|
Chris/Perry:This conversation, as structured, is a
dead end. As Monty Python said: 'This Parrot is dead'. My advice to all is NOT
to engage Chris in this conversation. This is NOT the same conversation
generated by John's initial post on Kruger.
For Chris, this isn't a 'conversation'. This is his
opportunity to explain the 'gospel' to 'unbelievers' (us); right
Chris?
Sent: July 02, 2004 11:14
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine
Nature
\o/ !HALALU YAH!
\o/
Greetings again Perry in the Matchless Name of
YahShua!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Perry Locke"
Sent: 07/02/2004 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine
Nature
> Thanks, Chris, that was very
clear.
You're welcome and thanks,
Perry.
> However, I sometimes read verses in
the
> Bible that appear to give the Father, the Son, and the holy
Spirit some
> degree of separateness
Well, Perry, the first thing I would note
here is that things are not always as they appear.
The second thing I would note is that
separateness does not necessarily have an impact on numerical
personages. For example, as a husband to my wife there is a distinct
separateness regarding physical details quite distinguished from that as
a father to my son and yet I am not two separate persons -- husband and
father.
None of the examples you have given are
at all difficult to give answer to as even my 12 year old son can give answer
to them -- though admittedly he is exceptionally bright.
I'll address a couple shortly and others
later ... work to do and all.
Of course, THE key to all of this is
Matthew 11:27 in which The Saviour reveals that The TRUTH of this matter will
only be arrived at by revelation from He alone. No matter how well I
explain The TRUTH of the "Divine Nature" you will only get it as it is
revealed to you by The Saviour Himself and not because of my excellence of
words. However, I stand ready to give answer "instant in season and out"
in accordance with The Word and The Spirit ... as always.
This is in fact one of my very favorite
discussions to have when entered into with soberness of mind on both
sides. Admittedly my "three-headed siamese triplet freak" is outside of
that soberness. I came up with that just for SHOCK value on TruthTalk in the not altogether
rare spirit of the list and not a little bit just for fun.
I respect the intellectual capabilities
of Bill and would be very interested in this discussion with his
input.
Ahava b' YahShua
(Love in The
SAVIOUR)
Baruch YHVH,
, like when Jesus prays to the Father, or
while Jesus
> was on earth refers to His Father in heaven, and when the
father says this
> is my son in whom I am well pleased. Also, when
Jesus is about to leave and
> he tells the disciples that he will send
the comforter (Holy Spirit). I also
> understand that sometimes a
plural word is used to refer to God, like
> 'Elohim', which I
understand to be plural, refers to God. Also, how about
> Genesis 3
when God says "the man is become as one of us". Who is the "us" in
>
this statement?
>
> 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.
|
