), and I can't understand a word he says. He makes up words, and says that God is 'a communion'. Whatever that means.

Is this the 'intellectual's' corner or something? I liked what Jaltus wrote though. I'd like to see more from him.

I'm trying to witness to atheists. This stuff won't go down too good. I've seen what they write on skeptic sites, and it's pretty tough. This stuff won't stand a chance. :help:

[dizzle]

Dear Athan:

Can't people make a list of these things so we can stay away from them? I read Dee-Dee-Warren's argument about Alpha and Omega and it was the same. Page after page which sounded real convincing until you realise she admitted:

1) That she was relying on a reading of Revelation 1:11 which modern textual research does not support (she sounded like a KJV-onlyist. is she?).

Excuse me? Please quote for me where I ever said that I was relying upon Revelation 1:11 especially since I went out of my way to state that I was NOT relying upon any such thing. Will you retract that comment please?

Here is EVERY time I mentioned 1:11 and any fair reading will see that a KJV-only comment was completely uncalled for:

(emphasis added)

300

[it’s usage earlier in Revelation 1, at verse 11, is the subject of a textual variant and will not be extensively brought into the discussion for that reason alone].

There is no indication in the passage that it is alluding to NT titles, and in fact, the first place to start looking for the meaning of the phrase is within the same Book itself, and the very same exact phrase, in a tititular context, is used three times (at a minimum and with one disputed usage in 1:11) in Revelation, and with the third usage the Unitarian is arguing that it is used of the Father!

The enormous burden of proof is on the one who wants to claim two entirely different meanings for the same title within the same Book in similar contexts (and even possibly if the textual variant in verse 1:11 is correct within 7 verses of each other), especially in light of its importance as a title of Deity in Isaiah, and synonymous pairing in 22:13 with undisputed titles of Deity.

300

2) That she was linking this with a reading of Revelation 22:13 which she agreed could be referring to either the Father or the Son.

I suggest you reread my article. I agreed to no such thing (and NEVER linked 22:13 to 1:11 for my proof), but what I did do was for sake of argument say so what even if 22:13 did refer to the Father. You act as if such an agreement (which I do not agree with, I believe it unequivocably refers to Christ) would make the case unconvincing when it actually strengthens the case for even with a Unitarian presupposition, the deity of Christ can still be proven. You have failed to understand my article, which is not a failure to provide a convincing case on my part. However, I am currently rewriting it for another purpose, and maybe I will be more clear.

My linking of 22:13 was from Revelation 1:17 NOT Revelation 1:11. You have completely missed my point. I ask for a retraction or revision of your criticisms.

[AVmetro]

Evidently you aren't getting your facts straight. If you want to debate Mr. Shamoun's article, feel free to do so. That'll clear a lot up for you. Give me a time and date and we'll do it. ;)

-God bless-

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey ps.-Athanasian --

I've read what that Sunlyck guy writes, and most of the time he's incomprehensible.

**7** what areas, specifically?

He's some kind of Christian mystic,

**8** won't i be surprised!

and claims to be Catholic but believes in private interpretation of the Creeds (),

**7** ev(angelion)idence, please.
and who interprets the Creeds for you? do you put them up on the witness stand and make them tell you what they really mean, o thou non-denominationalist?

and I can't understand a word he says.

**8** my apologies. i'd use crayons, but T-Web can't format it.

He makes up words, and says that God is 'a communion'. Whatever that means.

**7** it means Jn. 1:1, 18. the Son dwells within the Father's heart and is the object of the Father's eternal love; the Son reveals God as love (cf. 1 Jn. 4). the Son can so reveal God because he is the object of the Father's love--a love which constitutes the essence of what God the Father is.
how difficult is it to comprehend that God the Father truly is Father?

I'm trying to witness to atheists.

**8** why, pray tell, begin with the Trinity? do you understand it yourself? if no, then you shouldn't start there, nor should you criticize those who try to. if yes, why not simply tell them exactly what you perceive?
there has been one book written specifically on this issue--Walter Kasper's _The God of Jesus Christ_ (the Trinity as the answer to modern atheism). it is, however, way over your head. and my guess is that it would also be over the heads of those who engage in arguments with you (granting that this does, in fact, happen).

This stuff won't go down too good. I've seen what they write on skeptic sites, and it's pretty tough. This stuff won't stand a chance.

**7** bring on those who challenge the coherence of the Trinity. they won't stand a chance.

[Piebald]

There seems to be a bit too much braggadocio on these forums.

Gee, that's unusual. The last time I heard the word 'braggadocio' was in an e-mail that I sent to Evangelion in which I asked him if he was going to log in to TheologyWeb.

You wouldn't happen to be him or one of his friends trying to stir anythin' up over here through passive-agressive argumentation, would you? (e.g. "I would have looked like a right pillock {if I had used your argument}"

Well, somethin' tastes like sour grapes!

[Athanasian]

Yesterday @ 09:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43904#post43904)
AVmetro:

Evidently you aren't getting your facts straight.

Which ones? Could you be more specific? :eek:

If you want to debate Mr. Shamoun's article, feel free to do so. That'll clear a lot up for you. Give me a time and date and we'll do it. ;)

I have no interest in debating 'Mr Shamoun's' article. I don't have a problelm with it. It says that 'latrueo' is ascribed to Jesus (the one like the son of man), in Daniel 7:14 (in one copy of the LXX), and it says that 'latrueo' is ascribed to Jesus in Revelation 22:3 (although it acknowledges the possibility that this could be referring to the Father).

I'm just saying that at the end of the day it doesn't seem very convincing, and it's not what I was led to believe.

Being a Subordinationist, it makes more sense to me for 'latrueo' to be ascribed to the Father alone, as Jesus himself says.

But if he's ascribed 'latrueo' as well, that's fine. I just don't see that this gets us closer to the trinity.

[dizzle]

Dear Athan:

Are you going to post regarding your misapprehension of my article?

[Athanasian]

Today @ 03:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44250#post44250)
Dee Dee Warren:

Dear Athan:

Are you going to post regarding your misapprehension of my article?

Yes I am. I've read it through twice now, and I have a better understanding of what you meant.

I'll post about this later, but I do have to apologise for not undersatnding you first time around. The bit where you started to defend the 'Alpha and Omega, first and last' in Revelation 1:11 threw me.

I'm sorry about that.

[dizzle]

Hey okay Athan. May I suggest something? I am revising the article a bit, so maybe hold off on commenting until then? I am sure you have other things to keep you occupied. :smile:

[Wonder Woman]

ev(angelion)idence

:rofl:

[dizzle]

Hmm, I have debated Evangelion, and do not believe that Athan is Ev.

[Athanasian]

Today @ 04:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44262#post44262)
Dee Dee Warren:

Hey okay Athan. May I suggest something? I am revising the article a bit, so maybe hold off on commenting until then? I am sure you have other things to keep you occupied. :smile:


Yes, certainly, I'll do that. I believe that 'Sam Shamoun's' article had the right idea in emphasizing that these arguments aren't sufficient of themselves to prove anything until they are read in the context of a background argument which has been made from other passages.

The article spends thirteen pages on proofs from other passages in Scripture that Jesus is a member of the Godhead, and only four on the argument from the word 'latrueo'. This proves that 'Sam' recognised that the word argument itself was insufficient to prove anything of significance.

Notable is the way that the Oneness people use both the 'Alpha and Omega' argument, and the 'latrueo' argument. If the Father receives 'latrueo', and the son receives 'latrueo', if the Father is 'Alpha and Omega', and the son is 'Alpha and Omega', then the Father and son are one person.

When they put this next to Isaiah 9:6 (which says that Jesus is the everlasting Father), and that passage in John (which says 'I and my Father are one'), it makes a difficult argument to get around.

[Athanasian]

Yesterday @ 10:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43952#post43952)
phantaz sunlyk:
**7** what areas, specifically?


Most of the terms and phrases you use. I don't know what they mean.

Like this:

the New Adam, Christ qua human is not mortal. fallibility and non-omnipotence are contingent properties, hence it is not impossible for him qua human to excercise his divine properties through his humanity; much the same, Paul was 'infallible' when he was a conduit for the Holy Spirit while he wrote _Romans_.

...and:

you're collapsing the post-Nicene understanding of "God" with the conjunction of the post-Descartesian understanding of "person" with "God" in the above.

...and:

strawberry fields forever; meet me there.

You sound like a guy I know when he's on the weed.

Like when AVMetro uses words like 'vibratious'. What's that supposed to mean? I'm assuming these are theological terms I was never taught. :hrm:

and who interprets the Creeds for you? do you put them up on the witness stand and make them tell you what they really mean, o thou non-denominationalist?

If you want to be pendantic, I'm episcopalian. I believe in the authority of the eldership.


**8** my apologies. i'd use crayons, but T-Web can't format it.

Are you always this rude? I've seen you insult quite a few people on this forum, not just myself:

underdeveloped logical prowess

clumsy

you need a logic textbook

dan dan
short and stout
find your head
and pull it out!

Why are you so rude? Why can't I just get a couple of straight answers? Why do you have to be so mocking?

**7** it means Jn. 1:1, 18. the Son dwells within the Father's heart and is the object of the Father's eternal love; the Son reveals God as love (cf. 1 Jn. 4). the Son can so reveal God because he is the object of the Father's love--a love which constitutes the essence of what God the Father is.

These quotes don't say what you have written. I really can't understand this mystic stuff.

how difficult is it to comprehend that God the Father truly is Father?

A lot less difficult to comprehend than what you wrote before. God became 'Father' because He had a Son. Easy. Why go into all the mystic talk?


**8** why, pray tell, begin with the Trinity?

Because that's where they always challenge me. They say that a God who doesn't make logical sense and which is only desribed in terms of a contradiction is laughable. The moment you start talking about God, they want to discuss the 'contradiction' of the Trinity.

do you understand it yourself?

No, I don't. It's incomprehensible. I don't need to understand it, I just need to believe it. How can my finite mind understand the inifinite Trinity?

if no, then you shouldn't start there, nor should you criticize those who try to.

I don't have a problem with people trying to express an undersatnding which they have, I have a problem with people who say they can comprehend it and understand it.

I also have a problem with people who say that a contradiction is not involved. I think Brian showed clearly that a contradiction is involved. Now that contradiction doesn't matter, becuase God is above human logic, but it's silly to claim that the contradiction doesn't exist.

if yes, why not simply tell them exactly what you perceive?

I can tell them what I perceive, but not express it in a way which makes sense to them.

there has been one book written specifically on this issue--Walter Kasper's _The God of Jesus Christ_ (the Trinity as the answer to modern atheism).

I'll look it up.

it is, however, way over your head.

Ok, I won't look it up. Thanks a bunch for the put down.

and my guess is that it would also be over the heads of those who engage in arguments with you (granting that this does, in fact, happen).

So its' also useless for the purpose for which it was written? Great. Thanks for nothing. :argh:

**7** bring on those who challenge the coherence of the Trinity. they won't stand a chance.

I read Brian's thread. Everyone ended up running away from him.

[AVmetro]

I believe the texts he harmonizes are cited in order to demonstrate that 'latreuo' is implied despite the fact that the 'word itself' is not present. Hence "firstfruits offered to God and the Lamb."

In regards to Dan7:14, you may also want to note that the word for 'serve' [other than in the LXX] is 'Pelach', an Aramic word which holds the same sense of divine service as 'latreuo.' Check a concordance and you'll note that it is used exclusively for the worship of deity in the bible.

Dan7:14..cf..Rev5:13..cf..Rev22:3

I think it's necessary that he be included. You see him being given pelach/latreuo in Dan7, equal honor glory and praise in Rev5. There is an obvious fulfillment of pattern in Rev22:3. Compare the structure of Rev22:3 with Rev20:6. See vs4 to see that this singular "him" includes Christ. I don't believe the Father is excluded, however, do you?

In a nutshell ^

You could always play devils advocate, and debate me anyways. :brow:

[Athanasian]

By the way, Phatast Sunlyck, are you Robert ****** in real life?

[Athanasian]

Hey, my post was automatically censored. What happened there? Is that a bad word? Or is the auto-censor just a little sensitive to works with * and * in them? :eek:

The word I used was *****. I see that the first four letters have the letters '*' and '*' in the 'right place' (edit: to make a swear word that is), so perhaps that was it. It counted four letters and saw the * and *?

[AVmetro]

vibratious

Don't hold me to this, but I honestly do not even know if that is a real word. Haven't been getting much sleep lately and it makes me kinda "crazy" :jade: :whip:

[Athanasian]

Yesterday @ 11:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44004#post44004)
Hamster:
Gee, that's unusual. The last time I heard the word 'braggadocio' was in an e-mail that I sent to Evangelion in which I asked him if he was going to log in to TheologyWeb.

Funnily enough, I typed 'Evangelion' and 'Christadelphian' into Google, and came up with TheologyOnline. Is that the same?

But even though Google contained references to him at TheologyOnline, the pages had been deleted.

You wouldn't happen to be him or one of his friends trying to stir anythin' up over here through passive-agressive argumentation, would you? (e.g. &quot;I would have looked like a right pillock {if I had used your argument}&quot;

No. But I did just have an invitation from Evangelion to his website to debate me. Do you want to watch?

[Athanasian]

Today @ 05:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44387#post44387)
AVmetro:

Don't hold me to this, but I honestly do not even know if that is a real word. Haven't been getting much sleep lately and it makes me kinda &quot;crazy&quot; :jade: :whip:

LOL! Oh, ok. A typo or something. I guess I can figure it out then. You said that Christadelphians always only interpret the 'Word' of God as a literal breath of air, the vibrations of air which are caused by speaking, and never as anything else but 'a literal breath of air'. Was that it?

[AVmetro]

That's what they seem to want to imply when they draw references to Gen1 etc,. They also use the "plan of God" as well.

[Athanasian]

Today @ 06:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44392#post44392)
AVmetro:

That's what they seem to want to imply when they draw references to Gen1 etc,. They also use the &quot;plan of God&quot; as well.


Oh ok, so they don't just interpret it as 'a literal breath of air'. So they interpret it as a literal word in Genesis 1, and you've already said you agree with that. And Psalm 33:6 is definitely taliking about Genesis 1, and John 1 is definitely talking about Genesis 1, so I still don't see the problem. :eek:

From what you've told me, the Christadelphians are consistent in interpreting the 'Word' of God from Genesis to John 1. Then what happens? Where does the 'plan' come in?

Is it that they don't agree that the reference in Revelation is a title? Don't they believe that the 'Word' is a title of Jesus? Is that what you were saying earlier?

[AVmetro]

I'm not sure I should so much say "breath" unless you're Mormon and believe God to have lungs, thorax, etc,. More like speech. I believe that the use of "Word" in John1 is the same as that in Rev19:13 and 1John1:1-2. Perhaps Jesus is refered to as such on account of Him being the spokesperson for the Godhead. See Ex3:2..cf..vs4. Of course a reference to the 'Memra' would be acceptable as well.

Genesis 28:20-21…And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, "If the Word of YHWH will be my support, and will keep me in the way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Word of YHWH be my God. (Targum Onkelos)

Exodus 3:14...And the Word of YHWH said to Moses: "I am He who said unto the world 'Be!' and it was: and who in the future shall say to it 'Be!' and it shall be." And He said: "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: 'I Am' has sent me to you." (Jerusalem Targum)


Going to pass out now.....Zzzzzz :zzz:

[Athanasian]

Today @ 09:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44430#post44430)
AVmetro:

I'm not sure I should so much say &quot;breath&quot; unless you're Mormon and believe God to have lungs, thorax, etc,. More like speech.

Ok, I agree. But do Christadelphians interpret it as 'a literal breath of air', or do they interpret it as 'speech'?

I believe that the use of &quot;Word&quot; in John1 is the same as that in Rev19:13 and 1John1:1-2.

Ok, so you don't believe that it's a reference to Genesis 1 after all? You believe it's a titular reference to Christ? Or is it an ontological statement?

Remember, the passages in Revelation and 1 John 1 were written later than John 1:1, so they don't provide us with the context of how John intended John 1 to be understood. John 1:1 has to be understood in the context of the books which precede the gospel.

I understand the references in 1 John 1 and Revelation to be titular, no problem. I understand John 1 to be a reference to Genesis 1, and speaking of the action of God in creating all things by His spoken Word (as Psalm 33:6). No problem.

The only issue is which member of the Godhead spoke the Word, and that is where Colossians and Hebrews come into play.


Perhaps Jesus is refered to as such on account of Him being the spokesperson for the Godhead. See Ex3:2..cf..vs4.

Perhaps. But I would have to see evidence that Jesus is the spokesperson for the Godhead. I've always believed that the 'angel of the Lord' is the spokesperson for the Godhead - and that 'angel' is obviously... an angel. Not God.

Of course a reference to the 'Memra' would be acceptable as well.

The what?

Genesis 28:20-21…And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, &quot;If the Word of YHWH will be my support, and will keep me in the way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Word of YHWH be my God. (Targum Onkelos)

This isn't from the Bible, yes? It's a Jewish commentary?

Exodus 3:14...And the Word of YHWH said to Moses: &quot;I am He who said unto the world 'Be!' and it was: and who in the future shall say to it 'Be!' and it shall be.&quot; And He said: &quot;Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: 'I Am' has sent me to you.&quot; (Jerusalem Targum)

Did some of the Jews believe in a being who was called 'the Word of YHWH' and who was part of the Godhead?

[Athanasian]

Yesterday @ 10:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43952#post43952)
phantaz sunlyk:
and claims to be Catholic but believes in private interpretation of the Creeds (),

**7** ev(angelion)idence, please.


Sure:

the words themselves are a matter of private interpretation; the true meaning is not.

That's a cop out. You say that the words are a matter of private interpretation. You try to save this by then saying that the true meaning is not, but that doesn't mean anything once you've said that the words are subject to private interpretation.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** Athanasian, sorry to hurt your sensitive nature ...

Most of the terms and phrases you use. I don't know what they mean.

**7** you're the only person to complain about that, hence i conclude that you are unsympathetic towards both Christology and Trinitarian theology. if you are, then you would have atleast asked for me to explain myself. most people do that when they have a real desire to grow in love and knowledge. not one of your posts exudes a love for trying to understand the Trinity--in you there doesn't appear to be any of the Augustinian spirit of trying to understand what you love and believe in (if anyone thinks i'm wrong here, i'm all ears). i've recieved several messages from others who feel the same way.
your posts leave one with the impression that you are hostile to the Trinity.

You sound like a guy I know when he's on the weed.

**8** actually, if (ty-)die-hard hippies really constituted your circle of friends, i think you'd have less difficulty comprehending. try the Doors (of perception), ar har har.

If you want to be pendantic, I'm episcopalian. I believe in the authority of the eldership.

**7** no longer "non-denominational"? oh, i see :eek:
and if the Creeds need to be seen in light of an authority's understanding that is distinct from them, how does it not thereby follow that the Creeds cannot be understood by themselves?

Are you always this rude?

**8** nope. check out my posts to LaRubia's thread (in liberal arts) on this very issue.
i'm rude in proportion to others' rudeness, and i never start it. check out your first posts on the "Dual Nature of Christ" thread. if ya light a fire, don't complain about the smoke ya choke on.

Why can't I just get a couple of straight answers?

**8** in light of your dogmatic declaration of the Trinity being a "contradiction", i say unto thee, don't complain if you aren't smart enough to understand the answers to the questions you ask. viz.--

**7** it means Jn. 1:1, 18. the Son dwells within the Father's heart and is the object of the Father's eternal love; the Son reveals God as love (cf. 1 Jn. 4). the Son can so reveal God because he is the object of the Father's love--a love which constitutes the essence of what God the Father is.
to which you replied--

These quotes [jn. 1:1, 18; 1 jn. 4] don't say what you have written.

**8** that "God is love" (1 Jn. 4), that God is "the Father" (Jn. 1:18), that the Son is "with/toward" God (Jn. 1:1) and "dwells in his heart" (Jn. 1:18), and that the Son "reveals" (Jn. 1:18) the Father (in his dying for the world = "glory", cf. Jn. 12:32) doesn't entail that "the Son can so reveal God because he is the object of the Father's love--a love which constitutes the essence of what God the Father is."??

I really can't understand this mystic stuff. [...]

**7** ... this in light of you stating, when asked whether or not you understand the Trinity--

No, I don't. It's incomprehensible. I don't need to understand it

**8** you don't "need" to understand it? its a good thing, since it appears as though you're hellbent on attempting to fight against even the possibility of doing so.
define "mystic".

A lot less difficult to comprehend than what you wrote before.

**7** ...which was merely the unpacking of the notion of the Fatherhood of God. its something you should try, if the only thing that God's fatherhood implies for you is that--

God became 'Father' because He had a Son. Easy

**8** you make it sound as though this idea had as much right to pull on the chords of our heart as does the fact that 2 and 2 is 4.
did it ever occur to you that theology should seize the whole person, and not merely the head?

Why go into all the mystic talk?

**7** because man is the mystical monkey. what content does the word "beauty" have in your vocabulary? is God "beautiful" to you? does this thought seize you and throw you into prayer, praise, and awe?

The moment you start talking about God, they want to discuss the 'contradiction' of the Trinity.

**8** my oh my, we're quite at home with the inconsistencies aren't we?
well, since the Trinity is, according to you, a contradiction, why not explain to them why logic doesn't (according to you) matter in this case. try Kierkegaard's _Philosophical Fragments_ or _Concluding Unscientific Postscript_. though you won't be able to convince anyone, you may ease the tension in the mean infinity which is the narrow circle of your theological thought-life.

I don't need to understand it, I just need to believe it.

**8** so in other words, God--the supposed object of your soul's devotion--means the equivalent of "ahflkajouyo dflkjauob" in your mind?
how can you love what you do not know?
if you can love or believe in something, it thereby follows that you have some knowledge of it, in some sense.
when we say that we "understand" the Trinity, we don't mean to imply that the we fully comprehend it. again, i refer you to Pseudo-Dionysius (last time you told me you didn't need the padres since the creeds were "clear enough"--but since you trust the authority of your elders, g'ahead and ask 'em whether or not they think i'm wrong in recommending you to do this).

How can my finite mind understand the inifinite Trinity?

**7** how can you "understand" that the Trinity is infinite, if your finite mind "cannot" understand the Trinity at all? if i don't know where Burbank is, how can i know whether or not i'm there?
how is it that you know one thing about it (this being its very infinity!), yet do not know anything else? is infinity somehow comprehensible to you, yet love is not?

I don't have a problem with people trying to express an undersatnding which they have, I have a problem with people who say they can comprehend it and understand it.

**8** hence a person with "an understanding" doesn't "understand"? now i see, everythang. :thumb:

I also have a problem with people who say that a contradiction is not involved.

**7** i have a problem with a people who contradict themselves several times in a single post and then go on to complain about "contradictions".
i also have a problem with people who don't understand logic using it recklessly and imposing their conclusions with dogmatic certitude.

Now that contradiction doesn't matter, becuase God is above human logic,

**8** God isn't "above" logic. the only thing that logic will tell you is whether or not a statement is coherent. to say that "God can't make a square circle" is not to slight divine omnipotence--it is to say that the notion of a "square circle" is incoherent.
question: can God, who is good, hate goodness?

I can tell them what I perceive, but not express it in a way which makes sense to them.

**8** "perceive"? tell me also, please.

Ok, I won't look it up.

**7** honestly and sincerely, i think that that book is well worth your time. i also recommend Swinburne's _The Christian God_.

By the way, Phatast Sunlyck, are you Robert ****** in real life?

**8** ar har har, good pun on the name.
no, i'm not.

That's a cop out. You say that the words are a matter of private interpretation.

**7** by which i meant that it is possible for the creeds to be understood in senses which can be at variance with the meaning therein. if you are against private interpretation, and if you understand the Creeds in light of how your Church does, this notion shouldn't at all seem anywhere near a contradiction or a cop-out.

[Wonder Woman]

Actually, if I was of a betting nature, I would put money on Athanasian being Evangelion. Either him or Fortigurn.

The guise is so see-through, it's painful.

[Evangelion]

For AVmetro:
I've been told that you're trying to pass off a quote from an Australian academic (George Athas) on the B-Greek discussion list as something that I posted in my final response to you at BTDF. That's a lie. You know it. I know it. So does everyone who was watching the debate; Dianne, Fortigurn, Mishael, Parakaleo, Cybeo and the rest of them.

I've also been told that you're claiming to have emailed me two or three times since our debate. Well, I have two different email addresses, and neither one of them has received anything from you in the last 5 months. So you're lying again.

For Gollum aka Hamster:
I never once used the word "braggadocio" in my final email to you.

For anyone else who's having conniptions about Athanasian:
I am definitely not Athanasian. I have no idea who he is, and I have never posted at T-Web before now. Go right ahead; check my email address, check my IP number, do what you like. I'm totally clean.

The paranoia on this forum is totally off the scale. (But I'll admit that I'm flattered by it.) :rofl:

Adois, amigos. :yipee:

[Piebald]

I never once used the word "braggadocio" in my final email to you.

Yeah, no kidding. I'm the one who used it... as I said. http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/otn/happy/ylsmoke.gif

[Wonder Woman]

How odd. We accuse Athanasian of being Evangelion, and whaddaya know. Evangelion shows up denying it. Hmmmm.

:rofl:

[Piebald]

Shhhh...

Someone's lurking

http://www.computerpannen.com/cwm/games/ff/ff6/mog/wave.gif

[Evangelion]

How odd. You sit around lying about me and chucking out the false accusations, and I turn up to expose you.

Yeah, how odd. :rolleyes: Whoever would have thought it? I guess Robert ****** must really be Phantaz Sunlyk, since Sunlyk denied being ******. Yeah, that works. :tongue:

I'm assuming the moderators and administrators know how to check an IP and email addresses? Well, that's fine with me. So go on, then. Check them. You'll see that I'm telling the truth. (Duh.) :bonk:

And again, your paranoia is a pleasure to witness. It makes me proud to know that your thoughts turn automatically to me whenever somebody starts ripping the guts out of a Trinitarian argument. :rofl:

Enjoy your sour grapes, people! :yipee:

[Piebald]

You sit around lying about me and chucking out the false accusations, and I turn up to expose you.

Who precisely are you talking about?

Check them. You'll see that I'm telling the truth. (Duh.)

Well, I have no doubts that you personally aren't An, though I admit I had my suspicions.

your thoughts turn automatically to me whenever somebody starts ripping the guts out of a Trinitarian argument

What, so now you're denying that our thoughts turned to you? http://216.40.249.192/s/otn/glasses/coolbrows.gif

[dizzle]

Dear Ev:

Hello......

First, you will notice that earlier on this thread I stated that I did not believe that Athanasian was you, and it had nothing to do with IP addresses or anything of the sort. I have debated you and the styles were completely different.

Second, we have a privacy policy here that disallows the use of a members real name if that member objects. In fact, though you were not even a member at the time, I deleted a reference to your real name based upon a past objection to me at another forum. So we thank you not to use JP's real name here in any shape or form. I notice you attempted to do that in one of your above posts, and I trust you will not do so again.

Please tell Kay I said hello.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** ev!

It makes me proud to know that your thoughts turn automatically to me whenever somebody starts ripping the guts out of a Trinitarian argument.

**8** ar har har. people assumed it was you (or a fan, or ya brother) not simply because he raised objections to the Trinity, nor because those objections were especially good, but because of the combination of rudeness and shabby arguments advanced with the force of dogmatic certitude.
but hey (!), woteva gets ya through the night! (ya dig john lennon?).
by the by, i have a personal request. i request that you debate "Athanasian" on the doctrine of the Trinity (which he claims to believe in). sound good?

[Athanasian]

Yesterday @ 10:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45601#post45601)
phantaz sunlyk:
**8** ar har har. people assumed it was you (or a fan, or ya brother) not simply because he raised objections to the Trinity, nor because those objections were especially good, but because of the combination of rudeness and shabby arguments advanced with the force of dogmatic certitude.

I was asking questions. I received a rather furious rebuff from almost everyone here (but thanks for taking the time, those of you who helped out, and thanks for the PM Brian).

You were the one who made the personal attacks. I haven't made any. But I agree with Brian - this seems to be your way of dealing with people.

All Brian and I want are a few answers. But we've had accusations, abuse, and downright discourtesy flung in our direction. It seems the folks around here are very defensive, and it appears that the reason for this is that most of them spend a lot of time in hot debates with unitarians.

What I don't see around here a lot is any serious discussion of the Trinity outside the polemic or the apologetic. And that's what Brian and I were asking for. But that's not what we're getting ('Wonder Woman', thanks for the fine display of 'Christian love' you showed in particular - I expect better from disciples of Christ).

[Athanasian]

I found this website explaining the Unitarian position, the JW position, the Christadelphian position, the Trinitarian position, and the Oneness positoin:

http://www.potts.net.au/Stand/OneGodQuestion.htm

I didn't know that the Christadelphians were different to the Unitarians, because people call them Unitarians (and so does Evangelon from what I have read).

The Oneness postiion looks very solid when presented like this. They use the Scriptures the same way that the Trinitarian position does. They have contradictions too, but at this point it looks like what you do is select the model of God with those contradictions you can best live with.

I think the Creeds do a good job of explaining away the contradictions, but I'm still in agreement with Brian about the contradiction he posted:


The law of non-contradiction (LC) says that something can't be one thing and another thing in the same relationship at the same time. That is, something cannot both be A and ~A in the same relationship and at the same time.

...

{A}: Jesus is God, and {~A}: Jesus is not God (i.e. He is man).

The relationship between these two propositions is the same in ontology (relationship) and temporaly (i.e. at the same time). To me, this appears to violate LC. Does that make it a little clearer?

...

Two natures in one person seems to violate LC, especially when according to the council of Chalcedon you cannot seperate, confuse, change, or divided the two natures, i.e. I can't say right now Christ is acting in his nature as God, but over here He is acting in His nature as man. This is considered heretical by orthodox Christianity.

It is fine that you claim Christ's having two natures is not a contradiction, but if you are not allowed to divide them, or confuse them, or seperate them, etc..., then how can you say it is not a contradiction? If Christ is man, and Christ is God in the same relationship (i.e. nature) and at the same time (i.e., not allowed to be seperated, divided, etc...), doesn't this follow the definition for LC to the tee?


...and:


Let me try again. I will use traditional Aristotilian logic, and formulate my argument from there.

(1) All S is P.
(2) All S is ~P.

These two statements are by definition contradictory for any S and any P.

(1a) All Jesus is God. (This is declared true by the council of Nicea.)
(2a) All Jesus is Man. (This is declared true by the council of Chalcedon.)

Both of these statments are ontological, the terms have not changed, therefore there is no equivocation taking place. According to the rules of logic (2a) implies the truth value of...

(2b) All Jesus in not God.

Now we have a formal contradiction according to Aristotle's logic. Statement (1a) is of the form All S is P. Statement (2b) is of the form All S is ~P. By definition, this is a contradiction. If you take issue with (1a), you rtissue is with Nicea. If you take issue with (2a) your issue is with Chalcedon. That is why I said that the debate revolves around the logically equivalency of (2a) and (2b). If you deny this, then what is your logical basis? And does your reasoning violate the council of Chalcedon?

No one has resolved this yet. :eek:

[Athanasian]

Yesterday @ 10:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45601#post45601)
phantaz sunlyk:
by the by, i have a personal request. i request that you debate &quot;Athanasian&quot; on the doctrine of the Trinity (which he claims to believe in). sound good?

Fine with me. I'm assuming I was invited to his board for a reason. :tongue:

[Reasonable]

[QUOTE]Today @ 12:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46051#post46051)
Athanasian:
Hi Athanasian,
I agree, it gets pretty hostile around here. You said...

"I found this website explaining the Unitarian position, the JW position, the Christadelphian position, the Trinitarian position, and the Oneness positoin:

http://www.potts.net.au/Stand/OneGodQuestion.htm

...The Oneness postiion looks very solid when presented like this. They use the Scriptures the same way that the Trinitarian position does. They have contradictions too, but at this point it looks like what you do is select the model of God with those contradictions you can best live with."

I checked out the site and it probably makes the Oneness position look "solid" because it was written by a Modalist. If a Trinitarian had made the chart the questions and answers would have been the same but the scriptures, instead of being Is 9:6 and John 14:9, would have been anyone of the many that show Jesus not being the Father. Then it would have made the Trinitarian viewpoint "strong".

Unfortunately most presentations on nearly ANY religious subject are biased. This is why it's best to read arguments written by each respective group and not SUPPOSSED arguments written and refuted by the oposing viewpoint. Often times the opposing side uses strawmen or does not accurately reflect the differing viewpoint or provide all of their arguments for the alternative stance.

Happy digging!

:yipee:

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Hi,

any of you CD refuters read any John Thomas? His works are really um, 'enlightening' (if you get my drift) in terms of refuting the religion he founded - many CDs have not actually read them.

I haven't got them at hand unfortunately but I do own them (where I live right now is kinda small to keep tons of books) but Phanerosis is online, it's quite an amusing read. If you want I'll post some excerpts.

from Guy

[Athanasian]

Today @ 01:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46072#post46072)
Reasonable:
I checked out the site and it probably makes the Oneness position look &quot;solid&quot; because it was written by a Modalist. If a Trinitarian had made the chart the questions and answers would have been the same but the scriptures, instead of being Is 9:6 and John 14:9, would have been anyone of the many that show Jesus not being the Father. Then it would have made the Trinitarian viewpoint &quot;strong&quot;.

That's a good point. So why is it that the Trinitarian position and the Oneness position both use exactly the same quotes, but come to two different conclusions? And why doesn't Isaiah 9:6 say that Jesus is the Father?


Unfortunately most presentations on nearly ANY religious subject are biased. This is why it's best to read arguments written by each respective group and not SUPPOSSED arguments written and refuted by the oposing viewpoint. Often times the opposing side uses strawmen or does not accurately reflect the differing viewpoint or provide all of their arguments for the alternative stance.

I agree - but all he has there is a set of Scripture quotes with the words highlighted which say exactly what he says about Oneness position.

Thus he claims:

HE IS THE FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD

...and quotes:

"In HIM (Jesus) dwelleth ALL THE FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD bodily (Col. 2:9) "Christ is all and in all" (Col. 3:11 also 1 Cor. 8:6)

He claims:

DID JESUS -

EXIST PRIOR TO BETHLEHEM AND HOW?

YES

AS GOD, WHOM HE ALONE IS, WAS, AND EVER WILL BE

...and quotes:

"All things were MADE BY HIM" (John 1:3); "The Word WAS IN THE BEGINNING" (Jn. 1:1); "BEING IN THE FORM OF GOD" Phil. 2:1

He claims:

IS JESUS -

THE FATHER?

...and quotes:

"HIS name ... THE EVERLASTING FATHER" (Is. 9'6)' "He that hath seen ME hath seen the FA- THEIR" (Jn.14:9) also 1Jn. 3:1 2 and in. 12:45

He claims:

IS JESUS -

THE HOLY SPIRIT?

...and quotes:

"There is ONE Spirit"

(Eph. 4:4); "There is ONE Lord - JESUS CHRIST"

(I Cor, 8:6); "THE LORD IS THE SPIRIT" (2Cor. 3:17)

He claims:

WAS JESUS -

THE CREATED SON!

THE ETERNAL SON!

OR THE BEGOTTEN SON?

...and quotes:

"His only BEGOTTEN Son" (Jn. 3:16) THIS DAY have I BEGOTTEN Thee" (Heb. 1:5,6); “That Holy THING BORN called SON OF GOD” (Lk. 1:35)

He claims:

WAS CREATION -

THE EXCLUSIVE WORK OF JESUS?

...and quotes:

"One Person created all"

(Is. 44:24; Job 9:8; Neh. 9:6: Is. 37:16); That Person WAS JESUS" (Jn. 1:3 Col. 1:16; 1Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:10

Frankly, I find the Oneness position on the creation more consistent than the Trinitarian. All the Scriptures point to one person being the Creator, and we all know the relevant quotes here. Where are we told that the Father created all things?

He claims:

HOW MANY PERSONS ARE WE COMMANDED TO WORSHIP?

...and quotes:

Worship the Lord, Thy God and HIM (one Person) only shalt thou serve” (Duet. 6 4-13 Jn. 4:21-24); “HIM ONLY shalt thou serve" (one Person) never three (Matt.4:10)

There's a lot of Scripture there, and his claims only constitute a sentence or so - sometimes only a few words. It's not like he's making some kind of complicated argument. He says 'X', and then finds those very words in the Bible.

The Oneness argument makes better use of the SCriptures which talk about God as one person ('I', and 'Me', etc). The Trinitarian argument uses these inconsistently, in my opinion.

On the one hand, the Trinitarian position says that Gnesis 1:26 says 'Let us create man in our image' because all three persons are speaking.

But this isn't always held to consistently, because most of the time the words 'I' and 'Me' are used (God only says 'We' on a couple of occasions), but the Trinitarian position is that most of the time even when God sayd 'I' and 'Me', it's still all three persons - but still argue that sometimes it's only one person saying 'I' and 'Me'.

There seems to be no consistent way of determining which of the persons is speaking. And if all three persons are referred to when God says 'Us' and 'We', then reason dictates that only one preson is referred to when God says 'I' and 'Me'. Otherwise we have an inconsistent hermeneutic.

Reasonable, I've really appreciated your posts, and the effort you've made. Thanks. :thumb:

[Athanasian]

Today @ 02:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46079#post46079)
ghbearman:
any of you CD refuters read any John Thomas? His works are really um, 'enlightening' (if you get my drift) in terms of refuting the religion he founded - many CDs have not actually read them.

Are you saying that John Thomas argues against the religion he founded? Did he change his mind at some point? Or have Chrsistadelphians changed their doctrine from what he believed?

Evangelion says to me that Christadelphians don't take John Thomas as an authority in their religion. Is this true?

[Reasonable]

Athanasian.
I would recommend investing in a few books both for and against the Modalist viewpoint to get the most rounded discussion on it.

Just remember, for every "He that has seen me has seen the Father" verse is a verse that says "the Father who sent me...you have neither heard him nor seen him." (Joh 5:37)

We can harmonize these two seeming contradictions by realizing Jesus was not literally saying he was the Father. If we understand that Jesus was saying he "explained" the Father to others then we can understand why some "saw" the Father and some did not. (see Luke 11:27) Compare this to 3 John 11 where some people "saw" God and some people did not. In actuallity none of them did!


I know some Modalists do not like comparing scriptures but I believe it's an acceptable way to understand both of Jesus' sentences.

Anyway, we have to weigh the scores and scores of scriptures that imply Jesus is not the Father with the few that we may think do. In my opinion Modalists have far more explaining to do than do Trinitarians. But again, that's just my opinion. I'm sure Modalists would think differently.

[Jaltus]

I've been told that you're trying to pass off a quote from an Australian academic (George Athas) on the B-Greek discussion list as something that I posted in my final response to you at BTDF. That's a lie. You know it. I know it. So does everyone who was watching the debate; Dianne, Fortigurn, Mishael, Parakaleo, Cybeo and the rest of them. As a member of B-Greek, I can quite easily say that this is not true, AFAIK.

[AVmetro]

I want everyone to note carefully what is going on here. I accused Evangelion of "lying" (with evidence to substantiate my claim) and now he wants to pull a "me too" and point fingers at me. The disturbing aspect of this is that he had to fabricate a basis on which to accuse me.

For AVmetro:

Das me! :)

I've been told that you're trying to pass off a quote from an Australian academic (George Athas) on the B-Greek discussion list as something that I posted in my final response to you at BTDF. That's a lie. You know it. I know it.

Are you actually going to tell me to my face that you did *not* implement the citation in question into your argument? Whether linked or otherwise (I had it quoted in my response [saved as "Post 7" in order to address it, but this does not negate the fact that you used it as the 'Artist' denies! Sheesh!). Your a proven liar, little man, and now you've only further confirmed this.

So does everyone who was watching the debate; Dianne, Fortigurn, Mishael, Parakaleo, Cybeo and the rest of them.

Fortigurn? Yeah, I believe ya there. I've discussed this very citation with contacts of mine who have followed the thread itself. THey know you linked to it in order to substantiate your argument. I DARE you to accuse them of lying. I wanna see just how morally bankrupt you are. You can start with Robert Hommel.

I have no doubt that what you requested them [your witnesses] to look into was yet another nuanced spin on what is actually in view here.

Ev: "Does the quote appear there now?"

Well of course not. You evidently edited it out. Perhaps you told them I was trying to attribute the citation as a work of your own? False as well. Who knows. I've already asked for 'Parakaleo's' email addy at CARM. Don't think I won't investigate as to what you asked and what they have seen, boy. I've also taken this up with 'Kay.'

I've also been told that you're claiming to have emailed me two or three times since our debate. Well, I have two different email addresses, and neither one of them has received anything from you in the last 5 months. So you're lying again.

Probably because I never did. Never claimed to either. If I did, quote me. ;)

Dee Dee states:

Second, we have a privacy policy here that disallows the use of a members real name if that member objects. In fact, though you were not even a member at the time, I deleted a reference to your real name based upon a past objection to me at another forum. So we thank you not to use JP's real name here in any shape or form. I notice you attempted to do that in one of your above posts, and I trust you will not do so again.

He already knows this. In fact, I caught him in a lie denying that he ever knew such (See CWS). This time it's without excuse.

Note DeeDee's response, Ev. That's what we call "fair moderatorship." Perhaps I should look up the meaning in a dictionary like I had to do with your use of the word "banned." :cir:

Tick..tick..tick..

[Athanasian]

I'm a member of B-Greek too. I can affirm that George definitely said this on B-Greek.

Maybe you missed it Jaltus.

[Athanasian]

AV, can you take your private feud off these boards? I have no idea why you chose to drag it on here, but I would prefer not to see it.

I didn't know that the purpose of this forum was for you to air your dirty linen. :argue:

[Athanasian]

Yesterday @ 10:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46345#post46345)
Jaltus:

As a member of B-Greek, I can quite easily say that this is not true, AFAIK.


I think I've worked this out now, and I think you've misunderstood what was said. Evangelon is saying that AV claims he used a post from B-Greek in his argument with AV. Evangelion is denying that he used a post from B-Greek in his argument with AV.

Unless you saw that argument, you can't comment. And the argument wasn't on B-Greek, it was on Evangelion's forum, so your reference to B-Greek is irrelevant.

I suggest that this really has nothing to do with you or I, and we should both stay out of it. And it should be pulled of these boards.

AV, I see you're doing a character assassination on these boards of someone else. That doesn't fill me with confidence about the way you discuss matters. Dee-Dee Warren, I see you letting him drag a personal feud onto these forums, I see you delete a post of his opponent, and I see you permitting him to make a character assassination. That doesn't impress me with the code of conduct to which this forum holds.

I'm going to be leaving here soon, I think. Lurking wasn't bad, but I don't feel I can join in, and the atmosphere recnenly has been more than hostile - to everyone - it's been downright poisonous. :whip:

[jpholding]

Message to "Evangelion" (er, "D. B." -- pfft) ---

Just wondering when you have your next backstabbing scheduled for your consorts with the atheists. :rofl: Pitiful little creature. You won't be able to ban me or anyone else from THIS forum, so it's either face the music or run.

Spare me the bravado, i.e., "Why should I run when I always win?" We can predict your responses weeks in advance:

"This much more elouqent and scholarly commentary written in 1876 answers your uninformed, biased material from 2002."

"I am much smarter than you. You obviously lack the tools to counteract my rampant genius."

"I don't have the time nor see the need to respond to such an obvious error."

Ev just showed up on his own cemetery plot. :rofl: I'll be watching for you, little man.

[dizzle]

A couple of comments are in order here. First of all AV did not drag this issue onto this board. Evangelion came here and brought it up when it was already being adequately discussed elsewhere, AV merely defended himself. If EV really wants to discuss this in the appropriate forum he should unban AV and duke it out on the forum where all this belongs, HIS. I am not though going to deny AV the right to defend himself when EV comes onto this board bringing up these issues.

Athanasian I have not deleted any posts so you need to retract that accusation, I deleted some words which were a flagrant violation of our rules at this forum which is highly disrespectful for another Admin of another forum to come and do without serious justifications.

JP, I am asking that you not use EV's initials.

Now EV, if you insist upon dragging your dirty laundry here, please take it up in the Rant Area (Janitor's Closet). Athanasius if you want to complain further about me or AV or anything that does not have to do with Christology, please also remove it to that area as well.

I trust now we can all get back to the topic at hand. Thank you so much!!!

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** my oh me oh my! Athanasian and Ev won't debate the Trinity with eachother (though Athanasian claims to be a Trinitarian); Brian and Athanasian won't debate the coherence of the Trinity (though Brian claims it is clearly not a contradiction, and Athanasian claims it is); Athanasian expresses full sympathy with the Christadelphians and defends them. interesting glass cube.
and Ev shows up to defend...himself, of course.
wasn't it De La Soul who made that old school rap song _Ego Trippin'_? another one that may be relevant here is Del Tha Funky Homosapien's _Supa Fiend_ (...his skin is dingy, he be syngin', his lips on a glass tube, he pass' on food, his backside is glued to the seat of his pants, he got cuts and hella busts on his feat and his hands, completely entranced, give this boy a facewipe, before he meet' his contact Commisioner base-pipe...)

[Athanasian]

Yesterday @ 04:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47822#post47822)
phantaz sunlyk:
**8** my oh me oh my! Athanasian and Ev won't debate the Trinity with eachother...

Ummmm... that is totally untrue. I am on record here as already saying that I am perfectly willing to debate Evangleion on the trinity.

Why did you say something which wasn't true?

[Athanasian]

Yesterday @ 04:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47822#post47822)
phantaz sunlyk:
...Brian and Athanasian won't debate the coherence of the Trinity...

Because, as I told you before, we are in agreement on the coherence of the Trinity. I don't think you're reading the posts here.

(though Brian claims it is clearly not a contradiction, and Athanasian claims it is)

Again, I don't think you've read Brian's posts - I already gave you a dozen and one quotes from Brian which stated that the Trinity breaches the law of non-contradiction. Why didn't you read them?

[quote]...Athanasian expresses full sympathy with the Christadelphians and defends them.../quote[

Please show me where I have expressed 'full sympathy' with the Chrsitadelphians, and where I have defended them.

I think you are only here to pick fights. I don't think you are here to be helpful. I wish you would stop being so gratiutously offensive to people, and keep out of the discussion if you have nothing constructive or positive to say.

This place is really getting offensive. Where are the moderators? Is this kind of behaviour usually tolerated?

[dizzle]

Athanasian, I made a specific request to keep this thread back on topic, and if you wished to complain to take it to the appropriate forum. You decided to ignore that and still and post a complaint here in this threads, so I am moving it to the appropriate forum. Here it is

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=48442#post48442

If you want to complain about the thread title, know that it is titled in that fashion as is all threads that are started because persons ignore my very specific request to not complain in the general forum.

[dizzle]

Now if the thread participants would once again focus on the topic of this thread and the points made by AVMetro in his opening article it would be greatly appreciated!

[AVmetro]

Ummmm... that is totally untrue. I am on record here as already saying that I am perfectly willing to debate Evangleion on the trinity.

How exactly is this going to work? Especially given your statments in the "If you are a Trinitarian" thread? Are you certain that you are in the position to accurately defend the Trinity?

Please show me where I have expressed 'full sympathy' with the Chrsitadelphians, and where I have defended them.

Some of your points on John1 were quite implicit of x-delphian arguments against the Trinitarian interpretation of John's prologue.

Did you want to continue our discussion of John1 here, or was that all you had on your mind? If so, I'll post my thoughts, if not, then I'll get to you when I have the notion to do so. ;)

God bless

[Athanasian]

Yesterday @ 09:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48684#post48684)
AVmetro:
How exactly is this going to work? Especially given your statments in the &quot;If you are a Trinitarian&quot; thread? Are you certain that you are in the position to accurately defend the Trinity?

Strange as it may seem, everything I've learned about the Trinity hasn't suddenly evaporated from my head. It's still there. And I'm perfectly willing to debate it 'by the book', following such exegetes as Geisler and JP Holding.

But the discussions here have helped me see that Oneness is a more coherent model. They can explain their understanding consistently and coherently.


Some of your points on John1 were quite implicit of x-delphian arguments against the Trinitarian interpretation of John's prologue.

So what? What you really mean is that they were similar to what some Christadelpphans believe. I don't believe in guilt by association, so I don't have a problem with that. My views were perfectly orthodox, and Reasonable shares some of them (as does Brian).


Did you want to continue our discussion of John1 here, or was that all you had on your mind? If so, I'll post my thoughts, if not, then I'll get to you when I have the notion to do so. ;)

I'm still wondering how you decide that the 'word' in John 1 is titular and not ontological. What is your method for determining how the 'logos' is to be interpreted in any passage in the NT?

[AVmetro]

Strange as it may seem, everything I've learned about the Trinity hasn't suddenly evaporated from my head. It's still there. And I'm perfectly willing to debate it 'by the book', following such exegetes as Geisler and JP Holding.

If you're referring to such works on the Trinity by Geisler as what is summed up in 'Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics', then I'd do some more reading,...elsewhere. ;)

But the discussions here have helped me see that Oneness is a more coherent model. They can explain their understanding consistently and coherently.

I would contest that Oneness is any more "coherent" than the Triune view of God, but it's your perspective of understanding, not mine :).

So what? What you really mean is that they were similar to what some Christadelpphans believe. I don't believe in guilt by association, so I don't have a problem with that. My views were perfectly orthodox, and Reasonable shares some of them (as does Brian).

Similar, yes, which is why I used the word "implicit."

I'm still wondering how you decide that the 'word' in John 1 is titular and not ontological. What is your method for determining how the 'logos' is to be interpreted in any passage in the NT?

Context, as always. In reference to one of your previous posts, yes, I believe that John1 is referrent to Gen1 in regards to "in the beginning" and the act of creation. However, I do not believe that the word 'Word' in John's prologue represents the "And God said..." in Genesis, no more than I believe that "Light" (Jn1:4,5,9) is referent to the literal "light" in Gen1:3. I believe the use of 'Word', 'Light', "shining in the darkness" (vs5), etc,. could be examples of poetic parallels to Genesis as well as parallels to Christ's ministry as is demonstrated in my outline.

[mercia]

Hello All.

I had better just introduce myself.
My name is Russell, I am 31.

Was reading that last post on Christadelphianism. This is very dear to me. I should explain why. So you know where I am coming from.

In 1982, when I was 12 years old. I had a (probably rare?) and incredbile experience at the UK papal visit at Baginton Coventry...

My dad was joint head security for (insp. Trevor David Brown) as head at the time of UK tactical firearms, with another special operations high ranking policeman called Frank Garret. I had an experience my whole today is based upon (I gave up everything to write about it, and prophecy)... although no one has read it yet. It also centred around the Christadelphians, and my later experiences with them (in particular one of them).
I will try and explain briefly - though I have written 27 pages about this in minute detail and will forward if interested. And over well over a thousand pages about prophecy.

This is what happened.
I was 12 years of age at the time - my family were Catholics. And we were 'lucky' enough to be right at the very front in the VIP section because, like I say, my dad was in charge of security for this papal visit (at the time he was special protection officer also for Margaret Thatcher and also did Reagon on UK visits) amongst others.
My dad was on the side of the pope mobile, and his job was to basically shoot anyone trying to assassinate the pope, or preferably run at them waving his arms (to put them off from hitting the pope) as firing into a crowd of 300,000 is not the best idea, and/or to jump on the pope and absorb the bullet himself. Anyway he was very pumped up for this, and told me later he would have died doing his duty if necessary, and he was type that would have, although as a protestant (though not a religious man) he had no particular regard for the pope, and later told me - after meeting him he "thought he was the devil", and my father was not the superstitious sort. Anyway this papal visit was the largest security operation the UK had ever seen at the time (it was one of the first, or the first after the assasination attempt). My dad was constantly being briefed by American Secret Service on potential threats and worked with them (I always thought it strange afterwards that the American S/S were so involved in the protection of the pope behind the scenes). My dad told me he was told things he would never be able to tell anyone - by them at the time. Whatever he was told he later came to the opinion (that night) that he [the papacy] was the devil. But that will have also because of what happened to me.....I will explain
It was a sunny day, there where about 300,000 people their - all come to worship the papacy. Many had slept their for days to get a good view. Like I say, I was 12 years of age, and because my dad was in charge of security, we were in the VIP section right at the front. My grandmother (a lovely women) but a traditional catholic with pictures of John Paul all over the house and no real sense of the bible, was sitting next to me. As we were waiting for the pope to turn up, and getting very excited about seeing Gods representative on earth. I was quizzing my grandmother about whether the pope was more important than Jesus (i.e as he is seen and Jesus is not etc), at the time I was getting confused as to who was more important, Jesus or the Pope, as we waited with excitement for the pope to appear. The conclusion we came to (remember please I was 12) - was that the papacy was the same as Jesus, - i even said something like - so whats the point of Jesus when we have the papacy on earth? Anyway, proceedings began and after a certain amount of time, whilst looking at the huge stage infront of me the most incredible experience of my life occurred, something that I know I should be truly grateful for (as the Lord has given me many talents).
At the back to the right of the stage (my right/popes left), I could see (and the only way to describe it - was a black humanoid with a bird like head, - looked like a raven).
I could see this as clearly as I could see any of the cardinals or the pope infront of me - their was no distinction between the two. This was no blurry vision. I was only about 200 yards at most from the front of the stage (like I say I was in the VIP section right at the front) and it was a sunny day - everything was perfectly clear. ....
As I looked at this humanoid bird like man all in black, I was focussing on its/his eyes, as you do when you look at a person. And I can remember them perfectly - they were big and yellowish in colour (just like the eyes of a bird), and I could see exactly where he was looking. Suddenly it occurred to me he was looking out upon the massive crowd, and trying to work out who could see him. Thats when I knelt on the floor and hid behind the man in front of me, sort of peeping over his shoulder and saying "the Devils here". At this time, I would say around 10-20 adults were aware what was happening to me - there was a strict sort of Catholic nun type women who was tutting to my left about 5 seats on the row infront, and then this sort of intellectual type man (I always have him in my mind as a sort of important intellectual type man or theologian type) whose arm I was holding to, he was in the seat in front of me - he was taking what was happening and what I was saying seriously - I was a shy child, very shy and sensitive, and the thought of bringing attention to myself like this would have terrified me. The strict Catholic woman who began tutting at first would have presumed that is what I was doing - but i most certainly was not. Even though I was seeing this, I was still trying not to cause or bring attention to myself and was almost whispering what I was seeing in the mans ear who was infront of me. My grandmother was also saying "tell him what you are seeing, tell him what you are seeing" .After what must have been only about a minute, the man who sitting infront of me, who was taking what was happening and what i was telling him seriously started almost arguing with the tutting strict catholic nun type women, telling her to basically shut up - and he became very involved in what i was seeing/was happening. After what must have been about a minute, the large thick set raven (as in he looked like a bird) man - which was Satan (though I was never told this - it was Satan), and which is the only way I can describe him. Began to almost march forward to the left hand corner of the stage infront of me, (right hand side looking out), and as he came forward into the broad day sunlight - it seemed he was towering infront of me (and i have a picture of this in my head like a perfect photo) - though in reality he was just the size of a large man or perhaps a normal man, as his eyes later replaced the papacys - i will explain - as he came to the very front corner of the stage I was getting in a bad way, he was sort of marching, which is the impression i got, and when he reached the corner he did like a sort of sharp military turn... the impression i got at the time (and remember i was 12) was it was sort of a mix between hitler and darth vader, as he was all in black, almost like black leather - but with a sort of birds head. Anyway, when he turned i was looking at him from the side, and thats when I noticed he was sort of sliding his feet, as between them were chains - literally. At this stage I was too frightened to look at his face, so I was just looking at his feet and legs. By now he was walking (more like sliding his feet) accross the very front of the stage and was approaching the papacy and cardinals in the middle of the stage and I couldnt understand why the papacy and the cardinals couldnt see him. and that was making me panic even more (at this stage it is true to say I was gettinig in a real panic) as I had just realised no one else was seeing this, and started saying out load "wheres my dad, wheres my dad", as I was worried about him because of what i was seeing, and because previously he had been on the side of the pope mobile, and as the papacys bodyguard (albeit one of about 5 atleast) I knew he would be close... I think the star wars analagy was going through my head at the time (i know it sounds silly) but i was 12 and in 1979 this film sort of represented the fight in a young mind, between good and evil. When i see it now, I still think to myself, that is so close to what I felt I was seeing at the time - the imperial Roman Church trying to take over the world, Darth Vadar as Satan... etc. Though I know in truth no analagy that involves the death of millions of people "the blood of the martyrs of Jesus" can be made to a silly film... But in my childs mind at the time these were the comparisons that I was making according to what I have seen/had seen.

The next bit was the bit has changed my life forever...
At the time I had no idea that the cardinals and pope where preparing the papal mass as at every moment my eyes were fixed on Satan and his movements, from the back left hand side (my left) of the stage to the front and then across the front to the middle where the papacy and the cardinals where....I realise now he had turned up for the papal mass.
When he got to the middle the cardinals or whoever they were, I got the impression they were passing around something to each other that was relative to the mass ?- i dont know what I am not familiar with the catholic mass, but there was what seemed like a huddle of about 6 or seven cardinals I suppose they where? infront of the papacy and the altar. Satan was right in the middle of them, and the only way i can describe it, is that he was 'transposed', which is the only way to describe it, transposed over each cardinal as they passed whatever it was to each other in preperation for the mass (so it was in effect Satan preparing the mass) - and it would be Satan that concluded it.... I will explain...but basically - it was as if at the moments before the final act of the papal mass Satan was in possession of them.
At that moment I was crying out load, something like 'they cant see him, they cant see him', I can remember feeling terrorfied that I was the only one seeing this [and by now i was really terrorfied], as it was only around now, or a few seconds earlier I realised no one else was seeing this. I was still holding on to the mans arm infront and my grandmother (who knew me better than anyone really, and she knew I was not the sort of child that would be making something like this up) - she was also getting in a panick. The guy infront was great, he was constantly asking what i was seeing now etc, and this whole experience must have in part - also been for him. The next time I looked up, a few seconds later to see what was happening, the pope was just starting to hold the Golden Cup in the air, and at the moment he held the cup in the air. (Satan was transposed on top of him) - Let me explain this bit better - when i looked back up (I kept looking away and looking again as I was scared), when I looked back for a second or two I could not see Satan, and I can remember looking at the papacys eyes. It was then that his eyes (and whole body) became totally overshadowed, and while a ssecond ago I was looking at the John Pauls eyes, where they where all I could see was the big yellow eyes bird like of Satan, but this time they looked totally different, they looked really cruel. And I mean really cruel. It was like he was thriving on it.
At the precise moment the pope lifted the golden cup in the air, it was Satan holding the cup in the air, and the whole stage, which was massive, behind went dark and all I could see, as if piled on top of each other, were what looked like human bats, and there was like a noise of what I have always thought was wings, but i dont know if that was what was making the noise for sure, it was like they were applauding. I have this burned in my head like a photo, as if it happened yesterday, though this was 20 years ago now.
At that moment I shouted out load in a sort of agonizing way (as this, I sensed was my worst fear) "its the pope, its the pope" and I fell to the floor and curled up in a ball and started screaming internally. I have never felt anything like that before, it was like I was dying in my mind, I was also screaming to God for help in my mind. I think also because I thought i had just seen Satans victory over God. But within what must have been no more than a few seconds, I felt like what can only be described as a hand in my solar plexis area, literally physically lift me off the floor, and put me back on my chair. And from going from utterly terrorfied and demoralised beyond anything I have experienced before (or words can adequately describe) - I was instantly fine. I had been picked up of the floor by a angel, and he had complete and instant control over my emotions. A analagy would be of a volume type switch, if 10 was utterly terrorfied and demoralised, and 0 was perfectly fine, then i had gone from 10 to 0 instantly. I had been picked up off the floor by a angel and he immediately began speaking to me. At no point could I see him, but he was right next to my right ear, and immediately began talking to me. Not as in a internal voice in my head, but a perfectly clear external voice right next to me just slightly above me. Everything he said to me, I instantly said out load to the adults that were listening.... It was as if I didnt want this experience I was having to be for me, and didnt expect it to be for me...(although because of what was said it was for me - later in my adult life), though it affected the lives of others who were there at the time...
So i was just instantly saying out load everything he (the angel said to me)... Anyway all that is another matter (and for another post if anyone is interested). He was however - the kindest and wisest sounding man I have ever heard. He was lovely - the kind of person I would love to have fellowship with and discuss religious studies with. He was interested in exactly that (theology/eschatology) and like me, agonised over the way some people [a specific church] perceive things in the Bible related to a specific matter (he talked with me about a Church that would save me as i would fall away in my adult life - it was the Christadelphians - and that I would have to write to them about applying the techniques of science) to form theology (i.e extrapolating in a dominant linear mode), amongst other stuff - and about what I had seen (as they dont believe in Satan - but the fact I was allowed on that day to see their mistake was for a message I have to deliver to them) - as there mistake here reveals by extension all their mistakes (i.e theological reductionism from the understanding of something in two modes, natural/literal, spiritual/symbollic to one mode) - which is there preferred mode based upon the pressuppositions they started with and that which they (want) to see in the Word.
I dont think he was one of the angels mentioned in the bible, that is not the impression I got? The impression I got was of a sort of recently deceased english theologian type, who was present at the UK papal mass (the only one in decades) because angels take a great interest in these things as we do I would presume. I might be wrong about that of course, i did not ask him, but he had modern english expressions of speech. He just sounded like a normal english man, but maybe about 60 years old, he had a very kind voice like I say, and for about 10 minutes he spoke to me, and I could ask him anything I like and he answered. Like i say it was an incredible once in a lifetime experience. If you are interested in everything that was said, I wrote a 27 page document about it in minute detail, though with a few personal things omitted [I am no one special] but rather a foolish thing in the eyes of this world.
I will send it if interested. No new revelations about the Bible where given or anything like that, no real times and dates or anything (apart from what I would write in my later life). All he really did is relay back to me stuff i already knew by the time I began to write about prophecy related matters. He told me he had been reading something I did not write until 1998. And alot of that he was quoting back to me. This was 1982. Infact the very first words he said to me where "I have been reading your book". I will not go into this now, and it sounds embarrassing, but it was because I would devote my life to writing about prophecy that I was allowed to see what I did in 1982, and because of who I would have to help (the Christadelphians). Its not a book that will ever be published and its not a book that many are going to read, unless i self publish it. Its a book I began writing for a small Church about prophecy in 1998 and that is who it is for - one of their theologians - or a specific man given a specific task. The angel gave me instructions. I am doing now what he told me to do.
He said it was "sad" what had happened to the Church of Rome, or rather that what I had seen was sad. I suppose sad that so many are deceived. The most important thing he said to me was "turn to (Jesus) with all your heart and mind". He said this 3 times while talking about the Christadelphians, and I have always taken that as a major hint (as they deny His deity).
But whenever I write about this, I always stress those words, those words are always with me above all "turn to Jesus with all your heart and mind". Which was very relative to what was happening that day (with tens of thousands turning to the papacy) but not knowing they were really turning to Satan - who was procuring worship unto himself through the papacy.
After what seemed like about 10 minutes he left... My nan was feeling sick (she was in shock) and wanted to go home, I told her everything was ok now and not to worry. The man infront of me said this had changed his life, and that someone had told him the papacy was in the Revelation 17, but he "was not sure about it". But that this had confirmed his suspicions and he "had no doubt about it now", so it changed lives of others who it was obviously also meant for. Obviously as a 12 year old child I had no idea at the time I had just been allowed to see Revelation 17:4. But he knew (the man infront) - as this was happening he said out load "there is a prophecy about this".
He also asked me if anyone else had seen what I had seen when i was still speaking with the angel. And I asked the angel this, and he said another boy had on a certain row number - at the end of the event he went to find him and then came back, confirmed to my nan and one or two other adults he had seen what i had seen as well, had a chat with him, and then thanked us and left. He was also given a name of something that would happen in 1986 that both he and my grandmother wrote down, I will tell you more about that if interested.
As I was walking out at the end, the angel returned, and I was really happy to hear him again. He said he had been finding out about me and then started to talk to me about things in my later life (I am by no means anyone special and he did make that clear), I am just someone who is given up his life to get help get this Church ready, and he told me what I would have to do, which would include getting my self together "you will have to get yourself together" i.e sort myself out - and that i would have to contact a person in a certain church and help them get ready for the judgement of the churches (this is incredibly soon now). And that I would have to go to America with this other person and get that church ready over their "as Jesus wants to find you doing good works with the zeal of the first century church", and that we were not to judge ourselves by her standerds (Rome) but the standards and zeal of the first century church (he said there was no real zeal anymore). Also that I would have a great interest in prophecy... and some negative personal things as well that I would have to overcome. Which left me in no doubt I am no one special.
As a child i was very pure, and close to God I felt. And I was just a person that would devote my later life to prophecy, and therefore as I was in the right place at the right time, I suppose - I was allowed to see Rev 17:4. And probably also to help my grandmother and the chap in front.. and the church I would have to contact and help which was the main bit.
If i have had this overwhelming experience, at every papal mass there simply must be others that have seen this ?
Satan is literally present at the papal mass, and is procuring worship unto himself through the papacy. Everytime you see a photo of John Paul holding that golden cup in the air, Satan is doing so at the same time though on the photo you cannot see this. Sometimes I stare at photos of the 1982 papal mass with the pope holding the golden cup in the air, and shivers run down my spine, as i know what the photo doesn't show - but is their.
Anyway, suffice to say - my Grandmother took all her images of the papacy down, and never again compared him to Jesus, I also sat in her kitchen a few days later, and was picked up a bible, turned to the Revelation and was compelled to show her Revelation 17:4 and to tell her and my grandfather that, that is what I had seen (or been allowed to see I should say). They were good people, and trusting. If this had not happened to me they would have never have understood. They were traditional Irish Catholics and didn't think you had to worry about reading the bible as the pope and catholic priests had done that.
I asked the angel at the end of the second conversation if I could forget about what I had seen, as i would be too scared at night time etc if i remembered it (i,e having seen Satan with my own eyes), and he said he would put "a veil of forgetfulness over me" until I once more turned to Jesus in my adult life. This was when I was 28. I fell away for many years, and when I was 28 (I am 31 now), I had taken a bible course at a local college, and once more believed again - he talked with me about those that once more turned me to Jesus in my later life - and the message I have is mainly for them (haven't wrote in this letter about that), and to prepare them, he said "it was a wonderful thing what they were doing up and down the country, turning people to Jesus". The night before my last seminar with them, I asked God to send His Spirit upon me, this is in 1998. And it was at that precise moment I could once more remember, and within a few days I could remember it as if it had happened yesterday - as was the intention. The angel said "you will be able to remember all of this then".

continued next post...

[mercia]

.....
That night (the day of the papal visit), my gran came and fetched me out of bed at about 9.30 pm. Downstairs were lots of adults, and I can remember my dad standing by the fire place looking really serious. They were all looking at me, and my gran said "tell them what you saw", and I was feeling really sorry for myself and started crying. My mum was saying just leave him alone, and my gran and her started having a argument, she was saying ''Geraldine [my mums name] will you just let the boy speak". But my mum has always blocked this from her mind. She doesn't want to believe God exists, she is hard work. That night I can remember thinking that I didnt want any of this, by then I had started feeling pretty sorry for myself, and just wanted to be left alone, anyway I said out load amongst the tears "I saw the Devil, the pope was the Devil", and my dad just started nodding. (Something that happened to him that day had already made him come to that conclusion), he had met the pope and shook hands with him etc, and was obviously briefed on all the intelligence etc.. but I never got to ask him what. As he died at the age of 51 in 1992. But when I said "the Devil" he just nodded as if that is what he had been telling them (the other adults in the room that night), thats the impression I got anyway, that something had shocked him that day and he was telling them the pope was Satan. And i dont think that impression is wrong - as he said this again to me when i was about 17.
Anyway, I went back to bed, and was still feeling sorry for myself, I didn't want to talk about it anymore, but my gran came and sat next to me and began stroking my hair, saying 'dont worry i know what happened, just go to sleep now'. I remember saying 'Nan, I am going to be really poor when i grow up". Because during the second conversation with the angel, he was showing my pictures in my mind of where i was living at the time i turned back to Jesus (in about 18 years time from then), which was in a council house with no furniture in 1998.
Which is probably also why I was feeling sorry for myself, as we lived in a nice house in a nice area at the time. Anyway, as I lay in bed that night and as I was falling asleep, I said out load "ok i am ready to forget now". And I that morning I woke up, I would not remember what happened that day in 1982, until I uttered these words again in 1998 "please God send me your spirit".

I did have one other experience that must have been a few weeks or so later.
John Paul gave my dad some gold rosary beads and a sort of large papal medal for being his bodyguard etc, and we kept them in the cabinet downstairs - i still have them, or my brother does, i dont want anything to do them.
Anyway, I used to go down stairs and take them out the cabinet and sort of revere them as a child, and sort of pray to them (because the pope had touched them)... and one night (it must have been at night although it was so overwhelmingly powerful i got confused if i actually saw this or dreamt this - it was a vision), and the vision was of the rosary beads and papal medal both melting in the cabinet where they were, but as they melted they looked disgusting, and the cross started melting into a swastika.
This really disturbed me, as I thought of a cross as holy, and as a child I had no idea why the cross the pope gave my dad should melt in this vision into a swastika. Anyway, what must have been the next morning i went down to the cabinet and was amazed to see them just fine, like they always where, as this dream or vision was so powerful i could not distinguish it from waking reality. So i realised then what I had seen was a message but I was a child, I could just not understand it at all. So i took the papal medal out the cabinet and holding it in my hand said out load "please God tell me are these holy or not", and suddenly it felt absolutely disgusting in my hand, and i really do mean disgusting, and I shouted "yuk" out load and literally threw it across to the other side of the room. Later that day I prayed about the vision, and was told (though i cant remember how) but it was told overwhelmingly that it was for me to understand in my later life. I can remember suddenly feeling a huge weight lift of my shoulders instantly at that answer to my prayer, and I was really happy again, I said "thanks" and carried on playing...

That was about it until I was around about 17. I was in the kitchen with my dad, and for some reason we were talking about God. And I can remember saying to him "well you shook the popes hand did he feel all sort of warm and godly", and his reply kind of shocked me at the time, as he said "no he felt cold, I think he is the devil". This stopped me dead in my tracks so to speak, I knew what he was saying was right, but the veil had not been lifted and wouldn't be concerning what i saw until 10 years later. i can remember saying to him "well even if he is the devil, you were only doing your job'... then I made my excuses to leave, like i was frightened of the conversation... but i walked no more than a few steps before I stopped with my back to him, and said out load "I know something about that". I just froze on the spot for what must have been 30 seconds to a minute, never said a word, and then ran out the door.

Anyway, i thought I would share all this with you, as you too know the truth about these things.
I will just add that I am a deeply committed Christian. This is my life, and I know we are very close now. Proverbs say "a false witness shall perish", and knowing what I do I am not in the habit of committing suicide. Neither am i deluded - everything has been left in my mind as if it happened yesterday. Every word I have spoken to you happened, and happened exactly as relayed.

I share this with you for the edification of the Church, the Bride of Christ.

God bless
Russ

[AVmetro]

Welcome to TWeb. Interesting post.

God bless

[Edge]

And again, your paranoia is a pleasure to witness. It makes me proud to know that your thoughts turn automatically to me whenever somebody starts ripping the guts out of a Trinitarian argument.

Mat 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by [his] fruit.

Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

[Bill the Cat]

But the discussions here have helped me see that Oneness is a more coherent model. They can explain their understanding consistently and coherently.

May I suggest a book for you to read? A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology: Defending the Tri-Unity of God by Edward L. Dalcour

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0761829938/ref=ed_oe_p/104-5346420-2918351?ie=UTF8

[Edge]

Or, if you can go to;
http://christiandefense.org/jw_doctrin.htm (Edward L. Dalcour)

"Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other." (Tertullian Against Praxes).

[TrevorL]

Howdy Edge, AVMetro and others,

Greetings. I appreciate your resurrecting this thread, as it has allowed me to reconsider both viewpoints of John 1. I have read your article on the Trinity vs the JW position by Edward L. Dalcour. My only comments at this stage on the article is that it attempts to answer the JW position and this is different to the Cd beliefs, especially, relevant to this thread, the Cds have a different view of John 1. The JWs also believe that "Wisdom" in Proverbs 8 is Jesus, while the Cds believe that "Wisdom" is a personification of God's character as a beautiful, virtuous woman and that this personification is a good introduction to John 1:1. The article you referred to on the Trinity did not convince me personally to accept the Trinity, but rather it helped me to reinforce the view that there is One God, the Father and Jesus is the Son of God.

The following is a brief perspective on John 1, drawing on some of the previous discussion and adding a few comments. The following verses were quoted by AVMetro in Post #2:
Psalm 33:6-9 (KJV): "6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast."
AVMetro attempts to introduce the possibility a pre-existent Jesus as an intermediate agent in the above passage, but this passage does not teach this. Rather the simple, clear meaning is that God spake and the end result was that the heavens were created. There is a simple echo of Genesis 1, where "God said" and it was done, eg
Genesis 1:3 (KJV): "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
My personal belief is that the intermediate agents in creation were the angels, and this is based on the "us" and "our" in Genesis 1:26. This view is also confirmed by Psalm 8:5 and Hebrews 2:7 which quote and allude to Genesis 1:26.

The interesting aspect of Psalm 33:6-9 is that it almost gives a partial personification, or objective independence to "the word of the LORD" and "the breath of his mouth". It is as if the word spoken is powerful to accomplish what was spoken. A similar poetical usage is seen in the following:
Psalm 147:15-18 (KJV): "15 He sendeth forth his commandment upon earth: his word runneth very swiftly. 16 He giveth snow like wool: he scattereth the hoarfrost like ashes. 17 He casteth forth his ice like morsels: who can stand before his cold? 18 He sendeth out his word, and melteth them: he causeth his wind to blow, and the waters flow."

There is also a partial personification of the word in the following:
Isaiah 55:10-11 (KJV): "10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."
Here the word even returns to God, and the whole of this could be seen as a summary of the conception, birth, growth, accomplishments and ultimately the death, resurrection and ascenscion of Jesus, the word made flesh, to sit at the right hand of God, the Father. But the source of all this is the spoken word of God. the Father and this spoken word was still future to Isaiah's days.

John 1:14 (KJV): "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
This shows that the glory of God's character, fulness of grace and truth, is attributed to the fact that Jesus is the Son of God, begotten by God the Father. How this was accomplished is simply and clearly stated in the following:
Luke 1:35 (KJV): "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

The glory mentioned in John 1:14 was seen when Jesus was publicly revealed at the age of 30. His character, wisdom, fulness of grace and truth is not attributed to Jesus being pre-existent as he grew in wisdom from a child:
Luke 2:52 (KJV): "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man."


Kind regards
Trevor

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Edge, AVMetro and others,

Recently I read again Revelation 19:3 and feel that it summarises the view that the Word of John 1 represents firstly the spoken word of God, then the thoughts and mind of God the Father, and then the living embodiment of this spoken Word, the Lord Jesus Christ John 1:1-2,14.
Revelation 19:11-13 (KJV): "11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

Kind regards
Trevor