Nature of The Christ/Messiah [Archive]

View Full Version : Nature of The Christ/Messiah

Littlejoe9763

June 23rd 2007, 11:59 AM

I didn't know you didn't believe in the deity of Christ, spitndirt. Wow

Hi Roberto,

Yes....I do believe in the deity of Christ. Just not in the way Trinitarians do. Jesus was a man in whom the fulness of God dwelt bodily. God is not a man.....so a man cannot be God. God is immortal - Jesus was born mortal, died and was buried, and was raised immortal. Jesus cannot be God in the way Trinitarians present Him. Here's the proper breakdown of Jesus' being:

God/man - Father/Son - a 'two become one'. That is, two 'wills' embodied and operating as one. We must view the words of Jesus through this Biblical prism - '...in these last days God has spoken to us by His Son...'. When we do this we see that it is the Father speaking and doing while the Son is in willing submission to the will of the Father. Jesus Himself testified to this saying '...I speak not on My own, but only what the Father has taught Me...' and '...I do only those things I see My Father doing...'.

All that Jesus is and all that He has was given Him by the Father (one true God). He received His office and authority as an inheritance. That is, the man Jesus obtained all that He has and all that He is by faith. He is 'deity' by virtue of the One dwelling in Him. He is 'God by proxy' ...is the best way I can find to describe it. I received a vision a few years back (via asking, seeking, knocking) that put all these things in order for me.

Spit,
I have had these same questions in the past. I am still on the fence, but lean decidely trinitarian at the present. I discussed the issue of Messiah with ApologiaPhoenix at length in a thread in this forum.

So, how do you interpret John 1:1? What about the part "and the word WAS God"? What is your interpretation of this?

LJ

shunyadragon

June 23rd 2007, 12:22 PM

Spit,
I have had these same questions in the past. I am still on the fence, but lean decidely trinitarian at the present. I discussed the issue of Messiah with ApologiaPhoenix at length in a thread in this forum.

So, how do you interpret John 1:1? What about the part "and the word WAS God"? What is your interpretation of this?

LJ

I share a view somethng like splitndirt. I view the trinity as human view of the nature of the relationship between god and humanity, and not a literal description of the nature of God..

John 1:1 indicates to me that the word of God IS God, and dwells within Christ, but Jesus Christ is not God.

I believe the theme of the gospels depicts Jesus as being from god, but not God. The trinitarian view is more an understanding of the relationship between humanity and God described by Paul's Roman view.

spitndirt

June 23rd 2007, 03:26 PM

Spit,
I have had these same questions in the past. I am still on the fence, but lean decidely trinitarian at the present. I discussed the issue of Messiah with ApologiaPhoenix at length in a thread in this forum.

So, how do you interpret John 1:1? What about the part "and the word WAS God"? What is your interpretation of this?

LJ

Hi LJ,

Sorry....I'm like swamped with work and grandkids at the moment. I would very much like to pursue this topic in depth with you. I'm hoping to get some time in the morning to respond to 'Aug' in the election thread....and maybe I'll have some time late tomorrow night to respond to your John 1:1 question. Just wanted to pop in so that you wouldn't think I was dodging this very important issue. Thanks LJ....Peace.....

Littlejoe9763

June 23rd 2007, 05:34 PM

I share a view somethng like splitndirt. I view the trinity as human view of the nature of the relationship between god and humanity, and not a literal description of the nature of God..

John 1:1 indicates to me that the word of God IS God, and dwells within Christ, but Jesus Christ is not God.

I believe the theme of the gospels depicts Jesus as being from god, but not God. The trinitarian view is more an understanding of the relationship between humanity and God described by Paul's Roman view.

Thanks Shunyadragon,
but as a Baha'i I would have been suprised to hear you say Jesus was God! :wink: So, you don't think the word is Jesus? What do you think about John 1:14 - 18?

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") 16 And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God,[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=47#fen-ESV-26049d)] who is at the Father's side,[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=47#fen-ESV-26049e)] he has made him known.

Thaks LJ

Littlejoe9763

June 23rd 2007, 06:04 PM

Hi LJ,

Sorry....I'm like swamped with work and grandkids at the moment. I would very much like to pursue this topic in depth with you. I'm hoping to get some time in the morning to respond to 'Aug' in the election thread....and maybe I'll have some time late tomorrow night to respond to your John 1:1 question. Just wanted to pop in so that you wouldn't think I was dodging this very important issue. Thanks LJ....Peace.....

Hey I understand! Thanks for letting me know! I look forward to pursuing this topic. Also, see my reply to shunyadragon above about John 1:14-18.

Thanks,

LJ

shunyadragon

June 23rd 2007, 07:12 PM

Thanks Shunyadragon,
but as a Baha'i I would have been suprised to hear you say Jesus was God! :wink: So, you don't think the word is Jesus? What do you think about John 1:14 - 18?

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") 16 And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God,[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=47#fen-ESV-26049d)] who is at the Father's side,[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=47#fen-ESV-26049e)] he has made him known.

Thaks LJ

The key phrase here that the trinitarians use to interprete Jesus Christ is God is 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,' This quote describes the nature of the spiritual, not physical, relationship between God, humanity, and God's Word.My understanding of the nature of the Messiah and Jesus Christ, as well as all the Messiahs, in essence I believe all are One, of existence, is that I have to take the whole Bible in understanding the nature of the station of the Messiah, and as splitndirt quoted in the Gospels the concensus is no Jesus Christ is not god in carnate, and God's nature is not literally trinitarian as interepreted by Orthodox Christianity.

Following Twebb, particularly the Jewish section, and references here to other linguistic references to understanding the translations of the New and Old Testiments, I believe a spiritual and not physical reality as the nature of the Messiah is the best fit. I find the trinitarian response to the quotes splindirt referred to as just 'Refer to the first chapter of John' as inadaquate, because this still does not fit the relationship described in the other quotes.

Yankee_Doodle

June 23rd 2007, 08:12 PM

slaveofone

June 23rd 2007, 08:25 PM

The key phrase here that the trinitarians use to interprete Jesus Christ is God is 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,' This quote describes the nature of the spiritual, not physical, relationship between God, humanity, and God's Word.My understanding of the nature of the Messiah and Jesus Christ, as well as all the Messiahs, in essence I believe all are One, of existence, is that I have to take the whole Bible in understanding the nature of the station of the Messiah, and as splitndirt quoted in the Gospels the concensus is no Jesus Christ is not god in carnate, and God's nature is not literally trinitarian as interepreted by Orthodox Christianity.

Following Twebb, particularly the Jewish section, and references here to other linguistic references to understanding the translations of the New and Old Testiments, I believe a spiritual and not physical reality as the nature of the Messiah is the best fit. I find the trinitarian response to the quotes splindirt referred to as just 'Refer to the first chapter of John' as inadaquate, because this still does not fit the relationship described in the other quotes.

If that is a key phrase used by Trinitarians, notice that I indirectly affirmed this very verse in my description of Categoricalism (which is very non-Trinitarian). Another thing that I consider to be a strength of Categoricalism is that it doesn't unnaturally (as I see it) divide man between spiritual and physical parts. Categoricalism affirms separate and distinct persons/beings while allowing for one to be recognized "in the name" (or as the representative) of the other.

Littlejoe9763

June 23rd 2007, 08:33 PM

If that is a key phrase used by Trinitarians, notice that I indirectly affirmed this very verse in my description of Categoricalism (which is very non-Trinitarian). Another thing that I consider to be a strength of Categoricalism is that it doesn't unnaturally (as I see it) divide man between spiritual and physical parts. Categoricalism affirms separate and distinct persons/beings while allowing for one to be recognized "in the name" (or as the representative) of the other.

Sorry but that went right over my head! Please explain what categoricalism is for those of us who don't know!

Tlhanks,

LJ

LV4JC

June 23rd 2007, 08:44 PM

Hello,

When considering the truth, or lack there of, of the Trinity we must look at quite a few things. There is only one true God: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. This really can not make full sense to us humans as there is either 1 or there is 3 in our human wisdom. Does anyone who does not believe in the Trinity believe that the one true God, as they say, only God (not Jesus) is a jealous God? If he is a jealous God would not then the aspect of Jesus possibly cause contraversy between God and Jesus being our Lord and Saviour? In Jesus is life. In Jesus is truth. In Jesus is all things. What is Gods part if Jesus is not God come in the flesh. How can Jesus not be God and yet still save us. If Jesus is not God couldn't we then just save ourselves?

Yankee_Doodle

June 23rd 2007, 11:19 PM

slaveofone

June 23rd 2007, 11:31 PM

Please explain what categoricalism is for those of us who don't know!

For an explanation of Categoricalism, please see the thread directly below this one in this very forum, called I created a "heresy": Categoricalism (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=98594).

If he is a jealous God would not then the aspect of Jesus possibly cause contraversy between God and Jesus being our Lord and Saviour? In Jesus is life. In Jesus is truth. In Jesus is all things. What is Gods part if Jesus is not God come in the flesh. How can Jesus not be God and yet still save us. If Jesus is not God couldn't we then just save ourselves?

Welcome to tweb, Love for JC!

If you will look at what I call Categoricalism (see link above), you will see that your worries can be laid to rest. In Categoricalism, it is YHWH alone who accomplishes all things, but it is Yeshua who represents (or becomes the perfect form) of that accomplishment in the world. Yeshua is made by YHWH to represent YHWH in human flesh without being YHWH himself. To say that YHWH would be jealous of this is to say that a man should be jealous if his girlfriend took his picture--the picture communicates him to others, but it is not him, and he need not ever feel threatened by the picture of himself, that somehow it is violating his relationship with the girl, no matter how good and perfect the photo is.

spitndirt

June 25th 2007, 09:21 PM

Hey I understand! Thanks for letting me know! I look forward to pursuing this topic. Also, see my reply to shunyadragon above about John 1:14-18.

Thanks,

LJ

Hey LJ,

I've finally got a few minutes. I'll keep it brief and simple to start. Let's begin with the least (and also the most) striking word in the scripture '...the Word was God...'. That would be the word '...WAS...'. There are only a few ways this word can be rightly comprehended. Was - as in, at one time in the past.....as in, became at one point. Notice that this confines 'the Word' to time and space. The only 'like' word that can apply to immortal God, who transcends time and space, is '...IS...'. There is good reason for this. The Word of God is a medium between two entities so that one can relate to another. In the context of creation the entities would be God who transcends time and space and man who is subject to time and space. For eternal God to relate to a man whom He had in mind to create He must 1) establish a means of establishing... 2) ...a mode of relating to another. So, by 'wisdom' God brought forth 'His Word'. This is why Messiah (Jesus, the Word made flesh) is called 'mediator'. Consequently if God did not have in mind to create a man with whom He intended to relate it would not have been necessary for Him to establish a medium (Word) or to muster the wisdom to do so. Wisdom is the 'womb' from where 'the Word of God' was brought forth. With this in mind read Proverbs ch.8. This chapter depicts everything I have just stated.

The flip side: Take away 'creation / man' and 'the Word' looses it's purpose. The Word is for 'creation / man' and 'creation / man' for the Word. One cannot be comprehended without the other. Proof: God is still God apart from creation and also apart from the ways and means of creating. Question: Apart from a creation context what use would God have for a medium of communication? Would He ask Himself about things He already knows; or tell Himself to go to where He already is; or to command Himself to do when there is nothing to be done (since eternal God is perpetual in His being)? No, no, and no....are the short answers.

Next....Apart from a creation context is it necessary for God to be a 'person'...moreover, a 'gendered' person? No, and no! Herein lies a revelation. God purposed to create 'persons' so it was (became) necessary that God be translated into an image and likeness AFTER WHICH those persons would be created. This image and likeness is revealed in 'the Word'.....and so the Word of God is in essence 'God personified'. This personification (the Word) was (became) WITH God in the sense that it (He) was brought forth to be united to another who would NOT be God.....i.e., a man. Primarily to the man Jesus...and through Him, to 'us' (His bride). The Word made flesh (Jesus, the Christ) is where eternal God and man converge to make 'ONE'. This is why He was called both Son of God and son of man. Jesus is the one Job prophetically eluded to when he said '...O that there was a man who could lay a hand on both of us (Job and God)...'. Jesus was (became) the fulfillment of this scripture.

Now, on two counts the concept of the trinity is found lacking. 1) the Word was 'brought forth' and so could not have '...existed in eternity past...' (which is why this is never stated in scripture). 2) Apart from a creation context God is not a 'person' and so '...no persons existed in eternity past...' - much less three.

More on 'personhood'. Drop this condition into an 'infinite / finite' context. Consider that it is impossible that a person of any kind be infinite. Person signifies 'individual' which in turn signifies 'finiteness'. Persons begin at one point and end at another (in form). In other words 'borders' must necessarily exist for persons to have being....and borders = finite = subject to time and space. It is impossible that 'three' transcendent and infinite persons exist simultaneously. Sorry,,,, but displacement in triplicate aint happenin'. Again, take away all this and.....you got it - eternal, immortal, transcendent God STILL remains. There can only be ONE of these if transcendence is to be the beginning reality.

Side note: The term 'Elohim' applies to a 'God that IS' and 'the Word who WAS (became) Him' in a creation context. This is the reason for the 'plural' connotation. In reality Elohim is a 'unified' plurality. A 'two become one' if you will. The 'two become one' pattern is allegorically depicted in the creation of 'the first day' - Light (Day) + darkness (Night) = ONE DAY (the first day - Day, or Morning Star - a two become one). Satan, represented by darkness, left his first estate misunderstanding the nature of Elohim. This caused a breach in 'the Word' (which is why an alternative word came to be). Satan saw himself as a third part of Elohim....but he was not. This in turn caused a breach in 'the first day' causing 'Day / Morning Star' to fall. Consequently this also caused a breach in the heart of man....since a man's heart is also patterned after 'the first day'. In other words, when Satan left his first estate the voice of man's flesh was awakened...and the rest, as they say, is history.

Anyway, This is how I am viewing things according to the vision I received by faith (through asking, seeking, knocking). And I got long winded again.....even though I meant to keep things simple. Hahaha....sorry for that. Talk to you later LJ....

Peace

spitndirt

June 25th 2007, 10:11 PM

I agree LJ - Spit consider John 10:30

I and the Father are one

I posted this in the wrong thread -- thanks LJ (my bad)

Consider my response to LJ. 'One' - yes, but '...and the same...' does not necessarily follow.

peace

Littlejoe9763

June 26th 2007, 12:12 AM

hey spit,
thanks for making some time for this!

Hey LJ,

I've finally got a few minutes. I'll keep it brief and simple to start. Let's begin with the least (and also the most) striking word in the scripture '...the Word was God...'. That would be the word '...WAS...'. There are only a few ways this word can be rightly comprehended. Was - as in, at one time in the past.....as in, became at one point. Notice that this confines 'the Word' to time and space. The only 'like' word that can apply to immortal God, who transcends time and space, is '...IS...'. There is good reason for this. The Word of God is a medium between two entities so that one can relate to another. In the context of creation the entities would be God who transcends time and space and man who is subject to time and space. For eternal God to relate to a man whom He had in mind to create He must 1) establish a means of establishing... 2) ...a mode of relating to another. So, by 'wisdom' God brought forth 'His Word'. This is why Messiah (Jesus, the Word made flesh) is called 'mediator'. Consequently if God did not have in mind to create a man with whom He intended to relate it would not have been necessary for Him to establish a medium (Word) or to muster the wisdom to do so. Wisdom is the 'womb' from where 'the Word of God' was brought forth. With this in mind read Proverbs ch.8. This chapter depicts everything I have just stated.

Doesn't "in the beginning was the word", imply that the word was in existence already at the beginning? Otherwise, I would wonder why the verse doesn't say in the beginning the word was created. The mediator is of course scriptural, and as the trinitarian would say, Christ is the perfect mediator because he is God and Man!

The flip side: Take away 'creation / man' and 'the Word' looses it's purpose. The Word is for 'creation / man' and 'creation / man' for the Word. One cannot be comprehended without the other. Proof: God is still God apart from creation and also apart from the ways and means of creating. Question: Apart from a creation context what use would God have for a medium of communication? Would He ask Himself about things He already knows; or tell Himself to go to where He already is; or to command Himself to do when there is nothing to be done (since eternal God is perpetual in His being)? No, no, and no....are the short answers.

Next....Apart from a creation context is it necessary for God to be a 'person'...moreover, a 'gendered' person? No, and no! Herein lies a revelation. God purposed to create 'persons' so it was (became) necessary that God be translated into an image and likeness AFTER WHICH those persons would be created. This image and likeness is revealed in 'the Word'.....and so the Word of God is in essence 'God personified'. This personification (the Word) was (became) WITH God in the sense that it (He) was brought forth to be united to another who would NOT be God.....i.e., a man. Primarily to the man Jesus...and through Him, to 'us' (His bride). The Word made flesh (Jesus, the Christ) is where eternal God and man converge to make 'ONE'. This is why He was called both Son of God and son of man. Jesus is the one Job prophetically eluded to when he said '...O that there was a man who could lay a hand on both of us (Job and God)...'. Jesus was (became) the fulfillment of this scripture.

Now, on two counts the concept of the trinity is found lacking. 1) the Word was 'brought forth' and so could not have '...existed in eternity past...' (which is why this is never stated in scripture). 2) Apart from a creation context God is not a 'person' and so '...no persons existed in eternity past...' - much less three.

More on 'personhood'. Drop this condition into an 'infinite / finite' context. Consider that it is impossible that a person of any kind be infinite. Person signifies 'individual' which in turn signifies 'finiteness'. Persons begin at one point and end at another (in form). In other words 'borders' must necessarily exist for persons to have being....and borders = finite = subject to time and space. It is impossible that 'three' transcendent and infinite persons exist simultaneously. Sorry,,,, but displacement in triplicate aint happenin'. Again, take away all this and.....you got it - eternal, immortal, transcendent God STILL remains. There can only be ONE of these if transcendence is to be the beginning reality.

Side note: The term 'Elohim' applies to a 'God that IS' and 'the Word who WAS (became) Him' in a creation context. This is the reason for the 'plural' connotation. In reality Elohim is a 'unified' plurality. A 'two become one' if you will. The 'two become one' pattern is allegorically depicted in the creation of 'the first day' - Light (Day) + darkness (Night) = ONE DAY (the first day - Day, or Morning Star - a two become one). Satan, represented by darkness, left his first estate misunderstanding the nature of Elohim. This caused a breach in 'the Word' (which is why an alternative word came to be). Satan saw himself as a third part of Elohim....but he was not. This in turn caused a breach in 'the first day' causing 'Day / Morning Star' to fall. Consequently this also caused a breach in the heart of man....since a man's heart is also patterned after 'the first day'. In other words, when Satan left his first estate the voice of man's flesh was awakened...and the rest, as they say, is history.

Anyway, This is how I am viewing things according to the vision I received by faith (through asking, seeking, knocking). And I got long winded again.....even though I meant to keep things simple. Hahaha....sorry for that. Talk to you later LJ....

Peace

You written a lot about why Jesus isn't the second person of the trinity, but you haven't really defined exactly who you think he is! What you have written so far seems sensible, I am going to print it off and study it some! Is Jesus a seperate God now in your opinion?

37818

June 27th 2007, 06:58 AM

When Jesus was addressed as both Lord and God by Thomas. And Jesus commend him.

When an young rich man addressed Jesus as "good" teacher, Jesus ask him why, and pointed out that only God is good.

Unless Jesus as the Christ is both God and man, He is no Savior. You see, if Jesus is just the man then, He too would be a sinner, because of the fall.

The Word (Logos) has always had two natures. One as God and the other with God (that is being the Son.) Now unless this second nature exists with God, then God would not be a Creator. Because God does not change. But the person who is both God and with God (being the Son) having a nature of being with God can change. And since He as God can change being with God, God then can be a Creator. (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17.) So the Son in His second nature of being the Son with God, can change by being the Creator (Genesis 1:1) and then change by being incarnate (John 1:14) and then change by living the life He lived. Dying for sin (John 19:28) and then physically die (John 19:30) and then resurrect from the dead (Romans 1:4) and then ascend to be with God as a man (1 Timothy 2:5.) Since He was God (John 1:1) He would remain God, since God does not change, but also since He was with God, being the Son, He could change. So it is written "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever."

You see, unless you have a Christ/Messiah who is both God and man you have no Christ/Messiah, no sinless Savior to be a substitute (Romans 5:8.)

spitndirt

June 28th 2007, 08:27 AM

hey spit,
thanks for making some time for this!

Doesn't "in the beginning was the word", imply that the word was in existence already at the beginning? Otherwise, I would wonder why the verse doesn't say in the beginning the word was created. The mediator is of course scriptural, and as the trinitarian would say, Christ is the perfect mediator because he is God and Man!

You written a lot about why Jesus isn't the second person of the trinity, but you haven't really defined exactly who you think he is! What you have written so far seems sensible, I am going to print it off and study it some! Is Jesus a seperate God now in your opinion?

Hi LJ,

Again, sorry for the delay - busy, busy, busy!!!. I've got about a half hour before work to at least answer you in part. First let me say that I do not disagree with some of what trinitarians assert. Where they are wrong is '....three distinct persons, one God, existing in eternity past...'. Our Lord and God is not divided in this way, nor did He pre-exist Himself. Jesus was born of woman (begat by the Word/God/Spirit). The fulness of God is unified in the man Jesus. This makes Him NOT God as God is prior to creation, or as the Word was in the beginning - rather a man whom God elected, indwelt, perfected, and has made 'God by proxy' by raising Him from the dead to immortality. No matter how you slice it Jesus is 'God / man'. Not God....not man.....but 'God / man'. Jesus is UNIQUE in all of creation. He is not as we are; He is not as God is, He is not as Adam#1was - no Jesus is the the ONLY ONE of His kind.....'Son of God / son of man'. Even 'we' who are in Him are 'not Him', though we are transformed into His likeness. Jesus is 'the One' whom God prefigured before the world began. He is our Lord (a man) in whom our God (the Word) is found - hence, our Lord and our God.

Now, the scripture you have offered. Notice that the scripture says '...IN the beginning...' while you are hearing '...AT the beginning...'. It seems you are viewing things through a 'when' only while the scripture is also revealing a 'where'. God is 'the beginning' and 'IN God' the Word was (became). The Word is not 'created' in a sense we are accustomed to understanding it. No.....the Word is God personified (the person of God). Think of it this way: Precreation God is light.....Light vacated a space within itself making room for another.....darkness appeared.....Light sent forth Light to shine in the darkness. Light and darkness are not substances as if to be 'created things'. Rather they 'WERE SO' due to an act of transcendant eternal God (Light). At this point there was (became) a greater Light and a lesser Light. Even so, Light is and remains Light; eternal and everlasting. Darkness, then, was (became) the new phenomenon. Darkness is a backdrop by which Light appears as Light. So Light shining out of darkness = God in a state of revelation. This revelation is called 'the Word'.

Now, let's set all of the John ch. 1 scriptures in chronological order understanding that they all are to be comprehended within the opening scriptures of Genesis - '...In the beginning God (Elohim) created...'

IN...the beginning (God)....was (became)....the Word ----- and the Word was (became).....with God....and the Word was (became)....God. This follows the same chronology of events depicted in the Proverbs 8 scriptures I mentioned earlier (specifically 22-31). In light of all this the plurality of 'Elohim' can be rightly comprehended - TWO unified in ONE and not 'divided by three' as Satan later implied when he used the name 'Elohim' to include himself so as to portray darkness also as 'Light'.

If you wish LJ, I can take you through a simple exersize that will make these things clearer. A picture can be drawn while reading Gen. 1: 1-5 that illustrates all of this quite well.

Gotta go for now.....peace

Littlejoe9763

July 2nd 2007, 10:41 AM

spitndirt

July 2nd 2007, 10:57 PM

Hey Spit,

Thanks for all your info. I have been studying on it as I said. A quick question, if you don't mind.

Do You think that Isaiah 9:6 "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon[d] his shoulder, and his name shall be called[e] Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace"

Not contradictory to my view at all. Note the language: '...a child is born...a son is given...'. This sort of language cannot be ascribed to immortal, eternal, transcendant 'true' God prior to and apart from the beginning. Note also the phrase '...shall be upon...shall be called...'. True God 'is so' while this scripture is pointing to the Word made flesh - Jesus, the true God's Christ. I do not disagree with what this scripture is saying since in Jesus the fullness of God - in Spirit - dwelt bodily in Him - the man Jesus.

and Hebrews 1:8-9 "8 But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. 9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."

This scripture is even clearer. Start at verse 4. Note the language: '...being made...hath by inheritence obtained...this day I have begotten thee...He will be (son)...I will be (Father)'. Again it is signified that Jesus 'became / was' these things at a certain point in time - and even that true God 'became / was' a Father in time. Note verse 6: '...WHEN He (true God) bringeth the first begotten He saith 'and let the angels of God worship Him'...'. Again - these things came to pass in time. Now verse 8: '...unto the Son He (true God) saith 'thy throne O God is forever'...'. Again - this declaration came to Jesus at a point in time. Notice that by God's Word Jesus is given His title and authority (by inheritence, vs.4). See how 'the Word' precedes the position that Jesus obtained by His faith.

Jesus is 'God / man' - the Word MADE flesh (true God is not made). There was no 'God / man' in eternity past. Nor was there 'God / man' in the beginning. Adam#1 was 'the first' man. The Word 'was / became' God in the beginning. Flesh (man) was added in the fulness of time. Though this was all prefigured the fullness was not manifested until it was manifested. Now, one might say that the reality IS SO from the time it is conceived but still it cannot BE SO prior to its conception. This is why I object to the '...eternity past...' language used by trinitarians - since even they must agree that 'God / man' - Jesus - did not exist then. Without 'flesh' there is no 'begotten' Son in a 'manifest' sense. Flesh signifies Sonship. In the beginning there was 'God / the Word' (Elohim). The man Jesus became when the Word was made flesh so that in the fulness of time there became '[God / (the Word] made flesh)' - brackets = Father, parenthesis = Son. There is and overlap that signifies unity in the ONE Spirit. All this is easily comprehended when we start with a proper picture of immortal, eternal, transcendent, 'pre-creation' God. All that can be said of true God prior to the beginning is contained between the following parenthesis - ( ). That signifies 'eternity past'. Revelation begins when a translation to '...in the beginning...' takes place. Get it....sort of?

BTW, I was wavering about the trinity. But what I saw take place on a Kairos weekend, where inmates had a misconception of Jesus and his relationship to the Father were not becoming Christians. They had the trinity explained to them, and they were then able to accept Christ. This actually turned me back.

I would like to see the exercise you spoke of, when you get time. We all have busy lives these days, don't we!
LJ

Hmmmm......that's odd. I couldn't accept Christ until God via His Spirit made Him known to me - apart from any explanations from men concerning their doctrines. I was even converted apart from the scriptures. Because of this I cannot accept the doctrine of the trinity (as essential, or even necessary).....since my Lord and my God received me without it. I reasoned that the doctrine must be false since, though God received me, men have rejected me for not confessing what I have not received from above. Does that make sense?

Anyway, yeah....I'll post the exercise when I get some spare time. Thanks for your response LJ.

Peace in the Lord

Littlejoe9763

July 3rd 2007, 12:01 AM

Not contradictory to my view at all. Note the language: '...a child is born...a son is given...'. This sort of language cannot be ascribed to immortal, eternal, transcendant 'true' God prior to and apart from the beginning. Note also the phrase '...shall be upon...shall be called...'. True God 'is so' while this scripture is pointing to the Word made flesh - Jesus, the true God's Christ. I do not disagree with what this scripture is saying since in Jesus the fullness of God - in Spirit - dwelt bodily in Him - the man Jesus.

This scripture is even clearer. Start at verse 4. Note the language: '...being made...hath by inheritence obtained...this day I have begotten thee...He will be (son)...I will be (Father)'. Again it is signified that Jesus 'became / was' these things at a certain point in time - and even that true God 'became / was' a Father in time. Note verse 6: '...WHEN He (true God) bringeth the first begotten He saith 'and let the angels of God worship Him'...'. Again - these things came to pass in time. Now verse 8: '...unto the Son He (true God) saith 'thy throne O God is forever'...'. Again - this declaration came to Jesus at a point in time. Notice that by God's Word Jesus is given His title and authority (by inheritence, vs.4). See how 'the Word' precedes the position that Jesus obtained by His faith.

Jesus is 'God / man' - the Word MADE flesh (true God is not made). There was no 'God / man' in eternity past. Nor was there 'God / man' in the beginning. Adam#1 was 'the first' man. The Word 'was / became' God in the beginning. Flesh (man) was added in the fulness of time. Though this was all prefigured the fullness was not manifested until it was manifested. Now, one might say that the reality IS SO from the time it is conceived but still it cannot BE SO prior to its conception. This is why I object to the '...eternity past...' language used by trinitarians - since even they must agree that 'God / man' - Jesus - did not exist then. Without 'flesh' there is no 'begotten' Son in a 'manifest' sense. Flesh signifies Sonship. In the beginning there was 'God / the Word' (Elohim). The man Jesus became when the Word was made flesh so that in the fulness of time there became '[God / (the Word] made flesh)' - brackets = Father, parenthesis = Son. There is and overlap that signifies unity in the ONE Spirit. All this is easily comprehended when we start with a proper picture of immortal, eternal, transcendent, 'pre-creation' God. All that can be said of true God prior to the beginning is contained between the following parenthesis - ( ). That signifies 'eternity past'. Revelation begins when a translation to '...in the beginning...' takes place. Get it....sort of?

Hmmmm......that's odd. I couldn't accept Christ until God via His Spirit made Him known to me - apart from any explanations from men concerning their doctrines. I was even converted apart from the scriptures. Because of this I cannot accept the doctrine of the trinity (as essential, or even necessary).....since my Lord and my God received me without it. I reasoned that the doctrine must be false since, though God received me, men have rejected me for not confessing what I have not received from above. Does that make sense?

Anyway, yeah....I'll post the exercise when I get some spare time. Thanks for your response LJ.

Peace in the Lord

Honestly Spit, I can't see THAT much difference in what you are saying HERE, and what is within the wide range of beliefs about the trinity. The word was obviously NOT a man until Jesus was born. Then he became the Son. But that is a shade of gray within the black and white of the trinity doctrine to me. Is it not to you? It seems to me that you are leaving the "house" of trinitarianism but not the "Yard". :lol:

I look forward to the exercise.
Thanks,
LJ

spitndirt

July 3rd 2007, 07:52 AM

Honestly Spit, I can't see THAT much difference in what you are saying HERE, and what is within the wide range of beliefs about the trinity. The word was obviously NOT a man until Jesus was born. Then he became the Son. But that is a shade of gray within the black and white of the trinity doctrine to me. Is it not to you? It seems to me that you are leaving the "house" of trinitarianism but not the "Yard". :lol:

I look forward to the exercise.
Thanks,
LJ

So...are you saying that I shouldn't be rejected by orthadoxy for denying this doctrinal stance: '...three distinct persons, one God, existing in eternity past...'?

Yes, I agree with SOME of what trinitarians assert. The deity of Jesus for instance. Yet it seems clear to me that Jesus became 'deity' by virtue of the indwelling Word that 'was / became' God in the beginning.

So I would say I have left the 'yard' of trinitarianism and have entered the 'house' of the Most High.:lol:

Peace LJ

Littlejoe9763

July 3rd 2007, 11:15 AM

So...are you saying that I shouldn't be rejected by orthadoxy for denying this doctrinal stance: '...three distinct persons, one God, existing in eternity past...'?

Yes, I agree with SOME of what trinitarians assert. The deity of Jesus for instance. Yet it seems clear to me that Jesus became 'deity' by virtue of the indwelling Word that 'was / became' God in the beginning.

So I would say I have left the 'yard' of trinitarianism and have entered the 'house' of the Most High.:lol:

Peace LJ

Your right! I take it back! :lol: What you believe, from what I have been able to see, is close to what is called Arianism. Are you familiar with this belief? If not (or if you are, then for our readers) here are some things believed by Arius the founder:

1) "If the Father had begotten the Son, he who had been begotten had a beginning, and therefore there must have been a time when the Son did not exist."
2) Arius drew upon these passages (John 12:49,14: 28,20:17, Mark 13:32, Matt 10:18) to demonstrate that, although the Son should indeed be called "God," since he was inferior to the Father, he was "God" in name only. With Christ's inferiority as his starting point, Arius then put into motion his supreme argument from one of his most important 'proof-texts,' Proverbs 8:22. Here, God's Wisdom says, "The Lord created me as the beginning of his work." For Arius, then, God the Father had created the Son, who then became a "secondary God" or a "subservient God."[15] The Father and the Son were indeed 'one,' but in moral perfection only, and were certainly not identical in being.[16] In other words, Arius had effectively solved the issue of Christ's divinity by placing him with the 'created' beings.
(Found at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/2961/earian1.htm )

Would this be similar to what you are saying? It seems so to me. You even mentioned the same passage in Prov 8! If you have time look at the article and see if this isn't pretty similar to what you believe. (It has two pages)

Thanks,

LJ

Shadow Phoenix

July 6th 2007, 12:00 PM

Time to dispense with the nonsense.

Hey LJ,

I've finally got a few minutes. I'll keep it brief and simple to start. Let's begin with the least (and also the most) striking word in the scripture '...the Word was God...'. That would be the word '...WAS...'. There are only a few ways this word can be rightly comprehended. Was - as in, at one time in the past.....as in, became at one point. Notice that this confines 'the Word' to time and space. The only 'like' word that can apply to immortal God, who transcends time and space, is '...IS...'. There is good reason for this. The Word of God is a medium between two entities so that one can relate to another. In the context of creation the entities would be God who transcends time and space and man who is subject to time and space. For eternal God to relate to a man whom He had in mind to create He must 1) establish a means of establishing... 2) ...a mode of relating to another. So, by 'wisdom' God brought forth 'His Word'. This is why Messiah (Jesus, the Word made flesh) is called 'mediator'. Consequently if God did not have in mind to create a man with whom He intended to relate it would not have been necessary for Him to establish a medium (Word) or to muster the wisdom to do so. Wisdom is the 'womb' from where 'the Word of God' was brought forth. With this in mind read Proverbs ch.8. This chapter depicts everything I have just stated.

First off, "Was" is quite important and I see it as pointing to a timeless origin in that it goes back to Genesis. Before the creation, the Word WAS with God.

Secondly, Wisdom is not created. If wisdom is created, then that means God created wisdom (Did he do it in an unwise way) and then added it to his attributes. Nope. God's wisdom is eternal. Now we can look in 1 Cor. 1 and see Jesus described as the wisdom AND power of God. (Did God create his power also?)

The flip side: Take away 'creation / man' and 'the Word' looses it's purpose. The Word is for 'creation / man' and 'creation / man' for the Word. One cannot be comprehended without the other. Proof: God is still God apart from creation and also apart from the ways and means of creating. Question: Apart from a creation context what use would God have for a medium of communication? Would He ask Himself about things He already knows; or tell Himself to go to where He already is; or to command Himself to do when there is nothing to be done (since eternal God is perpetual in His being)? No, no, and no....are the short answers.

Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense are the short responses. God does not need to ask himself anything, but your question assumes God cannot communicate within himself. I could just as well ask "Why does God need to be just without man? Does that mean that God is not just or that God became just?"

Next....Apart from a creation context is it necessary for God to be a 'person'...moreover, a 'gendered' person? No, and no! Herein lies a revelation. God purposed to create 'persons' so it was (became) necessary that God be translated into an image and likeness AFTER WHICH those persons would be created. This image and likeness is revealed in 'the Word'.....and so the Word of God is in essence 'God personified'. This personification (the Word) was (became) WITH God in the sense that it (He) was brought forth to be united to another who would NOT be God.....i.e., a man. Primarily to the man Jesus...and through Him, to 'us' (His bride). The Word made flesh (Jesus, the Christ) is where eternal God and man converge to make 'ONE'. This is why He was called both Son of God and son of man. Jesus is the one Job prophetically eluded to when he said '...O that there was a man who could lay a hand on both of us (Job and God)...'. Jesus was (became) the fulfillment of this scripture.

So out of non-personality came personality? God needed an instrument also to do a creation? What a weak god you serve!

Now, on two counts the concept of the trinity is found lacking. 1) the Word was 'brought forth' and so could not have '...existed in eternity past...' (which is why this is never stated in scripture).

Only to one who thinks in modern concepts. Consider reading Plato's Critias where Timaeus speaks of the God who existed in eternity past but was just created by his words.

The Son was brought forth but had always been. Brought forth does not mean that he did not exist and was then brought into existence. The Son was in the bosom of the Father. ALWAYS!

2) Apart from a creation context God is not a 'person' and so '...no persons existed in eternity past...' - much less three.

Then your God changed in essential nature and you have personality coming from nonpersonality.

More on 'personhood'. Drop this condition into an 'infinite / finite' context. Consider that it is impossible that a person of any kind be infinite. Person signifies 'individual' which in turn signifies 'finiteness'. Persons begin at one point and end at another (in form). In other words 'borders' must necessarily exist for persons to have being....and borders = finite = subject to time and space. It is impossible that 'three' transcendent and infinite persons exist simultaneously. Sorry,,,, but displacement in triplicate aint happenin'. Again, take away all this and.....you got it - eternal, immortal, transcendent God STILL remains. There can only be ONE of these if transcendence is to be the beginning reality.

Begging the question. Got a Greek or Latin definition of person that the Trinitarian fathers would use? Also, please note that one thing I have kept insisting is a major error of non-Trinitarians is that they confuse persons with individuals. Thank you for proving my point!

Side note: The term 'Elohim' applies to a 'God that IS' and 'the Word who WAS (became) Him' in a creation context. This is the reason for the 'plural' connotation. In reality Elohim is a 'unified' plurality. A 'two become one' if you will. The 'two become one' pattern is allegorically depicted in the creation of 'the first day' - Light (Day) + darkness (Night) = ONE DAY (the first day - Day, or Morning Star - a two become one). Satan, represented by darkness, left his first estate misunderstanding the nature of Elohim. This caused a breach in 'the Word' (which is why an alternative word came to be). Satan saw himself as a third part of Elohim....but he was not. This in turn caused a breach in 'the first day' causing 'Day / Morning Star' to fall. Consequently this also caused a breach in the heart of man....since a man's heart is also patterned after 'the first day'. In other words, when Satan left his first estate the voice of man's flesh was awakened...and the rest, as they say, is history.

Amazing what one will believe when they reject that which is clear.

Anyway, This is how I am viewing things according to the vision I received by faith (through asking, seeking, knocking). And I got long winded again.....even though I meant to keep things simple. Hahaha....sorry for that. Talk to you later LJ....

Peace

A vision. Let's remember that Peter saw the Transfiguration, but yet he placed more authority in the Scriptures. I have no basis to accept your experience spitndirt. Especially if it contradicts Scripture, which it does.

Shadow Phoenix

July 6th 2007, 12:53 PM

The key phrase here that the trinitarians use to interprete Jesus Christ is God is 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,' This quote describes the nature of the spiritual, not physical, relationship between God, humanity, and God's Word.My understanding of the nature of the Messiah and Jesus Christ, as well as all the Messiahs, in essence I believe all are One, of existence, is that I have to take the whole Bible in understanding the nature of the station of the Messiah, and as splitndirt quoted in the Gospels the concensus is no Jesus Christ is not god in carnate, and God's nature is not literally trinitarian as interepreted by Orthodox Christianity.

Following Twebb, particularly the Jewish section, and references here to other linguistic references to understanding the translations of the New and Old Testiments, I believe a spiritual and not physical reality as the nature of the Messiah is the best fit. I find the trinitarian response to the quotes splindirt referred to as just 'Refer to the first chapter of John' as inadaquate, because this still does not fit the relationship described in the other quotes.

This assumes a monist view though. I see the word for flesh indicating human nature and that the Word took that on. The Word was still fully God and fully man after the crucifixion. I will still be fully man after my own death even though I am apart from my body. The nature dwells in a body. That does not mean the nature is a body.

Yankee_Doodle

July 7th 2007, 01:25 PM

This assumes a monist view though. I see the word for flesh indicating human nature and that the Word took that on. The Word was still fully God and fully man after the crucifixion. I will still be fully man after my own death even though I am apart from my body. The nature dwells in a body. That does not mean the nature is a body.

I'm not so sure about your proposition. I think our bodily flesh is responsible for our desires, lusts, hunger, pain, etc. Certainly though I do see some merit in what your saying -- but I do view flesh as meaning human bodily flesh. I think our spirit can move us and we can reach a point where our spirit controls our flesh (call it entire sanctification) -- and I find much validity in this view. However, again I think flesh is flesh. It's used in two primary ways -- children of the flesh (the unbelieving linear descendants of Abraham) and submitting to the desires of our flesh (our human bodies). Without a soul & faith we would merely be smarter animals; but still consumed and controlled by the desires of our flesh (basically a Neitzchian world).

shunyadragon

July 9th 2007, 02:23 PM

This assumes a monist view though. I see the word for flesh indicating human nature and that the Word took that on. The Word was still fully God and fully man after the crucifixion. I will still be fully man after my own death even though I am apart from my body. The nature dwells in a body. That does not mean the nature is a body.

I think you assuming a rather simplified erroneous view of Monism, and my view does not neatly fit in such a box. My view does in fact resemble a form of monism where there is an intimate indivisible nature physical and the spiritual existence, but still affirms a personal relationship, though more natural, between the 'Source' and Creation including humanity, in the nature of the messiah. The difference is that Christian doctrine defines this relationship in an exclusive and narrowly defined way, and I believe that each religion and scripture reflects a human limited view, and not the true reality of the 'Source' some call God, and the nature of the messiah.