|
Chris:Others may; I may not.
Lance
----- Original Message -----
Sent: July 02, 2004 12:33
Subject: Lance II: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine
Nature
\o/ !HALALU YAH!
\o/
Greetings again in the Matchless Name of YahShua!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 07/02/2004 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine
Nature
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?
Lance: COVER YOURSELF, MAN! You have exposed yourself.
Misdirection and diversion are two of the oldest ploys of the devil [ YHVH rebuke him ] ... older even than his
trinitarian ploy which is both of the former just for starters
...
... ?"Monty Python"? -- I love that stuff
but that aint' this and just don't fit ...
... ?"'Parrot is dead'"? -- only fits if
you're going to parrot "church" historians past and present rather than
Scripture ...
... ?"John's initial post on Kruger" ...
who said anything about John and/or Kruger anway? This post is titled
differently and came from a completely different thread.
Your question to me is another dishonest
diversion from the subject matter. Trying to kill the conversation
before it even gets started? FOR SHAME!
Now, help me out here anybody ... just
who is the father of lies?
Ahava b' YahShua
(Love in The
SAVIOUR)
Baruch YHVH,
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 07/02/2004 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine
Nature
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.
|
