|
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.
|
