I created a “heresy”: Categoricalism

[slaveofone]

At least I think I created it... I've never read of anyone who thought likewise. Although, I must admit, I've not read a great deal of the myriads of heretics who don't conform to the ridiculous legalistic details of Pharisaic-Christian philosophy. But I digress. The name I've given to my theological position is Categoricalism. This conception of Yeshua is something like Ebionism and Adoptionism, but with significant differences. Briefly stated, it posits that Yeshua was made by YHWH to represent him (to be the image, form, appearance, proxy, or avatar of YHWH). Yeshua is thus categorically God, but not ontologically God. Yahweh is one person and Yeshua is not that person, but he represents that person in heaven and on earth. How and why this works is explained below.

In Jewish thinking, a person could be identified as another. This does not mean, however, that said person was ontologically the other. It means that said person is conveyed or understood to stand in the other's place and be the presence or category of the other. This identification-distinction has its roots in the ancient Judaic concept of the shaliach. When there are two people, the sent (shaliach) and the sender, although the sent remains subordinate to the sender, they are understood to be equal, one, or united. The sent is seen to rank, have the same authority, and have the same power as the sender. The sent is not, of course, greater than the sender. And at no point did the sent ever literally become the person and nature of the other. Rabbinicism eventually took this to the point that the representative not only becomes identical to the authority, identity, and function of the other, but takes only the very qualities of the other as well (see Babylonian Gemara, Kiddushin 43a).

I believe that, ontologically, Yeshua only was and ever is a man. Like Abraham before him, he was called to walk with YHWH and be blameless and like Abraham before him, so he did. This does not mean that I believe Yeshua was always and forever sinless. On the contrary, as part of his walking blamelessly, Yeshua sought out and demanded to be put through John's baptism of repentance, which to any Jewish observer could mean nothing other than hoping to be accepted from a state of sin or defilement into a state of YHWH's righteousness. And so the Spirit descended.

Unlike Adoptionism, I do not believe either that Yeshua became YHWH or that YHWH became Yeshua at this point, but that YHWH at this time completely removed all sin and defilement from Yeshua because of his own covenant faithfulness and so that, being the first to receive the promises of the eternal covenant through removal of all sin, Yeshua could thereby be the conduit through which Israel and then the rest of the world received the promises and removal of sin also. From this point forward, unless Yeshua should pursue his own way and path in opposition to YHWH's, he would now be the appearance in his very flesh of YHWH's own redemption and righteousness.

Yeshua was obedient to YHWH's path and way unto death and so YHWH resurrected his material body as the final and definitive act of (as Romans 1:3-4 says) installing him into the position or office of “Son of God”. The word there that most translations fear to deal with is horizein, used many times throughout the NT and always meaning the same thing. It has the same meaning as the phrase “he was made bishop”, meaning the establishment of a position or office. “Son of God” is a functional, not an ontological, description. Only one thing left! Once Yeshua is then exalted and glorified by sitting at the right hand of and receiving the kingdom from the Ancient of Days, he is the complete image or form of God.

To speak of the man Yeshua is thus to speak of the God of Israel and to speak of the God of Israel is to speak of the man Yeshua. Man was made the image of YHWH in a way only cryptically and prophetically announced to Adam and his descendants. Or to put it another way, the Word became flesh. To praise Yeshua is to praise Yahweh. To worship Yeshua is to worship Yahweh. But to make Yeshua be third person in a Trinity or to say he has a divine nature equal to and in union with his human one is to commit idolatry.

[furay]

Um, go you?

[slaveofone]

It seems to me that Categoricalism has a great many strengths. First of all, it allows one to have a complete rational understanding (i.e., it has no need for a leap of faith into non-rational “mystery” and it doesn't ask of creation something that cannot be demonstrated or evidenced anywhere in creation itself). Second, unlike Trinitarianism or many of its offshoot heresies, the Judaic perspective is foundational and definitive of Categoricalism. Third, the basic premise of Categoricalism (that one could be identified as someone else without literally being that other person or their ontos) is seen repeatedly throughout the OT and NT (an example being when Yeshua identifies Peter as Satan or Adam being identified as mankind). Fourth, the concept is based on critical-historical investigation such that it works with instead of against cultural perspectives and world-views of the time. Fifth, it allows one to arrive at any biblical perspective of Yeshua without creating a link between perspectives that cannot be found in the bible itself (i.e., the bible regards Yeshua in some places as man and in others as God, but it nowhere regards Yeshua as one of several persons in YHWH, or YHWH as many persons, or that Yeshua has two natures, etc). And finally, sixth, it is coherent and simple (i.e., it explains the biblical data without distorting the data and helps to explain other areas of inquiry).

[Sparko]

um, The bible says that Yeshua created EVERYTHING and that NOTHING was made without him. That kinda means he is not a creation himself.

John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

[slaveofone]

um, The bible says that Yeshua created EVERYTHING and that NOTHING was made without him. That kinda means he is not a creation himself.

John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Correction, John does not say through Yeshua all things were made, it says through "the Word" all things were made. John then it says the Word became flesh. This is exactly what Categoricalism says--it says that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with YHWH and the Word was YHWH and then at one point in time, the man Yeshua was made by YHWH to be the representation (or appearance/image/form) of the Word which before existed without that representation. Yeshua has not ceased to be a man and YHWH has not ceased to be God by becoming a man. But Yeshua has humbled himself and therefore YHWH has exalted him to represent him categorically (not ontologically).

So in short, Categoricalism fully agrees with John that the Word created everything and that Yeshua eventually represented this Word. But it does not say something that the text also does not say. In such ways, Categoricalism is biblically coherent.

[Sparko]

Correction, John does not say through Yeshua all things were made, it says through "the Word" all things were made. John then it says the Word became flesh. This is exactly what Categoricalism says--it says that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with YHWH and the Word was YHWH and then at one point in time, the man Yeshua was made by YHWH to be the representation (or appearance/image/form) of the Word which before existed without that representation. Yeshua has not ceased to be a man and YHWH has not ceased to be God by becoming a man. But Yeshua has humbled himself and therefore YHWH has exalted him to represent him categorically (not ontologically).

So in short, Categoricalism fully agrees with John that the Word created everything and that Yeshua eventually represented this Word. But it does not say something that the text also does not say. In such ways, Categoricalism is biblically coherent.

seems like you are playing 'word' games then. :hehe:

Do you agree that the Word was God?

Do you agree that the Word and the Father are two distinct persons and yet one God? (and what about the Holy Spirit?)

[slaveofone]

seems like you are playing 'word' games then. :hehe:

Do you agree that the Word was God?

Do you agree that the Word and the Father are two distinct persons and yet one God? (and what about the Holy Spirit?)

Categoricalism says that the Word and the Father are one and the same person and therefore are one and the same God. Categoricalism says that Yeshua is a different person from God, yet he comes to represent in creation that which he is not--the person of the Word, God.

[alam]

Categoricalism says that the Word and the Father are one and the same person and therefore are one and the same God. Categoricalism says that Yeshua is a different person from God, yet he comes to represent in creation that which he is not--the person of the Word, God.

Shalom Slaveofone,

I find some agreement with your theology, though not with your interpretation on John 1, and appreciate your reference to the Jewish principle of agency.

Am I right to think that you attribute divinity (elahut) in an attenuated or delegated sense to Yeshua? If so, do you conceive the divinity of Yeshua as ultimately reducible to the divinity of God, i.e. at the end of the day the Yeshua is simply using God's credit and in his own right is divine in no sense whatsoever, or is there a sense in which Yeshua is divine in his own right, albeit subordinately and perhaps incommensurably to God?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

This is exactly what Categoricalism says--it says that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with YHWH and the Word was YHWH and then at one point in time, the man Yeshua was made by YHWH to be the representation (or appearance/image/form) of the Word which before existed without that representation.
No, it doesn't say that the man Jesus represented the word, or that the word was represented by flesh. it says the word "became" flesh. Therefore the man Jesus is the word who created the world.

[RCNicholas]

At least I think I created it... I've never read of anyone who thought likewise. Although, I must admit, I've not read a great deal of the myriads of heretics who don't conform to the ridiculous legalistic details of Pharisaic-Christian philosophy. But I digress. The name I've given to my theological position is Categoricalism. This conception of Yeshua is something like Ebionism and Adoptionism, but with significant differences. Briefly stated, it posits that Yeshua was made by YHWH to represent him (to be the image, form, appearance, proxy, or avatar of YHWH). Yeshua is thus categorically God, but not ontologically God. Yahweh is one person and Yeshua is not that person, but he represents that person in heaven and on earth. How and why this works is explained below.

In Jewish thinking, a person could be identified as another. This does not mean, however, that said person was ontologically the other. It means that said person is conveyed or understood to stand in the other's place and be the presence or category of the other. This identification-distinction has its roots in the ancient Judaic concept of the shaliach. When there are two people, the sent (shaliach) and the sender, although the sent remains subordinate to the sender, they are understood to be equal, one, or united. The sent is seen to rank, have the same authority, and have the same power as the sender. The sent is not, of course, greater than the sender. And at no point did the sent ever literally become the person and nature of the other. Rabbinicism eventually took this to the point that the representative not only becomes identical to the authority, identity, and function of the other, but takes only the very qualities of the other as well (see Babylonian Gemara, Kiddushin 43a).

I believe that, ontologically, Yeshua only was and ever is a man. Like Abraham before him, he was called to walk with YHWH and be blameless and like Abraham before him, so he did. This does not mean that I believe Yeshua was always and forever sinless. On the contrary, as part of his walking blamelessly, Yeshua sought out and demanded to be put through John's baptism of repentance, which to any Jewish observer could mean nothing other than hoping to be accepted from a state of sin or defilement into a state of YHWH's righteousness. And so the Spirit descended.

Unlike Adoptionism, I do not believe either that Yeshua became YHWH or that YHWH became Yeshua at this point, but that YHWH at this time completely removed all sin and defilement from Yeshua because of his own covenant faithfulness and so that, being the first to receive the promises of the eternal covenant through removal of all sin, Yeshua could thereby be the conduit through which Israel and then the rest of the world received the promises and removal of sin also. From this point forward, unless Yeshua should pursue his own way and path in opposition to YHWH's, he would now be the appearance in his very flesh of YHWH's own redemption and righteousness.

Yeshua was obedient to YHWH's path and way unto death and so YHWH resurrected his material body as the final and definitive act of (as Romans 1:3-4 says) installing him into the position or office of “Son of God”. The word there that most translations fear to deal with is horizein, used many times throughout the NT and always meaning the same thing. It has the same meaning as the phrase “he was made bishop”, meaning the establishment of a position or office. “Son of God” is a functional, not an ontological, description. Only one thing left! Once Yeshua is then exalted and glorified by sitting at the right hand of and receiving the kingdom from the Ancient of Days, he is the complete image or form of God.

To speak of the man Yeshua is thus to speak of the God of Israel and to speak of the God of Israel is to speak of the man Yeshua. Man was made the image of YHWH in a way only cryptically and prophetically announced to Adam and his descendants. Or to put it another way, the Word became flesh. To praise Yeshua is to praise Yahweh. To worship Yeshua is to worship Yahweh. But to make Yeshua be third person in a Trinity or to say he has a divine nature equal to and in union with his human one is to commit idolatry.As an orthodox Trinitarian, I do of course disaree with you. I believe Jesus is Jehovah (http://www.carm.org/doctrine/Jehovah_is_Jesus.htm)

[JackC]

No need to rename what you offer here, slaveofone. It is Biblical...

14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

Yeshua (Jesus) is the flesh and blood - or the Son of Man - with which the Word, or Son of God, was clothed.

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. - Paul

Flesh and blood is fallen, corruptible, and cannot inherit the kingdom of God. It is merely the clothes that souls clothe themselves in this world - discarded when a transfigured soul leaves this world.

Resurrected Jesus did clothe himself in a resurrected physical body, but that was discarded/dissolved as He ascended.

And so while your ideas are heresy (contrary to the traditions of men), they are not unbiblical.

I commend you for walking fearlessly, not being bound by what men say.



Jack

[mastralvarado]

At least I think I created it... I've never read of anyone who thought likewise. Although, I must admit, I've not read a great deal of the myriads of heretics who don't conform to the ridiculous legalistic details of Pharisaic-Christian philosophy. But I digress. The name I've given to my theological position is Categoricalism. This conception of Yeshua is something like Ebionism and Adoptionism, but with significant differences. Briefly stated, it posits that Yeshua was made by YHWH to represent him (to be the image, form, appearance, proxy, or avatar of YHWH). Yeshua is thus categorically God, but not ontologically God. Yahweh is one person and Yeshua is not that person, but he represents that person in heaven and on earth. How and why this works is explained below.

I kind of agree with your position. The Head that is the only Head (YHWH), the head(Yeshua) that is not the Head(ontologically) and the Head(Yeshua) that is (categorically) the Head (YHWH). This could be the main ingredient of your doctrine.

In Jewish thinking, a person could be identified as another. This does not mean, however, that said person was ontologically the other. It means that said person is conveyed or understood to stand in the other's place and be the presence or category of the other. This identification-distinction has its roots in the ancient Judaic concept of the shaliach. When there are two people, the sent (shaliach) and the sender, although the sent remains subordinate to the sender, they are understood to be equal, one, or united. The sent is seen to rank, have the same authority, and have the same power as the sender. The sent is not, of course, greater than the sender. And at no point did the sent ever literally become the person and nature of the other. Rabbinicism eventually took this to the point that the representative not only becomes identical to the authority, identity, and function of the other, but takes only the very qualities of the other as well (see Babylonian Gemara, Kiddushin 43a).


I see now, you are saying that Yeshua = G-d (categorically/qualitatively) and Yeshua not equals G-d (ontologically/quantitatively). Is this correct? If it is please let me know.


I believe that, ontologically, Yeshua only was and ever is a man. Like Abraham before him, he was called to walk with YHWH and be blameless and like Abraham before him, so he did. This does not mean that I believe Yeshua was always and forever sinless. On the contrary, as part of his walking blamelessly, Yeshua sought out and demanded to be put through John's baptism of repentance, which to any Jewish observer could mean nothing other than hoping to be accepted from a state of sin or defilement into a state of YHWH's righteousness. And so the Spirit descended.


The mystery is this: how does a man's wisdom come to be equated with YHWH ?? I know wisdom and knowledge are two independent functions of the human mind. In knowing this do I become knower of the mystery of the essence of G-d being He immaterial/immeasureable? NO. Except, of course, if G-d was material or even a part of Him was material, someone/anyone could equate G-d with almost anything (material): even non-materialistic things/immaterial things. On the other hand, If you knew G-d's substance (essence) but not His function, all you would be capable of equating material things to some mystery. Agnostics (Trinitarians specially) say they know G-d is immaterial/independent and they know His wisdom (function) based on the scriptures. The Gnostics say that the god that is in the scriptures is the demiurge and that true G-d is the One Yeshua worshipped. But since Trinitarians still believe that Jesus did know the Hour, and did not lie when he said "only the father in heaven knows the hour", then, they know that the hour is in the father who is not Jesus but is attached to Jesus in ontological terms. Therefore these Agnostics actually know the Hour because the father knows the Hour. And they are all his sons:

Very long story short, the point is not so much as to whether Trinitarians believe in the oneness of G-d but as to whether Agnostics believe that the function and essence of G-d are independent of each other or dependent of each other as would some wise man say knowledge is ignorance without wisdom. If G-d's function is dependent upon His essence, Agnostics remain Agnostics because they are ignoring the fact that Jesus lied (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Matthew+24%3A36) if he said he was G-d and at the same time did not know the Hour. If wisdom and knowledge are independent (like wisdom is not dependent upon knowledge in the human mind), Agnostics are not really agnostics but Gnostics because they know G-d's essence manifest somewhere attached to each individual's wisdom. Why? Because some of them agreed Jesus (being fully man and Fully G-d) did not know the Hour (in knowledge)and at the same time he DID possess the Hour attached to him (throught sonship of the father) But we (humans) ALL possess wisdom in some form. Therefore we all possess knowledge of the Hour being all the Father's sons according to the Trinitarians. I don't know, but my Qur'an says none has knowledge of the Hour except G-d.

Summary:
God=One
Father=Wisdom=Possesions
Son=Material=Flesh
Spirit=Knowledge=Word


Unlike Adoptionism, I do not believe either that Yeshua became YHWH or that YHWH became Yeshua at this point, but that YHWH at this time completely removed all sin and defilement from Yeshua because of his own covenant faithfulness and so that, being the first to receive the promises of the eternal covenant through removal of all sin, Yeshua could thereby be the conduit through which Israel and then the rest of the world received the promises and removal of sin also. From this point forward, unless Yeshua should pursue his own way and path in opposition to YHWH's, he would now be the appearance in his very flesh of YHWH's own redemption and righteousness.


I do not agree at all. You seem to think that the very substance of YHWH's own redemption and righteousness became manifest in Yeshua (a materialistic being).



Yeshua was obedient to YHWH's path and way unto death and so YHWH resurrected his material body as the final and definitive act of (as Romans 1:3-4 says) installing him into the position or office of “Son of God”. The word there that most translations fear to deal with is horizein, used many times throughout the NT and always meaning the same thing. It has the same meaning as the phrase “he was made bishop”, meaning the establishment of a position or office. “Son of God” is a functional, not an ontological, description. Only one thing left! Once Yeshua is then exalted and glorified by sitting at the right hand of and receiving the kingdom from the Ancient of Days, he is the complete image or form of God.


the problem here is the resurrection of the material body, implies dependency of YHWH for Yeshua's material body. YHWH has only to fullfil His own Covenant with Himself in His Knowledge. Likewise, G-d's Wisdom can be shown to be a double edge sword, it can be true that He resurrected Jesus but at the same time it can be also true that He did not for only He possesses the knowledge of the seen and unseen.


To speak of the man Yeshua is thus to speak of the God of Israel and to speak of the God of Israel is to speak of the man Yeshua. Man was made the image of YHWH in a way only cryptically and prophetically announced to Adam and his descendants. Or to put it another way, the Word became flesh. To praise Yeshua is to praise Yahweh. To worship Yeshua is to worship Yahweh. But to make Yeshua be third person in a Trinity or to say he has a divine nature equal to and in union with his human one is to commit idolatry.

Yes, the other day I said the name Jesus (=Yeshua) and something strange happened to my monitor, it somehow began to flicker and the lights went dim for a second. I can see how somehow the king of this world has made that name (Jesus) to have power of those who have many materialistic possesions. To think that any name other than Jehova (YHWH) has any power over the material world I think that that is just ridiculous.

[barnasha]

To speak of the man Yeshua is thus to speak of the God of Israel


you dont tell israel who he worships

Yeh shua worshipped yeh, why else would he keep that name?

[mastralvarado]

I don't UnDeRsTaNd what you are trying to say here? Could you please elaborate or send me a PM?

[slaveofone]

No, it doesn't say that the man Jesus represented the word, or that the word was represented by flesh. it says the word "became" flesh. Therefore the man Jesus is the word who created the world.

When John says the Word became Yeshua, it could mean that the Word became Yeshua ontologically or it could mean the Word became Yeshua categorically. John does not specify. Categoricalism picks the second, meaning Yeshua is the Word in form/image/representation, not in being, person, or nature (as Trinitarianism or its offshoot heresies would say). Categoricalism can therefore agree that Yeshua is the Word through which the world was created.

I see now, you are saying that Yeshua = G-d (categorically/qualitatively) and Yeshua not equals G-d (ontologically/quantitatively). Is this correct?

I believe you got it. It's like when I watched Bush give a speech last night—I didn't watch Bush's ontos or person give a speech, I watched a bunch of points of light flickering on my television monitor. But those flickering points of light represented Bush and his act of speech-giving in such a way that I can truthfully (according to Categoricalism) say that I say Bush give a speech. Ontologically speaking, however, this was not at all the case. So it is with Yeshua. YHWH made him to become the image of YHWH, but like the TV showing Bush and Bush's speech, this in no way means Yeshua of his own self or being was ever God.

You seem to think that the very substance of YHWH's own redemption and righteousness became manifest in Yeshua

I am saying that what YHWH willed and what YHWH would have spoken and all those ways YHWH shows himself to his creation to be powerful and mighty and saviour took place fully in Yeshua, although it did not originate with Yeshua.

[Sparko]

This heresy sounds suspiciously like the movie Tron where the user creates an avatar and sends him into the computer world.

It is a form of modalism.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

When John says the Word became Yeshua, it could mean that the Word became Yeshua ontologically or it could mean the Word became Yeshua categorically. John does not specify. Categoricalism picks the second, meaning Yeshua is the Word in form/image/representation, not in being, person, or nature (as Trinitarianism or its offshoot heresies would say). Categoricalism can therefore agree that Yeshua is the Word through which the world was created.
Your problem here is that John doesn't simply say that the word become Yeshua. John says the word became flesh, so it is ontological.

[jwarrend]

In Jewish thinking, a person could be identified as another. This does not mean, however, that said person was ontologically the other. It means that said person is conveyed or understood to stand in the other's place and be the presence or category of the other. This identification-distinction has its roots in the ancient Judaic concept of the shaliach. When there are two people, the sent (shaliach) and the sender, although the sent remains subordinate to the sender, they are understood to be equal, one, or united. The sent is seen to rank, have the same authority, and have the same power as the sender. The sent is not, of course, greater than the sender. And at no point did the sent ever literally become the person and nature of the other.


I think you're overstating the role of the shaliach. To the extent that I understand it, the shaliach is best thought of as an emissary, one who stands in the place of the sender and is invested with the authority of the sender. But the shaliach would not be thought of as being equal to the sender, or united with the sender. In the OT, a prophet or an angel of the Lord could be considered to have fulfilled this role, as they spoke in God's place, as if God were present and speaking on His own behalf. But one would never confuse the emissary with God; one would never worship the messenger as if he were Himself God. And certainly, the emissary himself would never allow himself to be confused as being equal with God.

The problem is that Jesus did exactly this; He claimed to be God, not merely to be speaking on God's behalf. And, He did not ever correct anyone who was, by your account, confused into believing that Jesus was God.

I predict the following course of this discussion. We (orthodox believers) will present numerous scriptures that indicate that Jesus was God, and you will give an alternative interpretation of those verses that is consistent with your view. ie, when asked to responded to Jesus' statement "before Abraham was, I AM", for example, you'll say something like "Well, Jesus wasn't speaking of himself here; because he was acting as God's emissary, he was speaking of God's timeless existence, not his own". I predict the discussion will scuttle because you will attempt to create and then leverage ambiguity in statements by and about Jesus, claiming that because Jesus was acting as God's emissary, those statements should be understood as representing Jesus speaking in God's place. Circular reasoning will abound.

I hope to be proven wrong, but I think that rather than go down the road I described above, where we bring forth texts that, to us, unambiguously affirm Jesus' divinity, perhaps you should begin by adducing positive evidence for your case, preferably from Scripture. What in the Gospels, for instance, communicates the sense that Jesus is "merely" God's emissary? Where do we see Jesus resisting or refuting the implication that He is equal to God? For example, in some cases He receives worship; do we ever see Him refusing to accept worship, or insisting that worship is reserved for God alone? By comparison, do we see examples of prophets receiving worship in the OT? So in addition to positive evidence that Jesus was God's emissary, you also need to flesh out the role that you believe the emissary played, and the boundaries of what would and would not have been considered legitimate conduct on the emissary's behalf. And of course, you'll need to provide support for this theory as well. I claim that the OT prophets provide a useful model for what the role of a human emissary would encompass, and by extension, that Jesus flagrantly went beyond those boundaries. If this is the case, it hardly seems the kind of conduct that God would reward by subsequently conferring His Divine nature onto Christ, as you claim. Such conduct only seems permissible, to me, if Jesus was something more than an "ordinary" human emissary.

-Jeff

[slaveofone]

It is a form of modalism.

I’m afraid Categoricalism cannot be Modalism because it denies the fundamental tenets of Modalism. In Categoricalism, Yeshua becoming the Word (or the Word becoming flesh) in no way means YHWH ceases to be the Father. Since Categoricalism allows one to call the burning bush a form or image of YHWH, the pillar of fire a form or image of YHWH, the Shekinah a form or image of YHWH, the three visitors to Abraham a form or image of YHWH, Yeshua a form of image of YHWH, etc, etc, etc, it should by now be obvious that Categoricalism does not in any way restrict YHWH to a “mode”—let alone one of three at a single time. If YHWH so chose, he could have made it so that any number of things or persons in creation represented him at any time or any place. And this in no way changes or alters or affects him. It just so happens, however, that Yeshua was made by YHWH to be the final and complete representation for humanity. One can by no means equate that with Modalism.

Your problem here is that John doesn't simply say that the word become Yeshua. John says the word became flesh, so it is ontological.

Unfortunately, there is no problem here. Categoricalism agrees that the Word became flesh. The difference between Trinitarianism’s understanding of John and Categoricalism’s understanding of John is one of degree, not of fact. If it hasn’t been made clear by now, the representation of YHWH that Categoricalism speaks of is one in and of flesh. For instance, by sacrificing his flesh for those in sin, Yeshua’s flesh became the Word. By Yeshua’s flesh rising from the dead, Yeshua’s flesh became the Word. By Yeshua’s flesh touching other flesh and healing it, Yeshua’s flesh became the Word. By Yeshua speaking the very words of YHWH with his mouth, Yeshua’s flesh became the Word. By speaking and creation obeys him, Yeshua’s flesh became the Word. Categoricalism therefore has no disagreement with John, only with Trinitarianism’s understanding of John.

On another note…

One of the great strengths of Categoricalism is that it understands Yeshua being God in terms of scriptural and prophetic description, whereas Trinitarianism understands Yeshua being God in terms of the philosophical makeup of a person’s and deity’s being. Categoricalism better represents both the Jewish world-view and the scriptures which have nothing to say about the Messiah’s own personal ontological being and makeup, but speak instead about his function and what he represents. For instance, scripture says the messiah would be a shepherd. Show me how Yeshua’s flesh was ontologically and literally a shepherd? Scripture says the Messiah would be a savior. Show me how Yeshua’s literal flesh is a savior. Was he not a shepherd in that he showed the people of Israel the path to walk? Was he not a savior in that he sacrificed his life so others would live? Categoricalism agrees with scripture that it is these very things like dying so others can live and guiding YHWH’s people to himself that show him to be God, not Trinitarianism’s strange and unscriptural claim that the very literal makeup of his flesh does this.

[slaveofone]

I think you're overstating the role of the shaliach...one would never confuse the emissary with God;

Categoricalism is based on this Judaic concept and world-view of the shaliach, but I never said or meant to imply that this concept and world-view fully explains it. I am merely pointing out that Categoricalism makes sense as an extension of a commonly held Judaic perspective. Here is an example of a similar idea and its base so you can see what I mean:

Some first century Jews had a messianic expectation that when the Messiah came, he would conquer Israel's enemies. And by enemies, of course, they meant Rome and surrounding Pagan nations that had risen up or might rise up against them. When Yeshua came, he claimed to be defeating Israel's enemies and fulfilling this messianic expectation by instead exorcising demons. Now, you may disagree with Yeshua and say that exorcising demons is not what “defeating Israel's enemies” means, however you cannot say that Yeshua's claim doesn't make sense or isn't based on that ancient Judaic messianic concept.

You may disagree that YHWH could or would ever allow something or someone else to represent him in creation—especially in such a way that such a thing/person could be called him without actually being him, but this does not mean that Categoricalism does not derive directly from a common understanding of ancient Judaism. All I meant to show (by referring to the concept of the shaliach) was that it does.

one would never worship the messenger as if he were Himself God. And certainly, the emissary himself would never allow himself to be confused as being equal with God.

I'm afraid that there are literally hundreds of places in canonical and extra-canonical texts which disagree with you. I will show a couple examples from two textual narratives to get the point across. The reason I include an extra-canonical example is to show how truly wrong what you say is, for it even spread outside scripture into popular and folkloric literature and thus was a truly ubiquitous perspective in Judaism.

Canonical – Genesis 18:2; 18:3; 18:13
--First verse reference, Abraham worships the three men as God—from the Hebrew verb hishtakhavah, meaning “to worship”. The three men not only allow it, but give no sign of having a problem with it.
--Second verse reference, Abraham calls the three men Adonai, the term reserved for the name of God. Again, they have no problem with it.
--Third verse reference, Genesis itself calls the three men YHWH. Do YOU have a problem with that?

Non-canonical - Joseph and Aseneth 15:12x; 16:11; 17:9
--First verse reference, Aseneth asks the name of the Chief of the House of the Most High so that she can “praise and glorify his name forever”. The Chief has no problem with this, only with her ability to understand his name, which he says is too great for man to know.
--Second verse reference, Aseneth realizes the Chief is the divine Logos by speaking the honeycomb into existence and tells him—he praises her for her understanding.
--Third verse reference, Aseneth prays a psalm of praise to YHWH and not only calls YHWH by the same name she called the Chief, but she says in her prayer to YHWH with reference specifically and directly to the Chief, “I have spoken before you [God].”

So you see from looking at only the tip of the iceberg, YHWH was worshiped and praised and honored via representation and those entities that represented him had no problem with it. If, however, someone were to worship something or someone that was not meant by YHWH to be such a representation of him, YES, that would be bad...and YES it would not be allowed...and we have examples of that in scripture also.

He did not ever correct anyone who was, by your account, confused into believing that Jesus was God.

My account doesn't say that someone is confused if they say he is God—on the contrary, Categoricalism says that Yeshua is God. It means this, however, in a very different way than Trinitarianism means it. And, I believe, it means it in the way those who called him God meant when they said it for many of the reasons and based on many of the evidences I've already given.

[Sparko]

you are trying too hard to force your theory into the text of the bible. It reeks of eisogeses.

[slaveofone]

Before I get to some of your other statements and questions, let me just clear up this misunderstanding...

I claim that the OT prophets provide a useful model for what the role of a human emissary would encompass, and by extension, that Jesus flagrantly went beyond those boundaries. If this is the case, it hardly seems the kind of conduct that God would reward by subsequently conferring His Divine nature onto Christ, as you claim.

It is not the case. And this is not what I'm claiming. In Categoricalism, Yeshua did not go beyond the boundaries of an emissary. ***YHWH did.**** It was YHWH who resurrected him, thereby giving his very flesh, which had no power to conquer death on the cross, the image of a life and flesh that transcends death and decay. It was YHWH who made him to be His Own Image, the category in creation of Himself. Yeshua's part to play was by accepting this and walking in this. A good parallel to this is YHWH choosing Israel to be his people from among all the other nations of the earth. Nothing Israel did made Israel be this nation. Israel did not go flagrantly beyond the boundaries of a normal nation. YHWH chose Israel. And so YHWH also chose Yeshua. To compare this to any old prophet is to miss the point of Categoricalism.

[jwarrend]

I'm afraid that there are literally hundreds of places in canonical and extra-canonical texts which disagree with you.

I'm afraid that I don't consider Appealing to Big Numbers to be a persuasive form of argumentation. Though I don't doubt you believe what you claim in earnest. But it's of no value in convincing me of the truth of your contention. Gen 18 is, to me, ambiguous, and I don't have access to the text of "Joseph and Aseneth", so I don't know what it actually says.

Looking at Gen 18, I would say that the OT angelic appearances may or may not be a good model for understanding Jesus' role, depending on what one affirms about Jesus. Insofar as you appear to claim that Jesus was nothing more than an ordinary human man, born in the ordinary way, it seems that he should be compared more to a prophet than to an angel.

The reason I think this is an important distinction is that angelic appearances are sufficiently "other" in their character that it's in some cases difficult to identify from the text exactly what is going on. Gen 18 gives an example of this -- who is speaking? God, the three men, or God through the three men? It's not easy to even visualize what is being reported to have taken place.

The prophetic ministry is different and much simpler. The prophets were men of known background and credentials, and known to be emissaries of God but not-God. Viewed from that perspective, it makes more sense that Jesus' claims to be God were radical. Heck, the people even complained about it -- that Jesus, though a man, was making Himself equal to God. Jesus never says "no, you're missing the point; I'm not God, I'm His emissary", nor does He say "I'm categorically God, but not ontologically God".


My account doesn't say that someone is confused if they say he is God—on the contrary, Categoricalism says that Yeshua is God. It means this, however, in a very different way than Trinitarianism means it. And, I believe, it means it in the way those who called him God meant when they said it for many of the reasons and based on many of the evidences I've already given.

Maybe I'm just not thinking about it hard enough but I just don't see how "Jesus is God" and "Jesus speaks on God's behalf" can be interchangable statements, which is what categoricalism seems to require, and I don't see how the latter, which is what categoricalism seems to imply, can be teased out of the NT accounts. I'm not sure what are the "many evidences" of which you speak. It's not clear to me that you've adduced very much evidence for your view at all yet in this thread. I see a definite need to go beyond "here's how I interpret some apparently problematic verses" and to move into territory in which a positive scriptural case for categoricalism is made.

-Jeff

[jwarrend]

It is not the case. And this is not what I'm claiming. In Categoricalism, Yeshua did not go beyond the boundaries of an emissary. ***YHWH did.**** It was YHWH who resurrected him, thereby giving his very flesh, which had no power to conquer death on the cross, the image of a life and flesh that transcends death and decay.

I am speaking of the actions that Jesus took during His earthly ministry. He said things and did things that go WAY beyond what would have been acceptable conduct for the other prophets (and as I said, this was a major basis for opposition from the skeptics of His day). Your point seems to be that the justification for this is that His equating Himself with God was God-sanctioned, and therefore acceptable, which is in contrast to the orthodox view that Jesus' statements and actions were acceptable because Jesus was, in fact, God in human flesh. My point is, what scriptural basis is there for preferring your view to the orthodox understanding?

-Jeff

[Rupert Pupkin]

Thanks for your perspective, slaveofone. I've got the following thoughts.

Firstly, I think your view needs to be thought through more carefully. You need to decide whether Jesus was essentially just an ordinary man from his birth, but because of faith and obedience became at his baptism the representative of God. If that is so, then I fail to see how your view in any way squares with John 1, unless you take the Word becoming flesh as something which occurs at his baptism, which creates other problems I'll take up if this is your view. It also has big problems with the nativity passages in Matthew and Luke.

On the other hand, you could be claiming that Jesus was unique from his birth, that the word became flesh at the moment of his conception. But that seems to be hard to square with your claim that Jesus was a sinner, since the Word becoming flesh involves Jesus showing forth the nature of the Father (Jn. 1:18). More fundamentally, it seems hard to explain how Jesus was fully human if this was the case. At the very least, he was a very different kind of human to the rest of us. Furthermore, he seems to have been created arbitrarily to serve this role. Was it possible for him to fall and not to fulfill God's purpose?

In short, please answer at least this question: did Jesus become God's representative at his conception and birth, or at his baptism? At what point in time was it legitimate to start referring to him as "Yahweh", on your view?

Secondly, how do you account for scriptures which imply Jesus' pre-existence as a person distinct from the Father? (I presume you take "the Word" in its pre-"incarnate" state to be an impersonal entity of some kind?) For example, Phil. 2:5-11. Please note: I am not claiming that this passage necessarily teaches that Jesus was divine before coming to earth. I am, however, claiming that it clearly shows that he existed in personal form prior to coming to earth.

Thirdly, how do you explain the fact that Jesus is referred to as "the only-begotten God", who is clearly distinguished from the unbegotten God (the Father) in Jn. 1:18? Isn't it a bit far-fetched to claim that Jesus being God's representative and being a begotten human, could allow the description "the only-begotten God" being applied to him? How about, "the five foot nine tall God", or "the Galilean God"? What I am getting it is the adjective MONOGENHS here must surely qualify his divinity, not his humanity; and if so, doesn't your whole theory unravel? Does your view necessitate rejecting that textual variant, despite the fact that most scholars agree that it is the original reading (and for good reasons, which I will take up with you if necessary)?

Fourthly, your Messianic claims beg the question, because if Jesus is God, then God literally did perform all the Messianic tasks.

Fifthly, precisely because of the use of the term Yahweh in Genesis 8, and the personal pronouns employed by the visitor, I would argue that this is a theophany, or visible appearance of God. So what is the problem for the orthodox view? Nothing!

Sixthly, I agree with jwarrend's comments on the issue of the angelic appearances in the Old Testament more generally; we do not know what kind of creatures these were, in some cases they may well have been theophanies. The word mal'ak is non-specific and just means "messenger". Certainly there is no instance of any human being referred to as "Yahweh". That is a crucial flaw in your argument. If what you were saying is true, you should be able to find at least one verse, somewhere, where a human prophet or messenger of Yahweh is called "Yahweh".

Seventhly, part of your criticism of orthodoxy seems to be that you think the trinity is in some way incoherent. Could you please tell me how much weight you put on this in terms of forming your theology (i.e. do you reject the trinity primarily because you think it is incoherent, or because you think it is un-Biblical? If I could prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the doctrine of the trinity was coherent, how would that affect the balance in terms of preferring your view over the trinity?)

Best wishes,

Rupert P.

[37818]

God said to Isaiah, "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." And that, "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:10, 11.) (Jesus is not a only-begotten god as a few manuscripts were changed, John 1:18.)

Further more, God said, "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, . . ." (Isaiah 42:8.)

Jesus in His prayer stated, "O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." -- John 17:5.

Now consider Moses, God made Moses to be God to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1.) Now God didn't make Moses to be a god as commonly mistranslated. (Note: Isaiah 43:10.) But had Moses to represent God Himself to Pharaoh. So as far as God regarding Pharaoh, Moses was God Himself. Jesus Chirst is this to us. As Jesus taught, "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6; as in 1 Timothy 2:5.)

But there are a number of key differences here. One, Moses was only God to Pharaoh. Jesus Christ, God the Father had* Him as the Son to be God to all creation (Genesis 1:1; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17.)

Also, unless one accepts Jesus as God, being the Son, you don't have access to God at all (John 8:24; 2 John 9; John 14:6.) And the one who became flesh (John 1:14) was the Creator (John 1:3; Genesis 1:1,) And is the very reason that there is a creation (Colossians 1:16, 17.)

[* The Son of God is the only-begotten Son, neither made (created) nor begotten to become the Son. The Son is God the Creator (John 1:3.) And as God was always God. (Hebrews 13:8.)]

[jwarrend]

Ugh. For whatever reason, I violated my own rule to always read Scripture passages that are quoted by debate opponents in their full context to confirm that the opponent is handling the passage accurately.

Rupert is right. Gen 18 is almost certainly a theophany. The three men are the Lord and two angels. Read all the way from Gen 18:1 to at least Gen 19:1 to see this. Here's a synopsis:

The Lord and two angels appear to Abraham. (Gen 18:1-8) The Lord discloses to Abraham that Sarah will conceive. (Gen 18:9) The Lord and the two angels set off towards Sodom. (Gen 18:16) The Lord discloses to Abraham that Sodom will be destroyed (Gen 18:17-21). The two angels continue traveling towards Sodom, while Abraham and the Lord stay behind and continue their dialogue (Gen 18:22). Abraham entreats the Lord not to destroy Sodom (Gen 18:23-32). The Lord goes His way (Gen 18:33). The two angels arrive in Sodom (Gen 19:1).

-Jeff

[Rupert Pupkin]

(Jesus is not a only-begotten god as a few manuscripts were changed, John 1:18.)

Firstly, it doesn't say "a" only begotten God, the phrase MONOGENHS QEOS is definite in meaning, i.e. "the only-begotten God".

Secondly, please present your evidence that the manuscripts were "changed" (other than the fact that you don't like how God's word reads).

Thirdly, the earliest and most reliable manuscripts all read MONOGENHS QEOS. It is only the later and clearly hybrid Byzantine manuscripts that read hO MONOGENHS hUIOS and similar variants. Furthermore, according to the standard principles of scientific textual criticism, which have been established empirically in numerous experiments, it is quite easy to account for how MONOGENHS QEOS could be corrupted accidentally to MONOGENHS hUIOS, since the latter is the common phrase; but it is impossible to explain the change in the other direction as being an accident, since MONOGENHS QEOS does not occur elsewhere. Finally, the reading MONOGENHS QEOS is found in the early church Fathers, and was widely accepted by all sides of the various theological controversies. Let me just quote the great Athanasius, the most important defender of the doctrine of the trinity:

"But God possesses true existence and is not composite, wherefore His Word also has true Existence and is not composite, but is the one and only-begotten God, Who proceeds in His goodness from the Father as from a good Fountain, and orders all things and holds them together." (Athanasius, section 41, part 3, Against the Heathen).

Now Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria at the very time that the earliest manuscripts which we now have were copied there. So he would have to be involved in the corruption if your theory is true. But he was the primary defender of orthodoxy; if he was evil and corrupted texts (for which the evidence is zero), then what does that say about the trinity? Athanasius was more responsible than any other single individual for the acceptance of the doctrine of the trinity by the churches. Indeed, he is the first person to explicitly list the entire New Testament canon of 27 books as we now have them, so if he was an evil textual corrupter, we have to wonder whether we even have the right canon, let alone the trinity right.

I have this question for you. If you are going to make textual decisions based on your theology, and on your view about how the text should read in order to fit with what you think, then how are you going to avoid just selecting the variants you like, and corrupting God's word by making your theology the authority over it? I would rather make the text my authority, and select textual variants based on the evidence, and then build my theology on that.

The Son of God is the only-begotten Son, neither made (created) nor begotten to become the Son.

This statement is confused. Saying that the Son of God is the only-begotten, means that he was begotten as the Son. You are contradicting yourself. Orthodoxy has always held that Jesus, in his divinity, is the eternally begotten Son of the Father. So if you deny that the Son of God was begotten as the Son of God, then you have departed into heresy.

[slaveofone]

It appears that a continued effort to explain and provide rational, historical, scriptural, extra-scriptural, philosophical, and theological defenses for Categoricalism is over-all a waste of time here, as it is frequently misunderstood or mislabled, rejected a priori, its positive evidences and arguments simply ignored, or nothing but attacking non-answers given in response. Although I have received a few attempts at dialogue with scripture, most of these have been terribly ignorant of basic terms and Judaic concepts... For instance, Rupert speaks of the “only begotten” and wrongly thinks this refers to Yeshua's ontos or person instead of what all scholars now know without doubt it actually means: something or someone that is “unique” or “one and only”. This is exactly what Categoricalism says—that Yeshua uniquely and soley became the final and ultimate representation of YHWH. Ugh. I am tired of spending time correctly so many faulty things like this and having to explain how the Categoricalism that is not understood actually agrees with such scriptures. And a commenter like jwarrend seemed interested in engaging Categoricalism, he was quick to call it “leveraging ambiguity”, but then when direct answers and evidences were given to his questions, they were simply ignored and/or dismissed with the exact leveraging and even claim of ambiguity which had been made against me. What point is there in giving arguments and evidences if they won't even be heard and recognized? If a theophany is all anyone can understand, then understand Categoricalism to be the concept that Yeshua was the final and ultimate theophany, chosen and made such by YHWH, but was never in and of himself divine. I will therefore focus my energies elsewhere and hope that those few who can handle and deal with the evidences and arguments so far presented will honestly consider them, even if they challenge their own preconceived ideas.

I leave with a little list from many of the verses in the NT that are misleading if Yeshua were YHWH in his person and being instead of just in image and representation and that instead verify Categoricalism over Trinitarianism (or its offshoot heresies):

“He is the IMAGE [not the actual person or literal divine being] of the invisible God” – Colosians 1:15

“He is the REFLECTION of God's glory [instead of the source or origin] and the REPRESENTATION of God's being” [instead of God's being, essence, or nature itself] – Hebrews 1:3

“who existing in the FORM of God” [instead of the person or literal being of God] – Phillipians 2:6

“who is the IMAGE of God” [instead of the person or literal being of God] – 2 Corinthians 4:4

Categoricalism = Yeshua is YHWH in image/form/representation, not in his own person, being, or ontos. He is a non-divine man who by the words and praxis of the Father through and in him is recognized as YHWH.

[Sparko]

Sorry to see you go slaveofone. If you just want people to agree with you or pat you on the back with a bunch of "attaboys" then I am afraid you came to the wrong forum and I guess maybe you will be better off elsewhere. But if you are like Paul who commended the Bereans for checking his words against the bible, then you should appreciate us not taking your claims at face value, but instead hold your theories up to the standard of scripture. Which by the way, they fail to stand up to.

[slaveofone]

the standard of scripture. Which by the way, they fail to stand up to.

Brave words to say that. Especially considering it is a non-answer to the many things I've said and evidences I've given. Any fool can tell someone else their theory is baseless. But to show you how your viewpoint fails to stand up to scripture and not my own, I will now prove Categoricalism true directly from scripture in one last post--and directly from a verse that many have had issue with here.

[slaveofone]

Since there seems a great ignorance about scripture, perhaps a little wisdom (you'll get the pun in a moment) about what the Word becoming flesh means would be in order...

John borrows the concept and even the very words about the Word becoming flesh directly from several books, specifically Sirach. Apart from Sirach, one cannot come to a proper understanding of John's concept of the Word or of it becoming flesh—that is common scholarly knowledge. It is perhaps this very ignorance of these things that allows for Trinitarianism to usurp John's gospel and other texts of their proper message.

In my last post, I quoted from Hebrews 1:3, which says Yeshua is the reflection of God's glory and the image of his being. The author of Hebrews is actually quoting directly from Wisdom of Solomon 7:26, which says, “She [Wisdom] is the radiance of the eternal light, the clear mirror (or reflection) of God's energy, and the image of God's goodness.” The Greek word there for image (eikon) is our English word “icon” and is the word used in the Eastern Orthodox church to speak of icons—things that represent the divine or bring one into communion with the divine, but are not ontologically themselves God. This same word is the word used in another quote in my last post from Colossians about Yeshua being the image (eikon) of the invisible God. John's description of the Word draws from this concept of divine Wisdom being the image of YHWH but makes main use of Sirach.

Sirach 24:8-10 says of Wisdom, who was with YHWH and was YHWH, that it went seeking a place to dwell on earth until “the Creator of all things...chose the place for my tent (ten skenen mou). He said, “pitch your tent” (kataskenoson) in Jacob and in Israel receive your inheritance.” John uses the exact same words when he says “the Word became flesh and pitched his tent (eskonoson) among us.” He is combining the concept of Wisdom being the image of YHWH and Wisdom dwelling and pitching her tent in Israel in his description of the Word.

Now here's the rub. Trinitarians say that when John speaks of the Word (as Wisdom) pitching its tent (or tabernacling) and becoming flesh, that this must refer to Yeshua's ontological divinity. Well, if you're going to say that, then you have to be consistent and say it about Sirach also. Because in Sirach 24 from which John takes his concept, indeed his very words in the Greek, it says that what Wisdom pitching her tent in Israel is...is TORAH. Sirach 24:23 says of Wisdom being the image of YHWH tabernacled in Israel “this is the book of the covenant of the Most High God, the Law that Moses commanded.” To make the borrowed concept even more apparent, perhaps I should remind you that scrolls were written on animal FLESH. Therefore, the origin of John's concept of the Word of God becoming flesh and tabernacling in Israel is directly based on and taken from Sirach's description of TORAH.

So if John is speaking of ontological divinity when he speaks of Yeshua using the same words and terms and concepts as Wisdom and Sirach before him, then you must be consistent and say that Torah is meant to be understood as ontological divinity also. Are you prepared to say that a book of scrolls is the being and person and nature of YHWH? That Torah is God himself? If not, then you cannot say this of Yeshua either. Whatever is meant by Sirach when he says that Torah is the image of YHWH that became scroll flesh and tabernacled in Israel, this must control and define John's use of it when he applies this description to Yeshua instead of Torah. Since Torah cannot be God himself, and neither can the pages of the Law be ontologically God in flesh, neither can Yeshua be God himself, neither can Yeshua be ontologically God in flesh. Instead, as it should be abundantly clear, when Sirach speaks of Torah as Wisdom becoming flesh and tabernacling in Israel, he does not mean ontological divinity, but he means what Torah represents. Torah is an image or representation of YHWH to men, not YHWH himself. Sirach could not mean that Torah is YHWH himself ontologically, even though it literally refers to Wisdom, which is YHWH, becoming flesh and tabernacling among men. Thus neither can John mean that Yeshua is YHWH himself ontologically, even though he literally refers to the Word, which is YHWH, becoming flesh and tabernacling among men.

Categoricalism, which says something or someone can be an image or representation of the divine without literally being God himself in their person and ontos (and says this occurred specially and ultimately in Yeshua) is the only answer that consistently deals with John on the basis of the proven understanding of ancient Judaism as witnessed and evidenced in Sirach, Wisdom, and many other texts. Trinitarianism destroys any knowledge and understanding John meant when he spoke of the Word becoming flesh and tabernacling among men by eisegetically substituting a foreign doctrine in the place of this universally acknowledged basis of John's writing.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Like you, slaveofone, I've come to the conclusion that this discussion is essentially useless; although the reasons you give for saying this represent a classic case of the psychological phenomenon known as projection (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection).

Good luck with your heresy though! You're going to need it. I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that it will disappear into the oblivion of a thousand idiosyncratic ideas that no-one has ever heard of nor ever will. But if you are convinced of it, good-oh, you keep on with it, and we'll see what God says about it on the day of judgment. I rate your chances of attaining any committed converts to propagate your view in future at about zero percent probability. At least the Mormons are able to get a few million adherents, you ought to be able to do better than that, since your view is so compellingly Biblical apparently and we are all just somehow (due no doubt to devious motives) unwilling to accept the transparent clarity of your presentation. Which, of course, is what every fundamentalist says, whether they are Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, or Fundamental Baptists ("our view is plainly Biblical, and if you can't see that, then obviously you don't want to because you are evil"). I, however, will quite happily stay with the historic, orthodox position of the Christian Church, which (unlike yours) is truly and profoundly Biblical, and against which the gates of hell (never mind one more isolated heresy) will not prevail. The irony is that the very church you reject and accuse so loudly of being evil, is the very church that gave you the New Testament canon of the 27 books we have today, and they did this in parallel with and related to the development of the trinity, so if you were consistent, you'd have to reject the Bible as we have it and develop your own canon too. Anyway, I'm more than happy to stake my life on orthodoxy, so we'll see, won't we?

Best wishes,

Rupert P.