|
Lance: Well, when you put it that way --
orthodox Trinitarian is an oxymoron -- then you have placed down a disingenuine
starting point. However, " three-headed siamese triplet freak" may be
looked upon in a similar fashion (tee-hee). I know that a genuine
conversation is possible between a 'oneness' adherent and a 'trinitarian'
because I have been engaged in them many times.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 07/02/2004 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine
Nature
Chris:I don't believe that a genuine conversation
is even possible between 'oneness' and, an orthodox Trinitarian understanding
of God (One Being, Three Persons). Do You?
Lance
----- Original Message -----
Sent: July 02, 2004 09:35
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine
Nature
\o/ !HALALU YAH!
\o/
Greetings Perry in the Matchless Name of
YahShua!
The
only life that was in YahShua was The Father (Isaiah 9:6/John 14:7-10 just
for starters), although the Father was not limited to that bodily form any
more than He was/is limited to heaven, nor was YahShua limited as to
physical location only on this earth or at one time (John 3:13;
Matthew 18:20; John 17:11). Father and Son are a matter of
relationship and not of entities. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are
modes of existence rather than mutually exclusive entities. The
Almighty is ONE entity and not some three-headed siamese triplet
freak.
The impressed with themselves/words
folks refer to this as "Modalistic Monarchianism". Simpler folks
simply call it Oneness. I call it Scriptural.
Ahava b' YahShua
(Love in The
SAVIOUR)
Baruch YHVH,
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 07/02/2004 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine
Nature
> Chris, since you don't accept the 1+1+1=1
view of the Trinity, will you
> refresh me on your view of the
relationship between the Father, the Son and
> the Holy Spirit? Is
there a common term used to describe your view?
>
>
Thanks
> Perry
>
>
> >From: "Chris Barr"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature Date: Thu, 1
Jul 2004 23:16:29 -0500
> >
> >\o/ !HALALU YAH!
\o/
> >Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua!
>
>
> >Once I comprehended the Trinity (no mystery to me), and
discovered it as
> >appended to "the faith once delivered" I did
then understand that it was
> >pretend to say 1+1+1 = 1. It
was then that I apprehended it and rendered
> >this Babylonian
amendment to its appropriate place in the pantheon of the
> >gods
i.e. the pit from whence it came.
> >
> >Ahava b'
YahShua
> >(Love in The SAVIOUR)
> >Baruch YHVH,
>
>(Bless The LORD)
> >
> >Chris Barr
> >a
servant of YHVH
> > ----- Original Message
-----
> > From: Wm. Taylor
> > To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 07/01/2004 10:38 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature
> >
>
>
> > "The more one attempts to answer and codify
the position, the higher the
> >risk for heresy and
wrong-positioning."
> >
> > Oh? and what
happens when one does not attempt to apprehend the Trinity
> >. .
.
> >
> > "There are other 'Characters' within
the Tanakh who claim the status of
> >YHVH that we cannot ignore
simply because it doesn't fit the Trinitarian
> >mode."
>
>
> > . . . Never mind. J I think I know.
>
>
> > Bill
>
>
> > ----- Original Message
-----
> > From: Slade Henson
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 3:38
PM
> > Subject: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature
[Formerly -- Prayer Request]
> >
> >
>
> I hope you all don't mind, but I have renamed
this thread more
> >appropriately
> >
>
>
> >
> > I think understand
the following:
> >
> > DAVEH's
position: I believe Jesus existed as a spirit being in the
>
>OT. His spirit body then became clothed in a body of flesh and
blood for a
> >brief span some 2000 years ago. At his death,
the spirit and physical body
> >departed, only to be reunited a
short time later in a resurrected form of
> >flesh and
bones. I believe he continues to be a spirit being that is
>
>clothed with physical body of flesh and bones to this day.
>
>
> > Charles Perry Locke's position:
The aspect of the Trinity referred to
> >as "the Son" became a
man, was crucified, and was raised from the dead.
> >
>
>
> >
> > Slade, deconstructing
what DAVEH has said, sees that there seems to be
> >some sort of
"evolution" in Yeshua from the Tanakh period, to the Gospel
>
>period, and finally to the post -Gospel period. Do you believe that
Yeshua
> >is now GOD (or a GOD?") since He was resurrected from
the dead? It seems
> >you do not believe He held that "position"
before that event. I agree with
> >the pre-existence of Yeshua
before His physical birth, but I must qualify
> >that Yeshua was
GOD before His physical birth (i.e., incarnation). This
>
>explains why Yeshua pre-existed... because He is GOD. More on that
later.
> >(I am intentionally restating facts in order to try to
make this perfectly
> >clear because nomenclature problems have
existed in the past between DAVEH
> >and I and I want that to
stop.)
> >
> > Deconstructing
Perry's position, I see what appears to be a standard
>
>"orthodox" Christian position passed down from the later Church fathers
> >(i.e., Aquinas and Austustine). I also know from other
positional
> >references Perry has made, he does not believe in
three gods (a common
> >perverse argument used against the
Trinitarian position). While I do not
> >quite understand the
Trinity I don't think anyone else does. The more one
> >attempts
to answer and codify the position, the higher the risk for heresy
>
>and wrong-positioning.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Slade's position: Throwing myself out on a limb
for you all to
> >effectively hew so I can fall, I see the
manifold aspects of YHVH through
> >the grammar of the Hebrew
language when the Deity is described or
> >mentioned. I see plural
words used for a single Entity (I am sorry for such
> >a bland
term) used with singular verbs -- a highly interesting aspect of
>
>Hebrew grammar used exclusively with YHVH. I also see singular
>
>nouns/pronouns used for YHVH with plural verbs -- again, highly
intriguing.
> >We also know that there is but one GOD and besides
Him there is not one
> >god. Yeshua, throughout the texts, is
given Divine status in multiple ways
> >(outright references,
strings of pearls, innuendos, etc.) Yeshua, being GOD
> >is
accredited with being the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow (I believe
> >that "yesterday" in this reference is an idiom for "forever in
the past").
> >Therefore, there cannot be an "evolution" of Yeshua
from man to God. Also,
> >since YHVH knows of no other god, there
cannot be some "evolution to
> >godhood" for anyone else either. I
do not hold to the standard Trinitarian
> >position because I see
YHVH as far, FAR bigger than a Trinity. There are
> >other
"Characters" within the Tanakh who claim the status of YHVH that we
>
>cannot ignore simply because it doesn't fit the Trinitarian mode.
> >HOWEVER... I do find it interesting that there are three
"persons" in
> >writing... First Person, Second Person, and Third
person. Is that
> >coincidence?
> >
>
> Alright, DAVEH... there ya go! You wanted to
know my position, and you
> >have it in a very small nutshell.
Anything more will take a lot more
> >typing.
> >
>
>
> >
> > (please be
kind....)
> >
> > -- slade
>
>
> >
> >
> > From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Charles Perry
>
> Locke
> >
Sent: Thursday, 01 July, 2004 10:03
> > To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer
Request
>
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be
always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to
answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list,
send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and he will be subscribed.
|
