\o/ !HALALU YAH! \o/
Greetings Lance in the Matchless Name of YahShua!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 07/02/2004 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine
Nature
Chris: ... I believe
that the underlying question is the starting point: Are both positions
acceptable to God? What is heresy to us and, to God?
In accordance with the example of The Saviour ... I'll await your own
answer to your own disingenuine, dishonest, diversionary questions before
giving answer.
Ahava b' YahShua
(Love in The
SAVIOUR)
Baruch YHVH,
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 07/02/2004 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine
Nature
Chris:I don't believe that speaking of God as One
Being, Three Persons (Trinity) is a doctrine. I believe that this is Who God
in fact Is.
I believe that the underlying question is
the starting point: Are both positions acceptable to God? What is heresy to us
and, to God?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: July 02, 2004 10:20
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine
Nature
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.
|
