The Trinity Doctrine

[Elidad]

Hi Is 1:8, Thank you for your comments. At this juncture there is just one point I will pick up on:

“Tell me why I should consider important what Anthony Buzzard thinks?”

Why you ask? For exactly the same reason that you would like me to consider important what you think or say here in your posts.

You give the impression that you think other writers that you refer to have something important to say, so why not Buzzard, unless you are frightened that you are going to find something there that will challenge your way of thinking?

I could go to a lot of trouble and convey basically the same line of understanding put together by Buzzard, but why do this and make an un-necessarily long post. Is it not better, if you are an honest seekek after truth, to go consider what he has to say on the matter, then come back here and tell me why his line of reasoning does not stack up.

Is 1:8, I have been reading your posts and have wondered if the character depicted in your Avatar does, in effect, give you away?

May purity of understanding and truth as it is in Christ Jesus prevail.

Elidad

[Elidad]

Oops, sorry Is 1:18, just noticed, looking back through posts, that I adressed you as Is 1:8, which may be relevant given the current situation in Israel, but hardly appropriate understanding that you are associating your identity with Isaiah 1:18.

Whilst I am here, thought I might as well pick up on another of your points. You seem to be emphatically stating that John 1:1 is saying that, “the Word was God” as opposed to what you think t8 is asserting. Given this, might I ask what is your issue?

If I read you right, you are saying “the logos was God”. Now if I go look up the meaning of logos as spelt out in the Strong's Concordance (2001 Edition) I come away with the understanding that this word 'logos' basically means something said (including the thought) and in the case of John 1:1 because of the article, a very specific word or thought.

OK, if we can agree on this, then to say the word was God, is saying nothing more than the fact that God's word or thought is as much a part of God, as your word and my word is a part of us. Hence, it could be said before I gave expression to it, that “my word was Elidad.”

What God says or thinks is an attribute, rather than being actually God himself, although in effect it is difficult to disassociate a person from their word. What comes out of my mouth, whether it be verbal or written, is in reality a representation of myself in a certain sense.

Thus to say that “the word was God” is nothing more than a sure statement of fact, and if a specific word (thought) was involved, which in the case of John 1:1 was Christ, then Christ was in God's mind/thought from the beginning. He was the central focus of all that transpired. The catalyst for yours and my existence.

This seems to develop into a conundrum when we try to make more out of the “word”, word being (logos) than what was intended.

A word is exactly that. It is a word. What is a word, it is an idea a thought in the minds eye, before we express it verbally or in written form. It is part of the essence of a person. In God's case his word, is part and parcel of His very person. In times past He made His word known through Prophets but in these last days He has manifest His word through His son, to paraphrase Hebrews 1:1-2.

I fail to see what all the kafuffle is about. Perhaps it is because I am an uneducated person and don't have to wrestle with the importance of my academic training?

Enough said. I am sure you will be able to tear holes in my simple way at looking at what others see as a complicated and convoluted subject.

Cheers

Elidad

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Elidad @ July 29 2006,12:16)

Hi Is 1:8, Thank you for your comments. At this juncture there is just one point I will pick up on: “Tell me why I should consider important what Anthony Buzzard thinks?” Why you ask?

Hi Elidad, hope you are well.

I asked because I wanted to know what it was about Buzzard's writings that warranted my attention and/or respect? That was all.

Quote

For exactly the same reason that you would like me to consider important what you think or say here in your posts.

He he…you are quite welcome to categorically dismiss everything I write. I am under no obligation to convince you of anything and likewise you are under no obligation to pay heed to anything I write. Simple as that really.

Quote

You give the impression that you think other writers that you refer to have something important to say, so why not Buzzard,

Let's remember I was making a Greek-based lexical argument so naturally I'm going to appeal to the absolute experts in Greek grammar. The scholars I quoted are cited regularly by both trinitarian and non-trinitarian adherents so there is no diputing their universally-accepted credibility.

Quote

unless you are frightened that you are going to find something there that will challenge your way of thinking?

Would I be a regular on antitrinitarian dominated web boards if I was frightened of being challenged in my way of thinking? Hardly.

Quote

I could go to a lot of trouble and convey basically the same line of understanding put together by Buzzard, but why do this and make an un-necessarily long post. Is it not better, if you are an honest seekek after truth, to go consider what he has to say on the matter, then come back here and tell me why his line of reasoning does not stack up.

Let me get this straight Elidad: You could go to a lot of trouble and borrow Buzzard's arguments and test me with them but you don't want to write an “unnecessarily long post”. But, you instead want me to go to the trouble of wading through his texts and to see if they check out…

Why would I want to do that? Especially when you haven't even bothered to explain to me why Buzzard is worthy of my attention.

If you think his reasonings on the correct interpretation of Jon 1:1c is solid then by all means paraphrase them in one of your own posts and we'll see. But don't ask someone else to do something similar to what you aren't prepared to do.

My counter question to you is: Rather than riding on the coat tails of another man's understanding, is it not better to do the thinking for yourself.

Quote

Is 1:8, I have been reading your posts and have wondered if the character depicted in your Avatar does, in effect,  give you away?

In what sense? I personally don't read too much into avatar selection, it could be that they chose a particular one for no other reason than they like the colour.

Quote

May purity of understanding and truth as it is in Christ Jesus prevail. Elidad

Blessings

Is 1:18

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Elidad @ July 30 2006,01:36)

Oops, sorry Is 1:18, just noticed, looking back through posts, that I adressed you as Is 1:8, which may be relevant given the current situation in Israel, but hardly appropriate understanding that you are associating your identity with Isaiah 1:18.

Not sure what you're getting at in the first part of this quote. To answer the bolded part; I like the verse, it's one of my very favourites.

Quote

Whilst I am here, thought I might as well pick up on another of your points. You seem to be emphatically stating that John 1:1 is saying that, “the Word was God” as opposed to what you think t8 is asserting. Given this, might I ask what is your issue?

I invite you to go back to the beginning of my dialogue with t8 (pg 340). If you read the posts carefully my “issue” should become quite obvious.

Quote

If I read you right, you are saying “the logos was God”. Now if I go look up the meaning of logos as spelt out in the Strong's Concordance (2001 Edition) I come away with the understanding that this word 'logos' basically means something said (including the thought) and in the case of John 1:1 because of the article, a very specific word or thought.

There is also a school of thought that affirms that the Greek word “Logos” was actually borrowed by John from Greek philosophy (the Greeks understand “logos” to mean the impersonal, but rational, ordering principle of the universe ), but that John greatly modifies its connotation, in that although it still retained some of the Greek’s inherent meaning, it's application was very personal in nature. I think the context of the first four verses strongly support this. I also think that there is a lot of biblical data attesting to the pre-incarnate Logos being very much a volitional agent, a person.

Quote

OK, if we can agree on this, then to say the word was God, is saying nothing more than the fact that God's word or thought is as much a part of God, as your word and my word is a part of us. Hence, it could be said before I gave expression to it, that “my word was Elidad.” What God says or thinks is an attribute, rather than being actually God himself, although in effect it is difficult to disassociate a person from their word. What comes out of my mouth, whether it be verbal or written, is in reality a representation of myself in a certain sense.

Given the ambiguity of the John's application of the word, how can you be so sure that “logos” equates to a thought and/or plan and/or vocalisation by God? Specifically, what is it about the grammar or context of prologue that supports this dogmatic hypothesis?

Quote

Thus to say that “the word was God” is nothing more than a sure statement of fact, and if a specific word (thought) was involved, which in the case of John 1:1 was Christ, then Christ was in God's mind/thought from the beginning. He was the central focus of all that transpired. The catalyst for yours and my existence.

You haven't given me any evidence to support this idea of yours that the Logos is a thought/plan/vocalisation of God.

Quote

This seems to develop into a conundrum when we try to make more out of the “word”, word being (logos) than what was intended.

Conversely, I think the conundrum develops when a logos = thought/plan/vocalisation position is adopted. Especially when other NT passages apparently dealing with the pre-incarnational existence of the Logos are considered

Quote

I fail to see what all the kafuffle is about. Perhaps it is because I am an uneducated person and don't have to wrestle with the importance of my academic training?

Elidad let me say that for a self confessed “uneducated person” you articulate yourself very well. Not that educational background matters that much really, biblical truth comes from the Holy Spirit not lecture theatres.

Quote

Enough said. I am sure you will be able to tear holes in my simple way at looking at what others see as a complicated and convoluted subject.

I don't think John 1:1c is complicated at all, as I alluded to in a previous post. The clause states that the “Word was God”, you only make it complicated when you argue that the Word was in fact not God. You haven't really given me opportunity challenge your position because I have no idea what supports your notion that the Logos is unequivically a thought/plan/vocalisation of God. From what I can gather, you believe it simply because Mr Buzzard says so.

Quote

Cheers Elidad

Blessings

[Elidad]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ July 30 2006,03:54)

Quote (Elidad @ July 29 2006,12:16) Hi Is 1:8, Thank you for your comments. At this juncture there is just one point I will pick up on: “Tell me why I should consider important what Anthony Buzzard thinks?” Why you ask? Hi Elidad, hope you are well. I asked because I wanted to know what it was about Buzzard's writings that warranted my attention and/or respect? That was all. Quote For exactly the same reason that you would like me to consider important what you think or say here in your posts. He he…you are quite welcome to categorically dismiss everything I write. I am under no obligation to convince you of anything and likewise you are under no obligation to pay heed to anything I write. Simple as that really. Quote You give the impression that you think other writers that you refer to have something important to say, so why not Buzzard, Let's remember I was making a Greek-based lexical argument so naturally I'm going to appeal to the absolute experts in Greek grammar. The scholars I quoted are cited regularly by both trinitarian and non-trinitarian adherents so there is no diputing their universally-accepted credibility. Quote unless you are frightened that you are going to find something there that will challenge your way of thinking? Would I be a regular on antitrinitarian dominated web boards if I was frightened of being challenged in my way of thinking? Hardly. Quote I could go to a lot of trouble and convey basically the same line of understanding put together by Buzzard, but why do this and make an un-necessarily long post. Is it not better, if you are an honest seekek after truth, to go consider what he has to say on the matter, then come back here and tell me why his line of reasoning does not stack up. Let me get this straight Elidad: You could go to a lot of trouble and borrow Buzzard's arguments and test me with them but you don't want to write an “unnecessarily long post”. But, you instead want me to go to the trouble of wading through his texts and to see if they check out… Why would I want to do that? Especially when you haven't even bothered to explain to me why Buzzard is worthy of my attention. If you think his reasonings on the correct interpretation of Jon 1:1c is solid then by all means paraphrase them in one of your own posts and we'll see. But don't ask someone else to do something similar to what you aren't prepared to do. My counter question to you is: Rather than riding on the coat tails of another man's understanding, is it not better to do the thinking for yourself. Quote Is 1:8, I have been reading your posts and have wondered if the character depicted in your Avatar does, in effect, give you away? In what sense? I personally don't read too much into avatar selection, it could be that they chose a particular one for no other reason than they like the colour. Quote May purity of understanding and truth as it is in Christ Jesus prevail. Elidad Blessings Is 1:18

Quote

Hi Elidad, hope you are well.

Hi Is 1:18, Pleased to say that I am well. Trust the same in your case.

Quote

Let's remember I was making a Greek-based lexical argument so naturally I'm going to appeal to the absolute experts in Greek grammar. The scholars I quoted are cited regularly by both trinitarian and non-trinitarian adherents so there is no diputing their universally-accepted credibility.

I see. If it is scholarship that you are looking for, then let me give your Buzzard's credentials: He was educated at Oxford University. He holds a Master's degrees in language and theology. He teaches Hebrew and Greek at Alanta Bible College. That's about all I know, other than where he was born and lives. I understand he was formely a trinitarian and was at one time heavily involved in the Group that was connected with the late H.W. Amstrong. I believe Buzzard's standing on matters of Greek grammar is well attested. Do you know otherwise? He is probably a good match for your experts.

Quote

Would I be a regular on antitrinitarian dominated web boards if I was frightened of being challenged in my way of thinking? Hardly.

Depends on your motive for being there. Are you trying to sell your ideas or learn?

Quote

Why would I want to do that? Especially when you haven't even bothered to explain to me why Buzzard is worthy of my attention.

Hope my explanation above is adequate

Quote

My counter question to you is: Rather than riding on the coat tails of another man's understanding, is it not better to do the thinking for yourself.

It is not a question of riding on someone else's coat tails, which is what you also must be doing by relying on the “experts” that you refer to. I don't have any trouble thinking for myself, but I do have trouble typing, being nothing more than a two finger typist. There is only so much time I can use, to write and respond to posts. Hence, I look for shortcuts where ever possible.There is no point in reinventing the wheel. If someone else has covered off on an understanding, that I agree with, then reference to that understanding should be sufficient, without regurgertating it all ove
r again. Economy of words and efficiency of production is my motto.

Is it too much to ask for you to examine such and to draw to attention any point or points that you see as being in critical error. You don't have to write a total article in refutation, surely?

Quote

In what sense? I personally don't read too much into avatar selection, it could be that they chose a particular one for no other reason than they like the colour.

You may not put a lot of importance on an Avatar, but I do. Why use it if you are not trying to make a “statement”. Yours conveys to me the impression of someone who is sinister, with a hidden motive. Sorry, but that's the signal it sends to me, even if you place no importance on it. I take this to be a serious discussion Group. Not somewhere to fool about, or be foolish/flippant about what we say or convey. Why would you want to indentify yourself with such a devious looking character, if it is not in your nature to be such?

Over to you. May we proceed with seriousness of purpose and intent. That is, to grow in grace and knowledge as it is in Christ Jesus.

Elidad

[Elidad]

Oh dear. I think I messed up on that last post. Sorry about that. Still trying to figure out how to use all the features of this Forum. Please bear with me until I get it right. Using HTML code is a relatively new experience for me.

Please forgive, some of us oldies can't keep up with all this new technological stuff.

Cheers

Elidad

[Elidad]

Is wrote:

[/quote]
Hello Is 1:18, Here we go again, although I think my going, will soon be going full stop, with regard to your posts, as I get the distinct feeling that we are going to be running around in circles, before very long.

I thought my comments about inadvertently using Is 1:8 instead of Is 1:18 would have been evident, if you were to go and read Isaiah 1:8 which speaks of Jerusalem under seige, hence having a connotation, if one likes to see it that way, for current events in Israel. Otherwise, I applaud your reference selection. It speaks millions.

Quote

I invite you to go back to the beginning of my dialogue with t8 (pg 340). If you read the posts carefully my “issue” should become quite obvious.

Have just read back through your comments on page 340 and am not all that sure I am any the wiser. Excuse my dumbness.

Perhaps you are trying to say the same thing as William Barclay.

An explanation of how to translate theos without the definite article is spelt out in Jesus As They Knew Him, by William Barclay, former professor at Trinity College in Glasgow:

In a case like this we cannot do other than go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Ho is the definite article, the, and it can be seen that there is a definite article with logos, but not with theos. When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb “to be,” and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully intended to be identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or sphere to which the other belongs.

An illustration from English will make this clear. If I say, “The preacher is the man,” I use the definite article before both preacher and man, and I thereby identify the preacher with some quite definite individual man whom I have in mind. But, if I say, “The preacher is man,” I have omitted the definite article before man, and what I mean is that the preacher must be classified as a man, he is in the sphere of manhood, he is a human being.

[In the last clause of John 1:1] John has no article before theos, God. The logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs. We would, therefore, have to say that this means that the logos belongs to the same sphere as God; without being identified with God, the logos has the same kind of life and being as God. Here the NEB [New English Bible] finds the perfect translation: “What God was, the Word was.”

From: William Barclay, Jesus as They Knew Him (Harper and Row, N.Y., 1962), pp. 21 and 22.

This pretty much fits with what I was trying to get across in my comments under question.

Quote

There is also a school of thought that affirms that the Greek word “Logos” was actually borrowed by John from Greek philosophy (the Greeks understand “logos” to mean the impersonal, but rational, ordering principle of the universe ), but that John greatly modifies its connotation, in that although it still retained some of the Greek’s inherent meaning, it's application was very personal in nature. I think the context of the first four verses strongly support this. I also think that there is a lot of biblical data attesting to the pre-incarnate Logos being very much a volitional agent, a person.

Does this school of thought, give credit for the fact that John chose words as guided by the Holy Spirit? What you allude to is all very well, but does this mean John was directed to use a word, that did not readily compute in the minds of those to whom he addressed his writings? Where is this biblical data attesting to the pre-incarnate Logos, being a very volitional agent, a person?

Quote

Given the ambiguity of the John's application of the word, how can you be so sure that “logos” equates to a thought and/or plan and/or vocalisation by God? Specifically, what is it about the grammar or context of prologue that supports this dogmatic hypothesis?

Here you admit ambiguity of John's application of the word, and then question the view point that I have put forward. Yet you can work from that same ambiguous basis and put forward a view which you feel holds more credibility. How come? There is nothing about the grammar or the context that gives any more weight to my viewpoint than to yours. All I am suggesting, is that your viewpoint is not the only way to understand what John meant. Can you absolutely and definitely rule out this alternative way of looking at the matter? Going by the rheems that have been written about this particular verse, I think not.

As for being dogmatic, that seems to be a very poor choice of word in light of this discussion so far. Having just re-looked up the meaning of dogmatic, I fail to see how anything shared by me to date qualifies for this very assertive label. I am expressing my understandings, nothing more, nothing less. As for propounding them with dogmatism, I ask you? If this is how you see it, then the same rule of assessment must also apply to the thoughts that you express with much insistence, going by the dialog exchanged with T8?

Quote

You haven't given me any evidence to support this idea of yours that the Logos is a thought/plan/vocalisation of God.

I made reference to the definition conveyed by Young's Concordance. What was wrong with that?

Quote

Elidad let me say that for a self confessed “uneducated person” you articulate yourself very well. Not that educational background matters that much really, biblical truth comes from the Holy Spirit not lecture theatres.

If we think of educational as formal education (academia) then that statement remains true. However, if reading lots of books, equates with 'education' then I plead guilty. As for qualifications I have have none. My wife holds a Master of Science degree and that is about as close to qualifications that I can get. Thanks for the compliment anyway, as I do not see myself as being someone skilled in words and debate. Just and ordinary, average, everyday thinker, that gets befuddled at times by all the rhetoric and verbage that many are want to spin.

Quote

You haven't really given me opportunity challenge your position because I have no idea what supports your notion that the Logos is unequivically a thought/plan/vocalisation of God. From what I can gather, you believe it simply because Mr Buzzard says so.

Come on Is 1:18, what sort of comment is this? First of all, I never said unequivically anywhere to my knowledge. I have offered my thoughts for comment. As for giving you no clue where I got my ideas from, this indicates that you don't read clearly. I referenced Young's Concordance. I was
not aware that I had to roll out every reference source I hold in my book case, or have access to, in order to add weight to what I suggested. As for believing it simply because Mr Buzzard says so, I suggest that you should retract that statement, otherwise I will use the same line of appeal in regard to the things that you are contending for, listing those “experts” that you have mentioned, that have evidently flavoured/coloured your understanding. You are allowed to refer to “experts” but when I call upon Buzzard as an “expert” on my side of thinking, I am guilty of having done nothing more than spout his viewpoints?

Fair go Is 1:18. Let's stick to the subject and stop reverting to innuedos and aspersions to create diversion from matters being discussed. I am not interested in debating, where the art is to discredit the speaker, rather than remain focussed on the matter in question.

May sound reasoning, in keeping with Scriptural principles, be our guiding light.

Peace be with you.

Elidad

[NickHassan]

Hi Elidad,
You say
“Thus to say that “the word was God” is nothing more than a sure statement of fact, and if a specific word (thought) was involved, which in the case of John 1:1 was Christ, then Christ was in God's mind/thought from the beginning. He was the central focus of all that transpired. The catalyst for yours and my existence.”

I do not grasp how a thought or a plan,
which reside inside a person
can be said to equate to a WORD
which is expressed and outside of that person.
A plan or thought precedes an action such as speaking into being
a WORD.

To make them as the same would seem to cross lines of logic and even muddy the water.

A Catalyst is a term for an inert thing outside of the other matter involved that is needed to allow an change to happen. To say that the catalyst is part of God is to deny that he was the catalyst for God's plan.

[NickHassan]

Hi Eli,
You say
“From all that I have read of Buzzard's writings, he like myself, whole heartedly believes that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. What is meant by making this claim? By this I mean that Jesus has really come, He came in the flesh, He came as a man, He was for real, He appeared physically”

I do not believe comiing in the flesh means as it has been colloquially expressed by you.
It seems to state rather as shown in Phil 2.5f that;
He existed
He partook of flesh
and
He appeared on earth garbed in the fleshly tent Paul spoke of in 2 Cor.

Your statement could apply to any of us but there is deeper meaning when applied to the Christ IMHO.

[NickHassan]

Hi Eli,
Was this fair?
“You may not put a lot of importance on an Avatar, but I do. Why use it if you are not trying to make a “statement”. Yours conveys to me the impression of someone who is sinister, with a hidden motive. Sorry, but that's the signal it sends to me, even if you place no importance on it. I take this to be a serious discussion Group. Not somewhere to fool about, or be foolish/flippant about what we say or convey. Why would you want to indentify yourself with such a devious looking character, if it is not in your nature to be such?”

[Elidad]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 31 2006,04:43)

Hi Eli, Was this fair? “You may not put a lot of importance on an Avatar, but I do. Why use it if you are not trying to make a “statement”. Yours conveys to me the impression of someone who is sinister, with a hidden motive. Sorry, but that's the signal it sends to me, even if you place no importance on it. I take this to be a serious discussion Group. Not somewhere to fool about, or be foolish/flippant about what we say or convey. Why would you want to indentify yourself with such a devious looking character, if it is not in your nature to be such?”

Hi Nick, Just in from the rain. I see there are many posts to reflect upon. Catching up with comment/response will be time consuming.
Firstly, however, I thought it best that I respond to your above comment, “Was this fair”

Sorry if it came across this way to you. That was my impression. I speak as I find. I expect you to do the same with me, which you have, and that is good. As to whether or not is was fair or not, I will leave to others to judge. I will gladly apologise, if others think it is out of order.

From my point of view, Avatars send signals. When I view the Avatar in question it conveys bad vibes. Perhaps this just me. But whether we like it or not, all that we do or associate ourselves with “speaks” much about who we are. That is why Scripture urges us to “have the mind of Christ”. My question is, how would our Lord respond, if he came across someone who presented themself under a questionable guise?

By the way, without wishing to flatter you, I identify well with your Avatar. It gives me the impression that you are perhaps a studious and thoughtful person, always researching and questioning. It is an impression that makes me feel comfortable relating to. Perhaps that is not you at all, but nevertheless, that’s the readout that it gives me, and it sits well with my heart.

Each of us has to answer for all things that we say and wish to associate or identify with, so let's be careful.

I thank you for your query in this regard.

Elidad

[NickHassan]

Hi Eli
Well it did not fit very well with this statement of yours
“Fair go Is 1:18. Let's stick to the subject and stop reverting to innuedos and aspersions to create diversion from matters being discussed. I am not interested in debating, where the art is to discredit the speaker, rather than remain focussed on the matter in question.”

[Elidad]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 31 2006,11:29)

Hi Eli Well it did not fit very well with this statement of yours “Fair go Is 1:18. Let's stick to the subject and stop reverting to innuedos and aspersions to create diversion from matters being discussed. I am not interested in debating, where the art is to discredit the speaker, rather than remain focussed on the matter in question.”

Hi Nick, You are firing off responses faster than I could ever hope to comment, but just on this one that came through a a short time ago.

Can I say, the innuendo or aspersion that I was referring to, was that I just ride on the coat tails of Mr Buzzard or belief something just because he says it. This seems to me to be a very un-necessary sort of assertion. It adds no profit to a discussion. It would be like me saying to you that you don't think for yourself, you just parrot other people's points of view.

I don't believe you do, but would you be happy if I made a comment to that effect?

Perhaps innuendo or aspersion was a bad choice of words. My apology.

Could I please ask you a favour? If you are really seeking my understanding on any point of few, take it a step at a time. I have no hope of fielding many questions one after another. Store up your questions if you have them, and I will do my best to give you my viewpoint.

You can then weigh it for what its worth. If its worth nothing then, that's fine. I am as much interested in getting things right as I am sure you are.That's why I have taken part in this forum. Quite often, I read a thought from another that helps me see a matter more clearly or gives me cause to rethink my standpoint. But it doesn't happen overnight. Sometimes, I have to prayerfully mull over a matter for sometime, before the “light” goes on.

Are you with me; brothers working together, using the iron of Scripture to sharpen iron? (Proverbs 27:17)

Peace be with you.

Elidad.

[NickHassan]

Hi Elidad,
We are very happy to work with you and your excellent gleaned insights, and to walk with you in the hope that we can find agreement. We do prefer pure scriptural insights rather than those that come through men like Mr Buzzard. All such views are also welcome but they will be examined in the light of scripture.

[NickHassan]

Hi WIT,
You said
“Yes, Nick, I am aware of your view that no one died on the cross; that Y'shua was actually more alive than ever as a result of the crucifixion, as he rid himself of the “bondage” of human flesh and became a completely spirit being once more.

Of course, that reduces the supposed glorious resurrection three days later to a cosmic puppet show whereby Y'shua put on the “flesh suit” one more time to make a few theatrical appearances for his disciples.

I'll have to pass on that view. Thanks for the observation though.”

Resurrection is resurrection of the weak perishable tent, the physical body.
But there are two resurrections.
We hope to be found worthy to be raised into the millenial kingdom in the first one
For those in Christ that is into a new imperishable body unto eternal life.
1 Peter 3 tells us that when Jesus died [physically]he came alive in the Spirit.
He is the firstborn from the dead and we follow him.
Jesus warned us in Matt 10.28 not just to fear those who kill the body but instead fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Geena-the Lake of fire prepared for the devil and his angels, the second death.-the REAL DEATH.

[WhatIsTrue]

Nick wrote:

Quote

1 Peter 3 tells us that when Jesus died [physically]he came alive in the Spirit.

So let me get this straight, Nick. You believe that when Y'shua “died”, he was actually being made alive by casting off the “weak perishable tent, the physical body”?

Then, why was he resurrected? Did it have any significance other than cosmic theater?

[NickHassan]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ July 31 2006,17:36)

Nick wrote: Quote 1 Peter 3 tells us that when Jesus died [physically]he came alive in the Spirit. So let me get this straight, Nick.  You believe that when Y'shua “died”, he was actually being made alive by casting off the “weak perishable tent, the physical body”? Then, why was he resurrected?  Did it have any significance other than cosmic theater?

Hi WIT,
It was for our sake.
He was sent as God's rescue plan for us, to share our e earthly estate and to show us simple blind beings that the thing that terrified us most, the death of our body, was an irrelevance in Him.

The Son's resurrection was a witness to all of the power of God beyond the visible boundary of our tiny peripheral vision.

Heb 2.14f
“14Therefore, since the children share in (A)flesh and blood, (B)He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that ©through death He might render powerless (D)him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

15and might free those who through (E)fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

16For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.

17Therefore, He had (F)to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might (G)become a merciful and faithful (H)high priest in (I)things pertaining to God, to (J)make propitiation for the sins of the people.”

We are also the battlefield between God and Satan as God wrests control from Satan of the hearts and minds of men, bringing them out of the kingdom of darkness and into His wonderful light shaming and eventually destroying Satan and His evil hordes.

But the rescue plan all centres around the response of individuals to the only mediator, the Son of God who became Son of Man.

[WhatIsTrue]

Interesting, Nick.

So, to be perfectly clear, you believe:

1. Y'shua was a spirit being in the beginning.
2. He then became a human being.
3. Upon crucifixion he was made a spirit being again, (i.e. he was released from the bondage of human flesh).
4. Upon resurrection, he was made into a human being again, (i.e. he was put back into the prison of human flesh).

Is that accurate? (If not, can you give me the correct sequence?)

[NickHassan]

Hi WIT,
We know that the Word who was with God and begotten of God as a Son was the image of that God.
We know he was of divine nature and having, like us a vessel nature too.
He decided to submit to God and obey God being sent after he emptied himself of what was not of our nature and partook of human flesh nature by the Spirit of God and Mary.
His soul vessel was filled by the Spirit of God at the Jordan and revealed the powers and nature of God to men.
His flesh died on Calvary with his human spirit returning to God.
But the Spirit of God remained in him as he was alive to God in the Spirit.
He was raised by God in his battered natural body but returned to God with a new imperishable body.
We too can be buried with him in baptism and filled with the Spirit of God.
We too who follow him wiill be raised in a similar body at the first resurrection.

Thus will God be all in all.

[WhatIsTrue]

Nick wrote:

Quote

Hi WIT, We know that the Word who was with God and begotten of God as a Son was the image of that God. We know he was of divine nature and having, like us a vessel nature too. He decided to submit to God and obey God being sent after he emptied himself of what was not of our nature and partook of human flesh nature by the Spirit of God and Mary. His soul vessel was filled by the Spirit of God at the Jordan and revealed the powers and nature of God to men. His flesh died on Calvary with his human spirit returning to God. But the Spirit of God remained in him as he was alive to God in the Spirit. He was raised by God in his battered natural body but returned to God with a new imperishable body. We too can be buried with him in baptism and filled with the Spirit of God. We too who follow him wiill be raised in a similar body at the first resurrection. Thus will God be all in all.

Two questions:

1.  What is a “soul vessel”?  And where do you find it described in scripture?
2.  Are you saying that only Y'shua's flesh died, but he himself did not die?

Also…

I wrote:

Quote

Then, why was he resurrected?  Did it have any significance other than cosmic theater?

Nick wrote in response:

Quote

It was for our sake. He was sent as God's rescue plan for us, to share our e earthly estate and to show us simple blind beings that the thing that terrified us most, the death of our body, was an irrelevance in Him.

So, the greatest purpose of the resurrection was to show us that death isn't so bad after all?  That's the meaning of his resurrection?

[Author]

Posts