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.
|