These all imply some degree of separateness, even from the beginning, do they not? How does a "oneness" adherent explain the apparent separateness of the three?
It seems to me that he Trinitarian concept strikes a mark between the modality of oneness and the polytheism of the LDS view. It appears to me to retain one God, yet allow for the apparent separateness expressed in scripture.
Thanks, Perry
From: "Chris Barr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine Nature Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 08:35:09 -0500
\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, (Bless The LORD)
Chris Barr a servant of YHVH
----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
---------- "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.
