Actual email correspondence between the minister and Bobby ...
The identity of the minister has been protected ...
HELPFUL HINT: There are 21 responses in this debate. If you get
started and then come back later to pick back up where you left off, you
can click on the "Edit" tab at the top of browser windows a slide down
menu will appear. Then click on "Find (on This Page)." Next, type "
Response # " into the white bar and click on "Find Next." This will take
you right down the list ... one by one ... to the beginning of each
response.
The following email was the initial contact received from the minister ....
----- Original Message -----
From: xxxxx
To: acts2@impact-ministry.com
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 6:12 PM
Subject: Um ... $10,000 ??
Greetings.
I am interested in earning that $10,000. What exactly are the requirements of your offer/challenge?
Jim
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
***Note: The following is the actual emails sent to the minister in
response to the subsequent emails received from him. The minister's
emails were copied and pasted in their entirety and responded to by
inserting point-by-point responses at the appropriate intervals
throughout his email, and returned to him for his further handling.
Response # 1 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Um ... $10,000 ??
Praise the Lord, Jim,
My Reward Page is found at:
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/reward.html There are three
conditions. Meeting any one of the three conditons is worth $
10,000.00. Here's the challenge as it appears on my web page ...
* * * * * * * * * * * *
$10,000 Reward:
Offered to anyone who can find ONE scripture in the authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible TEXT:
(1) with the word "trinity" in it;
(2) where the term "persons" (plural) was ever used to describe God or the Godhead; OR
(3) where anyone was ever baptized with the TITLES "Father, Son and
Holy Ghost" pronounced over them. (These "titles" are quoted by
virtually every religious denomination today among BOTH Catholic and
Protestants, regardless of whether they baptize by sprinkling or by
immersion).
If you would like to inquire, discuss or debate this then Lets Start Here
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Also, I would be very interested in knowing your answers to the following questions ...
1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead?
2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?
3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?
4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?
5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?
6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?
7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"
8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God
evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of
three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?
As you know, trinitarians are adamant about insisting on using the
term of "three persons" in their description of God. I embrace the
concept of three forms of God ... three manifestations of God ... three
offices of God ... three positions of God ... three roles of God. Now,
if it is a matter of semantics, then dropping the unbiblical descriptive
term of "persons" in reference to God and using in its place one of the
terms I just used, should bring true monotheists into the unity of the
faith concerning this matter. However, it is my position that those who
insist on using the "persons" designation in their description of God,
are treading a some very dangerous territory.
Since man was created in the image AND likeness of God, and man
consists of heart, soul, body, mind, spirit, etc. ... yet is only ONE
person. And since man can function as a father, as son, a husband, a
teacher, etc. ... yet is only ONE person. Why is it that some believe
God has to be more than one person?
I am not trying to be argumentative. I am just trying to reason
with you concerning a very important Bible subject. Please keep in mind
that I was raised trinitarian, and became a baptized member of a main
line protestant church. However, when God called me out of the red neck
beer joints of Mississippi back in 1985, He put something way down deep
in my soul that has been like fire shut up in my bones. Please, don't
misunderstand me, I am NOT "anti-denominational" or against being
affiliated with a local, Bible believing, Bible teaching Church. I am
very much involved in a local Church that teaches and preaches the
Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine ... and am not ashamed of it.
It's just that there are very few religious people who actually think
for themselves, or study their Bible independently. They usually either
adhere very closely to their particular denomination's prescribed
studies and guidelines ... or are Biblically illiterate ... and would
totally reject the notion that they have been indoctrinated. Also, I
have found, most have accepted their indoctrination without question,
and will defend it adamantly. Independently evaluating, or verifying,
it ... placing it under scrutiny ... or questioning it is only a remote
possibility ... UNLESS someone comes along and rattles their cage (so to
speak) and challenges them to search the Scriptures concerning their
beliefs, their reasoning and their logic, and/or gets them to start
independently studying the Bible and thinking for themselves again.
Also, the people out there in the pig pens where I've been aren't
looking for a Church to join, and they're not looking for a religious
facade to hide behind. No, they're desperately looking for something to
fill the void in their soul ... and give purpose and meaning to their
life ... which is NOT being accomplished by what they're involved with
... and/or are looking for deliverance from a very vicious cycle of self
destruction which they have gotten caught up in, but, for one reason or
another, do not trust anyone or anything ... and may not believe that
their answer can be easily found in the Word of God.
That's why I felt led to take the "independent Bible Study" and
"non-denominational lay man" approach. Since I don't come in promoting a
Church name or organization, and since I am not a preacher, there are
two less barriers I have to deal with. As a matter of fact, it doesn't
matter to me if a person repents of their sins and receives the Holy
Ghost in an empty box car, and is baptized in the name of Jesus in a
creek. I just want to get the Word out there in the highways and
by-ways. Besides, unless and until a person's heart, soul and mind have
been touched by the convicting power of the Holy Ghost, chances are,
the Church name or denomination will have little impact, if any. As a
matter of fact, with some, it would only serve to alienate. And like I
said, most of them aren't looking for a Church to join. They just need
to be presented with the Truth in it's entirety, first. Then, the Holy
Ghost will lead them.
There have been people who have asked me to help them find a
"Oneness"Church in their area so they could get baptized in the precious
name of Jesus. One even wrote me and said that after he ran across my
study, he went out and found one on his own. He was baptized in the
name of Jesus and had received the Holy Ghost within just a few weeks.
Praise God!
Unless a person contacts me, I have no way of knowing the results.
However, that's NOT the reason I'm doing what I do anyway. Having said
that, it is always good to receive words of encouragement ... and to
hear the good reports from those who have received the revelation of the
Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine ... the Truth in its entirety.
It really blesses my soul to hear from someone who has been baptized in
the name of Jesus, and received the Holy Ghost as a result of the Bible
Study. To God be the glory!
At any rate, so far, what God has led (and allowed) me to do has
touched the lives of people, not only here in the United States, but
also in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Indonesia,
Israel, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru,
Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa, United Kingdom, and
Zimbabwe. And I give Him all the glory, honor and praise! It humbles
me to think that God would actually call, transform, qualify and use
this former rowdy red neck good ole boy ... dirt farming hick kid from
Mississippi ... to touch the lives of people all over the world. What
would the men, who turned their world upside for Christ, have done if
they would have had today's modern day tools and equipment?
I will be looking forward to your reply ... and I wish you no malice. God bless!
Bobby G. Richardson,
non-denominational lay man
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The whole gospel to the whole world!
$ 10,000.00 Reward.
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/reward.html
Bible Study.
http://impact-ministry.com/acts2/
50 Reasons Why.
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/trinity.html
Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/believed.html
Open letter to Mormons.
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/mormon.html
Open letter to Jehovah Witnesses.
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/witness.html
Open Letter to professing Christians who are homosexual.
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/profess.html
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response # 2 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:25 AM
Subject: Response to your email ...
Jim: Greetings in Christ to Bobby Richardson ~ Okay, let's see
here: the first challenge is to find one passage in the KJV in which
the word "Trinity" appears. That's going to happen about the same time
someone finds the word "rapture" in the KJV.
Bobby: The Bible speaks of being "caught up." Since God isn't
referred to as two or three "persons," can you think of any other term
in the Bible which does for the term "persons" what "caught up" does for
the word rapture?
Jim: The second challenge is to find one passage -- again, in the
KJV -- in which the term "persons" is used to describe God or the
Godhead. Again, a very safe challenge.
Bobby: Jim, you may call it a safe challenge ... as a serious Bible
student, it is my position that we should speak where the Bible speaks
and remain silent where it is silent.
Jim: The third challenge is to find one passage in which anyone is
ever baptized "with the TITLES "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" pronounced
over them." Matthew 28:19 certainly comes close: "Go ye therefore, and
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Granted, no one is actually being
baptized in this passage, but Jesus is telling His disciples how they
are to baptize.
Bobby: I would disagree with your assessment here, Jim. Jesus was
telling His disciples what to DO ... NOT ... what to SAY here. The
"original" New Testament Church went forth and baptized by invoking the
Name of Jesus. They never invoked the words, "in the name of the Father,
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," at a baptismal ceremony. Even
if you refuse to accept Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48 and Acts 19:5
as being examples where the name of Jesus was actually invoked at
baptism, according to Colossians 3:17 we are to do everything ... in
word or deed ... in the Name of Jesus. And the following are undeniable
examples of where the name of Jesus was literally invoked in other
"deeds," because this is actual "quotes." Acts 3:6 "Then Peter said,
Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name
of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk." Acts 16:18 "And this did
she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I
command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he
came out the same hour." Now, other than Matthew 28:19 ... where Jesus
issued the Great Commission (which is as misunderstood today as many of
His words were by misunderstood by certain people who heard Him speak)
where's your scriptures where the words "Father, Son and Holy Ghost"
were ever invoked for any reason?
Jim: One should keep in mind two points of focus here: first,
there's the immediate focus -- which is a matter of asking, "What did
Jesus want to convey to those to whom He was speaking?"
Bobby: I would say His "footprint" followers understood quite well
what He meant .... and followed through when they we forth and baptized
in the name of Jesus Christ.
Jim: Second, there is the authorial focus: what did Matthew,
writing under divine inspiration, want to convey to his readers by
selecting and recording these words of Jesus?
Bobby: It has been speculated that Matthew wrote his book about
40-45 AD. However, it is interesting to note that Matthew was standing
right there with Peter in Acts Chapter 2, and there is no record that he
disapproved in any manner to Peter's instructions to those who asked,
"Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter said in Acts 2:38,
"...Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost." As I stated above, even if you don't believe the name of Jesus
was actually invoked at these early Church baptisms ... Acts 2:38, Acts
8:16, Acts 10:48 and Acts 19:5 ... I did provide you with "verbatim"
Scripture where the name of Jesus was literally invoked in two other
"deeds." According to Colossians 3:17 we are to do everything ... in
word or deed ... in the Name of Jesus. The two other "verbatim"
instances I provided you was Acts 3:6 and Acts 16:18. You may criticize
me for using "verbatim" scripture to establish my faith, but I'll
gladly stand on the verbatim word of God any day, before I'll stand on
the "implied" doctrines and theories of man that evolved over the course
of time since the Ascension of Christ and the passing of the "original"
New Testament Church leaders.
Jim: It looks to me that Matthew's original readers would naturally
conclude that one should baptize using the formula, "in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
Bobby: Exactly what do you base your opinion on here, Jim? Where was this "formula" ever invoked for any reason in the Bible?
Jim: We have at least one very early example of how the early
church understood this passage: the document called the "Didache,"
(This is the Greek term for "doctrine," "teaching") also known as the
"Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," a teaching-manual from about the year
A.D. 115. In the Didache, baptism is described: "...baptize in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running
(literally, "living") water." One is free to quibble about whether
these are names or titles, but either way, the use of this phrase in
sub-apostolic times as a baptismal formula is clearly documented.
Bobby: Actually, I think it is much wiser to allow the "verbatim"
Scriptures to supercede the later writings ... especially when the later
writings don't have a shread of "verbatim" authority in the Scriptures
... when it comes to establishing what is "sound doctrine" and what is
not. This is because you can find later writings to support your view
and I can find later writings to support my view. The Holy Bible should
be the final authority ... and the "standard" by which everything
pertaining to our faith is gauged. We know hersies and false doctrines
were already at work even in the early Church period of time.
Therefore, I base my personal beliefs on the "verbatim" Scirptures ...
and do not embrace dogmatically those things which are based strictly on
the "later writings" which do not have a shread of "verbatim Scirpture"
to back them up. However, I will leave you with this ... According to
the information I have, the Didache refers both to baptism into the
name of the Lord (9:5) and to baptism in the name of the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost. By the way, since you were unable to provide Scriptural
evidence to satisfy any of the three conditions of my $ 10,000.00
challenge, you do admit that there is "specific" Bible authority for any
of them, right? I mean, the very best a person can do is to "read
things into" very carefully selected passages of Scripture that have
been given "implied" meanings ... while avoiding the preponderance of
those which would contradict such an interpretation, right?
Jim: Now about those questions -- well, not quite yet! I wish to
chime in first with my misgivings about relying exclusively on the KJV.
The KJV does contain textual errors: for instance, there is no way to
fit Absalom's "40 years" (in Second Samuel 15:7) within David's 40-year
reign. And the KJV's text in Second Chronicles 22:2 makes Ahaziah two
years older than his father (compare Ahaziah's age [42] with his
father's full age stated in 21:20 [32 years + 8 years = 40 years]. The
KJV's text in Second Chronicles 22:2 also contradicts the parallel
statement about Ahaziah's age in Second Kings 8:26, where Ahaziah's
correct age (22) is given. I suppose it is possible, by some miracle,
for 40 years to go by for Absalom after the 40 years of David's reign
began and before the 40 years of David's reign elapsed. And I guess it
is possible, by some miracle, for a man to be two years older than his
father. And I guess it is possible, by some miracle, for a man to
become king and be both age 42 and age 22 at the time! But I think a
more plausible explanation is that the KJV's textual-base in these
instances contains an easily-remediable error which should be corrected
if one wants to perfectly represent the original inerrant text.
Bobby: The KJV was not just thrown together. Nor was it
haphazardly translated ... and I think you probably know that. However,
if you are saying the KJV translation is wrong concerning the
references to baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and invoking the name
of Jesus in those other places ... as opposed to quoting the titles of
Matthew 28:19 ..., just what translation do you use to justify a
position which clashes with the KJV?
Jim: Now about those questions. I will give short answers. I hope
your e-mail is capable of "Rich Text" format, since the following
section is color-coded: your words are in black; my words are in green;
Scripture is in either blue or red.
1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead?
Jim: Three.
Bobby: Where is the Godhead ever referred to in the Bible as "three persons?" Please clarify.
2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?
Jim: Do you mean "LORD," as in, the personal Name of God, or "Lords," the ordinary term for exalted persons, divine or human?
Bobby: "LORD" (all caps) is YHWH ... which was translated Yehovah
in Hebrew and Jehovah in English when vowels were added. Please answer
the question. How "LORDS" do you say are in the Godhead?
3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?
Jim: Three. One could also use phraseology from Revelation to say
seven, though. I say "three" thusly: John 4:24 ~ Jesus -- standing on
earth, in flesh and blood, stated, "God is a Spirit." This seems to be a
reference to the Father. There's one. Luke 23:46 ~ Jesus said,
"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Since Jesus is, as
Hebrews 13:8 attests, the same yesterday, today, and forever, this
implies that Jesus has/is a spirit. Luke 4:18 ~ Jesus said, "The Spirit
of the Lord is upon me." Here is a reference to the Holy Spirit,
distinct from the Father (referred to as the "Lord") and from Christ
(upon whom the Spirit was as Christ spoke these words; He was not upon
Himself). Ephesians 2:18 is another nifty example of this same
threefold distinction: "for through him we both have access by one
Spirit unto the Father." It is very difficult to maintain that Paul had
only one Person in mind here, as if he were saying, "for through Jesus
we have access by one Jesus unto Jesus."
Bobby: Well, maybe you can explain to me why the Bible refers to
the Holy Spirit as being the Spirit of God AND the Spirit of Christ ....
since you obviously think the Holy Spirit is a separate Spirit.
Furthermore, your position makes the Holy Spirit the Father of the
Christ Child ... and NOT God the Father ... according to Matthew Chapter
1. Please clarify. In addition, your position of there being 3
Spirits in the Godhead ... one for the Father, one for the Son and one
for the Holy Spirit ... is going to get very complicated **IF** your
answer to quesiton number 2 happens to be ONE.
4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?
Jim: Difficult to say at the moment; I'd like to decline from answering this question until I may research it more.
Bobby: Please answer this question at your earliest convenience.
5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?
Jim: Difficulty-phrased question, since the Persons of the Godhead
act co-operatively in salvation. One could easily find references to
YHWH as the "one Saviour," but this does not erode my view of the
Godhead.
Bobby: Please answer the question. I would just like to know how many "Saviors" you think there are in the Godhead.
6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?
Jim: Generally as the Word, eternally emanating from the Father.
Also, I think that some theophanies in the Old Testament (such as the
appearance of the "fourth man" in the fiery furnace of Nebuchadnezzar)
may have been temporary manifestations of Christ.
Bobby: Well, you've already stated you believe there are three
Spirits in the Godhead. So Jesus must have existed in "Spirit" form
prior to the Incarnation ... as one of the three Spirits in the Godhead
according to your belief, right? But here you are saying Jesus was also
a theophany? Please clarify.
7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"
Jim: Are you asking about concepts or about terminology? In the
King James Version, First John 5:7 refers to "three that bear witness in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are
one." Completely overlooking for the time being the question of the
originality of this passage, if these three are not persons, I would be
curious as to what they are, and if they are merely names of one Person,
why it should be notable that He agrees with Himself. The term
"Trinity" emerged "officially," as a concrete expression, in the A.D.
300's, although some early writers such as Tertullian had kicked the
idea around previously. However, I am not particularly concerned with
the perpetuation of the term "Trinity." It is unBiblical and thus
expendable. The term "Godhead," however, expresses a very similar, if
not identical, concept, and is as old as the Bible itself.
Bobby: Please answer the question ... I am asking you what is the
earliest date that you've been able to find where anyone wrote anything
which states a belief in One God in "three persons." You've already
expressed your doubts about the KJV. I am surprised you even embrace 1
John 5:7 ... many people try to discredit that verse when I use it to
explain the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine. By the way, I am a
father, a son, and a husband ... yet I am only ONE PERSON. Therefore,
if someone were to refer to me by saying (or writing) "There are three
that testify of life in my home, a father, a son and a husband ... and
these three are one." That would NOT turn me into three different
"persons." You said, "The term "Trinity" emerged "officially," as a
concrete expression, in the A.D. 300's, although some early writers such
as Tertullian had kicked the idea around previously." Most professing
Christians don't have a clue that the three "persons" concept was a
later development ... by several hundred years. However, since you
acknowledge the concept of the trinity "emerged "officially," as a
concrete expression, in the A.D. 300's" ... this warning should not be
taken lightly: Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven,
preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto
you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any
man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him
be accursed. Also, you mentioned the term "Godhead," so let's touch on
that for a minute ... The term "Godhead" is used three times in the
King James Version of the Bible, and means "the very essence or complete
nature and attributes" of God ... not just one of them or some of them
... but ALL of them. The three Greek words that were translated
"Godhead" are:
The Greek word "theios" - Strong's # 2304
The Greek word "theiotes" - Strong's # 2305
The Greek word "theotes" - Strong's # 2320
The verses where the words are found are as follows ....
Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought
not to think that the Godhead (theios) is like unto gold, or silver, or
stone, graven by art and man's device.
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
even his eternal power and Godhead (theiotes); so that they are without
excuse:
Colossians 2:9 For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead (theotes) bodily.
Now, let's run back through these verses again and see what they
would look like by replacing the word "Godhead" with the words, "very
essence or complete nature and attributes" of God (which is what the
"Godhead" is):
Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought
not to think that his ("very essence or complete nature and attributes")
is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
even his eternal power and ("very essence or complete nature and
attributes;") so that they are without excuse:
Colossians 2:9 For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the fullness of the
("very essence or complete nature and attributes" - of God) bodily.
Jim, I just do NOT see your three "persons" in the above Scriptures
... and we KNOW the Godhead was never referred to as "persons" in
Scripture.
8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God
evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of
three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?
Jim: There was a sort of special regard for the three most powerful
Roman deities -- Zeus/Jupiter, Poseidon/Neptune, and Hades/Pluto -- but
that is a far cry from the concept of the Trinity! As far as this
being represented by an equilateral triangle, I have not seen
documentation to that effect, but given the mathematical propensities of
some of the ancient Greeks I would not be surprised by it if such
evidence existed. But that does not really influence me one way or the
other. The Roman Empire was awash with deities and various concepts of
gods. With such a plethora of religions and superstitions in the
ancient Roman Empire, one can find a parallel there somewhere to almost
any aspect of any major religion in existence today.
Bobby: Where do you think the concept of the trinity .... or One
God in "three persons" ... evolved, Jerusalem or Rome? Please clarify.
You've just acknowledged the deities and various concepts of gods of
the Roman Empire. How many deities and various concepts of God do you
think was established in Jerusalem? If you say "three" here, I would
greatly appreciate seeing your documentation. By the way, Revelation
Chapter 17 describes in pretty good detail the "mother" of the doctrine
from the city of seven hills. I am NOT anti-catholic "people" but I am
opposed to the catholic doctrine of the trinity. And catholics think of
the catholic church as the "mother" church ... and look upon
protestants as being wayward children. An interesting observation when
considering Revelation Chapter 17. By the way, it is my belief that,
one day, the protestants and catholics will be rejoined into one body
again. As you know, Martin Luther, the excommunicated monk who started
the protestant movement, retained the foundational doctrine of the
"mother" church ... and built the protestant movement on that doctrine.
I believe this is why protestants and catholics commonly use the same
ancient manuscripts and "later" writings.
Bobby (from previous email): As you know, trinitarians are adamant
about insisting on using the term of "three persons" in their
description of God. I embrace the concept of three forms of God ...
three manifestations of God ... three offices of God ... three positions
of God ... three roles of God.
Jim: Ah. You're (currently) a modalist.
Bobby: What makes you say that? Have I presented anything which is
not Biblical? Or do you just like to put a label on people? I am a
non-denominational lay man ... and an independent Bible student who
embraces the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine ... and plan of
Salvation ... as found "verbatim" in the Scriptures.
Bobby (from previous email): Now, if it is a matter of semantics,
then dropping the unbiblical descriptive term of "persons" in reference
to God and using in its place one of the terms I just used, should bring
true monotheists into the unity of the faith concerning this matter.
However, it is my position that those who insist on using the "persons"
designation in their description of God, are treading a some very
dangerous territory.
Jim: [Note: in that last sentence, you may want to change that "a" to "on" when you get the chance.]
Bobby: Thanks for the proof read.
Bobby (from previous email): Since man was created in the image AND
likeness of God, and man consists of heart, soul, body, mind, spirit,
etc. ... yet is only ONE person. And since man can function as a
father, as son, a husband, a teacher, etc. ... yet is only ONE person.
Why is it that some believe God has to be more than one person?
Jim: There are lots of reasons -- it's simply a matter of
interlocking the various Scriptures and realizing their implications.
Like I said, I will give short answers today.
One reason is the scene related in the Biblical description of
Jesus' baptism in Matthew 3:16-17 & Luke 3:21-22. In that scenario,
Jesus is in the water, and is baptized. Then the Father speaks: "Thou
art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." Then the Spirit
appears and descends upon Christ in bodily form as a dove. This simply
does not communicate the idea of one and only one divine Individual!
Each individual -- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost -- appears distinctly
there. Jesus is not saying that He is His own Son. Neither Jesus nor
the Father is appearing in bodily form as a dove.
Bobby: What makes you think that it is impossible for God to speak
with a voice from the heavens and manifest Himself in a whole multitude
of different ways and still be ONE person? I mean, God can manifest
Himself in millions of different ways, to millions of different people,
in millions of different geographical locations simultaneously ... but
that does NOT make more than ONE person out of Him. When Jesus was
baptized by John in Jordan River, the voice of God spoke, "This is my
beloved Son, IN WHOM I am well pleased." Matthew 3:17. Notice, God said,
"IN WHOM" - not with whom! "To wit, that GOD WAS IN CHRIST, reconciling
the world unto Himself..." 2 Corinthians 5:19. "... the words that I
speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that DWELLETH IN
ME, he doeth the works." John 14:10. The difference in the tabernacle
of badgers skins and the tabernacle of flesh was the tabernacle of
badgers skins was inanimate, and the tabernacle of flesh was a living,
breathing, supernaturally conceived and born human which had 2 natures
... one Divine and one human. I use the analogy of Clark Kent and
Superman a lot when talking about the relationship of the Father and the
Son because most people can relate to Clark Kent being Superman
incognito ... not two separate "persons." That is not a perfect
example, but it is a good one.
Jim: You may indeed be both a father and a son and a teacher. But
are you your own father, and your own son? Is it possible for Bobby-
the-son to be standing in a river as Bobby-the-father speaks to him from
somewhere else, and as Bobby-the-teacher also enters the scene and
comes to the shoulder of Bobby-the-son?
Bobby: What you said about Bobby is true. It would be impossible.
But that's really not what is at issue here. Are you saying that it
would be IMPOSSIBLE for God to speak from Heaven while God manifested in
the flesh was standing in a river, and while a theophany (dove)
appeared on the scene? By the voice, was a witness to those who heard
it ... but the theophany (dove) was a witness which God had previously
given to John the Baptist as a way of knowing who the Messiah was ...
which sort of gets us back around to how many Saviours, LORDS, ... or
Messiahs ... there are in the Godhead.
Jim: Another reason is the existence of passages such as Luke 4:18,
where Jesus begins His speech with the words, "The Spirit of the Lord
is upon me." Let's see how that sounds when we assume that each noun
does not refer to a particular Person but instead refers to the same
Person ~ "The God of God is upon God."
Bobby: It was not uncommon for Jesus to quote from the Old
Testament. I believe that particular quotation came from Isaiah 61:1.
By the way, the Spirit of the Lord was not only "upon" Jesus ... the
Spirit of the Lord was "inside" Jesus. Now if you are going to go and
get particular about the proper useage of speech and sentence structure
and that sort of stuff, this discussion may get extremely difficult for
you to attempt to justify the concept of a "plurality" of "persons."
Also, I should remind you that the Sciptures are Spiritual ... and are
NOT interpreted, nor understood by human intellect, human reasoning or
logic.
Bobby (from a previous email): However, when God called me out of
the red neck beer joints of Mississippi back in 1985, He put something
way down deep in my soul that has been like fire shut up in my bones.
Jim: Perhaps the Lord has given you a burden to correct some
unBiblical teachings -- but the correct diagnosis of an illness, and the
correct remedy, are two different things, and one should take care that
the cure is not worse than the disease. Jim
Bobby: The Word of God assures us that the Truth will make us free.
Please just tell me what you are insinuating in the above statment.
If I've mishandled or misrepresented the Word of God. Please point it
out to me with book, chapter and verse ... not some slide ruler
explanation, commentary or assertion. As you can see, I've burned the
late night oil. However, that is not uncommon for me. I take this
stuff EXTREMELY serious. I will be waiting for your answers to
questions number 2 - 4 - 5 and 7 and also your clarifications to the
answeres you gave to questions number 1 - 3 - 6 and 8. Oh, and lest I
forget, you do acknowledge that your were unable to produce Biblical
proof to satisfy any one of my three conditions, don't you? I wouldn't
want to think that you would go running off claiming that you did so,
but I wouldn't pay you. And since the equity in my home is backing my
challenge right now, I wouldn't want it said that I was having to sell
my home or take out a second mortgage. Thanks ... and God bless!
Bobby G. Richardson
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response # 3 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:46 PM
Subject: Response to your first email of 6-27
Jim: Greetings in Christ to Bobby Richardson, again ~ Thank you
for your expeditious reply. Here are my responses. For the sake of
clarity I have again color-coded the text; your words are in black; mine
are in blue. Material in small Arial print is yours, or is from our
previous discussion; material in the Bookman Old Style font is new.
Bobby (from previous email): Since God isn't referred to as two or
three "persons," can you think of any other term in the Bible which does
for the term "persons" what "caught up" does for the word rapture?
Jim: Sure, the individual names of the three Persons and their
distinct manifestations and actions -- for instance, Jesus tells the
Father, "Not my will but Thine be done." That does not look at all like
one Person talking to himself; one person has one will, but in that
scenario there are clearly two desires.
Bobby: Brother, you are correct there were two desires represented
there. One was the will of the flesh, the other was the will of the
Spirit. However, you are reading this from an intellectual standpoint
... an extremely dangerous thing to do. In Jesus we have TWO natures.
One Divine and one human (without the inherited sin nature). Those TWO
natures in a nutshell was due to Him being BOTH God and man ... Spirit
and flesh. There were times Jesus spoke and acted as God, and there
were other times when Jesus spoke and acted as a man. I realize this
does not compute from an intellectual standpoint, but I hope you are
open and honest enough to bear with me. Also, Jesus did AND said things
for the benefit of those who heard Him and was going read about it
later. He did set an example for us to follow. Now, back to my
original question of whether or not you can think of any other term in
the Bible which does for the term "persons" what "caught up" does for
the word rapture? ... You did not answer that. What "term" ... or word
... from the Scriptures could be substituted for the word "persons"
when referring to God or the Godhead?
Bobby (from previous email): Jim, you may call it a safe challenge
... as a serious Bible student, it is my position that we should speak
where the Bible speaks and remain silent where it is silent.
Jim: As far as matters of authoritative pronouncements go, fine;
it's still a safe challenge -- and as an attention-getting technique
there's nothing wrong with that.
Bobby: You do believe in a "plurality" of "persons" in the Godhead.
However, 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration
of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness:" However, you don't have a single
solitary Scripture in the entire Bible which refers to God or the
Godhead as a "plurality" or "persons." Now **IF** there is some other
translation besides the KJV which does, then tell me about it.
Bobby (from previous email): I would disagree with your assessment
here, Jim [regarding Matthew 28:19 as an example of the advocation of
"in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," as a
baptismal formula]. Jesus was telling His disciples what to DO ... NOT
... what to SAY here.
Jim: On what grounds do you say that?
Bobby: On the grounds that there is no recorded evidence that any
of the "original" New Testament Church leaders ever quoted the following
words at a baptismal ceremony, "... in the name of the Father, AND of
the Son, AND of the Holy Spirit." Jim, that was a "later" development.
Jim: Why not say that Jesus is telling His disciples what to say
here, and that in Acts there is a description of what the disciples did?
Bobby: 1) For the same reason I wouldn't say Jesus was telling His
disciples what to say in Matthew Chapter 6 concerning what we refer to
as the Lord's prayer. If I were to hold dogmatically that the words of
the Lord's prayer are the words we are to use when they pray, then that
would be about erroneous as you saying the words of Matthew 28:19 are
the words one should use when they baptize, and 2) For the reason that I
submit to you that the Bible, as well as recorded history, will support
the fact that the "original" New Testament Church invoked the name of
Jesus in their baptismal services. Now, having said that .... when a
person is baptized in the name of Jesus, they have been baptized in the
name of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Spirit, because the
name "JESUS" is precisely that. Now, here's you some historical
documentation ...
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The
formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or some
synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name…
The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in
water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To
these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely
identified, (a) the trine name (Justin)…"
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: "The evidence…
suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the
threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of
the Lord Jesus.'"
Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first
baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name
of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation
is that] the original form of words was "into the name of Jesus Christ"
or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later
development."
Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58:
"The trinitarian baptismal formula,,, was displacing the older baptism
in the name of Christ."
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I,
435: "The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus… which
still occurs even in the second and third centuries."
Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53: "Persons were
baptized at first 'in the name of Jesus Christ' … or 'in the name of the
Lord Jesus'… Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the
Trinity, they were baptized 'in the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Ghost.'"
Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that
baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus
Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the
fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have
been single-not triple, as was the later creed."
Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The trinitarian
formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning…
Bapti[sm] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New
Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so
widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage,
declared it to be valid."
Bobby (from previous email): ... according to Colossians 3:17 we
are to do everything ... in word or deed ... in the Name of Jesus.
Jim: There is no inconsistency in obeying Matthew 28:19 and doing so in Jesus' name.
Bobby: **IF** the name "Jesus" is not actually invoked, NO name has
been applied. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "titles" (plural) ...
NOT a "name" (singular).
Jim: Also, Colossians 3:17 does not mean that we ought to literally
precede every breath we take with a recitation of the phrase, "In
Jesus' name." It means that everything we do should be consistent with
our claim to belong to Jesus.
Bobby: You take great liberty at explaining what God meant in
Colossians 3:17, don't you? I have given you "verbatim" examples where
the name "Jesus" was actually invoked. Therefore, why shouldn't the
name "Jesus" be invoked at a baptismal service also? It was good enough
for the "original" New Testament Church leaders to invoke. What
happened that changed that?
Bobby (from previous email): Now, other than Matthew 28:19 ...
where Jesus issued the Great Commission (which is as misunderstood today
as many of His words were by misunderstood by certain people who heard
Him speak) ...
Jim: -- Hold on there! Surely you do not mean that Matthew
misunderstood Jesus and perpetuated that misunderstanding in the Gospel.
But certainly the threefold baptismal formula originates here (in the
Great Commission). Again I must ask, what forces you to conclude that
Matthew did not intend for this passage to be used liturgically? --what
evidence of Matthew's mindset is driving you to state that anyone who
used this passage liturgically -- i.e., practically all Christians of
any kind whatsoever for the first 1,900 years of Christianity -- must
have been misusing it?
Bobby: The only misunderstanding that has been perpetuated has been
done at the hands of those who followed after Matthew and the rest of
the "original" New Testament leaders. You do acknowledge, that Jesus
often spoke in parables in order for those who had "ears to hear" could
hear ... and to conceal His profound Truths from the rest, don't you?
What makes you think He didn't do the same thing by having Matthew 28:19
worded as it is? By the way, for the record, the crowd is WRONG! Just
because multitudes are doing something does NOT make it right.
Jim: One should keep in mind two points of focus here: first,
there's the immediate focus -- which is a matter of asking, "What did
Jesus want to convey to those to whom He was speaking?"
Bobby (from previous email): I would say His "footprint" followers
understood quite well what He meant .... and followed through when they
we[nt] forth and baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Jim: I, too, would say that His "footprint" followers understood
quite well what He meant! But you seem to be overlooking something:
Matthew 28:18-20 is clearly a passage that primarily consists of
instructions. Its didactic force is quite a bit stronger than narrative
details. To illustrate: we have an example of Paul shaving his hair
to keep a vow. Does that mean that we should all take vows to go
without haircuts for a while? No. That's a narrative detail, but it
lacks didactic force. Meanwhile, the Great Commission is clearly a
passage given, preserved, and presented for the sake of instruction and
emulation.
Bobby: Then why did reciting the words of Matthew 28:19 in a
baptismal ceremony not catch on until many years later? I say the
"original" New Testament Church leaders had it right. You are free to
believe what you want to. But you'll stand before God now without an
excuse if you continue to baptize "quoting" the words of Matthew 28:19
instead of "invoking" the name of Jesus as specifically shown in
Scriptures ... and to continue embracing the "plurality" of "persons"
doctrine which evolved from Rome centuries AFTER Christ ... and teach
others to do so as well. And I say this in love and in the fear of God
.... NOT as a scathing rebuke.
Bobby (from previous email) ... it is interesting to note that
Matthew was standing right there with Peter in Acts Chapter 2, and there
is no record that he disapproved in any manner to Peter's instructions
to those who asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
Jim: Why should Matthew object to anyone being told to be immersed
in the name of Jesus Christ, inasmuch as whenever anyone is baptized in
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Son is alluded to? If
I wished for people to take an egg, and someone else said, "Take the
yolk of the egg," why would I object?
Bobby: **IF** baptism in the name of Jesus Christ ... actually
invoking the name "Jesus" was NOT what was meant in Matthew 28:19, then I
feel Matthew would have been duty bound to withstand Peter to his face
just as Paul once did. As far as your reference to the egg goes, I am
assuming you are alluding to the yoke being Jesus because you obviously
think Jesus was "in" the Godhead. However, that would be wrong
according to Colossians 2:8-9 ... "Beware lest any man spoil you
through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after
the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth
all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. The Godhead ... "the very
essence or complete nature and attributes" of God ... was "IN" Jesus.
So it looks like the shell of the egg would have to be Jesus using your
theology, right?
Jim: Also, one should consider that not every detail of Christian
practice unfolded instantaneously on the Day of Pentecost. The need
arose for liturgical formulas, especially regarding baptism and the
Lord's Supper. That was the purpose for the inclusion of passages such
as Acts 8:37, First Corinthians 11:23-26, and, lo, Matthew 28:19.
Bobby: Jim, Peter was speaking under the influence and the
direction of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. He preached his
first "anointed" sermon after having experienced the Holy Spirit (new
birth) himself. When he was point-blank asked in Acts 2:37, "... Men
and brethren, what shall we do?" There is absolutely NO indication that
Peter hesitated, and said he had to hold a conference or anything of
the such. In the next verse (38) we read how the Holy Spirit inspired
Peter (who had been given the keys to the Kingdom) to respond to this
question .... "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Now there's you some
instructions, Jim. God is NOT the author of confusion and I don't
believe the Bible is full of contradictions. I will say it again ...
Even if you refuse to accept Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48 and Acts
19:5 as being examples where the name of Jesus was actually invoked at
baptism, the following are undeniable examples of where the name of
Jesus was literally invoked in other "deeds," because this is actual
"quotes." Acts 3:6 "Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but
such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise
up and walk." Acts 16:18 "And this did she many days. But Paul, being
grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of
Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour." Now,
other than Matthew 28:19 ... where Jesus issued the Great Commission
(which is as misunderstood today as many of His words were by
misunderstood by certain people who heard Him speak) where's your
scriptures where the words "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" were ever
invoked for any reason?
Bobby (from previous email): You may criticize me for using "verbatim" scripture to establish my faith
Jim: -- Not at all! But snake-handlers make this claim, too, y'know!
Bobby: Well, Jim, I am not a snake handler. But I did get baptized
originally with the words " ... in the name of the Father, AND of the
Son, AND of the Holy Ghost," pronounced over me. However, when I found
out that "quoting Matthew 28:19 does NOT "fulfill" Matthew 28:19, I got
"re-baptized," but in the name of Jesus ... just as the disciples of
John the Baptist did in Acts Chapter 19. And before you ask, I don't
know what words, if any, were invoked at a "John the Baptist" baptismal
ceremony. I just know that these disciples got "re-baptized" ... and it
was done by invoking the name of Jesus.
Bobby (from previous email): ... I'll gladly stand on the verbatim
word of God any day, before I'll stand on the "implied" doctrines and
theories of man that evolved over the course of time since the Ascension
of Christ and the passing of the "original" New Testament Church
leaders.
Jim: Um ... "implied" doctrines such as which books belong in the
New Testament canon, for instance? (Another topic for another day,
perhaps -- we can't pursue every tangent and hope to get anywhere!)
Bobby: No, Jim, like the doctrine of the trinity, which is an
"implied" doctrine that came along centuries AFTER the Ascension and the
passing of the "original" New Testament leaders. By the way, it is
interesting to note that you may be more interested in arguing about
something than in ferreting out the whole Truth of God's Word, applying
it to our life and building our faith upon it.
Jim: It looks to me that Matthew's original readers would naturally
conclude that one should baptize using the formula, "in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
Bobby (from previous email): Exactly what do you base your opinion on here, Jim?
Jim: Well, the universal practice of the early church, for starters!
Bobby: Then why didn't any of the "original" New Testament Church
leaders do it that way, Jim? Why was it influenced and/or instituted by
Rome ... instead of Jerusalem?
Bobby (from previous email): Where was this "formula" ever invoked for any reason in the Bible?
Jim: Jesus tells us to invoke it in Matthew 28:19.
Bobby: Or so you say, Jim. However, the "original" New Testament
leaders obviously felt otherwise. Now, just show me in the Scriptures
where anyone ever invoked that "formula," please. Did they disobey
Jesus' Great Commission, or did they "fulfill" it when they went forth
and baptized in the name of Jesus? I say they "fulfilled" it.
Bobby (from previous email) [regarding the Didache's use of the
baptismal formula, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit"] : Actually, I think it is much wiser to allow the
"verbatim" Scriptures to supercede the later writings ...
Jim: You're assuming that they disagree in the first place! Isn't
that precisely the question at hand? Surely you can perceive how, if my
position is correct, the Great Commission and the Didache complement,
rather than oppose, one another.
Bobby: The way you interpret Matthew 28:19 and that part of the
Didache (written ever how many years later by whomever) which instructs
baptism to be done by reciting the words of Matthew 28:10 DOES DISAGREE
with how the "original" New Testament leaders baptized converts to
Christianity. It just that plain and simple, Jim.
Bobby (from previous email) .. We know her[e]sies and false
doctrines were already at work even in the early Church period of time.
Jim: Yes, we do, because we have the record of the reaction of the
apostles and their students against them. And in that record, there is
no objection to the use of the baptismal formula, "in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
Bobby: Jim, it is Scripturally and historically a proven fact that
the "original" New Testament Church baptized their converts to
Christianity "in the name of Jesus" ... NOT "in the name of the Father,
AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Spirit." **IF** you are going to employ
that formula just because you interpret Matthew 28:19 to mean you
should quote the words of Matthew 28:19 in the face of an overwhelming
preponderance of Scriptural evidence to the contrary ... and just
because there is no "objection to" (in the Scriptures) that baptismal
formula being used, you are taking one more tremendous risk. Has it
ever occured to you that just maybe the reason there is no "objection
to" that formula in the Scriptures was because it was universally know,
practiced and taught in the "original New Testament" Church that the
correct formula for baptism is "in the name of Jesus?" And that the
trinitarian formula was a much later development? Try as you may,
you'll never get back far enough to put the "plurality" of "persons"
doctrine of Rome in the "original" New Testament's practices or
teaching. It just ain't there. Therefore, you must resort to the
"later" writings in order to defend it.
Bobby (from previous email): Therefore, I ... do not embrace
dogmatically those things which are based strictly on the "later
writings" ...
Jim: Nor do I. But I do like the idea of gathering all available
evidence and prayerfully, carefully evaluating it before coming to a
conclusion. I do not consider those who make dictionaries of Greek
words to be infallible or inerrant, but I do use their Greek lexicons to
show the meaning of the Greek word "baptizo."
Bobby: Jim, the Holy Bible tells us everything we need to know
about God and the plan of Salvation. Sure I use Bible study tools too.
But when it comes to "sound" doctrine, I park those things on the side
of the road, and stay strictly with the "verbatim" Word of God. I would
suggest you do the same.
Bobby (from previous email): ... According to the information I
have, the Didache refers both to baptism into the name of the Lord (9:5)
and to baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Jim: Right, because to the early church, when a person was baptized
by someone using the formula, "in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit," he was regarded as baptized in the name of
the Lord.
Bobby: Jim, you are NOT referring to the "original" early church
... the one Jesus established ... because they didn't use the baptismal
formula "in the name of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy
Spirit." They used the name "Jesus." Now, granted, you may be talking
about the "universal" early church which evolved out of Rome. That
being the case, I might have to agree with your assertion.
Bobby (from previous email): ... since you were unable to provide
Scriptural evidence to satisfy any of the three conditions of my $
10,000.00 challenge, you do admit that there is "specific" Bible
authority for any of them, right? ...
Jim: Let me put it this way: I regard the $10,000 challenge as an
attention-getting tactic. If I wanted to say it was disingenuous, I
could probably make a case to that effect. But I prefer to regard it
benignly. Matthew 28:19 certainly looks to me like specific Biblical
authority for the liturgical usage of "in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" at baptisms.
Bobby: Regardless of how you may look at it, or what you may think
of it. It has been proven to be effective. Besides, the three points
(or conditions) go right to the foundational core of the trinitarian
beliefs. When folks find out there is not a shred of "specific
Scriptural authority" for those beliefs, the honest ones usually go to
praying, and digging into the Word of God and searching the Scriptures
independently ... which is the purpose of my challenge anyway.
Bobby (from previous email): The KJV was not just thrown together.
Nor was it haphazardly translated ... and I think you probably know
that.
Jim: Of course. But you sure seemed to be claiming a bit more than
that previously. I will stop here and try to resume with the Q&A
correspondence later. Yours in Christ, Jim
Bobby: No, Jim, I am just confident that God is capable of
preserving His Word, and that I can place my complete trust and
confidence in the KJV. Since I use it primarily for my personal study
... and am not nearly as familar with other versions ... I feel I should
be specific as to what it is I am putting forth from what I have
learned from independently studying the Bible for a number of years now.
God bless! - Bobby
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response # 4 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 12:40 AM
Subject: Response to your second email of 6-27
(First off, Jim, although I am retired, I stay extremely busy. If I
don't get back to you as quickly as you would like ... or think I
should ... it is not because I am ignoring you. I can assure you of
that. Also, I really do not with to just wrangle with you. I am set
for the defense of the gospel. And this is not my first debate by a
long shot, but just remember ... YOU CONTACTED ME. And I don't back
down in a debate. I will only allocate the time I have readily
available if I see that a person wants to start getting cute with me ...
and is just wanting to be argumentative. - Bobby)
Jim: Greetings in Christ to Bobby Richardson, again ~ Here are some
further expoundings on the Q & A. New material from me is in blue.
1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead?
Jim: Three.
Bobby (from previous email): Where is the Godhead ever referred to in the Bible as "three persons?" Please clarify.
Jim: It's not explicitly stated as such. But we do have the Spirit
being called "eternal" in Hebrews 9:14. I think we all agree, based on
Deut. 33:27, and other verses, that the Father is eternal. And of
course Jesus, who gives eternal life (John 10:28), is Himself eternal.
Thus neither the Father, Son, or Spirit is a form or manifestation which
sprang into being as needed. They are eternal.
Bobby: "THEY" are eternal???? WHEW! You are beginning to show
signs of polytheism now, brother. Umm, by the way, you did NOT answer
the question ... Where was the Godhead ("the very essence or complete
nature and attributes" of God) ever referred to in the Bible as "three
persons" ... OR two "persons" for that matter? Book, chapter and verse,
please ... NOT as essay.
2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?
Jim: Do you mean "LORD," as in, the personal Name of God, or "Lords," the ordinary term for exalted persons, divine or human?
Bobby (from previous email): "LORD" (all caps) is YHWH ... How "LORDS" do you say are in the Godhead?
Jim: One. I see the name "YHWH" as expressive of the very
substance of God, which is shared in union by Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit.
Bobby: So you believe there is only ONE LORD in the Godhead ...
which I am assuming is the trinitarians' God the Father who "shares His
substance ... glory ... in a union with two other eternal persons"
making a "plurality" of eternal "persons" in the Godhead ...right? Jim,
that contradicts the Word of God...
Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
Deuteronomy 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know
that the LORD (YHWH <Jehovah> - Strong's # 3068) "He" is God;
there is none else beside "Him." (The LORD <SINGULAR> ... "He"
<SINGULAR> ... is God. There is no plurality in this scripture ...
there are no associates with God.)
Deuteronomy 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine
heart, that the LORD (YHWH <Jehovah> - Strong's # 3068) "He" is
God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.
(The LORD <SINGULAR> is God. No plurality here either ... still no
associates.)
Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD (YHWH <Jehovah> -
Strong's # 3068) thy God, "He" is God, the faithful God, which keepeth
covenant and mercy with them that love "Him" and keep "His" commandments
to a thousand generations; (The LORD <SINGULAR> is God. Still no
plurality ... still no associates.)
Joshua 2:11 And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did
melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of
you: for the LORD (YHWH <Jehovah> - Strong's # 3068) your God,
"He" is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath. (The LORD
<SINGULAR> ... Nope! No plurality and no associates here either.)
Psalms 100:3 Know ye that the LORD (YHWH <Jehovah> - Strong's #
3068) "He" is God: it is "He" that hath made us, and not we ourselves;
we are "His" people, and the sheep of "His" pasture. (THE LORD
<SINGULAR> is God who made us.)
2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God, save the LORD (YHWH <Jehovah> -
Strong's # 3068) ? and who is a rock, save our God? (THE LORD
<SINGULAR> is God.)
PLUS.....
"Thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God Himself that
formed the earth and made it...I am the LORD; and there is NONE ELSE."
Isaiah 45:18. "...I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth
forth the heavens ALONE; that spreadeth abroad the earth BY MYSELF."
Isaiah 44:24. ".. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know
not any." Isaiah 44:8. "See now that I, even I, am He, and there is NO
GOD WITH ME..." Deuteronomy 32:39. "Have we not all ONE Father? Hath not
ONE God created us" Malachi 2:10. Do you see three "persons" in any of
the above? I sure don't!
3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?
Jim: Three. One could also use phraseology from Revelation to say
seven, though. I say "three" thusly: John 4:24 ~ Jesus -- standing on
earth, in flesh and blood, stated, "God is a Spirit." This seems to be a
reference to the Father. There's one. Luke 23:46 ~ Jesus said,
"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Since Jesus is, as
Hebrews 13:8 attests, the same yesterday, today, and forever, this
implies that Jesus has/is a spirit. Luke 4:18 ~ Jesus said, "The Spirit
of the Lord is upon me." Here is a reference to the Holy Spirit,
distinct from the Father (referred to as the "Lord") and from Christ
(upon whom the Spirit was as Christ spoke these words; He was not upon
Himself). Ephesians 2:18 is another nifty example of this same
threefold distinction: "for through him we both have access by one
Spirit unto the Father." It is very difficult to maintain that Paul had
only one Person in mind here, as if he were saying, "for through Jesus
we have access by one Jesus unto Jesus."
Bobby (from previous email): Well, maybe you can explain to me why
the Bible refers to the Holy Spirit as being the Spirit of God AND the
Spirit of Christ ....
Jim: You are completely overlooking my point, but okay: since the
Holy Spirit is sent to believers by both the Father and the Son, He is
associated with both.
Bobby: And you point was???? At any rate, so now you assert the
Holy Spirit is dispatched by TWO of the eternal "persons" of the
"plurality" of "three eternal persons" in the Godhead, right? Oh, and
according to your theology, I guess believers have three Spirits
dwelling in them, right?
St. John 14:16-17 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you
another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit
of Truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not,
neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and
shall be in you." (It is my position Jesus dwelled with them, but it
was expedient that He depart in bodily form so that the Holy Ghost ...
the Spirit which dwelled in Him ... should comfort, lead, teach, dwell
in and abide with His disciples ... just as He had done during His
Earthly ministry, except in a different <Spirit>form ... instead
of in the flesh.)
St. John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the
Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring
all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
St. John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send
unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth
from the Father, he shall testify of me:
Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be
that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit
of Christ, he is none of his.
Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the
dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also
quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple
of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not
your own?
1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and
that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (According to your "plurality"
of three "persons" ... AND three Spirits ... in the Godhead theology ...
which makes up ONE God, this verse should read ... "Know ye not that ye
are the temple of God, and the the Spirits (plural) of God dwelleth in
you.")
2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with
idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will
dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they
shall be my people. (According to your "plurality" of three "persons"
... AND three Spirits ... in the Godhead theology ... which makes up ONE
God, this verse should read ... "for ye are the temple of the living
God; as God hath said, WE will dwell in them, and walk in tham, and WE
will be their God, and they shall be OUR people.")
Bobby (from previous email): ... Furthermore, your position makes
the Holy Spirit the Father of the Christ Child ... and NOT God the
Father ... according to Matthew Chapter 1.
Jim: No it doesn't. The Holy Spirit was the agent, not the source, of the conception of Christ.
Bobby: How do you figure that, when the following Scriptures in
Matthew very plainly contradict your theology of there being a
"plurality" of "three eternal persons" in the Godhead ... there being
TWO eternal persons involved in the conception of the Christ Child???
Let me ask you this, according to your theology, why would God find it
necessary to dispatch another eternal person to over shadow Mary to
conceive the Christ Child, when He being a Spirit Himself could do that
Himself??? Jim, I am telling you in the fear of God, you'd better let
this polytheistic "plurality" of "three eternal Persons/Spirits" in the
Godhead nonsense go. And we haven't even got to the co-equal,
co-eternal and co-existent part of this argument yet. At any rate,
these verses in Matthew sure don't sound to me like the Holy Ghost was
only the "agent" ... not the source.
Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When
as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together,
she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the
angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son
of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is
conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Bobby (from previous email): In addition, your position of there
being 3 Spirits in the Godhead ... one for the Father, one for the Son
and one for the Holy Spirit ... is going to get very complicated **IF**
your answer to quesiton number 2 happens to be ONE.
Jim: Well, my answer to Question #2 is indeed "one." Now what?
Bobby: I believe the Bible is clear about there being ONE LORD in
the Godhead too. However, you have very firmly established you believe
there is a "plurality" of "three eternal persons" ... which are "three
eternal Spirits" ... in the Godhead. Now, if you wish to go down the
trail that the word ONE does not really mean "numerically" ONE, I will
be anxiously waiting to see your Scripture evidence. God is referred to
throughout the entire Bible in the singular as .... I, ME, MY, HE, HIS
and HIM. However, some people today attempt to use the Hebrew word
"Elohim" (Strong’s # 430) ... which is translated "God", "god" and
"goddess" in the Old Testament to assert that God is a plurality of
three separate and distinct co-equal, co-eternal and co-existent
"persons." Israel had just ONE LORD according to Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear,
O Israel: the LORD our God is ONE LORD:" (Not two ... not three ...
ONE!). To assert that God is actually a plurality of three separate and
distinct "persons" who are co-equal, co-eternal and co-existent with one
another either portrays three individual "persons" of Deity like three
members making up one family/household, OR portrays God as being one
"person" with three "heads" ... either of which is about as pagan and
polytheistic as you can get, and an abomination to boot, in my opinion.
Furthermore, I have already provided you with "verbatim" Scriptural
proof that the LORD HE IS GOD ALONE ... BY HIMSELF ... with NO ONE
BESIDE HIM ... and that He is NUMERICALLY ONE. You've already made a
statement earlier in this communication (in reference to your theology's
"plurality" of "three persons" view of the Godhead ... Father, Son and
Holy Spirit) that "THEY" are eternal. "They is a term you would use
when referencing to more that one person ... a group. However, you
claim you believe there is only ONE LORD in the Godhead. Again, I have
proven to your with "verbatim" Scriptures that the LORD HE IS GOD ALONE
... BY HIMSELF ... with NO ONE BESIDE HIM... You are either confused, or
you obviously do not believe these "verbatim" Scriptures concerning the
LORD ... GOD. According to your theology, God is NOT a singular Person
of Deity, but is a group (THEY) ... a "plurality" of "persons" of Deity
.... POLYTHEISM.
Bobby (from previous email): 4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?
Jim: Difficult to say at the moment; I'd like to decline from answering this question until I may research it more.
Bobby (from previous email): Please answer this question at your earliest convenience.
Jim: Just to keep things moving, I will say, three.
Bobby: Jim, I am taking this discussion seriously. For you to give
such an answer is indicative that you're not. For the record, I am not
interested in just keeping things "moving." But since "three" is your
answer. Now I want to know upon what you base your answer ... just
book, chapter and verse, please. None of the commentary stuff, o.k.?
5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?
Jim: Difficulty-phrased question, since the Persons of the Godhead
act co-operatively in salvation. One could easily find references to
YHWH as the "one Saviour," but this does not erode my view of the
Godhead.
Bobby (from previous email): Please answer the question. I would
just like to know how many "Saviors" you think there are in the Godhead.
Jim: Again, to keep things moving, I will say, three. Feel free to
correct me on this and I will feel free to change my answer.
Bobby: Amazing! You have obviously mentally locked into the
indoctrination and/or mind set of ONE LORD who is a group that you refer
to as (THEY) ... a "plurality" of "three eternal persons" of Deity ....
POLYTHEISM.
6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?
Jim: Generally as the Word, eternally emanating from the Father.
Also, I think that some theophanies in the Old Testament (such as the
appearance of the "fourth man" in the fiery furnace of Nebuchadnezzar)
may have been temporary manifestations of Christ.
Bobby (from previous email): Well, you've already stated you
believe there are three Spirits in the Godhead. So Jesus must have
existed in "Spirit" form prior to the Incarnation ... as one of the
three Spirits in the Godhead according to your belief, right?
Jim: Right.
Bobby: Jim, this is really getting rather laboring. Where on earth
is the Scriptural basis upon which you base your last answer? Again,
just book, chapter and verse. I don't need none of the commentary.
Bobby (from previous email): But here you are saying Jesus was also a theophany? Please clarify.
Jim: Okay: just as God the Father could appear specially to, say, Moses and Isaiah and Ezekiel, so could Jesus.
Bobby: Oh now that's just really ripe with polytheistic overtones.
Here we have (according to your theology) TWO different "persons" ....
Spirits of Deity ... operating in the Old Testament as a "pluralistic"
God of "three different eternal spirits." But, again, I will ask you
for your Scriptural evidence ... book, chapter and verse ... without the
commentary. By the way, which one of them appeared to Moses at the
burning bush ... and where were the other two? I really mean that. I
would just love to know your answer.
7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"
Jim: Are you asking about concepts or about terminology? In the
King James Version, First John 5:7 refers to "three that bear witness in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are
one." Completely overlooking for the time being the question of the
originality of this passage, if these three are not persons, I would be
curious as to what they are, and if they are merely names of one Person,
why it should be notable that He agrees with Himself. The term
"Trinity" emerged "officially," as a concrete expression, in the A.D.
300's, although some early writers such as Tertullian had kicked the
idea around previously. However, I am not particularly concerned with
the perpetuation of the term "Trinity." It is unBiblical and thus
expendable. The term "Godhead," however, expresses a very similar, if
not identical, concept, and is as old as the Bible itself.
Bobby (from previous email): Please answer the question ... I am
asking you what is the earliest date that you've been able to find where
anyone wrote anything which states a belief in One God in "three
persons."
Jim: I believe I did answer the question: the era of Tertullian
(roughly A.D. 180-220, as I recall). (Hey, do I get any bonus points
for mentioning that the term "Trinity" is completely expendable?) The
specific reference is the writing, "Against Praxeas," chapter 2.
Bobby: WOW! So here you assert that the doctrine of the "original"
New Testament Church was incomplete for about 200 YEARS? NO ONE ... NO
ONE ... NO ONE in the entire recorded pages of God's Word EVER ... EVER
... EVER preached, taught or even referred to ONE GOD IN THREE
"PERSONS." But ole brother Tertullian can come along with a butter bean
dream, or whatever it was, and you'll just snap it up ... hook, line
and sinker ... and I have provided you with "verbatim" Sciptures from
the pages of God's Word which refute such a notion? Truly amazing, Jim,
truly amazing.
Bobby (from previous email): I am surprised you even embrace 1 John
5:7 ... many people try to discredit that verse when I use it to explain
the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine.
Jim: Apparently I gave you the wrong impression. I don't regard
First John 5:7 as original. I appealed to the KJV because you did.
Bobby: Well, nowhere in 1 John 5:7 do you find a reference to "persons" ... whether you regard it or disregard it.
Bobby (from previous email): By the way, I am a father, a son, and a
husband ... yet I am only ONE PERSON. Therefore, if someone were to
refer to me by saying (or writing) "There are three that testify of life
in my home, a father, a son and a husband ... and these three are one."
That would NOT turn me into three different "persons."
Jim: But it would not turn you into three witnesses, either!
Imagine the scenario if you tried that approach in a court of law. The
words in the statement, "There are three that testify" are stripped of
meaning if it turns out that the witnesses called to testify are
actually the same person.
Bobby: Actually in the wee hours of the morning this morning I was
getting tired. Later in the day I read back over my scenario and it
should have read like this .... Therefore, if someone were to refer to
me by saying (or writing) "There are three that testify of life in that
home, a father, a son and a husband ... and these three are one." That
would NOT turn me into three different "persons." Now, on to your come
back. I certainly could testify as a father, I could testify as a son,
and I could also testify as a husband because I am qualified to testify
in all three of these capacities ... yet I am still only ONE PERSON. I
usually always have a number of discussions going or correspondence
circulating on a regular basis ... so I have already asked you this,
please forgive me. Do you remember those profound words of Abraham when
he responded to Isaac's question going up the side of that mountain?
Genesis 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb
for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. God became
the lamb, Jim. Isaiah 59:16 And he saw that there was no man, and
wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm (NOT a
separate eternal person) brought salvation unto him; and his
righteousness, it sustained him.
Jim: Also, you were not ALWAYS a father and a husband; you became a
father and a husband. But the Father is eternal, the Son is eternal,
and the Holy Spirit is eternal. See the difference?
Bobby: It is NOT a matter of me seeing the difference, Jim. The
subject was NOT about what I always was or wasn't. The subject was
whether or not I could testify as all three ... a father, a son and a
husband, while being only ONE PERSON. And I hope to God you don't say
that I couldn't. By the way, I am in total agreement with your
statement, " ... the Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy
Spirit is eternal." Because the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit
"ARE" ONE ... NOT ARE "AS" ONE. Now, if you want to go down the trail
of the word "one" not really meaning "one" numerically, I will welcome
your argument. Do you see the difference?
Bobby (from previous email): Most professing Christians don't have a
clue that the three "persons" concept was a later development ... by
several hundred years.
Jim: I object the the subtle shift of language here! This is
precisely why I was averse to answering vaguely-worded questions
previously -- you seemed to make little, if any, distinction between
concepts and terminology. The concept of the Godhead consisting of
three Persons in a Trinity did not originate in the 300's; the
terminology did. Using your approach, one could say that the concept of
a Pre-Tribulation Rapture did not develop until the 1800's, since no
one coined the term until then.
Bobby: Where there is a "concept" of a dogmatically held doctrine,
such as the trinity. There would have to be some SPECIFIC "terminology"
in the Scriptures authorizing such a belief. However, the concept of a
"plurality" of "three eternal persons" of God that evolved many years
AFTER the ascension and passing of the "original" New Testament leaders,
there is not a shred of SPECIFIC "terminology" found anywhere in the
Scriptures. And, THAT, is what I object to. As far as the rapture is
concerned, it is my understanding that the Church is caught up to Heaven
between the opening of the sixth and seventh seals ... and AFTER the
144,000 of the 12 tribes of Israel were sealed ... as spoken of in
Revelation Chapter 7. I don't need something from the 1800's for that.
Bobby (from previous email): However, since you acknowledge the
concept of the trinity "emerged "officially," as a concrete expression,
in the A.D. 300's" ...
Jim: I don't acknowledge that -- you're juggling! I said that the
terminology (i.e., a particular means of expressing the concept) emerged
in the A.D. 300's. The concept is in the New Testament.
Bobby: Sounds to me like you are juggling, Jim. Where was God ever
referred to in Scripture as a "plurality" of "three eternal persons?"
Where was anyone ever baptized with these words invoked, " ... in the
name of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Ghost?" Yet that is
precisely what you believe, right? Again, where there is a
dogmatically held belief like the trinity, there must be some SPECIFIC
"terminology" in the Scriptures. Now, of the very carefully selected
portions of Scripture you have present thus far, there is a truck load
of Scriptures which would refute the "concept" of a "plurality" of
"three eternal persons" in the Godhead.
8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God
evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of
three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?
Jim: There was a sort of special regard for the three most powerful
Roman deities -- Zeus/Jupiter, Poseidon/Neptune, and Hades/Pluto -- but
that is a far cry from the concept of the Trinity! ... The Roman
Empire was awash with deities and various concepts of gods. With such a
plethora of religions and superstitions in the ancient Roman Empire,
one can find a parallel there somewhere to almost any aspect of any
major religion in existence today.
Bobby (from previous email): Where do you think the concept of
the trinity .... or One God in "three persons" ... evolved, Jerusalem or
Rome? Please clarify.
Jim: Sort of a trick question, isn't it? The concept of the triune
Godhead did not evolve -- it was more analogous to putting something
under a microscope and magnifying it, not bringing in new material. The
terminology of "Trinity" emerged in Nicea, as far as I can tell, and in
the mind of Athanasius, but we seem to agree that that can be dispensed
with.
Bobby: Not trick to it, Jim. You won't find a trace of SPECIFIC
"terminology" in the Scriptures evolving out of Jerusalem that authorize
the belief in a "plurality" of "three eternal persons" of God.
Bobby (from previous email): ... Revelation Chapter 17 describes in
pretty good detail the "mother" of the doctrine from the city of seven
hills.
Jim: I have no doubt that Rev. 17:9 connects "Babylon" with Rome.
It's clear as day. But Revelation is focused primarily against external
persecutors and their religious allies -- typical of which was the Cult
of Emperor-Worship, which was based in, of course, Rome. I don't see
Rev. 17 as targeting a particular doctrine, except any doctrine which
would result in a person committing an act of worship of some human
being [namely the Emperor] or his statue.
Bobby: Well, Jim, Rome is known as the "City of Seven Hills." That
where the whore sits. That's where the terminology for her doctrine
evolved. I don't know how much plainer it can be.
Bobby (from previous email): I am NOT anti-catholic "people" but I am opposed to the catholic doctrine of the trinity.
Jim: Well, perhaps we should define terms! I think the Athanasian
presentation of the Trinity is a poor and inaccurate presentation of the
Biblical concept of the Godhead. At the same time, I do believe that
God has revealed Himself as three Eternal Persons.
Bobby: Well, all you have to go on for your belief that God has
revealed Himself as three Eternal Persons is your opinion or some so
called scholar's writings, because it surely isn't SPECIFICALLY stated
in Scripture. I'm going to stick with true MONOTHEISTIC rendering of
Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" ... and
NOT try to turn Him into a "plurality" of "three eternal persons."
Jim: I see practically all man-made explanations of the Godhead as
hypothetical models -- useful, but not definitive. (Still, it helps to
have a correct model, not an incorrect one.)
Bobby: Better yet, I think it helps to have a model which is found
SPECIFICALLY authorized in the Scriptures ... "verbatim," without the
need of a library full of reference books, and commentaries, or having
to make all sorts of assumptions, or use human intellect, reasoning,
logic or points of conjecture.
Jim: Illustration-time ~ Scientists sometimes picture molecules in
the form of tinker-toys -- small colored globes, connected by narrow
rods. The scientists know very well that there is more to the actual
structure of molecules than their resemblance to small colored globes
connected by narrow rods; nevertheless by the use of that model they can
get some productive chemistry done and explain some things which are
otherwise inexplicable. Likewise with the Godhead, it is ultimately a
mystery, but in the meantime we ought to have a plausible
explanation/harmonization of what the Bible does say about the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit.
Bobby: I once received a letter from a very nice Trinitarian lady
who did her best to assert that the trinity is, in fact, an
unexplainable "MYSTERY." Therefore, she could not possibly explain it to
me. Well, I took the time to research every place in the King James
Version of the Bible where the words "mystery" and "mysteries" are
mentioned and immediately wrote her back. Here's what I found (The
particular verses are in parenthesis, but please read the scriptures
outlined to get a better understanding of the context):
Matthew 13:1-11 (11) "..it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.."
Mark 4:1-23 (11) "..Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God."
Luke 8:1-17 (10) "..Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God.."
Romans 11:13-25 (25) "..For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery.."
Romans 16: 24-27 (25) "..according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret.."
1 Corinthians 2: 1-8 (7) "..we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery.."
1 Corinthians 4: 1-4 (1) "..stewards of the mysteries of God.."
1 Corinthians 13: 1-13 (2) "..and understand all mysteries...and have not charity..."
1 Corinthians 14: 1-40 (2) "in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.."
1 Corinthians 15: 33-58 (51) "..Behold, I shew you a mystery;.."
Ephesians 1: 1-23 (9) "..having made know unto us the mystery of his will,.."
Ephesians 3: 1-21 (3, 4 & 9) "made know unto me the mystery.."
"..that ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ.." "And
to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery.."
Ephesians 5: 1-33 (32) "..this is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.."
Ephesians 6: 1-24 (19) "to make known the mystery of the gospel.."
Colossians 1: 1-29 (26 & 27) "..the mystery which hath been hid
from generations ...but now is." "..make known what is the riches of the
glory of this mystery.."
Colossians 2: 1-23 (2) "..understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God.."
Colossians 4: 1-8 (3) "to speak the mystery of Christ.."
2 Thessalonians 2: 1-17 (7) "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work:.."
1 Timothy 3: 1-16 (9 & 16) "Holding the mystery of the faith in a
pure conscience." "And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen
of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world,
received up into glory."
Revelation 1: 1-20 (20) "The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand.."
Revelation 10: 1-11 (7) "..the mystery of God should be finished.."
Revelation 17: 1-18 (5 & 7) "..Mystery, Babylon The Great, The
Mother Of Harlots.." "I will tell thee the mystery of the woman.."
I am still waiting on her reply. Do you care to take up her cause?
Bobby (from previous email): Catholics think of the catholic church
as the "mother" church ... and look upon protestants as being wayward
children.
Jim: Or so they would have you believe. I find the recent Roman
Catholic Catechism's statement about brotherhood with Protestants to be
capable of multiple interpretations.
Bobby: The bottom line, Jim, is catholics believe the "mother" church is the "mother" church and all others are inferior.
Bobby (from previous email): ... Martin Luther, the excommunicated
monk who started the protestant movement, retained the foundational
doctrine of the "mother" church ... and built the protestant movement on
that doctrine.
Jim: Eh? Luther radically altered the Roman Catholic teaching
regarding the nature of church authority. He retained the doctrine of
the Godhead because He believed it to be Scriptural.
Bobby: Well, I guess if Luther was around, I would be debating him
instead of you. Reckon he could provide any SPECIFIC "terminology" from
the Scriptures for the doctrine he carried over from the "mother"
church concerning a "plurality" of "three eternal persons?"
Bobby (from previous email): ... I believe this is why protestants
and catholics commonly use the same ancient manuscripts and "later"
writings.
Jim: Except many Protestants don't appeal to the same manuscripts
(there are many KJV-only folks), and I know of none who agree with the
official Roman Catholic teaching that the Latin Vulgate is to be
regarded as the authoritative text. Not that I would consider the title
"Protestant" to be the least bit relevant. The only spiritual pedigree
that matters is our pedigree in Christ.
Bobby: When it comes to the "pluralistic" concept of the "three
eternal persons" of God, they'll certainly use the same material. As a
matter of fact, they'll use just about anything they can get their hands
on because that's all they've got ... "other" writings.
Bobby (from previous email): As you know, trinitarians are adamant
about insisting on using the term of "three persons" in their
description of God. I embrace the concept of three forms of God ...
three manifestations of God ... three offices of God ... three positions
of God ... three roles of God.
Jim: Ah. You're (currently) a modalist.
Bobby: What makes you say that?
Jim: Because you fit the definition of a modalist.
Bobby: Well, tell me what the word modalist means to you, Jim.
Bobby (from previous email): Have I presented anything which is not Biblical?
Jim: Yes. I submit the following simply as my impressions: First, you have opposed the didactic force of Matthew 28:19.
Bobby: Jim, the Didache was written how many years AFTER the
ascension and passing of the "original" New Testament leaders ... and by
whom???? I have already told you that I think it is much wiser to
allow the "verbatim" Scriptures to supercede the later writings ...
especially when the later writings don't have a shred of "verbatim"
authority in the Scriptures ... when it comes to establishing what is
"sound doctrine" and what is not. Now, granted, I may have ruffled your
feathers for not embracing your dogmatically held Didache, but I do
have "verbatim" Scriptures for my beliefs ... and I feel extremely
comfortable with that approach to establishing "sound doctrine."
Jim: Second, deny Christ's words in John 14:28 (the Father cannot be greater than Christ if the Father IS Christ).
Bobby: Jim, Christ was BOTH God and man ... Eternal Spirit of God
joined with humanity ... (unlike you and I) the Spirit was indeed
greater than the flesh. You just can't distinguish when the flesh is
speaking and why ... or when the Spirit is speaking and why, I guess.
Furthermore, John 14:28 is a GREATER problem for you than it could ever
possibly be for me, because your theology assigns the "co-equal" status
to the "three eternal persons," remember? Now, how could one be
"co-equal" and at the same time be lesser or greater?
Jim: Third, you deny Christ's words in John 5:31-37, where Christ
says plainly that He does not bear witness of Himself, and then (in v.
37) says that the Father does bear witness of Him (the Father cannot be
bearing witness while Christ is not bearing witness if the Father IS
Christ).
Bobby: I guess I'll have to whoop out the old Clark Kent/Superman
analogy, huh? While it is not a perfect analogy, it is a good one.
There were times when the Divine side of Jesus acted and spoke and times
with the human side of Jesus acted and spoke. The prophets witnessed
of the coming Messiah. John the Baptist witnessed of Jesus being the
Messiah. The human side of Jesus witnessed of Him being the Messiah.
And the Divine side of Jesus witnessed of Jesus being the Messiah. To
hear you tell it. Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are like Moe, Larry
and Curley ... three different "persons" who are joined together and
share a union, and who function together in unison or as a group,
depending on the situation. You may not think that is Polytheism, but
its close enough that I don't embrace it any more.
Jim: Fourth, you have contradicted the distinct presentation of the Father, Son, and Spirit in Revelation 5.
Bobby: Well, if you are going to accuse me of something, you ought
to ... at the very least ... be more specific in your accusation.
Jim: Fifth, you oppose the eternality of two of the three Persons
of the Godhead (though I'm not sure which ones), inasmuch as you say
that they are equivalent to a human being becoming a father and a
husband, which no human being is eternally.
Bobby: I use the father, son, husband illustation of how ONE PERSON
can function in different capacities, but I don't recall ever saying
the trintarians' three "persons" of the Godhead are the equivalent of a
human being becoming such. Furthermore, I believe I stated above that I
am in total agreement with your statement, " ... the Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal." Because the
Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit "ARE" ONE ... NOT ARE "AS" ONE.
Now, if you want to go down the trail of the word "one" not really
meaning "one" numerically, I will welcome your argument.
Bobby (from previous email): What makes you think that it is
impossible for God to speak with a voice from the heavens and manifest
Himself in a whole multitude of different ways and still be ONE person?
Jim: (I'm not saying it would be impossible; I'm saying that's just not the way it is.)
Bobby: I take it that since you don't think it is an impossibility
for God to function as Father, Son and Holy Ghost while being only ONE
PERSON ... then it is just a matter of what the Bible says about God and
the Godhead ... as relating to "persons." I'm all ears ... but I don't
want none of this commentary stuff. Just give me book, chapter and
verse which SPECIFICALLY states it like you believe it. That's all I
need, and you won't have any further argument out of me concerning this.
Jim: For starters, because God said, "This is My beloved Son,"
clearly referring to Jesus. The message did not suggest that the One
speaking was also the beloved Son; nor would it be natural for anybody
on hand to observe the scene to get such an impression. God does
manifest Himself in a multitude of ways, but the Bible speaks of the
Word as an eternal manifestation, which is rather unique compared to
say, the character of God revealed through the beauty of nature.
Bobby: Well, the Holy Ghost over shadowed Mary and she conceived
the Christ Child who was referred to as "Child of the Holy Ghost." Now,
according to your theology, the Holy Ghost is a separate "eternal
person" in the Godhead. Therefore, the words, "This is My beloved Son"
would have had to been spoken by the Holy Ghost ... NOT the first person
of the trinity, right?
Bobby (from previous email): When Jesus was baptized by John in
Jordan River, the voice of God spoke, "This is my beloved Son, IN WHOM I
am well pleased." Matthew 3:17. Notice, God said, "IN WHOM" - not with
whom!
Jim: Okay, I noticed. But if you're trying to say that this phrase
obviously indicates that the Father was in the Son -- nay, actually was
the Son, right? -- well, it just sounds like the sort of approach one
tries when one has a pre-set agenda to squeeze some conclusion out of
the text. Inasmuch as the Father was in the Son, in some sense, as long
as you say that the Father and the Son are the same Person you face a
problem similar to having to put a jar inside itself. I don't see how
this helps your position.
Bobby: Let's see if I can 'splain this a little mo better. Let's
say you take that same jar and sit it down in a lake. You would then
have the jar in the lake AND the lake in the jar .... except while all
of the qualities of the lake are in the jar, not all of the quantity of
the lake would be in the jar, right? Well, there you have an
illustration of the Godhead. The Spirit of Almighty God was still
omnipresent, so all of the quantity of God was NOT manifested in the
body of Jesus. But all of the qualities and attributes of God surely
were. Now here's something I don't think I have presented to you yet.
Since you obviously believe that Jesus was on earth and the Father was
up in Heaven ... on another planet ... in another solar system or
something, please give me your understanding of the following words of
Jesus in St. John 3:13 when He was standing on earth speaking to
Nicodemus .... "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came
down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." Kindly give
me your explanation for such a statement ... according to your
theology.
Bobby (from previous email): I use the analogy of Clark Kent and
Superman a lot when talking about the relationship of the Father and the
Son ...
Jim: Yep, that's modalism, alright.
Bobby: Ummm, Jim, is that bad? Please explain.
Jim: You may indeed be both a father and a son and a teacher. But
are you your own father, and your own son? Is it possible for Bobby-
the-son to be standing in a river as Bobby-the-father speaks to him from
somewhere else, and as Bobby-the-teacher also enters the scene and
comes to the shoulder of Bobby-the-son?
Bobby (from previous email): What you said about Bobby is true. It
would be impossible. But that's really not what is at issue here.
Jim: Well, it was your analogy.
Bobby: Well, Jim, I am NOT God manifested in the flesh. But Jesus
surely was. All I was trying to get across to you is that even as a
lowly human, I can function as a father, a son, a husband, a teacher,
etc. while miraculously being only ONE PERSON. My only question to you
is, "How come I can do something that God can't ... when I was created
in His image AND His likeness, pray tell?"
Bobby (from previous email): Are you saying that it would be
IMPOSSIBLE for God to speak from Heaven while God manifested in the
flesh was standing in a river, and while a theophany (dove) appeared on
the scene?
Jim: (Weren't you suggesting a minute ago that since we are created
in the image and likeness of God, we should be able to make some
deductions about how God manifests Himself?)
Bobby: Nope! Shore wasn't. I was suggesting that since we are
created in the image AND likeness of God and consist of heart, soul,
mind, body, spirit, etc. ... AND can function in many different
capacities such as father, son, husband, teacher, etc. ... yet are only
ONE PERSON, why it is that you reject the concept that God can ... OR
DOES ... function as Father, Son and Holy Ghost ... yet is only ONE
PERSON, too???
Jim: I agree that God spoke from heaven, and God Incarnate (Jesus)
was in the Jordan River, and a theophany of the Holy Spirit (the dove)
appeared on the scene. But you seem to be saying that these are all the
same Person (i.e., that Jesus is His own Father and His own Son); while
I say that they manifest the same essence in three eternal Persons.
Bobby: Well, let's see here Jim. Just because there were three
manifestations of God in one geographical location, all at one time, and
in the presence of a number of people ("persons") ... then you deduct
that these three manifestations are three different people ("persons")?
That's is getting way out yonder. You must know that God can manifest
Himself in millions of different ways, to millions of different people,
in millions of different geographical locations SIMULTANEOUSLY ... but
that doesn't make a bunch of different people ("persons") out of Him.
Jim: Another reason is the existence of passages such as Luke 4:18,
where Jesus begins His speech with the words, "The Spirit of the Lord
is upon me." Let's see how that sounds when we assume that each noun
does not refer to a particular Person but instead refers to the same
Person ~ "The God of God is upon God."
Bobby (from previous email): It was not uncommon for Jesus to quote
from the Old Testament. I believe that particular quotation came from
Isaiah 61:1. By the way, the Spirit of the Lord was not only "upon"
Jesus ... the Spirit of the Lord was "inside" Jesus.
Jim: I agree. And here again, by way of analogy, you must put the
jar inside itself, and upon itself, to sustain your position.
Bobby: Nope, Jim, all I have to do is put a top on that jar and
everything in the jar would be atmosphere. While all of the quantity of
the atmosphere would not be in that jar, all of the qualities certainly
could be. It wouldn't matter if I hopped on a jumbo jet and went to
China. When I stepped off the plane, the atmosphere in the jar would
still be the atsmosphere as on the other side of the world. Using the
jar as a type of the body of Jesus and the atmosphere as a type of God
... who is an omnipresent Spirit ... there you have yet another
illustration of the Godhead.
Bobby (from previous email): Also, I should remind you that the
Sciptures are Spiritual ... and are NOT interpreted, nor understood by
human intellect, human reasoning or logic.
Jim: First Corinthians 2:14 is not a license for people to say,
"Guess what? I have the Spirit, so if you disagree with me, you're
wrong!" That sort of approach is basically the Roman Catholic standard
of church authority re-imposed all over again. Certainly there are
aspects of Christianity which can only be validated by experience and
communion with God; just as certainly, we are instructed to be vigilant
-- a la Second Timothy 1:7.
Bobby: WHEW! Where did THAT come from? Who are you talking to?
When did I ever give you that impression? I have been trying to present
the undiluted "verbatim" Word of God to you for consideration on the
subject of the Godhead.
Jim: Perhaps the Lord has given you a burden to correct some
unBiblical teachings -- but the correct diagnosis of an illness, and the
correct remedy, are two different things, and one should take care that
the cure is not worse than the disease. Jim
Bobby (from previous email): The Word of God assures us that the
Truth will make us free. Please just tell me what you are insinuating
in the above statment.
Jim: Basically I am suggesting two things: First, your view that
modern Roman Catholicism is terribly out of sync with the New Testament
pattern is correct. If you seek to correct this, however, the proper
target is not a particular doctrine about the nature of God. The proper
target is the Roman Catholic doctrine about the nature of the church as
a channel of authority -- i.e., in Roman Catholicism, the average
Catholic is supposed to believe that the Bible means what the Pope (and
the whole Roman Catholic Magisterium) says it means. Therein lies the
real problem.
Bobby: You missed one slight detail, Jim. The "universal" church
of Rome is the source for the "terminology" for the "concept" of the
"plurality" of "three eternal persons" that millions and millions of
people have accepted without question ... when the Bible does NOT offer a
single, solitary Scripture of SPECIFIC authority for the belief in a
"plurality" of Deity ... "three eternal persons" ... that you refer to
as "THEY" who are in union together and function as ONE unit or team.
Jim: Second, your position does not look like the result of a
simple non-denominational approach to me. It definitely has close
affinities with Oneness Pentecostalism, which deviates substantially
from the New Testament -- so why trade one deviation for another?
Bobby: Well, I will tell you this, I was raised up (and was a
baptized member) in a main line protestant church, but today I am a
non-denominational lay man who independently studies the Word of God
without the all the ideas, opinions, theories, traditions, points of
conjecture, assumptions, religious creeds, statements of faith, etc.
that most people are all tangled up in.
Bobby (from previous email): If I've mishandled or misrepresented
the Word of God. Please point it out to me with book, chapter and verse
...
Jim: Perhaps in future correspondence.
Bobby: Why wait? **IF** you really feel that I am mishandling or
misrepresenting the Word of God, you should be prepared to point it out
immediately with book, chapter and verse.
Bobby (from previous email): ... you do acknowledge that your were
unable to produce Biblical proof to satisfy any one of my three
conditions, don't you?
Jim: Well, inasmuch as you're the one who gets to decide if I have
done so or not, and since the challenge is basically an
attention-getting device anyway, I decline to say otherwise. Yours in
Christ, Jim
Bobby: Jim, I resent your last statement. I am going to list my $
10,000.00 Reward below and I want you to please tell me why you think
your answers would have anything to do with me deciding if you have done
so or not. WHEW!
$10,000 Reward:
Offered to anyone who can find ONE scripture in the authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible TEXT:
(1) with the word "trinity" in it; (do I "decide" whether or not you find a verse with trinity in it?)
(2) where the term "persons" (plural) was ever used to describe God
or the Godhead; OR (do I "decide whether or not you find a verse with
the term "persons" used to describe God or the Godhead?)
(3) where anyone was ever baptized with the TITLES "Father, Son and
Holy Ghost" pronounced over them. (These "titles" are quoted by
virtually every religious denomination today among BOTH Catholic and
Protestants, regardless of whether they baptize by sprinkling or by
immersion). (do I "decide" whether or not you find a verse where the
TITLES "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" were invoked ... or pronounced ...
over a baptismal candidate?)
Come on, Jim, you don't have to resort to saying that I get to
"decide" if you have done so or not. It is my challenge and it stands
as written. It has been very effective in getting people to search the
scriptures. But, it has also stirred up a lot of "ministers" too. God
bless! - Bobby
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response # 5 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 2:06 AM
Subject: Response to your third email of 06-27
Jim: Greetings in Christ to Bobby Richardson ~ You are one fast
typist! Here's a continuation of our discussion. For the sake of
aesthetics I removed most of the previous material except what I am
responding to here. New material of mine is in blue.
Bobby: Been doing this stuff a while, but I am a fairly good
typist. Just wish I had paid a little closer attention in school many
years ago when it comes to punctuation and that sort of stuff.
Bobby (from previous email): There were times Jesus spoke and acted
as God, and there were other times when Jesus spoke and acted as a man.
Jim: Eh? Are you suggesting that there were times during the
Incarnation when Jesus did not speak and act as God, and times when
Jesus did not speak and act as a man?
Bobby: Jim, I'll give you just a few brief examples of what I am
talking about. Jesus, Himself, said the Father dwelled in Him, and did
the works. Only God can forgive sins. When Jesus said, "... Son, be of
good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee," in Matthew 9:2 that was the
Divine side of Jesus speaking. As a man, Jesus prayed, hungered, felt
pain, suffered and died. As God, Jesus answered prayer, feed
multitudes, healed the sick, and raised the dead.
Bobby (from previous email): Jesus did AND said things for the
benefit of those who heard Him and was going read about it later.
Jim: And Matthew 28:19 is a case in point.
Bobby: You may have a point there, Jim. Once when Jesus was asked
why He spoke in the manner in which He did, He said because it was so
those who had "ears to hear," could hear while it would be kept hidden
from others. Actually, what I was referring to was concerning your
reference to the voice from Heaven as being a separate "person" up there
somewhere, instead of what it simply was ... a Divine witness that
Jesus was the promised Messiah. At any rate, this is the two Scriptures
I had in mind when I mentioned that ... St. John 11:42 "And I knew that
thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said
it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me." St. John 12:28-30
"Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I
have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. The people
therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others
said, An angel spake to him. Jesus answered and said, This voice came
not because of me, but for your sakes.
Bobby (from previous email): Now, back to my original question of
whether or not you can think of any other term in the Bible which does
for the term "persons" what "caught up" does for the word rapture? ...
You did not answer that.
Jim: Not every animal in the forest is going to get hunted down and
end up mounted on the wall in one hunt. Hunters who try to accomplish
that frequently end up catching nothing at all. Likewise I like to try
to stay relatively focused in theological discussion, and sometimes that
requires ignoring off-the-track questions. My point, in referring to
the non-existence, in the New Testament, of the term "rapture," was that
just because a particular term is not in the Bible does not mean that a
particular concept is not in the Bible. And I think that point stands.
Bobby: My position, is speaking where the Bible is silent can be
"adding to" or "taking from" the Word of God, a very serious matter.
You jumped out with the rapture thing, so I thought I would just
challenge it, that's all.
Bobby (from previous email): What "term" ... or word ... from the
Scriptures could be substituted for the word "persons" when referring to
God or the Godhead?
Jim: The term "Eternal" comes to mind.
Bobby: God certainly is Eternal. But, how on God's green earth do
you come up with the notion that the term "Eternal" could be substituted
for the word "persons" (plural).
Bobby (from previous email): ... you don't have a single solitary
Scripture in the entire Bible which refers to God or the Godhead as a
"plurality" or "persons." Now **IF** there is some other translation
besides the KJV which does, then tell me about it.
Jim: In the Hebrew text, the ordinary word for God, "Elohim," is a majestic plural.
Bobby: It is inconsistent to insist that the word "Elohim"
identifies a "plurality" of "persons" when referring to God, and then
turn right around and insist that the same word in other places
identifies a "singular" (one) person only. Shouldn't the word "trio"
always mean "more" than one regardless of where it is used ... or who it
is referring to? It seems to me like it should. Now, notice the
"singular" (NOT plural) references to God in this very small sampling of
scriptures which follows:
Deuteronomy 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know
that the LORD (YHWH <Jehovah> - Strong's # 3068) "He" is God;
there is none else beside "Him." (The LORD <SINGULAR> ... "He"
<SINGULAR> ... is God. There is no plurality in this scripture ...
there are no associates with God.)
Deuteronomy 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine
heart, that the LORD (YHWH <Jehovah> - Strong's # 3068) "He" is
God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.
(The LORD <SINGULAR> is God. No plurality here either ... still no
associates.)
Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD (YHWH <Jehovah> -
Strong's # 3068) thy God, "He" is God, the faithful God, which keepeth
covenant and mercy with them that love "Him" and keep "His" commandments
to a thousand generations; (The LORD <SINGULAR> is God. Still no
plurality ... still no associates.)
Joshua 2:11 And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did
melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of
you: for the LORD (YHWH <Jehovah> - Strong's # 3068) your God,
"He" is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath. (The LORD
<SINGULAR> ... Nope! No plurality and no associates here either.)
Psalms 100:3 Know ye that the LORD (YHWH <Jehovah> - Strong's #
3068) "He" is God: it is "He" that hath made us, and not we ourselves;
we are "His" people, and the sheep of "His" pasture. (THE LORD
<SINGULAR> is God who made us.)
2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God, save the LORD (YHWH <Jehovah> -
Strong's # 3068) ? and who is a rock, save our God? (THE LORD
<SINGULAR> is God.)
Now I would like to share with you some places in the Bible where
the Hebrew word "Elohim" (Strong’s # 430) is used where it DEFINITELY
does NOT refer to God ... but is definitely referring to ONE ... NOT
two, or three ... ONE! And in so doing, I submit to you that those who
use this word in an effort to assert a plurality of "persons" of GOD are
only doing so in an effort to support the man made theory of three
"persons" of God. And according to Leviticus 19:36; Ezekiel 45:10;
Proverbs 11:1; and Micah 6:11 ... as well as the following scriptures
... is a double standard (an unjust balance), a definite abomination in
the sight of God! Now, here's the examples which I offer as proof that
the use of the word Elohim should NOT be used by anyone to "imply" or
suggest that the "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is ONE LORD" of
Deuteronomy 6:4 is actually MORE than one LORD ... OR more than ONE
PERSON.
Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god
(ELOHIM -Strong’s # 430) to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy
prophet. - (Moses was one)
Deuteronomy 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god
(ELOHIM -Strong’s # 430) with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound,
and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
-(There is no other "person" or "persons" with God)
Judges 6:31 And Joash said unto all that stood against him, Will ye
plead for Baal? will ye save him? he that will plead for him, let him be
put to death whilst it is yet morning: if he be a god (ELOHIM -Strong’s
# 430), let him plead for himself, because one hath cast down his
altar. -(baal was one)
Judges 9:27 And they went out into the fields, and gathered their
vineyards, and trode the grapes, and made merry, and went into the house
of their god (ELOHIM -Strong’s # 430), and did eat and drink, and
cursed Abimelech. -(the house of their god was one)
Judges 9:46 And when all the men of the tower of Shechem heard that,
they entered into an hold of the house of the god (ELOHIM -Strong’s #
430) Berith. -(berith was one)
Judges 11:24 Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god
(ELOHIM -Strong’s # 430) giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD
our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess. -(chemosh
was one)
Judges 16:23 Then the lords of the Philistines gathered them
together for to offer a great sacrifice unto Dagon their god (ELOHIM
-Strong’s # 430), and to rejoice: for they said, Our god (ELOHIM
-Strong’s # 430) hath delivered Samson our enemy into our hand. -(dagon
was one)
Judges 16:24 And when the people saw him, they praised their god
(ELOHIM -Strong’s # 430): for they said, Our god (ELOHIM -Strong’s #
430) hath delivered into our hands our enemy, and the destroyer of our
country, which slew many of us. -(their god, dagon, was one)
1 Kings 11:33 Because that they have forsaken me, and have
worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess (ELOHIM -Strong’s # 430) of the
Zidonians, Chemosh the god (ELOHIM -Strong’s # 430) of the Moabites, and
Milcom the god (ELOHIM -Strong’s # 430) of the children of Ammon, and
have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and
to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father. -(here we
have ELOHIM being used individually to describe ashtoreth, chemosh, and
milcom ... each of whom were still only one ... not a plurality)
1 Kings 18:27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them,
and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god (ELOHIM -Strong’s # 430); either he
is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure
he sleepeth, and must be awaked. -(baal was one)
Thus far, we have seen where the LORD <SINGULAR> "HE" is God,
and we've seen where the Hebrew word ELOHIM (Strong’s # 430) is used
where it is NOT referring to a plurality of more than ONE. Yet we have
so called Bible scholars who insist that when "ELOHIM" is used in
reference to God, it is plural because they theorize there are three
"persons" of God ... which is total nonsense! The three co-equal
"persons" theory of the Godhead evolved several centuries AFTER Christ,
and is polytheistic and/or attempts to portray God as three separate
"persons" who make up one family/household, or either portrays God as
one "person" with "three heads" .... both of which are ludicrous (and
blasphemous, in my opinion).
I fear for people who see no harm in this man made doctrine ...
especially those who vigorously defend and propagate it. I'm telling you
in the fear of God it is diametrically opposed to the Apostles' One God
Monotheistic Doctrine. And I am warning people to turn away from it,
and turn to the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine as found very
plainly in the Bible ... in simple language, and understood without the
need of a slide ruler, a law degree, or a library full of books,
commentaries and research material.
God is referred to throughout the entire Bible in the singular as
.... I, ME, MY, HE, HIS and HIM. However, some people today attempt to
use the Hebrew word "Elohim" (Strong’s # 430) ... which is translated
"God", "god" and "goddess" in the Old Testament to assert that God is a
plurality of three separate and distinct co-equal, co-eternal and
co-existent "persons." Israel had just ONE LORD according to Deuteronomy
6:4, "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is ONE LORD:" (Not two ... not
three ... ONE!). To assert that God is actually a plurality of three
separate and distinct "persons" who are co-equal, co-eternal and
co-existent with one another either portrays three individual "persons"
of Deity like three members making up one family/household, OR portrays
God as being one "person" with three "heads" ... either of which is
about as pagan and polytheistic as you can get, and an abomination to
boot, in my opinion.
English was my worst subject in school, but I do remember a few
things. For illustration purposes only, it is not proper to link the
singular pronoun "He", which refers to one "person", to verbs like:
"see", "hear" and "warn" ... which would look like this ... "He see",
"He hear" and "He warn". When using the singular pronoun "He", it is
necessary to use the verbs "sees", "hears" and "warns" ... "He SEES",
"He HEARS" and "He WARNS". In order to use the verbs "see", "hear" and
"warn", you must use a noun or pronoun which is "plural" and identifies
"more" than one person like, "People" ... "People see", "People hear"
and "People warn". Yet, intelligent people who know this rule, but who
have been indoctrinated to believe that there are three "persons" of
God, ignore this rule when it comes to the word "GOD".
**IF** the word "GOD" identifies more than one "person", as the
trinitarians insist, the Bible should read like this, "God SEE", "God
HEAR" and "God WARN" ... AND IT DOESN'T! The word "GOD" is never linked
to a verb like that. Instead, the word "GOD" is ALWAYS linked to verbs
just as the word "He" (a singular person) is ... like this, "God SEES",
"God HEARS" and "God WARNS". Again, I use these particular words for
illustration purposes only, but I hope I have made my point ... and that
it's CLEAR.
Bobby (from previous email): ... there is no recorded evidence that
any of the "original" New Testament Church leaders ever quoted the
following words at a baptismal ceremony, "... in the name of the Father,
AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Spirit."
Jim: It looks to me as if you're simply re-stating your position.
Matthew 28:19 is evidence that Matthew intended for those words to be
used liturgically. It was not the earliest baptismal formula, but it
certainly is an apostolic baptismal formula, recorded from the lips of
Christ Himself. Take note: the inclusion of Gentiles in the church was
not the earliest policy of the church, either, but it IS in the New
Testament, fortunately for us, and it would be silly to make the claim
that Gentiles should not be allowed to be church members since that was
not the earliest practice of the New Testament church.
Bobby: I am going to continue to state that position, Jim. Matthew
28:19 was properly understood and fulfilled when those who certainly
ought to have known went forth and baptized converts to Christianity in
the name of Jesus. As far as, your reference to the Gentiles is
concerned, that has absolutely nothing to do with the earliest practice
and uniformity in the Scriptures of the formula for water baptism being
in the name of Jesus.
Bobby (from previous email): ...that was a "later" development.
Jim: When, prithee, does this "later" development develop? The
Didache has it. Justin Martyr has it, and presents it as the standard
baptismal pronouncement in First Apology 1:61-62. Hippolytus, c. A.D.
200, has it. And Matthew 28:19 has it! All of these occurrences
precede the councils of the 300's by over a hundred years -- yet you
seem to be attempting to connect them to Roman Catholicism anyway. Why
is it so hard for you to see that the early church after the apostles
perceived Matthew's (and Christ's) intention correctly? (Could it be
because that would involve admitting recklessness?)
Bobby: The "later" development was years AFTER the Ascension and
passing of the "original" New Testament leaders because not a single
solitary one of them ever, ever, ever taught, preached or practiced the
belief you've been defending. Furthermore, your statement that "the
early church after the apostles perceived Matthew's (and Christ's)
intention correctly," is all the same as saying the "original" early
church leaders did NOT understand what they were supposed to do ... and
taught it wrong for ever how many years they lived to preach and teach.
I resent such arrogance on your part, Jim. It is my understanding that
Rome is, indeed, the place where this man-made doctrine of a
"plurality" of "three eternal persons" in the Godhead evolved ... and
was instituted officially by the "universal" (which means catholic)
church.
Jim: Why not say that Jesus is telling His disciples what to say
here, and that in Acts there is a description of what the disciples did?
Bobby (from previous email): 1) For the same reason I wouldn't say
Jesus was telling His disciples what to say in Matthew Chapter 6
concerning what we refer to as the Lord's prayer. If I were to hold
dogmatically that the words of the Lord's prayer are the words we are to
use when they pray, then that would be about erroneous as you saying
the words of Matthew 28:19 are the words one should use when they
baptize, and 2) For the reason that I submit to you that the Bible, as
well as recorded history, will support the fact that the "original" New
Testament Church invoked the name of Jesus in their baptismal services.
Now, having said that .... when a person is baptized in the name of
Jesus, they have been baptized in the name of the Father, AND of the
Son, AND of the Holy Spirit, because the name "JESUS" is precisely that.
Jim: And you would be wrong there, too! Clearly the Lord's Prayer
was meant to be used liturgically. And here again the Didache (chapter
7) demonstrates that that was the understanding of the early church.
That doesn't mean that we ought to only pray the Lord's Prayer when we
pray, but it is certainly permissible to do so! -- right?
Bobby: Jim, I copied and pasted my complete response above so the
records would show that I went on to state ... "If I were to hold
dogmatically that the words of the Lord's prayer are the words we are to
use when they pray, then that would be about erroneous as you saying
the words of Matthew 28:19 are the words one should use when they
baptize," Sure, it is alright to say the words (or pray the words) of
what is referred to as the Lord's prayer. That was not was I was
intending to say. All I was meaning to point out to you was that, just
as the words of what is referred to as the Lord's prayer is NOT a
formula to be held dogmatically for prayer ... but rather was a pattern
to go by ... likewise, the words of Jesus concerning baptism in Matthew
28:19 was NOT a formula to be held dogmatically for baptism, because had
it been, His footprint followers would have been found guilty of the
terrible transgression of disobedience. That's all I meant to say. By
the way, baptism in the name of Jesus was NOT a suggestion in the early
church .... it was actually a COMMANDMENT.
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The
formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or some
synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name…
The earliest form, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in
water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To
these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely
identified, (a) the tri[u]ne name (Justin)…"
Jim: The "Justin" referred to here is Justin Martyr -- and the
reference is to his "First Apology," that is, his first formal defense
of Christianity. This is around the middle of the second century (that
is, c. A.D. 150). Therein, Justin explains that new believers are
instructed to pray and fast and then they are taken to some place where
there is water, and "In the name of God, the Father and Lord of the
universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they
then receive the washing of the water." (I:61) Justin was aspiring to
present the customs and teachings of Christianity; don't you think he is
going to describe a typical baptism, lest others protest his
misrepresentation? And before you say that Justin Martyr was a false
teacher, let's remember that the man was killed by the Romans, and
denounced the Roman deities quite thoroughly.
Bobby: Jim, virutally all the ancient documents since the
"original" New Testament writers have either been greatly influenced or
actually controlled by the church of Rome. That is why I am so
particular about allowing the Bible to superceded all other "later"
writings. By the way, it is my position that the name "Jesus" IS also
the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and the Holy
Spirit ... whereas God, Father, Lord, Son and Holy Spirit are
descriptive titles of the ONE TRUE AND LIVING GOD.
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: "The evidence…
suggests that baptism in early Christianity was administered, not in the
threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of
the Lord Jesus.'"
Jim: The evidence also suggests that early Christianity was
exclusively Jewish, if one goes back early enough. But we have the
record of the apostolic embrace of Gentiles. Likewise we observe the
record -- if we take off the blinders of "Oneness" dogmatism, anyway --
of the apostolic approval of the liturgical use of "in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" as a baptismal formula.
God willing, I'll resume tomorrow. Yours in Christ, Jim
Bobby: Cornelius and his household were Gentiles, Jim. And in Acts
10:48 Peter COMMANDED them to be baptized in the name of the Lord
(KJV); Jesus Christ (RSV) & (NASB). They weren't baptized with the
words of Matthew 28:19 "... in the name of the Father, AND of the Son,
AND of the Holy Ghost," recited over them. I've done my best to provide
you with "verbatim" Scriptures for that which I embrace, and I take
part of your previous statement to imply that I have on blinders of
"Oneness" dogmatism. Well, Jim, it does appear to me that you have on
blinders of trinitarian dogmatism and indoctrination. Please keep in
mind, I used to be a trinitarian. I know what it is like to have more
questions than answers to your theology ... or having to listen to
someone go through some mundane and boring recitation, with all sorts of
great swelling words of men's wisdom, and slide ruler explanations that
are so complicated the person who is trying to explain doesn't even
understand it. Look, Peter and John were pillars in the "original" New
Testament Church, and the intellectuals of their day looked upon them as
being ignorant and unlearned. However, they had a boldness and a
confidence in their beliefs ..., having "been with Jesus" ... that their
gainsayers marvelled. I do NOT try to "impress" people, Jim. I try to
"inspire" them ... and challenge them to turn to the Word of God
without all the commentaries, self righteousness, and preconceived
ideas, just as I did some years back. I'll catch ya later! God bless!
- Bobby
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response # 6 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 4:40 PM
Subject: Response to Jim's email of 6-28 (1)
Jim: Greetings in Christ to Bobby Richardson, again ~ Picking up
from approximately where I left off yesterday -- again, new material is
in blue.
Bobby (from previous email): ... when a person is baptized in the
name of Jesus, they have been baptized in the name of the Father, AND of
the Son, AND of the Holy Spirit, because the name "JESUS" is precisely
that.
Jim: This sounds like "Oneness" teaching. Here, for the most part,
I'll try to focus just on the question of the legitimacy of the
baptismal formula, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit."
Bobby: Call it what you will, Jim. The "original" New Testament
leaders were "oneness" ... they certainly weren't trinitarians or any
other variation of pluralists or polytheists. The name "Jesus,"
according to Fosset’s Bible Encyclopedia means Jehovah-Salvation, or
Jehovah is become Saviour. And even from your theological point of
view, you admit the LORD (YHWH ... Jehovah) is GOD. And we know that
GOD manifested Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit (only you believe
they're three different people ("persons"). At any rate, YHWH was a
prelude to the the name "Jesus" that was the "revealed" name of God,
that was dispatched by an angel and delivered to Joseph and Mary to be
given to the Christ Child ... which was known as "GOD with us" ... or
"GOD manifested in the flesh." The hypocritical and self righteous
religious leaders and many of the intellectuals who heard Jesus speak,
no doubt, stumbled at His words ... AND accused Him of blasphemy for
making Himself GOD, etc. just like those of you today who refuse to
accept the Apostles' ONE GOD MONOTHEISTIC Doctrine, but, instead,
viciously contend with it and attack it. I guess, some things never
change, huh?
Jim: ... Colossians 3:17 does not mean that we ought to literally
precede every breath we take with a recitation of the phrase, "In Jesus'
name." It means that everything we do should be consistent with our
claim to belong to Jesus.
Bobby (from previous email): You take great liberty at explaining what God meant in Colossians 3:17, don't you?
Jim: Are you saying that my statement is incorrect? Should we
literally precede every breath we take with a recitation of the phrase,
"In Jesus' name?"
Bobby: What I took exception to was your handling of Colossians
3:17 by saying that it didn't mean we ought to literally precede every
breath we take with a recitation of the phrase, "In Jesus' name."
Baptism is a "deed," right? Now, that I think of it, baptism is a deed
coupled with "words." And Colossians very plainly states that "...
whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus,
..." And you acted as if this has absolutely no application when it
comes to baptism, and more or less tried to make a cute remark about it
... which I highly resent.
Bobby: I have given you "verbatim" examples where the name "Jesus" was actually invoked.
Jim: Actually you've given me translated passages of Greek texts
which recorded instances where the name "Iesous" was invoked. No one
every actually spoke to Christ in English or called Him "Jesus" during
His ministry, or used the English name "Jesus" in the book of Acts. If
one really wants to press the point about the precise use of the
Savior's actual name, what defense would you have against someone who
insisted that His actual name, rather than a translation -- which would
qualify as a "later development" -- must be used?
Bobby: Grasping for straws there aren't you, Jim? At least I
provided you some "verbatim" TRANSLATED PASSAGES that a person can
actually turn to and read in their own Bible where it says it just
exactly as I believe it ... which is more than you can do, Jim. You may
contend that Matthew 28:19 trumps Colossians 3:17; Acts 2:38; Acts 3:6;
Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 16:8; Acts 19:5; and Acts 19:13. I beg to
disagree with you, brother! The Bible does NOT contradict itself. GOD
is NOT the author of confusion. And the preponderance of Scriptural
evidence plainly shows you are paddling upstream.
Bobby (from previous email): Therefore, why shouldn't the name "Jesus" be invoked at a baptismal service also?
Jim: As it happens, I do invoke the name "Jesus" as part of the
baptismal formula, using phrases from both Acts 2:38 and Matthew 28:19.
And while there is no set form for doing so in the Churches of Christ, I
believe many of my brethren do likewise. But you are taking an
aggressive stance: you are not simply saying that it is right to invoke
the name of Jesus; you are saying that it is wrong to use the phrase
"in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" as a
baptismal formula, or even as part of a baptismal formula. That is an
unBiblical rule.
Bobby: Jim **IF** the name "JESUS" is NOT invoked in a baptismal
ceremony, but the words "... in the name of the Father, AND of the Son,
AND of the Holy Ghost (or Spirit)," are, then YES, I would say that the
baptismal ceremony was done WRONG! Now **IF** you must (for conscious
sake, loyalty to the doctrine of Rome, or whatever) include the titles
of Matthew 28:19 but you do also invoke the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins at baptism, then, I suppose, that would be another
matter. You just don't have any Biblical examples of where it was done
that way, that's all.
Bobby (from previous email): It was good enough for the "original"
New Testament Church leaders to invoke. What happened that changed
that?
Jim: Likewise "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit" was good enough for Matthew to record. And I believe
his intent for this phrase to be used liturgically is simply obvious
when one considers the text carefully. Somehow you seem to be able to
come to a different conclusion (by saying, it seems, that the Didache,
Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, etc., all must have invented this application
on their own, as they described the normal practices of the Christian
congregations).
Bobby: Jim, Matthew didn't record it like that on his own volition.
He was inpired to write what He wrote, just as the other writers of
the Scriptures were. Jesus often spoke in parables and uttered dark
sayings ... some understood perfectly and others stumbled at His words.
That's just a fact of life. As for as the Didache, or Justin Martyr,
Hippolytus or anyone else who came along after the Ascension and the
passing of the "original" New Testament leaders, I absolutely,
positively do NOT allow them to SUPERCEDE what is found in the
"verbatim" Word of God ... nor to trump the preponderance of Scripture
evidence that is found written "verbatim" in the Word of God on any
subject. You do what you want to about it. That's your business.
Bobby (from previous email): The only misunderstanding [of the
Great Commission] that has been perpetuated has been done at the hands
of those who followed after Matthew and the rest of the "original" New
Testament leaders. You do acknowledge, that Jesus often spoke in
parables in order for those who had "ears to hear" could hear ... and to
conceal His profound Truths from the rest, don't you? What makes you
think He didn't do the same thing by having Matthew 28:19 worded as it
is?
Jim: For starters, because Jesus did not give the Great Commission
to a multitude of disciples and non-disciples; He gave it to His
disciples. Also, I think you may be "squinting," so to speak, to see a
"profound truth," rather than an easily understood command, here --
especially since the "profound truth" nimbly circumvents the command!
Bobby: Well, Jim, don't you think His "foot print" followers
understood Him ... AND obeyed Him? I surely do. But don't you also
think He also knew all about the whore that was coming which was going
fight against His Truth and His disciples, and would rise to world
prominance, with vast riches, power and political influence ... which He
was going to later inspire John to write about in Revelation Chapter
17? Yes, He knew. And He knew there would be those who would mishandle
His Word and make merchandise out of people. But He also knew how to
protect His Truth and preserve His Word ... just like when He spoke in
parables. You may be correct, there might have been all true blue
believers there that day, but Jesus knew that the words He was speaking
was going to be read by others who would be both friend and foe. And I
say He did an outstanding job! Thank you, Jesus! By the way, ever how
many were there that day, only 120 of them left from there and were
found tarrying in prayer and supplication in the upper room.
Bobby (from previous email): ... Just because multitudes are doing something does NOT make it right.
Jim: Agreed. But just because multitudes are doing something, that
does not make it wrong, either. I have provided more-than-adequate
evidence that the usage of "in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit" was the ordinary baptismal formula in the A.D.
100's, and that no one in early Christendom seems to have objected to
it. The Didache, particularly, gives early testimony to such usage,
which, in turn, reflects an interpretation of Matthew 28:19 as
liturgically useful (not to mention the internal evidence from the
Gospel of Matthew itself). From whence did this consensus spring, if
not from the previous generation led by the apostles?
Bobby: Jim, I don't care what doctrine was going around in the A.D.
100's ... or who objected to it or accepted it. **IF** it ain't what
was preached, practiced and taught in the "original" New Testament
Church, it is accursed! It is just that plain and simple. I can tell
you where doctrines do NOT "spring" from when they do NOT harmomize with
the "verbatim" preponderance of Scripture evidence that was established
as the foundational ... or core ... doctrines of the Blood bought,
Spirit filled, Church of the Living God ... and found written in God's
Word. They do NOT come from God. We are warned about traditions and
the doctrines of men. If what a person believes does NOT line up with
the preponderance of Scriptural evidence, found written on the pages of
God's Word, they would be really wise to leave it alone ... in my
opinion. To take a few very carefully selected Scriptures which do NOT
harmonize with the preponderance of Scripture found evidence else where
in the Bible on the same subject and build a dogmatically held doctrine
... in my opinion ... is a formula for disaster.
Bobby (from previous email): Then why did reciting the words of
Matthew 28:19 in a baptismal ceremony not catch on until many years
later?
Jim: One might as well ask, "Why wasn't the first part of Matthew
28:19 -- "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations" -- obeyed until
several years after Pentecost?" Because what was expected of the church
in its infancy, and what was expected of the church in its maturity,
were two things. Not everything in the early church's infancy was
retained: for instance, Jewish exclusivity was abandoned. The
"communalism" of the Jerusalem church was not perpetuated.
When one considers the structure and theme of the Gospel of Matthew,
and other features of the Gospel of Matthew, it is clear (to me, at
least) that it was written for Christians, for a variety of purposes,
including a liturgical purpose -- and thus the inclusion of Matthew
28:19 is no surprise, and its acceptance as a baptismal formula is no
surprise. (I mean, can you really imagine people in the early church
reading the Great Commission -- "... Go ye therefore, and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Spirit" -- and concluding, "Wow, whatever we do, when we
baptize people we certainly must not baptize them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit!")
Bobby: So, if I understand you correctly, Jim, you would have to
read something in Scripture where it says NOT to recite the words of
Matthew 28:19 before you would accept the fact that "reciting" Matthew
28:19 does NOT fulfill Matthew 28:19. That is a very interesting
position you have taken, considering you obviously present yourself as a
minister. You know what? It sounds to me like you would have a real
delimma on your hands if someone approached you and said, "Jim, I was
baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, but I've read in the Bible where the "original" New Testament
Church leaders baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins.
Is it necessary to be baptized in the name of Jesus in order to fulfill
the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19 AND to be in compliance with that
which Peter "bound" on earth, having been given the the keys to the
kingdom by Jesus, Himself?" Jim, I used to be a trinitarian and I ain't
going back to clinging to the the doctrines and traditions of man or
the "later" writings to establish my my faith. You can hang it up,
brother. Just give me my old King James Version and leave me alone is
pretty much how I feel about things. Granted, I do some research and
study using Bible study tools, but it is out of necessity ... they
certainly don't supercede the Word of God as far as I'm concerned.
Bobby (from previous email): I say the "original" New Testament Church leaders had it right.
Jim: Me too; the original New Testament church leaders also had it
right when they recorded a baptismal formula given by Christ and
expected it to be taken seriously.
Bobby: Jim, there is only ONE proper formula for baptism. The
"original" New Testament Church leaders had it right, brother. Kick
against the pricks all you want. That's your right and privilege.
Bobby (from previous email): But you'll stand before God now
without an excuse if you continue to baptize "quoting" the words of
Matthew 28:19 instead of "invoking" the name of Jesus as specifically
shown in Scriptures ...
Jim: What makes you think there must be an either/or scenario here?
Is it really that hard to integrate both New Testament examples, and
say, "I now baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness
of sins -- in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit."
Bobby: Jim, this is getting really laborious. Look, the name
"Jesus" is essential. In your above example it would be the same as if
NO name was used unless faith is present when the name of Jesus is
invoked by someone who is authorized to invoke the name of Jesus. It's
really that simple. Here's what I mean by someone being authorized to
invoke the name of Jesus ...
Mark Chapter 16
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing,
it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working
with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
And here's what I mean by faith being present when in the name of Jesus is invoked ....
Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I
have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and
walk.
Acts 3:16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man
strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given
him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.
**IF** you are inserting the name of Jesus here just to be attempt
to be "technically" correct, but insist on invoking the titles of
Matthew too, that is a pretty good indication that your understanding of
the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine is EXTREMELY limited ...
and that you probably do NOT understand who Jesus "really" is. All of
which could make baptism for the remission of sins as ineffective as the
following example where the name of Jesus was invoked by those who
apparently were doing what they had seen done by true "believers" ...
but were NOT true believers themselves ... and were doing things "their"
way ... which did not work at all, even though they invoked the name of
Jesus ....
Acts Chapter 19
13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to
call over them which had evil spirits the name of the LORD Jesus,
saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.
14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.
15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and
overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that
house naked and wounded.
When a woman marries a man, they (or at least they used to) take
upon them the name of their husband during the ceremony. It is my
position that the place a Christian literally takes upon them the name
of Jesus is in the baptismal ceremony when they are buried in that
watery grave in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins (which
they have previously repented of, I might add).
Jim: As for being without excuse, I don't anticipate needing one!
If anyone is going to need an excuse, it's the "Oneness" preachers who
intentionally resist the obvious fact that Matthew 28:19 was given with
liturgical application in mind, and who divided the Assemblies of God
without just cause, and who promote modalism.
Bobby: Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these
least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least
in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the
same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Jim, it is my
position that those who preached and taught others that baptism in the "
... name of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Ghost," is the
correct formula are going to be in heap big trouble because according
to Paul that which is not what they preached, practiced and taught is
accursed. Furthermore, it ain't the denomination that is going to get a
person's feet off the ground ... or call them out of a grave ... when
that long awaited trumpet sounds. So, get off your denominational horse
with me, o.k.? I'm just interested in talking Bible with you. I
realize you obviously have a bias towards those you call "Oneness" or a
bur under your saddle about something, but that's between you and God. I
don't care to hear about it. Let's just talk Bible, now, o.k.? That's
all that's gonna matter in the end anyway is what we have done in the
flesh as judged out of the Bible.
Bobby (from previous email): ... and to continue embracing the
"plurality" of "persons" doctrine which evolved from Rome centuries
AFTER Christ ... and teach others to do so as well.
Jim: I believe that the ultimate nature of the Godhead is a mystery
of the faith. I believe that the Bible presents the Father and the Son
and the Holy Spirit as three eternal Persons, not as "modes" or "roles"
of God. Each Person is worthy of our worship. And I don't base this
belief on any decree of Roman Catholicism, but on the statements in the
Word of God.
Bobby: You can believe that the Bible presents the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit as thee eternal Persons until the cows come
home, Jim. You just don't have any SPECIFIC Bible authority where can
be found written "verbatim" in the Word of God which presents it like
you believe it, that's all. I don't know why you get so worked up about
the descriptive term of "modes" or "roles" they are just as Biblical as
your pet term "persons," when it comes to describing God or the
Godhead, Jim ... and are much more logical (and it looks like you would
like that).
Bobby (from previous email): **IF** baptism in the name of Jesus
Christ ... actually invoking the name "Jesus" was NOT what was meant in
Matthew 28:19, then I feel Matthew would have been duty bound to
withstand Peter to his face just as Paul once did.
Jim: Eh? Surely in the Temple, there were Gentiles, just a short
distance away in the Court of the Gentiles. Matthew 28:19 clearly
states that the disciples were to "teach all nations." Yet Matthew does
not confront Peter for preaching only to the Jews, does he? No --
because, as I mentioned previously, the definitive practice of the
church was still unfolding.
Bobby: Jim, the definitive practive of the Church was just starting
... but it's doctrine on the plan of Salvation ... the baptismal
formula specifically ... was not something that just sort of "evolved"
later on down the road. No, brother, Peter, speaking under the
anointing of the Holy Spirit, had it right there that day. You just
don't want to accept that. And that's your right and privilege.
Bobby (from previous email): As far as your reference to the egg
goes, I am assuming you are alluding to the yolk being Jesus because you
obviously think Jesus was "in" the Godhead.
Jim: Yes, and this is an analogy, not (as you seem to imply) a theological model to be pressed in every aspect.
Bobby: Touchy, huh? I was just making an observation. By the way,
I use analogies which I try to remember to say up front that they are
not perfect. As far as your analogy above ... and asserting that the
yolk is Jesus ... that does not harmonize with Colossians 2:8-9 because
the "fulness of the Godhead was IN Jesus" This would mean, according to
your theology, that Jesus would have to be the shell because the
fullness of it all is IN Him. And as I see it, that is a serious flaw
in that particular analogy.
Bobby (from previous email): Jim, Peter was speaking under the influence and the direction of the Holy Spirit ...
Jim: And, Matthew was writing under the influence and direction of
the Holy Spirit -- with a discernable agenda to make his work
liturgically useful.
Bobby: And God is NOT the author of confusion ... and the Word of
God does NOT contradict itself ... and Peter had been given the keys to
the Kingdom by Jesus, Himself, and told that whatsoever he bound on
earth would be bound in Heaven ... Sooooo, Matthew was recording Jesus
telling His Disciples what they were to DO ... and Peter was the first
one to DO it.
Bobby (from previous email): In the next verse (38) we read how the
Holy Spirit inspired Peter ... God is NOT the author of confusion and I
don't believe the Bible is full of contradictions.
Jim: Nor do I, but I do believe the Bible is full of texts which
should be harmonized, as opposed to the practice of simply clinging to
Text A while ignoring Text B.
Bobby: Neither do I believe in clinging to Text A while ignoring
Text B. However, **IF** the interpretation given to Text B does NOT
harmonize with the PREPONDERANCE of Scriptural evidence on the same
subject matter and Text A does, then I'm going with Text A.
Bobby (from previous email): Now, other than Matthew 28:19 ...
where Jesus issued the Great Commission ... where's your scriptures
where the words "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" were ever invoked for any
reason?
Jim: Something pretty similar occurs in Second Corinthians 13:14,
indicative of the early liturgical usage of the phrase: "The grace of
the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the
Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen."
Bobby: Paul made several interesting greetings and salutations in
his epistles, didn't he? But we do know that he "re-baptized" the
disciples of John the Baptist in Acts Chapter 19 in the name of Jesus,
don't we? By the way, since you bring this subject up ... about Paul's
phrases ... I would like to mention the latter portion of the verse
we've haggled over: Colossians 3:17 "And whatsoever ye do in word or
deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the
Father by him." Now, **IF** I interpreted the Scriptures using logic, I
would probably conclude that God and the Father are two separate people
too, I suppose. However, we KNOW God IS the Father. Some people just
use the little word "and" to separate when it is convenient and to join
together at other times when it is not.
Bobby (from previous email): ... the doctrine of the trinity, which
is an "implied" doctrine that came along centuries AFTER the Ascension
and the passing of the "original" New Testament leaders.
Jim: Re-stating your position is no substitute for a good defense.
Bobby: Well, Jim, no one in the Bible EVER, EVER, EVER expressed a
belief in ONE GOD in a "plurality" of "three eternal pesons." No one in
the Bible EVER, EVER, EVER referred to God or the Godhead as "persons."
No one in the Bible EVER, EVER, EVER baptized anyone or was baptized
with these words recited at the baptismal ceremony, "... in the name of
the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Ghost." That's my position,
and you'll probably hear it many more times. By the way, I am NOT on
defense. You are. Your theology is the one ... between the two of us
... which can't be found written "verbatim" upon the pages of God's Word
the way you present it. Therefore, you have to be on defense. When I
am on defense is when a person is attacking the Apostles' One God
Monotheistic Doctrine as found plainly set forth upon the pages of God's
Word. Then, I am set for the defense of the gospel. You just haven't
reached the attack mode yet ... and I hope you don't because I don't
look for those kinds of scraps and I certainly don't enjoy those kinds
of scraps, but I don't walk away from them either. I do know how to
"earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the
saints." And like I've stated, I am "set for the defence of the
gospel." But as far as being on defense at this point, I do NOT feel
that way at all.
Bobby: Then why didn't any of the "original" New Testament Church
leaders do it that way, Jim? [that is, why didn't they use the threefold
formula?]
Jim: Matthew 28:19 implies/demonstrates that they did.
Bobby: Implies??? maybe ... Demonstrates??? ... definitely NOT!
Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48 and 19:5 Demonstrates the correct formula for
baptism in order to fulfill the NAME (singular) requirement of Matthew
28:19.
Bobby (from previous email): Why was it influenced and/or instituted by Rome ... instead of Jerusalem?
Jim: This question is flawed -- the use of the phrase "in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" was not
instituted by Roman Catholicism in the A.D. 300's. I think I have
provided so much empirical evidence against that claim that it may be
fairly considered pre-refuted.
Bobby: I was NOT saying Rome influenced and/or instituted the
PHRASE of Matthew 28:19. Personally, I do NOT have a problem with
Matthew 28:19 ... I know what the name is that is alluded to there.
What I am referring to is the Rome's influence and the institution of
the trinitarian "interpretation and application" of the phrase of
Matthew 28:19.
Jim: Jesus tells us to invoke it [the phrase, "in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"] in Matthew 28:19.
Bobby (from previous email): Or so you say, Jim. However, the "original" New Testament leaders obviously felt otherwise.
Jim: This is not at all obvious!
Bobby: Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48 and 19:5 look extremely obvious to me
that the "original" New Testament leaders did not share your theology
concerning Matthew 28:19, Jim.
Jim: I would say it's obvious that Luke did not want to bog down
his accounts by including details that his readers would naturally
assume.
Bobby: Jim, Luke did NOT write Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48 and 19:5 of
his own volition. He was writing under the anointing of the Holy
Spirit. It is amazing how you will make a point to mention that Matthew
wrote Matthew 28:19 under the anointing of the Holy Spirit ... which I
believe he certainly was ... obviously because of the way you like to
interpret and apply Matthew 28:19, but then you turned right around and
talked about poor ole brother Luke as if he was writing this stuff on
his own ... and was trying to get into his mind or something. WHEW!
You can build your house upon assumptions, theories, points of
conjecture, very carefully Scriptures given implied meanings, etc. I'm
building mine on Rock of the "verbatim" Word.
Jim: When, for example, Ananias "went his way" in Acts 9, Luke does
not mention that Ananias was wearing clothes. Why not? Because his
readers would naturally assume that Ananias was wearing clothes, of
course. Another example: people are expected to confess Christ as
their Lord and Savior prior to baptism. (I assume that you, too, expect
this of people before you baptize them; if not, correct my
misimpression.) Yet in Acts 2:38-41, there is no mention of individuals
confessing Christ. Nor in Acts 8:12, and some other passages. In Acts
16:14, Lydia is baptized, with no mention of confession before baptism
and with no mention of any baptismal formula of any kind. Should we
therefore assume that there was none? Or should we conclude that Luke
omitted superfluous details? The omission of superfluous details which
would naturally be assumed by Luke's original readers does not add up to
a statement that those details did not exist.
Bobby: Whether Ananias was wearing clothes or not won't amount to a
hill of beans when it comes to the plan of Salvation. The formula of
baptism is quite another matter. By the way, I am not a preacher or
evangelist ... just a lowly lay man who does a little teaching (and
debating). Also, here's Luke's account of the Great Commission ....
Luke Chapter 24
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry
ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
From the above Scriptures it is plain to see that "repentance" is
just as important as "remission of sins" (baptism). Therefore, like the
ole boy, who we know must have had his clothes on, we know the
"original" New Testament leaders preached "repentance" in conjunction
with baptism. By the way, the "confession" part of repentance isn't
done before anyone else but Christ, our high priest. However, I should
point out that Simon the sorcerer tried to fake it, and got baptized in
Acts 8, but it caught up with him later.
Bobby (from previous email): The way you interpret Matthew 28:19
and that part of the Didache (written ever how many years later by
whomever) which instructs baptism to be done by reciting the words of
Matthew 28:10 DOES DISAGREE with how the "original" New Testament
leaders baptized converts to Christianity. It's just that plain and
simple, Jim.
Jim: Again you are just re-stating your position.
Bobby: Well, Jim, what part of my position is in error? It's the Truth ... and **IF** the Truth disturbs you ... IT OUGHT TO.
Bobby (from previous email) .. We know her[e]sies and false
doctrines were already at work even in the early Church period of time.
Jim: Granted, but to maintain your position, you practically have
to say that instant John died, the church fell into apostasy as if a
trap door had suddenly opened! The approval of the use in baptism of
the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit" is approved by prominent people in the church writing against
false teachers, it is presented as normal, its normalcy is never
questioned, and it is not confined to any particular geographical area.
Bobby: Huh???? What on earth are you talking about, Jim? I don't
believe the morning after the passing of John the Beloved that
everything just went haywire, anymore than the Church of Christ
ministers I have debated in the past believe miracles ceased at that
precise moment in time. The introduction of the man made doctrine,
known world wide as the trinity, evolved over a period of many, many
years. Rome just refined it, defined it, and made it official. And
millions of people worldwide have accepted it without question.
Bobby (from previous email): Jim, it is Scripturally and
historically a proven fact that the "original" New Testament Church
baptized their converts to Christianity "in the name of Jesus" ... NOT
"in the name of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Spirit."
Jim: Likewise it is Scripturally and historically a proven fact
that the "original" New Testament church baptized only Jews, and
generally had no private property, if one arbitrarily considers only one
day in the life of the early church rather than the entire picture to
which the New Testament bears witness.
Bobby: Well, I guess you ripped Acts Chapter 10 right out of your
Bible, then, because Cornelius and his household were GENTILES ... NOT
Jews ..., and Peter COMMANDED them to be baptized in the name of the
Lord (KJV); Jesus Christ (RSV) & (NASB). Come on, man, get with the
program. I hope you don't shoot from the hip like that when you
minister from the pulpit. Don't just throw out stuff like that, some
Biblically illiterate person might believe it.
Bobby (from previous email): **IF** you are going to employ that
formula just because you interpret Matthew 28:19 to mean you should
quote the words of Matthew 28:19 in the face of an overwhelming
preponderance of Scriptural evidence to the contrary ...
Jim: Eh? I haven't seen any Scriptural evidence that one should
not baptize people "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit." At best, the Scriptures in Acts about baptizing in
the name of Jesus are complementary to this, not contrary.
Bobby: Jesus was explicit about a NAME (singular) ... ONE NAME ...
and that one name, according to Jesus, Himself, is the name of the
Father ... AND ... of the Son ... AND ... of the Holy Ghost. Jim, that
name is "JESUS." I know how much you hate that, but I've got to say it.
Bobby (from previous email) ... Has it ever occured to you that just
maybe the reason there is no "objection to" that formula in the
Scriptures was because it was universally know, practiced and taught in
the "original New Testament" Church that the correct formula for baptism
is "in the name of Jesus?"
Jim: You are basically saying that from the early A.D. 40's (your
date for the issuance of the Gospel of Matthew) to the next century, no
one reading the Great Commission would think that they were supposed to
baptize people using the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit" liturgically. Considering the liturgically
useful nature of the Gospel of Matthew -- i.e., it was written with
liturgical usefulness in mind -- I simply find that claim implausible.
Bobby: You know, Jim, if I had a lot of education, I would really
mix it up with you with those hundred dollar, four cylinder words you
throw around (ha). No, seriously, what you need to stop and consider is
that the written Word wasn't nearly as readily available back then as
it is today. However, those who did have access to it most definitely
preached, practiced and taught that baptism of converts to Christianity
is to be in the name of Jesus ... NOT in the titles of Father, Son and
Holy Ghost.
Bobby (from previous email) ... And that the trinitarian formula was a much later development?
Jim: If by "trinitarian formula" you mean the phrase itself, well,
as part of the Gospel of Matthew it "developed" in the A.D. 40's (your
date), and prior to that, from the lips of Christ Himself!
Bobby: The INTERPRETATION of Matthew 28:19 AND the APPLICATION for
the trinitarian formula of water baptism was a much later development,
Jim.
Bobby (from previous email): Try as you may, you'll never get back
far enough to put the "plurality" of "persons" doctrine of Rome in the
"original" New Testament's practices or teaching. It just ain't there.
Therefore, you must resort to the "later" writings in order to defend
it.
Jim: You're overlapping topics here. I was appealing to the
second-century writings to provide empirical evidence that the
liturgical formula and its application to baptisms was not the invention
of Roman Catholicism and pre-dated the Council of Nicea by over 100
years. I was not using them as the foundation for any point about the
Godhead.
Bobby: Jim, the doctrine of the trinity is the belief in a
"plurality" of "three eternal persons" of God (which you refer to as
"THEY") who share a union and function together as ONE unit or team.
All I was saying is that this concept has absolutely no SPECIFIC
evidence in the written word of God as being any part of the teaching,
practices or beliefs of any of the "original" New Testament Church
leaders, that's all.
Bobby (from previous email): Jim, the Holy Bible tells us
everything we need to know about God and the plan of Salvation. Sure I
use Bible study tools too. But when it comes to "sound" doctrine, I
park those things on the side of the road, and stay strictly with the
"verbatim" Word of God. I would suggest you do the same.
Jim: Coming from someone who, in the course of a doctrinal
discussion, has just appealed to the Encyclopedia of Religion and
Ethics, the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, "A History of
Christian Thought," Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, Williston Walker,
"The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge," Canney's
Encyclopedia of Religions, the Encyclopedia Biblica, and Encyclopedia
Britannica ... well, that speaks for itself. Communication is a two-way
street: the Word is clear, but our hearts and minds are not always
clear and it's in that quest for clarity of reception that the
study-tools come in handy.
Bobby: Thus far, you have NOT believe the vast preponderance of
"verbatim" Scriptures I have given you on the subject. I was just
merely showing you that not only does the Bible back me up, so does
"later writings." Now, I realize you probably think your "later
writings" are better or more accurate than my "later writings" so that
is why I think it is wise to stay with the Word. But, again, with you,
the Word doesn't seem to have nearly as much of an impact as "later
writings."
Bobby (from previous email): Jim, you are NOT referring to the
"original" early church ... the one Jesus established ... because they
didn't use the baptismal formula "in the name of the Father, AND of the
Son, AND of the Holy Spirit."
Jim: Circular reasoning!
Bobby: I see that we are reaching the stage to where I am going to
have to put everything into one file so I can search for things to see
how something was previously said. Your "circular reasoning" answer
convinced me that maybe I also need to go back and see if you are
answering me point-by-point as I am doing with you. Anyway, here's what
prompted your "Circular reasoning," quip.
* ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jim: Right, because to the early church, when a person was baptized
by someone using the formula, "in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit," he was regarded as baptized in the name of
the Lord.
Bobby: Jim, you are NOT referring to the "original" early church
... the one Jesus established ... because they didn't use the baptismal
formula "in the name of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy
Spirit." They used the name "Jesus." Now, granted, you may be talking
about the "universal" early church which evolved out of Rome. That
being the case, I might have to agree with your assertion.
* ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby: Jim I just don't see what you meant by your "circular
reasoning" quip at all. What you stated is inaccurate, and I merely
corrected the record to reflect that no one in the "original" New
Testament Church was ever baptized in the baptismal formula "in the name
of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Spirit," as you were
asserting.
Bobby (from previous email): The KJV was not just thrown together.
Nor was it haphazardly translated ... and I think you probably know
that.
Jim: Of course. But you sure seemed to be claiming a bit more than that previously. ...
Bobby: No, Jim, ...
Jim: Eh? For now, mainly for the sake of staying focused, I will
not pursue this, but I recall something about the KJV translation being
called inerrant, or words to that effect. Am I remembering some other
website? Yours in Christ, Jim
Bobby: Jim, I have some exceptional material supporting the KJV,
but that is NOT what is at issue here. Maybe, we will debate that later
on. If you don't like the KJV, so be it. Give me book, chapter and
verse from whatever version you're using **IF** you can provide me with
Scriptural evidence where anything I have said is inaccurate OR where it
states it just like you believe it ... then we'll debate Bible
versions, o.k.? God bless! - Bobby
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response # 7 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 4:21 PM
Subject: Response Part 1 of 4 to Jim's email of 06-29
Jim: Greetings in Christ to Bobby Richardson. I understand your
time constraints -- so in this response I will try to be brief, and if I
think I have already answered a particular question, I will basically
say, "Already answered." And if I think a tangent arises, I will say,
"This is off-topic," and give it relatively little attention. If you
want to return to any point that I skip, feel free to do so in your next
response.
Bobby (from previous email): Also, I really do not wi[s]h to just
wrangle with you. I am set for the defense of the gospel. And this is
not my first debate by a long shot ... I don't back down in a debate.
Jim: That's not a bad thing, in and of itself, but don't you think
that going into a debate with that mindset might make you somewhat
unteachable?
Bobby: Jim, I know you don't me ... and I don't know you. But
there is one thing that I will tell you about this ole boy here. For
many years now, my approach to independent Bible study has been such
that if or when I discover my understanding about any particular subject
does not agree with the preponderance of Scriptural evidence found in
the "verbatim" written Word of God about that subject, I have ALWAYS
made the necessary adjustments to bring my theology into harmony with
the preponderance of that evidence found in the "verbatim" written Word
of God. I can only hope you feel the same way. Now, having said that,
I have studied the Bible enough to know ...
1) That baptism in the name of Jesus is the way the "original" Church baptized.
2) No baptisms in the Bible were in the TITLES of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost."
3) The "original" New Testament Church leaders were NOT trinitarians.
4) God never inspired anyone to write OR speak of Him as
"persons"... and He never identified Himself as such (that's just
another man-made "add on" on the Word).
Therefore, you can just forget about me being willing to accept any
of these ... regardless of how much may call yourself trying to "teach"
me something that absolutely, positively is NOT in the Bible. Now, up
until the time God revealed the Apostles' One God Monotheistic doctrine,
and I departed from trinitarianism, repented of my sins, got
re-baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, experienced
the infilling of the Holy Ghost (the Bible way), and very diligently
searched all this stuff out for myself, I could not have said what all I
just said. Sooooo, if you think I am "unteachable," you are wrong! I
just won't consider embracing a doctrine that God has already shown me
through the preponderance of Scriptural evidence from the "verbatim"
written Word of God CONCLUSIVELY, that is it an "implied" doctrine
formulated by man ... a "later" development ... an "addition" to the
Word of God (something which we are strictly forbidden to do, according
to Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18). And I make no excuses or
apologies about my position concerning this.
Jim: ... But we do have the Spirit being called "eternal" in
Hebrews 9:14. I think we all agree, based on Deut. 33:27, and other
verses, that the Father is eternal. And of course Jesus, who gives
eternal life (John 10:28), is Himself eternal. Thus neither the Father,
Son, or Spirit is a form or manifestation which sprang into being as
needed. They are eternal.
Bobby (from previous email): "THEY" are eternal???? WHEW! You are beginning to show signs of polytheism now, brother.
Jim: It is the Word of God, not I, that describes the Father as
eternal, the Son as eternal, and the Holy Spirit as eternal. When you
say that this sounds like "polytheism," are you implying that the Father
or the Son or the Holy Spirit was not eternally existent?
Bobby: Jim, Jim, Jim, I was referring to YOU referring to GOD ...
calling the Father, Son and Holy Ghost "THEM" ... as if you were
referring to three people ... "persons" ... Deities --- POLYTHEISM.
**IF** there are three "eternal persons" (like you and are are
"persons") as you insist, then you are portraying the Godhead as having
three members ... "persons" ... THREE GODS (Polytheism) ... OR either
One God with three heads ... BOTH of which is abominable. If you insist
on this "three eternal persons" view of God and reject the idea that
you are Polytheistic then your position portrays God as having three
heads ... because among three "eternal persons" there could not possibly
ONE head ... or one superior to the other two ... or one who created
the other two, or one who tells the other two what to do, etc. You see
what I'm talking about? Here's a random sampling of some
"preponderance" of Scriptural evidence which nukes "pluralism," that you
really ought to start considering instead of taking a handful of very
carefully Scriptures, giving them an "implied" meaning which contradicts
the vast perponderance of Scriptural evidence on the same subject,
found elsewhere in the Bible on the same subject. Well, I am not
actually accusing you of doing so because you obviously have been
indoctrinated over a long period of time to believe this man made
doctrine that has been very well developed, defined and established by
Rome. Jim, the three eternal "persons" of God doctrine is something
that has been "added" to the Word because it is not found explicitly
expressed in the Bible the way it is indoctrinated .... making it
impossible for a person who independently studies ... and rightly
divides the Word ... to come to the same conclusions. Again, this is
just a random "sampling" (there's tons more that I will be happy to
share with you) of references God and the Godhead which have no wiggle
room for "implying" a "plurality" of "three eternal persons" ...
Isaiah 44:24 ... YHWH, thy "redeemer," created ALONE and "by MYSELF." - YHWH
Deuteronomy 4:35 ... YHWH "HE" is GOD; there is none else beside "HIM." - Moses
Titus 3:4 ... GOD our Saviour. - Paul
Isaiah 43:11 ... Beside ME there is no Saviour. - YHWH
Micah 1:2-3 ... YHWH to come down from His Temple to earth. - Micah
Isaiah 9:6 ... (Jesus) ... the mighty GOD ... the Everlasting Father. - Isaiah
St. John 4:24 ... GOD is a Spirit. -Jesus
Luke 24:39 ... Spirits do NOT have flesh and bones. - Jesus
Colossians 1:15 ... GOD is invisible. -Paul
St. John 1:18 ... No man has ever seen God. -Jesus
1 Timothy 3:16 ... (Jesus) GOD manifested in the flesh. - Paul
St. John 1:1 ... The "Word" was GOD in the Beginning. - John
St. John 1:14 ... And the "Word" became flesh. - John
Revelation 19:13 (Jesus) the "Word." - John
St. John 1:10-11 ... The Creator was in the world and His own didn't receive Him. - John
2 Corinthians 2:19 ... GOD was "IN" Christ. -Paul
St. John 14:10 ... The Father the dwelleth "IN" Me, "HE" doeth the works. - Jesus
Hebrews 1:3 ... Jesus ... the express image of GOD's "person" (singular) - Paul
Philippians 2:6 ... Jesus ... in the "form" of GOD. - Paul
St. John 14:6 ... "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." - Jesus
St. John 10:7 & 9 ... I am "the Door." - Jesus
Hebrews 10:20 ... Jesus consecrated us through the "veil" ... HIS FLESH - Paul
Titus 2:13 ... Great GOD and our Saviour Jesus Christ. - Paul
St. John 10:33 ... The Jews tried to stone Jesus for making Himself God. - John
Ephesians 2:19 ... We have access by ONE Spirit to the Father. - Paul
1 Corinthians 12:13 ... by ONE Spirit we're all baptized into ONE body. - Paul
Ephesians Chapter 4 (- Paul)
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
2 Corinthians Chapter 4
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which
believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is
the image of God, should shine unto them.
Let me conclude this by saying, God "IS" eternal. And God "IS" all
three ... Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but try as you may, you won't find
any Scriptural evidence of a "plurality" of "three eternal persons" in
the Bible. It is as simple as that. That is an "add on."
Bobby (from previous email): Umm, by the way, you did NOT answer
the question ... Where was the Godhead ("the very essence or complete
nature and attributes" of God) ever referred to in the Bible as "three
persons" ... OR two "persons" for that matter?
Jim: I did answer the question.
Bobby: Jim, I went back and found where I asked you the following
question, but I can NOT find where you answered it with book, chapter
and verse ... where the Godhead ("the very essence or complete nature
and attributes" of God) ever referred to in the Bible as "three persons"
... OR two "persons" for that matter. **IF** you will copy and paste
your answer OR just re-write it, I would appreciate it. Now, here's how
the question was posed: Bobby: "THEY" are eternal???? WHEW! You are
beginning to show signs of polytheism now, brother. Umm, by the way,
you did NOT answer the question ... Where was the Godhead ("the very
essence or complete nature and attributes" of God) ever referred to in
the Bible as "three persons" ... OR two "persons" for that matter?
Book, chapter and verse, please ... NOT as essay.
Bobby (from previous email): "LORD" (all caps) is YHWH ... How "LORDS" do you say are in the Godhead?
Jim: One. I see the name "YHWH" as expressive of the very
substance of God, which is shared in union by Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit.
Bobby: So you believe there is only ONE LORD in the Godhead ...
which I am assuming is the trinitarians' God the Father who "shares His
substance ... glory ... in a union with two other eternal persons"
making a "plurality" of eternal "persons" in the Godhead ...right?
Jim: Wrong. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one YHWH, the LORD.
Bobby: Here's some of my questions to you, and your answers ...
1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead? Three.
2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead? One.
3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead? Three.
4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place? three.
5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead? three.
Now, here's a couple of things you've said, thus far ... "I see the
name "YHWH" as expressive of the very substance of God, which is shared
in union by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." "At the same time, I do
believe that God has revealed Himself as three Eternal Persons." Now,
Jim, according to your beliefs YHWH is NOT a "person" because YHWH
(according to you) is a "substance" which is shared in "union" by three
"persons" ... three "Spirits" ... three "Saviours" ... the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit. "Union" is NOT a Biblical term. Therefore, I
looked it up in the dictionary. It is defined as 1. as a uniting or
being united; combination; junction; specifically, a) a grouping
together of nations, politcal groups, etc. for some specific purpose b)
marriage. Neither this definition, nor any of the rest, would support a
belief that a "union" could "be" ONE PERSON ... OR be "shared" by ONE
PERSON. Therefore, YHWH (not being a PERSON) ... according to your
theology ... should have been referred to in the Bible as "IT" ... NOT
HE, HIM, HIS, etc. Futhermore, there couldn't possibly be a #1 among a
"union" of "three eternal persons," since they are ALL THREE "ETERNAL."
Look, Jim, the Bible is very clear about YHWH being ONE LORD, ONE GOD,
ONE CREATOR, ONE SPIRIT and ONE FATHER, but nowhere do you in the
Scriptures where anyone ever expressed your beliefs ... referring to God
as "PERSONS." However, the Bible is really quite clear that YHWH
manifested Himself to mankind as the FATHER in creation, as the SON in
redemption and as the HOLY SPIRIT baptizing ... and living in the heart
of ... "true" born again believers commencing on the Day of Pentecost in
Acts Chapter 2 and continuing throughout the New Testament Church Age.
However, many years AFTER the Ascension and passing of the "original"
New Testament leaders, the man made doctrine of a "plurality" of three
eternal "persons" evolved, for which there is NOT a shred of Scriptural
evidence or SPECIFIC Bible authority ... revealing that it is NOT
"sound" doctrine, but at best an vague and "implied" doctrine based on
the theories of those who came "later."
Jim: You presented some Scriptures, including Deuteronomy 4:35,
noting, "There in no plurality in this scripture" in Deut. 4:35. Yet
right there, in the very phrases you quoted, the Hebrew word for "God"
is "Elohim," which is plural.
Bobby: I also gave you Scriptural examples PROVING CONCLUSIVELY
where the word "Elohim" was used to identify ONE (NUMERICALLY). I
believe you trinitarians are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel
here. Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he
is God; there is none else beside him. - Deuteronomy 4:35 Now, Jim,
aside from some very effective indoctrination, there is no way on God's
green earth that anyone in their right mind would read that passage and
come away with a pluralistic view of God. And there is certainly not
any "defining" (support) Scriptures which refer to God as "persons."
This is just a fact you're gonna have to live with **IF** you are
determined to continue on the path of staying loyal to your
indoctrination.
Deut. 4:39 ~ ... consider it in thine heart, that the LORD (YHWH
<Jehovah> - Strong's # 3068) He is God (Elohim <God> -
Strong's 430).
Bobby: Yes, Jim, notice it says that the LORD (YHWH) ... HE is God. Since when is a "substance" referred to as "HE?"
Deut. 7:9 ~ Know therefore that the LORD (YHWH <Jehovah> - Strong's # 3068) thy God (Elohim <God> - Strong's 430) .
Bobby: Yes, Jim, look at Deuteronomy 7:9 ... it says that the LORD
(YHWH) THY GOD ... HE is God. Since when is a "substance" referred to
as "HE?"
Joshua 2:11 ~ ... for the LORD (YHWH <Jehovah> - Strong's #
3068) your God (Elohim), He is God (Elohim) in heaven above, and in
earth beneath.
Bobby: Yes, Jim, notice it says that the LORD (YHWH) YOUR GOD ... HE is God. Since when is a "substance" referred to as "HE?"
Jim: And you keep insisting, "No plurality!" for those verses, and
for Psalm 100:3, (where "God" = Elohim), Second Samuel 22:32, and so on
-- and in case after case, most definitely YHWH is singular, and just as
definitely, Elohim is plural. I would rather posit a mystery
regarding this than hammer out a solution which ignores or belittles
some of the text. It appears that not only are you clinging to Text A
and ignoring Text B; you are picking and choosing individual words
within a text to pay attention to -- which is simply not a very good
interpretive method.
Bobby: No, Jim, trinitarians just look for the slightest
opportunity to support their "indoctrinated" "pluralistic" view of God
by taking verses with SINGULAR personal pronouns describing God and
ignoring them in an effort bolster a man made theory which is SERIOUSLY
flawed ... and SCRIPTURALLY VOID. That "pluralistic" position of three
people ("persons") is so close to polytheism ... if not polytheism at
its core ... that I came out of it as soon as I discovered what was
going on. And I've been embracing the Apostles' One God Monotheistic
Doctrine found written "verbatim" on the pages of God's Holy Word ever
since ... and you should do the same.
Jim: [Let's look at Scriptural evidence for three spirits:] John
4:24 ~ Jesus -- standing on earth, in flesh and blood, stated, "God is a
Spirit." This seems to be a reference to the Father. ...
Bobby: O.K. Jim, was Jesus God? Was He man? Or was He BOTH God
and man? I say He was BOTH God and man. Paul describes Jesus as being
God manifested in the flesh, in 1 Timothy 3:16. At any rate, Jesus had a
body and spirit just like every other man who has ever lived. However,
in addition to being just like every other man who has ever lived,
Jesus also was God manifested in the Flesh. GOD WAS "IN" HIM. Since
God is a Spirit, then it would be accurate to say the "SPIRIT" of God
was "IN" Him. By the way Jim, Jesus did say "the Father dwelleth "IN"
me" in St. John 14:10. According to your theology Jim, an "eternal
person" can die. Jim, Jesus really did die on the cross and remained
dead for 3 days before He rose from the dead.
Jim: Luke 23:46 ~ Jesus said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit."
Bobby: God "IS" a Spirit. Surely you do not deny that God was "IN"
Christ. However, Jesus was BOTH God and man. As man, His human spirit
returned to God who gave it, as per Ecclesiastes 12:7. Jim, Jesus
didn't come down here and say, "Look, everybody, I'm God manifested in
the flesh, and I'll prove it to y'all by healing the sick, raising the
dead, cleansing the lepers, opening blind eyes, unstopping deaf ears,
walking on the water, and feeding multitudes. Jim, God (Spririt) robed
Himself in a body (flesh) ... SO TO SPEAK ... in order to redeem man
back to Himself. HE IS OUR ONLY SAVIOUR. There are NOT three Saviours
as you insist. You know good and well your indoctrinated man made
theology does NOT refer to the Holy Spirit as "Saviour." Jim, God
became a supernaturally conceived, supernatural man in order to pay our
sin debt and "buy us back."
Hebrews Chapter 2
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his
brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things
pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Phillipians Chapter 2
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Jim: Since Jesus is, as Hebrews 13:8 attests, the same yesterday,
today, and forever, this implies that Jesus has/is a spirit. Luke 4:18 ~
Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me." Here is a reference
to the Holy Spirit, distinct from the Father ... and from Christ ...
Ephesians 2:18 is another nifty example of this same threefold
distinction: "for through him we both have access by one Spirit unto
the Father." It is very difficult to maintain that Paul had only one
Person in mind here, as if he were saying, "for through Jesus we have
access by one Jesus unto Jesus."
Bobby: It appears to me that you are confused. Jim, Jesus was GOD
and He was also man. Now, surely you don't assert that Jesus .... being
the same yesterday, today and forever .... occupied a body of flesh and
blood at the Creation, now do you? No, I'm sure you don't. Since you
are so fond of your man made "concept," I find it amazing that you do no
understand how the Incarnation was a "concept" in the mind ... and plan
... of God (who occupies all of eternity from beginning to end and vice
versa) from the foundation of the world. Therefore, this scripture must
have been referrring to His unchanging Divine nature, as per Malachi
3:6, "For I am the LORD (YHWH) , I change not;..." It is my firm
assertion and understanding that the pre-Incarnate Christ ... was YHWH
... the LORD ... GOD. And that is who was precisely who was speaking in
Malachi 3:6.
Bobby (from previous email): Well, maybe you can explain to me why
the Bible refers to the Holy Spirit as being the Spirit of God AND the
Spirit of Christ ....
Jim: You are completely overlooking my point ...
Bobby (from previous email): And you point was????
Jim: My point was that modalism requires interpretive acrobatics in
order to harmonize the passages noted (among others). I showed you a
difficulty with your approach and you made no attempt to address it. I
will re-phrase: if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one Person, how
does Ephesians 2:18 make any sense, i.e., how do we initially have
Jesus, and then must go through Jesus to gain access to Jesus? It's
like saying that a person already in Detroit has to get on the bus to
Detroit in order to reach Detroit.
Bobby: You still didn't answer my question as to why the Bible
refers to the Holy Spirit as being the Spirit of God AND the Spirit of
Christ. Instead you side stepped it. Please answer the question, Jim.
By the way, maybe you can understand it this way. The old Testament
tabernacle/temple was a "type" of Jesus Christ. It contained the Spirit
of Almighty God, yet the Spirit of Almighty God was also omnipotent all
around that tabernacle/temple as well as throughout the universe.
There is no where you can go where God is not, right? Anyway, the
tabernacle/temple was the bus that the person in Detroit you mentioned
above would have to get on ... because, even though they were already in
Detroit, they were NOT where they needed to be in Detroit ... and as
big as Detroit is, it is no comparison to the universe ... and the place
where God wants all of us to be. Jesus' body was the tabernacle/temple
in human form. Now, I've mentioned this before, but I'll mention it
again. Trinitarians believe, teach and defend a position that GOD was
in Heaven while Jesus was on earth, as if there were two people involved
here. But that can NOT be defended by the vast preponderance of
Scriptural evidence on the subject. Sure, Jesus spoke things that were
hard for some folks to understand. The fact of the matter is, some
don't understand the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine because
their minds have been blinded. At any rate, let's take another look at
the converstation Jesus had with Nicodemus in St. John Chapter 3 when He
told Nicodemus He (Jesus) was "IN" Heaven while standing on earth
talking to Nicodemus. Also, keep in mind, Nicodemus was a ruler and
master in Israel ... I guess you could say he was a well studied
minister, huh?
St. John Chapter 3
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know
that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles
that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old?
can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be
born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound
thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so
is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth
not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of
the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world,
and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Bobby (from previous email): At any rate, so now you assert the
Holy Spirit is dispatched by TWO of the eternal "persons" of the
"plurality" of "three eternal persons" in the Godhead, right? --
Jim: Are you superimposing jargon on me now?
Bobby: Nope! Not at all, Jim. Here's what I asked you about this, followed by what you said:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jim: You are completely overlooking my point, but okay: since the
Holy Spirit is sent to believers by both the Father and the Son, He is
associated with both.
Bobby: And you point was???? At any rate, so now you assert the
Holy Spirit is dispatched by TWO of the eternal "persons" of the
"plurality" of "three eternal persons" in the Godhead, right? Oh, and
according to your theology, I guess believers have three Spirits
dwelling in them, right?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jim: I am simply reading John 15:26 ~ "But when the Comforter is
come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of
truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me" ~ and
John 14:26a ~ "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the
Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things" ~ and
putting two and two together: the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and
the Son. How hard is that to see?
Bobby: Not hard at all to see from a purely Monotheistic
standpoint, because Jesus was BOTH GOD and man ... God became a man with
two natures ... Divine and human ... Spirit and flesh. The Father is
YHWH ... GOD ... Spirit ... and Jesus is the Son ... flesh ... human.
Jesus did ascend in bodily form, you know. But He also promised His
followers in St. John 14:18, "I will not leave you comfortless: I will
come to you." So here we see that Jesus is actually the Comforter who
was coming in "another" form. However, your version makes it sound as
if there are three people up there, two of whom are sending the third
... the Comforter.
Jim: Here's something else to consider: Jesus said that the
Comforter "shall testify of me" and also, in John 16:13, "He shall not
speak of himself." If Jesus is the Holy Spirit, how do you explain
this? Also, throughout John 16, Jesus refers to the Comforter the way
one refers to someone other than oneself. How do you account for this?
Is this a case where Jesus is conveniently speaking merely "as a man"
rather than as God?
Bobby: My explanation since the vast preponderance of Scriptural
evidence found written "verbatim" on the pages of God's Holy Word does
NOT support "pluralism," would be that Jesus was GOD manifested in the
flesh, who came to earth in the form of man. Therefore, I would use the
Clark Kent/Superman analogy. Clark Kent always spoke of Superman as if
Superman was another "person" even though he was BOTH Clark Kent AND
Superman (incognito). Jesus was BOTH GOD and man. Therefore, when
Jesus spoke, there were times YHWH Himself (the Divine side of Jesus)
was speaking, and times when the human side of Jesus was speaking.
Also, there were times when He spoke words that were not logically
understood by some folks because they were directed to those who had
"ears to hear" ... and also recorded in such a way that those who would
later read His spoken words in Written Word would also have ears to hear
and understand. I once was indoctrinated to believe the man made
doctrine of Rome too, Jim. But when I discovered, through independent
(and very diligent) study and prayer, that I was sincerely wrong, I got
on the right track. You should do the same.
Bobby (from previous email): Oh, and according to your theology, I guess believers have three Spirits dwelling in them, right?
Jim: Wrong again. You brought up some half-dozen Scriptures here,
but I'm not entirely sure what you were trying to illustrate in doing
so. Here's my accounting of them anyway:
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the
Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring
all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Jim: Thus the Comforter = the Holy Spirit.
Bobby: That is my understanding too.
John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto
you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the
Father, he shall testify of me:
Jim: Again, the Comforter = the Holy Spirit.
Bobby: Yep, that's the way I see it too.
Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be
that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit
of Christ, he is none of his.
Jim: The terms "Spirit of God" and "Spirit of Christ" are interchangeable references to the Holy Spirit.
Bobby: That's my understanding as well. However, you've obviously
changed your position because you have already gone on record with a
position that YHWH is obviously NOT a "person." According to you, YHWH
is the very "substance" of God which is shared in "union" by three
"persons" ... three "Spirits" ... three "Saviours" ... the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit. Now, Jim the record concerning your assertion
about there being this shared "union" between three people ("persons")
... Spirits ... Saviours ... does NOT harmonize with your answer above.
Your theology draws clear lines of distinction between the Spirit of
Christ and the Holy Spirit. So, you must have changed your theology (for
which I would commend you) because your indoctrinated theology does NOT
acknowledge the Spirit of Christ as being the Holy Spirit. The Spirit
of Christ and the Holy Spirit are two separate "Spirits" ... as is the
Father ... according to your theology. **IF** you haven't changed your
theology, but are trying to have it both ways, I am not going to let you
get away with it, Jim.
Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the
dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also
quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Jim: Again, this refers to the Holy Spirit! Let's try your
approach: since you say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
are all Jesus, what happens to this verse when we interchange each
reference to them with the word "Jesus?" Look: "But if the Jesus of
Jesus that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, Jesus who raised
up Jesus Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by
Jesus' Jesus that dwelleth in you." I can see why you are averse to
approaching the text "intellectually!"
Bobby: Jim, Jim, Jim, there you go again. Since you are into
interchangable words now .... and since there really ain't but ONE
SPIRIT of GOD in the Godhead (although you think there are three) ...
You could interchange the words God and Father with the words "Divine"
or "Spirit" and the words Jesus and Son with the words "Incarnation" or
"flesh." That's the distinction in the Godhead ... Spirit and flesh ...
OR Spirit that became flesh. Therefore, the Scripture you're wrangling
with above is merely saying, if the Spirit that raised up the
Incarnation dwells in you, it will also raise you up. Nothing
complicated about it at all. However, Jesus did say in St. John 2:19 "
... Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. That
sort of cuts across the grain of your indoctrination, doesn't it Jim?
By the way, I don't guess your theology after all, did you? You were
just trying to have it both ways. Got caught though, didn't you?
Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Jim: If this were the only Scripture we had to go on, I could
probably sympathize with your misinterpretation. But it isn't. Again,
this is the Holy Spirit: you seem to want "the Spirit of his Son" to
mean, simply "His Son!" With a similar approach, if Bill's dog bit me, I
could say that Bill bit me.
Bobby: Read the verse again, Jim. It says God hath sent forth the
Spirit of his Son into your hearts. Now **IF** the Spirit of His Son is
different from the Holy Spirit ... which you have already gone on
record stating ... then here we have two of three Spirits that dwells in
the hearts of believers, according to your theology ... even though you
have tried to deny it by claiming that you don't think believers
receive three Spirits. Well, neither do I because I am NOT trinitarian
.... but you claim to be. AND you claim there are three Spirits in the
Godhead. One for the Father, one for the Son and one for the Holy
Spirit. I'm not going to let you stay on my side of the fence on this
issue while also playing on the other side of the fence. You're gonna
have to decide which side of the fence you want to be on concerning this
issue, Jim. You cannot have it both ways.
1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple
of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not
your own?
Jim: A reference to the Holy Spirit, most definitely.
Bobby: Agreed.
1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and
that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (According to your "plurality"
of three "persons" ... AND three Spirits ... in the Godhead theology ...
which makes up ONE God, this verse should read ... "Know ye not that ye
are the temple of God, and the the Spirits (plural) of God dwelleth in
you.")
Jim: This verse, too, refers to the Holy Spirit. You seem to be attempting to build a "straw man."
Bobby: No "straw man" here, Jim. It is your position that there
are three Spirits in the Godhead ... NOT mine. Oh, wait a minute! Are
you now asserting that GOD is a Spirit (which the Bible says), and that
the Spirits of the 1) Father, 2) Son and 3) Holy Ghost joined together
in their "shared" union make up the ONE Spirit of God in the Godhead ...
making the 3 Spirits of the ... 1) Father, 2) Son and 3) Holy Ghost
each 1/3 of the Spirit of God or the Godhead collectively? Is that what
you are now asserting Jim? My, my, my!
2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with
idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will
dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they
shall be my people. (According to your "plurality" of three "persons"
... AND three Spirits ... in the Godhead theology ... which makes up ONE
God, this verse should read ... "for ye are the temple of the living
God; as God hath said, WE will dwell in them, and walk in tham, and WE
will be their God, and they shall be OUR people.")
Jim: This verse, too, refers to the Holy Spirit. You seem to be attempting to build a "straw man."
Bobby: Again, no "strawman" here Jim. I am NOT the one between the
two of us who has a "pluralistic" view of God being like three people
... three "persons" ... three Spirits ... three Saviours. Your
pluralistic position does NOT harmonize with the above verse as it is
written. However, if you removed the I's and me and replaced them with
WE's and OUR ... like I did in the above illustration ... then it would
harmonize with your position concerning the Godhead being a shared union
as with three people ... "persons" ... Spirits ... Saviours.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response # 8 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 4:24 PM
Subject: Response Part 2 of 4 of Jim's email of 6-29
Bobby (from previous email): ... Furthermore, your position makes
the Holy Spirit the Father of the Christ Child ... and NOT God the
Father ... according to Matthew Chapter 1.
Jim: No it doesn't. The Holy Spirit was the agent, not the source, of the conception of Christ.
Bobby: How do you figure that ... ? Let me ask you this ... why
would God find it necessary to dispatch another eternal person to over
shadow Mary to conceive the Christ Child, when He being a Spirit Himself
could do that Himself???
Jim: First, God's ways are higher than our ways. Second, this is a "loaded question."
Bobby: Jim, Jim, Jim, there you go again. Now, I've got to go back and dig it up so we can see who is sand bagging here ...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby: How do you figure that, when the following Scriptures in
Matthew very plainly contradict your theology of there being a
"plurality" of "three eternal persons" in the Godhead ... there being
TWO eternal persons involved in the conception of the Christ Child???
Let me ask you this, according to your theology, why would God find it
necessary to dispatch another eternal person to over shadow Mary to
conceive the Christ Child, when He being a Spirit Himself could do that
Himself??? Jim, I am telling you in the fear of God, you'd better let
this polytheistic "plurality" of "three eternal Persons/Spirits" in the
Godhead nonsense go. And we haven't even got to the co-equal,
co-eternal and co-existent part of this argument yet. At any rate,
these verses in Matthew sure don't sound to me like the Holy Ghost was
only the "agent" ... not the source.
Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When
as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together,
she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the
angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son
of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is
conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby: As you can see, the question was legitimate ... NOT loaded.
The Scriptures in Matthew contradict your "pluralistic" view of God as
being a "shared" union of "three eternal persons," and clearly states
that Jesus was the Child of the Holy Ghost. Since you contend the Holy
Ghost is one Spirit (PERSON) and the Father is another Spirit (PERSON)
then Matthew forces you to take a position that the Holy Ghost is the
Father of the Christ Child and NOT the Father. You are on thin ice, my
man.
Bobby (from previous post): Jim, ... you'd better let this
polytheistic "plurality" of "three eternal Persons/Spirits" in the
Godhead nonsense go.
Jim: Bobby, I believe there is only one God. I do not believe that
God is sometimes the Father and sometimes not, sometimes the Son and
sometimes not, and sometimes the Holy Spirit and sometimes not.
Bobby: Jim, Jim, Jim, there you go again. Man was created in the
image AND likeness of God. Therefore God created man to be like Him (He
already knew everthing there was to know about the Incarnation in every
minute detail) ... and He created man so that man can actually be ...
or function, act and speak as ... a father, as a son and as a husband
without having to split himself into three parts and become three
different people ("PERSONS"). By the way, I "AM" a father, a son and a
husband ... and there is never a moment when I am not. Likewise, God is
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit ... and He occupies ALL of eternity
from beginning to end and vice versa. Since I am NOT God who occupies
all of eternity, I wasn't born a father, son and husband right off the
bat. Furthermore, the Incarnation didn't occur right off the bat
either, nor did the imparting of His Spirit into the hearts of humans
either. However, both were spoken of (prophesied) far in advance of
their arrival upon the scene in human history.
Jim: These three are eternal and share the essence of the Godhead.
In the Bible, each one is described in ways consistent with the way one
would describe a Person; that is, personality is assumed (for instance,
the Holy Spirit can be lied to, He can be grieved, and so on) -- they
are not mere "modes of existence" to be dispensed with.
Bobby: Try as you may, you will never turn three people into ONE
"numerically." You might have three people on the same team, living in
the same household, working for the same company, etc. But even in
those scenarios ... to apply them to your "pluralistic" view of God as
being a "shared" union of "three eternal persons" ... that would be so
polytheistic that I wouldn't have anything to do with it, knowing what I
know now. I will say this, though, there are a whole lot of smooth
talking trinitarian ministers out there. Some are like Apolos in Acts
Cahpter 19 who just don't know that they don't know ... yet. Then there
are those who know they don't know, but, for whatever reason, will not
admit it and do the right thing like Apollos did after Aquila and
Priscilla expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. Now about
this "modes" business. I believe you were the first to bring up the
subject of "modes." I've copied and pasted your statement and my
response below ...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jim: I believe that the ultimate nature of the Godhead is a mystery
of the faith. I believe that the Bible presents the Father and the Son
and the Holy Spirit as three eternal Persons, not as "modes" or "roles"
of God. Each Person is worthy of our worship. And I don't base this
belief on any decree of Roman Catholicism, but on the statements in the
Word of God.
Bobby: You can believe that the Bible presents the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit as thee eternal Persons until the cows come
home, Jim. You just don't have any SPECIFIC Bible authority where can
be found written "verbatim" in the Word of God which presents it like
you believe it, that's all. I don't know why you get so worked up about
the descriptive term of "modes" or "roles" they are just as Biblical as
your pet term "persons," when it comes to describing God or the
Godhead, Jim ... and are much more logical (and it looks like you would
like that).
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby: Mode is defined as being "a manner or way of acting, doing,
or being." I act, function and speak in the "modes" of father, son and
husband pretty regular. Furthermore, I looked back and found where I
used the term "mode" myself later when I said, "You just haven't
reached the attack mode yet ... " Now, if it is a matter of semantics,
Jim, then dropping unbiblical descriptive terms like "persons" and
"modes" in reference to God and replacing them with descriptive terms
that are found in the Bible, which have to do with God and the Godhead
like "glory," "form," and "manifestation," and "image," should bring
true monotheists into the unity of the faith concerning this matter.
Sooooo, I'll promise you I won't use the term "modes" to describe God,
if you'll promise me that you won't use the term "persons" to describe
God. Do we have a deal???
Bobby (from previous email): ... these verses in Matthew sure don't
sound to me like the Holy Ghost was only the "agent" ... not the
source.
Jim: That's because you've misinterpreted them.
Bobby: Well, Jim, you've just made an interesting observation.
That is PRECISELY what I've been telling you about Matthew 28:19. Yet
you are bound and determined to interpret Matthew 28:19 just like it
reads ... misinterpreting it. Now, since that is all I am doing with
these two verses of Matthew concerning the Christ Child being the Child
of the Holy Ghost ... instead of the Father ... which clashes with your
theology, I would like for you to show me how you interpret them in
order to change the Holy Ghost from a person to "an agent," ... bringing
them into conformity with your indoctrination ..., o.k.? Now, again, I
just want book, chapter and verse ... not a commentary.
Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When
as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together,
she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Jim: The miracle of the conception of Christ was carried out through the Holy Spirit.
Bobby: But Jim the Bible does NOT say that the child in Mary's womb
was "child of the Father." Remember? Your position is that the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 3 different Spirits. If my father were
still alive today and gave me a check to take to deliver to someone for
him and he signed it "father, son, husband" ... then placed it into my
care as his "agent" to be delivered. There are a couple of things that
would be wrong with that scenario. 1) the check would NOT be valid in
the first place because there was NO NAME applied to the bottom ...
instead he just wrote down his titles [an improper baptism analogy], and
2) that check could never be referred to as "my check" even though I
was the agent who saw to it that it was successfully delivered to the
person that daddy wanted me to take it to. Therefore, the phrase "child
of the Holy Ghost" could NOT possibly mean "Child of the Father"
according to your three "persons" ... Spirits ... theology.
Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the
angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son
of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is
conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Jim: Again, this means that when the physical laws of the universe
were suspended and Christ miraculously appeared in Mary's womb, the Holy
Spirit was at work.
Bobby: Sounds good and simple ... short and sweet. However, the
Bible does call the child the child "OF" the Holy Ghost. Now, **IF**
the Holy Spirit and the Father are two different people ... "persons"
... Spirits ... Saviours (as you contend), then the Holy Spirit would be
the Father of the child here. There is no other way this verse could
be understood .... unless you have some "connecting" verses that further
explain these verses ... like Acts 2:38; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48 and Acts
19:5 further explain Matthew 28:19. Now, if you have some "connecting"
verses which further explain these verses to transform one "PERSON" ...
"SPIRIT" into another one ... or transform the Holy Ghost into the
Father, and stay consistent with your indoctrination, then I am all
ears. Let's have 'em **IF** you've got 'em. I just don't think you've
got any that you can use which will stay consistent with your three
"PERSONS" ... three "SPIRITS" ... three "SAVIOURS" position. Of course,
I could be wrong ... so GO FOR IT!
Bobby (from previous email): I believe the Bible is clear about
there being ONE LORD in the Godhead too. However, you have very firmly
established you believe there is a "plurality" of "three eternal
persons" ... which are "three eternal Spirits" ... in the Godhead.
Jim: I feel that I should clarify something here: first, I
consider the term "plurality" dispensable. Second, I did present the
Biblical quotes which describe the Father as eternal, the Son as
eternal, and the Spirit as eternal. Now I tell you, in the fear of God,
stop resisting the truth of His Word.
Bobby: You do have a "pluralistic" view of God being a "shared"
union of "three eternal persons," do you not??? Furthermore, YHWH ...
the LORD ... GOD "IS" the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And, yes, HE "IS"
eternal. I believe that with all my heart. Between the two of us,
Jim, the preponderance of Scriptural evidence is going to stack up on my
side. I can tell you that right now. Did I tell you I used to be a
trinitarian too, until I really got down to some serious independent
studying and found out about this stuff???
Bobby (from previous email): Now, if you wish to go down the trail
that the word ONE does not really mean "numerically" ONE, I will be
anxiously waiting to see your Scriptural evidence. God is referred to
throughout the entire Bible in the singular as .... I, ME, MY, HE, HIS
and HIM.
Jim: Uh-huh. Genesis 1:26 ("Let us make man...") and Gen. 11:7
("Let us go down") come to mind, as well as the visitations of the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit on the same occasion at Jesus' baptism.
And let's not forget John 17:21, where Christ says, "...that they may be
one in US."
Bobby: Well, what about the tons of Scriptures with I, ME, MY, HE,
HIS and HIM references to God in them???? Do you honestly think these
few little ole very carefully selected Scriptures are supposed to trump
them??? WHEW! Since we know God is not the author of confusion and that
the Word of God does not contradict itself, there has to be some
explanations somewhere, right??? Genesis 1:26 ("Let us make man...")
This could not have possibly been the words of one "person" of Godhead
speaking to two other "persons" of the Godhead who each took part in the
Creation process because the very next verse goes on to say, "So God
created man in his own image (NOT "their" own images"), in the image of
God created He him (NOT created "they" him); male and female created He
them (NOT created "they" them). Was there a "pluality" of "three
eternal persons" who "share" a union involved in the Creation process???
NO WAY! I am going to provide you with my Scriptural evidence that
proves there was NOT a tag team or "group" ... (plurality of "persons")
involved in the Creation ... and I would like for you to show my
everything you can come up with that says there was. Then we will see
what the vast preponderance of Scriptural evidence "really" is, o.k.??
Was there more than one "person" ... "Spirit" ... Saviour" involved in
the Creation???
Not according to Jesus: Matt. 19:4 Jesus considered the Creator to be a "He."
(Jesus alluded to Himself being BEFORE Abraham in St. John 1:8)
Not according to John: Rev. 4:11 John considered the Creator to be a "thou."
(John alluded to Jesus as being the Creator in St. John 1:10-11)
Not according to Paul: Col. 3:10 Paul considered the Creator to be a "Him."
(Paul alleded to Jesus as being God manifest in the flesh in 1 Timothy 3:16)
Not according to Peter: 1Pet. 4:19 Peter considered the Creator to be a "him," a "faithful Creator," (singular).
(Peter used the name of Jesus to comply with Matthew 28:19 in Acts 2:38)
Not according to Isaiah: Isa. 44:24 Isaiah considered the Creator to be "the LORD," "alone," and "by myself."
(Isaiah alluded to Jesus as the "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father" in Isaiah 9:6)
Not according to Solomon: Prov. 8:26 Solomon considered the Creator to be a "He."
It should be obvious that God was NOT talking to an assistant or
co-equal, co-eternal and co-existent PERSON. Gen. 11:7 ("Let us go
down"). It does not say one way or the other, so my "implied"
interpretation is as good as yours here. And I would say that God was
talking to an angel or angels to accompany Him ... and I base that on
Abraham's encounter with God (Genesis 18). He was visited by three men:
one of which turned out to be a theophany of the Lord, and the other two
were angels (10, 13-17; 19:1). the visitations of the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit on the same occasion at Jesus' baptism. The purpose of
Voice and the Dove at Jesus' baptism was to reveal the identity of the
Messiah to John the Baptist. God had previously called John into the
ministry to prepare the hearts of Israel for the LORD ... and to baptize
unto repentance. He did not know that His own cousin was God manifest
in the flesh, the anointed Messiah for Israel and all the earth (Luke
1:34-41; John 1:30-31). Also, let me insert here that just as God can
speak through a burning bush, a donkey or out of a cloud that doesn't
mean that more than one person is present if there is another form ...
manifestation ... theophany ... of God present as well. Like I've been
trying to get you to understand, God can manifest Himself to MILLIONS of
different people in MILLIONS of different ways, in MILLIONS of
geographical locations ... SIMULTANEOUSLY. But that does NOT turn GOD
into a "plurality" of "persons" who "share" a "union." John 17:21,
where Christ says, "...that they may be one in US." Let's take a closer
look at this passage of Scripture. As a matter of fact, let's look at
verses 20-23 in St. John Chapter 17 .... 20 Neither pray I for these
alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,
that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou
has sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them;
that they may be one, even as we are one; 23 I in them, and thou in me,
that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that
thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Jim, it
is my position that the key to understanding these verses is to realize
that the Lord was not speaking of His bodily entrance into us. Just as
there was NOT another body inside the body of Jesus ... or jar inside
another jar ... The distinction is Spirit and flesh in the Godhead NOT
"persons." Your indoctrination just will not allow you to see (or
acknowledge) the two natures abiding in Jesus (Divine and human). Also,
**IF** there are three Spirits of God, one for the Father, one for the
Son and one for the Holy Ghost as you you contend, then there would be
three Spirits in the heart of a believer who had the Spirit of God.
Actually, this is where things get really complicated from a trinitarian
point of view because, actually, you couldn't say a person had the
Spirit of God, you would have to say "Spirits" of God. Since the Bible
is emphatic about the One true God being "A" SPIRIT (SINGULAR), your
indoctrination is actually POLYTHEISTIC because you are adamant about
there being THREE SPIRITS in the Godhead. However, Ephesians 4:4
declares there is ONLY one Spirit (although, you think you know more
than the Word of God about this subject, by insisting there are 3
Spirits in the Godhead ... NOT One). At any rate, in this setting of
Scripture, it does NOT mean a "bodily" entrance because Jesus had said,
"At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I
in you" (John 14:20). Certainly we are not in Jesus in the sense of the
physical. So, what does this passage mean? It means being one in the
sense of one in mind, ... mission ... purpose, ... plan, ... and life
with that of Christ. The word "ONE" is used in the Scriptures to define
ONE "numerically" as well as In other words, ONE union made up of a
number of different members. Trinitarians have just been so
effectively indoctrinated until they can have a field day with most
folks by playing a shell game with the word "one" AND by using very
carefully selected passages of Scripture which have been given "implied"
meanings. Jim, the doctrines you and I believe, teach and practice
today, in the year 2001, has got to be same as that which the "original"
New Testament leaders believed, taught and pacticed or it's accursed
... according to Paul in Galatians 1:8-9. This is serious stuff! And
that's why I have my $ 10,000.00 Reward challenge on the Internet ...
which obviously caused you to contact me.
Bobby (from previous email): ... Israel had just ONE LORD according
to Deuteronomy 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is ONE LORD:"
(Not two ... not three ... ONE!). To assert that God is actually a ---
Jim: Hold on a second. This material looks canned. Tell me the
truth: are you really typing this as a personal response, or do you
have a file of prized paragraphs which you are cutting and pasting?
Bobby: Jim, I do some of both. Debating trinitarians is something I
have been doing a long time. As a result (and because I used to be
one), I know the hoops trinitarians jump through. I just don't ever
know what sequence they'll jump through them. As a matter of fact, I
know that you still have some more hoops you'll more than likely jump
through. It just comes with the indoctrination, I guess. At any rate, I
have files and files of debates stored on floppy disks as well as on my
hard drive. When plowing over ground that I've plowed over many times
before, sometimes I'll copy and paste things which I would have to,
otherwise, re-type all over again anyway. And there is certainly
nothing wrong with that. I don't know if you've seen the length of my
on line Bible Study, but back in 1987-88 when I typed my first Bible
study (which the on line study evolved from), I typed it on an old
manual typewriter. WHEW! Many, many hours went into it ... BOTH from
the standpoint of research and study, as well as actually typing it ...
as did the current study that is on line at
http://impact-ministry.com/acts2/ Anyway, I honestly thank God for a
computer with a word processer. It sure saves an awful lot of paper ...
AND white out.
Bobby (from previous email): You've already made a statement
earlier in this communication (in reference to your theology's
"plurality" of "three persons" view of the Godhead ... Father, Son and
Holy Spirit) that "THEY" are eternal.
Jim: If you wish to come out and say that the Father, or the Son,
or the Holy Spirit is not eternal, but is simply a "role," (something
you seemed to suggest previously) please do so, so that your error may
at least be clearly expressed.
Bobby: Jim, as I've already stated above .... God "IS" eternal.
And God "IS" all three ... Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but try as you
may, you won't find any Scriptural evidence of a "plurality" of "three
eternal persons" in the Bible. It is as simple as that. I think your
problem may be that, not only have you been indoctrinated to believe a
certain way, you have also been programmed to "labe" those who oppose
your indoctrination and place them into one of several boxes provided by
your indoctrination. I say this because you seem to want to say what
you think I believe. When, in fact, I do study the Bible independently
and I do take the preponderance of Scriptural evidence on whatever
subject I am studying. Obviously you don't, or you wouldn't be
appearing to assume you know what I am, believe, think, etc. My
dealings with you, on the other hand, ... being a staunch trinitarian
(something I once was) ... is a completely different situation. I do
KNOW what you have been indoctrinated to believe.
Bobby (from previous email): "They" is a term you would use when referencing to more that one person ... a group.
Jim: Right. And yet there is only one God.
Bobby: Jim, your response "And yet there is only one God," is
either an attempt on your part to be cute, or an "implication" that this
matter is so illogical and shrouded in such mystery that it cannot be
understood or explained and therefore just has to be accepted by faith
... BOTH of which I reject and resent. Your use of the term "persons"
is like that of you and I each being our own person ... each with out
own spirit, but being one in the sense of one in mind, ... mission ...
purpose, ... plan, etc. However, it would never be possible for my
spirit to take up residence and dwell inside of you, nor yours inside of
me. And Jesus very clearly stated in St. John Chapter 14 that the
Father dwelled in Him and did the works. Your three Spirits in the
Godhead position is diametrically opposed to what is recorded on the
pages of the Word of God. And that is an extremely serious matter.
Bobby (from previous email): ... I have proven to your with
"verbatim" Scriptures that the LORD HE IS GOD ALONE ... BY HIMSELF ...
with NO ONE BESIDE HIM.
Jim: No problemo!
Bobby: Mucho big problemo for a trinitarian who insists that YHWH
... the LORD ... is a "substance" ... NOT a person ... even though
referred to as HE and HIMSELF. And, not only that, YHWH ... the
substance ... is "shared" in a union by a "plurality" of three eternal
"persons" ... "Spirits" ... "Saviours" (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
Oh, by the way, isn't it because the Holy Spirit is referred to as "HE"
in a FEW places that you deduct the Holy Spirit is also a "person?"
Yet, YHWH is referred to as "I, ME, MY, HE, HIS, HIM and MINE" in a ton
of places, and you assign the descriptive term of "substance" to "YHWH"
instead of the term "PERSON" ... like you do with the Holy Spirit.
Double standard, ain't it, Jim? Shame on you. Either your doctrinal
house of cards is going to come down, or you're going to have to
KNOWINGLY live with the deception you've been indoctrinated to believe
and teach others. That is something only you can decide on.
Bobby (from previous email): You are either confused, or you
obviously do not believe these "verbatim" Scriptures concerning the LORD
... GOD.
Jim: No, there's a third option: to believe that the nature of God
extends, and extends fully, to each Person, and that in some mysterious
way the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God, one YHWH.
Bobby: You obviously didn't want to take up the little trinitarian
lady's cause who informed me the trinity was a mystery which could not
be fully understood. That is usually the hold card that is played last
... after all else has failed. Actually, if you ever drop the "persons"
concept .... as you and I are "persons" ... and independently search
the Scriptures with an open mind, I KNOW for a fact that God will reveal
it to you through His Word just like he did with me. The same thing
happened to someone I know, who adamantly disagreed with me too, but
later became a close friend AFTER God revealed it to him through
diligent independent study. However, our paths parted under somewhat
strained conditions ... and we had no contact for about a year. Then
one day, out of the blue, he contacted me by email to let me know that
God had shown him that what I had been trying to tell him about a year
earlier was really the way it is. He has since been re-baptized in the
precious name of Jesus Christ. All because he decided to do what I had
challenged him to do .... and search it out for himself.
Bobby (from previous email): 4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?
Jim: Difficult to say at the moment; I'd like to decline from answering this question until I may research it more.
Bobby (from previous email): Please answer this question at your earliest convenience.
Jim: Just to keep things moving, I will say, three.
Bobby: Jim, I am taking this discussion seriously. For you to give such an answer is indicative that you're not.
Jim: Then you misunderstand my intent. This is my way of saying,
"Your move." I suspect that you are asking this question to attempt to
make a point -- so let's avoid bantering and get to the point. I never
considered this question to be critically important, but it seems
important to you, so let's consider your view first.
Bobby: Jim, you have gone on record asserting that there are three
Spirits in the Godhead ... one for the Father, one for the Son and one
for the Holy Spirit ... and that all three of them dwelled between the
cheribums, above the Mercy Seat, over the Ark of the Covenant in the
Most Holy Place. Furthermore, you have asserted that YHWH ... the LORD
... is a "substance" NOT a person, even though specifically identified
many times in the Bible in some, if not all, of the following .... I,
ME, MY, HE, HIS, HIM and MINE. How in the world do you justify a
position of there being three Spirits dwelling between the cherubims in
the following Scriptures when you don't even consider YHWH ... the LORD
(who is GOD) ... to be a PERSON or a SPIRIT????
2 Kings 19:15 And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD, and said, O LORD
God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God,
even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven
and earth.
2 Samuel 6:2 And David arose, and went with all the people that
were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of
God, whose name is called by the name of the LORD of hosts that dwelleth
between the cherubims.
Isaiah 37:16 O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between
the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of
the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.
6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?
Jim: Generally as the Word, eternally emanating from the Father.
Also, I think that some theophanies in the Old Testament (such as the
appearance of the "fourth man" in the fiery furnace of Nebuchadnezzar)
may have been temporary manifestations of Christ.
Bobby (from previous email): Well, you've already stated you
believe there are three Spirits in the Godhead. So Jesus must have
existed in "Spirit" form prior to the Incarnation ... as one of the
three Spirits in the Godhead according to your belief, right?
Jim: Right.
Bobby: Jim, this is really getting rather laboring.
Jim: Eh? It's "laboring" for me to answer a yes/no question with a yes or a no??
Bobby: In the final analysis, I trust that you are going to realize
that your "pluralistic" view of God being a "union" shared by three
"Spirits" ... three "Persons" ... three "Saviours" ... is ancient, but
is of pagan origin AND completely void of SPECIFIC SCRIPTURAL authority.
Bobby (from previous email): Where on earth is the Scriptural basis
upon which you base your last answer? Again, just book, chapter and
verse.
Bobby: First, I think I should copy and paste what the previous question stemmed from. Then I will address your response.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby (from previous email): Well, you've already stated you
believe there are three Spirits in the Godhead. So Jesus must have
existed in "Spirit" form prior to the Incarnation ... as one of the
three Spirits in the Godhead according to your belief, right?
Jim: Right.
Bobby: Jim, this is really getting rather laboring. Where on earth
is the Scriptural basis upon which you base your last answer? Again,
just book, chapter and verse. I don't need none of the commentary.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jim: John 8:58 and John 17:5, for starters. Note particularly the
phase in John 17:5 ~ "...the glory which I had with thee before the
world was" ~ WITH thee, Bobby -- NOT "as thee."
St. John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
St. John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Bobby: Jim, hear me out, o.k.??? Jesus often spoke in such a way
to benefit those who had ears to hear Him while keeping it from those
who did not ... and also to preserve it for those who would one day read
His spoken words in like manner. Again, I go back to the Clark
Kent/Superman analogy with Clark Kent speaking of Superman as if there
were two different people involved. The Incarnate Christ was only
present at the Creation in the Mind of God ... who occupies all of
eternity from beginning to end and vice versa ... AND who "... calleth
those things which be not as though they were." Romans 4:17 ... AND who
"... worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:" Ephesians
1:11. We KNOW, according to Scripture, there is only ONE Spirit in the
Godhead ... NOT three as you assert. Furthermore, we KNOW YHWH ... the
LORD ... IS GOD who Created everything ALONE and by HIMSELF ... but we
also know that Jesus was the Creator in human form ... "All things were
made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made"
(John 1:3). "By him were all things created, that are in heaven, and
that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him
and for him" (Colossians 1:16). "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid
the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine
hands" (Hebrews 1:10). Some of the passages that speak of Jesus as the
Creator also refer to Him as the Son. (See Colossians 1:13; Hebrews
1:8.) However, trinitarians maintain that an eternal Son co-created the
world alongside a distinct person called the Father. But these passages
can be understood as simply stating that the One who later became the
Son created the world. For example, when we say, "President Lincoln was
born in Kentucky," we do not mean that he was President at the time of
his birth, but rather, he was born in Kentucky and later became the
President. The title "Son" refers to the humanity conceived in the womb
of Mary. (See Luke 1:35; Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 1:5.) As such, the Son
did not exist as one of three "eternal persons" who "shared" a "union"
before the Incarnation. However, the Son did exist in the mind, thought
and plan of God who "... calleth those things which be not as though
they were." Romans 4:17 ... AND who "... worketh all things after the
counsel of his own will:" Ephesians 1:11. Therefore, the Incarnation
did not create the world in the beginning. The Creator is the eternal
Spirit of God who created the world ALONE and by HIMSELF and who later
became the Incarnation Himself in the Son, who was God manifested in the
flesh ... Jesus Christ. About 7 days after the Ascension of the
resurrected Christ, God sent His Spirit back to earth again ... only
this time manifested as the Holy Spirit ... in Spirit form (not flesh)
... to dwell in the hearts of believers, to comfort, lead and teach ...
and, actually, I suppose it could be said, to resume the work and
relationship He had with His followers when they followed in His
footprints when He was manifested as Jesus ... in human form.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response # 9 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 4:26 PM
Subject: Response Part 3 of 4 of Jim's email of 6-29
Bobby (from previous email): But here you are saying Jesus was also a theophany? Please clarify.
Jim: Okay: just as God the Father could appear specially to, say, Moses and Isaiah and Ezekiel, so could Jesus.
Bobby: Oh now that's just really ripe with polytheistic overtones.
Jim: Eh? A bit eager to repeat the word "polytheistic," aren't we?
You're the one who recently said that God can manifest Himself in
millions of different ways simultaneously -- yet you do not see your
statement as "polytheistic." I don't see a substantial difference
between your statement and mine.
Bobby: Jim, my statement is NOT Polytheistic. **IF** you think all
the representations and forms in which God has revealed Himself to
humanity in are totally distinct "persons," then, maybe you need to make
full proof of thy ministry (2 Timothy 4:5). And, yes, I do believe
Paul was referring to Jesus in 1 Timothy 3:16 as being GOD MANIFEST
(revealed) IN THE FLESH ... in Hebrews 1:3 as the EXPRESS IMAGE OF
GOD'S PERSON (singular) ... in Colosians 1:15 as the IMAGE OF THE
INVISIBLE GOD ... in Colossians 2:9-10 as the COMPLETE EMBODIMENT OF
THE GODHEAD ... AND THE HEAD OF ALL PRINCIPALITY AND POWER. **IF** you
agree that God is omnipresent, which I hope you do, then God can ... and
does ... manifest Himself to people over over the planet at the same
moment in various ways, but that doesn't turn Him into a bunch of
different people joined together in a union who are working together
like members of a team ... as you assert.
Bobby (from previous email): By the way, which one of them appeared
to Moses at the burning bush ... and where were the other two?
Jim: I think a case could be made that the whole Godhead appeared to Moses (in the manifestation of the burning bush).
Bobby: How so??? You are the one who claims there are three
"Spirits" ... "persons" and "Saviours" in the Godhead. You also claim
the three "persons" ... "Spirits ... "Saviours" ... were present at
Jesus' Baptism due to the voice, dove and Jesus being present. At the
burning bush, in what way did your three "persons" make "their" presence
known ... and how do you identify each one of them similar to the way
you do with your indoctrinated explanation of the baptism of Christ???
7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"
Jim: Are you asking about concepts or about terminology? ...
Bobby: ... I am asking you what is the earliest date that you've
been able to find where anyone wrote anything which states a belief in
One God in "three persons."
Jim: I believe I did answer the question: the era of Tertullian
(roughly A.D. 180-220, as I recall). ... The specific reference is the
writing, "Against Praxeas," chapter 2.
Bobby: WOW! So here your postion woould obviously assert that the
doctrine of the "original" New Testament Church was incomplete for about
200 YEARS. In your indoctrinated shell game, you switch back and forth
from "concept" to "terminology" ... depending on the situation, and the
period of time being discussed. However, any concept which is held
dogmatically and taught as a DOCTRINE simply cannot be taught or
explained to anyone without terminology, Jim. And there just isn't any
"terminology" available to go along with you indoctrinated concept until
about 200 years AFTER the Ascension and the passing of the "original"
New Testament leaders? GIVE ME A BREAK! This doctrine is "adding to"
the Word of God, Jim, plain and simple.
Jim: Was I somehow unclear in my emphatic distinction between
concepts and terminology? I assert that Tertullian was among the first,
if not the first, to explicitly formulate the doctrine of the Triune
God using terms like "three persons." But I also assert that this was
simply the magnification of what is implied in the text of Scripture.
The terms were new, but the concept was not new; the concept simply went
from being implicitly expressed (in Scripture)to being explicitly
expressed. I put no great value on the manmade expression, but I do
place great value on the concept itself. Is that clear?
Bobby: Surely you do not expect me to accept the notion that the
"terminology" followed the "concept" many generations later, do you???
Listen, Jim, **IF** God wanted the "terminology" held dogmatically as a
doctrine, you can rest assured He would have seen to it that the
"terminology" was hammered out and made available long before "press
time." If it ain't in the Bible, it ain't the authentic Apostles' One
God Monotheistic Doctrine, but, instead, is something which has been
"added to" the Word of God. That's a certainty.
Bobby (from previous email): ... ole brother Tertullian can come
along with a butter bean dream, or whatever it was, and you'll just snap
it up ... hook, line and sinker ...
Jim: Not at all! Much of what Tertullian wrote is positively
wacky! I'm just answering your question about a point of history (for
which I get thanked with quips of "truly amazing").
Bobby: It is so happens that you have no problem using the parts of
his wacky stuff which conforms to your indoctrinated theology. Rich,
Jim, that's really rich. WHEW! I guess you can tell I am not a Tert
fan, eh??
Bobby (from previous statement): ... [Amending a previous
statement:] Therefore, if someone were to refer to me by saying ...
"There are three that testify of life in that home, a father, a son and a
husband ... and these three are one." That would NOT turn me into
three different "persons."
Jim: Granted, but that statement about you would be rather unclear,
especially if the sentence is paralleled by another sentence referring
to three elements, the way First John 5:8 complements 5:7. I don't
think anyone wishing to make a clear statement would say, "There are
three that testify in that home, a father, a son, and a husband, and
these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in the
garage: the car, the dog, and the cat, and these three agree in one,"
and expect that the first three would be understood as one person. But I
hesitate to pursue this further, since I don't think the first part of
First John 5:7 is apostolic.
Bobby: The bottom line is, Jim. Verse 7 says these three "ARE" ONE
... NOT are "as" one. And Verse 8 says these three "agree" in one.
There is a huge difference. And that should eliminate the possibility
of the car, dog and cat in the garage situation confusing somebody about
the ONE in the house, shouldn't it?
Bobby (from previous email): Now, on to your come back. I
certainly could testify as a father, I could testify as a son, and I
could also testify as a husband because I am qualified to testify in all
three of these capacities ... yet I am still only ONE PERSON.
Jim: Exactly! You are not three witnesses simultaneously! Yet the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit do testify simultaneously. Ding.
Bobby: And neither am I an omnipresent Spirit who fills the
universe, who can manifest Himself to millions of different people, in
millions of different ways, in millions of different geographical
locations simultaneously. However, be that as it may, I do function,
act and speak as a father, son and husband without being three different
"persons" ... and so can God. Ding ... Dong, anybody home??
Bobby (from previous email): Do you remember those profound words
of Abraham when he responded to Isaac's question going up the side of
that mountain? Genesis 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide
himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them
together. God became the lamb, Jim.
Jim: Eh? Are you saying that the ram which Abraham found in the
thicket on Mount Moriah was a theophany which Abraham killed??? Abraham
is saying is the God will provide a lamb for Himself. If I say, "I'm
gonna go get myself a wife," it doesn't mean that I am going to go out
and get married to myself. The sentence-structure here is akin to the
structure of Numbers 35:19 ~ "The avenger of blood himself shall slay
the murderer." Now, most definitely Christ is the Lamb of God, and most
definitely Christ is God, but Genesis 22:8 simply does not mean that
God became the lamb. The events of Genesis 22 are adequately beautiful
as a prophetic foreshadowing of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God,
without "squinting" at this phrase.
Bobby: That lamb was a "type" of Chirst ... and my understanding of
the inspired words of Abraham which are recorded in Genesis 22:8 about
God providing HIMSELF a lamb is NOT squinting. God became a man. That
man was referred to in a number of ways, including the Son of God, the
Son of man and the Lamb of God. And all three descriptions are correct.
And, yes, God "DID" provide HIMSELF a lamb.
Jim: Also, you were not ALWAYS a father and a husband; you became a
father and a husband. But the Father is eternal, the Son is eternal,
and the Holy Spirit is eternal. See the difference?
Bobby (from previous email): It is NOT a matter of me seeing the difference, Jim.
Jim: Please answer the question, Bobby.
Bobby: Jim, my point was NOT that I was born a father, son and
husband. My point was that I, today, function, act and speak as a
father, son and husband ... and I am only ONE PERSON. Now, how come you
don't think God can or does what He created me to do?
Bobby (from previous email): The subject was NOT about what I always was or wasn't.
Jim: Right, it is about what God always was or wasn't. Regarding
which, you used your role as a father, son, and husband as a comaprison
-- i.e., aligning the eternal nature of God with roles which you admit
are temporary (inasmuch as you have not always been a father and a
husband) -- which opposes the Scriptural presentation of the eternal
nature of God.
Bobby: I used my role as father, son and husband to illustrate that
a man ... who was created in the image AND "likeness" of God can,
indeed, function, act and speak as father, son and husband while being
ONE PERSON, that's all. Now, again, how come you don't think God can do
what I can do?
Bobby (from previous email): By the way, I am in total agreement
with your statement, " ... the Father is eternal, the Son is eternal,
and the Holy Spirit is eternal."
Jim: That's good. I'm ever-ready to seek out common ground.
Bobby: One thing you'll learn about me is, I don't go against the
preponderance of Scriptural evidence found written "vertatim" in the
Word of God ... like some folks.
Bobby (from previous email): Because the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit "ARE" ONE ... NOT ARE "AS" ONE.
Jim: I agree that they are one God, and that they share one nature.
But you say that they are one Person -- in which case please explain,
then, John 17:5, and how one Person can be "with" Himself.
Bobby: Actually, it is my position that the word "PERSON" is really
not an adequate term to use to describe God, but I use it in order to
communicate with those who have been indoctrinated to believe in
"PERSONS" of God. At any rate, I answered St. John 17:5 above, but I'll
copy and paste it here too ... Jim, hear me out, o.k.??? Jesus often
spoke in such a way to benefit those who had ears to hear Him while
keeping it from those who did not ... and also to preserve it for those
who would one day read His spoken words in like manner. Again, I go
back to the Clark Kent/Superman analogy with Clark Kent speaking of
Superman as if there were two different people involved. The Incarnate
Christ was only present at the Creation in the Mind of God ... who
occupies all of eternity from beginning to end and vice versa ... AND
who "... calleth those things which be not as though they were." Romans
4:17 ... AND who "... worketh all things after the counsel of his own
will:" Ephesians 1:11. We KNOW, according to Scripture, there is only
ONE Spirit in the Godhead ... NOT three as you assert. Furthermore, we
KNOW YHWH ... the LORD ... IS GOD who Created everything ALONE and by
HIMSELF ... but we also know that Jesus was the Creator in human form
... "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing
made that was made" (John 1:3). "By him were all things created, that
are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether
they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things
were created by him and for him" (Colossians 1:16). "Thou, Lord, in the
beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are
the works of thine hands" (Hebrews 1:10). Some of the passages that
speak of Jesus as the Creator also refer to Him as the Son. (See
Colossians 1:13; Hebrews 1:8.) However, trinitarians maintain that an
eternal Son co-created the world alongside a distinct person called the
Father. But these passages can be understood as simply stating that the
One who later became the Son created the world. For example, when we
say, "President Lincoln was born in Kentucky," we do not mean that he
was President at the time of his birth, but rather, he was born in
Kentucky and later became the President. The title "Son" refers to the
humanity conceived in the womb of Mary. (See Luke 1:35; Galatians 4:4;
Hebrews 1:5.) As such, the Son did not exist as one of three "eternal
persons" who "shared" a "union" before the Incarnation. However, the
Son did exist in the mind, thought and plan of God who "... calleth
those things which be not as though they were." Romans 4:17 ... AND who
"... worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:" Ephesians
1:11. Therefore, the Incarnation did not create the world in the
beginning. The Creator is the eternal Spirit of God who created the
world ALONE and by HIMSELF and who later became the Incarnation Himself
in the Son, who was God manifested in the flesh ... Jesus Christ. About
7 days after the Ascension of the resurrected Christ, God sent His
Spirit back to earth again ... only this time manifested as the Holy
Spirit ... in Spirit form (not flesh) ... to dwell in the hearts of
believers, to comfort, lead and teach ... and, actually, I suppose it
could be said, to resume the work and relationship He had with His
followers when they followed in His footprints when He was manifested as
Jesus ... in human form.
Bobby (from previous email): Where there is a "concept" of a
dogmatically held doctrine, such as the trinity. There would have to be
some SPECIFIC "terminology" in the Scriptures authorizing such a
belief.
Jim: And there is -- the terms "Godhead," "eternal," "being in the
form of God," "the express image of His person," and so on may all be
considered "terminology." But there are also plain statements in
various Scriptures which may express specific topics -- such as the
"rapture," the "emblems" of the Lord's Supper, and "dispensations" --
none of which are explicitly in the Bible as terms, but all of which are
in the Bible as concepts.
Bobby: Jim, have you ever hunted rabbits? They run in a circle.
The words "Godhead," "eternal," "being in the form of God," "the express
image of His person," does NOT do for the word "persons" what "caught
up" does for the word "rapture." Jim, you believe there are three
"persons" ... "Spirits" ... Saviours ... but you don't have a shred of
SPECIFIC Scirptural proof that there is such. All you've got is a few
very carefully Scriptures which have been given "implied" meanings
and/or interpreted intellectually which contradict a whole truck load of
Scriptures on the same subject, found elsewhere in the Bible. Now,
that ain't about right ... that is right. If you think you can prove
that statement wrong ... go for it!
Bobby (from previous email): However, the concept of a "plurality"
of "three eternal persons" of God that evolved many years AFTER the
ascension and passing of the "original" New Testament leaders, there is
not a shred of SPECIFIC "terminology" found anywhere in the Scriptures.
And, THAT, is what I object to.
Jim: Then reject the non-Biblical terms and retain the Biblical concepts, instead of adulterating them with modalism!
Bobby: Precisely to what non-Biblical terms do you refer, Jim?
Furthermore, who are you to be preaching to anyone about rejecting
non-Biblical terms, when you used them all the time yourself to expain
your theology? You claim a concept existed generations BEFORE the
termonology caught up with it. I say that is pure hogwash
indoctrination.
Bobby (from previous email): However, since you acknowledge the
concept of the trinity "emerged "officially," as a concrete expression,
in the A.D. 300's" ...
Jim: I don't acknowledge that -- you're juggling! I said that the
terminology (i.e., a particular means of expressing the concept) emerged
in the A.D. 300's. The concept is in the New Testament.
Bobby: Sounds to me like you are juggling, Jim, because you sure
don't have any "terminology" to go with your "concept" until generations
AFTER the Ascension and the passing of the "original" New Testament
leaders ... AND all you have to back up your assertion that the concept
even existed prior to the "terminology" is your opinion and/or the
writings of those who was expressing theirs (one of whom you've already
said wrote a bunch of whacky stuff).
Jim: Eh? Look at your previous sentence: "Since you acknowledge
the concept of the trinity "emerged" "officially" as a concrete
expression, in the A.D. 300's..." Now let's just study that a moment: I
believe I very clearly differentiated between the concept and the terms
(that is, the concrete expression). You took the very things which I
differentiated and formed a sentence in which the two are merged: you
said that I acknowledge that the concept emerged as an expression. I
said no such thing!
Bobby: In your dreams, the concept existed generations BEFORE the
terminology was put with it by someone you don't even fully support.
Get real, Jim. Oh, I forgot, a controversial document found in the
1800's says it, so it must be so, huh? WHEW! Just give me my old KJV
and leave me alone ... is the way I feel about it.
Bobby (from previous email): Where was anyone ever baptized with
these words invoked, " ... in the name of the Father, AND of the Son,
AND of the Holy Ghost?" Yet that is precisely what you believe, right?
Jim: I believe that it was Matthew's intent to deliver a Gospel
account which would be liturgically useful, and that Matthew 28:19 was
intended to be liturgically useful at immersions.
Bobby: How do you know what Matthew's intent was, Jim? By the way,
it wasn't even Matthew's intent anyway. It was the words of Jesus as
recorded by Matthew. But I will say, it's too bad you wasn't around to
tell poor ole brother Peter what you "believe" about this matter, 'cause
he sure bound Jesus name baptism on earth, didn't he? And the rest of
the "original" New Testament leaders followed suit, didn't they. That
is, until some generations later when people became sofisticated enough
to know better, and got it all straightened out, huh? WHEW! This would
be hilarious if it was so serious, Jim.
Bobby (from previous email): ... Revelation Chapter 17 describes in
pretty good detail the "mother" of the doctrine from the city of seven
hills.
Jim: I have no doubt that Rev. 17:9 connects "Babylon" with Rome.
It's clear as day. But Revelation is focused primarily against external
persecutors and their religious allies -- typical of which was the Cult
of Emperor-Worship, which was based in, of course, Rome. I don't see
Rev. 17 as targeting a particular doctrine, except any doctrine which
would result in a person committing an act of worship of some human
being [namely the Emperor] or his statue.
Bobby (from previous email): Well, Jim, Jehovah Witnesses don't
think too highly of Jesus because their position is, anyone who worships
Him is guilty of worshipping the creature more than the Creator ... and
therefore taking something away from God. So you can imagine what they
think about someone like me who comes along teaching that Jesus was God
manifested in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). Your indoctrination has you
so blind until you don't even understand (or acknowlege, if you do) that
I am NOT taking anything away from God. But, instead, (as Paul put it
in Acts 24:14) " ... after the way which they call heresy, so worship I
the God of my fathers, ..." At any rate, Rome is known as the "City of
Seven Hills." That is where the whore sits (is located). That is where
the "terminology" for her man made doctrine, which you so adamantly
defend, evolved. I don't know how much plainer it can be.
Jim: There is a rather wide space between the identification of
"Babylon" with Rome (with which I agree) and the notion that the
terminology of the doctrine of the Trinity is what is targeted in
Revelation 17. (But the term "Trinity" is not, as I've said before, the
issue: I consider it completely disposable.)
Bobby: I never said Revelation Chapter 17 targeted the trinity.
However, the seven hills is where the whore sits. The seven hills is
where your "termonology" comes from .... get it?? Furthermore, the
whore in Revelation Chapter 17 has some whore daughters because she is
referred to as the "moter" of harlots ... and the "mother" church, where
the whore sits, looks upon those who "protested" and came out of her
(left home), but retained her doctrine, as being "wayward children."
Some day they will be joined again as one just as sure as the sun rises
in the East.
Bobby (from pevious email): Well, all you have to go on for your
belief that God has revealed Himself as three Eternal Persons is your
opinion or some so called scholar's writings, because it surely isn't
SPECIFICALLY stated in Scripture. I'm going to stick with true
MONOTHEISTIC rendering of Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our
God is one LORD:" ... and NOT try to turn Him into a "plurality" of
"three eternal persons."
Jim: I am a monotheist; I believe that One God has manifested
Himself in three eternal Persons. The Bible specifically refers to each
Person the way one would normally refer to a Person. The Bible also
specifically refers to each Person as God.
Bobby: Monotheist?? One God?? Your view of God either portrays
three Gods OR One God three heads ... BOTH OF WHICH IS IN ERROR. Three
eternal "persons" referred to as one would normally refer to a Person
... each one referred to as GOD??? You're pluralistic ... if not
polytheistic, Jim.
Jim: And in the Bible the three interact (such as at creation, at
Jesus' baptism, as Jesus prays, and so on). Granted, the Scriptural
evidence is not in a convenient cluster. But it is there.
Bobby: Jim, admit it, your Scriptural "evidence" is "IMPLIED" ... AND it "adds to" the Word of God.
Jim: If you are going to say that God has NOT revealed Himself in
three eternal Persons, then please tell me ... Which of the three has
God not revealed Himself as?
Which of the three is not eternal? (You already said that all three are eternal.) Which of the three is not a Person?
Bobby: Your use of the unScriptural term "PERSONS" relating to God
in the very first question above makes it AND the other two (which are
connected to it) very seriously flawed from the outset. However, I
will answer your questions in this way. The Father, Son and Holy
Spirit are three different forms in which God has revealed HIMSELF ...
and interacted ... with humanity. Since the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
are God ... and God is eternal ... the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are
eternal ... not disposable or temporary roles God performed as ... and
most CERTAINLY not "persons." Look, Jim, YHWH ... the LORD is GOD.
YHWH is referred to in tons of Scriptures as HE. Actually, "person" as
normally thought of and used by us is not really adequate to describe
the omnipresent eternal YHWH ... LORD ... GOD (which is "A" Spirit) ...
the source of all power and knowledge, etc. The word "persons" is NOT
used a single time in the entire Bible to describe God or the Godhead.
However, the word "Person" is used in Hebrews 1:3 "Who being the
brightness of his glory, and the express image of his "PERSON,"
(singular) and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he
had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the
Majesty on high:" By the way, Jim, notice the SINGULAR reference to
God's PERSON. You have tried to make God a "plurality" of "persons"
throughout this entire debate. Don't you think it is about time to
start speaking where the Bible speaks and remaining silent where it is
silent???
Bobby (from previous email): Better yet, I think it helps to have a
model which is found SPECIFICALLY authorized in the Scriptures ...
"verbatim," without the need of a library full of reference books, and
commentaries, or having to make all sorts of assumptions, or use human
intellect, reasoning, logic or points of conjecture.
Jim" Well, yeah. We each believe (as far I can tell about you)
that each model (mine for me, yours for you) IS authorized in the
Scriptures. But aren't you just using rhetoric here? You've used more
reference books in this discussion than I have! And without some
degree of reasoning and logic, either of us could simply say, "I am
right and you are wrong, because I am taller. Or shorter. Or
whatever!"
Bobby: Jim, I really prefer to stay strictly with the Word of God.
However, I have found it necessary to rsesort to "other" writings to
prove my position from BOTH a Biblical and Historical standpoint. I
promise you, if you'll quit using your "other" writings in this debate,
so will I. I would much rather stay with the verbatim Word of God
without all the "later stuff" ... and "implied" interpretations given to
Scriptures ... anyway. I watch Fox News because they report and you
decide. I don't have to depend on commentaries.
Bobby (from previous email): I once received a letter from a very
nice Trinitarian lady who did her best to assert that the trinity is, in
fact, an unexplainable "MYSTERY." Therefore, she could not possibly
explain it to me. ... Here's what I found (The particular verses are in
parenthesis, but please read the scriptures outlined to get a better
understanding of the context): [followed by a list of several passages
in which the word "mystery" occurs] I am still waiting on her reply.
Do you care to take up her cause?
Jim: Um ... what cause would that be? I don't see what the question is here.
Bobby: Well, Jim, she was trying to convince me ... just like you
... that there is a trinity of three "persons" in the Godhead. After
all else failed, she whooped out the "mystery" card and played it.
**IF** there is a mystery surrounding the Godhead, the Bible should so
state ... but it doesn't. I showed her that it doesn't. And that's
probably why I never heard back from her. By the way, this is
inexcusable ... For the invisible things of him from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without
excuse:Romans 1:20
Bobby (from previous email): ... As a matter of fact, they'll use
just about anything they can get their hands on because that's all
they've got ... "other" writings.
Jim: Of course I disagree, and believe that the eternality of three
Persons as one God is discernable in Scripture alone -- but I decline
to drift into a tangent about what constitutes authoritative sources for
Protestants and Catholics.
Bobby: That is what I refer to as "effective indoctrination."
Without "terminology" what is a concept??? We both know everyone has an
opinion ... and opinions do NOT count. Whether you'll ever admit this
or not, you owe the three "persons" TERMINOLOGY, that you cling to and
defend so adamantly, to none other than the "univeral" (catholic) church
of Rome.
Bobby (from previous email): As you know, trinitarians are adamant
about insisting on using the term of "three persons" in their
description of God. I embrace the concept of three forms of God ...
three manifestations of God ... three offices of God ... three positions
of God ... three roles of God.
Jim: Ah. You're (currently) a modalist.
Bobby: What makes you say that?
Jim: Because you fit the definition of a modalist.
Bobby: Well, tell me what the word modalist means to you, Jim.
Jim: A modalist is a person who believes that the Father is the Son
is the Spirit, and that each one of those three is a mode of existence,
not innate to God's nature.
Bobby: Well, that leave me out right there, because it is my firm
conviction that ALL of the attributes, characteristics and qualities of
GOD are present in whatever form, manifestation, or representation God
chooses to manifest (reveal) Himself to mankind in.
Jim: In modalism, when God fills a fatherly role, He is the Father;
when God fills a servant-like role, He is the Son; when God fills a
guiding/comforting role, He is the Holy Spirit. But they are only one
Person, and the expressions of "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" are
essentially masks to be picked up and taken off according to how God
wishes to manifest Himself on any given occasion.
Bobby: Jim, are you suggesting that my position is that when God
fills a fatherly role, He is the nothing else but the Father; and when
God fills a servant-like role, He is nothing else but the Son; when God
fills a guiding/comforting role, He is nothing else but the Holy Spirit?
If so, you are very badly mistaken, my friend. Or are you suggesting
that God can't function as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
simultaneously unless He is split up into three persons ... a person for
each representation or manner or form in which He manifests Himself?
Is that the bottom line of your reasoning? Or is it that you believe
every way in which God reveals Himself to humanity is a "person" of God.
Like the burning bush, the talking donkey, pillar of fire by night and
pillar of cloud by day and the rock that followed them ... you know
those kinds of representations ... do you hold that all of them were
also "persons" of God???
Bobby (from previous email): Have I presented anything which is not Biblical?
Jim: Yes. I submit the following simply as my impressions: First, you have opposed the didactic force of Matthew 28:19.
Bobby: Jim, the Didache was written how many years AFTER the
ascension and passing of the "original" New Testament leaders ... and by
whom????
Jim: Um ... the term "didactic" here is unrelated to the document
called the Didache. "Didactic force" means "instructive force/intent."
(To answer your question, though, it was anonymously published c. A.D.
115 -- some folks say it should be assigned an earlier date; some say a
little later, but I think A.D. 115 is just about right.)
Bobby: Well, Jim, I do beleive the Didache is the earliest document
you have furnished me with upon which you base your "instructive
force/intent" upon. Am I not correct about this? By the way, the
Didache is a controversial document found in the 1800's which doesn't
have any more Sciptural support for quoting the titles of Matthew 28:19
than you do, Jim. And it amazes me when people use "later" writings
(whether controversial or not) to serve as their authority for something
they can't find in the Bible. If it ain't wrote on the rock, and it
tells a different tale that what's wrote on the rock, I don't embrace
it. The Didache is surrounded with controversy, as is lots of the
"later" writings. That's not to say it doesn't contain any truth
whatsoever. I've read the entire Book of Mormon, and while I don't
embrace it as the inspired Word of God, I did read some things in it
which I knew to be true. But the bottom line is, as far as I'm
concerned, the "verbatim" Bible and the preponderance of "verbatim"
Scriptural evidence trumps "later" writings NOT the other way around.
Bobby (from previous email): I have already told you that I think it
is much wiser to allow the "verbatim" Scriptures to supercede the later
writings ... especially when the later writings don't have a shred of
"verbatim" authority in the Scriptures ... when it comes to establishing
what is "sound doctrine" and what is not.
Jim: I agree that Scripture -- the correct meaning of Scripture, of
course, not the incorrect meaning -- is the only valid basis for
authoritative teachings of the church. I don't think, in this case,
that the Didache and the other early writings supercede Scripture; they
complement it -- indeed, it looks like (again) you are simply re-stating
your position via the claim that they oppose it regarding the use of
"in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" at
immersions.
Bobby: Jim, the correct meaning of Scriptures is determined by the
preponderance of "verbatim" Scriptural evidence ... NOT by someone else
"thinks" they mean. To be honest with you, I just sort of shake my head
when a person who presents themself as being intellectual and
enlightened, and can't see the proper interpretation and application of
Matthew 28:19 ... and more especially when they adamantly defend the
error of "quoting" titles instead of invoking the "name" ... AND teach
others to do the same.
Jim: You almost seem to say that the evidence from the second
century ought to have no effect whatsoever. Should I suppose that if
there were some second-century writer who wrote, "When we baptize
people, we make sure that whatever we do, we do not baptize them in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, for such a
thing would be anathema to us, among whom the students of the apostles
still stand," you would naturally consider such a thing to be
unimportant and scarcely worth mentioning?
Bobby: First off, Jim, there is a tremendous difference in not
baptizing someone in the NAME (singular) of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit, and that of not quoting these words, "in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," at a baptism.
When a person is baptized in NAME (singular) of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit, they were baptized with the NAME (singular)
of JESUS invoked. When a person is baptized with these words quoted
over them, " ... in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit," NO NAME HAS BEEN USED. By the way, I do not say that all
of the evidence from the second century ought to have no effect
whatsoever. However, when the "later" writings conflict with what the
"original" New Testament leaders believed, practiced and taught ... it's
circle file material as far as I'm concerned.
Jim: Second, you deny Christ's words in John 14:28 (the Father cannot be greater than Christ if the Father IS Christ).
Bobby: And neither could the Father be greater than Christ if (as
you contend) they are both co-equal "persons" in the Godhead. Jim,
Christ was BOTH God and man ... Eternal Spirit of God joined with
humanity ... (unlike you and me) the Spirit (Divine nature) was indeed
greater than the flesh (human nature). In Jesus' case, the flesh was
ALWAYS subject to the Spirit ... something that you and I are admonished
to emulate. As I see it, your problem is, you just can't distinguish
which nature (Divine or human) is speaking. Surely you don't hold to
the notion that Jesus always only spoke as a human ... or that Jesus
always only spoke as Divine. If you do, then I would appreciate it if
you would explain just exactly what has led you to believe such a thing.
Jim: I don't have the need to make such an artificial and arbitrary
distinction, because I see Jesus, during the Incarnation, as God,
full-time, and as a human being, full-time, in some mysterious way.
You, though, seem to say that Jesus is the Father; that is, they are one
Person. In that case, I have a question for you: is Mary the mother
of the Father?
Bobby: Nothing artificial and arbitrary about it, Jim. When Jesus
said, "I thirst." That was the human nature. When Jesus said, "Son
they sins be forgiven thee" ... and ... "Lazarus, come forth!" that was
the Divine nature. Furthermore, Jesus said His sheep know his voice ...
they are NOT confused about who He "really" is and are wrangling with
some "mysterious" situation they can't explain. The Spirit of God ...
which is the Father ... which is the Holy Spirit ... did NOT originate
from Mary's womb. The supernaturally conceived, supernatural human who
was born of Mary's womb has a name which above EVERY name, and it is
referred to as "the Everlasting Father" ... "the Mighty God" ... "God
manifested in the flesh" ... "the form of God" ... "the image of the
invisible God" ... "the express image of His person (singular) ... etc.
That name is the name that EVERYONE will one day bow to .... JESUS!
Bobby (from previous email): ... John 14:28 is a GREATER problem
for you than it could ever possibly be for me, because your theology
assigns the "co-equal" status to the "three eternal persons," remember?
Now, how could one be "co-equal" and at the same time be lesser or
greater?
Jim: It's not a problem; the answer is in one word: kenosis. (Of
course, there's a lot of unfolding to do regarding that word, but that
would be a tangent.)
Bobby: Jim, the Bible is not complicated. And it doesn't take a
Philadelphia lawyer to be able to understand it. You seem to forget
some of the men who turned their world upside down were considered to be
ignorant and unlearned. But just to show you I'm open, I'll endure
your explanation about there not being a problem with one co-equal
person being inferior to another co-equal person due to "kenosis." Go
for it. I'd really like to hear how you'd try to explain this one.
**IF** I were to place a bet, I would bet that your explanation would
NOT be "verbatim" Scriptures that you have drawn this conclusion from
yourself, but, instead, would be the work of some "so called" scholar or
group of them which has had a hand in your indoctrination. Of course, I
could be wrong. At any rate, GO FOR IT!
Jim: Third, you deny Christ's words in John 5:31-37, where Christ
says plainly that He does not bear witness of Himself, and then (in v.
37) says that the Father does bear witness of Him (the Father cannot be
bearing witness while Christ is not bearing witness if the Father IS
Christ).
Bobby: I guess I'll have to whoop out the old Clark Kent/Superman
analogy, huh? While it is not a perfect analogy, it is a good one.
There were times when Jesus' Divine nature was being expressed and times
when Jesus' human nature was being expressed. The above is where
Jesus' human nature is being expressed. Look, Jim, Jesus knew what
people were thinking. He could just speak the word and people came out
of their graves, etc. Your loyalty to your indoctrination is why you
either can't understand (or won't acknowldege) the purpose of things
like the voice and the dove or the places where Jesus spoke as God and
those where He spoke as the Son of God ... a human. By the way,
strictly as a side note, God has only ONE "begotten" Son ... but God has
many sons.
Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they
were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also
after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and
they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of
old, men of renown.
St. John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to
become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Philippians 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of
God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation,
among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
1 John 3:1-2 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed
upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world
knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons
of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that,
when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he
is.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response # 10 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 4:27 PM
Subject: Response Part 4 of 4 of Jim's email of 6-29
Jim: Eh? It sounds like you are saying that at times when Jesus
spoke, a human being was not speaking, and at times when Jesus spoke,
God was not speaking. Is that what you mean?
Bobby: That's it, Jim. Jesus was BOTH fully God AND fully human.
Therefore He could speak as BOTH God and human. When He said "before
Abraham was, I AM." That wasn't the words of a human. Or do you
disagree with me on that???
Bobby (from previous email): The prophets witnessed of the coming
Messiah. John the Baptist witnessed of Jesus being the Messiah. The
human side of Jesus witnessed of Him being the Messiah. And the Divine
side of Jesus witnessed of Jesus being the Messiah.
Jim: Eh? Clearly when you talk about unScriptural terminology, you
know what you are talking about! "The Divine side of Jesus?" Where in
Scripture does Jesus say, "My human side bears witness" and "My Divine
side bears witness?" Book, chapter, and verse with those exact words,
please.
Bobby: You'd be the last person on the planet I'd expect to see
rebuking someone for using unScriptural terminology. At any rate, in
St. John 14:10 Jesus told His disciples that the words He was speaking
were not coming from a human ... and in St. John 19:28 it is very plain
to see that these were not the words of an "eternal Spirit" because
Jesus really did die on the cross that day, Jim.
Jim: Let's take a look at John 8:17-18 ~ Jesus says, "It is also
written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one
that beareth witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth
witness of me." Allow me to pretend what might have happened had you
been there: "Then Bobby Richardson chimed in, lest the Pharisees get
the wrong impression, saying, 'Of course, what Jesus really means is
that He and the Father are not two; see, they are really the same
Person! Jesus is just saying that the Father is His Divine side!'"
Bobby: Jim, it took at least two witnesses to bring about judgment
or to establish a matter. However, "God is not a man, that he should
lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: ..." Numbers 23:19.
Therefore He really didn't need any other witness NOR does He need to
prove Himself to anyone. However, because of LOVE and truly amazing
grace, He decided to come down here and walk among His own Creation, to
be misunderstood, falsely accused, rejected, and to go through
everything that man goes through, in order to pay the sin debt and to
redeem man back to Himself. He knew ahead of time what was going to
happen. He even knew the thoughts of others. At any rate, He did
everything He possibly could, short of just proclaiming publically who
He "really" was, in an effort to reach a bunch of stiff necked, self
willed, self righteous, hypocrites. So much so, that He even met the
requirements that they were supposed to be living by, but really
weren't. I'll say it again, the Son is the human nature, the Father is
the Divine nature. The prophets had spoken and foretold of the coming
Messiah. John the Baptist also foretold and forewarned of the coming
Messiah. Jesus spoke of Himself being the Messiah, and there were many
things which served as a Divine Witness that He was the Messiah. Jesus
also said that He and the Father were ONE ... NOT "as" ONE. In Jesus,
there is ONE body with TWO natures due to the Father dwelling inside
Him. Look Jim, God didn't have to use the various ways to serve as
Divine witnesses of who Jesus "really" is. He could have just as easily
dispatched an army or angels to come down here like men and do all the
witnessing ... but He did it all by HIMSELF! As a restult, He was
rejected, tortured and crucified. Paul puts it this way in 1
Corinthians 2:8 "Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had
they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." Before
you ask, I don't believe God died on the cross. However, He was there
on the cross in the body of Jesus Christ right up until the last moment
when Jesus gave up the ghost. How about you? Do you think God died on
the cross, Jim?
Jim: Fourth, you have contradicted the distinct presentation of the Father, Son, and Spirit in Revelation 5.
Bobby: Well, if you are going to accuse me of something, you ought
to ... at the very least ... be more specific in your accusation.
Jim: These are not accusations; I said up-front that these are my
impressions (after you asked me to point them out!) I am referring here
to the ramifications of the sequence of events in Revelation chapter 5.
In chapter 4, we meet One on the throne -- who obviously is God. Not
so immediately obviously, the One on the throne is also Christ: Christ
is, when one sets together Rev. 1:8 and 1:11, he who "is, and which was,
and which is to come." 4:8 describes the One on the throne likewise as
he "which was, and is, and is to come." Then in chapter 5, the Lamb
appears -- not from offstage, so to speak, but from the midst of the
throne and the four living creatures (i.e., in the center of the scene).
The Lamb is, obviously, Christ -- who, as described in 5:9, "wast
slain, and hast redeemed us to God." The thing to note here is, the
Lamb appears, and Someone is still on the throne: in 5:7, "he [the
Lamb] came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon
the throne." No matter how you slice it, this demonstrates a
distinction between the Father and the Lamb.
Bobby: Yes, and the distinction is, the Lamb was a supernaturally
conceived, super human being what was fully man and fully God ... God
manifested in the flesh. The Father is the eternal Spirit of Almighty
God who manifested Himself to humanity in Jesus Christ. In case you
missed it, the distinction is Spirit and flesh. One distinction is
Spirit (Divine) and the other distinction is flesh (human). The body of
Jesus will be in Heaven when we get there. As a matter of fact, the
body of Jesus will be the only body there because we will have new
bodies, and, of course, the Spirit of Almighty God is invisible, and
doesn't have a body of flesh and bones as the body of Jesus. So it
sounds like Jesus' body will be the only BODY on the Throne. By the
way, even the mama bear, papa bear and baby bear had there own chairs.
How come you don't think your three "persons" would need THREE THRONES
... one for each PERSON? I mean, the elders have individual thrones to
sit on, don't they? Do you think Jesus will be sitting in the Father's
lap, with a dove perched on one of His shoulders, or what, Jim? Come on
and tell me about this Throne business, why don't you? I can tell you
now what the Bible says about it (of course that probably won't mean
much to you) ... the word "throne" appears about 39 times in the Book
of Revelation. Below are some of the descriptions I found in the book
of Revelation. Please let me know where your "three eternal persons"
are and what you know about their "Throne" ... OR "Thrones."
his throne
my throne
a throne
the throne
AND .....
Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him (not THEM)
that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and
there was found no place for them.
Jim: Fifth, you oppose the eternality of two of the three Persons
of the Godhead (though I'm not sure which ones), inasmuch as you say
that they are equivalent to a human being becoming a father and a
husband, which no human being is eternally.
Bobby: I use the father, son, husband illustation of how ONE PERSON can function in different capacities,
Jim: -- Exactly; you consider the "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" to be mere capacities. But --
Bobby: The ONLY reason I use the father, son, and husband
illustation is to show how ONE PERSON can ... and DOES ... function in
more than one capacity ... AND (since we are created in His image AND
likeness) so can ... and DOES ... GOD! Now, **IF** applied your logic,
and since I function in the capacity of a father, that would be ONE
PERSON, right? Since I function in the capacity of a son, that is
another PERSON, right? And, of course, since I function in the capacity
of a husband, that is yet another PERSON, right? So according to you I
am three people in one, right? Listen, Jim, father is NOT a person ...
it's a TITLE of a person. Son is NOT a person ... it's the TITLE of a
person. And husband is NOT a person ... it's the TITLE of a person. I
really wish you would quit trying to turn everything into a person.
Why, I guess you think the donkey who talked with a man's voice was a
person, don't you? How about the burning bush? Was it a person too?
WHEW!
Bobby (from previous email): but I don't recall ever saying the
trin[i]tarians' three "persons" of the Godhead are the equivalent of a
human being becoming such.
Jim: If that is NOT what you're saying, there is only one other
possible position: the Father never became the Son, the Son never
became the Father, the Father never became the Holy Spirit, and the Holy
Spirit never became the Son, and so on, because they have all eternally
existed -- and God never became the Father or the Son or the Holy
Spirit, since God is unchanging and because the Father is eternal, the
Son is eternal, and the Spirit is eternal.
Bobby: Jim, Jim, Jim .... Listen to what I said, for crying out
loud. I don't recall the trinitarians' three "persons" of the Godhead
are the equivalent of a human being becoming such. Humans have a
beginning, Jim. God doesn't. Humans do NOT fill all of enternity from
beginning to end and vice versa. God does. THE ONLY PURPOSE OF USING
THE FATHER, SON, HUSBAND ANALOGY IS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ONE PERSON CAN
... AND DOES ... HOLD THE TITLES AND FUNCTIONS AS ALL THREE .... FATHER,
SON AND HUSBAND. IT DOES NOT NECESSITATE BEING SPLIT UP INTO PIECES
AND BECOMING A GROUP ... A PLURALITY. Jim, I make no apologies about
this, but your "pluralistic" concept and "terminology has its roots sunk
way down deep into paganism, buddy.
Bobby (from previous email) Furthermore, I believe I stated above
that I am in total agreement with your statement, " ... the Father is
eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal."
Jim: Well, if these three are capacities, and God is eternally
functioning in these three capacities simultaneously, I see no
substantive difference between saying that, and saying that God is
triune. Replace the word "Persons" with "Capacities" and, voila, we
agree.
Bobby: I said a long, long time ago ... Now, if it is a matter of
semantics, then dropping the unbiblical descriptive term of "persons" in
reference to God and using in its place one of the terms I just used
(forms of God ... three manifestations of God ... three offices of God
... three positions of God ... three roles of God.), should bring true
monotheists into the unity of the faith concerning this matter.
However, it is my position that those who insist on using the "persons"
designation in their description of God, are treading some very
dangerous territory
Jim: For starters, because God said, "This is My beloved Son,"
clearly referring to Jesus. The message did not suggest that the One
speaking was also the beloved Son; nor would it be natural for anybody
on hand to observe the scene to get such an impression. ...
Bobby (from previous email): Well, the Holy Ghost over shadowed
Mary and she conceived the Christ Child who was referred to as "Child of
the Holy Ghost." Now, according to your theology, the Holy Ghost is a
separate "eternal person" in the Godhead. Therefore, the words, "This
is My beloved Son" would have had to been spoken by the Holy Ghost ...
NOT the first person of the trinity, right?
Jim: Wrong. You're sort of blurring Matthew 1:18. The text does
not use "Child of the Holy Ghost" as an appelation, as you (mis)present
it; it says that Mary was found to be with child of the Holy Ghost.
Bobby: I can use a lower case "c" for child in Matthew 1:18 and
stick to my position. As a matter of fact, I did not realize I had made
it upper case. The bottom line is, the child in Mary's womb was "of"
the Holy Ghost. Now, your theology insists on creating different
"Spirits" ... "persons" ... and "Saviours" for each manner in which God
manifests Himself to humanity. That being the case, it would have to
follow that the Holy Ghost was actually the Father of the child in
Mary's womb ... because the child was "OF" the Holy Ghost.
Jim: Now, avoiding commentaries as requested, let's just let
Scripture interpret Scripture: in John 3:5, Jesus refers to being born
"of water and of the Spirit." Are we to think that, because we are
"born of the Holy Spirit," that we are to consider the Spirit to be our
Father? If so, we ought to consider water to be our father, too, since
the phrase "born of" is connected here to "water" just as firmly as it
is connected to "Spirit." But water is not our father; the waters of
baptism are merely the vessel, the conduit, of the remission of sins,
not the source. And so it is with the Holy Spirit in John 3:5, and in
Matthew 1:18.
Bobby: It is my position that being born again of water and of the
Spirit means being "baptized" in water and with the Holy Ghost. BOTH
of which makes us a new creature in Christ Jesus ... or "born again."
Not that the water is our Father. However, we all have one Father ....
God. And He is Spirit ... and there is only ONE Spirit. Therefore the
Holy Spirit and God MUST be one and the same Spirit. As a result, I
would say God ... the Spirit that "formed" us ... is our Father the
first time we are born -naturally. And, later, when we find ourselves
in need of a Saviour .... God ... the Spirit that "fills" us ... is our
Father the second time we are born -spiritually ... OR when we are born
again. How's that grab ya??
Jim: ... Inasmuch as the Father was in the Son, in some sense, as
long as you say that the Father and the Son are the same Person you face
a problem similar to having to put a jar inside itself. I don't see
how this helps your position.
Bobby (from previous email): Let's see if I can 'splain this a
little mo better. Let's say you take that same jar and sit it down in a
lake. You would then have the jar in the lake AND the lake in the jar
.... except while all of the qualities of the lake are in the jar, not
all of the quantity of the lake would be in the jar, right? Well, there
you have an illustration of the Godhead. The Spirit of Almighty God
was still omnipresent, so all of the quantity of God was NOT manifested
in the body of Jesus. But all of the qualities and attributes of God
surely were.
Jim: I'd hesitate to say that I have a lake in a jar; nevertheless as an analogy this sounds fairly orthodox.
Bobby: The bottom line is, the lake in the jar and the lake outside
the jar wasn't two different lakes. That which was in the jar was
contained by the jar, that which was outside the jar wasn't contained
inside the jar. But two different lakes it was not!
Bobby (from previous email) Since you obviously believe that Jesus
was on earth and the Father was up in Heaven ... on another planet ...
in another solar system or something
Jim: -- eh? Leapin' lizards; God is a spirit. I do not imagine
God's throne to be physically tangible in this universe in any way, at
least not till the Second Coming.
Bobby: I ain't concerned about leapin' lizards. I just want to
know where you think God was while Jesus was here on earth. Now, will
you answer the question???
Bobby (from previous email): -- please give me your understanding
of the following words of Jesus in St. John 3:13 when He was standing on
earth speaking to Nicodemus .... "And no man hath ascended up to
heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is
in heaven." Kindly give me your explanation for such a statement ...
according to your theology.
Jim: I'll try to be concise. If you pick up a New American
Standard Bible, you'll see that in the NASB, the verse simply ends with
the word "Man." No "which is in heaven!" The NIV includes "who is in
heaven" but only as a footnote, not as part of the text. The New
Revised Standard Version (NRSV) does the same thing the NIV does here.
The CEV (Contemporary English Version, currently being heavily promoted
by the American Bible Society as a children's translation) does not have
the phrase "which is in heaven" at all. So be aware that one available
option is to take the approach that Jesus never said what the KJV
presents Him as saying at the end of John 3:13. (Now, that would
still leave us with the question of how to harmonize this verse with the
fact that Elijah ascended up to heaven, but that would be a tangent.)
Thus there would be no theological question to address in the first
place. But that is not how I deal with this passage. Two main factors
contribute to my approach: First, I consider the "red-lettering" of the
text here to be erroneous; that is, in the original text there was no
special format for the words of Christ; nor were there quotation marks
-- and the important thing was to communicate the meaning of Christ's
words, rather than to present them verbatim (since the Gospels were
written in Greek, but Christ would have spoken Aramaic on many
occasions).
Second, I discern a Johannine (i.e., of-John) style of presentation
in which John freely augmented the narrative with devotional comments
and notes which are technically out of sequence with the immediate
context. For instance, in John 2:18-22, Jesus makes a statement; then
John makes a comment about the disciples' later remembrance of it --
fast-forwarding the narrative, so to speak -- and then, the focus
returns to about where it was before -- fast-rewinding the narrative, so
to speak. Likewise in John 4, John states that Jesus "left Judaea, and
departed again into Galilee," and then proceeds with a story of
something that happened before Jesus' actual arrival in Galilee. When I
apply both these factors to John 3:13, I arrive at the position that as
John is recording the words of Christ, John is also presenting his own
Divinely-inspired devotional comments, and John is simply making the
observation that -- as of the time John was writing the Gospel of John
-- the Son of Man is in heaven. Jesus' words to Nicodemus in 3:13 are,
"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from
heaven," and John clarifies Jesus' meaning: who is he that came down
from heaven? "The Son of Man who is in heaven."
(Also, I consider John 3:18-21 to be John's inspired words, not
words of Christ to Nicodemus. In style they resemble hardly anything
Jesus says elsewhere, but match the style of the Epistles of John very
closely. And I think I should probably state that I consider the New
Testament to be inspired by God -- that does not mean that the human
authors did not put any effort or thought into the arrangement or
composition of their work; it means that they wrote exactly what God
wanted them to write.)
Bobby: Well, that's convenient. What ever doesn't suit you or fit
your theology just do like the ole boy did in Jeremiah 36:23 and take a
penknife and cut it out. I forgot, you've already ripped Acts Chapter
10 right out of your Bible already, haven't you. I mean, you preach
that the "original" New Testament Church only baptized Jews. WHEW!
Anyway, maybe we'll get around to talking about Bible versions before
this is over with, but I not ready to go there just yet. We've still
got a lot of unresolved issues with trinitarianism vs the Apostles' One
God Monotheistic Doctrine. Besides, I'm going to stick by my ole KJV
from Genesis to Revelation. Whatever "problems" you have with it aren't
Heaven or Hell issues anyway. Here's what you said .... Jesus' words
to Nicodemus in 3:13 are, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he
that came down from heaven," and John clarifies Jesus' meaning: who is
he that came down from heaven? "The Son of Man who is in heaven."
Jim, I can assure you, God doesn't need, nor want, any help in the
"wording" of the Holy Bible. However, in the KJV, the words that were
put in there to bring more meaning to a passage are shown in italics. I
do not believe for one minute that John just put those words in there
to "clarify" anything. I, mean, any believer would have to believe that
Jesus is now in Heaven. John doesn't have to remind anyone in such a
critical passage of Scripture. He had plenty of other place to remind
us **IF** that is what he wanted to do. Debating never ceases to amaze
me. Just about time I think I've heard it all, I'll hear something like
what you just said. WHEW!
Bobby (from previous email): I use the analogy of Clark Kent and
Superman a lot when talking about the relationship of the Father and the
Son ...
Jim: Yep, that's modalism, alright.
Bobby (from previous emai): Ummm, Jim, is that bad? Please explain.
Jim: Yes, modalism is bad. Although I'm not sure that modalism
that posits that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all eternal is
normal modalism. I would explain further, but there are surely
resources on the internet that can do so, and I do have some time
constraints today.
Bobby: Well, call me what you'd like, Jim. But, when it is all
said and done, I will still be an independent thinking,
non-denominational lay man who embraces the Apostles' One God
Monotheistic Doctrine. And it looks like you're determined to still be
embracing the seriously flawed man made doctrine known world wide as the
trinity.
Jim: You may indeed be both a father and a son and a teacher. But
are you your own father, and your own son? Is it possible for Bobby-
the-son to be standing in a river as Bobby-the-father speaks to him from
somewhere else, and as Bobby-the-teacher also enters the scene and
comes to the shoulder of Bobby-the-son?
Bobby (from previous email): What you said about Bobby is true. It
would be impossible. But that's really not what is at issue here.
Jim: Well, it was your analogy.
Bobby (from previous email): Well, Jim, I am NOT God manifested in
the flesh. But Jesus surely was. All I was trying to get across to you
is that even as a lowly human, I can function as a father, a son, a
husband, a teacher, etc.
Jim: -- But you are not your own father, or your own son. Jesus
called the Father, His Father, and the Father called Jesus, His Son. Do
you call yourself your own father, or your own son No (I think) --
because one person is not his own father, or his own son.
Bobby: WHEW! So by that, are you implying one or two of your
"eternal persons" has a Father? If so, I don't guess they're eternal
after all, huh? Look, Jim the Father is the Spirit ... God ... in
Creation. The Son is God manifested in the flesh ... God ... in
redemption. And the Holy Spirit is the Comforter ... the Spirit of God
... the Spirit of the Father ... the Spirit of the Son ... the ONE
Spirit which gives us access to God. Jesus was a supernaturally
conceived, supernatural human being and when He called God His Father,
He was correct from the human standpoint. When He made Himself God, and
said He was before Abraham. He was also correct from the Divine
standpoint. HE WAS BOTH, JIM ... GOD AND MAN ... FLESH AND SPIRIT ....
DIVINE AND HUMAN.
Bobby (from previous email): My only question to you is, "How come I
can do something that God can't ... when I was created in His image AND
His likeness, pray tell?"
Jim: Eh? (Have those verse-removing folks at the American Bible
Society taken James 1:13 and Hebrews 6:18 out of your Bible?) You're
interchanging actions with states of being. Besides, I agree that God
was/is working as Father, and as Son, and as the Holy Spirit.
Bobby: Nobody got 'em, Jim. They're still there. Thank God. I
guess after you lost Acts Chapter 10, you started keeping a better eye
on them dudes, huh? By the way, it has been my position all along that
God was/is working as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I just haven't tried
to turn Him into three "persons" ... the "Spirits" ... or three
"Saviours" since I learned better, and left that man made theology
behind. You really ought to do the same.
Bobby (from previous email): ... I was suggesting that since we are
created in the image AND likeness of God and consist of heart, soul,
mind, body, spirit, etc. ... AND can function in many different
capacities such as father, son, husband, teacher, etc. ... yet are only
ONE PERSON, why it is that you reject the concept that God can ... OR
DOES ... function as Father, Son and Holy Ghost ... yet is only ONE
PERSON, too???
Jim: See previous comments. We become fathers, husbands, teachers,
etc. -- but the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternal; one never
became the other. See the difference?
Bobby: Jim, the Incarnation was did NOT predate Bethlehem. Jesus
existed before Bethlehem as Almighty God HIMSELF ... NOT another Spirit.
By the way, you're never going to separate the Holy Spirit from the
Almighty God and form yet another Spirit ... not with Scripture, anyway.
Bobby (from previous email): ... Just because there were three
manifestations of God in one geographical location, all at one time, ...
then you deduc[e] that these three manifestations are three different
people ("persons")? That's is getting way out yonder.
Jim: Oh? it's "way out yonder" to observe that the Father said,
"This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased," and conclude that
the Father is not the same Person as the Son? It's "way out yonder" to
see Christ coming up, and the Holy Spirit coming down, and conclude that
Christ and the Holy Spirit are not the same Person? I do not see why.
Bobby: I've already explained this, but I guess I'll do another copy and paste of it ...
The purpose of Voice and the Dove at Jesus' baptism was to reveal
the identity of the Messiah to John the Baptist. God had previously
called John into the ministry to prepare the hearts of Israel for the
LORD ... and to baptize unto repentance. He did not know that His own
cousin was God manifest in the flesh, the anointed Messiah for Israel
and all the earth (Luke 1:34-41; John 1:30-31). Also, let me insert here
that just as God can speak through a burning bush, a donkey or out of a
cloud that doesn't mean that more than one person is present if there
is another form ... manifestation ... theophany ... of God present as
well. Like I've been trying to get you to understand, God can manifest
Himself to MILLIONS of different people in MILLIONS of different ways,
in MILLIONS of geographical locations ... SIMULTANEOUSLY. But that does
NOT turn GOD into a "plurality" of "persons" who "share" a "union."
Bobby (from previous email): You must know that God can manifest
Himself in millions of different ways, to millions of different people,
in millions of different geographical locations SIMULTANEOUSLY ... but
that doesn't make a bunch of different people ("persons") out of Him.
Jim: Correct, but no one is saying that all of those manifestations are eternal.
Bobby: God is the ONLY one who is Eternal, Jim. There's NOT three
different Eternal "persons' ... "Spirits" ... Saviours" ... in the
Godhead, each with a special function. That is pagan stuff, brother.
It's just ONE GOD who has manifested HIMSELF in three major forms to
humanity ... and He is from everlasting to everlasting.
Jim: Another reason is the existence of passages such as Luke 4:18,
where Jesus begins His speech with the words, "The Spirit of the Lord
is upon me." Let's see how that sounds when we assume that each noun
does not refer to a particular Person but instead refers to the same
Person ~ "The God of God is upon God."
Bobby (from previous email): It was not uncommon for Jesus to quote
from the Old Testament. I believe that particular quotation came from
Isaiah 61:1. By the way, the Spirit of the Lord was not only "upon"
Jesus ... the Spirit of the Lord was "inside" Jesus.
Jim: You are not dealing with the problem that I am presenting: How does "The God of God is upon God" make any sense to you?
Bobby: Jesus was FULLY GOD AND FULLY MAN. Because of this, Jesus
had the attributes of man (except without the sin nature) ... which
means He also had the spirit of man ... AND He also had the attributes
of God ... which means He also had the Spirit of Almighty God dwelling
in Him. One body ... One God ... One Person with ... two Spirits ...
two wills ... two natures. The reasons the Holy Spirit living in Jesus
couldn't be a different Spirit from Almighty God are several, but what
comes to mind right at the moment is because the Spirit was like that
lake in the jar, remember? It was one jar, and one lake ... NOT two
separate lakes -one being "in" the jar and the other being "outside" the
jar. And there wasn't a jar inside another jar either!
Jim: John 20:17 enters my mind as another verse which seems to require acrobatics on your part.
Bobby: St. John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am
not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them,
I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
.... Watch this. No acrobatics needed at all. Have I mentioned to
you about Clark Kent and Superman? Jesus was speaking from a humanity
standpoint before He was glorified, otherwise (according to your
theology) you have one co-equal person in the Godhead ... who was God
.... referring to another co-equal person in the Godhead, GOD ... or 1
God + 1 God = 2 Gods = POLYTHEISM. OR you are asserting that each
"person" in the Godhead is a "part" of God ... and NOT fully God. I
really don't know for sure which way you go on that, but either way is
in error.
Jim: I agree. And here again, by way of analogy, you must put the
jar inside itself, and upon itself, to sustain your position.
Bobby: Nope, Jim, no jar inside a jar needed. Everything inside an
empty jar would be atmosphere. While all of the quantity of the
atmosphere would certainly not be in that jar, all of the qualities,
attributes and charactistics certainly would be. Using the jar as a
type of the body of Jesus and the atmosphere as a type of the
omnipresent Spirit of God, there you have yet another illustration of
the Godhead.
Jim: But that isn't consistent with what Jesus said. He didn't say
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon My body;" He said the Spirit of the
Lord was upon Him. Which still leaves us with a problem of fitting the
jar inside itself, if Jesus = the Spirit = the Father.
Bobby: Christ means "annointed one," right? Jesus was anointed
with the Spirit of the Lord. Jesus also had the Spirit of the Lord
abiding within Him. The Spirit of the Lord was everywhere on the
outside of the jar ... as well as on the inside of the jar. One jar ...
one spirit (two counting the spirit of man which Jesus also had ...
since He was FULLY GOD AND FULLY MAN) ... NOT One jar ... TWO Spirits
... OR One jar on the inside of another jar.
Bobby (from previous email): Also, I should remind you that the
Sciptures are Spiritual ... and are NOT interpreted, nor understood by
human intellect, human reasoning or logic.
Jim: First Corinthians 2:14 is not a license for people to say,
"Guess what? I have the Spirit, so if you disagree with me, you're
wrong!" That sort of approach is basically the Roman Catholic standard
of church authority re-imposed all over again. Certainly there are
aspects of Christianity which can only be validated by experience and
communion with God; just as certainly, we are instructed to be vigilant
-- a la Second Timothy 1:7.
Bobby (from previous email): WHEW! Where did THAT come from? Who
are you talking to? When did I ever give you that impression? I have
been trying to present the undiluted "verbatim" Word of God to you for
consideration on the subject of the Godhead.
Jim: You give me that impression -- or grounds to suspect it,
anyway -- when you insist on one hand that the Scriptures cannot be
interpreted by logic and simultaneously attempt to present a logical
case in favor of your interpretation. That looks like a prelude for
advocating believing a certain way because of a personal experience.
Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it certainly is no excuse for
failure to thoroughly investigate the word of God and try to increase
the clarity of our reception of it.
Bobby: All I do is try to make things as understandable as I
possibly can with anyone who may not have the same understanding as
myself, that's all. By the way, when I said, "Also, I should remind you
that the Sciptures are Spiritual ... and are NOT interpreted, nor
understood by human intellect, human reasoning or logic," I actually
didn't mean it to sound like I thought the Scriptures "cannot" be
interpreted by human intellect, human reasoning or logic ... because
that's where a whole lot of the trouble and error comes from. What I
actually meant to say, was that the Scriptures "shouldn't" be
interpreted using only human intellect, human reasoning or logic.
Jim: Basically I am suggesting two things: First, your view that
modern Roman Catholicism is terribly out of sync with the New Testament
pattern is correct. If you seek to correct this, however, the proper
target is not a particular doctrine about the nature of God. The proper
target is the Roman Catholic doctrine about the nature of the church as
a channel of authority -- i.e., in Roman Catholicism, the average
Catholic is supposed to believe that the Bible means what the Pope (and
the whole Roman Catholic Magisterium) says it means. Therein lies the
real problem.
Bobby (from previous email): You missed one slight detail, Jim.
The "universal" church of Rome is the source for the "terminology" --
Jim: terminology which I already said is not a standard of faith for me, any more than the use of the term "rapture" is.
Bobby: Nonetheless, it is their terminology that you agressively
defend. If you don't think correct doctrine is important I would
suggest that you make your calling and election sure ... as well as make
full proof of they ministry.
Bobby (from previous email) when the Bible does NOT offer a single, solitary Scripture of SPECIFIC authority for the belief --
Jim: Au contraire! The Bible has many such references; you are
just selecting a term (knowing beforehand that it is not in Scripture)
and trying to say that since that particular term is not in Scripture,
the concept it represents not in Scripture.
Bobby: Jim, Jesus did NOT leave us a page full of blanks spaces
which was going to have to be filled in generations after His Ascension
and the passing of the "original" New Testament Church leaders. Your
concept is only there because you've been indoctrinated to believe it is
there, and you have bought into the "implied" terminology furnished to
you by the "universal" church of Rome. All I can say is, you have been
very effectively indoctrinated.
Bobby (from previous email): Well, I will tell you this, I was
raised up (and was a baptized member) in a main line protestant church,
but today I am a non-denominational lay man --
Jim: "Non-denominational?" No connections or affinities to Oneness Pentecostalism whatsoever, eh?
Bobby: I am most definitely "ONENESS." However, I am
non-denominational because I don't promote an organization. I do
assemble for worship regularly where the Truth ... the Apostles' One God
Monotheistic Doctrine ... is preached, taught and practiced in its
entirety. There's certainly nothing wrong with that. As a matter of
fact, that is what any Bible believing Christian should do. It doesn't
matter to me if a person repents of their sins in an empty box car on a
moving train, and is baptized in the precious name of Jesus in a cattle
trough in the next town ... as long as there is enough water for them to
go all the way under. If you think there's something wrong with that, I
feel EXTREMELY sorry for you. By the way, I am free to believe,
practice and teach the "verbatim" word of the Apostles' One God
Monotheistic Doctrine ... and plan of salvation ... just exactly like it
is found written on the pages of the Word of God ... without having to
be concerned about how doing so is going to impact my financial future.
And that is a very good feeling.
Bobby (from previous email) -- who independently studies the Word of
God without the all the ideas, opinions, theories, traditions, points
of conjecture, assumptions, religious creeds, statements of faith, etc.
that most people are all tangled up in.
Jim: So what are all those reference books that you quoted previously doing there?
Bobby: Over the years I have found it necessary, when debating
people like you ... and those who prefer to spend more time quoting from
outside the Bible that from within in it.
Bobby (from previous email): If I've mishandled or misrepresented
the Word of God. Please point it out to me with book, chapter and verse
...
Jim: Perhaps in future correspondence.
Bobby (from previous email): Why wait?
Jim: Bob! First, I have already pointed out your mistakes.
Second, I have a life! Third, while I think you're a bit off with your
theology but I think God will take it easy on you. I don't perceive a
Sinking-Ship-Man-the-Lifeboats scenario here. There are more urgent
needs and responsibilities to which I am already committed.
Bobby: Jim, I have given you "verbatim" Scriptures which have
brought up some serious things you need to take care of. Whether they
are just honest mistakes or are intentional behaviour on your part to
maintain a comfortable life style, I don't know you. I will say this,
for some reason I get the feeling that you are one of the many hirelings
out there whose main interested is a financially secure future, like
some I've met seemed to be. Also, I will tell you, from what I've
learned about abominations, the doctrine of the whore surely fits into
that category.
Jim: Well, inasmuch as you're the one who gets to decide if I have
done so or not, and since the challenge is basically an
attention-getting device anyway, I decline to say otherwise.
Bobby (from previous email): Jim, I resent your last statement.
Jim: Eh? You mean you're NOT the one who gets to decide if I have
done so or not? Or do you mean that the challenge does not get people's
attention? (Note: rhetorical questions.)
Bobby (from previous email): I am going to list my $ 10,000.00
Reward below and I want you to please tell me why you think your answers
would have anything to do with me deciding if you have done so or not.
...
(2) where the term "persons" (plural) was ever used to describe God or the Godhead;
Jim: While the exact term "persons" is not used, John 8:17-18
presents Christ and the Father as two, and in John 17:11 and 17:21 Jesus
refers to Himself and the Father as "we" and "us."
Bobby: Jim, I've explained my position on these verses, and you've
admitted the term "persons" isn't found in any of them. But, hey,
here's you a zinger. I sometimes say, "We'll see y'all later." when I
am not talking about anyone else but me. I even sometimes say to
myself, "Well, let's (let us) see, here," when there ain't another soul
around. And **IF** I were to gamble, I would wager you do too. I
understand writers even sometimes use pronouns like that too. Ain't
that something?
Bobby (from previous email): (do I "decide whether or not you find
a verse with the term "persons" used to describe God or the Godhead?)
Jim: No; you decide to select a term that you know is not there,
even though the concept is there, and then you try to equate the lack of
a term with the lack of a concept.
Bobby: The concept is only there (to you) because you have been
indoctrinated to believe the implied meanings of the "terminology" of
the whore, while thinking nothing of the tons of Scriptures which very
forcefully contradict such an interpretation. But, hey, that's your
business ... not mine. The bottom line is, "No tickey, no washy." And
you did NOT provide a single, solitary verse with either 1) the word
"trinity" in it; 2) where God, or the Godhead, was ever referred to as
"persons" (plural); OR 3) where anyone was ever baptized with the
words, " ... in the NAME of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy
Ghost," pronounced over them. And that is three very precise things you
belief and teach others .... YET they are completely VOID of even a
minute shred of SPECIFIC Bible authority where the "original" New
Testament leaders ever believed, preached, practiced or taught such.
Now that's what I call treading dangerous territory! But, hey, it's
your business.
(3) where anyone was ever baptized with the TITLES "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" pronounced over them.
Jim: As noted previously, Matthew 28:19 commands us to baptize in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I
imagine that you might object, "Those are titles, not names!" (A typical
"Oneness" approach.) Well, throughout the book of Acts, and in the
epistles of Paul, there are references to the "name of Jesus Christ."
But "Christ" is not a name; "Christ," too, is a title. Yet it is
associated with the name of Jesus so closely that it is indeed referred
to as His name. You seem rather arbitrary in your selection of what
ought to be regarded as a "name" or not.
Bobby: **IF** Jesus' Great Commission was to baptize in a "title"
(singular) or "titles" (plural), He would have so stated. However He
did not. As a matter of fact, He was very specific about a NAME
(singular) being used ... and not just any name. He COMMANDED it to be
the NAME (singular) of the Father, AND the Son, AND the Holy Ghost. His
"footprint" followers understood that NAME (singular) to be JESUS. I
say they got it right! Jim, Jesus was telling His disciples what to DO
... NOT ... what to SAY in Matthew 28:19. That's the zinger He threw so
that those who had ears to hear would know what to do. Obviously there
were multitudes who didn't have ears to hear back then ... nor today.
But the "original" New Testament Church leaders went forth and baptized
by invoking the Name of Jesus. They never invoked the words, "in the
name of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Spirit," at a
baptismal ceremony. Even if you refuse to accept Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16,
Acts 10:48 and Acts 19:5 as being examples where the name of Jesus was
actually invoked at baptism, according to Colossians 3:17 we are to do
everything ... in word or deed ... in the Name of Jesus. And the
following are undeniable examples of where the name of Jesus was
literally invoked in other "deeds," because this is actual "quotes."
Acts 3:6 "Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I
have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and
walk." Acts 16:18 "And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved,
turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus
Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour." Now, other
than Matthew 28:19 ... where Jesus issued the Great Commission (which is
as misunderstood today as many of His words were by misunderstood by
certain people who heard Him speak) where's your scriptures where the
words "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" were ever invoked for any reason?
Jim: While the occasion of the giving of the Great Commission was
not the overseeing of a baptism, Matthew intended his Gospel to be
liturgically useful, as I've said before, and it is against the
authorial intent -- and the Authorial intent -- to say that no one
should be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit. By this question you are obviously trying to give the
impression that there is no Biblical warrant for baptizing in the name
of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and you even state that all such
baptisms would be disapproved of by the apostles. That is a false
impression and a false statement. I think that about sums it up. Yours
in Christ, Jim
Bobby: Jim, let me tell you something about "Authorial intent."
The Bible has just ONE author. Granted there were many "writers," but
there was only ONE author. And that author is GOD. He inspired it, and
the writers wrote it. Sort of like a stenographer who takes dictation,
for the letter they are being commissioned to write. You are never
going to get me to accept the doctrine that followed generations AFTER
the Ascension and the passing of the "original" New Testament leaders,
when man cooked up this theory based on implied meanings given to a
handful of very carefully selected Scriptures. When the words " ... in
the name of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Ghost." (of
Matthew 28:19) are uttered and the name of Jesus has not actually been
invoked, then NO NAME has been applied in the baptismal ceremony. AND
IT TAKES THE NAME FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS! That's not because I
"think" that's how it ought to be, but that because that's how it is
documented in the Bible. God bless! - Bobby
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response # 11 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 8:07 PM
Subject: Response to Jim's email 7-2 (1)
Jim: Greetings in Christ to Bobby Richardson, I'm responding here
to the corrected version of your 6-28 reply. New material is in blue.
Jim: This sounds like "Oneness" teaching...
Bobby (from previous email): Call it what you will, Jim. The
"original" New Testament leaders were "oneness" ... They certainly
weren't trinitarians or any other variation of pluralists or
polytheists.
Jim: They weren't polytheists, and did not have the title of
"Trinitarians," but they certainly viewed the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit as persons, not modes of existence. I call the teaching you seem
to be promoting "Oneness" because it definitely appears that,
consciously or unconsciously, you have been influenced by material such
as "Word and Witness," the "Apostolic World Christian Fellowship," and
the writings of Frank Ewart and R.E. McAlister.
Bobby: Jim, it is my position that the reason you make such a
statement about the "original" New Testament leaders is because you
place more credibility on the "later" writings of others than you do on
the "verbatim" words that are written upon the pages of the Word of God.
That is a real shame and a disgrace ... in my opinion. Furthermore,
the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine that this ole boy embraces
is NOT the result of reading some book OR being indoctrinated. Way back
in 1968, before my 16th birthday, I was visiting in the home of a girl I
had eyes for. This girl's sister gave me a few tracts one day while I
was visiting in their home. They sort of got my curiousity up, but I
respectfully returned them to her, and told her I wasn't interested.
Although, my romance was short lived with her sister, I respected this
girl. And we became friends. I would hang out at her dad's hamburger
place and she would ride around with me sometimes when I was cruising
town and that kind of stuff. Just buds, you know. Anyway, to make a
long story short, in the fall of 1969 (my senior year) we started
dating. And we married after graduation in 1970. It wasn't too many
months after we married until she told me one day that she wanted to go
to church. I told her that would be fine by me, assuming we would go to
my church since I was the head of the house and all, you know. But she
let me know that she wanted to go to the church she had sort of grown
up in ... the one she had been attending back when I first met her.
Well, me being the salesman I am, I started trying to convince her to
just give my church (Southern Baptist) a try. That didn't work. Then I
tried to get her to go to my grandmother's church that I had sort of
grown up around, since she practically raised me (Church of Christ).
That didn't work. Last of all, I tried to get her to go to the church
that my brother had married into and was going to (Methodist). Still,
that didn't work. Finally, I said, "O.K. I will not stand in the way of
you going to your church, but just don't expect me to go with you (
because I wasn't about to go to one of them holy roller churches).
Here's what happened to the salesman, she said, "Bobby, **IF** you can
show me in the Bible where what my church teaches is wrong, I will go to
any church you want to go to." Man, that was like saying sick 'em to a
dog. I bought myself a Thompson Chain Reference KJV Bible (which I
still use to this day) and I started digging. I, mean, I grew up on a
church pew .... I was almost always in one of the churches our family
attended every time the doors swung open. By the way, my mother's
parents were Primitive Baptist, and mother's only living sister was also
a Methodist. So I grew up around a pretty good mixture of
Protestantism. Anyway, I decided I would (for the first time in my
life) really get down to some serious Bible study. I started in the
Book of Matthew and just started reading as if I was reading a novel or
something. Man, was it some slow going there for a while. But I stayed
with it. Every once in a while I would read something that would sort
of cause me to raise my eyebrows and think, "I don't recall ever hearing
anything about this." Long story short, Jim. God revealed to me the
Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine even though I had set out to
prove my wife's church wrong. There was no denying it. Oh, I guess I
could have denied what God had shown me, but that would have meant I
would be living a lie. Another long story short ... Since our marriage
in 1970, there have been periods of time when we both attended church
and when times when we didn't. However, I ended up going down a long
slippery slope back in the early 1980's which almost costed me my
family, everything I had and probably even my life. At any rate, since
the night of Dec. 10, 1985, at mile marker 7 on I-55 in South
Mississippi, this ole boy's life hasn't been the same. But in answer to
your accusation about me being spoon fed by some book or something, it
just ain't so, Jim. God truly revealed this stuff to me ... I just had
to decide what I was going to do about it, that's all. And I have
absolutely no regrets that I chose to embrace it ... AND proclaim it.
Bobby (from previous email): The name "Jesus," ... means
Jehovah-Salvation, or Jehovah is become Saviour. ... you admit the LORD
(YHWH ... Jehovah) is GOD. And we know that GOD manifested Himself as
Father, Son and Holy Spirit ...
Jim: So far, so good.
Bobby: Why do I get the feeling there's should have been a "but" at the end of your last statement?
Bobby (from previous email): At any rate, YHWH was a prelude to the the name "Jesus" that was the "revealed" name of God ...
Jim: Um ... sort of. YHWH still is the personal Name of God. The
name "Jesus" in and of itself is not extraordinary; it is exactly the
same as the name "Joshua." That's why the KJV refers to Joshua as
"Jesus" in Hebrews, and that's why there is textual variation in the
manuscripts at Jude v. 5.
Bobby: Jim, YHWH is not even a name in Hebrew. Without vowels
added, it can't even be pronounced in Hebrew or English. Furthermore,
Jesus is the name that God dispatched by an angel to Joseph and also to
Mary to name the child that Isaiah alluded to in Isaiah 9:6 when he
referred to Him as the Mighty God and Everlasting Father. Sooo, I'll
let you play with your slideruler concerning the "NAME." As far as I'm
concerned, the revealed name of the Father is JESUS. I already know the
name of the Messiah is JESUS. And since, according to my theology, the
Holy Ghost is the same Spirit as YHWH ... the LORD ... GOD, then the
Holy Ghost would have the same name too. However, I would be really be
curious to know what you think the name of the Holy Spirit is. I mean,
it wouldn't be right for two co-equal eternal persons to have a name and
the third one to be left without one, would it??? I'm sure you must
know what it is, so please tell me, o.k.??
Bobby (from previous email): The hypocritical and self righteous
religious leaders and many of the intellectuals who heard Jesus speak,
no doubt, stumbled at His words ... AND accused Him of blasphemy for
making Himself GOD, etc. just like those of you today who refuse to
accept the Apostles' ONE GOD MONOTHEISTIC Doctrine, but, instead,
viciously contend with it and attack it. ...
Jim: Eh? No doubt there are some who use "vicious" tactics to
oppose modalism, but up to this point has been civil and composed. We
can both say that we are in Jesus' shoes and the other side is in the
Pharisees' shoes. But that would simply be another way of
re-stating/assuming our positions, wouldn't it. And I emphasize again
that I am a monotheist.
Bobby: I agree it has been civil up to this point, and that is the
way I hope it remains. However, you will find that I will call a spade, a
spade. And, and good as it sounds to proclaim being a monotheist, Jim,
your doctrine is NOT like the same doctrine of the "original" New
Testament Church leaders ... who were definitely monotheists.
Bobby (from previous email): Therefore, why shouldn't the name "Jesus" be invoked at a baptismal service also?
JIM: As it happens, I do invoke the name "Jesus" as part of the
baptismal formula, using phrases from both Acts 2:38 and Matthew 28:19.
... you are taking an aggressive stance: you are not simply saying
that it is right to invoke the name of Jesus; you are saying that it is
wrong to use the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Spirit" as a baptismal formula, or even as part of a
baptismal formula. That is an unBiblical rule.
Bobby: **IF** you must ... include the titles of Matthew 28:19 but
you do also invoke the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins at
baptism, then, I suppose, that would be another matter. You just don't
have any Biblical examples of where it was done that way, that's all.
Jim: It sounds like you would consider it a matter of liberty,
then, and tolerate the practice of using "in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," as long as the name "Jesus" was
also used. Is that a fair observation?
Bobby: Provided faith is present when the name of Jesus is invoked
by someone who is authorized to invoke the name of Jesus. It's really
that simple. Here's what I mean by someone being authorized to invoke
the name of Jesus ...
Mark Chapter 16
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing,
it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working
with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
And here's what I mean by faith being present when in the name of Jesus is invoked ....
Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I
have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and
walk.
Acts 3:16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man
strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given
him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.
**IF** you are inserting the name of Jesus here just to be attempt
to be "technically" correct, but insist on invoking the titles of
Matthew too, that is a pretty good indication that your understanding of
the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine is EXTREMELY limited ...
and that you probably do NOT understand who Jesus "really" is. All of
which could make baptism for the remission of sins as ineffective as the
following example where the name of Jesus was invoked by those who
apparently were doing what they had seen done by true "believers" ...
but were NOT true believers themselves ... and were doing things "their"
way ... which did not work at all, even though they invoked the name of
Jesus ....
Acts Chapter 19
13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to
call over them which had evil spirits the name of the LORD Jesus,
saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.
14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.
15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and
overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that
house naked and wounded.
When a woman marries a man, they (or at least they used to) take
upon them the name of their husband during the ceremony. It is my
position that the place a Christian literally takes upon them the name
of Jesus is in the baptismal ceremony when they are buried in that
watery grave in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins (which
they have previously repented of, I might add).
Bobby (from previous email): Then why did reciting the words of
Matthew 28:19 in a baptismal ceremony not catch on until many years
later?
JIM: ... Because what was expected of the church in its infancy,
and what was expected of the church in its maturity, were two things.
Not everything in the early church's infancy was retained: for
instance, Jewish exclusivity was abandoned. The "communalism" of the
Jerusalem church was not perpetuated. When one considers the structure
and theme of the Gospel of Matthew, ... it is clear (to me, at least)
that it was written for ... a liturgical purpose ... (I mean, can you
really imagine people in the early church reading the Great Commission
-- "... Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" -- and
concluding, "Wow, whatever we do, when we baptize people we certainly
must not baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit!")
Bobby (from previous email): So, if I understand you correctly,
Jim, you would have to read something in Scripture where it says NOT to
recite the words of Matthew 28:19 before you would accept the fact that
"reciting" Matthew 28:19 does NOT fulfill Matthew 28:19.
Jim: Correct, inasmuch as Matthew's intent for liturgical usage of the passage is not difficult to discern.
Bobby: How do you know what Matthew's intent was, Jim? By the way,
it wasn't even Matthew's intent anyway. It was the words of Jesus as
recorded by Matthew. But I will say, it's too bad you wasn't around to
tell poor ole brother Peter what you "believe" about this matter, 'cause
he sure bound Jesus name baptism on earth, didn't he? And the rest of
the "original" New Testament leaders followed suit, didn't they. That
is, until some generations later when people became sofisticated enough
to know better, and got it all straightened out, huh? WHEW! This would
be hilarious if it was so serious, Jim.
Bobby (from previous email): That is a very interesting position
you have taken, considering you obviously present yourself as a
minister. You know what? It sounds to me like you would have a real
dilemma on your hands if someone approached you and said, "Jim, I was
baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, but I've read in the Bible where the "original" New Testament
Church leaders baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins.
Is it necessary to be baptized in the name of Jesus in order to fulfill
the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19 AND to be in compliance with that
which Peter "bound" on earth, having been given the the keys to the
kingdom by Jesus, Himself?"
Jim: That doesn't sound like a difficult problem: I would just
walk the person through the Gospel of Matthew and show him its
liturgical features, show him that "in the name" is not a technical
phrase meant to refer exclusively to personal names rather than titles
(inasmuch as there are several references to "the name of Jesus Christ,"
but "Christ" is not a personal name; it's a title), show him that the
distinction between the English words "name" and "title" is not relevant
to the Greek of the New Testament, in which the two were
interchangeable -- pretty much the same way we call the "name" of a book
and the "title" of a book the same thing. I would show him passages
such as First Peter 4:14 and Revelation 19:13, where a title is clearly
referred to as a name, and Revelation 3:12, where the name of the Father
and the name of the Son are referred to as distinctly separate. And,
supplementally, I'd show him the early church's understanding of the
phrase. And I would remind him that God is not a legalist or a
sacerdotalist (i.e., the sincerity and opinions of the person baptizing
does not negate the availability of God's grace to the one being
baptized).
Bobby: Well, I can see you have been very effectively
indoctrinated, indeed. You loyalty to this man made doctrine is utterly
mind boggling to me. But, hey, it's your business. However, I must
remind you that when we go to passing your flawed doctrine on to others,
that is when it becomes an EXCEPTIONALLY serious matter in the eyes of
God. One are very correct about one thing, though Jim, when you said,
"The sincerity and opinions of the person baptizing does not negate the
availability of God's grace to the one being baptized." However the
sincerity of either or both also doesn't negate the COMMANDMENTS of God.
And God is extremely picky about His COMMANDMENTS being followed to
the letter. I'll guarantee you, if the Levitical priest didn't have his
ducks in a row when he went behind that veil into the Most Holy Place,
he would never see the light of day again. Also, I'll guarantee you God
didn't give Noah and latitude or room to use his own discretion when it
came to building the ark ... nor with Moses in constructing the
Tabernacle and all the things pertaining to it. You do what you want
to, Jim. But as for me, I'm not going to let flesh and blood, doctrines
of man or family traditions stand in my way of doing precisely what the
Word of God lays out for me, because despite what a lot of people seem
to think .... God doesn't have a buffet table for us to choose the plan
of salvation which we like best. **IF** a person really and truly
expects to make it, there is only ONE LORD, ONE FAITH AND ONE BAPTISM
... and it is in the NAME OF JESUS!
Bobby (from previous email) ... Just give me my old King James
Version and leave me alone is pretty much how I feel about things.
Jim: Is this an offer to conclude the discussion?
Bobby: Not at all. I haven't even got warmed up good yet, Jim.
QUIT? What are you talking about? You are dealing with an old dog who
knows how to hunt ... and loves every minute of it!
Bobby: ... Look, the name "Jesus" is essential.
Jim: Hmm. Not that I wish to make a habit of making inferences
from personal experiences, but how do you account for the thousands of
people who are baptized under the formula "in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," and proceed to speak in
tongues? If tongues-speaking is a sign of salvation, the name "Jesus"
does not seem very essential in those cases.
Bobby: I don't have to account for them, Jim. Every pot sits on
its own bottom. But I can tell you this. If those dudes hadn't ripped
Acts Chapter 10 out of your Bible, you would be able to go read about a
man who was devout, feared God with all his house, gave much alms to the
people and who prayed to God all the time. Why, he was so righteous
until an angel came to see him one day. By today's standards, I guess,
it would be safe to say that this man would be considered a "professing"
Christian. However, the angel told Cornelius that he still needed
something. To make the story short and to the point, Peter came and
preached to Cornelius and his household. While Peter was preaching
EVERYONE of them received the Holy Spirit baptism and started speaking
in tongues. Now some people would have probably thought that was good
enough ..... but not ole Brother Peter. No sireee! In verse 48 he
COMMANDED them to be baptized in the ... name of the Lord (KJV) ...
name of Jesus Christ (RSV), (ASV) & (NASB) ... name of Yeshua the
Messiah. (HNV). You sure excercise a whole lot more latitude than ole
Brother Peter, Jim. Reckon what he would advise you to do in the above
scenario? I don't think it would be quite like what you just related to
me, honestly.
Bobby (from previous email): ... here's what I mean by faith being present when in the name of Jesus is invoked ....
Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I
have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and
walk.
Jim: -- note: here, only "Jesus" is actually a name. The rest of
the phrase -- "Christ of Nazareth" -- is not. "Christ" is a title; that
is, Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. This is an example of the
interchangeability of names and titles. Which seems to erode your
initial objection to the use of titles. --
Bobby: Ain't nothing "eroded" about it at all, Jim, because you
could put the farm up that there was faith present when ole Brother
Peter invoked the name of Jesus and grabbed the guy by the hand and
pulled him to his feet .... regardless of how many titles he used before
it OR after it.
Acts 3:16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man
strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given
him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.
Bobby (from previous email): **IF** you are inserting the name of
Jesus here just to attempt to be "technically" correct, but insist on
invoking the titles of Matthew too, that is a pretty good indication
that your understanding of the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine
is EXTREMELY limited ... and that you probably do NOT understand who
Jesus "really" is. All of which could make baptism for the remission
of sins as ineffective as the following example ...
Jim: Children in the marketplace! If I don't mention the name
"Jesus," then you say I am leaving out something essential. If I do
mention the name "Jesus," and also use the baptismal formula given in
Matthew 28:19, you say that this indicates a misunderstanding of who
Jesus really is, which could make the baptism ineffective. While I
agree that a gross misunderstanding of who Jesus really is could make a
baptism ineffective (for instance, if a person thinks Jesus is some
statue), my point here is that there is no room for objection when one
baptizes using both the phrase "in the name of Jesus Christ" and "in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Yours in
Christ, Jim
Bobby: You think of it ever how you want to think of it, Jim. And
you do whatever floats your boat. There'll STILL only be ONE LORD, ONE
FAITH, ONE BAPTISM when you're done. My conscience will be clear
regarding you because I have delivered to you the Apostles' One God
Monotheistic Doctrine with genuine love and concern ... at times a tad
testy, but sometimes even the Lord gets testy, doesn't He?? God bless!
Bobby
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response # 12 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 1:06 PM
Subject: 1 correction and 2 further explanations .....
Jim,
I am in receipt of your email acknowledging the receipt of my 4 Part
response to your 6-29 email that I emailed to you yesterday, July 2.
However, you should have received a response from me to your July 2
email yesterday (7-2) as well. If you did not get it, please let me
know, and I will resend it.
The following are some things that I either felt like I needed to correct or address further .....
ENTRY # 1 OF 3 ....
Bobby (CORRECTED): Jim, I have given you "verbatim" Scriptures
which have brought up some serious things you need to take care of.
Whether they are just honest mistakes or are intentional behaviour on
your part to maintain a comfortable life style, I don't know you. I
will say this, for some reason I DO NOT get the feeling that you are one
of the many hirelings out there whose main interested is a financially
secure future, like some I've met seemed to be. Also, I will tell you,
from what I've learned about abominations, the doctrine of the whore
surely fits into that category. ..... Sorry for the oversight, Jim. I
left out the words "DO NOT" unintentionally. I am a fairly fast
typist, but I'm not real good with spelling, grammar and punctuation
sometimes .... and then there are times either I am thinking faster than
I am typing or vice versa, and drop a word or two here and there. This
was one of those cases, and I do sincerely apologize. I was NOT
calling you a hireling who is only interested in your financial future,
comfortable lifestyle or security. However, I have dealt with some who
have most definitely given me that impression .... but it is not my
place to judge them, any way. They will stand before the same Judge as
I.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ENTRY # 2 OF 3 ....
Jim: My point was that modalism requires interpretive acrobatics in
order to harmonize the passages noted (among others). I showed you a
difficulty with your approach and you made no attempt to address it. I
will re-phrase: if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one Person, how
does Ephesians 2:18 make any sense, i.e., how do we initially have
Jesus, and then must go through Jesus to gain access to Jesus? It's
like saying that a person already in Detroit has to get on the bus to
Detroit in order to reach Detroit.
Bobby: I realized later on that I had addressed the Detroit part of
the above, but did not address the "gaining access" part. Sorry about
the over sight. If any of the following is incorrect please call it to
my attention ....
YHWH is the LORD. YHWH ...the LORD ... is man's ONLY Saviour
(Messiah). YHWH ... the LORD ..., "HE" is God. God is "A" Spirit.
Jesus is the name designated by YHWH and dispatched by an angel for the
name to be given He who was "born" the Saviour (Messiah). Jesus was/is
the Messiah. Jesus was/is God manifested in Flesh. Jesus was/is
alluded to by Isaiah as being the "Mighty God" and the "Everlasting
Father." Jesus is the "DOOR." Jesus is the "Way." No one can access
YHWH ... the LORD ... GOD ... without going "through" the "DOOR." We go
through the "DOOR" when we conform to the Apostles' One God
Monotheistic Doctrine of 1) Repentance; 2) Being baptized in Water by
immersion in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins; and 3) God
baptized us with the Holy Ghost (the Bible way). Then, we should
continue in the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine and live a
sanctified life of dedication and separation while reaching out to a
lost and dying world with the message of hope. Furthermore, the strict
dietary requirements, that God gave to Moses for the Jews to "literally"
live by, is very indicative of just how serious God is about those who
make up His Blood bought, Spirit filled, Church to "spiritually" live
by a very strict diet of sound doctrine which He, Himself, provided us
by His own Words and the Word of the "original" New Testament leaders.
By the way, Jesus did NOT leave any wiggle room for anyone, at any later
period of time, to amend, add to, take from, or privately interpret the
words He spoke ... NOR the words of His "footprint followers," the
"original" New Testament Church leaders. **IF** my doctrine is NOT the
same doctrine as theirs, I am accursed! PERIOD, END OF ISSUE!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ENTRY # 3 OF 3 ....
Jim: I agree that they are one God, and that they share one nature.
But you say that they are one Person -- in which case please explain,
then, John 17:5, and how one Person can be "with" Himself.
Bobby: Jim, after the fact, I realized that I had only responded to
your "Person" part of the above. Now, I will respond to the "with"
part of it. Sorry for the over sight.
Jhn 17:5 And [2532] now [3568], O Father [3962], glorify [1392]
(5657) thou [4771] me [3165] with [3844] thine own self [4572] with the
glory [1391] which [3739] I had [2192] (5707) with [3844] thee [4671]
before [4253] the world [2889] was [1511] (5750).
The Greek Word highlighted in RED in the above verse is ...
3844 para {par-ah'}
a root word; TDNT - 5:727,771; prep
3844 para was translated as: of=51 times, with 42=times, from
24=times, by ... side=15 times, at=12 times, than=11 times, and
45=miscellaneous translations ... for a total of 200 times translated in
the New Testament.
The definition is:
1) from, of, at, by, besides, near
Now, Jim, I think this is the word "with" that you are really talking about ... as one person being "with" another person ...
Luk 24:10 [1161] It was [2258] (5713) Mary [3137] Magdalene [3094],
and [2532] Joanna [2489], and [2532] Mary [3137] [the mother] of James
[2385], and [2532] other [3062] [women that were] with [4862] them
[846], which [3739] told [3004] (5707) these things [5023] unto [4314]
the apostles [652].
Luk 24:33 And [2532] they rose up [450] (5631) the same [846] hour
[5610], and returned [5290] (5656) to [1519] Jerusalem [2419], and
[2532] found [2147] (5627) the eleven [1733] gathered together [4867]
(5772), and [2532] them that were with [4862] them [846],
The Greek Word highlighted in RED in the above verse is ...
4862 sun {soon}
a primary preposition denoting union; TDNT - 7:766,1102; prep
4862 sun was translated as:- with=123 times, beside=1 time, and
accompany + 2064=1 time; For a total of 125 times translated in the
New Testament.
The definition is:
1) with
It looks like you are grasping for straws here, but I will address
the situation of "with" as you see it. But I would also like to go
ahead and include St. John 1:1 while we are on the subject of "with"
....
Jhn 1:1 In [1722] the beginning [746] was [2258] (5713) the Word
[3056], and [2532] the Word [3056] was [2258] (5713) with [4314] God
[2316], and [2532] the Word [3056] was [2258] (5713) God [2316].
The Greek Word highlighted in RED in the above verse is ...
4314 pros {pros}
a strengthened form of 4253; TDNT - 6:720,942; prep
4314 pros was translated as: unto=340 times, to= 203 times, with=
43 times, for= 25 times, against=24 times, among=20 times, at=11 times,
not tr=6 times, misc=53 miscellaneous translations, and vr to=1; for a
total of 726 times translated in the New Testament.
1) to the advantage of
2) at, near, by
3) to, towards, with, with regard to
First, I would like to say that you cannot be separated from your
word, Jim. Your word is your bond ... it is the very essence of you and
what you stand for. Likewise, the Word was in the Beginning with God
even though the Word had NOT been written on stone, scrolls or in the
hearts of believers yet ... nor had the Word been made flesh yet ... the
Word was still very present ... in the mind and the plan of God. The
Word "was with God" and the "Word was God." God can never be separated
from His Word.
In reviewing the material above, it doesn't look like the word
"with" in your references lends itself too readily to be used like you
would like to use it, Jim. However, in the case of St. John 1:1, "with"
would be as easy to understand as the "with" you focused attention on
St. John 17:5. "In the Beginning GOD created." No one else but GOD
created. The Word has already proven that YHWH ... the LORD ... is GOD
... and that HE created everything by HIMSELF. This is how "with"
concerning Christ in the Beginning is, as I have already explained in
another place ....
The Incarnate Christ was only present at the Creation in the Mind of
God ... who occupies all of eternity from beginning to end and vice
versa ... AND who "... calleth those things which be not as though they
were." Romans 4:17 ... AND who "... worketh all things after the
counsel of his own will:" Ephesians 1:11. We KNOW, according to
Scripture, there is only ONE Spirit in the Godhead ... NOT three as you
assert. Furthermore, we KNOW YHWH ... the LORD ... IS GOD who Created
everything ALONE and by HIMSELF ... but we also know that Jesus was the
Creator in human form ... "All things were made by him; and without him
was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3). "By him were all
things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and
invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or
powers: all things were created by him and for him" (Colossians 1:16).
"Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and
the heavens are the works of thine hands" (Hebrews 1:10). Some of the
passages that speak of Jesus as the Creator also refer to Him as the
Son. (See Colossians 1:13; Hebrews 1:8.) However, trinitarians maintain
that an eternal Son co-created the world alongside a distinct person
called the Father. But these passages can be understood as simply
stating that the One who later became the Son created the world. For
example, when we say, "President Lincoln was born in Kentucky," we do
not mean that he was President at the time of his birth, but rather, he
was born in Kentucky and later became the President. The title "Son"
refers to the humanity conceived in the womb of Mary. (See Luke 1:35;
Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 1:5.) As such, the Son did not exist as one of
three "eternal persons" who "shared" a "union" before the Incarnation.
However, the Son did exist in the mind, thought and plan of God who "...
calleth those things which be not as though they were." Romans 4:17
... AND who "... worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:"
Ephesians 1:11. Therefore, the Incarnation did not create the world in
the beginning. The Creator is the eternal Spirit of God who created
the world ALONE and by HIMSELF and who later became the Incarnation
Himself in the Son, who was God manifested in the flesh ... Jesus
Christ. About 7 days after the Ascension of the resurrected Christ, God
sent His Spirit back to earth again ... only this time manifested as
the Holy Spirit ... in Spirit form (not flesh) ... to dwell in the
hearts of believers, to comfort, lead and teach ... and, actually, I
suppose it could be said, to resume the work and relationship He had
with His followers when they followed in His footprints when He was
manifested as Jesus ... in human form. God bless! - Bobby
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response # 13 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 11:40 AM
Subject: Recycled and/or miscellaneous stuff to be addressed later ...
Jim,
As this debate continues, we will both probably find it necessary to
go back and clarify points, ask for clarification to points already
given, ask a related question or make an addition comment to something
which has already been addressed, OR to present something again to be
addressed which was either over looked or ignored. At any rate, that is
what this email is all about. In going back over some of our
correspondence, the following is some material that I felt I needed to
put together for your handling .... AFTER ... you get caught up with
what you already have in your "in box." By the way, I am NOT attempting
to cover you up with stuff, so take whatever time you need to respond,
but please do respond "point-by-point" as I do. In one of the debates I
was in I had to block a guy from sending stuff until I could get caught
up. It is not unusual for me to have more than one discussion/debate
going at one time. And this guy kept sending stuff and kept sending
stuff until he covered me up (actually I think that what a strategy of
his ... thinking I would be so overwhelmed until I would quit). Anyway,
after about 90 something emails, I finally let me know that I had
blocked his email until I could wade through everything I already had on
my platter ... which I finally managed to do. At any rate, I said all
that to say this. I am not rushing you or pushing you ... nor am I
trying to cover you up. So, just leave this email on the back burner
until you address the ones you already have point-by-point. Then I
would ask you to please respond to this email point-by-point ... NOT
BEFORE. Thanks! God bless! - Bobby
- - - - - - - - - -
Bobby: ... can you think of any other term in the Bible which does
for (defines) the term "persons" what "caught up" does for the word
rapture? ("eternal" cannot be used to replace the word "persons")
- - - - - - - - - -
Bobby: It appears to me that you are very focused and attentive to
details, and to comparing Scriptures, ONLY when your theology isn't
called into question by so doing. Otherwise, you whoop out your slide
ruler explanations and go to using the logic, intellect, human reasoning
and "other" material that you've been indoctrinated to believe ....
INSTEAD of just allowing the Bible to speak for itself on that
particular subject. In other words, unless your indoctrinated ... AND
... predetermined conclusion can be drawn from the defining and
supporting Scriptures on a particular subject, you have no problem with
just going outside the Bible and elevating that material to the same
level or higher than that of what is found in the Word of God itself
(which you ignore). At any rate, there has been a good bit of focus
placed on the distinctions between a NAME (singular) and TITLES (plural)
... and between a CONCEPT and TERMINOLOGY. Therefore, I would like to
give you some food for thought about BOTH ....
St. John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
St. John 14:26 says, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and
bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
The name of Jesus is not only "alluded" to as being the "proper"
name of Deity, we actually have the following examples of where Jesus is
alluded to, or described, as being Deity ....
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and
the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
Prince of Peace.
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen
of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world,
received up into glory.
St. John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Colossians 2:8-10 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy
and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the
world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the
Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all
principality and power:
Colossians 1:15 " ... the image of the invisible God, ..."
Philippians 2:6 " ... being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
St. John 14:9 " ... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; ..."
St. John 14:10 " ... the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
Now, Jim, these are just a small representation of overwhelming
Scriptural "evidence" which is why I embrace the Apostles' One God
Monotheistic Doctrine ... AND ... the reason I get labeled by people
like you as if I am some kind of lunatic or evil cult member. Granted,
the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine is not the "broad" and
accepted way by those, "Having a "form" of godliness, but deny the power
thereof; ..." as spoken of in 2 Timothy 3:5 (and a whole different
debate), but Jesus did draw a very clear distinction between the "broad"
way that many travel and the "narrow" way that few find. Well, Jim,
I've found that strait gate, and the narrow way, that Jesus spoke of.
And I intend to walk in it. You do whatever suits you.
- - - - - - - - - -
Jim: It looks to me that Matthew's original readers would naturally
conclude that one should baptize using the formula, "in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
Bobby: Exactly what do you base your opinion on here, Jim? Where was this "formula" ever invoked for any reason in the Bible?
Jim: We have at least one very early example of how the early
church understood this passage: the document called the "Didache,"
Bobby: Actually, I think it is much wiser to allow the "verbatim"
Scriptures to supercede the later writings ... especially when the later
writings don't have a shread of "verbatim" authority in the Scriptures
... when it comes to establishing what is "sound doctrine" and what is
not. .... According to the information I have, the Didache refers both
to baptism into the name of the Lord (9:5) and to baptism in the name of
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The Didache is a very controversial
document which turned up in the 1800's, held by some to be the oldest
"post" Apostolic document in existence. I very seriously doubt that
this document was penned by anyone who was even personally acquainted
with any of the "original" New Testament leaders, let alone an
"original" Apostle. And there is no telling how many hands it has
passed through and how many times it has been "doctored." Furthermore,
there are a few things I know for a certainy about it ....
1) There is most certainly some controversial wording in it
concerning baptism. Didache 7:1 states, "But concerning baptism, thus
baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running
water; ... (words that were never recited at any baptism of the
"original" New Testament Church.) .... while Didache 9:5 says, "And let
none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into
the name of the Lord ." ... (A DEFINITE reference to baptism in the NAME
of Jesus.)
2) Even with Matthew 28:19 being worded as it is, (and, no doubt,
as misunderstood by those back then who did NOT have "ears to hear" as
is often the case to this very day) not a single one of the "original"
New Testament leaders ever COMMANDED ... or even so much as suggested
... someone to conduct a baptism, or to be baptized, with the words of
Matthew 28:19 invoked, " ... in the NAME of the Father, AND of the Son,
AND of the Holy Spirit."
3) Didache 7:4 states, "But before the baptism, let him who
baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who
may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or
two days before. .... Now, Jim, do you follow this part of the Didache
too?? Not that fasting isn't a good thing, it was just never COMMANDED
as a prerequisite to baptism like this. No one in the "original" New
Testament Church ever instructed, or were instructed, that fasting was a
prerequisite to water baptism. However, this COMMANDMENT doesn't leave
any wiggle room. I find that to be absolutely incredible! Can you
imagine a scenario of the eunich saying to Philip, "... here is water,
what doth hinder me to be baptized?" And Philip have to explain to him
that they will have to sit around down there by the water hole in the
desert for a day or two before Philip could baptize the guy? Jim, I'm
telling you once again in the fear of God that these man made precepts
being elevated to the same level (or greater) that the verbatim of God
itself is a very real and present danger to any God fearing person who
desires to walk the straight and narrow.
- - - - - - - - - -
Jim: Matthew 28:19 is evidence that Matthew intended for those
words to be used liturgically. It was not the earliest baptismal
formula, but it certainly is an apostolic baptismal formula, recorded
from the lips of Christ Himself.
Bobby: WHAT??? You said, "It was not the earliest baptismal
formula, but it certainly is an apostolic baptismal formula, ..." So
you do think the earliest formula was wrong, don't you? Otherwise, you
surely wouldn't be going along with those who "changed" it. It sounds
to me like you are really grasping for straws, Jim, when you assert that
Matthew 28:19 is any kind of "evidence." Jim, face it, the Great
Commission was NOT ... AND IS NOT ... actually carried out in the manner
which trinitarians insist it is to be carried out. By thew way, I, you
have also got to admit that I provided you with "verbatim" scriptures
where you can actually turn to and read in your own Bible where it says
it ... AND does it ... just exactly as I believe it, which is more than
you can do, Jim. Now, you may contend that Matthew 28:19 trumps
Colossians 3:17; Acts 2:38; Acts 3:6; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 16:8;
Acts 19:5; and Acts 19:13. But, I beg to disagree with you, brother!
The Bible does NOT contradict itself. GOD is NOT the author of
confusion. And the overwhelming preponderance of Scriptural "evidence"
plainly shows you are on the wrong path .... and paddling upstream.
- - - - - - - - - -
Jim: Therein, Justin explains that new believers are instructed to
pray and fast and then they are taken to some place where there is
water, and "In the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and
of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive
the washing of the water." (I:61)
Bobby: Justin's words are very similar to the words of Jesus words
in Matthew 28:19 ... and neither one of them instructed their words to
be "recited." Obviously because (as you assert about the "concept" of
the trinity) it was a foregone conclusion, and well established
doctrine, that the proper formula of water baptism was in the NAME of
Jesus. Besides, for many, many years the Apostles' One God Monotheistic
Doctrine and baptism in the name of Jesus was preached, taught and
practiced without dispute. But the Truth marched on then, just as it
has continued to do down through the ages. Granted, there was a "former
rain" and a "later rain," but the gates of Hell did not ... and shall
not ... prevail against the Church of the Living God ... War against it,
try to disprove it, discredit it, and stop it but prevail against it?
NEVER!
- - - - - - - - - -
Jim: "Why wasn't the first part of Matthew 28:19 -- "Go ye
therefore, and teach all nations" -- obeyed until several years after
Pentecost?" Because what was expected of the church in its infancy, and
what was expected of the church in its maturity, were two things. Not
everything in the early church's infancy was retained: for instance,
Jewish exclusivity was abandoned. The "communalism" of the Jerusalem
church was not perpetuated.
Bobby: Jim, the GREAT COMMISSION of Matthew 28:19 wasn't the Great
Suggestion. The "original" New Testament leaders carried it out
precisely as Jesus "COMMANDED" them. I can assure you, they aren't the
ones who are guilty of subversion, rebellion and disobedience. Also, it
was only about 7 days following these words of Jesus in Matthew 28:19
that the first sermon of the Blood bought, Spirit filled, Church of the
Living God was preached to Jews from "EVERY NATION UNDER HEAVEN" (Acts
2:5) and following the response to the plan of Salvation in Acts 2:38,
there was about 3000 added to the 120 who had already received the Holy
Spirit (the Bible way). Now you may "think" it took years to get the
shuttle off the pad, but I can tell you, she was in orbit in a very
short period of time after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit took place,
and lit the candle.
- - - - - - - - - -
Jim: the original New Testament church leaders also had it right
when they recorded a baptismal formula given by Christ and expected it
to be taken seriously.
Bobby: **IF** you are saying that either way is o.k., that is
something that could only come from someone who has been so effectively
indoctrinated that they don't even realize exactly what they are putting
forth. Jim, it is not "multiple choice." There is only ONE LORD, ONE
FAITH, and ONE BAPTISM ... NOT a number of different "choices." You
just hate to admit you've been sincerely wrong about a very important
Bible doctrine. When I came to that bridge a number of years ago, I
made a decision to repent, and admit it, embrace it, and get on with it
... instead of continuing to try and put square pegs into round holes.
And I would very strongly suggest you do the same thing. And not only
that, but that you would try to get hold of as many people as you
possibly can that you have baptized and let them know the name of Jesus
being applied at baptism "IS" very important. Some will listen and some
won't, but once a person repents, they'll want to do the right thing.
And God doesn't hold the error of their past against them any longer.
- - - - - - - - - -
Jim: What makes you think there must be an either/or scenario here?
Is it really that hard to integrate both New Testament examples, and
say, "I now baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness
of sins -- in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit."
Bobby: About the best "evidence" for there not being two
alternatives is due to the fact that your way above (with or without the
name of Jesus) has absolutely no Scriptural evidence of having been
carried out as you insist it is to be carried out. And as specific and
precise as God about the dietary restrictions of the Jews and the
construction of the ark, and the tablernacle with all its vessels, I am
convinced that **IF** substitution was an acceptable practice, He would
have spelled it out ... just as He did with the acceptable practice of
substitution of sacrifices under certain conditions. Ponder that a
while, Jim.
- - - - - - - - - -
Jim: Likewise it is Scripturally and historically a proven fact that the "original" New Testament church baptized only Jews,
Bobby: This is an inaccurate statement. And I would greatly
appreciate it if you would go on record and acknowledge its inaccuracy,
o.k.? There is no point in letting something that blatantly wrong,
stand without a retraction on your part.
- - - - - - - - - -
Jim: Eh? I haven't seen any Scriptural evidence that one should
not baptize people "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit." At best, the Scriptures in Acts about baptizing in
the name of Jesus are complementary to this, not contrary.
Bobby: I realize this may go right over your head, but once again,
people are to be baptized in the NAME of the Father, AND of the Son, AND
of the Holy Spirit. But "quoting" those words doesn't FULFILL those
words and actually "apply" a NAME. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are
"titles." Besides, **IF** Jesus was "really" telling His followers to
recite those words (as your literal interpretation demands), NONE of
them did. Furthermore, if you look at the sentence structure, you will
see that NAME would really need to be replaced with the word TITLES to
be grammatically correct. Now, Jim, before you whoop that slideruler
out, let me remind you that there wasn't as many people educated beyond
their intelligence as there are today. The Bible is only complicated to
complicated people. Most people who have been educated beyond their
intelligence, or who have been very effectively indoctrinated, are
complicated.
- - - - - - - - - -
Jim: You're overlapping topics here. I was appealing to the
second-century writings to provide empirical evidence that the
liturgical formula and its application to baptisms was not the invention
of Roman Catholicism and pre-dated the Council of Nicea by over 100
years.
Bobby: Jim, you know good and well that the "terminology" of the
definition for the doctrine you embrace, and have been so agressively
defending, came from Rome. And please don't come back with that stuff
about a concept without any terminology because it had to be hammered
out at a later date ... because I ain't buying it, Jim.
- - - - - - - - - -
Jim: "in the name" is not a technical phrase meant to refer
exclusively to personal names rather than titles (inasmuch as there are
several references to "the name of Jesus Christ," but "Christ" is not a
personal name; it's a title)
Bobby: Jim, back then, a name was not just a label. It really
meant something. It stood for who and what the person was. The name
Jesus means Jehovah-Saviour or Jehovah has become Salvation. The name
of the Messiah was also referred to as "Immanuel" or God with us. The
name Jesus is not like some fictional magical phrase like
"abra-cadabra-ala-cazam." Because unbelievers can invoke the name of
Jesus without the same effect as believers. Remember the seven sons of
Sceva in Acts 19:13-16? There again, it not only takes the name being
applied, but it also takes FAITH in the name by someone qualified to
invoke it ... and most certainly understanding who the Person "really"
is who wears that name is a qualification. Because baptism is NOT found
in Scripture as being described as "outward sign of an inward work," a
wise Bible student should search this kind of stuff out. Baptism is an
essential part of the new birth (St. John 3:5; Titus 3:5). I trust that
you wouldn't quibble about repentance being a "type" of the death of
Jesus; baptism a "type" of His burial; and, of course, the Spirit birth a
"type" of His resurrection .... identifying the believer with the
Saviour in every aspect of redemption. As I have stated earlier in this
debate, baptism is the only place I know of where a believer actually
takes upon them the name of Jesus ... in a similar way as a bride does
when she takes upon her the name of her husband in the union of
marriage. The bottom line is, that NAME of Jesus invoked at a baptismal
ceremoney is EXTREMELY important.
- - - - - - - - - -
Jim: the distinction between the English words "name" and "title"
is not relevant to the Greek of the New Testament, in which the two were
interchangeable -- pretty much the same way we call the "name" of a
book and the "title" of a book the same thing.
Bobby: Let's look into this ...
Matthew 28:19 Go ye [4198] (5679) therefore [3767], and teach
[3100] (5657) all [3956] nations [1484], baptizing [907] (5723) them
[846] in [1519] the name [3686] of the Father [3962], and [2532] of the
Son [5207], and [2532] of the Holy [40] Ghost [4151]:
name [3686] onoma {on'-om-ah}
from a presumed derivative of the base of 1097 (cf 3685);
TDNT - 5:242,694; n n
Translated as: name 193 times, named=28 times, called=4 times,
surname + 2007=2 times, named + 2564=1 times, not tr 1; for a total of
229 times.
Defintions:
1) name: univ. of proper names
2) the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything
the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning,
hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank,
authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc.
3) persons reckoned up by name
4) the cause or reason named: on this account, because he suffers as a Christian, for this reason
I could only find two New Testament referenced to "title." Here they are ...
St. John 19:19 And [1161] [2532] Pilate [4091] wrote [1125] (5656) a
title [5102], and [2532] put [5087] (5656) [it] on [1909] the cross
[4716]. And [1161] the writing [1125] (5772) was [2258] (5713), JESUS
[2424] OF NAZARETH [3480] THE KING [935] OF THE JEWS [2453].
St. John 19:20 This [5126] title [5102] then [3767] read [314]
(5627) many [4183] of the Jews [2453]: for [3754] the place [5117] where
[3699] Jesus [2424] was crucified [4717] (5681) was [2258] (5713) nigh
[1451] to the city [4172]: and [2532] it was [2258] (5713) written
[1125] (5772) in Hebrew [1447], [and] Greek [1676], [and] Latin [4515].
title [5102] titlos {tit'-los}
of Latin origin;; n m
Translated as: title 2 times
Definitions:
1) a title
2) an inscription, giving the accusation or crime for which a criminal suffered
Jim, I don't agree with your assertion that the words NAME and TITLE
are "interchangeable" when it comes to water baptism. I STILL believe
the NAME is EXTREMELY important. AND ... yes ... I STILL believe the
NAME is ESSENTIAL at water baptsim.
- - - - - - - - - -
Jim: passages such as First Peter 4:14 and Revelation 19:13, where a
title is clearly referred to as a name, and Revelation 3:12, where the
name of the Father and the name of the Son are referred to as distinctly
separate.
Bobby: 1 Peter 4:14 If [1487] ye be reproached [3679] (5743) for
[1722] the name [3686] of Christ [5547], happy [3107] [are ye]; for
[3754] the spirit [4151] of glory [1391] and [2532] of God [2316]
resteth [373] (5731) upon [1909] you [5209]: on [2596] [3303] their part
[846] he is evil spoken of [987] (5743), but [1161] on [2596] your part
[5209] he is glorified [1392] (5743).
((same as Matthew 28:19 above)))
name [3686] onoma {on'-om-ah}
from a presumed derivative of the base of 1097 (cf 3685);
TDNT - 5:242,694; n n
Translated as: name 193 times, named=28 times, called=4 times,
surname + 2007=2 times, named + 2564=1 times, not tr 1; for a total of
229 times.
Defintions:
1) name: univ. of proper names
2) the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything
the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning,
hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank,
authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc.
3) persons reckoned up by name
4) the cause or reason named: on this account, because he suffers as a Christian, for this reason
Christ [5547] Christos {khris-tos'}
from 5548; TDNT - 9:493,1322; adj
Translated as: - Christ 569 times
Definitions:
Christ = "anointed"
1) Christ was the Messiah, the Son of God
2) anointed
Again, Jim, I disagree with your assertion that Peter was referring
to the "title" of Christ as a name in 1 Peter 4:14. Granted, Christ,
was one of Jesus' "titles," but it was NOT his NAME. **IF** you read
that verse again and substitute the word Christ with "the anointed One,"
OR "the Messiah," OR "the Son of God" I don't think you will come up
with that kind of a conclusion at all.
- - - - - - - - - -
Jim: God is not a legalist or a sacerdotalist (i.e., the sincerity
and opinions of the person baptizing does not negate the availability of
God's grace to the one being baptized).
Bobby: Jim, I realize you may not use the Old Testament a whole
lot, but it was written for our admonition today. There are many things
we can learn from it, in priniciple and in practice. One of those
things is that God is EXTREMELY serious about anyone He calls for a
specific task, of paying very close attention to ... AND following ...
EVERY detail in accordance to His plan. While the ceremonial laws of
God were fulfilled with Jesus said, "It is finished," Jesus did tell His
followers, "If ye love me, keep MY commandments." One of those
COMMANDMENTS was recorded in Matthew 28:19 ... and I say those who knew
best what He meant, did so.
- - - - - - - - - -
3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?
Jim: Three. One could also use phraseology from Revelation to say seven, though.
Bobby: **IF** one used the phraseology from Revelation to say
seven, would all seven be "persons" ... since you are on record
insisting that 3 of them are??? **IF** so, what role did the other 4
play? And, do you claim they are also co-equal eternal persons???
- - - - - - - - - -
6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?
Jim: Generally as the Word, eternally emanating from the Father.
Bobby: Just how is it that you explain your position of Jesus being
an "eternal person" ... a different Spirit in the Godhead ... eternally
emanating from the Father PRIOR to the Incarnation. Is it your
position that Jesus was "begotten" at some point AFTER the Father ...
like, maybe, Bethlehem??? **IF** so, maybe we'll have a sliver of
common ground on this point. However, that would very serious erode
your "eternal person" ... different "Spirit" in the Godhead position.
- - - - - - - - - -
Jim: Also, I think that some theophanies in the Old Testament (such
as the appearance of the "fourth man" in the fiery furnace of
Nebuchadnezzar) may have been temporary manifestations of Christ.
Bobby: Well, you've already stated you believe there are three
Spirits in the Godhead. So Jesus must have existed in "Spirit" form
prior to the Incarnation ... as one of the three Spirits in the Godhead
according to your belief, right? But here you are saying Jesus was also
a theophany? Please clarify.
Jim: Okay: just as God the Father could appear specially to, say, Moses and Isaiah and Ezekiel, so could Jesus.
Bobby: I've read a little bit of what Moses, Isaiah and Ezekiel
wrote, and I don't recall any one of the three ever alluding to TWO
PERSONS .... TWO SPIRITS ... OR ... TWO SAVIOURS in the Godhead like you
do, let alone THREE. And I don't recall any one of the three ever
making reference to God or the Godhead as "eternal persons" ... or
Father, Son and Holy Spirit ... and then using the word "THEY" as a
descriptive term as you do. Got any Scriptural evidence in any of their
writings to support your position here, Jim?
- - - - - - - - - -
Bobby (from previous email): But here you are saying Jesus was also a theophany? Please clarify.
Jim: Okay: just as God the Father could appear specially to, say, Moses and Isaiah and Ezekiel, so could Jesus.
Bobby: Oh now that's just really ripe with polytheistic overtones.
Here we have (according to your theology) TWO different "persons" ....
Spirits of Deity ... operating in the Old Testament as a "pluralistic"
God of "three different eternal spirits." But, again, I will ask you
for your Scriptural evidence ... book, chapter and verse ... without the
commentary. By the way, which one of them appeared to Moses at the
burning bush ... and where were the other two? I really mean that. I
would just love to know your answer.
- - - - - - - - - -
7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"
Jim: Are you asking about concepts or about terminology? In the
King James Version, First John 5:7 refers to "three that bear witness in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are
one." Completely overlooking for the time being the question of the
originality of this passage, if these three are not persons, I would be
curious as to what they are, and if they are merely names of one Person,
why it should be notable that He agrees with Himself.
Bobby: The "agree" part of your statement above involves the
Spirit, and the water, and the blood: of 1 John 5:8 which agree in one
on earth. Before one can "enter the kingdom" one MUST be born again of
the Spirit and the water according to One who shed His blood for our
salvation. Futhermore, the new birth of the Spirit and the water AND
baptism in the name of Jesus have symbolic importance as well, by which a
true believer identifies with the death, burial and resurrection of our
Lord. At any rate, these three agree in one ON EARTH. The Apostles'
One God Monotheistic Doctrine is NOT "multiple choice selections"
concerning the new birth and water baptism. The three AGREE in one on
earth in the true Church of the Living God. By the way, my reference to
Church is not directed to an organization, a denomination or to bricks,
mortar and sound equipment. The true Church of the Living God is flesh
and blood ... living epistles, known and read of all men (2 Corinthians
3:2).
- - - - - - - - - -
Bobby (from previous email): Most professing Christians don't have a
clue that the three "persons" concept was a later development ... by
several hundred years.
Jim: I object the the subtle shift of language here! This is
precisely why I was averse to answering vaguely-worded questions
previously -- you seemed to make little, if any, distinction between
concepts and terminology. The concept of the Godhead consisting of
three Persons in a Trinity did not originate in the 300's; the
terminology did. Using your approach, one could say that the concept of
a Pre-Tribulation Rapture did not develop until the 1800's, since no
one coined the term until then.
Bobby: Where there is a "concept" of a dogmatically held doctrine,
such as the trinity. There would have to be some SPECIFIC "terminology"
in the Scriptures authorizing such a belief. However, the concept of a
"plurality" of "three eternal persons" of God that evolved many years
AFTER the ascension and passing of the "original" New Testament leaders,
there is not a shred of SPECIFIC "terminology" found anywhere in the
Scriptures. And, THAT, is what I object to. As far as the rapture is
concerned, it is my understanding that the Church is caught up to Heaven
between the opening of the sixth and seventh seals ... and AFTER the
144,000 of the 12 tribes of Israel were sealed ... as spoken of in
Revelation Chapter 7. I don't need something from the 1800's for that.
By the way, Jim, I want to be sure you understand that my position is
there was NO concept in Christianity of there being "three eternal
persons" of God which was a union and formed a triune Godhead ... or
triad ... until many years AFTER the ascension and the passing of the
"original" New Testament leaders. However, the truine or triad concept
of pagan worship most certainly did exist. You may not feel that the
following information is valid or of any significance to this debate.
But I offer it only to clarify my position that the "concept" of a
truine Godhead did exist prior to Christianity, but that concept was
totally foreign to Christianity until it eventually made its way into
Christianity through Rome, and became the official (and accepted
doctrine) of the "universal" (mother) church of the entire Roman Empire.
Knowing what he knew about the Apostles' One God Monotheistic
Doctrine, it is no wonder John was so flabergasted when he saw her in
the vision of Revelation Chapter 17! At any rate, I have included the
URL should you like to visit this web site. And, again, I ONLY bring
this in to clarify my position concerning the pagan "concept" of a
triune Godhead (triad) that did exist prior to Christianity ... BUT has
NO place in the True Church of the Living God ... neither in concept nor
terminology! IT IS PAGAN!
http://www.thunderministries.com/history/triad/trichrt1.html
(((graphics do not appear here)))
Ancient Babylonian Triad, Truine, Trinity
Babylon is the place of origin of all False Doctrine and the Trinity
The three main Gods over all the other Gods & Goddesses
THE THREE MAIN GODS
First Person Second Person Third Person
Father, King Son, Prince Queen, Mother
Triad of Babylon
Nimrod Tammuz Simerimas
Shamash Sin Ishtar
Triad of Backsliden Israel
Baal Tammuz Ashoreth
Triad of Egypt
Osiris Horus Isis
Triad of Greece
Zeus Apollo Athena
Triad of India
Brahama Vishnu Shiva
Triad of Rome
Jupiter Mars Venus
Triad of Catholicism
Father Son Holy Spirit
Jehovah Jesus Dove
Note: The Dove has always been the Catholic root Goddess symbol. Mary has been elevated to Co-Saviour with Christ.
Rev:17:3-5: So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness:
and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of
blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed
in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones
and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and
filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written,
MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF
THE EARTH.
The Biblical Bride or Church of God believes in only "ONE GOD" and
that his name is only one. Jesus is the one God in flesh and Jesus is
the only "Name of God". Salvation is only found in the Name of JESUS.
Acts 4:12: Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is
none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Acts 2:38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Zec:14:9: 9: And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
The above graphic is an example of how the trinity concept was
engrafted into the Catholic Church and other branches Trinity practice.
The Hindu symbolism is just one of many pagan idols these churches have
used to allow the trinity concept. Remember at the Roman Council of
Nicea many of the bishops in attendance practiced paganism and eastern
mysticism in their own states, which at the time were under Roman law.
If we look deeper into this issue we will find many more symbols the
pagan trinity nations conceived, and we can further prove how they were
engrafted into the Modern Trinity Church Dogma, starting at Rome.
Eastern mysticism, hinduism, kabbalism Gnosticism, Talmudism, all these
practices and beliefs have made the Revelation of the end time
Anti-Christ Spirit that much more observant in our world today. It is
the Trinity spirit and concept which maketh war with truth, infiltrating
the New Testament Age, thereby becoming the Daughter of the Babylonian
Whore in Spirit:
Rev:17:3-5: So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness:
and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of
blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed
in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones
and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and
filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written,
MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF
THE EARTH.
The Roman Church and other denomiations who uphold tritheism will
vehemently deny this. However, the study of many scholars, archelolgists
and historians concludes that: "this is indeed a sign of the
Anti-Christ spirit which is biblically spoken of concerning the end
times. This theology has become a stepping stone for the antichrist and
the mark of the beast to enter the modern world"...
In conclusion this author would like to make one point clear.
Tritheistic Worship, as we know today, all started with Israel, who, in
Bablylonian captivity, allowed the teachings and practices of Nimrod to
be observed, thereby turning against the God of Israel. The Old
Testament proves this time and time again. From these practices we find
the birth of Kabbalism, then Mysticism, Hinduism, Islam, Egyptian
Mysticism, Gnosticism. Down it traveled the lineages until it reached
Rome at the Nicene Council of 325 A.D. From that point in time, the
Babylonian Trinity concept entered the New Testament age and has become
the most cunning heresy in the churches who claim Jesus as Lord today.
This is why we have "denominations" in the church today.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response # 14 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 12:32 PM
Subject: Further evidence of the ancient truine (triad) concept
Jim,
Again, the following is for informational purposes only AND to
establish my position that the "concept" of a truine Godhead (triad) did
NOT originate from Christianity .... nor does it form part of the true
Church of the Living God. This is all for now, until I begin to receive
material from you to respond back to you about. God bless!
Bobby
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
http://www.thunderministries.com/history/triad/triarch.html
(((Graphics do not appear here)))
Ancient Triadic Worship Artifacts
The above artifacts were found in archelolgical digs and historic
museums. If we observe the history of the Trinity we can clearly see
that the worship of a Triune Godhead is nothing new. Look at how these
findings show three faced heads. These historical artifacts prove to us
that indeed the Trinity was engrafted into the modern day trinity
worship from ancient pagan worship. We can observe this clearly in the
archeological timelines of these very artifacts. The concept is the
same, three in one, yet separate. And the root, is as we have stated
"PAGAN, MYSTIC, AND NOT OF THE ONE TRUE GOD".
The old attage goes "A picture is worth a thousand words." Let's
look at the historical facts. Let's observe the root of these types of
worship, their practices, etc. We can only conclude that the Trinity in
modern times "in itself" is nothing more than the reinstitution of Pagan
Ideology and Idolatry. The sad fact is that most folks have no
understanding nor study of tritheistic history. Will God honor those
whom have been deceived? No... The word of God clearly states that one
must seek out his own salvation with fear and trembling — (Phil:2:12).
One must study the word, rightly divide the word of God. One must seek
diligently to know the truth, then believe and obey truth. Before you
leave this study, please observe the written words of God given on the
CONCLUSION PAGE then visit the continued study links which give more
detail on this subject. I would then ask that you sit back and ask
yourself the following, in honesty and humbleness:
Should I consider the worship of a trinity Godhead a risk to my eternal salvation?
Is my baptism in the names of Father, Son, Holy Ghost valid?
Should I reconsider my baptism and be re-baptized in the name of Jesus Christ?
Have I truly received the baptism of the Holy Ghost?
Should I assemble with a congregation that worships God in a trinity?
Should I seek to know further truth about the oneness of God, FOR MY OWN SELF?
Should I trust the man at the pulpit, or should I trust the written word of God with my salvation?
Do I really know or understand the truth of God's written word?
Should I now SINCERELY pray to the Lord and ask him what I should do?
THE CHOICE MY FRIEND, "IS YOURS"...
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response # 15 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 3:13 PM
Subject: Response to Jim's email Part 1 of 4 - July 5
Jim: Greetings in Christ to Bobby Richardson. Wow, four (count
'em, four) e-mails! I certainly appreciate the time you are spending on
these responses. I hope to give them a worthy response -- though my
words are bound to be fewer, since I am working without the benefit of
pre-packaged material.
Bobby: Would you PLEASE stop whining (and building a straw man)
about me sometimes copying and pasting material that I've typed and/or
researched in the past about a subject being discussed. Most everything
you are getting is being crunched out right here on the ole keyboard as
I shoot from the hip, Jim. By the way, any benefit I do derive from
having, what you call "pre-packaged" material, is due to the untold
hours of independent research and study I've done spanning a number of
years .... as well as more Bible discussions and debates than you could
probably shake a stick at. At any rate, I explained to you about my
copying and pasting, but apparently you didn't read it, OR it either if
just didn't sink in. So, I will try it again .... Debating trinitarians
is something I have been doing a long time. As a result (and because I
used to be one), I pretty much know (and expect) the hoops trinitarians
jump through. I just don't ever know what sequence they'll jump
through them. As a matter of fact, I know that you still have some more
hoops you'll more than likely jump through **IF** you stay true to your
indoctrination. It's just part of the indoctrination, I guess. At any
rate, I have files and files of debates stored on floppy disks as well
as on my hard drive. When plowing over ground that I've plowed over
many times before, sometimes I will copy and paste things which I would
have to, otherwise, re-type all over again anyway. And there is
certainly nothing wrong with that. And it really shouldn't matter to
you if I am actually sitting here typing each and every word with my
thumbs, or if my wife is sitting here typing all of this for me, or if
I'm copying and pasting from the ACME Book on "How to catch, and debate,
trinitarian Road Runners" that I have on loan from Wile E. Coyote ...
so long as your questions, comments and assertions are being addressed.
I don't know if you've seen the length of my on line Bible Study, but
back in 1987-88 when I typed my first Bible study (which the on line
study evolved from), I typed it on an old manual typewriter. WHEW!
Many, many hours went into it ... BOTH from the standpoint of research
and study, as well as actually typing it ... as did the Bible study at
http://impact-ministry.com/acts2/ Anyway, I honestly thank God for a
computer with a word processer. It sure saves an awful lot of paper ...
AND white out.
Jim: Because I do not want our conversation to sprawl, I have tried
here to be relatively concise, and to focus on two topics: (1) is it
Biblical to baptize using the phrase, "In the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?" and (2) is it Biblical to view the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three Persons? These two
questions seem to be the fount from which others have sprung, so I will
focus mainly on them.
Bobby: First, let me say that I do appreciate you not bouncing all
over the parking lot, from subject to subject, like some I've debated in
times gone by. That can get very frustrating. You wish to focus on
two particular topics, BOTH of which you purpose to make this
determination ... "is it Biblical." Jim, I interpret your phrase, "is it
Biblical" to mean "is it found in the Bible," because according to my
dictionary, BIBLICAL means, 1) of or in the Bible. 2) in keeping with
or according to the Bible; like that in the Bible. **IF** you will
adhere to this, the debate will much more meaningful and productive.
Otherwise, we'll just find ourselves right back to stating our
positions, with you giving a relatively few hand picked Scriptures
"implied" interpretations while ignoring, or not being able to apply
that same line of reasoning to the preponderance of Scriptural evidence
found written "verbatim" on the pages of God's Word on the same subject,
and/or resorting to all sorts of "later" writings both pro and con.
Soooo, let the debate continue with book, chapter and verse of the
unadulterated "verbatim" Word of God as it is found written on the pages
of the Bible. That's the way it should be ... and thanks for having
the courage to take this approach, and for being open and honest about
it. I can only hope you really and truly mean it, and aren't just using
watermelon conversation.
Jim: You stated: 1) That baptism in the name of Jesus is the way the "original" Church baptized.
Bobby: Well, Jim, that's because this is an undeniable, documented
fact, as per Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48 and Acts 19:5 ... in the
different Bible translations I've seen.
Jim: To an extent, I agree: however, I would say, "Baptism in the
name of Jesus is a way the original church baptized." The Christians in
the New Testament also baptized "in the name of the Lord" (Acts 10:48)
and "in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38). There is no indication
that the exact words, "in the name of Jesus," to the exclusion of all
other phrases, had a unique reverence attached to them.
Bobby: Well, Jim, I've provided you with other translations where
Acts 10:48 reads, " ... in the name of Jesus." Besides, you wouldn't
dare suggest that Brother Peter changed the formula somewhere between
Acts 2:38 and Acts 10:48 ... as he was speaking in BOTH places ... now
would you? Now, unless you have book, chapter and verse of where a
baptism took place where the name of Jesus was NOT invoked ... the way
the "original" Church performed their baptisms (in the name of Jesus)...
, then my statement is correct and will stand as stated. **IF** my
statement is NOT correct ... and you do have book, chapter and verse
where the "original" New Testament Church baptized without invoking the
name of Jesus, and/or instead used "Father, Son and Holy Spirit," OR a
combination of the two, then we have us a real problem on our hands
concerning the ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM verse in Ephesians 4:4,
don't we? By the way, my focus is NOT on the "exact" phrase that is
used. My "main" focus is on whether or not the name of Jesus is invoked
(for the remission of sins). That is the key issue here, as far as I am
concerned. Soooo, I'll wait to see what you can find. If you find
nothing (which is what I think you're going to find) then my statement
will be correct and stand as stated. AGREED?
Bobby (from previous email): 2) No baptisms in the Bible were in the TITLES of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost."
Jim: To the extent that there is no narrative of a baptism being
performed with the words, "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" being
pronounced, I agree.
Bobby: O.K. so we are in agreement that "the way" the "original"
New Testament Church baptized was by invoking the name of Jesus. GREAT!
Then when it comes to dogma, we should speak only where the Bible
speaks concerning this matter ... and we should remain silent where the
Bible is silent concerning this matter. Now, we're moving right along
...
Bobby (from previous email): 3) The "original" New Testament Church leaders were NOT trinitarians.
Jim: They did not apply the term "Trinitarians" to themselves. But neither were they "Unitarians."
Bobby: Well, Jim, there is no Scriptural evidence that I am aware
of that the disciples were the first to "apply" the term Christian "to
themselves" either, but the Bible speaks of Christans ... and we KNOW
they were Christians. So, if you are going side step the above by
saying question, "They did not apply the term "Trinitarians" to
themselves," and leave that door still open, then I must ask you to
provide book, chapter and verse for your "implication" that the
"original" New Testament Church leaders "were" trinitarians, but just
were not referred to as such by anyone else, and did not refer to
themselves as such. By the way, the main reason they couldn't be
referred to as "unitarians" was because they embraced the absolute
Divinity of Jesus Christ ... something unitarians do NOT do. Therefore,
it is my express position that they were NEITHER trinitarians NOR
unitarians. Furthermore, I trust you also agree that they were neither
catholic, nor any of the multitude of different protestant denominations
... including any flavor of Church of Christ OR Pentecostal.
Catholicism and protestantism developed as later developments ... as
(and/or after) the man made doctrine concerning the triune concept of
the Godhead being applied to Christianity started evolving AFTER the
"original" New Testament Church leaders passed on. However, the Truth
marched on ... as it still does to this day. And the gates of hell
"shall not prevail" against the Church of the Living God! Granted, there
was the "former rain" followed by the "dark ages" (when the flame may
have been little more than a flicker) and the "dark ages" was followed
by the "latter rain" (Joel 2:23, Hosea 6:3 Haggai 2:9) with the True
Church of the Living God once again having a MAJOR impact on the world,
and becoming as great a beacon to the world, if not greater, than in its
infancy ... and I am NOT talking about a denomination, an organization,
or bricks, mortar and sound equipment. I'm talking about the
Pentecostal "experience" of the Bible ... the "new birth" ... the
infilling of the Holy Ghost, the BIBLE way ... that completely delivers
folks from all types of sin and spiritual bondage, and transforms lives
in an instant! That's what I am talking about. Not old the old worn
out rituals and traditions of men that can't possibly do what I just
described.
Jim: They referred to the Father the way a person naturally refers to a Person.
Bobby: There's nothing about that which would conflict with the
proper understanding of the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine.
YHWH is the ONE LORD (Deuteronomy 6:4). The LORD is GOD (Deuteronomy
4:35). And GOD "IS" our Father (1 Corinthians 8:6 & Malachi 2:10).
And GOD is referred to all through the Bible as I, ME, MY, MINE, HE,
HIS and HIM (Too many Scriptures to list).
Jim: They referred to the Son the way a person naturally refers to a Person.
Bobby: There's nothing about that which would conflict with the
proper understanding of the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine.
The Son was YHWH ... the LORD ... GOD ... "manifest in the flesh" (1
Timothy 3:16) ... or "BOTH man in the form of God (Philippians 2:6), AND
God in the form of man (Philippians 2:7)." Furthermore, we have
already agreed that Jesus was BOTH God and man. And I have been
assuming that you understood Jesus to be FULLY God and also FULLY man.
However, you must not understand this, or you wouldn't be having such
difficulty with how He could be like the Clark Kent/Superman analogy I
use to illustrate why He sometimes spoke "of" the Father (as another
"person" off somewhere else on another planet somewhere or something),
but at other times spoke "as" the Father.
Jim: And they referred to the Holy Spirit the way a person naturally refers to a Person.
Bobby: There's nothing about that which would conflict with the
proper understanding of the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine - "
... the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three ARE one."
(1 John 5:7). The Holy Spirit "IS" the Spirit (SINGULAR) of Almighty
God (Genesis 6:3) ... the Spirit of the Father (Mark 13:11 & Matthew
10:20) ... the Spirit which was "IN" Jesus (Luke 4:1)... the Spirit of
the Son which is "IN" believers (Galatians 4:6) ... and the ONE Spirit
giving us access to the Father (Ephesians 2:18). Jim, The Holy Spirit
"IS" God (Genesis 1:2). And God was referred to throughout the Bible as
I, ME, MY, HE, HIS, HIM and MINE .. as a person would naturally refer
to a person. YHWH (# 3068) "IS"... the "ONE" SPIRIT (SINGULAR) (Genesis
6:3, Judges 3:10 and too many others to list)... of our "ONE" LORD
(Deuteronomy 6:4, Zechariah 14:9, Mark 12:29, 1 Corinthians 8:6,
Ephesians 4:5, & 1 Timothy 2:5) ... our ONE GOD (Malachi 2:10, Mark
12:32, Romans 3:30, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6, & James
2:19)... our ONE Father (Malachi 2:10, St. John 8:41). Yet, you are on
record stating (or acknowledging) that YHWH is NOT a person, but,
rather, a "substance" shared in a "union" of "three persons." Jim, you
need to be EXTREMELY careful about your theology here and how you defend
it. Read Romans Chapter One if you doubt me on this.
Jim: And they described the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit working
simultaneously and yet distinctly the way one would describe three
Persons working simultaneously and yet distinctly. Because of this, I
think it is fair to use "Three Persons" as a model to explain the
mystery of the Godhead.
Bobby: Jim, it is my position that you are making two terrible
mistakes ... 1) allowing what you "think" about vague and/or "implied"
interpretations given to a handful of very carefully selected Scriptures
to become dogmatically held doctrines, which you vigorously defend, and
2) Promulgating the notion that there is an "unexplanable mystery"
surrounding the doctrine that is based on nothing but what you "think"
about a handful of very carefully selected Scriptures, which have been
given "implied" interpretations, concerning your dogmatically held
doctrine of the three "persons" in the Godhead. Listen, God can, does
and "IS" working simultaneously, and yet distinctly, at this very moment
in untold millions of geographical locations, involving untold millions
of people. Yet, He is NOT made up of "parts" OR "persons" like members
of a "team" who function co-peratively in a "union" to get the job
done. You don't even realize it yet, but your position regarding the
baptism of Jesus very severely limits Almighty God, and places the kind
of restrictions on Him that ordinary "persons" have ... as it relates to
occupying time and space. I, mean, He is called God (the Supreme
Being) for a reason. He can manifest Himself in a cloud or a burning
bush, and speak through a thundering voice from Heaven OR through a
donkey, but that doesn't turn Him into different "persons," Jim! I will
say this, though, I appreciate you not making the snide remarks some
have made with me in times gone by, about the baptism of Jesus. I've
had some to say that my postion would make a ventriloquist or a magician
out of God. And that is about the most ignorant thing they could have
possibly said.
Bobby (from previous email): 4) God never inspired anyone to write
OR speak of Him as "persons"... and He never identified Himself as such
(that's just another man-made "add on" on the Word).
Jim: I agree with the first statement here; nowhere in Scripture is
God referred to explicitly as "Persons." I disagree with the second
statement, however; Scripture implicitly identifies God in a way which
can fairly be described as three Persons. But now we're just re-stating
our positions, aren't we?
Bobby: Unless you have book, chapter and verse where God is
referred to as "persons" ... OR refers to Himself as "persons," my
statement will stand correct as stated .... even if you do disagree with
it. The "implying," "theorizing," "assuming" and all that stuff is
what has most people so messed up that they don't know if they are afoot
or horse back. That is why people should learn to just speak where the
Bible speaks and remain silent where it is silent, AGREED? I, mean,
**IF** a concept can't be described in the way it is embraced ... using
Biblical terms ... then it is my position that it would be best left
unsaid, than to say it anyway and take the grave risk of crossing over
that line of adding to or taking from the Word of God ... thereby
becoming accursed.
Jim: Also, you stated: Therefore, you can just forget about me
being willing to accept any of these. Well, what more need be said?
Such an attitude reflects unteachability. Now that you have said that
the topic is not really open for discussion, you have saved me a lot of
time. Why even discuss further, inasmuch as you just said, in effect,
that your mind is made up?
Bobby: I'll use your earlier question, Jim ... "Is this an offer to
conclude the discussion?" Just remember, who contacted who, o.k.?
Now, lets replay my words where I said what you focused your attention
on above .... Therefore, you can just forget about me being willing to
accept any of these ... regardless of how much may call yourself trying
to "teach" me something that absolutely, positively is NOT in the Bible.
Now, up until the time God revealed the Apostles' One God Monotheistic
doctrine, and I departed from trinitarianism, repented of my sins, got
re-baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, experienced
the infilling of the Holy Ghost (the Bible way), and very diligently
searched all this stuff out for myself, I could not have said what all I
just said. Sooooo, if you think I am "unteachable," you are wrong! I
just won't consider embracing a doctrine that God has already shown me
through the preponderance of Scriptural evidence from the "verbatim"
written Word of God CONCLUSIVELY, that is it an "implied" doctrine
formulated by man ... a "later" development ... an "addition" to the
Word of God (something which we are strictly forbidden to do, according
to Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18). And I make no excuses or
apologies about my position concerning this.
Bobby: ... I just won't consider embracing a doctrine that God has
already shown me through the preponderance of Scriptural evidence from
the "verbatim" written Word of God ...
Jim: -- but that is precisely the question at hand, Bobby, was it
was God who showed you what you think is true, or are you laboring under
a misconception?
Bobby: Yes, Jim. It was God who showed me. I wasn't indoctrinated
to believe it, that's one thing you can rest assured of. As a matter of
fact, initially, I was probably just as convinced as you are about the
triune concept of Godhead that I had been indoctrinated to beleive. But
the obvious difference between you and me, Jim, as I can observe here,
is that I did not resort to jumping through indoctrination hoops in an
effort to convince someone else about the triune Godhead, which I
honestly didn't have a handle on myself. Nor was I trying to preserve,
protect and defend my social, emotional, finanical or religious status.
Instead, I had the courage ... and the ability ... to lay aside
everything I "thought" I ever knew about God and the Bible, and just go
into the Word of God sincerely, honestly and independently without any
of my preconceived ideas, and just allow the Bible to interpret itself
on any given subject. Furthermore, the method of independent Bible
study that I discovered as a result has served me very well over the
years, and helped me stay out of the sand traps of narrow minded
denominationism which so many "professing" Christians suffer from today.
One last point on this, God is no liar. His Word is True. Those who
understand the proper way to study the Bible requires the evaluation of
the preponderance of Scriptural evidence on any given subject, and not
just a hand picked Scripture here and there. Yes, Jim, God revealed the
Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine to me through His Word as I was
independently studied it. You may not believe that. But I sure hope I
never forget the moment I "saw" it. The moment the Scriptures came to
life to me, while studying very late one night ... or actually very
early one morning ... while I was alone in a tiny railroad depot way
back in the woods, out in the middle of nowhere. It was if I had been
gazing into a 3-D picture and all of a suddes I saw "into" it for the
very first time. It was AWESOME! From that moment on, the Bible became
very much alive to me, and my understanding was very dramatically
increased. Therefore, I can say from first hand experience, that when a
person truly hungers and thirsts after righteousness, they shall be
filled. That is why my main goal is not just to share with others what I
have learned from the Word, but to challenge them to independently
study their Bible without all the excess baggage that most of us have
been indoctrinated to believe. **IF** I can get a person to lay it all
aside and just go into their Bible with an open heart and mind, with no
predetermined conclusions, I KNOW God will open up His Glorious Truth to
them too ... just like He did for me. That's why I am
non-denominational ... Pentecost is significant because of the "new
birth" experience that began when the True Church of The Living God was
inaugurated on the Day of Pentecost in Acts Chapter 2 ... NOT because of
the name of any particular denomination! In other words, Jim, the label
"Pentecostal" is NOT a denomination. It is significant for the reason I
just gave. However, I wear the label proudly when I am called a
"Pentecostal," "Jesus Only," "Holy Roller," or some other label used by
one who is either just parroting something they have heard from someone
else, or who apparently don't have the Scriptural confidence in what
they believe as I do, or who feels that labeling others some how
elevates them.
Jim: Of course you believe it was God, but I can reciprocate and
say God has shown me things through His Word, too -- and not just
through a comprehension of the surface meaning of the words (which is
what you seem to refer to when you mention the "verbatim" meaning) but
through the meaning which the words were actually intended to convey.
Bobby: I beg your pardon??? Who is reading Matthew 28:19 on the
"surface" instead of "through the meaning which the words were actually
intended to convey"??? Now, Jim, I'll allow the "RIGHTLY DIVIDED -
VERBATIM" Word of God to be my source of "sound doctrine." You are free
to get yours from the National Enquirer if that's your pleasure.
Bobby (from previous email): Umm, by the way, you did NOT answer
the question ... Where was the Godhead ... ever referred to in the Bible
as "three persons" ... OR two "persons" for that matter?
Jim: I did answer the question.
Bobby (from previous email): Jim, I went back and found where I
asked you the following question, but I can NOT find where you answered
it with book, chapter and verse ... where the Godhead ("the very essence
or complete nature and attributes" of God) ever referred to in the
Bible as "three persons" ... OR two "persons" for that matter. **IF**
you will copy and paste your answer OR just re-write it, I would
appreciate it.
Jim: As I recall, my answer was something to the effect that the
words "three persons" are not in Scripture; the idea is implicitly
expressed. I think specific verses to that effect are investigated a
little later in our discussion so I will wait till then to discuss them.
Bobby: That "implicitly expressed" stuff ain't going to cut it,
Jim. I thought we agreed that that would only get us back to stating
our positions. Since you acknowledged the words are not found in
Scripture, the bottom line is, my request for you to provide Scriptural
evidence where the Godhead ("the very essence or complete nature and
attributes" of God) was ever referred to in the Bible as "three persons"
(OR two "persons" for that matter) ... was not met by you. As a
result, you have NO specific Scriptural evidence ... even expressed in
other Biblical terms ... which expresses the concept of God (or the
Godhead) as you believe it, defend it and teach it to others.
Bobby (from previous email): Now, here's a couple of things you've
said, thus far ... "I see the name "YHWH" as expressive of the very
substance of God, which is shared in union by Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit." "At the same time, I do believe that God has revealed Himself
as three Eternal Persons." Now, Jim, according to your beliefs YHWH is
NOT a "person" because YHWH (according to you) is a "substance" which is
shared in "union" by three "persons"
Jim: Right. I think there is more to the equation, so to speak,
but that is consistent with the part of the equation shown to us in
Scripture. I think it is fair to say that any one of the three Persons
of the Godhead is YHWH, the same way it is fair to say that any male is
male; "maleness" is an innate feature; likewise "Godness," one could
say, is innate to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.
Bobby: O.K. you confirm your position that YHWH is NOT a person,
but is a "substance" which is "shared" in "union" by three "persons."
Now, let's explore your statement about any one of the three "persons"
is YHWH, the same way it is fair to say that any male is male. Jim,
YHWH is more than just a descriptive term like "male." But I will abide
by the rules of your analogy about any male is male, and will substitute
the words "person" and "persons" in your theology with the words "male"
and "males." Now, let's look at it from that angle. In a "union" shared
by three males, you do have THREE MALES (plural). So using your
analogy, in the "union" shared by the three "persons" ... all three
being YHWH ... you have THREE YHWHs. Now, you've got a real mess on
your hands, brother. That view has a big sign hung over it which reads,
"Welcome to polytheism!" You'd better come out of that pagan stuff,
and line up with the Apostles' One God Monotheist Doctrine while you
still have an opportunity to do so.
Bobby (from previous email):... many years AFTER the Ascension and
passing of the "original" New Testament leaders, the man made doctrine
of a "plurality" of three eternal "persons" evolved, for which there is
NOT a shred of Scriptural evidence or SPECIFIC Bible authority ...
revealing that it is NOT "sound" doctrine, but at best an vague and
"implied" doctrine based on the theories of those who came "later."
Jim: You're just re-stating your position again!
Bobby: In the absence of book, chapter and verse which refutes any
part of that statment, it stands correct as stated. However, **IF** you
have a shred of SPECIFIC Bible authority which does reveal the doctrine
of a "plurality" of three eternal "persons" to be "sound" doctrine,
then let's have it. Otherwise, you're just going to have to live with
my statement being correct ... and standing as stated.
Bobby (from previous email): Yes, Jim, notice it says that the LORD
(YHWH) ... HE is God. Since when is a "substance" referred to as "HE?"
Jim: I don't think YHWH is a mere substance, devoid of personality
-- His character is uniformly expressed through each Person, and each
may validly be referred to as YHWH.
Bobby: I am NOT going to let you have it both ways here. So, now
do you say YHWH is a "person"OR a "substance?" A few entries earlier you
acknowledged that YHWH was NOT a "person" but was a "substance." Let's
look at this again ... Now, Jim, according to your beliefs YHWH is NOT
a "person" because YHWH (according to you) is a "substance" which is
shared in "union" by three "persons"
Jim (answer given to the above statement just a few entries earlier): Right.
Bobby: Jim, you need to clear this matter up by stating whether or
not YHWH is a "person" OR a "substance" which is "shared" in "union" by
three "persons." PLEASE let me know what you decide on here. You
simply cannot have it BOTH ways.
Jim: And you keep insisting, "No plurality!" for those verses, and
for Psalm 100:3, (where "God" = Elohim), Second Samuel 22:32, and so on
-- and in case after case, most definitely YHWH is singular, and just as
definitely, Elohim is plural. I would rather posit a mystery
regarding this than hammer out a solution which ignores or belittles
some of the text. It appears that not only are you clinging to Text A
and ignoring Text B; you are picking and choosing individual words
within a text to pay attention to -- which is simply not a very good
interpretive, method.
Bobby: Jim, not only am I not going to let you have YHWH both ways
(as a "substance" AND as a "person"), I am NOT going to let you play the
"it's a mystery" card, or a shell game with words like "Elohim." Look,
the word Elohim is like the word "sheep" because the word can be used
to describe ONE ... OR a bunch. I've already given you Scriptures where
the Hebrew word Elohim was used to describe ONE (NUMERICALLY) ... AND
also where the same word was used to describe MORE than one. Now, if I
need to go back and copy and paste them again, I will. The word Elohim
was translated GOD (singular). Now, Jim, GOD is called GOD ... and
translated in the singular ... for a reason. There is ONLY ONE SUPREME
BEING. Now, I'm going to illustrate what I am talking about here
concerning Elohim. Let's say I translate the word "sheep" as "animal"
(singular). That would be correct, right? RIGHT! Now, regarding the
KJV of the Holy Bible ... When the Hebrew word Elohim refers to ONE
(numerically) other than the Supreme Being, it is shown translated as
god (singular - lower case "g"). When the Hebrew word Elohim refers to
MORE THAN ONE (numerically) other than the Supreme Being, it is shown
translated as gods (plural - lower case "g" ... with an "s" on the end
to make it plural). When the Hebrew word Elohim refers to the Supreme
Being, it is shown translated as God (SINGULAR -with a capital "G").
Get it??? 'Nuf said!
Bobby (from previous email): No, Jim, trinitarians just look for
the slightest opportunity to support their "indoctrinated" "pluralistic"
view of God by taking verses with SINGULAR personal pronouns describing
God and ignoring them in an effort bolster a man made theory which is
SERIOUSLY flawed ... and SCRIPTURALLY VOID. That "pluralistic" position
of three people ("persons") is so close to polytheism ... if not
polytheism at its core ... that I came out of it as soon as I discovered
what was going on. And I've been embracing the Apostles' One God
Monotheistic Doctrine found written "verbatim" on the pages of God's
Holy Word ever since ... and you should do the same.
Jim: Sheer rhetoric! That does not address my point about the pluralness of Elohim at all!
Bobby: Yes, I have addressed your rhetoric insisting YHWH ... the
LORD ... GOD is NOT a person, but, rather is a "substance" shared in a
"union" or a "plurality" of "three eternal persons" due to the Hebrew
word Elohim. Jim, the Hebrew word Elohim is like the word "sheep," and
can be used to describe ONE ... OR more than one. However, it looks
like I need to step in and keep the records straight when you make a
statement like the one you just made above. Here is what I've already
gone on record with concerning the pluralness of of the Hebrew word
Elohim, Jim ...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby (from previous email): It is inconsistent to insist that the
word "Elohim" identifies a "plurality" of "persons" when referring to
God, and then turn right around and insist that the same word in other
places identifies a "singular" (one) person only. Shouldn't the word
"trio" always mean "more" than one regardless of where it is used ... or
who it is referring to? It seems to me like it should. Now, notice the
"singular" (NOT plural) references to God in this very small sampling of
scriptures which follows:
Deuteronomy 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know
that the LORD (YHWH <Jehovah> - Strong's # 3068) "He" is God;
there is none else beside "Him." (The LORD <SINGULAR> ... "He"
<SINGULAR> ... is God. There is no plurality in this scripture ...
there are no associates with God.)
Deuteronomy 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine
heart, that the LORD (YHWH <Jehovah> - Strong's # 3068) "He" is
God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.
(The LORD <SINGULAR> is God. No plurality here either ... still no
associates.)
Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD (YHWH <Jehovah> -
Strong's # 3068) thy God, "He" is God, the faithful God, which keepeth
covenant and mercy with them that love "Him" and keep "His" commandments
to a thousand generations; (The LORD <SINGULAR> is God. Still no
plurality ... still no associates.)
Joshua 2:11 And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did
melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of
you: for the LORD (YHWH <Jehovah> - Strong's # 3068) your God,
"He" is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath. (The LORD
<SINGULAR> ... Nope! No plurality and no associates here either.)
Psalms 100:3 Know ye that the LORD (YHWH <Jehovah> - Strong's #
3068) "He" is God: it is "He" that hath made us, and not we ourselves;
we are "His" people, and the sheep of "His" pasture. (THE LORD
<SINGULAR> is God who made us.)
2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God, save the LORD (YHWH <Jehovah> -
Strong's # 3068) ? and who is a rock, save our God? (THE LORD
<SINGULAR> is God.)
Bobby (continuing from previous email): Now I would like to share
with you some places in the Bible where the Hebrew word "Elohim"
(Strong’s # 430) is used where it DEFINITELY does NOT refer to God ...
but is definitely referring to ONE ... NOT two, or three ... ONE! And in
so doing, I submit to you that those who use this word in an effort to
assert a plurality of "persons" of GOD are only doing so in an effort to
support the man made theory of three "persons" of God. And according to
Leviticus 19:36; Ezekiel 45:10; Proverbs 11:1; and Micah 6:11 ... as
well as the following scriptures ... is a double standard (an unjust
balance), a definite abomination in the sight of God! Now, here's the
examples which I offer as proof that the use of the word Elohim should
NOT be used by anyone to "imply" or suggest that the "Hear O Israel, the
LORD our God is ONE LORD" of Deuteronomy 6:4 is actually MORE than one
LORD ... OR more than ONE PERSON.
Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god
(ELOHIM -Strong’s # 430) to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy
prophet. - (Moses was one)
Deuteronomy 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god
(ELOHIM -Strong’s # 430) with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound,
and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
-(There is no other "person" or "persons" with God)
Judges 6:31 And Joash said unto all that stood against him, Will ye
plead for Baal? will ye save him? he that will plead for him, let him be
put to death whilst it is yet morning: if he be a god (ELOHIM -Strong’s
# 430), let him plead for himself, because one hath cast down his
altar. -(baal was one)
Judges 9:27 And they went out into the fields, and gathered their
vineyards, and trode the grapes, and made merry, and went into the house
of their god (ELOHIM -Strong’s # 430), and did eat and drink, and
cursed Abimelech. -(the house of their god was one)
Judges 9:46 And when all the men of the tower of Shechem heard that,
they entered into an hold of the house of the god (ELOHIM -Strong’s #
430) Berith. -(berith was one)
Judges 11:24 Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god
(ELOHIM -Strong’s # 430) giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD
our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess. -(chemosh
was one)
Judges 16:23 Then the lords of the Philistines gathered them
together for to offer a great sacrifice unto Dagon their god (ELOHIM
-Strong’s # 430), and to rejoice: for they said, Our god (ELOHIM
-Strong’s # 430) hath delivered Samson our enemy into our hand. -(dagon
was one)
Judges 16:24 And when the people saw him, they praised their god
(ELOHIM -Strong’s # 430): for they said, Our god (ELOHIM -Strong’s #
430) hath delivered into our hands our enemy, and the destroyer of our
country, which slew many of us. -(their god, dagon, was one)
1 Kings 11:33 Because that they have forsaken me, and have
worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess (ELOHIM -Strong’s # 430) of the
Zidonians, Chemosh the god (ELOHIM -Strong’s # 430) of the Moabites, and
Milcom the god (ELOHIM -Strong’s # 430) of the children of Ammon, and
have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and
to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father. -(here we
have ELOHIM being used individually to describe ashtoreth, chemosh, and
milcom ... each of whom were still only one ... not a plurality)
1 Kings 18:27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them,
and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god (ELOHIM -Strong’s # 430); either he
is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure
he sleepeth, and must be awaked. -(baal was one)
Bobby (continuing from previous email): Thus far, we have seen where
the LORD <SINGULAR> "HE" is God, and we've seen where the Hebrew
word ELOHIM (Strong’s # 430) is used where it is NOT referring to a
plurality of more than ONE. Yet we have so called Bible scholars who
insist that when "ELOHIM" is used in reference to God, it is plural
because they theorize there are three "persons" of God ... which is
total nonsense! The three co-equal "persons" theory of the Godhead
evolved several centuries AFTER Christ, and is polytheistic and/or
attempts to portray God as three separate "persons" who make up one
family/household, or either portrays God as one "person" with "three
heads" .... both of which are ludicrous (and blasphemous, in my
opinion).
I fear for people who see no harm in this man made doctrine ...
especially those who vigorously defend and propagate it. I'm telling you
in the fear of God it is diametrically opposed to the Apostles' One God
Monotheistic Doctrine. And I am warning people to turn away from it,
and turn to the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine as found very
plainly in the Bible ... in simple language, and understood without the
need of a slide ruler, a law degree, or a library full of books,
commentaries and research material.
God is referred to throughout the entire Bible in the singular as
.... I, ME, MY, HE, HIS and HIM. However, some people today attempt to
use the Hebrew word "Elohim" (Strong’s # 430) ... which is translated
"God", "god" and "goddess" in the Old Testament to assert that God is a
plurality of three separate and distinct co-equal, co-eternal and
co-existent "persons." Israel had just ONE LORD according to Deuteronomy
6:4, "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is ONE LORD:" (Not two ... not
three ... ONE!). To assert that God is actually a plurality of three
separate and distinct "persons" who are co-equal, co-eternal and
co-existent with one another either portrays three individual "persons"
of Deity like three members making up one family/household, OR portrays
God as being one "person" with three "heads" ... either of which is
about as pagan and polytheistic as you can get, and an abomination to
boot, in my opinion.
English was my worst subject in school, but I do remember a few
things. For illustration purposes only, it is not proper to link the
singular pronoun "He", which refers to one "person", to verbs like:
"see", "hear" and "warn" ... which would look like this ... "He see",
"He hear" and "He warn". When using the singular pronoun "He", it is
necessary to use the verbs "sees", "hears" and "warns" ... "He SEES",
"He HEARS" and "He WARNS". In order to use the verbs "see", "hear" and
"warn", you must use a noun or pronoun which is "plural" and identifies
"more" than one person like, "People" ... "People see", "People hear"
and "People warn". Yet, intelligent people who know this rule, but who
have been indoctrinated to believe that there are three "persons" of
God, ignore this rule when it comes to the word "GOD".
**IF** the word "GOD" identifies more than one "person", as the
trinitarians insist, the Bible should read like this, "God SEE", "God
HEAR" and "God WARN" ... AND IT DOESN'T! The word "GOD" is never linked
to a verb like that. Instead, the word "GOD" is ALWAYS linked to verbs
just as the word "He" (a singular person) is ... like this, "God SEES",
"God HEARS" and "God WARNS". Again, I use these particular words for
illustration purposes only, but I hope I have made my point ... and that
it's CLEAR.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby (from previous email): O.K. Jim, was Jesus God? Was He man?
Or was He BOTH God and man? I say He was BOTH God and man.
Jim: I agree.
Bobby: GREAT! I trust that you also believe Jesus was FULLY God
and FULLY man. However, until you acknowledge or deny it, I'll lean
more to you NOT believing He was than you believing He was, because of
your obvious contempt for the Clark Kent/Superman analogy.
Bobby (from previous email) Paul describes Jesus as being God manifested in the flesh, in 1 Timothy 3:16.
Jim: It might be worthwhile to note that there is a textual variant there.
Bobby: Well, not that 1 Timothy 3:16 is absolutely essential to
solidify the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine or anything, but I
would be interested in hearing just what the "problem" is with it ... as
you see it. Either you agree with 1 Timothy 3:16 or you don't. Would
you please expound upon this matter further???
Bobby (from previous email) ...Since God is a Spirit, then it would
be accurate to say the "SPIRIT" of God was "IN" Him. ... Jesus did say
"the Father dwelleth "IN" me" in St. John 14:10.
Jim: No argument there.
Bobby: Now, Jim, either you have changed your position on there
being "three spirits" of God (in the Godhead), or are just not wanting
to challenge ... God is "A" Spirit (singular) ..., or you are implying
you agree with it by not raising an argument, but will still try to have
it both ways (God being "A" Spirit (singular) AND also there being
"three spirits" in the Godhead, which dwelt between the cherubims.
Soooo, I need for you to explain your "No argument there," statement,
o.k.?? Either you need to revise your answer to the following questions
or you are trying to have things both ways ... which I will NOT let you
get away with ....
3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?
Jim: Three.
4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?
Jim: three.
Bobby (from previous email): ...According to your theology Jim, an "eternal person" can die.
Jim: Well, I think some definition of terms might be in order
there! By definition, an "eternal person" cannot cease to exist, but an
eternal Person, incarnate in flesh, can be disincarnated, which may
validly be called "death."
Bobby: Jim, Jim, Jim, there you go again. Look, Jesus really and
truly died on the cross that day. Now, according to your theology, the
Son of God is just one of three eternal "persons" in the Godhead. And
the Son of God died, Jim! He even said, "My God, My God, Why hast thou
forsaken Me? Remember?? Granted, He came back to life ... but He died,
Jim! Now, according to your position on the Son of God, Jesus is only
one eternal "person" in a group of three, which make up the Godhead. So
I ask you, Jim, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE DEATH OF JESUS???? What died?
Who died? DID AN ETERNAL PERSON DIE??? Or was Jesus' body just an
empty shell that housed the Spirit of God, and He wasn't really FULLY
man ... AND ... FULLY God after all??? Two things are certain, 1) we do
know a "death" took place ... and 2) three days later the resurrection
took place. WHAT DO YOU SAY ABOUT THIS, JIM??? But, PLEASE, don't whip
out your slide ruler, or go to gathering up straw, or thinking about
playing the "it's a mystery" card, or playing shell games with words.
The Bible is only complicated to those who are complicated, Jim. The
"real deal" is so simple, even a child can understand.
Bobby (from previous email): ... God (Spririt) robed Himself in a
body (flesh) ... in order to redeem man back to Himself. HE IS OUR ONLY
SAVIOUR. There are NOT three Saviours as you insist.
Jim: Titus 1:3-4 refers, practically in the same breath, to "God
our Savior" and to "God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our
Savior."
Bobby: There's nothing about that which would conflict with the
proper understanding of the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine.
You're just reading on the surface again, that's all. Let's look at
what you just said ... Titus 1:3-4 refers, practically in the same
breath, to "God our Savior" and to "God the Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ our Savior." Jim, Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh ...
God in the form of man. The Old Testament firmly establishes YHWH ...
the LORD ... GOD ... as the ONLY SAVIOUR. The name Jesus wasn't just a
name that Joseph and Mary happened to pick out for the Christ Child. It
actually means Jehovah-Saviour or Jehovah has become salvation. Jesus
was "born" the KING ... the SAVIOUR. The only conflict having to do
with Titus ... or anything else in Scripture concerning this matter ...
is in your mind as a result of your indoctrination. God did provide
HIMSELF a Lamb, Jim. God became our Saviour when He took upon Himself
the form of a man and became God manifest in the flesh ... JESUS ...
Clark Kent/Superman.
Bobby (from previous email): ...You know good and well your
indoctrinated man made theology does NOT refer to the Holy Spirit as
"Saviour."
Jim: I have no problem saying that the Holy Spirit saves me; just put two and two together:
Bobby: Well, Jim, I don't have any problem with saying that either
because Jesus said except a man be born or water AND OF THE SPIRIT, he
cannot ENTER kingdom of God. So, yes, it could be said that the Holy
Spirit saves us. However, the Holy Spirit is NOT referred to as THE
SAVIOUR per sae, according to your theology. You know that and I know
that. By the way, just because you say you can put two and two together
doesn't really Scripturally prove anything, Jim. **IF** a person so
desired, they could find Scriptures to put together and say that they've
put two and two together, and assert that it is possible for devils to
be saved. Here's the example of what I am talking about (I DO NOT
BELIEVE IT THIS WAY ... this is for illustrational purposes ONLY) ....
St. John 3:16, For God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but
have everlasting life. James 2:19, Thou believest that there is one
God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Jim: (A) no one says that Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 12:3), and
Bobby: That is correct, Jim. No one can say Jesus is their Lord
... Master ... without the Holy Spirit. But that still doesn't refer to
the Holy Spirit as Saviour.
Jim: (B) if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and
believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall
be saved (Romans 10:9).
Bobby: What has that got to do with referring to the Holy Spirit as
the Saviour? However, Romans 10:9 is a very true statement, with which
I am in complete agreement. I live in Central Florida. And if I told
someone wanting to go to Ohio to take the Florida turnpike North out of
Orlando, that would also be a true statement. But if that's all I told
them, they may end up somewhere besides Ohio. When considering the
Scriptures it is important to keep in mind, not only what is being said,
but who is saying it, under what circumstances it is being said, and
who it is being said to. As a side note, it amazes me when I see people
turn to the Book of Romans to tell a sinner how to be saved, when the
Book of Romans was written to all the saints in Rome ... a Church ...
people who were already saved ... not a bunch of sinners who were
needing to find out ... or asking ... how to be saved. Now, to find out
what a bunch of sinners were told when they asked what they needed to
do, one should turn to the "history book" of the Church ... Acts
2:37-38, but specifically Acts 2:38:
Acts Chapter 2
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and
said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what
shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Jim: ... Luke 4:18 ~ Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon
me." Here is a reference to the Holy Spirit, distinct from the Father
... and from Christ ... Ephesians 2:18 is another nifty example of this
same threefold distinction: "for through him we both have access by one
Spirit unto the Father." It is very difficult to maintain that Paul
had only one Person in mind here, as if he were saying, "for through
Jesus we have access by one Jesus unto Jesus."
Bobby (from previous email): ...Now, surely you don't assert that
Jesus .... being the same yesterday, today and forever .... occupied a
body of flesh and blood at the Creation, now do you?
Jim: I do not assert that. His nature and His form are two things.
Bobby: Then I will assume that what you meant by, "His nature and
His form being two things," is that ... His Spirit and the flesh ... are
just different ways in which He manifested Himself to mankind, and NOT
that His Spirit was a person and His flesh was another person. Well,
Well, Well! What do you know? That's exactly what I've been trying to
share with you about YHWH ... the LORD ... GOD ... His nature and His
form are just different ways in which He manifested Himself to mankind
... are NOT different "persons." I really don't understand why you
think Jesus can do AND be ... and described in that way ..., but YHWH
... the LORD ... GOD ... cannot. Now, there's a real mystery. How come
you think that??? Or is my assumption wrong about what you meant by,
His nature and His form being two things??? Please explain. Now to the
Scriptures you bring up ...
Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath
anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal
the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering
of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, ...
This is what Jesus read from Isaiah 61:1 in the synagogue on the Sabbath
day, and went on to proclaim, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in
your ears." Jim, Jesus ... the Messiah ... the Christ ... wasn't only
"annointed" by the Spirit of the Lord "upon" Him, the Spirit of God was
"IN" Him too because He was YHWH ... the LORD ... GOD ... manifest in
the flesh 1 Timothy 3:16, and HE said the Father dwelled "IN" Him in St.
John 14:10. And Paul said in 2 Corinthians 5:19 "To wit, that God was
in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, ..."
Ephesians 2:Ephesians 2:18 "For through him (Jesus) we both have
access by one Spirit unto the Father." Well, Jim, **IF** Jesus is NOT
God manifest in the flesh, and **IF** the Spirit of the Father was not
dwelling in that tabernacle of flesh, then we have a real problem,
because Jesus was rather emphatic when He stated in St. John 14:6, "... I
am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but
by me. Jim, the distinction is Spirit and flesh ... Spirit and flesh.
The Father is ONE YHWH (1 Corinthians 8:6 & Malachi 2:10) ... the
ONE LORD (Deuteronomy 6:4) ... ONE GOD (1 Corinthians 8:6) ... ONE
Spirit of Deity (Ephesians 4:4). The Son is JESUS ... the Christ ...
God manifest in flesh. NOT two YHWH but ONE YHWH ... who is a Spirit
(St. John 4:24) ... who took upon Himself the form of a servant
(Philippians 2:7)and came down and walked among His own creation (St.
John 1:10 & 3:13). Finally, in conclusion to my explanation of
Ephesians 2:18, I will say that sin alienated man from God (Colossians
1:21 & Ephesians 4:18), the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to
Christ (Galatians 3:24), the Incarnation (Jesus ... the Spirit of YHWH
made flesh) is the way, the door through which we must enter to have
access to God (the Father) (St. John 14:6, 10:7 & 10:9). It is
through that door (through Him), that we have access to God (the Father)
... made possible by the ONE Spirit of YHWH. Now, that I have
explained Ephesians 2:18, Jim, I would like to hear your understanding
of which Spirit (of the three you claim is in the Godhead) that we have
access to the Father. Be careful now because Jesus said, "no man cometh
unto the Father but by me."
Bobby (from previous email): ... I find it amazing that you do no
understand how the Incarnation was a "concept" in the mind ... and plan
... of God ... from the foundation of the world.
Jim: Eh? I have no problem believing that Christ is the Lamb slain from before the foundations of the world.
Bobby: Yes, but Jim, notice I said the Incarnation was a "concept"
in the mind ... and plan ... of God ... from the foundation of the
world. It wasn't that the Son was already on the scene at the Creation.
Jesus being the same yesterday, today and forever is referrring to His
unchanging Divine nature, as per Malachi 3:6, "For I am the LORD (YHWH) ,
I change not;..." It is my firm assertion and understanding that the
pre-Incarnate Christ ... was YHWH ... the LORD ... GOD. And that is
precisely who was speaking in Malachi 3:6.
Jim: My point was that modalism requires interpretive acrobatics in
order to harmonize the passages noted (among others). I showed you a
difficulty with your approach and you made no attempt to address it. I
will re-phrase: if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one Person, how
does Ephesians 2:18 make any sense, i.e., how do we initially have
Jesus, and then must go through Jesus to gain access to Jesus? It's
like saying that a person already in Detroit has to get on the bus to
Detroit in order to reach Detroit.
Bobby (from previous email): You still didn't answer my question as
to why the Bible refers to the Holy Spirit as being the Spirit of God
AND the Spirit of Christ. Instead you side stepped it.
Jim: I answered your question and did not side-step it: the Holy
Spirit is associated with Christ and with God the Father so intimately
that He may be referred to as either the Spirit of God or the Spirit of
God (just as I may call my eyes "the eyes in my head" or simply "my
eyes").
Bobby: Jim, my position is that the Holy Spirit is not only the
Spirit of God, but also the Spirit of Christ. As a matter of fact, that
is what I've been saying all along .... the distinction in the Godhead
is Spirit and flesh, NOT different PERSONS who share a "unity," or who
co-exist as co-equals, and somehow can either individually or
collectively be YHWH while remaining different "persons" (as one would
normally think of "persons") which is precisely what your position is.
Furthermore, your position is that these three "persons" are THREE
SPIRITS in the Godhead, and any one of these "persons" ... Spirits ...
is YHWH. Making YHWH (GOD) ... THREE SPIRITS ... NOT ONE ... something
which is NOT found in the Word of God, except through taking a handful
of very carefully selected Scriptures and giving them an "implied"
meaning that will support such a theory. Now about your eyes, what you
said is true. However, your eyes are "IN" your head ... NOT the other
way around. You don't refer to your eyes as your head. Furthermore,
your eyes will never be your ears and your ears will never be your eyes
... AND one of them will NEVER be "IN" the other, and in your analogy it
appears to me that you are using your eyes to illustrate the
relationship of the "persons" of the Godhead. Jim, you had to be spoon
fed (indoctrinated) this stuff, nobody could possibly come up with it on
their own, from independent study.
Bobby (from previous email): ...the tabernacle/temple was the bus
that the person in Detroit you mentioned above would have to get on ...
because, even though they were already in Detroit, they were NOT where
they needed to be in Detroit ... and as big as Detroit is, it is no
comparison to the universe ... and the place where God wants all of us
to be.
Jim: Somehow I am totally not getting whatever you're trying to say
here (it looks like you're having trouble explaining Ephesians 2:18).
Bobby: No problem at all, Jim, I'll copy and paste it again from
above ... Ephesians 2:18 "For through him (Jesus) we both have access
by one Spirit unto the Father." Well, Jim, **IF** Jesus is NOT God
manifest in the flesh, and **IF** the Spirit of the Father was not
dwelling in that tabernacle of flesh, then we have a real problem,
because Jesus was rather emphatic when He stated in St. John 14:6, "... I
am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but
by me. Jim, the distinction is Spirit and flesh ... Spirit and flesh.
The Father is ONE YHWH (1 Corinthians 8:6 & Malachi 2:10) ... the
ONE LORD (Deuteronomy 6:4) ... ONE GOD (1 Corinthians 8:6) ... ONE
Spirit of Deity (Ephesians 4:4). The Son is JESUS ... the Christ ...
God manifest in flesh. NOT two YHWH but ONE YHWH ... who is a Spirit
(St. John 4:24) ... who took upon Himself the form of a servant
(Philippians 2:7)and came down and walked among His own creation (St.
John 1:10 & 3:13). Finally, in conclusion to my explanation of
Ephesians 2:18, I will say that sin alienated man from God (Colossians
1:21 & Ephesians 4:18), the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to
Christ (Galatians 3:24), the Incarnation (Jesus ... the Spirit of YHWH
made flesh) is the way, the door through which we must enter to have
access to God (the Father) (St. John 14:6, 10:7 & 10:9). It is
through that door (through Him), that we have access to God (the Father)
... made possible by the ONE Spirit of YHWH. Now, that I have
explained Ephesians 2:18, Jim, I would like to hear your understanding
of which Spirit (of the three you claim is in the Godhead) that we have
access to the Father. Be careful now because Jesus said, "no man cometh
unto the Father but by me."
Bobby: (from previous email): Trinitarians believe, teach and defend
a position that GOD was in Heaven while Jesus was on earth, as if there
were two people involved here. But that can NOT be defended by the
vast preponderance of Scriptural evidence on the subject.
Jim: Um ... let's take a look at some evidence: Number of times
Jesus used "Father " in conjunction with "in heaven" (that is, "Father
which is in heaven," "Father which art in heaven," and such) -- 21.
(Typical is Matthew 5:16, "... glorify your Father which is in heaven.")
Number of times Jesus used "Father" in conjunction with "on earth"
(that is, "Father which is on earth," "Father which art on earth," and
such) -- 0.
John 17:1 ~ "These words spake Jesus, and lifted up His eyes to
heaven, and said, 'Father, the hour is come; glorify Thy Son, that Thy
Son also may glorify Thee."
John 12:28 ~ ""Father, glorify Thy name." Then came there a voice
from heaven, saying, "I have both glorified it, and will glorify it
again."
And so on.
Bobby: Well, so much for God being omnipresent, huh? Jim, I never
said God wasn't in Heaven because being an omnipresent, invisible
Spirit, there isn't a place where God is not. Remember the jar in the
lake, Jim? God really was "IN" Christ. Jesus wasn't lying when He
said, "the Father dwelleth "IN" me." The reason you are so hung up on
this is because of the indoctrination which you can't even fully explain
... let alone understand. That's why you have to say something about a
mystery when you run up on a snag .. and then something like this when
questioned when acknowledging that you refer to the Father, Son and Holy
Spirit "THEY" .. "and yet there is only one God." That just doesn't
stack up with the vast perponderance of the Scriptures, Jim.
Bobby (from previous email): ... let's take another look at the
conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus in St. John Chapter 3 when He told
Nicodemus He (Jesus) was "IN" Heaven while standing on earth talking to
Nicodemus. ...
Jim: I already described my interpretation of John 3:13.
Bobby: Yes, and here's how that played out ....
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jim: I'll try to be concise. If you pick up a New American
Standard Bible, you'll see that in the NASB, the verse simply ends with
the word "Man." No "which is in heaven!" The NIV includes "who is in
heaven" but only as a footnote, not as part of the text. The New
Revised Standard Version (NRSV) does the same thing the NIV does here.
The CEV (Contemporary English Version, currently being heavily promoted
by the American Bible Society as a children's translation) does not have
the phrase "which is in heaven" at all. So be aware that one available
option is to take the approach that Jesus never said what the KJV
presents Him as saying at the end of John 3:13. (Now, that would
still leave us with the question of how to harmonize this verse with the
fact that Elijah ascended up to heaven, but that would be a tangent.)
Thus there would be no theological question to address in the first
place. But that is not how I deal with this passage. Two main factors
contribute to my approach: First, I consider the "red-lettering" of the
text here to be erroneous; that is, in the original text there was no
special format for the words of Christ; nor were there quotation marks
-- and the important thing was to communicate the meaning of Christ's
words, rather than to present them verbatim (since the Gospels were
written in Greek, but Christ would have spoken Aramaic on many
occasions).
Second, I discern a Johannine (i.e., of-John) style of presentation
in which John freely augmented the narrative with devotional comments
and notes which are technically out of sequence with the immediate
context. For instance, in John 2:18-22, Jesus makes a statement; then
John makes a comment about the disciples' later remembrance of it --
fast-forwarding the narrative, so to speak -- and then, the focus
returns to about where it was before -- fast-rewinding the narrative, so
to speak. Likewise in John 4, John states that Jesus "left Judaea, and
departed again into Galilee," and then proceeds with a story of
something that happened before Jesus' actual arrival in Galilee. When I
apply both these factors to John 3:13, I arrive at the position that as
John is recording the words of Christ, John is also presenting his own
Divinely-inspired devotional comments, and John is simply making the
observation that -- as of the time John was writing the Gospel of John
-- the Son of Man is in heaven. Jesus' words to Nicodemus in 3:13 are,
"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from
heaven," and John clarifies Jesus' meaning: who is he that came down
from heaven? "The Son of Man who is in heaven."
(Also, I consider John 3:18-21 to be John's inspired words, not
words of Christ to Nicodemus. In style they resemble hardly anything
Jesus says elsewhere, but match the style of the Epistles of John very
closely. And I think I should probably state that I consider the New
Testament to be inspired by God -- that does not mean that the human
authors did not put any effort or thought into the arrangement or
composition of their work; it means that they wrote exactly what God
wanted them to write.)
Bobby (from previous email): Well, that's convenient. What ever
doesn't suit you or fit your theology just do like the ole boy did in
Jeremiah 36:23 and take a penknife and cut it out. I forgot, you've
already ripped Acts Chapter 10 right out of your Bible already, haven't
you. I mean, you preach that the "original" New Testament Church only
baptized Jews. WHEW! Anyway, maybe we'll get around to talking about
Bible versions before this is over with, but I not ready to go there
just yet. We've still got a lot of unresolved issues with
trinitarianism vs the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine. Besides,
I'm going to stick by my ole KJV from Genesis to Revelation. Whatever
"problems" you have with it aren't Heaven or Hell issues anyway. Here's
what you said .... Jesus' words to Nicodemus in 3:13 are, "And no man
hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven," and John
clarifies Jesus' meaning: who is he that came down from heaven? "The
Son of Man who is in heaven." Jim, I can assure you, God doesn't need,
nor want, any help in the "wording" of the Holy Bible. However, in the
KJV, the words that were put in there to bring more meaning to a passage
are shown in italics. I do not believe for one minute that John just
put those words in there to "clarify" anything. I, mean, any believer
would have to believe that Jesus is now in Heaven. John doesn't have to
remind anyone in such a critical passage of Scripture. He had plenty
of other place to remind us **IF** that is what he wanted to do.
Debating never ceases to amaze me. Just about time I think I've heard
it all, I'll hear something like what you just said. WHEW!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby (from previous email): At any rate, so now you assert the
Holy Spirit is dispatched by TWO of the eternal "persons" of the
"plurality" of "three eternal persons" in the Godhead, right? --
Jim: Are you superimposing jargon on me now?
Bobby (from previous email): Nope! Not at all, Jim. Here's ... what you said:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jim: I am simply reading John 15:26 ~ "But when the Comforter is
come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of
truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me" ~ and
John 14:26a ~ "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the
Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things" ~ and
putting two and two together: the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and
the Son. How hard is that to see?
Bobby (from previous email): Not hard at all to see from a purely Monotheistic standpoint
Jim: -- Hmm; it seemed as if you were disagreeing with the plain
statements of Scripture that the Holy Spirit was sent by Christ (in John
15:26) and that the Holy Spirit was sent by the Father (in John 14:26).
Now you apparently agree after all. Was I was mistaken when I
interpreted your question as a rhetorical objection?
Bobby: Once again, Jim, let's go back and look at the exchange you are referring to ...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jim: You are completely overlooking my point, but okay: since the
Holy Spirit is sent to believers by both the Father and the Son, He is
associated with both.
Bobby: And you point was???? At any rate, so now you assert the
Holy Spirit is dispatched by TWO of the eternal "persons" of the
"plurality" of "three eternal persons" in the Godhead, right? Oh, and
according to your theology, I guess believers have three Spirits
dwelling in them, right?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby: Jim, I wasn't disagreeing with the plain statements of
Scripture at all, there's nothing about that which would conflict with
the proper understanding of the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine.
The Father is YHWH ... the LORD ... GOD. The Son is YHWH ... the LORD
... GOD manifest in the flesh. This is NOT TWO PERSONS, but, rather,
TWO NATURES of ONE PERSON. I just find it interesting that the
trinitarian concept is that it takes the their FIRST person AND their
SECOND person to "send" their THIRD person, but it only took their FIRST
person to "send" their SECOND person. It's just seems to be some
inconsistent theology to me.
Bobby (from previous email): ... He also promised His followers in
St. John 14:18, "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you."
So here we see that Jesus is actually the Comforter who was coming in
"another" form.
Jim: Eh? Jesus certainly did come to His disciples after the
resurrection -- in flesh and blood, and showed Himself to them for 40
days. But Jesus is not the Holy Spirit!
Bobby: Jim, Jesus resurrected Himself, true enough. But there
couldn't have been any blood coursing through His veins, because He shed
His blood at Calvary, remember? I, mean, He still had the holes the
nails made in His hands and, I guess, the hole in His side too,
remember? At any rate, He was, indeed in bodily "form" but He is alive
by the Spirit of Amighty God which "re-entered" the tablernacle of flesh
(so to speak) after three days. Now, the flesh is NOT the Holy Spirit,
true enough. I, mean, the flesh isn't what was God anyway. The flesh
was the tabernacle which God prepared, and dwelled in for about 33
years. But, Jim, there ain't but ONE YHWH ... ONE LORD ... ONE GOD ...
and ONE SPIRIT in the Godhead ... and the Father, the Son and the Holy
Ghost are the three ways HE made Himself known to mankind. The Father
in Creation, the Son in Redemption and the Holy Spirit for the duration
of the New Testament Church Age. You really ought to stop trying to
split the Spirit of Almighty God up into three separate Spirits. I
don't think He likes that.
Bobby (from previous email): ... your version makes it sound as if
there are three people up there, two of whom are sending the third ...
the Comforter.
Jim: That's because "my version" (I'm using the KJV to accommodate you!) reflects the actual meaning of the text!
Bobby: Well, excuuuse me! The Church of Christ ministers and
members that I've dealt with in the past have held the KJV in high
regard. At any rate, according to Brother Joel and Brother Peter (who
quoted from Brother Joel in Acts Chapter Two) when he told those who
were wondering what was going on, that what they were witnessing was the
fulfillment of Joel's prophecy. God said He was going to pour out HIS
SPIRIT (singular). Now, Jim, since you are married to the concept of
three "spirits" in the Godhead, I would like to ask you which one of
those three "spirits" in the Godhead was poured out? I am having
difficulty believing that you don't see the error of "three spirits,"
or, at the very least, aren't just a tad troubled by it.
Jim: Here's something else to consider: Jesus said that the
Comforter "shall testify of me" and also, in John 16:13, "He shall not
speak of himself." If Jesus is the Holy Spirit, how do you explain
this? Also, throughout John 16, Jesus refers to the Comforter the way
one refers to someone other than oneself. How do you account for this?
Is this a case where Jesus is conveniently speaking merely "as a man"
rather than as God?
Bobby (from previous email): My explanation since the vast
preponderance of Scriptural evidence found written "verbatim" on the
pages of God's Holy Word does NOT support "pluralism," would be that
Jesus was GOD manifested in the flesh, who came to earth in the form of
man. Therefore, I would use the Clark Kent/Superman analogy.
Jim: Maybe I should share something with you about Superman and
Clark Kent: when Clark Kent refers to Superman as if Superman is
someone else, his intent is to deceive people so that they believe that
Superman really is someone else. That's why Clark Kent talks about
Superman the way he does: to deceive. Completely honest people with no
agenda of deception (however expedient it may be in Metropolis) do not
talk about themselves that way.
Bobby: You are WRONG about Clark Kent! Don't you go to messing
with Superman! Clark Kent's intention was not devious and evil ... to
"deceive," he wanted to "safe guard" and "protect" that which was very
precious to Him. Furthermore, applying your logic about deception here,
one could say (using your logic) that Jesus deceived people when He
spoke in parables. And that's just not the case.
Bobby (from previous email): Therefore, when Jesus spoke, there
were times YHWH Himself (the Divine side of Jesus) was speaking, and
times when the human side of Jesus was speaking.
Jim: -- ah. Basically, it looks like your answer to my initial
question there ("Is this a case where Jesus is conveniently speaking
merely "as a man" rather than as God?") is "Yes."
Bobby: I thought we had agreed that Jesus was BOTH God AND man. Now, I trust you do
believe Jesus was FULLY God ... AND ... FULLY man. I just don't see
why you don't think Jesus spoke and acted as BOTH, instead of obviously
thinking He could only speak and act as a man ... even though there are
places in Scripture which couldn't have possibly been that of a man,
and other places where it couldn't have possibly been that of God.
Bobby (from previous email): ... Your theology draws clear lines of
distinction between the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Jim: I think here (again) we need to differentiate between terms
and concepts. I think it is fine to call the Holy Spirit the "Spirit of
Christ."
Bobby: But, Jim, you are on record as saying Jesus existed prior to
the Incarnation as one of the three spirits in the Godhead ... and that
He is eternal ... and that He "disincarnated"(?) Himself (but didn't
cease to be). The Son is the Christ ... the Messiah, right? RIGHT!
Therefore, your theology cannot not take the position, now, that the
Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ are one and the same Spirit ... or
to call the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. That would be like you
calling your eyes, your ears! Come on, Jim, you can't be this hard up
to defend this stuff. You're just jacking me around, aren't you?
Jim: I do not mean that the "Spirit of Christ" is therefore
synonymous with Christ Himself, anymore than Jim is synonymous with the
computer of Jim.
Bobby: Look, Jim. Jesus was the Spirit of YHWH in human form ...
the Spirit of YHWH was dwelling "IN" Him ... which made Him YHWH
manifest in flesh ... which made Him, who and what He was. Now I know
you've never had that computer "IN" you. However, "of the" shows
possession, right? In other words, instead of saying, "Spirit of
Christ" or "computer of Jim" one could say, "Christ's Spirit" and
"Jim's computer." Right?
Jim: I draw a distinction between Christ (who died on the cross for
our sins) and the Holy Spirit (who did not die on the cross for our
sins).
Bobby: So do I, Jim. And the distinction is Spirit and flesh ... NOT "persons."
Jim: And I differentiate between the Father (who was in heaven
throughout the Incarnation) and the Son (whom Stephen saw standing at
the right hand of God).
Bobby: I agree that the Father was in Heaven throughout the
Incarnation because He is omnipresent. However, Jesus said the Father
was "IN" Him and Paul said God was "IN" Christ as I have already pointed
out earlier in this email. As far as what Stephen saw, how come He
didn't see your THIRD person too? Jim, the "right hand of God" is not a
geographical location. Besides, God is an invisible omnipresent
Spirit. Therefore, it is not possible to stand on the right hand of an
invisible omnipresent Spirit. The "right hand of God" actually means a
place of authority and acceptance as the "sheep go on the right" but the
"goats go on the left." Furthermore, **IF** Stephen saw what you
"think" he saw, how come he didn't pray to the Father, instead of
praying to Jesus? I'd just love to hear your explanation of that.
Jim: Jesus Himself draws a distinction in Matthew 12:32 and in Mark
13:32. I leave it to you to do the interpretive acrobatics of picking
out which parts of those verses are Jesus-speaking-as-a-man and which
are Jesus-speaking-as-God.
Matthew 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man,
it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost,
it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the
world to come. .... The Son of man ... the Incarnation ... the man
Christ Jesus ... is NOT what was God. It was the Spirit that was God.
God is a Spirit. To speak against the Holy Ghost (God's Spirit) is to
blaspheme God. That's how I see it, Jim. However, it is interesting
that someone could bad mouth one co-equal person of your Godhead and
receive forgiveness, but couldn't if they bad mouthed another co-equal
person. Your theology doesn't harmonize with this Scripture at all,
Jim. Or either your "persons" really aren't co-equal, co-eternal and
co-existent after all ... which has to be the case because one prays to
the other one, one is "begotten" by the other one, one proceeds from the
other one, one is "greater" than the other one, one knows more than the
other one, etc. How do you reconcile all of this, Jim???
Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the
angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. .... Jim,
Jesus was speaking as a man here, Jim, because we KNOW that He is the
Head of ALL principality and POWER (Colossians 2:10) but said in St.
John 5:19, "The Son can do nothing of himself, ..." Also, it is
important to remember that Jesus didn't have "part" of the Spirit of
God, " ... for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him" (St. John
3:34). Nor did He have a "limited" knowledge because He was the FULNESS
of Godhead "bodily" (Colossians 2:9).
Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the
dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also
quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Jim: Again, this refers to the Holy Spirit! Let's try your
approach: since you say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
are all Jesus, what happens to this verse when we interchange each
reference to them with the word "Jesus?" Look: "But if the Jesus of
Jesus that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, Jesus who raised
up Jesus Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by
Jesus' Jesus that dwelleth in you." I can see why you are averse to
approaching the text "intellectually!"
Bobby (from previous email): ... Since you are into interchangable
words now .... and since there really ain't but ONE SPIRIT of GOD in the
Godhead (although you think there are three) ... You could interchange
the words God and Father with the words "Divine" or "Spirit" and the
words Jesus and Son with the words "Incarnation" or "flesh."
Jim: Huh?
Bobby: Jim, you had said prior to my statement above, "The terms
"Spirit of God" and "Spirit of Christ" are interchangeable references to
the Holy Spirit." Which is my understanding as well. However, as I
went on to point out, your theology really doesn't allow for this
particular position to be taken by you. So you have either changed your
theology, or you are trying to have it both ways. Personally, I think
it is the latter. Now, back to my statement to which you responded,
"Huh?" Let's revisit Ephesians 2:18 and use some interchangeable words
... You could interchange the words God and Father with the words
"Divine" or "Spirit" and the words Jesus and Son with the words
"Incarnation" or "flesh." "For through him we both have access by one
Spirit unto the Father." (Ephesians 2:18 the way it is in KJV) ... "For
through the Son we both have access by one Spirit unto GOD." (Ephesians
2:18 the way it would appear by using some "interchangeable" terms).
This was my response to your version earlier of Ephesians 2:18 when you
said ... "for through Jesus we have access by one Jesus unto Jesus."
Bobby (from previous email): ... Therefore, the Scripture you're
wrangling with above is merely saying, if the Spirit that raised up the
Incarnation dwells in you, it will also raise you up. Nothing
complicated about it at all.
Jim: Nothing complicated about it, except that your re-formatting of the verse is missing a few phrases!
Bobby: Well, let's revisit this matter and see how it played out ....
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jim: The terms "Spirit of God" and "Spirit of Christ" are interchangeable references to the Holy Spirit.
Bobby: That's my understanding as well. However, you've obviously
changed your position because you have already gone on record with a
position that YHWH is obviously NOT a "person." According to you, YHWH
is the very "substance" of God which is shared in "union" by three
"persons" ... three "Spirits" ... three "Saviours" ... the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit. Now, Jim the record concerning your assertion
about there being this shared "union" between three people ("persons")
... Spirits ... Saviours ... does NOT harmonize with your answer above.
Your theology draws clear lines of distinction between the Spirit of
Christ and the Holy Spirit. So, you must have changed your theology (for
which I would commend you) because your indoctrinated theology does NOT
acknowledge the Spirit of Christ as being the Holy Spirit. The Spirit
of Christ and the Holy Spirit are two separate "Spirits" ... as is the
Father ... according to your theology. **IF** you haven't changed your
theology, but are trying to have it both ways, I am not going to let you
get away with it, Jim.
Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the
dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also
quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Jim: Again, this refers to the Holy Spirit! Let's try your
approach: since you say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
are all Jesus, what happens to this verse when we interchange each
reference to them with the word "Jesus?" Look: "But if the Jesus of
Jesus that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, Jesus who raised
up Jesus Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by
Jesus' Jesus that dwelleth in you." I can see why you are averse to
approaching the text "intellectually!"
Bobby: Jim, Jim, Jim, there you go again. Since you are into
interchangable words now .... and since there really ain't but ONE
SPIRIT of GOD in the Godhead (although you think there are three) ...
You could interchange the words God and Father with the words "Divine"
or "Spirit" and the words Jesus and Son with the words "Incarnation" or
"flesh." That's the distinction in the Godhead ... Spirit and flesh ...
OR Spirit that became flesh. Therefore, the Scripture you're wrangling
with above is merely saying, if the Spirit that raised up the
Incarnation dwells in you, it will also raise you up. Nothing
complicated about it at all. However, Jesus did say in St. John 2:19 "
... Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. That
sort of cuts across the grain of your indoctrination, doesn't it Jim?
By the way, I don't guess your theology after all, did you? You were
just trying to have it both ways. Got caught though, didn't you?
Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby: I don't think my explanation of Romans 8:11 reformatted
anything, Jim. I was just trying to get you to understand why if
wouldn't be as you worded it, that's all.
Bobby (from previous email) ... Jesus did say in St. John 2:19 " ...
Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. That sort
of cuts across the grain of your indoctrination, doesn't it Jim?
Jim: No; I believe the Godhead performed the resurrection of Christ in co-operation.
Bobby: But, Jim, Jesus didn't say, "... Destroy this temple, and in
three days the Godhead will raise it up in co-operation." HE SAID "I"
will raise it up. Now, who was speaking there, Jim???
Bobby (from previous email): By the way, I don't guess your
theology after all, did you? You were just trying to have it both ways.
Got caught though, didn't you?
Jim: Um ... no. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can perform an act together. I see no inconsistency in that statement.
Bobby: Then who is the "I" in "I will raise it up," in St. John 2:19??? Jesus was speaking there, remember???
Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
Jim: If this were the only Scripture we had to go on, I could
probably sympathize with your misinterpretation. But it isn't. Again,
this is the Holy Spirit: you seem to want "the Spirit of his Son" to
mean, simply "His Son!" With a similar approach, if Bill's dog bit me, I
could say that Bill bit me.
Bobby (from previous email): Read the verse again, Jim. It says
God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts. Now **IF**
the Spirit of His Son is different from the Holy Spirit ... which you
have already gone on record stating
Jim: -- Eh? Didn't I just say above, referring to this passage, "This is the Holy Spirit?"
Bobby: Yes, but you went on to say about me, "... you seem to want
"the Spirit of his Son" to mean, simply "His Son!" With a similar
approach, if Bill's dog bit me, I could say that Bill bit me." Jim,
Jesus can't physically get into our heart. So the term, "the Spirit of
the Son," is His very essence, His attributes, His characteristics, etc.
Now, Jim, is it your position that when we have the Spirit of the Son
in our heart, that we really don't have the Son in our heart after all??
By the way, you are the one who is on record stating that the Jesus is
one of three "eternal persons" in the Godhead, and that Jesus existed
prior to the Incarnation as a "spirit." Therefore, the Spirit of the
Son couldn't possibly be one and the same Spirit of either one of the
other two. Now, if you've changed your position, congratulations!
However, if you haven't changed your position, then please explain how
you separate the Son from His Spirit to harmonize with the Scriptures
... your theology ... AND ... your reference to Bill and his dog. This
ought to be interesting!
Jim: I do not recall stating those exact words, "The Spirit of His
Son is different from the Holy Spirit." If I did state those exact
words, by all means let me know.
Bobby: Well, Jim, you may not have said those exact words, but here's I know was said ....
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby: Well, you've already stated you believe there are three
Spirits in the Godhead. So Jesus must have existed in "Spirit" form
prior to the Incarnation ... as one of the three Spirits in the Godhead
according to your belief, right?
Jim: Right.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby: Since your position is that there are three "spirits" in the
Godhead. Then it would logically follow that there is one "spirit" for
the Father, one "spirit" for the Son, and one "spirit" for the Holy
Spirit. Therefore, the Spirit of the Son would have to be different
from the Holy Spirit according to your position, right???
Jim: Allow me to make two statements using small words: (1) The Son and the Holy Spirit are not identical.
Bobby: You said, "The Son and the Holy Spirit are not identical."
Well, that really goes without saying, Jim, because the purpose of the
Son in the life of a believer ... and in God's plan ... was not the same
as the purpose of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer ... and in
God's plan. The Son was God manifest in flesh ... who was Spirit made
flesh, referred to (among other things) as "Saviour" ... whereas the
Holy Spirit is God in "Spirit" form ... without a body, who was referred
to (among other things) as "Teacher and Comforter." Different
purposes, but the same Spirit ... because there is ONLY ONE SPIRIT ... 1
Corinthians 6:17 & 12:13; and Ephesians 2:28 & 4:4
Jim: (2) The phrase in Galatians 4:6, "The Spirit of His Son,"
refers to the Holy Spirit; "of His Son" denotes whose the Spirit is, not
who the Spirit is. Clear now?
Bobby: Not clear at all from your standpoint, Jim. You'll never be
able to reconcile this Scripture in light of your stated position on
record being that there are three "spirits" in the Godhead ... one for
the Father, one for the son, and one for the Holy Spirit. That being
your position, Jim, there is no way the term "Spirit of His Son" can
possibly mean "the Holy Spirit." Do you wish to revise any of your
answers to the following questions???
1. How many "persons" are in the Godhead?
Jim: Three.
2. How many "LORDS" are in the Godhead?
Jim: One.
3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?
Jim: Three.
4. How many "Spirits" dwelled between the cherubims in the Most Holy Place?
Jim: three.
5. How many "Saviours" are in the Godhead?
Jim: three.
6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation? (Well,
you've already stated you believe there are three Spirits in the
Godhead. So Jesus must have existed in "Spirit" form prior to the
Incarnation ... as one of the three Spirits in the Godhead according to
your belief, right?)
Jim: Right.
7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"
Jim: The term "Trinity" emerged "officially," as a concrete
expression, in the A.D. 300's, although some early writers such as
Tertullian had kicked the idea around previously.
8. Are you aware that, long before the concept of a "triune" God
evolved, pagans in ancient Rome worshipped what is known as a "triad" of
three gods, which was symbolized by an equilateral triangle?
Jim: There was a sort of special regard for the three most powerful
Roman deities -- Zeus/Jupiter, Poseidon/Neptune, and Hades/Pluto -- but
that is a far cry from the concept of the Trinity! ... The Roman
Empire was awash with deities and various concepts of gods. With such a
plethora of religions and superstitions in the ancient Roman Empire,
one can find a parallel there somewhere to almost any aspect of any
major religion in existence today.
Bobby (from previous email): ... Are you now asserting that GOD is a
Spirit (which the Bible says), and that the Spirits of the 1) Father,
2) Son and 3) Holy Ghost joined together in their "shared" union make up
the ONE Spirit of God in the Godhead ... making the 3 Spirits of the
... 1) Father, 2) Son and 3) Holy Ghost each 1/3 of the Spirit of God or
the Godhead collectively? Is that what you are now asserting Jim? My,
my, my!
Jim: No, that is not what I am saying. (Did I hear the words
"straw man" echoing just now?) I am content to say that God is Spirit.
That's all for now. I will try to get to Parts 2, 3, and 4 later.
Please do not send any responses until after I have sent you a response
to Parts 2, 3, and 4, since what I say in my responses to Parts 2, 3,
and 4 may anticipate what you might want to say in response to what I've
said here, and we may thus save some time. Yours in Christ,
Jim
Bobby: No strawman here, Jim. You do acknowledge what Jesus said
St. John 4:24, that God is "A" Spirit (singular). However, you are on
record as stating concerning this that, "This seems to be a reference to
the Father." Well, Jim, it seems to me that you are gathering up straw
or either you are playing shell games again .... this time with the
word Father. In one place your position is that God is the Father, but
in another place your position is that the Father is one of "three
eternal persons" ... three "spirits" ... in the Godhead. As I stated in
my note earlier, I am going to continue responding to your emails the
same way I do in all debates ... which is to copy and paste the whole
thing (without removing anything) onto a new email form, or onto Word
Pad, then go down through it, responding point-by-point, and identifying
what words belong to whom by typing the name, where necessary, before
each point. As a matter of fact, it is not unusual for me to break a
paragraph down sentence by sentence and respond to each sentence. After
all, a sentence is a word or group of words which express a complete
thought. Where I feel I need to, I respond to each thought. And I will
wait until I receive Parts 2, 3 and 4 before I send this one. God
bless! - Bobby
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response # 16 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 3:13 PM
Subject: Response to Jim's email Part 2 of 4 (July 2001)
Jim: Greetings in Christ to Bobby Richardson ~ A continuation of
our discussion follows. By the way, I did receive the e-mail
clarifying/amending some statements previously sent -- I will, though,
respond to the text as is, and then also respond to the new material in
sequence (keeping its content in mind throughout my response, though).
Bobby (from previous email): ... (rhetoric, left out) ... The
Scriptures in Matthew ... clearly states that Jesus was the Child of the
Holy Ghost. ... (rhetoric, left out). ...
Jim: Was my explanation of the phrase "with child" unclear? Was
there some inconsistency in the comparison to the phrases in John 3:5?
There is a difference between saying, "with child of the Holy Ghost"
and saying "pregnant with the Child of the Holy Ghost." The words "with
child" simply mean "pregnant." There is no word "Child" in the Greek
text in Matthew 18 (that is, there is no Greek word which means "Child;"
the phrase used there is "en gastri exousa."
Bobby: Jim, there you go with that slide ruler again ... when the
simple Word of God doesn't agree with your theology, which is built upon
the sands of theory and "implied" interpretations, given to a handful
of very carefully selected Scriptures, while ignoring, or avoiding, a
truck load which contradict that interpretation. Look, there is no
"with" in Matthew 1:20. It very plainly says, "But while he thought on
these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a
dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee
Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."
This simple Scripture contradicts your theology about there being
three different "spirits" in the Godhead ... and the Son actually being
the child of the one (according to your theology) is the FIRST "person"
of the triad ... or the "Father." Now, for St. John 3:5 ... "Jesus
answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." This is
no comparison to Matthew 1:20, Jim. But I think it needs to be pointed
out to you that Jesus' words were, " ... born "of water" (lower case
"w") AND of "the"Spirit" (SINGULAR ... with an upper case "S"). Now
let's re-visit 1 John 5:7-8 For there are three that bear record in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are
one (one what, Jim ... group? Yeah, right!). And there are three that
bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and
these three agree in one.
Jim: Bobby, I believe there is only one God. I do not believe that
God is sometimes the Father and sometimes not, sometimes the Son and
sometimes not, and sometimes the Holy Spirit and sometimes not.
Bobby (from previous post): Jim, Jim, Jim, there you go again.
Jim: Is today Ronald Reagan day or something? Are you saying that
you share the positions expressed by these statements? "There you go
again" certainly does not carry the same connotation as "Amen!" so it
looks like you disagree. And as we shall see, you DO believe that
sometimes God is the Word and sometimes He is not.
Bobby: First off, let me say, Jim, I expect from you than to try
and be cute about Ronald Reagan OR people with Alzheimer's disease.
Second, if that is what you consider to be comedy, you really ought to
be on a stage ... and I think one leaves town about every half hour.
Third, it appeared to me that you were "implying" that I think God is
the Father only "sometimes" ...etc. That's why I said, Jim, Jim, Jim
.... etc. And I went on to say the following, "... I "AM" a father, a
son and a husband ... and there is never a moment when I am not.
Likewise, God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit ... and He occupies ALL
of eternity from beginning to end and vice versa.
Jim: But as we have already seen that comparison is a false
analogy, since in the past you were not a father, and there were moments
when you were not a husband -- as you proceed to state yourself:
Bobby: No "false" analogy, it just isn't "perfect" in every way, in
that man is NOT eternal God ... but it isn't "false" because man was
created in the image AND likeness of God, and man can ... and DOES ...
function as father, son and husband while being ONLY ONE IN PERSON, in
God's "likeness." Let's take a look at "likeness" by re-visiting
Genesis 1:26 and a few other Scriptures ...
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness (#1823): At this point, you are jumping up and down,
proclaiming God is a plurality of three persons who co-operatively made
man. And strictly on the "surface," that's the way it would appear.
However, proper Bible study is to "rightly divide" the Word by gathering
as much Scriptural evidence as can be found on any given subject, and
taking the vast preponderance of that evidence, realizing that there
must be some "connecting" Scriptures to further explain those which may
not appear to harmonize ... on the surface ... with the vast
preponderance of Scriptural evidence found. On the other hand, improper
Bible study is to take the exceptions in the minority of all the
gathered Scriptural evidence, and try to establish a dogmatic doctrine
which runs counter to the vast preponderace of Scriptural evidence
gathered on that subject.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of
God created he him; male and female created he them. .... this very
next Scripture follows up using the personal pronouns of "HE" and "HIS"
to describe God who man in ... OUR ... "likeness." ... at this point
there seems to be a contradiction between verse 26 and verse 27 because
in verse 26 we have the plural pronouns of "US" and "OUR" .. and in
verse 27 we have the singular personal pronouns of "HE" and "HIS."
Soooo, there has to be some explanation **IF** we look for it.
Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day
that God created man, in the likeness (#1823) of God made he him; ...
Genesis 1:27 describes God as "HE" and "HIS," which stands in harmony
with the vast perponderance of Scriptural evidence on this subject.
However, in Genesis 5:1 here we read where man was made in the
"likeness" of God ... who is referred to "HE" and "HIS." Sooooo, the
"our" and "us" of Genesis 1:26 has to have some other explanation than
that of being a group of "persons" co-operatively involved in The
Creation, as some "imply" and assert from focusing on Genesis 1:26 alone
and/or in conjunction with an extremely few other Scriptures, unrelated
to The Creation of man. Since the Bible does NOT explain this matter
in greater detail ... other than referring to God throughout the Bible
with the singular personal pronouns, "HE, HIS, HIM, I, ME, MY and MINE,"
we can only speculate about Genesis 1:26 and/or suggest, imply, assert
or make points of conjecture ... NONE is conducive to the establishing
of "SOUND" Bible doctrine. With that in mind, any interpretation given
to Genesis 1:26 which contradicts the vast preponderance of Scriptural
evidence on any particular subject found in Genesis 1:26 would be a
gross error, to say the least. Now, more on the "likeness" (#1823)
matter ....
LIKENESS (Hebrew) # 1823 d@muwth {dem-ooth'}
from 01819; TWOT - 437a
Translated as: likeness 19 times, similitude 2 times, like 2 times,
manner 1 time, and fashion 1 time ... for a total of 25 times the
Hebrew word d@muwth was translated.
Definitions ....
1) likeness, similitude
2) in the likeness of, like as
***Here we see that man was made to be in the likeness or similitude
of God. And man was made as ONE PERSON ... NOT three different
"persons" co-existing in a "union." Also, a word was translated
"likeness" in the New Testament which is of some significance ...
Romans 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness (#
3667) of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of his
resurrection:
Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak
through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness (# 3667) of
sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Philippians Chapter 2
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness (# 3667) of men:
LIKENESS (Greek) # 3667 homoioma {hom-oy'-o-mah}
from 3666; TDNT - 5:191,684; n n
Translated as: likeness 3 times, made like to 1 time, similitude 1
time, and shape 1 one time, ... for a total of 6 times the Greek word
homoioma was translated.
Definitions ....
1) that which has been made after the likeness of something
1a) a figure, image, likeness, representation
1b) likeness i.e. resemblance, such as amounts almost to equality or identity
***Here we see that believers planted in the "likeness" of Jesus'
death, shall be also of his resurrection: Also, Jesus was in the "form"
of God, equal "with" God, and took upon Him the "form" of a servant,
made in the "likeness" of men. Soooo, we've discovered that man was
made in the "likeness" of God ... but was NOT made as three "persons"
co-existing in a "union" .... AND that the Incarnation (Jesus) was in
the "form" of God, and the "form" of a servant in the "likeness" of men.
Jesus was God manifest in flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). He was God AND He
was also man ... Clark Kent/Superman. By the way, your analogy earlier
about Jesus being the yolk "IN" the egg was a "false" analogy **IF** you
where projecting the egg as being the Godhead because Colossians very
clearly states that ALL the FULNESS (completeness) of the Godhead was
"IN" Jesus' body ... not the other way around. Flawed theology based on
implications and theory, and flawed reasoning, logic and traditions
ain't the "real deal," Jim. By the way, God can and does manifest
Himself ... and minister ... to more than one person at one time on a
very personal level, in more than one geographical location at one time,
and He does it without having to split Himself into a bunch of
different "persons."
Bobby (from previous email): Since I am NOT God who occupies all of
eternity, I wasn't born a father, son and husband right off the bat.
Jim: Which makes that a poor analogy, since you've already stated
that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternal. Ah, but how are we
defining "eternal?!" -- more on that later.
Bobby: There is a difference in a "poor" analogy and a "false"
analogy. Besides, the father, son and husband analogy may not be a
"perfect" analogy, but it isn't a "poor" analogy either. Man is,
indeed, made in the image AND likeness of God ... and man can ... AND
DOES ... function as father, son and husband while being ONLY ONE in
PERSON. Therefore, it shouldn't be considered a big surprise or
impossibility that God can ... AND DOES ... function as Father, Son and
Holy Ghost while being ONLY ONE in PERSON. Yes, Jim, God "IS" eternal.
Yes, Jim, God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Yes, Jim, God does
occupy all of eternity. Yes, Jim, God speaks of things which are not as
though they are. As a matter of fact, God could speak of the White
Throne Judgment as if it were in the present .... even though it is
still in "our" furture ... because God occupies the past, present and
future. He "IS" the Alpha and the Omega! Therefore, there never was a
time when God was NOT ... nor a time when His Word was NOT. In the
beginning the Word was God! Later on God's Word was written on tables
of stone, and scrolls of parchment, etc. and still later on God's Word
was made flesh and dwelt among us. (St. John 1:14) Finally, God's Word
is written upon the fleshy tables of our hearts as His Spirit dwells in
the heart of the believer. (2 Corinthians 3:3). No, Jim, the analogy
isn't a "poor" one, it just isn't "perfect" in every way. However, the
most essential part of the analogy is right on target. It just doesn't
line up with your indoctrination, that's all. That's why it is a "poor"
analogy in your view.
Jim: These three are eternal and share the essence of the Godhead.
In the Bible, each one is described in ways consistent with the way one
would describe a Person; that is, personality is assumed (for instance,
the Holy Spirit can be lied to, He can be grieved, and so on) -- they
are not mere "modes of existence" to be dispensed with.
Bobby: Try as you may, you will never turn three people into ONE "numerically."
Jim: Try as you may intellectually, that is. That's why this is called a "mystery."
Bobby: Nope, you ain't gonna play the ole "it's a mystery card,"
with me, Jim. It may work on some folks you hornswoggle, but won't work
with me. Your doctrine's roots are so deeply embedded in paganism until
you don't even need "verbatim" Scriptures to back it up. No sireee,
just a handful of very carefully selected Scriptures that have been
given an "implied" interpretation, and you're off to the races. WHEW! I
could take a handful of carefully selected Scriptures and give them an
"implied" interpretation and prove just about anything you could
imagine, Jim. You doctrine is just not "sound" doctrine, Jim. But,
hey, that's your business. There's just going to be some houses built
on sand inspite of everything. Now, on to your "mystery" ... I've taken
the time to list all 27 Scriptures in the King James Version of the
Bible where the words "mystery" and "mysteries" are mentioned. I would
like for you to point out which of 27 Scriptures below you use to
support your position that God, being three persons, yet ONE GOD, is a
"mystery," o.k.???
Matthew 13:1-11 (11) "..it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.."
Mark 4:1-23 (11) "..Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God."
Luke 8:1-17 (10) "..Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God.."
Romans 11:13-25 (25) "..For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery.."
Romans 16: 24-27 (25) "..according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret.."
1 Corinthians 2: 1-8 (7) "..we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery.."
1 Corinthians 4: 1-4 (1) "..stewards of the mysteries of God.."
1 Corinthians 13: 1-13 (2) "..and understand all mysteries...and have not charity..."
1 Corinthians 14: 1-40 (2) "in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.."
1 Corinthians 15: 33-58 (51) "..Behold, I shew you a mystery;.."
Ephesians 1: 1-23 (9) "..having made know unto us the mystery of his will,.."
Ephesians 3: 1-21 (3, 4 & 9) "made know unto me the mystery.."
"..that ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ.." "And
to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery.."
Ephesians 5: 1-33 (32) "..this is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.."
Ephesians 6: 1-24 (19) "to make known the mystery of the gospel.."
Colossians 1: 1-29 (26 & 27) "..the mystery which hath been hid
from generations ...but now is." "..make known what is the riches of the
glory of this mystery.."
Colossians 2: 1-23 (2) "..understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God.."
Colossians 4: 1-8 (3) "to speak the mystery of Christ.."
2 Thessalonians 2: 1-17 (7) "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work:.."
1 Timothy 3: 1-16 (9 & 16) "Holding the mystery of the faith in a
pure conscience." "And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen
of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world,
received up into glory."
Revelation 1: 1-20 (20) "The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand.."
Revelation 10: 1-11 (7) "..the mystery of God should be finished.."
Revelation 17: 1-18 (5 & 7) "..Mystery, Babylon The Great, The
Mother Of Harlots.." "I will tell thee the mystery of the woman.."
Bobby (from previous email): ... Now, if it is a matter of
semantics, Jim, then dropping unbiblical descriptive terms like
"persons" and "modes" in reference to God and replacing them with
descriptive terms that are found in the Bible, which have to do with God
and the Godhead like "glory," "form," and "manifestation," and "image,"
should bring true monotheists into the unity of the faith concerning
this matter. Sooooo, I'll promise you I won't use the term "modes" to
describe God, if you'll promise me that you won't use the term "persons"
to describe God. Do we have a deal???
Jim: For the purposes of this discussion, I won't consider the term
"Persons" an integral aspect of Christianity or a necessary component
of the expression of Christian belief. (An easy concession for me to
make, since I have never done so.)
Bobby: Jim, a rose by any other name is still a ... well, you know.
The descriptive term "persons" is an absolute ESSENTIAL part of the
trinitarian doctrine. **IF** you drop it, I will comment you, but until
you understand why you drop it, I'll still be concerned about you.
Anyway, I take my hat off to you, sir. That is quite a concession,
indeed!
Bobby (from previous email): ... Now, since that is all I am doing
with these two verses of Matthew [1:18 and 1:20]concerning the Christ
Child being the Child of the Holy Ghost ... instead of the Father ...
which clashes with your theology, I would like for you to show me how
you interpret them in order to change the Holy Ghost from a person to
"an agent," ... bringing them into conformity with your indoctrination
..., o.k.? Now, again, I just want book, chapter and verse ... not a
commentary.
Jim: What a loaded question! I consider the Holy Spirit to be both
a Person and the agent of the conception here. Rather than ignoring
it, though, I will re-phrase the question: "Please show how you
interpret these verses in a way consistent with the Holy Spirit being
the agent of conception."
Bobby: Not a loaded question at all, Jim. I really have to keep my
eye on you, don't I?? You won't let God be BOTH Father and Holy Spirit
without saying there are two persons. You won't let Jesus be like
Clark Kent/Superman. No siree, whatever He says (as well as the rest in
the handful of very carefully selected Scriptures y'all have given
"implied" interpretations) has got to be interpreted literally ... BUT
NOT those which contradict your theology! No sireee, for them, you whip
out your slide ruler explanations that are so complicated that you
don't even understand it, or you start gathering up straw, or start with
the shell game of words, or just play the old "it's a mystery" card.
Remember when I was referring to my analogy ... Oh, I'll just copy and
paste ...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby: I use the father, son, husband illustation of how ONE PERSON can function in different capacities,
Jim: -- Exactly; you consider the "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" to be mere capacities.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby: So you see, Jim, you are the one who made the first stink
about one of my descriptive terms. Now, I want you to explain to me how
it is that the Holy Spirit can be BOTH a "person" AND just a mere
"agent."
Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When
as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together,
she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Jim: As already mentioned, the original text (whether one uses the
Greek text on the KJV is based, or any other translation's underlying
Greek text) has no word here for "child." The phrase "with child" is
simply the KJV's translators' euphemistic way of translating the Greek
words "en gastri exousa," -- "to be pregnant." Feel free to protest
that I am being a commentator here. I am just pointing out the meaning
of the text -- and evidence from the inerrant Greek text which Matthew
wrote should count for something!
Bobby: Slide ruler time, eh, Jim?? WHEW! Well, I'll tell you what
let's do, just hold our 'tators until we get to Matthew 1:20, o.k.? I,
mean, if I listened to you, I would go to believing a person would have
to be a Harvard graduate in order to understand the Bible. Are you
complicated in real life too?
Bobby (from previous email): But Jim the Bible does NOT say that the child in Mary's womb was "child of the Father."
Jim: Are you saying that the Child in Mary's womb was not the child of the Father?
Bobby: Nope, because I understand who the Father is .. and that the
relation of the Father and the Holy Ghost is NOT two different people
... "persons" ... like you believe. See, Jim, you are so rigid on this
"persons" thing until Matthew 1:20 paints you into a corner. You can't
admit what the Bible plainly says because doing so would go against your
indoctrination. Well, you could admit it ... but you know what I'm
talking about. If you got up and started preaching the Apostles' One
God Monotheistic Doctrine, the Bible plan salvation and Jesus name
baptism as they did ... and as plainly found in your Bible ... you would
probably be thrown out on your ear by the elders that rule the roost.
But **IF** you "see" this message, but hold on to that pagan stuff for
security or personal gain, then I would consider you strictly a
hireling.
Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the
angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son
of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is
conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Jim: Again, this means that when the physical laws of the universe
were suspended and Christ miraculously appeared in Mary's womb, the Holy
Spirit was at work.
Bobby (from previous email): Sounds good and simple ... short and
sweet. However, the Bible does call the child the child "OF" the Holy
Ghost.
Jim: Okay; you seemed to accept my interpretation of Matthew 1:20
and fall back on your interpretation of Matthew 1:18, which obviously is
based on a failure to consider the Greek text. So in the interest of
brevity I will move on.
Bobby: I did NOT accept your explanation of Matthew 1:20, Jim.
What you said sounded good and simple ... short and sweet. But it
didn't even close to explain to explaining what is meant by that which
is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. Now, come on back to Matthew
1:20 and deal with this verse, Jim. I know you are really concerned
about brevity and all that, but we should take the necessary time to
explore this.
Bobby (from previous email): You do have a "pluralistic" view of
God being a "shared" union of "three eternal persons," do you not???
Jim: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "pluralistic," since you have not defined that term.
Bobby: Well, Jim, let's go back and re-visit this matter so you can get a handle on what I mean by you being "pluralistic."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby (from previous email): Now, here's a couple of things you've
said, thus far ... "I see the name "YHWH" as expressive of the very
substance of God, which is shared in union by Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit." "At the same time, I do believe that God has revealed Himself
as three Eternal Persons." Now, Jim, according to your beliefs YHWH is
NOT a "person" because YHWH (according to you) is a "substance" which is
shared in "union" by three "persons"
Jim: Right. I think there is more to the equation, so to speak,
but that is consistent with the part of the equation shown to us in
Scripture. I think it is fair to say that any one of the three Persons
of the Godhead is YHWH, the same way it is fair to say that any male is
male; "maleness" is an innate feature; likewise "Godness," one could
say, is innate to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.
Bobby: O.K. you confirm your position that YHWH is NOT a person,
but is a "substance" which is "shared" in "union" by three "persons."
Now, let's explore your statement about any one of the three "persons"
is YHWH, the same way it is fair to say that any male is male. Jim,
YHWH is more than just a descriptive term like "male." Furthermore, any
male is male is a true statement. However, a "union" of three "males"
changes everything. In a "union" shared by three males, you do have
THREE MALES (plural). So using your analogy, in the "union" shared by
the three "persons" ... all three being YHWH ... you have THREE YHWHs.
Now, you've got a real mess on your hands, brother. That view has a big
sign hung over it which reads, "Welcome to polytheism!" You'd better
come out of that pagan stuff, and line up with the Apostles' One God
Monotheist Doctrine while you still have an opportunity.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby: Care to comment on the above ... or do you still have a question about my reference to you being pluralistic???
Bobby (from previous email): Did I tell you I used to be a
trinitarian too, until I really got down to some serious independent
studying and found out about this stuff???
Jim: Um, yes, Bobby; you told me. Several times now.
Bobby: I knew I had, Jim. Just wanted to see if you were paying attention.
Bobby (from previous email): ... I will be anxiously waiting to see
your Scriptural evidence. God is referred to throughout the entire
Bible in the singular as .... I, ME, MY, HE, HIS and HIM.
Jim: ... Genesis 1:26 ("Let us make man...") and Gen. 11:7 ("Let
us go down") come to mind, as well as the visitations of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit on the same occasion at Jesus' baptism. And let's
not forget John 17:21, where Christ says, "...that they may be one in
US."
Bobby: Well, what about the tons of Scriptures with I, ME, MY, HE,
HIS and HIM references to God in them???? Do you honestly think these
few little ole very carefully selected Scriptures are supposed to trump
them?
Jim: My quest here is not to make one verse superior to another;
it's to perceive the harmony in all these verses together. (Unlike the
approach some other folks use.)
Bobby: You are on record stating that YHWH is NOT a person, but a
"substance" which is share in "union" by "three eternal persons." Now,
how do you harmonize the train load of Scriptures referring to YHWH ...
the LORD ... GOD ... the FATHER ... as I, ME, MY, HE, HIS, HIM and MINE
with the FOUR Scriptures you referenced above which have been given an
"implied" interpretation in order to form the foundation for your
doctrine of pluralism??? Again, I will be anxiously awaiting your reply
to this because it will, no doubt, be a doozy.
Bobby (from previous email): ... Was there more than one "person" ... "Spirit" ... Saviour" involved in the Creation???
Not according to Jesus: Matt. 19:4 Jesus considered the Creator to be a "He."
(Jesus alluded to Himself being BEFORE Abraham in St. John 1:8)
Jim: I think you meant John 8:58.
Bobby: Nope, Jim. Jesus considered the Creator to be a "He." I
meant Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read,
that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Jim: But I see no inconsistency with this verse, and the other
verses that you listed, with the notion that the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit created and providentially developed the universe co-operatively.
Bobby: Co-operatively??? Where's your Scriptural support, brother??? I KNOW it can't be ...
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1.
(No one else but God performed the miracle of creation.)
Thus saith the LORD (YHWH ... "substance" according to Jim), thy
redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that
maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that
spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; Isaiah 44:24.
(No signs of co-operative involvement here)
Bobby (from previous email): ... Let's take a closer look at ...
verses 20-23 in St. John Chapter 17 .... 20 Neither pray I for these
alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,
that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou
has sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them;
that they may be one, even as we are one; 23 I in them, and thou in me,
that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that
thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Jim, it
is my position that the key to understanding these verses is to realize
that the Lord was not speaking of His bodily entrance into us. ... The
distinction is Spirit and flesh in the Godhead NOT "persons."
Jim: Ah. Another case of Jesus' "human side" speaking, I presume
-- which is the spin you put on statements of Christ which explode your
position. He was only pretending to speak about the Father as if the
Father were another Person, you no doubt assert. To you, He was only
pretending that "US" was an appropriate way to describe Himself and the
Father! And of course, John, recording these words, naturally assumed
that his readers would discern that Christ was pretending here --
meaning, of course, that practically everyone, from the time the ink
dried on the parchment of John's Gospel, up to the time you did your
"independent study," has sadly taken Jesus' words seriously, failing to
catch on to the pretense which you discern Him to have presented.
Bobby: I've never at all even suggested that Jesus ever "pretended"
about any of this. However, He did speak in such a way that the
religious elite, pompous, self-righteous, educated beyond their
intelligence, crowd of that day didn't get it any better than the same
crowd gets it today. And, actually, I thank Him for doing it that way.
The "real deal" has been camouflaged from the gainsayers, and revealed
unto babes. How sweet it is!
Matthew 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I
thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these
things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes:
even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
Oops! I forgot! You interpret everything that supports your indoctrination, literally, don't you!
Bobby (from previous email): Also, **IF** there are three Spirits
of God, one for the Father, one for the Son and one for the Holy Ghost
as you you contend, then there would be three Spirits in the heart of a
believer who had the Spirit of God.
Jim: No; once again you are constructing a straw man. The term
"Spirit of God" is simply another way to describe the Holy Spirit.
Bobby: My, my, my, Jim. I believer you are on record stating (or
acknowledging) that there are three "spirits" in the Godhead. One for
the Father, one for the Son, and One for the Holy Spirit. Soooo, let's
take a look at these three spirits as relating to the believer
(according to your theology) ....
Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by
Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) (The
Father raised Jesus from the dead).
Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the
dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also
quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. (The
Spirit of the Father "IN" us)
*** So far, we have the Spirit of the Father dwelling in believers ...
1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple
of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not
your own? (The Holy Ghost/Spirit "IN" us)
*** So far, we have the Spirit of the Father and the Holy Spirit "IN" us.
Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the
Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (The Spirit
of the Son "IN" us)
*** So there you have it, Jim. According to your theology, there
should be three spirits "IN" a believer. Actually, that follows your
logic as saying that there were three "spirits" which dwelled between
the cherubims .. and three "spirits" in the Godhead. However, it
appears you are now wanting to say that believers only have ONE SPIRIT
"IN" them ... which is my position.
Bobby (from previous email): However, Ephesians 4:4 declares there is ONLY one Spirit ...
Jim: Yes, but you seem to give the words of Ephesians 4:4 a sort of
super-clarity and technical significance which Paul did not assign to
them: there is "one body," but Paul also speaks of individual bodies.
There is "one baptism," but Paul speaks both of baptism in water and of a
sort of spiritual baptism. And need I point out that Paul
differentiates here between "one Spirit," "one Lord," and "one God and
Father?" If the Spirit, the Lord, and the Father are actually one
Person, this would make Paul's words redundant, wouldn't it?
Bobby: Yes, Jim, there are individual bodies (churches) which are
"part" of the whole (Church). Now are you going on record here with the
position that each individual "person" of your Godhead is "part" of the
whole??? I really need to know your answer on this, so don't skip over
it, o.k.? Well, actually, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't skip
over any of my questions. I, mean, I don't take bits and pieces of your
stuff and address it. I take the whole shabang. **IF** I fail to miss
a point, it isn't because I didn't even have it listed, it would be
because I just got side tracked on another thought and didn't get back
to it or something. There is ONLY ONE VALID BAPTISM which man is to
administer. And it is in water, by immersion, in the name of Jesus
Christ. Just like the Levitical priests of old, they had to do
everything just right before they went behind that curtain into the Most
Holy Place, or they'd never see the light of day again. The second
part of the "new birth" (of the Spirit) is administered by God alone.
Man can baptize someone in water, but man cannot baptize someone with
the Spirit. And just as in the Holy of Holies, the priest didn't have
anything whatsover to do with whether God's Divine acceptance would be
made known ... except in doing "his duties" EXACTLY as they were to be
carried out.
Jim: Hold on a second. This material looks canned. Tell me the
truth: are you really typing this as a personal response, or do you
have a file of prized paragraphs which you are cutting and pasting?
Bobby (from previous email): Jim, I do some of both. Debating
trinitarians is something I have been doing a long time. ... I know the
hoops trinitarians jump through. I just don't ever know what sequence
they'll jump through them. ... I have files and files of debates stored
on floppy disks as well as on my hard drive. When plowing over ground
that I've plowed over many times before, sometimes I'll copy and paste
things ... And there is certainly nothing wrong with that.
Jim: If there is nothing wrong about it, why didn't you tell me
up-front that you were doing so? I see little point in debating a
tape-recording!
Bobby: There "IS" NOTHING wrong with it, Jim. You're just making a
straw man out of it. Besides, why should you care if I have to sit
here and actually type the words with my thumbs, as long as long as my
answer appears exactly as my position is??? I have already told you a
whole bunch of what you are getting is being crunched out on this
keyboard as I shoot from the hip. Although, I'm finding more and more
than I am having to go back and copy and paste previous exchanges
because of the way you pick and choose what you focus your attention on.
But, I used to that, so I'm not complaining ... just stating a fact.
At any rate, I will continue to reach and grab something that I think
will be helpful that I have used in the past on the same subject and/or
says it like I would, otherwise, have to type it. Now, if you want to
get all upset and bothered about this, and go stomping off in a huff,
then, happy trails! Otherwise, quit your whinning about it, o.k???
Bobby (from previous email): ... Oh, by the way, isn't it because
the Holy Spirit is referred to as "HE" in a FEW places that you deduce
the Holy Spirit is also a "person?" Yet, YHWH is referred to as "I,
ME, MY, HE, HIS, HIM and MINE" in a ton of places, and you assign the
descriptive term of "substance" to "YHWH" instead of the term "PERSON"
... like you do with the Holy Spirit. Double standard, ain't it, Jim?
Jim: No; the Godhead can, and does, identify Himself as YHWH, and
speak of Himself as "I," without inconsistency, while manifest as the
Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit.
Bobby: Jim, you're going to have to explain your last answer. I
thought we were talking about Holy Spirit being a "person" ... according
to your theology. You are on record stating (or acknowledging) that
YHWH is NOT a person but is a "substance" shared in "union" by "three
eternal persons" each of whom is YHWH. So the Godhead identifies who as
YHWH??? And who is it that speaks of Himself as "I"??? And why can't
YHWH and the Holy Spirit be one and the same Spirit functioning in
different ways without having to be completely different "persons"
according to your theology??? That sure sounds like you are limiting
the power of God simply because that doesn't fit into your
indoctrination. Also, while we're in the neighborhood, how do you
explain the Spirit not being referred to as a "person" but being
referred to as "itself" and "it" ... NOT "HIMSELF" and "HE" in the
following Scriptures???? Is an "it" a "person" according to your
indoctrination???
Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one
of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath
commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.
Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for
we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself
maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
1 Peter 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of
Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the
sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
Even that spirit of antichrist is referred to as "it" NOT "he" ...
1 John 4:2-3 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that
confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every
spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not
of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard
that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Bobby (from previous post): You obviously didn't want to take up
the little trinitarian lady's cause who informed me the trinity was a
mystery which could not be fully understood.
Jim: As I note elsewhere, that is because there seemed to be no "cause" in the scenario you described.
Bobby: Well, since you've tried to play the "it's a mystery" card
too, you now have the opportunity to take up her cause ... and what I
directed to her has been directed to you. So, please go back and tell
me which Scritures of the 27 you use to base your "mystery" position
upon ... if you haven't done so already.
Bobby (from previous email): Jim, you have gone on record asserting
that there are three Spirits in the Godhead ... one for the Father, one
for the Son and one for the Holy Spirit ... and that all three of them
dwelled between the cherubims, above the Mercy Seat, over the Ark of the
Covenant in the Most Holy Place.
Jim: Granted -- though as I implied previously, I am open to fresh data, especially regarding the part about the Ark.
Bobby: Why would you be open to fresh ideas from me concerning the
Word of God? You haven't demonstrated a propensity for such, thus far.
However, I will say, since your position is that there are three
"spirits" in the Godhead, that all three would have to be in the Most
Holy Place. Now if this is slide ruler time, and maybe one or two are
"inside" the Ark, then I'll let you worry with that. Right now, you are
on record as taking the position that there were "three spirits" of God
between the cherubims. If you want to amend that, feel free to do so.
Bobby (from previous email): How in the world do you justify a
position of there being three Spirits dwelling between the cherubims in
the following Scriptures when you don't even consider YHWH ... the LORD
(who is GOD) ... to be a PERSON or a SPIRIT????
2 Samuel 6:2 And David arose, and went with all the people that
were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of
God, whose name is called by the name of the LORD of hosts that dwelleth
between the cherubims.
Isaiah 37:16 O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between
the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of
the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.
Jim: Eh? Allow me to walk you through the premises again: YHWH
eternally exists as the Father, and as the Word, and as the Holy Spirit.
YHWH never "became" the Word; YHWH never "became" the Holy Spirit;
YHWH never "became" the Father.
Bobby: Jim, that is my position. YHWH is eternal. And YHWH is
Father, Word (Son) and Holy Ghost/Spirit. However, where our paths part
is when you go to describing YHWH as a "substance" which is shared in
"union" by "three eternal persons" and assigning the title of "pesons"
to the Father, Word (Son) and Holy Ghost/Spirit. That's where I say,
Elvis has definitely left the building. Because the ONLY way you can
reach that conclusion is by slide ruler explanations, a hand ful of very
carefully selected Scriptures which have been given "implied"
interpretations, doing shell games with words, playing the "it's a
mystery" card, etc. NONE OF WHICH IS "SOUND DOCTRINE" from what I
understand of the preponderance of Scriptural evidence found written
"verbatim" on the pages of the Word of God.
Jim: Also, the essence of the Father is Spirit; the essence of the
Word is Spirit, and the essence of the Holy Spirit is (of course)
Spirit. So I don't see why it seems problematic to you that inasmuch as
the name YHWH applies equally to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and
YHWH is described as being in a particular place, it is fair to view the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as co-operatively manifest there.
Bobby: Believe me when I say this, I really do believe YHWH ... the
ONE LORD ... ONE GOD ... is "A" SPIRIT (SINGULAR ... ONE SPIRIT) ...
ONE IN PERSON ... and that "HE" is 1) the Father of all creation, 2) the
Son in redemption, and 3) the Comforter throughout the New Testament
Church Age. Furthermore, just the fact that the "original" New Testament
Church leaders baptized coverts to Christianity in the NAME of Jesus
"confirms" they held the same view.
2 Kings 19:15 And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD, and said, O LORD
God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God,
even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven
and earth.
Jim: Sounds right to me: the Father created the universe; the
world was made by the Word; the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters. Perhaps an illustration could be helpful. This is an analogy,
and like all analogies it has its limits; nevertheless: if one
pictures the Father as a star, shining eternally, and the Son as the
light emanating from the star, and the Spirit as the spectrum within the
starlight, that might be a fair estimate of some aspects of the
Godhead. All are eternal, all share the same essence (in the star's
case, light) and yet are discernable in manifestation and all are
capable of specific individual expression.
Bobby: Ummm, Jim, are you saying the Father created the universe
... but didn't create the world??? Also, which Spirit of God moved upon
the face of the waters??? There are three, (according to your
theology), remember??? How do you know which one moved upon the face of
the waters??? I guess you think it is o.k. for your analogies to have
limits, but if mine do, they are "false" analogies, huh? WHEW!
However, about your analogy ... What would the star be without the light
emanating from it??? And what would the light be without the spectrum
within it??? In your analogy, each one of a "part" of the whole.
Therefore, if should follow that your indoctrination actually takes a
position of the three "persons" ... individually ... being "part" of the
Godhead. HOW DO YOU GET AROUND THIS???
6. In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?
Jim: Generally as the Word, eternally emanating from the Father. ...
Bobby (from previous email): ... So Jesus must have existed in
"Spirit" form prior to the Incarnation ... as one of the three Spirits
in the Godhead according to your belief, right?
Jim: Right.
Bobby: Jim, this is really getting rather laboring.
Jim: Eh? It's "laboring" for me to answer a yes/no question with a yes or a no??
Bobby: In the final analysis, I trust that you are going to realize
that your "pluralistic" view of God being a "union" shared by three
"Spirits" ... three "Persons" ... three "Saviours" ... is ancient, but
is of pagan origin AND completely void of SPECIFIC SCRIPTURAL authority.
Jim: What's getting "rather laboring" is the number of times you simply repeat or re-phrase your position.
Bobby: The reason I find it necessary to be very specific and even
repetitive is because I feel that I have to watch everything so closely
with you. I, mean, if you didn't throw stuff around like "...it is
Scripturally and historically a proven fact that the "original" New
Testament church baptized only Jews, ..." a blatantly false and
misleading statement ... AND if you whip out that slide ruler and go to
trying to explain something so complicated that you don't even
understand it, and if you didn't try to play the old "it's a mystery"
card, and if you didn't play shell games with words ... and if you
didn't try to have things both ways at times, then maybe I wouldn't have
to be so picky and repetitive in trying to maintain the integrity of
the "record" of this debate.
Bobby (from previous email): Where on earth is the Scriptural basis
upon which you base your last answer? Again, just book, chapter and
verse.
Jim: John 8:58 and John 17:5, for starters. Note particularly the
phase in John 17:5 ~ "...the glory which I had with thee before the
world was" ~ WITH thee, Bobby -- NOT "as thee."
St. John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
St. John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Bobby (from previous email): Jim, hear me out, o.k.??? ... Again, I
go back to the Clark Kent/Superman analogy with Clark Kent speaking of
Superman as if there were two different people involved.
Jim: In other words, you go back to presenting Jesus as a person with an agenda of deception!
Bobby: No at all, Jim. But you do have to admit that when Jesus
spoke in parables, His Words were not revealed to everyone, don't you?
Your deception argument is nothing more than a strawman, Jim.
Bobby (from previous email): The Incarnate Christ was only present at the Creation in the Mind of God
Jim: -- Whhhoooaaa there! Now just what are you saying here? I
can agree with that statement inasmuch as Christ's Incarnation was a
plan, not actually happening, as of the creation of the universe. But
there is a huge difference between saying, "The Incarnate Christ was
only present at the Creation in the Mind of God," and saying, "The Word
was only present at the Creation in the Mind of God."
Bobby: O.K. then, Jim, was the Incarnate Christ present at the Creation ... YES OR NO???
Bobby (from previous email):... But these passages can be understood
as simply stating that the One who later became the Son created the
world.
Jim: Urk! Either the computer has scrambled your words, or you
just endorsed the idea that "The One who later became the Son created
the world." Well, well. Let's see how far this hole goes:
Bobby: I can see where your indoctrination resists that phrase as
worded, so I will re-word the phrase. The One who became the "God
manifest in flesh" created the world. Now, how's that??? Do you
dispute that, Jim???
Bobby (from previous email): ... when we say, "President Lincoln
was born in Kentucky," we do not mean that he was President at the time
of his birth, but rather, he was born in Kentucky and later became the
President.
Jim: Right, we are speaking "anachronistically" when we do so.
Bobby: Since I can't say Son .... I'll say that like the
"anachronistic" speech concerning President Lincoln, so it is of
speaking of the one who became "God manifest in flesh" being present at
the Creation ... "... that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the
heavens ALONE; that spreadeth abroad the earth BY MYSELF." Isaiah 44:24.
Bobby (from previous email): The title "Son" refers to the humanity
conceived in the womb of Mary. (See Luke 1:35; Galatians 4:4; Hebrews
1:5.) As such, the Son did not exist as one of three "eternal persons"
who "shared" a "union" before the Incarnation. However, the Son did
exist in the mind, thought and plan of God who "... calleth those things
which be not as though they were."
Jim: But we all existed in the mind, thought, and plan of God, who
knows all things, as thoughts. If that is what you meant when you said
that the Son is "eternal," well, hey, by that sort of acrobatic
definition we're all eternal -- which virtually erases the meaning of
the word. Obviously the pretense of saying, "The Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit are eternal" is over, and now you are claiming that the
Son did not distinctly exist until the Incarnation. When you stated,
"The Incarnate Christ was only present at the Creation in the Mind of
God," you meant that the Word did not exist then, and that the Son was
not present at Creation, but was simply a manifestation which the Father
later "became!"
Bobby: Jim, the Son had absolutely no purpose in God's Plan UNTIL
THE FULLNESS OF TIME HAD COME ... Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness
of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made
under the law, ... until the fullness of time came, Jim, the Son
existed as "the very essence or complete nature and attributes" of God.
His Word ... His very being. To place three "spirits" in the Godhead
at Creation working together is pluralistic at best ... and not much
better than the worse ... Polytheistic ... when it comes to Deity. Both
of which are an abomination from what I can understand from the
Scriptures. Also, when Jesus said I and my father are ONE He was
telling it like it "really" is. That was NOT the words of a man.
Granted, they were being spoken with a man's voice, but they didn't
originate from humanity. God cannot be separated from His Word to form a
different "person" any more than you can be separated from your word to
form a different "person." Here's some of the places where I clearly
defined my position on this matter. You may have just woke up, but you
didn't just discover something that wasn't very well established for
the record. Naw, you didn't just catch something, Jim, so don't start
thinking you are Perry Mason. Here's the record ....
* * * * * * *
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three different forms in which
God has revealed HIMSELF ... and interacted ... with humanity. Since
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God ... and God is eternal ... the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternal ... not disposable or temporary
roles God performed as ... and most CERTAINLY not "persons."
* * * * * * *
Ephesians Chapter 4 (- Paul)
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
2 Corinthians Chapter 4
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which
believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is
the image of God, should shine unto them.
Let me conclude this by saying, God "IS" eternal. And God "IS" all
three ... Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but try as you may, you won't find
any Scriptural evidence of a "plurality" of "three eternal persons" in
the Bible. It is as simple as that. That is an "add on."
* * * * * * *
Jim, as I've already stated above .... God "IS" eternal. And God
"IS" all three ... Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but try as you may, you
won't find any Scriptural evidence of a "plurality" of "three eternal
persons" in the Bible. It is as simple as that. I think your problem
may be that, not only have you been indoctrinated to believe a certain
way, you have also been programmed to "label" those who oppose your
indoctrination and place them into one of several boxes provided by your
indoctrination. I say this because you seem to want to say what you
think I believe. When, in fact, I do study the Bible independently and I
do take the preponderance of Scriptural evidence on whatever subject I
am studying. Obviously you don't, or you wouldn't be appearing to
assume you know what I am, believe, think, etc. My dealings with you,
on the other hand, ... being a staunch trinitarian (something I once
was) ... is a completely different situation. I do KNOW what you have
been indoctrinated to believe.
* * * * * * *
I am in total agreement with your statement, " ... the Father is
eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal." Because
the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit "ARE" ONE ... NOT ARE "AS" ONE.
Now, if you want to go down the trail of the word "one" not really
meaning "one" numerically, I will welcome your argument. Do you see the
difference?
* * * * * * *
Furthermore, I believe I stated above that I am in total agreement
with your statement, " ... the Father is eternal, the Son is eternal,
and the Holy Spirit is eternal." Because the Father, the Word and the
Holy Spirit "ARE" ONE ... NOT ARE "AS" ONE. Now, if you want to go down
the trail of the word "one" not really meaning "one" numerically, I
will welcome your argument.
* * * * * * *
Bobby (from previous email) ... Therefore, the Incarnation [by which
you mean not "Christ in flesh," but the Word Himself] did not create
the world in the beginning. The Creator is the eternal Spirit of God
who created the world ALONE and by HIMSELF and who later became the
Incarnation --
Bobby: Let's put it together a little bit better, Jim. Here's what
I said ... The title "Son" refers to the humanity conceived in the
womb of Mary. (See Luke 1:35; Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 1:5.) As such, the
Son did not exist as one of three "eternal persons" who "shared" a
"union" before the Incarnation. However, the Son did exist in the mind,
thought and plan of God who "... calleth those things which be not as
though they were." Romans 4:17 ... AND who "... worketh all things
after the counsel of his own will:" Ephesians 1:11. Therefore, the
Incarnation did not create the world in the beginning. The Creator is
the eternal Spirit of God who created the world ALONE and by HIMSELF and
who later became the Incarnation Himself in the Son, who was God
manifested in the flesh ... Jesus Christ.
Jim: Now you are expressing your error more clearly: although John
stated that the Word was with God in the beginning, and that all things
were made by Him, you know better; your "independent study" ( -- amen;
independent indeed, certainly not dependent on the meaning of the
original text -- ) has fastened you to the belief that the Son was
actually not present in the beginning -- the Son was only present in the
mind of God then, like the rest of us! And thus you oppose the
Scripture which states, "The same was in the beginning with God." The
effect of your false teaching is no different than the effect of someone
who attempts to scribble into Scripture "The Father became the Word"
and scribble out, "The Word was with God." And I assure you it will be
no more plausible with those who know the Word, neither now nor on
Judgment Day.
Bobby: I take it that you do not believe the title "Son" refers to
the humanity conceived in the womb of Mary. (See Luke 1:35; Galatians
4:4; Hebrews 1:5.) And talk about error, trinitarians use a number of
unScriptural terms ... one of which is "God the Son." At any rate,
let's look at St. John 1:1-4, shall we???
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (# 4314) God,
and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with (# 4314) God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that
was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
WITH (Greek) # 4314 pros {pros}
a strengthened form of 4253; TDNT - 6:720,942; prep
Translated as: unto 340 times, to 203 times, with 43 times, for 25
times, against 24 times, among 20 times, at 11 times, not tr 6, misc 53,
vr to 1; for a total of 726 times the Greek word pros was translated.
Definitions ...
1) to the advantage of
2) at, near, by
3) to, towards, with, with regard to
*** Jim, here's some other Scriptures with this Greek word pros (#
4314) translated as "with" .... look them over and tell me what you
think, o.k.??? You're indoctrinated bias is truly incredible ... and is
clouding your ability to rightly divide the Word of God. If your wife
told you that she was disappointed "with" your handling of this debate,
what would the word "with" mean to you? You see, Jim. You have been so
effectively indoctrined to believe in "three eternal persons" in much
the same way as "three normal people" yet some how ONE GOD, that you
look for every conceiveable word that would help support such a theory
... even if you use the word out of context. Jim, it is one thing to
just be sincerely wrong about a matter, but quite another thing to be so
adamant about interpreting the Word of God by "implied" meanings,
theories, and points of conjecture. Any way, let me know what you think
about the following "withs" ....
Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with (# 4314) God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Matthew Chapter 13
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with (# 4314) us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
.... I don't think His sisters were actually there "with" them, Jim.
Mark 9:10 And they kept that saying with (#4314) themselves,
questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.
... Here the words "with themselves" could be considered to mean "to
themselves" .... NOT exactly like your "implied" translation of St. John
1:1 is, huh?
Mark 11:31 And they reasoned with (#4314) themselves, saying, If we
shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him?
Well, well, well, here we have some folks reasoning "with" themselves,
huh, Jim??? WHEW!
Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with (#4314) all the
people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
*** Well, Jim, I could list more, but I hope my point is made.
John says both that the Word was "with" God and that the Word "was" God,
in the same verse 1) The Word is described as being God. However, you
are focusing on the word "with" God (which I am assuming you are
asserting God in this verse is referring to one of your eternal
"persons" - the Father). Your "implied" interpretation of St. John 1:1
makes it sound like there are two people standing there holding hands or
something. Well, John does NOT say that, "In the beginning was the
Son, and the Son was with the Father, and the Son was the Father."
However, we do know that the Word "IS" God, and that Deity is being
expressed here. And since we know the Word was made flesh, then we know
that the Son was also being referred to here. Instead of researching
and embracing the many other support Scriptures concerning the absolute
Deity of Jesus Christ, Jim, it appears you are jumping through yet
another trinitarian indoctrinational hoop, which I knew you would
eventually jump through. You try to divide St. John 1:1 and focus on
was "with" God, instead of "was" God. This is because you think it
strenghtens your "implied" doctrine. At any rate, I would like for you
to give me your best shot at just how God's Word can be separated from
Him to form a different "person." Since you just can't see how God can
be both Father and Son by being the SAME (ONE) SPIRIT ... you probably
don't understand the significance of Peter's words in Acts 2:36
"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath
made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. You
and I have discussed that Jesus was both God and man. I've even tried
to get you to understand that Jesus was both flesh and Spirit unlike any
man before OR after Him. Also, Jesus is referred to in Scripture as
being both the root and a branch. Now, since this runs across the grain
of your indoctrination, all you can do is reject it with logic and
retort things like, Jesus is His own Father and His own Son , but that's
o.k., I was indoctrinated to think like that one time myself. But
here's you some Scriptures to look at concerning the root and the branch
.... (the beginning and the end ... the source and the offspring).
Isaiah 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
Jeremiah 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will
raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper,
and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
Jeremiah 33:15 In those days, and at that time, will I cause the
Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute
judgment and righteousness in the land.
Zechariah 3:8 Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy
fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold,
I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.
Zechariah 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of
hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall
grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
Romans 15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of
Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall
the Gentiles trust.
Revelation 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not:
behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed
to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you
these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David,
and the bright and morning star.
In summary, Jim, it is my position that you are just attempting to
play a shell game with the word "with" as if you have one person "with"
another here. When the last four words of verse 1 says, "the Word was
God." The beginning was being spoken of in the past tense here because
it, indeed, was in the past. It would not have been proper to have said
"In the beginning 'is" the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word "is" God, now would it? But the Word "IS" God. God's Word is NOT a
different "person" from God. God's Word "IS" God. And the Word was
made flesh and dwelt among us (St. John 1:14).
Bobby (from previous email): ... after the Ascension of the
resurrected Christ, God sent His Spirit back to earth again, only this
time manifested as the Holy Spirit ...
Jim: Ah, so the Holy Spirit was Jesus, you say, in a different manifestation!
Bobby: Well, actually, Jim I said after the Ascension of the
resurrected Chrit, God sent HIS SPIRIT back to earth again, only this
time manifested as the Holy Spirit ... Thus, the Holy Spirit is the
Spirit of God ... or GOD ... AND Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.
The Spirit of God was "IN" Him. Jesus spoke of being "IN" believers in
St. John 17:23, but He wasn't speaking of His bodily entry into us.
Jesus also said God's word is truth in St. John 17:17, and that He was
the truth in St. John 14:6 and that the Spirit of Truth, " ... dwelleth
with you, and shall be in you." in St. John 14:17. Therefore, it is my
understanding Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, and that the Holy
Spirit and God is the SAME SPIRIT, and that this "indwelling" Spirit is
spiritual ... not physical.
Jim: I have no doubt that in future generations, if the Lord
tarries, followers of such a teaching will eventually believe that there
is no reason to look forward to the Return of Christ, inasmuch as
Christ returned as the Holy Spirit already.
Bobby: I believe I said God sent back His Spirit ... another
comforter ... another form of God. It is the SAME Spirit of God ... NOT
another Sprit of God. There aren't two or three Spirits in the
Godhead, Jim. Sure, you can find Scriptures that could be given and
"implied" interpretation to reach a conclusion, but I could find
Scriptures and do the same thing to reach just about any conclusion you
could imagine. That's why I say "sound" doctrine has to be based upon
the preponderance of Scriptures found written "verbatim" on the pages of
God's Word.
Jim: Your version of Jesus is quite a commuter: He "sat down at
the right hand of God," and was seen by Stephen standing there, and yet
He returned on Pentecost, and will return again. Let's see here:
Jesus ascends (Acts 1) Jesus descends (Acts 2) Jesus is standing in
heaven (Acts 7) Jesus falls on Cornelius' household (Acts 10) Jesus
sits at the Father's right hand (Ephesians 1:20) Tigger theology!
Yours in Christ, Jim
Bobby: Actually, Jim, God is omnipresent. His eyes are everywhere.
There isn't a place where He is not. However, I acknowledge that
trinitarians are stuck with the notion that somehow one of their persons
is more of God than the other two. Quite sad, actually, when you think
about it. As far as your comments ... where is the right hand of
God??? How does a person get on the right hand of an omnipresent
Spirit??? Did Stephen see the "invisible" God, who is omnipresent
Spirit, that no man has ever seen??? As far as the Ascension in Acts 1,
the outpouring of the Holy Ghost in Acts 2, Jesus standing Heaven in
Acts 7, the outpouring of the Holy Ghost in Acts 10, and Jesus sitting
at the Father's right hand ... I'm sure we'll get to all of them as you
continue to jump through the hoops of your indoctrination. I would like
to ask you whether you think Jesus is sitting or standing in Heaven ...
and if He is sitting, when did He get to sit down and what He is
sitting on. God bless! - Bobby
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response # 17 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 3:14 PM
Subject: Response to Jim's email Part 3 of 4 (July 2001)
Jim: Greetings in Christ to Bobby Richardson ~ Continuing the
discussion -- Eh? A bit eager to repeat the word "polytheistic,"
aren't we? You're the one who recently said that God can manifest
Himself in millions of different ways simultaneously -- yet you do not
see your statement as "polytheistic." I don't see a substantial
difference between your statement and mine.
Bobby (from previous email): Jim, my statement is NOT Polytheistic.
Jim: Exactly! Neither was mine.
Bobby: Well, Jim this is how that played out. Your position does
sound polytheistic OR pluralistic because your have more than one person
of Deity. Anyway, here's the exchange ...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby (from previous email): But here you are saying Jesus was also a theophany? Please clarify.
Jim: Okay: just as God the Father could appear specially to, say, Moses and Isaiah and Ezekiel, so could Jesus.
Bobby: Oh now that's just really ripe with polytheistic overtones.
Jim: Eh? A bit eager to repeat the word "polytheistic," aren't we?
You're the one who recently said that God can manifest Himself in
millions of different ways simultaneously -- yet you do not see your
statement as "polytheistic." I don't see a substantial difference
between your statement and mine.
Bobby: Jim, my statement is NOT Polytheistic. **IF** you think all
the representations and forms in which God has revealed Himself to
humanity in are totally distinct "persons," then, maybe you need to make
full proof of thy ministry (2 Timothy 4:5). And, yes, I do believe
Paul was referring to Jesus in 1 Timothy 3:16 as being GOD MANIFEST
(revealed) IN THE FLESH ... in Hebrews 1:3 as the EXPRESS IMAGE OF
GOD'S PERSON (singular) ... in Colosians 1:15 as the IMAGE OF THE
INVISIBLE GOD ... in Colossians 2:9-10 as the COMPLETE EMBODIMENT OF
THE GODHEAD ... AND THE HEAD OF ALL PRINCIPALITY AND POWER. **IF** you
agree that God is omnipresent, which I hope you do, then God can ... and
does ... manifest Himself to people over over the planet at the same
moment in various ways, but that doesn't turn Him into a bunch of
different people joined together in a union who are working together
like members of a team ... as you assert.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby (from previous email): By the way, which one of them appeared
to Moses at the burning bush ... and where were the other two?
Jim: I think a case could be made that the whole Godhead appeared to Moses (in the manifestation of the burning bush).
Bobby (from previous email): How so???
Jim: By cross-referencing. Look, if you want to say it was just
the Father, or just the Son, or just the Spirit, fine. This question is
tangential.
Bobby: Cross-referencing what??? Look, Jim, you make a big stink
about the baptism of Jesus being a representation of the three persons
of your indoctrination because of the voice, the dove and Jesus. All I
am trying to get out of you now, is what evidence do you have that there
were three similar representations at the burning bush. Now would you
kindly explain??? If you have no evidence (which is what I suspect) just
say it's "your opinion." Now, is that asking too much?
7. How far back have you been able to find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as a "trinity?"
Jim: Are you asking about concepts or about terminology? ...
Bobby (from previous email): ... I am asking you what is the
earliest date that you've been able to find where anyone wrote anything
which states a belief in One God in "three persons."
Jim: I believe I did answer the question: the era of Tertullian
(roughly A.D. 180-220, as I recall). ... The specific reference is the
writing, "Against Praxeas," chapter 2.
Bobby: WOW! So here your position woould obviously assert that the
doctrine of the "original" New Testament Church was incomplete for
about 200 YEARS.
Jim: No, just that it was not expressed in the terms you asked
about until that point! To compare: one could ask, "When did anyone
first use the phrase, "Pre-Tribulation Rapture?"" and get a date in the
1800's. That's not the same as saying that the Scriptures do not teach
about a pre-tribulation rapture. (It doesn't necessarily mean the
Scriptures do teach that, either; I just use this as a handy
comparison.) It is just an observation about the systematization of the
presentation of doctrine.
Bobby: Jim, in order to have a dogmatically held doctrine OR a
concept, there simply has to be some terminology used in the transfer of
knowlege from one person to another. Now, since that specific term
wasn't around until many years AFTER the Ascension and passing of the
"original" New Testament leaders, what terms were used which conveyed
the same meaning of the later developed terminology. For an example,
the words "caught up" was used instead of rapture ... which means the
same thing. What words were used instead of "trinity," "one God in
three persons," "eternal persons," "unincarnated" and "God the Son,"
... to name a few. I've sent you some material on the real origin of
the truine Godhead concept ... triad ... along with some interesting
artifacts concerning such. You really ought to give it some
consideration.
Bobby (from previous email): However, any concept which is held
dogmatically and taught as a DOCTRINE simply cannot be taught or
explained to anyone without terminology, Jim.
Jim: Sure it can! You and I can easily teach about the Atonement
without using the word "Atonement." Roman Catholics can teach about
transubstantiation without using that term. Obviously words are being
used, but that does not mean that new concepts are required to come into
existence the moment anyone comes up with a new systematic approach or a
catch-phrase.
Bobby: My point is that there would have to be some terminology
used in order to convey the concept to another person unless you're into
this mental telepathy junk. So where is the Scriptural evidence that
any one in the Bible ever expressed a belief in One God in three
persons??? What word ... or words ... were used in the place of
"persons????"
Jim: Was I somehow unclear in my emphatic distinction between
concepts and terminology? I assert that Tertullian was among the first,
if not the first, to explicitly formulate the doctrine of the Triune
God using terms like "three persons." But I also assert that this was
simply the magnification of what is implied in the text of Scripture.
The terms were new, but the concept was not new; the concept simply went
from being implicitly expressed (in Scripture)to being explicitly
expressed. I put no great value on the manmade expression, but I do
place great value on the concept itself. Is that clear?
Bobby (from previous email): Surely you do not expect me to accept
the notion that the "terminology" followed the "concept" many
generations later, do you?
Jim: Well -- "expect" might not be quite the right word, since
you've already said your mind is made up. But that is the notion I am
proposing.
Bobby: That can't be, Jim. If so, it is accursed. Paul was very
emphatic about any who should come along later (even an angel) and
preach something than they preached, being accursed.
Bobby (from previous email): **IF** God wanted the "terminology"
held dogmatically as a doctrine, you can rest assured He would have seen
to it that the "terminology" was hammered out and made available long
before "press time."
Jim: Straw man! I don't consider the terminology to be dogma.
Bobby: You may not consider the terminology to be dogma, but you
are a trinitarian and the trinitarian dogma definitely holds their
terminology of "persons" dogmatic. So quit trying to holler straw man
when you don't want to address something, o.k.? The terminology didn't
make it before press time. It's that plain and simple ... yet, you hold
to it and defend it with all your might. But, hey, that's your
business.
Bobby (from previous email): The bottom line is, Jim. Verse 7 says these three "ARE" ONE ... NOT are "as" one.
Jim: Actually, the bottom line here is that First John 5:7a was not written by John.
Bobby: **IF** you don't think John wrote it, or if you don't
believe it, or whatever, why did you bring up 1 John 5:7 in the first
place??? If you're going to use the KJV, use it. **IF** you're not,
then don't. It doesn't matter to me. Just stop using it only when it
is convenient, and spurning it when it is not convenient. I'll tell you
what, why don't you tell me what version you prefer, maybe I can
accomodate you and debate these issues out of your Bible ... how's
that???
Bobby (from previous email): ... I do function, act and speak as a
father, son and husband without being three different "persons" ... and
so can God.
Jim: As stated previously, this is a false analogy; you became a
father; you became a husband; you were not eternally a father; you were
not eternally a husband. Ah, I almost forgot: to you, God became the
Son, and the Son became the Holy Spirit! And yet the Son and the Holy
Spirit are "eternal." -- and yet to you the Son is "eternal" merely as a
thought in the mind of God at creation -- but that makes the word
"eternal" meaningless, since we were all eternal in that sense.
Bobby: Your analogy earlier about Jesus being the yolk "IN" the egg
was a "false" analogy **IF** you where projecting the egg as being the
Godhead because Colossians very clearly states that ALL the FULNESS
(completeness) of the Godhead was "IN" Jesus' body ... not the other way
around. The father, son and husband analogy may not be a "perfect"
analogy, but it isn't a "false" analogy. Man is, indeed, made in the
image AND likeness of God ... and man can ... AND DOES ... function as
father, son and husband while being ONLY ONE in PERSON. Therefore, it
shouldn't be considered a big surprise or impossibility that God can ...
AND DOES ... function as Father, Son and Holy Ghost while being ONLY
ONE in PERSON. Yes, Jim, God "IS" eternal. Yes, Jim, God is the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Yes, Jim, God does occupy all of eternity.
Yes, Jim, God speaks of things which are not as though they are. As a
matter of fact, God could speak of the White Throne Judgment as if it
were in the present .... even though it is still in "our" furture ...
because God occupies the past, present and future. He "IS" the Alpha
and the Omega! Therefore, there never was a time when God was NOT ...
nor a time when His Word was NOT. In the beginning the Word was God!
Later on God's Word was written on tables of stone, and scrolls of
parchment, etc. and still later on God's Word was made flesh and dwelt
among us. (St. John 1:14) Finally, God's Word is written upon the
fleshy tables of our hearts as His Spirit dwells in the heart of the
believer. (2 Corinthians 3:3). No, Jim, the analogy isn't a "poor" one,
it just isn't "perfect" in every way. However, the most essential part
of the analogy is right on target. It just doesn't line up with your
indoctrination, that's all. Furthermore, here's another of your
"flawed" analogies ... "I think it is fair to say that any one of the
three Persons of the Godhead is YHWH, the same way it is fair to say
that any male is male; "maleness" is an innate feature; likewise
"Godness," one could say, is innate to the Father, to the Son, and to
the Holy Spirit. " .... Jim your analogy is flawed for this very
important reason ... a "union" of three "males" changes everything.
In a "union" shared by three males, you do have THREE MALES (plural).
So using your analogy, in the "union" shared by the three "persons" ...
all three being YHWH ... you have THREE YHWHs. Now, you've got a real
mess on your hands, brother. That view has a big sign hung over it
which reads, "Welcome to polytheism!" You'd better come out of that
pagan stuff, and line up with the Apostles' One God Monotheist Doctrine
while you still have an opportunity.
Bobby (from previous email): Do you remember those profound words
of Abraham when he responded to Isaac's question going up the side of
that mountain? Genesis 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide
himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them
together. God became the lamb, Jim.
Jim: Eh? Are you saying that the ram which Abraham found in the
thicket on Mount Moriah was a theophany which Abraham killed??? Abraham
is saying is the God will provide a lamb for Himself. If I say, "I'm
gonna go get myself a wife," it doesn't mean that I am going to go out
and get married to myself. The sentence-structure here is akin to the
structure of Numbers 35:19 ~ "The avenger of blood himself shall slay
the murderer." Now, most definitely Christ is the Lamb of God, and most
definitely Christ is God, but Genesis 22:8 simply does not mean that
God became the lamb. The events of Genesis 22 are adequately beautiful
as a prophetic foreshadowing of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God,
without "squinting" at this phrase.
Bobby (from previous email): That lamb was a "type" of Chirst ...
and my understanding of the inspired words of Abraham which are recorded
in Genesis 22:8 about God providing HIMSELF a lamb is NOT squinting.
Jim: Yes; that lamb was a "type" of Christ, but that doesn't mean
your warping of the passage makes any sense whatsoever. I tried to
explain it to you. This is tangential. But I am curious: do you think
that God did appear physically incarnate as the ram on Mount Moriah
which was sacrificed?
Bobby: No. As I stated, the lamb was a "type" of Christ ... who
was God manifest in flesh. Sooo, God did provide HIMSELF a lamb.
Bobby (from previous email): By the way, I am in total agreement
with your statement, " ... the Father is eternal, the Son is eternal,
and the Holy Spirit is eternal."
Jim: I think it is obvious, in light of your statements that the
Father became the Son, and that the Son existed at creation merely as a
thought in the mind of God, that this statement of yours is
disingenuous.
Bobby: Nothing disingenuous about it all, Jim. There is a
tremendous difference in the Son being as eternal as God by being "the
very essence or complete nature and attributes" of God. His Word ...
His very being ... in the mind, thought and plan of God - - - - and that
of being a completely different eternal person than the Father ... like
you believe. I still say your position is pluralistic at best (making
the members "part" of the whole) or polytheistic at worse. Either of
which is an abomination as best I can tell from the Scriptures.
Bobby (from previous email): Actually, it is my position that the
word "PERSON" is really not an adequate term to use to describe God, but
I use it in order to communicate with those who have been indoctrinated
to believe in "PERSONS" of God. At any rate, I answered St. John 17:5
above, but I'll copy and paste it here too ... [followed by a
re-presentation of the Clark Kent/Superman analogy]
Jim: Allow me some extra comments on this material:
Bobby (from previous email): The title "Son" refers to the humanity conceived in the womb of Mary.
Jim: Eh? The Son = the humanity conceived in the womb of Mary?? Who's the Son in Psalm 2:12, then?
Bobby: I understand that to the a prophetic utterance of the Son
who was conceived in the womb of Mary, and born in Bethlehem. Psalms
2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my
Son; this day have I begotten thee. .... Soooo, was the Son "begotten"
at that time???? You're coming right along with your hoop jumping,
you're indoctrinators would be proud.
Bobby (from pevious email): ... the Son did not exist as one of
three "eternal persons" who "shared" a "union" before the Incarnation.
Jim: Eh? Jesus said, "O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine Own
Self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was." Notice
what you have overlooked: NOT "the glory I had AS Thee," but, "the
glory I had WITH Thee."
Bobby: Jim, the Incarnation was present with God in the Beginning
.. in His mind, His plan, and His foreknowledge. Jesus was God manifest
in flesh .... He was, indeed, the glory of God. Otherwise, according
to your view, God would be a liar because of this ... Isaiah 42:8 "I
am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another,
neither my praise to graven images. St. John 17:24 Father, I will that
they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may
behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before
the foundation of the world. 2 Peter 1:17 For he received from God the
Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the
excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Luke
9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him
shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory,
and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.
Jim: Then reject the non-Biblical terms and retain the Biblical concepts, instead of adulterating them with modalism!
Bobby: Precisely to what non-Biblical terms do you refer, Jim?
Jim: I have in mind phrases such as, "The Incarnate Christ was only present at the Creation in the Mind of God."
Bobby: What Scriptural evidence do you have that the Incarnate
Christ ... God manifest in flesh ... was present at the Creation, other
than in the mind of God, Jim?? You really shouldn't admonish anyone
about non-Biblical terms.
Bobby (from previous email): Furthermore, who are you to be
preaching to anyone about rejecting non-Biblical terms, when you used
them all the time yourself to explain your theology?
Jim: Your terminology itself is not my target; that is the surface of the concepts of modalism, which are my target.
Bobby: Well, I guess my theology is in your cross hairs and your
theology is in my cross hairs, huh? Sooo, that leaves us with only the
Bible as our final authority, doesn't it? I still say your doctrinal
house of cards is coming down because it is build upon nothing by
"implied" interpretaions given to a handful of very carefully selected
Scriptures. Whereas mine is found "verbatim" on the pages of God's Word
just like I believe it.
Bobby (from previous email): You claim a concept existed
generations BEFORE the terminology caught up with it. I say that is
pure hogwash indoctrination.
Jim: Insults will not persuade me.
Bobby: That wasn't meant as a personal insult. I just mean the
notion that a concept existed generations BEFORE the terminology caught
up with it is just not plausible, Jim. And you have no solid Scriptural
evidence that even suggests such a notion.
Jim: I believe that it was Matthew's intent to deliver a Gospel
account which would be liturgically useful, and that Matthew 28:19 was
intended to be liturgically useful at immersions.
Bobby: How do you know what Matthew's intent was, Jim?
Jim: By reading the text analytically.
Bobby: So your way of understanding the the things of the Spirit of
God is by reading the text analytically as opposed to them being
spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14) and rightly dividing the word
(2 Timothy 2:15), huh? That's about right.
Bobby (from previous email): ... Revelation Chapter 17 describes in
pretty good detail the "mother" of the doctrine from the city of seven
hills.
Jim: I have no doubt that Rev. 17:9 connects "Babylon" with Rome.
It's clear as day. But Revelation is focused primarily against external
persecutors and their religious allies -- typical of which was the Cult
of Emperor-Worship, which was based in, of course, Rome. I don't see
Rev. 17 as targeting a particular doctrine, except any doctrine which
would result in a person committing an act of worship of some human
being [namely the Emperor] or his statue.
Bobby (from previous email): ... At any rate, Rome is known as the
"City of Seven Hills." That is where the whore sits (is located). That
is where the "terminology" for her man made doctrine, which you so
adamantly defend, evolved. ...
Jim: You're projecting ideas on the text of Revelation which just
are not there! Yes, Rome = the city on seven hills; but that does not
mean that anything and everything connected to Rome (the Epistle to the
Romans, for example) is therefore targeted in the vision.
Bobby: Jim, you project things from Bible text which isn't there.
However, in Revelation 17, the woman portrayed must be the The mother
church mother church who was made drunk by the blood of martyrs. The
seven hills is where she sits and she is the origin of your
"terminology," Jim. Like it or not, that's just a plain fact.
Bobby (from previous email): ... The Father, Son and Holy Spirit
are three different forms in which God has revealed HIMSELF ... and
interacted ... with humanity.
Jim: [Note: That's Modalism, all right!]
Bobby: As much contempt as you have for Modalism, I am assuming you
can Scripturally prove it wrong. **IF** so, go for it. I'm open to
criticism **IF** you think I'm a Modalist. I'll let you know if or when
you get off track from my beliefs. Personally, I think you just true
to label someone and once you identify what box they go in, you pull out
your spoon fed indoctrination as to how to deal with it. However, I
hope that is NOT the case.
Bobby (from previous email): Since the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
are God ... and God is eternal ... the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are
eternal ... not disposable or temporary roles God performed as ... and
most CERTAINLY not "persons."
Jim: Eh? Let us review: Statement A: The Son is eternal.
Bobby: Once again, here's an accurate record of my position on this subject ...
Here's the record ....
* * * * * * *
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three different forms in which
God has revealed HIMSELF ... and interacted ... with humanity. Since
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God ... and God is eternal ... the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are eternal ... not disposable or temporary
roles God performed as ... and most CERTAINLY not "persons."
* * * * * * *
Ephesians Chapter 4 (- Paul)
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
2 Corinthians Chapter 4
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which
believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is
the image of God, should shine unto them.
Let me conclude this by saying, God "IS" eternal. And God "IS" all
three ... Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but try as you may, you won't find
any Scriptural evidence of a "plurality" of "three eternal persons" in
the Bible. It is as simple as that. That is an "add on."
* * * * * * *
Jim, as I've already stated above .... God "IS" eternal. And God
"IS" all three ... Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but try as you may, you
won't find any Scriptural evidence of a "plurality" of "three eternal
persons" in the Bible. It is as simple as that. I think your problem
may be that, not only have you been indoctrinated to believe a certain
way, you have also been programmed to "label" those who oppose your
indoctrination and place them into one of several boxes provided by your
indoctrination. I say this because you seem to want to say what you
think I believe. When, in fact, I do study the Bible independently and I
do take the preponderance of Scriptural evidence on whatever subject I
am studying. Obviously you don't, or you wouldn't be appearing to
assume you know what I am, believe, think, etc. My dealings with you,
on the other hand, ... being a staunch trinitarian (something I once
was) ... is a completely different situation. I do KNOW what you have
been indoctrinated to believe.
* * * * * * *
I am in total agreement with your statement, " ... the Father is
eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal." Because
the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit "ARE" ONE ... NOT ARE "AS" ONE.
Now, if you want to go down the trail of the word "one" not really
meaning "one" numerically, I will welcome your argument. Do you see the
difference?
* * * * * * *
Furthermore, I believe I stated above that I am in total agreement
with your statement, " ... the Father is eternal, the Son is eternal,
and the Holy Spirit is eternal." Because the Father, the Word and the
Holy Spirit "ARE" ONE ... NOT ARE "AS" ONE. Now, if you want to go down
the trail of the word "one" not really meaning "one" numerically, I
will welcome your argument.
* * * * * * *
Jim: Statement B: The Son existed merely as a thought in the mind of God when the universe was created.
Bobby: **IF** you say the Son was in the beginning as one of three
spirits in the Godhead, you are pluralistic (which makes each member
part of the whole) or you are polytheistic, Jim. So, which one are you,
Jim? Because that is not true Monotheism.
Jim: Later, the Father became the Son, the way Clark Kent became Superman.
Bobby: I think you are misrepresenting what I've said here, Jim.
Granted, that may be the way you interpreted what I said ... and I would
not find that to be a big surprise. But unless you have something
about this subject that I don't recall saying, my analogy of Clark
Kent/Superman was NOT to illustrate that the Father became the Son, the
way Clark Kent "became" Superman. Jesus didn't jump behind a rock and
come out with His cape on, and go save the day. You see, Jim, Clark
Kent "WAS" Superman ... just in a different manner or form ... and not a
completely different person. And that was my whole point, Jim. I
think you over analyze sometimes because you are so dead set to try to
disprove the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine. Hey, I can tell
you ... it has survived down through the ages. Jim ain't going to do
anything except kick against the pricks until God gets his attention.
And when that happens I hope he makes the right decision.
Jim: Those statements contradict each other, Bobby.
Bobby: Naw, Jim, you just tried to make them contradict each other,
that's all. You don't have verbatim Scripture on your side, so all
that's left for you to do is to try to criticize analogies, while
presenting your own flawed ones. And trying come up with the best
logical argument. But that ain't going to work because my IQ is a
little bit higher than my shoe size ... and this is not the first debate
I've been in.
About Hebrews 1:3 ~
"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his
"PERSON," (singular) and upholding all things by the word of his power,
when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of
the Majesty on high:"
...notice the SINGULAR reference to God's PERSON.
Jim: I noticed. I also noticed the Greek there, hypostaseos --
substance. Now, did you notice that Christ is the image of the Father?
A footprint manifests the characteristics of the foot, but the
footprint is not simply the foot in a different mode or form -- right?
The foot and the footprint can exist distinctly simultaneously -- right?
Just as the Father and the Son existed simultaneously, both throughout
the Incarnation and in eternity.
Bobby: Another flawed analogy. Jim, when I look at a footprint, do
I see the foot that made it? No. Can I see the foot print while the
foot is standing in it? No. Besides, your theology is more complex
than a foot and a foot print. You would need to add a shoe, I guess.
Because your theology has three "persons" in it, NOT two, remember? But
back to the foot and foot print ... the foot print is not equal to the
foot. The foot print was made by the foot, and it came AFTER the foot.
Soo, as you can see the foot and foot print is not a good analogy at
all.
Bobby (from previous email): ... "verbatim," without the need of a
library full of reference books, and commentaries, or having to make all
sorts of assumptions, or use human intellect, reasoning, logic or
points of conjecture.
Jim: You are throwing around that term "verbatim" rather loosely!
"Verbatim" means word-for-word. That requires getting the message
directly from the authoritative apostolic text -- without the
translators coming between you and the text. You ARE making an
assumption -- namely, that the KJV translation reflects the meaning of
the original texts -- in your studies. It is the person who
familiarizes himself with the original text (assisted by lexicons,
word-studies, and so forth) who is accessing what was handed down from
the apostles verbatim!
Bobby: Would it make you feel any better if I qualified my
statement each and every time by saying, "verbatim" as recorded on the
pages of the KJV??? I ain't ready to debate which version is most
accurate yet, because we have a lot of ground to cover yet. There's a
bunch more hoops you're supposed to jump through ... and we haven't come
close to resolving what's on the table so far.
Bobby (from previous email): Well, Jim, she was trying to convince
me ... just like you ... that there is a trinity of three "persons" in
the Godhead. After all else failed, she whooped out the "mystery" card
and played it. **IF** there is a mystery surrounding the Godhead, the
Bible should so state ... but it doesn't. I showed her that it doesn't.
Jim: Eh? You seem to be saying that the Bible should say that the
Godhead is a mystery in order for it to be so. I don't see the grounds
for that premise -- but surely you do not think you comprehend all there
is to comprehend about the nature of God, right? Can you really have
missed Isaiah 45:15 and Romans 11:33?
Bobby: I am NOT saying the the Bible should say that the Godhead is
a mystery in order for it to be so, I am saying a person shouldn't not
say it is a mystery when the Bible says it isn't. However, your
position on Matthew 28:19 is that the Bible would have to say not to
recite the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost for you not to recite
them. And then you say stuff like, "I can reciprocate and say God has
shown me things through His Word, too -- and not just through a
comprehension of the surface meaning of the words (which is what you
seem to refer to when you mention the "verbatim" meaning) but through
the meaning which the words were actually intended to convey."
Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God
beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: .... Now
**IF** thou hast not known me is your point, here's your key ... it is
found in the very first verse of Chapter 15, "Thus saith the LORD to his
anointed, to Cyrus ...."
Romans 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and
knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past
finding out! ... I don't claim to know everything there is to know
about God, but the Bible does tell us everything we need to know about
Him ... and we should not add to nor take from the Word.
Now, here's you a couple ....
Romans 1:20-22 For the invisible things of him from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without
excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as
God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they
became fools,
Luke 8:10 "..Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God.."
1 Corinthians 4: 1 "..stewards of the mysteries of God.."
Ephesians 3: (3, 4 & 9) "made known unto me the mystery.."
"..that ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ.." "And
to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery.."
Jim: ... but I decline to drift into a tangent about what constitutes authoritative sources for Protestants and Catholics.
Bobby: My basic concern about protestant and catholic people is
they both embrace the same flawed doctrine that evolved out of pagan
Rome.
Bobby (from previous email): That is what I refer to as "effective indoctrination."
Jim: Eh? I am trying to stay on-topic! There is nothing doctrinal about the desire to avoid getting off the subject.
Bobby: You have felt the liberty to express your views from time to
time concerning me and my beliefs, and I do the same thing sometimes,
myself ... that's all.
Jim: A modalist is a person who believes that the Father is the Son
is the Spirit, and that each one of those three is a mode of existence,
not innate to God's nature.
Bobby (from previous email): Well, that leaves me out right there,
because it is my firm conviction that ALL of the attributes,
characteristics and qualities of GOD are present in whatever form,
manifestation, or representation God chooses to manifest (reveal)
Himself to mankind in.
Jim: It's (obviously) possible to hold that conviction and still be
a modalist. When you stated that the Father became the Son, you
demonstrated that you are a modalist. The Father did not become the
Son, Bobby; the Father sent the Son, as Jesus said repeatedly!
Bobby: The Spirit sent (prepared) the flesh, Jim. Jesus Christ was
God manifest in flesh ... who came down here and walked among his own
creation. He was both FULLY GOD ... AND FULLY MAN. He had a human
nature (without the fallen sin nature) and He also had a Divine nature.
That's what you're fighting, Jim. The absolute Deity of Jesus Christ
... a very foolish AND dangerous thing to do.
Bobby (from previous email): Have I presented anything which is not Biblical?
Jim: Yes. I submit the following simply as my impressions: First, you have opposed the didactic force of Matthew 28:19.
Bobby (from previous email): Jim, the Didache was written how many
years AFTER the ascension and passing of the "original" New Testament
leaders ... and by whom????
Jim: Um ... the term "didactic" here is unrelated to the document
called the Didache. "Didactic force" means "instructive force/intent."
Bobby (from previous email): Well, Jim, I do believe the Didache is
the earliest document you have furnished me with upon which you base
your "instructive force/intent" upon. Am I not correct about this?
Jim: No; I did not have the Didache in mind at all when I wrote the
statement above. I was referring to internal evidence in the Gospel of
Matthew.
Bobby: How about the internal evidence of the entire New Testament
as a whole, Jim. Does that count for anything in your view???
Bobby (from previous email): ... To be honest with you, I just sort
of shake my head when a person who presents themself as being
intellectual and enlightened, and can't see the proper interpretation
and application of Matthew 28:19 ... and more especially when they
adamantly defend the error of "quoting" titles instead of invoking the
"name" ... AND teach others to do the same.
Jim: No doubt that is similar to how I feel when someone avoids
seeing an obvious intent for the liturgical usage of a passage, and
perpetuates a phantom-distinction of titles-vs-names.
Bobby: Well, it is obvious none of the "original" New Testament
leaders saw the intent for the liturgical usage of Matthew 28:19 and
perpetuated what the Holy Spirit inspired Peter to say in Acts 2:38 ...
which is the basis for the "titles" vs "NAME" (singular ... NOT names
[plural]) debate you and I are having right now. Sooo, I guess you are
miffed at them too, huh????
Jim: You posit a date of about A.D. 40-45 for the Gospel of Matthew,
right? That would mean that, inasmuch as the Acts of the Apostles was
not written until A.D. 62 or 63, for at least 17 years the only written
example some Christians had about how to baptize was the Great
Commission.
Bobby: Jim the bottom line is this ... the "original" New Testament
Church leaders obviously interpreted Jesus's words of Matthew to mean
baptism was to be in the NAME of Jesus. Which is why I am amazed that
you can't understand when you read the same words and come up with
something different than what the "original" New Testament leaders
practiced. As you know, about 7 days after Jesus spoke the words of
Matthew 28:19, Peter spoke by the inspiration of the Spirit of God ... "
Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost." And we have three more examples where that was practiced ... and
not a single one like the way you understand it. That ought to tell
you something right there.
Bobby (from previous email): When a person is baptized in NAME
(singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, they
were baptized with the NAME (singular) of JESUS invoked.
Jim: That is simply another way of re-stating your position!
Bobby: Nope, Matthew is what Jesus said. Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48
and 19:5 is what the Apostles did. Therefore, they must have understood
the name of Jesus to be the name of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of
the Holy Spirit. That is, actually, pretty elementary, Jim.
Bobby (from previous email): When a person is baptized with these
words quoted over them, " ... in the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit," NO NAME HAS BEEN USED.
Jim: As Revelation 19:13 and 19:16 show, the distinction you are trying to make here is contrived.
Bobby: Contrived??? Jim, it is simply the properly application of
the English language for Matthew 28:19 as well as the documented
examples of how the "orignal" New Testament leaders interpreted the
words of Jesus that were recorded in Matthew 28:19. Have you ever
diagramed the sentence in Matthew 28:19 and see what you come up with.
Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood:
and his name is called The Word of God. ... Revelation (as is the
whole Bible) has lots of metaphoric language in it. Besides the phrase,
The Word of God" isn't a proper name, and I think you know that.
Revelation 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name
written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. .... I would use the same
argument as in verse 13, plus I would say you are grasping at straws to
justify doing something in an unScriptural way while claiming to be so
enlightened concerning spiritual matters.
Jim: Second, you deny Christ's words in John 14:28 (the Father cannot be greater than Christ if the Father IS Christ).
Bobby (from previous email): And neither could the Father be
greater than Christ if (as you contend) they are both co-equal "persons"
in the Godhead.
Jim: Au contraire! Jesus was acting as the Servant of the Lord; His nature was not less but certainly His rank was less.
Bobby: So now you are claiming Jesus was just a mask put on by the
SECOND person of your truine God in order to play a role and act as the
Servant of the Lord? I didn't think you cared much for analogies using
masks and acting out roles, etc. What changed???
Jim: ... You ... seem to say [in subsequent material you did not
merely seem to say this, you explicitly stated it] that Jesus is the
Father; that is, they are one Person. In that case, I have a question
for you: is Mary the mother of the Father?
Bobby (from previous email): ... The Spirit of God ... which is the
Father ... which is the Holy Spirit ... did NOT originate from Mary's
womb. The supernaturally conceived, supernatural human who was born of
Mary's womb has a name which above EVERY name, and it is referred to as
"the Everlasting Father" ... "the Mighty God" ... "God manifested in the
flesh" ... "the form of God" ... "the image of the invisible God" ...
"the express image of His person (singular) ... etc. That name is the
name that EVERYONE will one day bow to .... JESUS!
Jim: I'm having trouble perceiving your answer: Are you saying
that Mary is the mother of the Father? Are you saying that Mary is not
the mother of Jesus? You said that the Father became the Son, so it
looks like you are saying that the Person in Mary's womb = the Father =
the Son.
Bobby: The child in Mary's womb was born Lord of Lords and Kings of
kings. He was God manifest in flesh. Since the Father is God. Jesus
was the Father in the form of a man. The Father (God) is "A" Spirit.
The Son was the Father (Spirit) in the form of a man. Now do you get
it? I, mean, you do understand that a human can't give birth to a
spirit. Jesus was a supernaturally conceived, super human being ..
unlike anyone before OR after His birth.
Bobby (from previous email): ... John 14:28 is a GREATER problem
for you than it could ever possibly be for me ... Now, how could one be
"co-equal" and at the same time be lesser or greater?
Jim: Equal in nature, lesser in rank.
Bobby: **IF** there is truly an equal in nature relationship, why
did the Father "beget" the Son and emmanate the Holy Spirit. Where's
your Scripture for these superior and inferior "ranks?"
Jim: Third, you deny Christ's words in John 5:31-37, where Christ
says plainly that He does not bear witness of Himself, and then (in v.
37) says that the Father does bear witness of Him (the Father cannot be
bearing witness while Christ is not bearing witness if the Father IS
Christ).
Bobby (from previous email): I guess I'll have to whoop out the old Clark Kent/Superman analogy, huh?
Jim: I think I've already given that misrepresentation more attention than it deserves. Yours in Christ, Jim
Bobby: Jim, you said, "the Father cannot be bearing witness while
Christ is not bearing witness if the Father IS Christ," Since the Father
was "IN" Christ according to Jesus' own words in St. John 14:10, and
Paul said that God was "IN" Christ in 2 Corinthians 5:19, and since you
insist there are THREE SPIRITS of God ... then ... according to your own
theology ... you would have FOUR spirits residing inside of Jesus' body
1 spirit of man ... which is inside every living and breathing human
... and ... 3 Spirits of God (one Spirit of the eternal Son, one Spirit
of the eternal Father and the Holy Spirit). Do you have a position as
to when each one took up residence "INSIDE" the body of Jesus??? This
has got to be an accurate portrayal of the Godhead ACCORDING TO YOUR
THEOLOGY in order to stand in agreement with Colossians 2:9 For "IN" him
(Jesus) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Now, in what
way do you accuse my Clark Kent/Superman of being a misrepresentation of
Scripture??? I know it doesn't represent what you've been indoctrinated
to believe, but that's beside the point. I want to know how it
misrepresents the Scriptures. Clark Kent actually was Superman .. NOT
another separate person. And Clark Kent could ... and did ... speak and
function as both Clark Kent and Superman. Oh! I get it. Because
Clark Kent/Superman is a ficticious character, and since a real man is
not an omnipresent Spirit, who can manifest Himself in many different
ways in many different locations to many different people at the same
time like God can, then it is a misreprestation, right? Well, Jim I use
the Clark Kent/Superman analogy is to illustrate the dual nature of
Jesus Christ as being both FULLY GOD .... AND .... FULLY MAN at the same
time because most people are familar with Clark Kent/Superman ... and
can relate to what I am trying to get across to them, that's all. God
bless! Bobby
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response # 18 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 3:14 PM
Subject: Response to Jim's email Part 4 (July 2001) -- section A
Jim: Greetings in Christ to Bobby Richardson, Continuing (after a very good night's sleep, praise God) the response ~
Bobby: Ditto, on the good night's sleep.
Jim: ... It sounds like you are saying that at times when Jesus
spoke, a human being was not speaking, and at times when Jesus spoke,
God was not speaking. Is that what you mean?
Bobby (from previous email): That's it, Jim. Jesus was BOTH fully
God AND fully human. Therefore He could speak as BOTH God and human.
Jim: Certainly He could speak as both God and human. But you are
saying He could speak as God, or as human! One who is truly fully God
and fully human is free to speak regarding one aspect of His nature or
another (for instance, Jesus could tell someone He was in a house
without saying that God is only to be found in that house), but He does
not have an on-off switch for either nature.
Bobby: Jim, Jesus was free to speak regarding one aspect of His
nature or another ... and He did. Some just don't recognize it when it
happens, just like some didn't understand Him when He spoke in parables
because ... for whatever the reason ... they either didn't have "ears to
hear" or maybe just didn't want to hear, or both.
Jim: I think this exposes the actual nature of your position --
although you have a facade of Biblical orthodoxy when you say that Jesus
was fully God and fully man, you do not mean what those words normally
mean. You say, on one hand, that He was completely human, and then you
say that sometimes when He spoke, He did not speak as a human And you
say that He was completely God, but then you say that sometimes when He
spoke, He did not speak as God.
Bobby: I think I know what I meant probably a little bit better
than what you "think" I meant, Jim. Because Jesus was FULLY God and
FULLY man, he did not have to have an "on/off" switch. He freely
functioned, acted and spoke as BOTH God and man, Father and Son, Divine
and human ... according to His Divine Redemptive plan, and purpose for
His coming to earth in the form of man. Surely you are not going to
record here with a position that every word ever uttered by Jesus Christ
were spoken as a man, nor that every word ever uttered by Jesus Christ
were spoken as God, are you? Because **IF** you are, I'd be very
interested in knowing how you came to that conclusion.
Bobby (from previous email): When He said "before Abraham was, I
AM." That wasn't the words of a human. Or do you disagree with me on
that???
Jim: I disagree. That was Jesus speaking, in full possession of
his Divine and human natures. He was speaking about His pre-incarnate
existence as YHWH with the Father.
Bobby: Jim, Jesus could not have possibly been speaking as a man
when He said, "Before Abraham was, I AM." Granted, I embrace His two
natures ... probably more than you do ... and Him being in full
possession of His "dual" natures ... Divine and human, but I'm not going
to let you get away with asserting that the words of Jesus, "before
Abraham was, I AM," were the words of a human ... regardless of how much
you disagree. Because you are already on record stating (or
acknowledging) that Jesus' pre-incarnate existence was "spirit" NOT
flesh ... HUMAN. I've already nailed your shell game with the use of
the word "with." But if you want to re-visit that one, I will gladly
oblige you. Jim, your disagreement doesn't have any Scriptural basis,
nor any support from your previously stated position regarding this
matter. It's just another weakness in the indoctrinational house of
cards you're defending as "sound" doctrine, that's all.
Bobby (from previous email): ... The human side of Jesus witnessed
of Him being the Messiah. And the Divine side of Jesus witnessed of
Jesus being the Messiah.
Jim: Eh? Clearly when you talk about unScriptural terminology, you
know what you are talking about! "The Divine side of Jesus?" Where in
Scripture does Jesus say, "My human side bears witness" and "My Divine
side bears witness?" Book, chapter, and verse with those exact words,
please.
Bobby (from previous email): You'd be the last person on the planet
I'd expect to see rebuking someone for using unScriptural terminology.
Jim: I interpret this to mean that you admit that the terms you are using here are not Biblical terms.
Bobby: The "Divine side of Jesus" is no less Scriptural as some of
your unScriptural terminology such as, "persons" of God and
"disincarnated," so don't go to thinking you can stand building a straw
man here, Jim.
Bobby (from previous email): At any rate, in St. John 14:10 Jesus
told His disciples that the words He was speaking were not coming from a
human ...
Jim: Apparently you misunderstand the text. When Jesus said, in
the KJV, "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself," He is
not saying that He is not speaking about Himself; He is saying that He
is not speaking on His own initiative (as the NASB translates the
phrase). The Father's presence in Him does not preclude His own
presence.
Bobby: Jim, since Jesus had two natures 1) Divine and 2) human ...
as you are already on the record agreeing with. And since Jesus said
the Father was dwelling "IN" Him in the same verse (St. John 14:10)
where He said, "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself,"
... these words were NOT coming from a human, regardless of what your
slide ruler says.
Bobby (from previous email): and in St. John 19:28 it is very plain
to see that these were not the words of an "eternal Spirit" because
Jesus really did die on the cross that day, Jim.
Jim: Eh? When Jesus said, "I thirst," you say the Word did not
have the sensation of thirst? You seem to be saying that the Divinity
of Christ was like a light that flashed on and off, depending on what
Jesus was saying! The light of Christ shines eternally, Bobby!
Bobby: I know about little bit about the light of Christ, Jim. God
manifest in flesh was hanging on the cross when the words, "I thirst"
were uttered. But, Jim, God is "A" Spirit, remember? In the Beginning
the Word was God (Spirit), remember. The Word (Spirit) was made flesh
and dwelt among us, remember? Now, show me in the Scriptures where a
Spirit ever became thristy and/or needed a drink.
Jim: Let's take a look at John 8:17-18 ~ Jesus says, "It is also
written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one
that beareth witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth
witness of me." Allow me to pretend what might have happened had you
been there: "Then Bobby Richardson chimed in, lest the Pharisees get
the wrong impression, saying, 'Of course, what Jesus really means is
that He and the Father are not two; see, they are really the same
Person! Jesus is just saying that the Father is His Divine side!'"
Bobby: Jim, it took at least two witnesses to bring about judgment
or to establish a matter. However, "God is not a man, that he should
lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: ..." Numbers 23:19.
Therefore He really didn't need any other witness NOR does He need to
prove Himself to anyone. However, because of LOVE and truly amazing
grace, He decided to come down here and walk among His own Creation, to
be misunderstood, falsely accused, rejected, and to go through
everything that man goes through, in order to pay the sin debt and to
redeem man back to Himself. He knew ahead of time what was going to
happen. He even knew the thoughts of others. At any rate, He did
everything He possibly could, short of just proclaiming publically who
He "really" was, in an effort to reach a bunch of stiff necked, self
willed, self righteous, hypocrites. So much so, that He even met the
requirements that they were supposed to be living by, but really
weren't. I'll say it again, the Son is the human nature, the Father is
the Divine nature. The prophets had spoken and foretold of the coming
Messiah. John the Baptist also foretold and forewarned of the coming
Messiah. Jesus spoke of Himself being the Messiah, and there were many
things which served as a Divine Witness that He was the Messiah. Jesus
also said that He and the Father were ONE ... NOT "as" ONE. In Jesus,
there is ONE body with TWO natures due to the Father dwelling inside
Him. Look Jim, God didn't have to use the various ways to serve as
Divine witnesses of who Jesus "really" is. He could have just as easily
dispatched an army or angels to come down here like men and do all the
witnessing ... but He did it all by HIMSELF! As a restult, He was
rejected, tortured and crucified. Paul puts it this way in 1
Corinthians 2:8 "Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had
they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." Before
you ask, I don't believe God died on the cross. However, He was there
on the cross in the body of Jesus Christ right up until the last moment
when Jesus gave up the ghost. How about you? Do you think God died on
the cross, Jim?
Jim: Since this passage opposes your position so strongly, I will focus on your response in detail:
Bobby (from previous email): Jim, it took at least two witnesses to
bring about judgment or to establish a matter. However ... He really
didn't need any other witness NOR does He need to prove Himself to
anyone.
Jim: Granted. Jesus is being generous. Since both He and the
Pharisees viewed the Law as authoritative, Jesus appealed to the Law to
support the case for His legitimacy as the Messiah. He did not appeal
to acrobatic interpretations, but alluded to a plain text which said
that the testimony of two men is true. And He said that that text
applied to Himself and His Father. A plain text, with a plain meaning
about two persons, applied to Jesus and the Father, yields the plain
conclusion that Jesus and His Father are two Persons, and this passage
is capable of no other conclusion.
Bobby: Since you've been very effectively indoctrinated to believe
the literal applications which resulted from the "implied"
interpretations given to a handful of Scriptures which the trinitarian
doctrine is founded upon, and which trinitarians defend and cling to as
if they are life preservers on an open sea, I can understand why you
would think Jesus was referrring to Himself and the Father that dwelled
"INSIDE" Him as being two different "persons." Let me share a little
something with you, Jim. Those Jews were so steeped in traditions and
dogma until they didn't even recognize the day of their "visitation."
They didn't like it when Jesus "being a man makest thyself God," and I'm
pretty sure they didn't like it any better when Jesus alluded to His
Father ... their God ... as being a man concerning the testimony of two
"men." Again, the testimony of two "men" was necessary as witnesses,
and this was something these Jews could identify with. In other words
they didn't accept one man's word over another's without at least one
witness to side with one or the other. There is only one exception to
this that I am aware of in the Word of God, and that is found in Numbers
5:11-31 regarding a husband and wife. At any rate, there is a distinct
difference in there being two witnesses concerning Jesus ... 1) human,
and 2) Divine ..., and that of there being two "persons" who witnessed
... 1) Jesus, and 2) the Father. By the way, according to your
position, it looks like Jesus would have also said the Holy Spirit was a
witness to, doesn't it? Reckon how come He didn't? Look, Jim, Jesus
(having two natures ... God manifest in flesh) could have been standing
in their presense and caused a voice to speak from Heaven, a dove to
come land on His shoulder, or lightning to strike the ground beside them
on a cloudless day (or any other "witness" He so desired) without
moving a muscle or saying a word. Therefore the two "witnesses" being
Divine and human are NOT two "persons" as you are insisting is "implied"
by this verse about the witness of two "men."
Bobby (from previous email): I'll say it again, the Son is the human nature, the Father is the Divine nature.
Jim: Urk! This speaks for itself! Hardly any more refutation is needed from me!
Bobby: Well, I would hope you wouldn't try to refute the fact that
man's human nature and God's Divine nature were BOTH present in the body
of Jesus Christ, and that He, in fact, was FULLY God and FULLY man.
And that "... in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
(Colossians 2:9).
Jim: But just to get a handle on what you are actually claiming, I
will make a few observations: (1) you say that the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit are eternal.
Bobby: Jim, that is my position. YHWH is eternal. And YHWH is
Father, Word (Son) and Holy Ghost/Spirit. However, where our paths part
is when you go to describing YHWH as a "substance" which is shared in
"union" by "three eternal persons" and assigning the title of "pesons"
to the Father, Word (Son) and Holy Ghost/Spirit. That's where I say,
Elvis has definitely left the building. Because the ONLY way you can
reach that conclusion is by slide ruler explanations, a hand ful of very
carefully selected Scriptures which have been given "implied"
interpretations, doing shell games with words, playing the "it's a
mystery" card, etc. NONE OF WHICH IS "SOUND DOCTRINE" from what I
understand of the preponderance of Scriptural evidence found written
"verbatim" on the pages of the Word of God.
Jim: (2) you say that the Son is the human nature of Christ. Hmm.
Your own statements imply that the human nature of Christ is eternal.
But your own statements (such as your comment about about John 19:28
-- "it is very plain to see that these were not the words of an "eternal
Spirit" ) also imply that the human nature of Christ is not eternal.
Bobby: Jim, I ran a word search for "the Son is"on what I have
written, that was in your possession at the time you wrote the above
statement. Here's all I could turn up ...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
" ... the Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit
is eternal." Because the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit "ARE"
ONE ... NOT ARE "AS" ONE.
"I'll say it again, the Son is the human nature, the Father is the Divine nature."
So by that, are you implying one or two of your "eternal persons"
has a Father? If so, I don't guess they're eternal after all, huh?
Look, Jim the Father is the Spirit ... God ... in Creation. The Son is
God manifested in the flesh ... God ... in redemption. And the Holy
Spirit is the Comforter ... the Spirit of God ... the Spirit of the
Father ... the Spirit of the Son ... the ONE Spirit which gives us
access to God. Jesus was a supernaturally conceived, supernatural human
being and when He called God His Father, He was correct from the human
standpoint. When He made Himself God, and said He was before Abraham.
He was also correct from the Divine standpoint. HE WAS BOTH, JIM ...
GOD AND MAN ... FLESH AND SPIRIT .... DIVINE AND HUMAN.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Bobby: Jim, you have misrepresented what I've said in an attempt to
build a straw man. You see, I learned a long, long time ago (while
debating Jehovah Witnesses) that, even as small and seemingly
insignificant as the WORD "A" is in a sentence. That little word can
change the whole meaning. Jim, I did not say "the Son is" the human
nature of Christ. What I copied and pasted above is what I said about
what my position is on who "the Son is." You are just trying to twist
things in order to gain a favorable outcome for yourself and your man
made doctrine ... and it just ain't going to happen, Jim. I've already
told you, I used to be a trinitarian. Unless you come up with a silver
bullet that trumps everything in the Word of God, that God has shown to
me and revealed to me over a period of many years of independent
research and study, you're just spitting in the wind.
Jim: You are contradicting yourself. Even using your own
definitions, if the Son = the nature of the Father + a non-eternal human
nature, the Son would not be eternally the Son.
Bobby: The Son, according to you, existed as a completely different
spirit than the Father in the Creation ... one of three spirits you
claim make up the Godhead. However, my position is that the Son is the
Incarnate Christ, who was only present at the Creation in the Mind of
God ... who occupies all of eternity from beginning to end and vice
versa ... AND who "... calleth those things which be not as though they
were." Romans 4:17 ... AND who "... worketh all things after the
counsel of his own will:" Ephesians 1:11. We KNOW, according to
Scripture, there is only ONE Spirit in the Godhead ... NOT three as you
assert. Furthermore, we KNOW YHWH ... the LORD ... IS GOD who Created
everything ALONE and by HIMSELF ... but we also know that Jesus was the
Creator in human form ... "All things were made by him; and without him
was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3). "By him were all
things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and
invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or
powers: all things were created by him and for him" (Colossians 1:16).
"Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and
the heavens are the works of thine hands" (Hebrews 1:10). Some of the
passages that speak of Jesus as the Creator also refer to Him as the
Son. (See Colossians 1:13; Hebrews 1:8.) However, trinitarians maintain
that an eternal Son co-created the world alongside a distinct person
called the Father. But these passages can be understood as simply
stating that the One who later became the Son created the world. For
example, when we say, "President Lincoln was born in Kentucky," we do
not mean that he was President at the time of his birth, but rather, he
was born in Kentucky and later became the President. The title "Son"
refers to the humanity conceived in the womb of Mary. (See Luke 1:35;
Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 1:5.) As such, the Son did not exist as one of
three "eternal persons" who "shared" a "union" before the Incarnation.
However, the Son did exist in the mind, thought and plan of God who "...
calleth those things which be not as though they were." Romans 4:17
... AND who "... worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:"
Ephesians 1:11. Therefore, the Incarnation did not create the world in
the beginning. The Creator is the eternal Spirit of God who created
the world ALONE and by HIMSELF and who later became the Incarnation
Himself in the Son, who was God manifested in the flesh ... Jesus
Christ. About 7 days after the Ascension of the resurrected Christ, God
sent His Spirit back to earth again ... only this time manifested as
the Holy Spirit ... in Spirit form (not flesh) ... to dwell in the
hearts of believers, to comfort, lead and teach ... and, actually, I
suppose it could be said, to resume the work and relationship He had
with His followers when they followed in His footprints when He was
manifested as Jesus ... in human form.
Bobby (from previous email): Jesus also said that He and the Father were ONE ... NOT "as" ONE.
Jim: Evasion! It looks like you've perceived the force of John
7:16-18 and your only defense is to leap out of the way, bringing up
other texts! Certainly there are other texts to believe, explain, and
harmonize, but we are looking at this one at the moment.
Bobby: Ummm, Jim, mind telling me why you think I just leaped out of the way???
St. John Chapter 16
16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that
seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no
unrighteousness is in him.
*** There's nothing about that which would conflict with the proper
understanding of the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine. Do we
really need to go throught the Clark Kent/Superman analogy again, Jim?
That's the best way I know of to try to get you to understand. I'll
gladly run back through it again, if you want me to. It makes more
sense than your pluralistic position, at best (having different "parts"
that make up the whole) and/or your polytheistic position, at worse
(having three Gods).
Bobby (from previous email): In Jesus, there is ONE body with TWO natures due to the Father dwelling inside Him.
Jim: That claim has an interesting implication regarding Christ on
the cross. Question: on the cross, Jesus said, "My God, My God, why
hast Thou forsaken Me?" (or, rather, Aramaic words to that effect). Do
you believe that at that moment the Divine nature of Christ was
separated from the human nature of Christ, or at a later moment? (You
stated, "He was there on the cross in the body of Jesus Christ right up
until the last moment when Jesus gave up the ghost.") You obviously
believe that the Jesus who died on the cross was not Divine (since you
explicitly stated, "I don't believe God died on the cross.")
Bobby: Well, for one thing, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken
Me?" Is the words from Psalms 22:1 ... just one of the many places in
Psalms that testifies ... or serves as a witness ... regarding the
Messiah. For another thing, it is my position that the Father which had
dwelled in the body of Jesus Christ did withdraw from the body of Jesus
Christ while hanging on the cross, and that the human nature (the man)
cried out to the Divine nature (God) in the final moments leading up to
Jesus' physical death on the cross. **IF** the Spirit of God had not
withdrawn from Jesus' body, it would have been physically impossible for
Jesus to have died on the cross. And death had to be accomplished to
fulfill God's Redemptive purpose in taking upon Himself the form of a
man to begin with. Three days later the Spirit of God re-entered the
dead corpse of Jesus Christ and He came back to life by the power of the
Spirit ... and without the need for the blood that once coursed through
His veins, which He shed on the cross to purchase our salvation.
Bobby (from previous email): ... God didn't have to use the various
ways to serve as Divine witnesses of who Jesus "really" is. ... but He
did it all by HIMSELF!
Jim: If you mean that one Person was bearing witness, that's quite a
novel interpretation of "the testimony of two!" Jesus says, "I am one
that bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness
of Me," and you take this to mean that only one Person was bearing
witness!
Bobby: Jim, you left out an important word in your descriptive
accusation ... the word "men." St. John 8:17 It is also written in
your law, that the testimony of two men is true. Jesus wasn't saying
the Father was another "man" besides Himself, and neither was He saying
that the Father was another "person" besides Himself. There is a
distinct difference in there being two witnesses concerning Jesus ...
1) human, and 2) Divine ..., and that of there being two "persons" who
witnessed ... 1) Jesus, and 2) the Father. By the way, according to
your position, it looks like Jesus would have also said the Holy Spirit
was a witness to, doesn't it? Reckon how come He didn't? Look, Jim,
Jesus (having two natures ... God manifest in flesh) could have been
standing in their presense and caused a voice to speak from Heaven, a
dove to come land on His shoulder, or lightning to strike the ground
beside them on a cloudless day (or any other "witness" He so desired)
without moving a muscle or saying a word. Therefore the two "witnesses"
being Divine and human are NOT two "persons" as you are insisting is
"implied" by this verse about the witness of two "men."
Bobby (from previous email): Before you ask, I don't believe God died on the cross.
Jim: I just wanted to read that incredible statement again and put it alongside some other statements:
(1) Jesus is "Emmanuel," God-with-us (Matthew 1:23)
(2) Jesus died on the cross (First Thessalonians 4:14)
(3) God did not die on the cross (Bobby Richardson)
These three statements are not compatible. Who do you think is wrong: Matthew, Paul, or Bobby Richardson?)
Bobby: Jim, surely you're not mocking or disputing Matthew 1:23 or 1
Thessalonians 4:14. Well, I don't know, your earlier quip about Ronald
Reagan day or an indirect jab at people who suffer from alzheimer's
disease which ever it was, leaves room for doubt, for sure. At any
rate, I assume your dispute is with the Bobby Richardson quote, "God did
not die on the cross," right? Let me ask you, Jim. Can an eternal
Person ... eternal Spirit die? I say no! Did Jesus Christ die on the
cross that day? I say emphatically, yes!
Bobby (from previous email): Do you think God died on the cross, Jim?
Jim: Yes. In some sense, God died on the cross. What do you do
with Acts 20:28 ~ as rendered in the KJV ~ "... feed the church of God,
which He hath purchased with His own blood." What is the "verbatim"
meaning of Acts 20:28 in the KJV?
Bobby: YES??? YOU BELIEVE GOD DIED ON THE CROSS?????!!!!! I'll
have to frame that one. That statement takes the cake, Jim! That's a
hall of fame'r. You've outdone yourself on this one, for sure. What in
the world do you mean by an answer like this ... "In some sense, God
died on the cross."???? There ain't no little bit pregnant, Jim.
Either God died on the cross or God didn't die on the cross. To this
question ... Do you think God died on the cross, Jim? You said,
"Yes." Now, to your question ... which you obviously just threw in there
to make it look like you were somehow including it in with your answer,
when, in fact, all you were doing was trying to just muddy up the water
in hopes to draw attention from your "YES" answer that God died on the
Cross. You have expressed your dislike for the KJV, and I can't figure
out why you would even resource it ... other than trying to be the best
defense attorney you can for the phoney man made doctrine you cherish,
which came out of Babylon/Rome .... "concept, terminology and all."
However, I will address Acts 20:28
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the
flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed
the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
*** Since the Bible has already established God is "A" Spirit. And
since I know a spirit does NOT have flesh and bones .. or BLOOD ... then
I know something has to be up, right? 1 Timothy 3:16 unlocks this
mystery, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into
glory." ... While this Scripture does NOT mention the name of Jesus,
the Incarnation, Christ, Messiah or anything that could be twisted into
something relating to the trinitarians' SECOND person, no serious Bible
student would argue that this verse was not referring to Jesus Christ as
being "God manifest in the flesh." There's the blood of Acts 20:28,
Jim. God manifest in the flesh did have blood being pumped through His
veins, which He shed on the cross for you and me ... and every body else
on planet earth.
Jim: ... No matter how you slice it, this [vision in Revelation 5] demonstrates a distinction between the Father and the Lamb.
Bobby (from previous email): ... the distinction is Spirit and flesh.
Jim: Eh? Allow me to get a handle on what you are saying: the
Father = the Spirit and the Lamb = the flesh. Is that an accurate
summary of what you are saying?
Bobby: More direct and specific, the Father=God ... the Supreme
Being, the invisible, omnipresent, SPIRIT (singular). And the lamb=God
manifest in the flesh, Jesus Christ, who was BOTH FULLY GOD and FULLY
MAN because of His two natures, 1) Divine AND 2) human.
Bobby (from previous email) ... it sounds like Jesus' body will be the only BODY on the Throne.
Jim: Are you reading Revelation 5? The Lamb that was slain takes
the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne (in 5:7).
Let's translate this into your terminology: "Jesus' human side came
and took the book out of the right hand of His Divine side." This would
be hilarious if it were not such a serious error.
Bobby: Jim, you can't even read the other parts of the Bible on
this subject and get past the surface level. Why on earth do you think I
should think you can understand the Book of Revelation on this subject?
In short, I don't. Because the Book of Revelation is for sure a Book
of the Bible which should not be interpreted "literally." While I do
not claim to be an authority on the Book of Revelation, I will approach
the situation you tossed at me in this way. YHWH "IS" the LORD .... the
LORD is GOD ... the LORD and GOD are one and the same AND is identified
throughout the entire Bible as "I, ME, MY, MINE, HE, HIS and HIM ...
GOD is INVISIBLE ... GOD is "A" SPIRIT (singular) ... a SPIRIT does NOT
have flesh and bones ... GOD was manifest in the flesh ... JESUS was
GOD manifest in the flesh ... JESUS had two natures 1) DIVINE and 2)
human ... JESUS lived, died, rose from the grave and ascended into
HEAVEN in BODILY FORM. While exiled on the Isle of Patmos, John had the
vision of the Revelation of JESUS CHRIST. In this vision, he saw the
absolutely hopeless situation that mankind was in regarding redemption
and hear what sort of sounded like Isaiah 59:16, "And he saw that
[there was] no man, and wondered that [there was] no intercessor:
therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it
sustained him." ... Doesn't sound like a completely different "person"
was involved here, does it??? Any way, let take a look at Revelation
Chapter 5 ...
1
And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
2
And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?
3
And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
4
And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
5
And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of
the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book,
and to loose the seven seals thereof.
6
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four
beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been
slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of
God sent forth into all the earth.
7
And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
8
And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty
elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and
golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
9
And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book,
and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us
to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and
nation;
10
And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
11
And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the
throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten
thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;
12
Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to
receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and
glory, and blessing.
13
And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under
the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I
saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that
sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.
14
And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.
*** Revelation Chapter 5 describes the Lamb ... not as a man (even
though we know the Lamb in this vision is Jesus) ... but as the Lion of
the tribe of Juda and as the "Root" of David ... NOT as the BRANCH (even
though we know Jesus was BOTH the "Root" AND the BRANCH) ... and as the
one who shed blood to redeem lost humanity and was worthy to open the
Book. This has to be Jesus. However, at this point, I need to ask you
where your SECOND person of the Godhead ... the Holy Spirit ... is?
Your SECOND person is not mentioned once that I am aware of. That
should concern you. At any rate, this vision really demonstrates the
two natures of the Lamb better than you or I could have said it. There
is absolutely NO way any one or any thing is capable of taking anything
out of the Hand of God ... unless He allows it. And the Bible has
already established that YHWH is the ONLY Saviour and that He will NOT
give His glory to another. It is important to point out that in the
vision of Chapter 5, the Lamb just APPEARED. John did NOT see the Lamb
entering the scene or being born, made, begotten or anything else. The
Lamb was just "there" in the midst of the Throne. Jim, this vision
poses no problem for me because YHWH is "A" Spirit and is referred to as
"HE" AND "HIM" throughout the Bible. However, "A" Spirit does not have
a body of flesh and bones. The Lamb did! The Lamb was slain from the
foundation of the world ... even though the Incarnation ... God was
manifest in the Flesh ... did not take place until Bethlehem ... coming
out of the midst of the ... prophetic utterances ... "elders." Even
**IF** you consider your theology to be correct and mine wrong, the
unresolved issue for you is, WHERE'S THE HOLY SPIRIT??? Please give me
your explantion.
Bobby (from previous email): By the way, even the mama bear, papa
bear and baby bear had there own chairs. How come you don't think your
three "persons" would need THREE THRONES ... one for each PERSON?
Jim: Evasion, again! I think it hardly needs explanation that the
Creator of the universe needs a throne about as much as bears need
chairs. God's throne is an expression of His majesty. Nevertheless:
The Bible presents Jesus enthroned at the right hand of the Father.
Jesus also speaks of Himself (in Rev. 3:21) as set down "with My Father
in His throne." (Take note: He is NOT there "as My Father;" Jesus says
He is "WITH My Father.") Also, seven lamps surrounding the throne are
described as the "seven Spirits of God" in Rev. 4:5. I think that
indicates the nature of the throne of God.
Bobby: How convenient! You now say, "God's throne is an expression
of His majesty." Yet you get so technical about things like this with
me when you "think" it helps prop up your man made doctrine or either
casts some doubt on the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine. Like
I've told you, Jim. The Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine has
withstood a whole lot more criticism and attack that ole Jim will ever
come against it with. Must I keep reminding you what you go on record
stating?? WHEW! How soon you forget:
* * * * *
Jim: In chapter 4, we meet One on the throne -- who obviously is
God. Not so immediately obviously, the One on the throne is also
Christ: Christ is, when one sets together Rev. 1:8 and 1:11, he who
"is, and which was, and which is to come." 4:8 describes the One on the
throne likewise as he "which was, and is, and is to come." Then in
chapter 5, the Lamb appears -- not from offstage, so to speak, but from
the midst of the throne and the four living creatures (i.e., in the
center of the scene). The Lamb is, obviously, Christ -- who, as
described in 5:9, "wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God." The thing
to note here is, the Lamb appears, and Someone is still on the throne:
in 5:7, "he [the Lamb] came and took the book out of the right hand of
him that sat upon the throne." No matter how you slice it, this
demonstrates a distinction between the Father and the Lamb.
Bobby (from previous email): ... Do you think Jesus will be sitting
in the Father's lap, with a dove perched on one of His shoulders, or
what, Jim? Come on and tell me about this Throne business, why don't
you? I can tell you now what the Bible says about it (of course that
probably won't mean much to you) ... the word "throne" appears about 39
times in the Book of Revelation. Below are some of the descriptions I
found in the book of Revelation. Please let me know where your "three
eternal persons" are and what you know about their "Throne" ... OR
"Thrones."
his throne
my throne
a throne
the throne
AND .....
Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him (not THEM)
that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and
there was found no place for them.
* * * * *
Bobby (from previous email) Since you obviously believe that Jesus
was on earth and the Father was up in Heaven ... on another planet ...
in another solar system or something
Jim: -- eh? Leapin' lizards; God is a spirit. I do not imagine
God's throne to be physically tangible in this universe in any way, at
least not till the Second Coming.
* * * * *
Bobby: Jim, you mentioned the "throne" six times in your references
to Revelation 5 & 6, above. And then you concluded it all by
focusing your attention of what you considered to be a distinction
between two "persons" of the Godhead. Then when I call your hand on the
"throne" business, you try to come across as being so spiritual when
you say "God's throne is an expression of His majesty." While at the
same time you have been soooo literal about earlier mentions of the
"throne" as well as other things like the "right hand" of God, the
proper interpretation and application of Matthew 28:19. You're like a
chameleon, aren't you?? One thing about it, you're pretty slick.
However, this ain't my first lap around the track. I've got a pretty
keen eye for noticing inconsistencies like that ... not saying that I
catch "everything," but I do pretty fair. As far as your shell game with
the word "with." The Word of God has already blown one of your
attempts out of the water to use the word "with" (# 4314) in a wrong way
just to support your man-made doctrine.
Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with (#
3326) me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with (#
3326) my Father in his throne.
**** This word "with" (# 3326) is used in ways which are similar to
the "with" (# 4314) that blew your "with" argument out of the water
earlier. I think "with" (sun - Greek # 4862) is the one you would
really need to have in Revelation 3:21 and in St. John 1:1 in order to
make the argument you wanted to make with the wrong application of the
word "with." Now, a comment ... According to your theology, Revelation
3:21 refers to TWO THRONES yet there is NO mention of there being TWO
THRONES for any "eternal persons" of Deity in Heaven. Also, I would
like to ask you what your explanation is about the Holy Spirit being
left out in the THRONE department. Now, if you think I'm going to let
you get all spiritual now with your interpretations after you have been
so literal in other places, when it seemed to be of benefit to your
theology, then you've got another think coming. I believe anyone would
agree with me that your position would have to view Revelation 3:21 as
being a reference to a THRONE for each of TWO of your "persons" in the
Godhead. Now, where is the THIRD THRONE ever mentioned for the THIRD
person? And don't tell me, the THIRD PERSON doesn't deserve a THRONE
too.
Jim: Fifth, you oppose the eternality of two of the three Persons
of the Godhead (though I'm not sure which ones), inasmuch as you say
that they are equivalent to a human being becoming a father and a
husband, which no human being is eternally.
Bobby (from previous email): I use the father, son, husband
illustation of how ONE PERSON can function in different capacities,
Jim: -- Exactly; you consider the "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" to be mere capacities.
Bobby (from previous email): The ONLY reason I use the father, son,
and husband illustation is to show how ONE PERSON can ... and DOES ...
function in more than one capacity ...
Jim: But that's not how you're really using it! You're trying to
interchange capacity and nature. That demonstrates the inadequacy of
your comparison: if a Son stands up, and comes and takes a book out of
the hand of the Father, who is sitting down, I think it is obvious that
the Father and the Son are not the same person in two capacities!
Bobby: Jim, the vision in Revelation to which you refer was a
vision NOT a literal event. If it were, you would have a MAJOR problem
concerning your THIRD PERSON being left completely out of the whole
picture ... nothing to do with any part of being a Saviour as you
maintain ... and worst of all, NO throne! Let me see if I can come up
with some logic that you can follow. Maybe this will work ... Isaiah
59:16 spoke of there being no man as an intercessor, therefore His "arm"
brought salvation unto him. John got a glimpse into the future through
a vision and saw that there was no man worthy to take the book. Then
the Lamb appeared in the midst of the throne and in the midst of the
elders which was able to do do the job that no man could do. Granted
this was AFTER the fact in the vision even though the vision was in the
future. What I mean is, the vision was in John's (and our) future, and
the Lamb had been slain to accomplish the redemptive process but John
saw the Lamb come out of the midst of the elders and take the book. So
picture this... humanity is in a hopeless situation and no man can do
what needs to be done, not Enoch, not Noah, not Abraham, not Moses, not
Elijah, not Isaiah, not Daniel, not any of the elders ... NO man could
pay the sin debt and redeem man back to God. Therefore, God prepared
HIMSELF a body to redeem man (His arm brought salvation to Him) ... the
spotless Lamb became the vehicle He would get "inside" of and use to
make His journey through space (so to speak) to come down to Earth to
fulfill the plan that was ordained before the world was formed. By the
way, Jim, I can show you in Scripture where the Father is "IN" the Lamb,
departed for 3 days and re-entered the Lamb. Can you show me in
Scripture where the Father left the Lamb again after the resurrection?
If not, it would seem logical to me that the Father is still in the
Lamb. Unless, you were to think of the Lamb as the interplantary
vehicle the Father climbed in and came to Earth in and returned to
Heaven in and parked it in His garage (so to speak). I realize we're
sort of bouncing logic back and forth here for a little bit, but I am
honestly trying to come up with a way to explain my position to where
you can understand it.
Bobby (from previous email): Now, **IF** applied your logic, and
since I function in the capacity of a father, that would be ONE PERSON,
right? (Right.) Since I function in the capacity of a son, that is
another PERSON, right?
Jim: Wrong; you're misrepresenting my approach, apparently
confusing it with your approach, which attempts to interchange capacity
and nature!
Bobby: I do not understand your objection. **IF** I accepted your
logic for the Godhead being likened to a man, who is body, soul and
spirit ... but ONE MAN. And I merely used the distinctions that are
applied to your three persons theory to my distinctions being father,
son and husband, then it should follow that each one of these
distinctions (father, son and husband) would have to be a distinct
"person" since Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct "persons" of ONE
GOD ... according to your theology.
Bobby (from previous email): ... father is NOT a person ... it's a TITLE of a person.
Jim: I suppose, then, that Isaiah should thank you for your
correction of his inspired statement in Isaiah 9:6, wherein he says that
a child is given whose NAME shall be called, among other things,
"everlasting Father." (Yet more evidence that your interpretation of
Matthew 28:19 is contrived.)
Bobby: Ummmm, correct me if I'm wrong, Jim. But I don't think the
phrase "His name shall be called Everlasting Father, the Mighty God ..."
necessarily mean that is what Joseph was supposed to have named Him.
Instead, it is my understanding that the phrase "His name shall be
called" means that that is some way to which He will be referred. I
mean my children call me Daddy, but that is not my name. And my wife
calls me Honey, but that is not my name. Your literal interpretation
and application of some Scriptures in an effort to support your man made
doctrine, and your spiritual interpretation and application of others
in an effort overcome a problem with the same doctrine must keep you
pretty busy. That sort of reminds me of a period of time in my life
when I was not making any attempt to serve the Lord, and was stressed
out most of the time because I had to try and remember what I said here
and there, and to whom, and having to try to keep my ducks in a row ...
while living with an almost constant dread and fear that the ole camel
could poke his nose underneath my tent at any moment and I would be in a
mess. Life became much simpler when repented of my sinful past and
started walking the straight and narrow. No longer did I have to be
concerned with all of that stuff. As a matter of fact, I sat my
children down one day and told them whatever they saw daddy doing, it
was o.k. for them to do it ... and whatever they heard daddy saying, it
was o.k. for them to say it. What I am saying, Jim, is, when it comes
to the Word of God, I have no anxiety, fear or dread of what I may find
in it. Just whatever the preponderance of the weight of the Scriptures
say on any given subject is just fine by me. **IF** I find out in God's
Word that He expects me to roll a hickory nut with my nose down Main
Street, Kissimmee, Florida every Monday at 1 PM, you'll see me down
there doing it. It's just that simple because I just independently
study the Word and let the chips fall where they may, Jim. And I have
found that life is soooo much easier that way.
Bobby (from previous email): THE ONLY PURPOSE OF USING THE FATHER,
SON, HUSBAND ANALOGY IS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ONE PERSON CAN ... AND DOES
... HOLD THE TITLES AND FUNCTIONS AS ALL THREE .... FATHER, SON AND
HUSBAND. IT DOES NOT NECESSITATE BEING SPLIT UP INTO PIECES AND
BECOMING A GROUP ... A PLURALITY.
Jim: I understand that that is what you want it to do -- and to
that extent, you're just re-stating your position again (just in capital
letters now) -- but when a son stands up and takes a scroll out of his
father's right hand, well, that is the way to describe two persons!
Bobby: Jim, you are already on the record stating (or
acknowledging) that YHWH is NOT a person, but a "substance" that is
"shared" in a "union" of "three eternal persons" even though I have
already proven conclusively by the Word of God that YHWH is the ONE LORD
... the ONE SPIRIT ... the ONE GOD ... the ONE SAVIOUR ... the ONE
FATHER ... that is referred to as "I, ME, MY, HE, HIS, HIM and MINE"
throughout the Bible. Then you turn right around and want to say the
ONE on the THRONE who was referred to as "HE" has to be a "person."
Well, **IF** you really believe that, Jim, YHWH ... GOD ... is a
"person" and NOT just a "substance." You are being inconsistent with
your logic, reasoning and interpretations of Scriptures.
Bobby (from previous email): Jim, I make no apologies about this,
but your "pluralistic" concept and "terminology has its roots sunk way
down deep into paganism, buddy.
Jim: (You're re-stating your position again, again!)
Bobby: There's no way around it, Jim. Three "persons" sharing a "union" "IS" pluralistic!
Jim: For starters, because God said, "This is My beloved Son,"
clearly referring to Jesus. The message did not suggest that the One
speaking was also the beloved Son; nor would it be natural for anybody
on hand to observe the scene to get such an impression. ...
Bobby (from previous email): Well, the Holy Ghost over shadowed
Mary and she conceived the Christ Child who was referred to as "Child of
the Holy Ghost."
Jim: That's simply not true. See my previous comments about your misquotation.
Bobby: You are not implying that I am a liar, Jim. You're implying that the Word of God is a lie. Here you go ....
Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When
as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together,
she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the
angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son
of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is
conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
***Sure looks to me like your THIRD PERSON is the Father of Jesus.
Bobby (from previous email): It is my position that being born
again of water and of the Spirit means being "baptized" in water and
with the Holy Ghost. BOTH of which makes us a new creature in Christ
Jesus ... or "born again." Not that the water is our Father.
Jim: Exactly. The water is the agent, not the source. Same goes for the Holy Spirit in Matthew 1.
Bobby: But Jim the Bible does NOT say that the child in Mary's womb
was "child of the Father." Remember? Your position is that the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 3 different Spirits. If my father were
still alive today and gave me a check to take to deliver to someone for
him and he signed it "father, son, husband" ... then placed it into my
care as his "agent" to be delivered. There are a couple of things that
would be wrong with that scenario. 1) the check would NOT be valid in
the first place because there was NO NAME applied to the bottom ...
instead he just wrote down his titles [an improper baptism analogy], and
2) that check could never be referred to as "my check" even though I
was the agent who saw to it that it was successfully delivered to the
person that daddy wanted me to take it to. Therefore, the phrase "child
of the Holy Ghost" could NOT possibly mean "Child of the Father"
according to your three "persons" ... Spirits ... theology.
Jim: [referring to the "lake in the jar" analogy] I'd hesitate to
say that I have a lake in a jar; nevertheless as an analogy this sounds
fairly orthodox.
Bobby (from previous email): The bottom line is, the lake in the
jar and the lake outside the jar wasn't two different lakes. That which
was in the jar was contained by the jar, that which was outside the jar
wasn't contained inside the jar. But two different lakes it was not!
Bobby (from previous email): ... I just want to know where you
think God was while Jesus was here on earth. Now, will you answer the
question???
Jim: Sure, now that you have asked it. The Father is omnipresent, and was omnipresent while Jesus was here on earth physically.
Bobby: Thank you. That is my position too, so far. Now, was the Father also dwelling "INSIDE" of Jesus' body???
Bobby (from previous email): -- please give me your understanding
of the following words of Jesus in St. John 3:13 when He was standing on
earth speaking to Nicodemus .... "And no man hath ascended up to
heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is
in heaven." Kindly give me your explanation for such a statement ...
according to your theology.
Jim: I'll try to be concise. [Followed by my explanation, in which
I stated, "So be aware that one available option is to take the
approach that Jesus never said what the KJV presents Him as saying at
the end of John 3:13." and "But that is not how I deal with this
passage.")
Bobby: Well, that's convenient. What ever doesn't suit you or fit
your theology just do like the ole boy did in Jeremiah 36:23 and take a
penknife and cut it out.
Jim: Eh? Let's review: (a) I say, basically, "some scholars,
including those responsible for major translations, do not regard these
words as original. However, I do regard them as original, just easily
misinterpreted." (b) You say, basically, "You are removing words from
the Bible!" I just said I retain the phase in the text! But if the
scholars responsible for revising the Greek text in its current form are
correct, then they have not "cut out" truly original material; they
have removed an unoriginal accretion -- which would be a good thing to
do, right?
Bobby: I'll say this, I wouldn't want to be the man (or woman) who
added anything to the Word of God OR took anything from the Word of God.
Sooooo, you're not going to get me to say it would be alright to
remove anything from, or add anything to, the JKV. Here's what you said
.... Jesus' words to Nicodemus in 3:13 are, "And no man hath ascended
up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven," and John clarifies
Jesus' meaning: who is he that came down from heaven? "The Son of Man
who is in heaven." Jim, I can assure you, God doesn't need, nor want,
any help in the "wording" of the Holy Bible. However, in the KJV, the
words that were put in there to bring more meaning to a passage are
shown in italics. I do not believe for one minute that John just put
those words in there to "clarify" anything. I, mean, any believer would
have to believe that Jesus is now in Heaven. John doesn't have to
remind anyone in such a critical passage of Scripture. He had plenty of
other place to remind us **IF** that is what he wanted to do. Debating
never ceases to amaze me. Just about time I think I've heard it all,
I'll hear something like what you just said. WHEW!
Bobby (from previous email): I forgot, you've already ripped Acts
Chapter 10 right out of your Bible already, haven't you. I mean, you
preach that the "original" New Testament Church only baptized Jews.
Jim: Hmm; either you are intentionally misrepresenting my
statement, or you are unintentionally misrepresenting my statement.
Either way, I think an explanation of what I said is appropriate: When
one is investigating normative church doctrine and practice, one has to
consider the whole New Testament record, rather than selecting some
examples and avoiding others. By focusing on the earliest New Testament
examples, and not on later New Testament examples, one can make a case
for baptizing without using the formula "in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." By focusing on the earliest New
Testament examples, and not on later New Testament examples, one can
male a case for not baptizing Gentiles. These two approaches are both
wrong. I did not mean that the baptism of Gentiles was not a New
Testament example; I meant that when you say that baptizing people using
Matthew 28:19 liturgically is not "original," you are making the same
kind of mistake that someone who claimed that baptizing Gentiles is not
"original" would be making.
Bobby: Well, here's how your "original" statement on the subject came up, Jim (and I agree it was a mistake ... a big one) ...
* * * * *
Bobby (from previous email): Jim, it is Scripturally and
historically a proven fact that the "original" New Testament Church
baptized their converts to Christianity "in the name of Jesus" ... NOT
"in the name of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Spirit."
Jim: Likewise it is Scripturally and historically a proven fact that
the "original" New Testament church baptized only Jews, and generally
had no private property, if one arbitrarily considers only one day in
the life of the early church rather than the entire picture to which the
New Testament bears witness.
* * * * *
Jim: Now, whether you agree or disagree with the previous sentence,
I hope it sufficiently clarifies that I have not removed Acts 10 from
the New Testament as you insinuated!
Bobby: **IF** you would have held to you previously erroneous
statement about only Jews being baptized into the "original" New
Testament Church, that would have been a fail assessment concerning Acts
Chapter 10 ... OR either you just didn't know it was in there. Also,
the portrayal of an exclusive Jewish membership of the "original" New
Testament Church is NOT accurate either. You have no way of knowing
that the approximately 3120 people, who were added to the Church in Acts
Chapter 2 on the very first day, were all Jews. That is purely
speculation on your part. I can tell you this much ... Matthew 28:19 is
NOT directed exclusively to Jews, and neither is Acts 2:38-39.
Bobby (from previous email): Besides, I'm going to stick by my ole KJV from Genesis to Revelation.
Jim: Even if you are shown that it contains accretions and omissions?
Bobby: We'll get around to discussing Bible versions. Just hold
your 'taters. However, you never have told me which version you
personally prefer and why. How come you won't do that???
Bobby (from previous email): ... However, in the KJV, the words that
were put in there to bring more meaning to a passage are shown in
italics.
Jim: That's not what I'm saying about John 3:13. I'm not saying
they were added by translators; I'm saying they are John's inspired
comment on words spoken by Jesus.
Bobby: Jim, I don't believe you ... and I won't believe any
scholarly garbage about it either. There is no concrete evidence to
support what you just said. At best it would somebody's theory or
opinion. And the very first thing I would do is question their motive
for taking such a position.
Bobby (from previous email): I mean, any believer would have to believe that Jesus is now in Heaven.
Jim: You seem to assume that the Gospel of John was written to be
read primarily by people who were already believers. John 20:31 seems
to go against that assumption.
Bobby: Well, I'll put it to you this way, Jim. **IF** good ole
Brother John just felt an uncontrollable urge to write some of his own
inspired words into the his gospel to remind everyone that Jesus is up
in Heaven now, he had plenty of opportunities prior to St. John 3:13.
As a matter of fact, he missed some excellent opportunities in the very
first Chapter of St. John. I'm not going to apologize for rejecting
your goofy position on this, Jim.
Jim: I have a house call to make now. I'll try to resume this later. Yours in Christ, Jim
Bobby: 10-4 God bless! -Bobby
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response # 19 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 6:27 PM
Subject: Response to Jim's conclusion of Part 4
Jim: Greetings in Christ to Bobby Richardson ~ Resuming from where I left off previously:
Bobby (from previous email): I use the analogy of Clark Kent and
Superman a lot when talking about the relationship of the Father and the
Son ...
Jim: Yep, that's modalism, alright. [Since I already focused on the
inconsistency of seeing the Incarnation via this analogy, I'll move
along to the next paragraph.]
Bobby: You sure do have a bur under you saddle about this modalism
stuff don't you? Let's reflect on this for a moment. Here's your rants
...
* * * * *
Jim: Ah. You're (currently) a modalist.
Bobby: This started in you second email (your first email was 2
sentences .. 1) expressing your interest to "earn" my $ 10,000.00
Reward, and 2) asking about the requirements.
* * * * *
Jim: Yep, that's modalism, alright.
Bobby: This was in response to my mention of the Clark Kent/Superman analogy.
* * * * *
Jim: Because you fit the definition of a modalist.
Bobby: Your response to my question why you called me a modalist.
* * * * *
Jim: ... If anyone is going to need an excuse, it's the "Oneness"
preachers who intentionally resist the obvious fact that Matthew 28:19
was given with liturgical application in mind, and who divided the
Assemblies of God without just cause, and who promote modalism.
Bobby: WOW! Never mind the trinitarian peachers who do not even
interpret Matthew 28:19 correctly, and who promulgate the man made
doctrine which was SPECIFICALLY defined and instituted by the
"universal" church of Rome as embraced by all trinitarians. What you
call dividing the Assemblies of God without just cause is either
something you've heard, and are parroting, or just your insatiable
desire to express your opinion. Besides, I can't possibly imagine you
being concerned about any "body" which preaches and teaches the belief
in supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit whether they are
trinitarian OR Oneness. What gives here??? Is this another one of your
straw men? Or Are you really sympathetic towards the Assemblies of
God? I would really like to hear you answer.
* * * * *
Jim: My point was that modalism requires interpretive acrobatics in order to harmonize the passages noted (among others).
Bobby: Jim, some of your explanations have been so complicated and
acrobatical that you didn't even understand what you put forth. I think
the bottom line is, you are like most folks who have a bias towards
others, they don't even realize their own hypocrisy. Has some Oneness
person in your past mistreated you in some what or something? I'm
serious, you seem to have totally closed your mind ... **IF** it was
ever open ... towards the vast preponderance of the Scriptures which
firmly establishes the Apostles' Oneness Doctrine, and exposes the flaws
of the "core doctrine" of the "universal" church of Rome ... which is
the "three persons" defines the concept of the Godhead, using
terminology which belongs to them ... and is accepted by almost every
other Christian movement. This man made doctrine is held, defined,
defended and promulgated by all trinitarians using the same terminology
that originated out of the "universal" church of Rome many years ago.
And, it is my position, anyone who holds this man made doctrine
dogmatically is identifying with ... or becoming part of, or an
extension of ... the "universal" church, in so doing -whether or not
they realize it, accept it, or acknowledge it.
* * * * *
Jim: Then reject the non-Biblical terms and retain the Biblical concepts, instead of adulterating them with modalism!
Bobby: This is nothing more than hipocrisy on your part, Jim. I
can state me beliefs without having to use a non-Biblical term.
However, you have no choice. You are forced to utilize non-Biblical
terms when describing your man made doctrine. You also give a handful
of very carefully Scriptures "implied" interpretations in order to
support that man made ... PLURALISTIC ... view of the Godhead, while
ignoring, or trying to discredit, or using slide ruler explanation in an
effort to explain away the vast preponderance of Scriptural evidence
which contradicts this man made doctrine of the three "persons" who
share a "union" as co-equals, and who can function either independently
or co-operatively as the ONE TRUE YHWH ... the ONE SUPREME BEING ... the
ONE LORD ... the ONE SPIRIT ... the ONE GOD ... the ONE SAVIOUR ... who
was MANIFEST in the flesh. Honestly, it totally amazes me how you
cannot see that your theology is a "pluralistic" view of God, at best,
and a "polytheistic" view of God at worse -depending on how it is being
explained, and by whom.
* * * * *
Jim: A modalist is a person who believes that the Father is the Son
is the Spirit, and that each one of those three is a mode of existence,
not innate to God's nature. In modalism, when God fills a fatherly
role, He is the Father; when God fills a servant-like role, He is the
Son; when God fills a guiding/comforting role, He is the Holy Spirit.
But they are only one Person, and the expressions of "Father," "Son,"
and "Holy Spirit" are essentially masks to be picked up and taken off
according to how God wishes to manifest Himself on any given occasion.
Bobby: You obviously haven't been paying too close attention to my
description of the Godhead, Jim. Is it because of indoctrination,
hypocrisy, or the need to label others which clouds your mind to the
point that you can't consider anything other than that which has been
programmed into it??? That's the way it appears to me. You obviously
find it very easy to ignore, or to discredit the parts of the Word of
God which don't agree with your theology. That's dangerous! Jim, God
gave me the desire, ability, willingness and courage to put my beliefs
under the microscope of His Word, and to lay aside my all of my
indoctrination and preconceived ideas and opinions, and go into it
openly, honestly and independently, without fear of what I would
discover, or favor towards any particular concept or position. Jim, it
appears to me that you do not have that ability, and that is a real
shame. Especially since one of your "roles" is that of a minister. I
guess that particular "role" is not innate of your nature, is it? It's
my firm conviction that the exact same ... and ALL ... of the
attributes, characteristics and qualities of GOD are present in His
involvement as Father, Son and Holy Ghost (whether it is simultaneous or
not) as well as any other form, manifestation, or representation God
chooses to manifest (reveal) Himself to mankind in. Furthermore, God can
manifest Himself as a dove, a voice speaking from Heaven, a pillar of
cloud, a pillar of fire, a donkey talking with a man's voice, a burning
bush, or as a man ... AND He can do all of this simultaneously (or
individually), in one geographical location (or many), in the presence
of one person (or many) BUT NONE OF THIS TURNS GOD INTO MORE THAN ONE
(NUMERICALLY) ... IN PERSON OR PERSONALITY.
* * * * *
Jim: Yes, modalism is bad.
Bobby: Well, **IF** ole Jim says it, it must be so, huh? I would
say that anything which calls your theology into question would be
considered bad by you, Jim. I believe that is the major difference
between our approach to the Word of God. You bias is so strong, you
don't even side with the vast preponderance of the Scriptures concerning
the ONENESS of God OR baptism in the precious name of Jesus ... without
trying to work your indoctrinated view of God and baptism in there
somehow.
* * * * *
Jim: Eh? No doubt there are some who use "vicious" tactics to
oppose modalism, but up to this point has been civil and composed. We
can both say that we are in Jesus' shoes and the other side is in the
Pharisees' shoes. But that would simply be another way of
re-stating/assuming our positions, wouldn't it. And I emphasize again
that I am a monotheist.
Bobby: Hey, don't feel like you've got to hold anything back, Jim.
It appears to me that you more "universal" ... PLURALISTIC ... than
monotheistic, because of terminology that goes along with the
trinitarian doctrine. **IF** you are trinititarian, you accept that
terminology. It is that simple, Jim. And since you ARE "trinitarian" you
accept the terminology which goes along with it. Look, I live in a
subdivision which has a home owners association. In order to live here
everybody must accept their terminology. Now, I am free to move and
free to stay, but just because I may not feel that some minor part of
their terminology isn't critical to my existence (like the word
"persons"), that does NOT mean that I am not still a dues paying,
supporting, member of the home owners association. Granted, if enough
people get together, changes can be made to the terminology used by the
home owners association. But you will never get enough people together
to get the catholic church to change their ancient terminology which
officially defines the Godhead as a trinity as three "persons." And that
"univeral" terminology attempts to present itself as being monotheistic
while being emphatic about a pluralistic view of "three co-equal,
co-eternal, and co-existent persons." I came out of it, Jim, when I
found out what it was really all about. You are free to stay in it if
that's what you want to do. But you ought not to give other people
grief who are "pure" monotheists, and oppose the pluralistic reference
to Almighty God as "persons."
* * * * *
Bobby (from previous email): ... when it is all said and done, I
will still be an independent thinking, non-denominational lay man who
embraces the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine. And it looks like
you're determined to still be embracing the seriously flawed man made
doctrine known world wide as the trinity.
Jim: You're just re-stating your position again.
Bobby: Feel free to state your as much as you want to, too.
However, with me, I can provide a person with a vast preponderance of
Scriptual evidence that is found written "verbatim" on the pages of the
Holy Bible detailing BOTH the preaching AND the practices of the
"original" New Testament Church leaders ... which I embrace. You can't.
Jim: You may indeed be both a father and a son and a teacher. But
are you your own father, and your own son? Is it possible for Bobby-
the-son to be standing in a river as Bobby-the-father speaks to him from
somewhere else, and as Bobby-the-teacher also enters the scene and
comes to the shoulder of Bobby-the-son?
Bobby (from previous email): What you said about Bobby is true. It
would be impossible. But that's really not what is at issue here.
Jim: Well, it was your analogy.
Bobby (from previous email): Well, Jim, I am NOT God manifested in
the flesh. But Jesus surely was. All I was trying to get across to you
is that even as a lowly human, I can function as a father, a son, a
husband, a teacher, etc.
Jim: Fine -- but Jesus referred to the Father as His Father; you do
not refer to yourself as your own father. Jesus stood up and took the
scroll from the hand of the Father; you can't stand up and
simultaneously remaining seated. Your analogy is not analogous!
Bobby: You know, Jim, what happens when a person doesn't have
"verbatim" Scriptures that state it just like they believe it is ...
they end up getting all huffy or expressing opinions and trying to
either come up with a good argument in logic, a good analogy or story OR
either they are trying to pick apart one that doesn't fit into their
theology. That's one of the reason's why I really like to stay in the
Bible as much as possible. However, there are times when an analogy, an
object lesson, or a story with a message can be helpful. Personally, I
do everything I can to get the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine
through to a person. However, it appears to me that your position
severely confines, restricts and limits God to the limitations of time
and space just as a human being has. You don't like my analogy about
ONE PERSON functioning as father, son and husband because it makes
exposes your indoctrination about God being three different "persons"
... Father, Son and Holy Spirit ... as being illogical and foolish,
that's all. You believe the Godhead (the very essence or complete
nature and attributes of YHWH - God) is split into three different
"persons" who are (and function as) YHWH either individually OR
co-operatively. And I believe the Godhead (the very essence or complete
nature and attributes of YHWH - God) is ONE PERSON (actually I just the
word "person" here for illustration because I am on record stating that
I really don't feel the word "person" is adequate to describe Almight
God, who is an invisible omnipresent Spirit) Anyway, I believe there is
ONE (numerically) LORD ... PERSON ... who has manifested Himself to
humanity, and functions in all three of these capacities ... Father, Son
and Holy Spirit ..., without having to be split into three different
"persons" (one person for each title of these three positions or offices
YHWH occupies). Now let's compare analogies, Jim. My position is that
YHWH can be compared to ONE PERSON who is capable of speaking,
functioning as and actually being a father, son and husband. Your
position, on the other hand, is that YHWH is NOT a person at all but,
instead, is a "substance" which is "shared" in a "plurality" "union" of
three "persons" ... the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, each of
whom are the "substance" (YHWH) either individually OR collectively.
However, the Father could never be the Son -or vice versa, the Father
could never be the Holy Spirit -or vice versa, and the Son could never
be the Holy Spirit or -vice versa. Furthermore, here's what you are on
record stating about the three persons that make up the Godhead ... "I
think it is fair to say that any one of the three Persons of the
Godhead is YHWH, the same way it is fair to say that any male is male;"
Jim, a "union" of three "males" changes everything. In a "union"
shared by three males, you do have THREE MALES (plural). So using your
analogy, in the "union" shared by the three "persons" ... all three
being ONE YHWH individually or collectively ... you either have a
"pluralistic" view of YHWH (three parts to the whole) OR you have a
"polytheistic" view of YHWH (where you have three males ... three
YHWHs). Play as many shell games as you like with your words, brother,
and try to have it both ways, but I'm going to keep calling your hand on
this flawed, man made doctrine. By the way, in your analogy these
three "persons" are as distinct and different as you and I, and is a far
cry from the purest form of monotheism, Jim. Since you reject the
analogy of YHWH being ONE PERSON who functions as Father, Son and Holy
Spirit as ONE PERSON can function as a father, son and husband. Here's
something for you to ponder, concerning your three persons position in
the following analogy. If you, me and my wife decided to go from Florida
to California in an RV (or vehicle) which you owned lock, stock and
barrel (the vehicle <containing all three of us> being symbolic of
YHWH <the "substance" shared in a union by three "persons">), it
would be true that only one person would be in control of the vehicle by
the power and authority of ownership (which could be transferred by
sale), even if we all boarded the thing at the exact same moment. But,
it would also be true that there couldn't be more than one person behind
the sterring wheel, in control of the operation and function of that
vehicle (the other two would still be right there, but would be
passengers.) Even if all three of us could clearly be seen sitting in
the vehicle together and/or someone said that all three of us were
inside the vehicle, and it was accepted and believed by others, it would
a grave mistake for anyone to say that the only one who could drive (be
in control) would be you, the owner. Because you could grant
permission for me or my wife to drive, a little or a lot. Furthermore,
it would be a grave mistake for anyone to say that you, me or my wife
"are" the vehicle, either individually or collectively, or that we were
co-equals with one another, because two of us wouldn't be ... neither in
ownership nor in the control of the operation.
Bobby (from previous email): ... are you implying one or two of your "eternal persons" has a Father?
Jim: I'm not implying it; Christ says God is His Father in John 8:42 and 8:54.
Bobby: Then how on earth can Christ be a co-eternal person with His
Father according to your theology??? I'm mean the Father comes BEFORE
the Son.
Bobby (from previous email): If so, I don't guess they're eternal after all, huh?
Jim: The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are eternal. That
doesn't mean that the Word does not emanate from the Father -- somewhat
like having a lightbulb eternally shining, which was never turned on.
Bobby: Huh??? A lightbulb eternally shining, which was never
turned "ON." The source of light ... the power ... has to be flowing
through the bulb in order for it to shine, whether it has an on/off
switch or not. Furthermore, having just the power, without the bulb,
and there would be no light ... just as having the bulb, without the
power, and there would be no light. One is dependent upon the other.
In other words, Jim, you are pluralistic. The whole is made up of ...
and dependent upon ... each "part" making its particular contribution in
order to produce the end result ... or make to up the whole. Also, you
said it this way, "if one pictures the Father as a star, shining
eternally, and the Son as the light emanating from the star, and the
Spirit as the spectrum within the starlight, that might be a fair
estimate of some aspects of the Godhead. All are eternal, all share the
same essence (in the star's case, light) and yet are discernable in
manifestation and all are capable of specific individual expression."
Here, again is another example of your "pluralism" because, again, it
requires each "part" making its contribution in order to make up the
whole. However, this analogy has a different twist. Without the star
there would be no light and no spectrum. However, there could be a
"dark" star which has neither light nor spectrum.
Bobby (from previous email): Jesus was a supernaturally conceived,
supernatural human being and when He called God His Father, He was
correct from the human standpoint. When He made Himself God, and said
He was before Abraham. He was also correct from the Divine standpoint.
Jim: Just a second here: I want to comment on that-there phrase,
"When He made Himself God," but first I want to ask: is that a typo?
Bobby: I was speaking in reference to those who leveled that
accusation when they heard Him speak words similar to, "Before Abraham
was, I AM," and who took up stones to stone Him immediately after he
said, "I and my Father are one," in St. John 10:30.
Bobby (from previous email): ... I guess after you lost Acts Chapter 10, you started keeping a better eye on them dudes, huh?
Jim: Heh. See previous comments about this misinterpretation of what I said.
Bobby: Well, here was your "original" statement about this matter
... ""...it is Scripturally and historically a proven fact that the
"original" New Testament church baptized only Jews, ..." That's what
started the Acts Chapter 10 stuff, Jim. A retort to you blatantly false
and misleading statement.
Bobby (from previous email): ... I was suggesting that since we are
created in the image AND likeness of God ... AND can function in many
different capacities such as father, son, husband, teacher, etc. ...
yet are only ONE PERSON, why it is that you reject the concept that God
can ... OR DOES ... function as Father, Son and Holy Ghost ... yet is
only ONE PERSON, too???
Jim: Ah, so in other words, you were trying to make some sort of
comparison after all! In tha case, my answer is: Because in the
Bible, God acts as more than one Person simultaneously, which is
something we do not do! There is a difference between the roles a
person may assume, and the nature of a person. I readily grant that
God does operate in multiple roles simultaneously, and that each Person
in the Godhead does so. But I do not grant that one person (or Person)
can be "with" himself, or that one person may reasonably be described as
sitting and standing at the same time, or that one person may say that
the law about the testimony of two witnesses may be applied twice to
Himself!
Bobby: Sure I can function as father, son and husband
simultaneously, Jim. I can be sitting in my living room, or at the
dining room table, with my children, wife and mother, and I can act and
speak in all three of these capacities without any problems or confusion
whatsoever. Likewise, YHWH the Eternal Invisible Omnipresent Spirit
occupies all of eternity from beginning to end and vice versa as Father
in Creation, Son in Redemption and Holy Spirit as the Comforter, teacher
and indwelling Spirit in the hearts of believers throughout the New
Testament Church Age. Futhermore, YHWH is NOT restricted to time and
space as we humans. He has to "future" and He has no "past" ... YHWH
... GOD "IS" Eternal.
Bobby (from previous email): Jim, the Incarnation was [sic] did NOT predate Bethlehem.
Jim: If you mean, by "the Incarnation," the event of Christ's
sojourn in flesh, I agree; by definition, there was no Incarnation until
Christ was incarnate. But if, by "the Incarnation," you mean (as I
suspect) the Son Himself, as the Son, then I most definitely disagree.
John 1:1 states that the Word was in the beginning with God. You are
attempting to practically erase those words! You seem to want First
John 1:2 to say that the Word "was the Father." But it says that the
Word was "with the Father," and none of your acrobatics will change
that.
Bobby: First off, there can be no Incarnation without a body. And
the body didn't come until Bethlehem. However, in the Beginning the
Incarnation was most definitely in the mind and plan of God. He knew
everything thing there was to know the Incarnation ... and everything
else from beginning to end and vice versa. I want you to tell me when
you think this took place ... as it relates to the Father and the Son
....
Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in
that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second
psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou
art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a
Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high
priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I
begotten thee.
Bobby (from previous email): ... The purpose of Voice and the Dove
at Jesus' baptism was to reveal the identity of the Messiah to John the
Baptist.
Jim: If so, they don't seem to have been remarkably successful,
since John the Baptist seems to want further confirmation of Jesus'
Messiahship in Luke 7:19. Also, you seem to be overlooking the
authorial focus: don't just ask why something happened; ask, "Of all
the things God could have guided the apostles and prophets to record,
why did He guide them to record this? What weight did it carry for the
early church?"
Bobby: I can't believe I heard this from a minister of the gospel
... "If so, they don't seem to have been remarkably successful, since
John the Baptist seems to want further confirmation of Jesus'
Messiahship in Luke 7:19." Jim, John the Baptist wasn't the only one
who did not understand Jesus' purpose was not to establish His Kingdom
on Earth on His first trip down here. His "footprint" followers was so
disillusioned and confused that some of them went back to their fishing
boats after His crucifixion. Therefore, this Scripture you refer to
about John the Baptist in Luke 7:19 does NOT mean that the voice and the
dove were not meant to be Divine proof that Jesus was the Messiah ....
"And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus,
saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?" Jesus'
"footprint" followers were still asking about an earthly kingdom right
up to His Ascension as recorded in Acts 1:6 " .... Lord, wilt thou at
this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" However, we find no
more questions or confusion about after the Church was inaugurated on
the Day of Pentecost in Acts Chapter 2 and believers began being
baptized with the Holy Spirit, that John the Baptist had preached so
fervently about.
Bobby (from previous email): ... It's just ONE GOD who has
manifested HIMSELF in three major forms to humanity ... and He is from
everlasting to everlasting.
Jim: Certainly God is from everlasting to everlasting. But that
bit about whether the Father, Son, and Spirit are mere "forms" or
eternal Persons is precisely the question at hand; you're re-stating
your position again!
Bobby: **IF** the Father, Son and Spirit are three different people
"persons" ... then your position is "pluralistic" at best (each part
making a particular contribution in order to make up the whole) OR it is
"poloytheistic" (having three Deities co-existing). Soooo, you either
have ONE GOD with three heads or you have THREE GODS. That's about as
concise as it can be stated, Jim.
Jim: Since you seem to be extending your differentation between the
eternal God and the "forms" that He takes on and off, like a superhero
putting on a uniform, please answer this question: was there ever a
time when God was not the Son? If your answer is "Yes," then please
answer another question: was there ever a time when the Son was not
God?
Bobby: Jim, God occupies ALL of eternity. He doesn't have the
limitations of time and space as we humans have. Obviously this has not
been registering with you about God ...
"... calleth those things which be not as though they were." Romans
4:17 ... AND who "... worketh all things after the counsel of his own
will:" Ephesians 1:11.
God can speak of the Incarnation (Son) in the Beginning as if the
Son were standing right there in flesh and bones ... AND God was NOT
couseling with two other "persons" who were about to "assist" Him in the
Creation, because He worketh ALL THINGS after the "counsel of HIS OWN
WILL ... plus there is no evidence anyone else helped out in the
Creation. Quite the contrary, He did it ALONE! Where the problems come
in is when men goes to trying to make the Word of God fit into their man
made doctrines. It's like trying to put a cat into a sack about the
time they think they're about to get all their ducks in a row, something
else will pop up that either has to be swept under the rug, done a way
with or explained away. I refuse to have any part of that ... it
doesn't matter to me who says, does or thinks what ... including my own
flesh and blood.
Bobby (from previous email): Jesus had the attributes of man
(except without the sin nature) ... which means He also had the spirit
of man ... AND He also had the attributes of God ... which means He also
had the Spirit of Almighty God dwelling in Him. One body ... One God
... One Person with ... two Spirits ...
Jim: So much for what you said previously about "one spirit!"
Bobby: Jim, Jim, Jim, there you go again. Unless it was a typo, I
ALWAYS reference the ONE SPIRIT of God either in all caps or with the
first letter in Spirit, capitalized like so. Jesus did have both the
spirit of man just like you and I have, and He also had the SPIRIT of
YHWH dwelling "IN" Him. Otherwise, He would NOT have been God manifest
in the flesh ... FULLY GOD .. AND .. FULLY MAN. The Bible has so firmly
nailed this down, that I would hope you don't challenge or dispute it.
Jim: John 20:17 enters my mind as another verse which seems to require acrobatics on your part.
Bobby: Have I mentioned to you about Clark Kent and Superman?
Jim: Have I mentioned to you about how preposterous that comparison is?
Bobby: Jim, all you have to go on is a handful of very carefully
selected Scriptures which have been given "implied" interpretaions.
Therefore your doctrine is nothing more than a "theory" based upon the
"implied" interpretations and what ever analogies you can come up with.
By the way, there is not perfect analogy because there is nothing that
can be compared to Almighty God. He has no equals or comparisons.
Therefore, any analogy will contain some flaw even if it is a peripheral
aspect of the analogy. That is why it is always best to say up front
exactly what the points being illustrated are concerning any analogy.
With Clark Kent/Superman, the point being illustrated is ONE PERSON can
speak of the different capacities they function in as being a completely
different "person" when, actually, it is the same "person" just a
different form of the person which is being kept confidential or
expressed in such a way for a very specific reason. And as for the
father, son and husband analogy, the point being illustrated is how ONE
person can simultaneously be, act and speak in more than one capacity
without having to be split into three different people.
Bobby (from previous email): Jesus was speaking from a humanity standpoint
Jim: -- whatever do you mean? It looks like you want to say that
only half of Jesus was speaking to Mary Magdalene! How could the Father
say, "I am not yet ascended to my Father?" Your position compels you
to say that Jesus' statement was not true about half of Him! Otherwise
how is the Father not with the Father?
Bobby: Jim, there was times when Jesus Christ did speak as a man
and there were other time when Jesus Christ spoke as Almighty God. This
is something you apparently haven't come to grips with yet. At any
rate, about 40 days after this encounter, we read in Luke 24:45 "Then
opened he their understanding, that they might understand the
scriptures," concerning His death and resurrection just before He
ascended. ... However, there was more teaching, understanding and
enlightenment to be accomplished AFTER His words in St. John Chapter 14,
"... he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you," was accomplished,
which took place about 7 days after He "opened their understanding" in
Luke 24:45. What I am saying is, this conversation was "cloaked." This
conversation took place prior to the "opening of their understanding of
the Scriptures" AND prior to His indwelling ... teaching ... Spirit came
to dwell in her heart some 47 days later, in Acts Chapter 2. Believe
it or not, Jim, it really bothers me that none of this seems to be
getting through to you because I feel like you are an intelligent
individual who loves God and wants to do what it right. However, for
whatever the reason, it seems that something is going on sort of like
dragging an anchor. But I fully intend to hang in here with you and try
logic when you are in to logic, and reasoning when you are into
reasoning, and intellect when you are into intellect and book, chaper
and verse, when you are into book, chapter and verse. You see, I have
proven the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine in many, many
different ways over many years. **IF** there is the slightest crack, I
am not aware of it. Granted, a person can take a handful of "pet"
Scriptures and prove just about anything they would like to prove, but I
am NOT talking about anything like that. I am talking about being as
open as the lot gate and taking the whole precepts of God, line upon
line and precept upon precept all the way from Genesis to Revelation ...
even when it cuts and gets on our toes. Let God be True and every man a
liar (Romans 3:4), is about the best way it can be said.
Bobby (from previous email): -- before He was glorified, otherwise
(according to your theology) you have "one co-equal person in the
Godhead ... who was God .... referring to another co-equal person in the
Godhead," GOD ... or 1 God + 1 God = 2 Gods = POLYTHEISM.
Jim: Need I say again that your position does not get any better
via sheer repetition? The bit about two co-equal Persons (between the
quotation marks, above) doesn't sound like polytheism; that looks like a
model of the Biblical presentation of the Godhead.
Bobby: Jim let's go back to the conversation between Jesus and Mary
Magdalene in St. John 20:17, "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I
am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto
them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your
God." (according to your theology) you have one co-equal person (the
Son) in the Godhead ... who was by Himself YHWH ... God .... (by your
own admission on the record), referring to another co-equal person (the
Father) in the Godhead, calling the Father His GOD. So, Jim, you have
the Son (who is by Himself YHWH ... God ... according to your theology
on record), calling the Father (who is by Himself YHWH ... God ..
according to your theology on record) GOD ... OR IN YOUR TERMINOLOGY
... God the Son calling God the Father HIS GOD ... Therefore, here is
your equation of 1 God (Son) + 1 God (Father) = 2 Gods (POLYTHEISM) ...
and we didn't even mention the Holy Spirit here. Now, are you
asserting that each "person" in the Godhead is a "part" of God ... and
NOT fully God? Are you asserting that each "person" in the Godhead is
FULLY God? I really don't know for sure which way you go on that, but
either way is in error. But, PLEASE don't skip over this again, o.k.???
Bobby (from previous email): ... when I said, "Also, I should
remind you that the Sciptures are Spiritual ... and are NOT interpreted,
nor understood by human intellect, human reasoning or logic," I
actually didn't mean it to sound like I thought the Scriptures "cannot"
be interpreted by human intellect, human reasoning or logic ... because
that's where a whole lot of the trouble and error comes from. What I
actually meant to say, was that the Scriptures "shouldn't" be
interpreted using only human intellect, human reasoning or logic.
Jim: A valuable clarification.
Bobby: I felt like you would know what I was talking about. Thanks!
Bobby (from previous email): Nonetheless, it is their terminology that you agressively defend.
Jim: Eh? I've been defending the concept of three eternal Persons
in the Godhead, but not the terms "Trinity" or "hypostatic union" or
adherence to the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon. And (as I've
previously said) I consider it simply a model of a mystery. But I do
think it important that one should have a working model, if one proposes
to teach about it.
Bobby: Jim, when you bought the concept and started teaching it,
you had to also buy the terminology furnished to all trinitarians by the
"universal" church of Rome. Otherwise, you are NOT a trinitarian.
Now, ARE you a trinitarian OR are you NOT a trinitarian? A simple, Yes
or No answer will suffice. I don't need an essay nor any follow up
"but's" or "however's." If you are, the "terminology" is yours too,
whether you use it or not.
Bobby (from previous email): Well, I will tell you this, I was
raised up (and was a baptized member) in a main line protestant church,
but today I am a non-denominational lay man --
Jim: "Non-denominational?" No connections or affinities to Oneness Pentecostalism whatsoever, eh?
Bobby (from previous email): I am most definitely "ONENESS."
However, I am non-denominational because I don't promote an
organization.
Jim: Ah.
Bobby: Well, Jim, I sure ain't a trinitarian any longer! Besides
the Apostles One God Monotheistic Doctrine "IS" what "ONENESS" is all
about. I'll stand on their doctrine and face eternity. You are free to
stand on Tertullian's doctrine, or whoever else that came along later,
which had a doctrine that suits your fancy.
Bobby (from previous email): ... Whether they are just honest
mistakes or are intentional behaviour on your part to maintain a
comfortable life style, I don't know you. I will say this, for some
reason I get the feeling that you are [not] (added from a later note)
one of the many hirelings out there whose main interested is a
financially secure future, like some I've met seemed to be. Also, I
will tell you, from what I've learned about abominations, the doctrine
of the whore surely fits into that category.
Jim: First, I've spent years in a "Third World" setting spreading
the Word of God. It was not externally "comfortable." I think it is
important that God's servants should not have excessive material goods,
while at the same time they should provide for their families, and I
attempt to do so.
Bobby: Well, that's great, Jim! I commend you for it. However, it
is possible for a minister to become too comfortable and turn soft, get
spiritually lazy and become an unprofitable servant and/or go to
indulging in excesses. Paul refers to some like this ... "For they that
are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by
good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." The
call of God upon a man's life into the ministry is an extremely serious
call and charge to be totally commited. I hope you are true and
faithful to yours.
Jim: Second, I'm not quite sure what is meant by that last
sentence, but allow me to comment that for most Roman Catholics,
adherence to the "Trinity" is among the least of their problems; the
serious issues there are nominalism and adherence to a human base of
authority.
Bobby: That human base of authority is precisely where the
"universal" church came from with all its "terminology" Jim. You might
think you have the doctrine but are not married to the woman. Don't
spurn that possibility. People are as sincere as they can possbily be,
but turn down the wrong street all the time. I've done it myself a time
or two. However, when it comes to the Truth of God's Word, there is a
Biblical way we can "try the spirits" ... doctrines ... to make a
determination whether they are of God or not. And God has revealed to
me the way to "try the spirits." It works 100% of the time ... without
fail. And it is NOT because I am some great one. It is because God's
Word is so perfectly put together that He has built in safeguards to
preserve and protect the "whole" Truth.
Bobby (from previous email): ... here's you a zinger. I sometimes
say, "We'll see y'all later." when I am not talking about anyone else
but me. I even sometimes say to myself, "Well, let's (let us) see,
here," when there ain't another soul around. And **IF** I were to
gamble, I would wager you do too. I understand writers even sometimes
use pronouns like that too. Ain't that something?
Jim: Grammarians call that a "Deliberative 'we.'"
Bobby: Good! I would hate for someone to hear me and then go off and say there is more than one of me. (ha)
Bobby (previous email): ... you did NOT provide a single, solitary
verse with either 1) the word "trinity" in it; 2) where God, or the
Godhead, was ever referred to as "persons" (plural); OR 3) where
anyone was ever baptized with the words, " ... in the NAME of the
Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Ghost," pronounced over them.
And that is three very precise things you belief and teach others.
Jim: That's not entirely true.
Bobby: It is COMPLETELY True. But just to show you I'm easy to get
along with about this, we'll try this one more time. Please list the
book, chapter and verse from the KJV where any one of the following
three challenges (which is pecisely what you practice and teach others)
can be found in the text, o.k.???
1) the word "trinity" in it;
2) where God, or the Godhead, was ever referred to as "persons" (plural); OR
3) where anyone was ever baptized with the words, " ... in the NAME
of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Ghost," pronounced over
them.
Jim: (1) While I have no problem singing "Holy Holy Holy," I do
not advocate the use of the term "Trinity" as a doctrinal necessity, and
prefer the term "Godhead."
Bobby: Jim, Jim, Jim, **IF** you are half as honest and sincere as I
think you are, the only way you are going to sooth that nagging feeling
of uneasiness about this situation is this: "Wherefore come out from
among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the
unclean thing; and I will receive you," 2 Corinthians 6:17
Jim: (2) Jesus referred to Himself and the Father as "us" and "we"
in John 17:21-22, which, while not containing the word "persons"
certainly is consistent with the concept of Persons more than the
concept that the Father is "the Divine side of Jesus."
Bobby: On the surface, and from strictly a literal standpoint I
used to feel the same way, Jim. However, there vast preponderance of
evidence in the Old and New Testaments combined does NOT support the
trinitarian position of three "persons" of God. The sooner you come to
grips with that the sooner you'll feel better about a whole bunch of
stuff.
Jim: (3) Matthew 28:19 was written with a reasonably clear
liturgical intent, and thus it is a rather large stretch to say that the
use of "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit" at baptism is "completely VOID of even a minute shred of
SPECIFIC Bible authority." Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew with
liturgical usefulness in mind. I don't consider that a "dangerous"
observation.
Bobby: The "orginal" New Testament leaders baptized converts to
Christianity in water by immersion and by literally "invoking" the name
of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. That was THEIR gospel ...
THEIR doctrine ... which was BOUND on earth AND in Heaven by Peter in
Acts 2:38 on the Day of Pentecost. Philip followed suit down in Samaria
(Gentile country) in Acts Chapter 8. Peter repeated the process with
the Gentiles in Acts Chapter 10. Paul received his DOCTRINE by
revelation and some years later went up to Jerusalem just to see if what
he was preaching by revelation was the same as what the "footprint"
followers were preaching. And in Galatians Chapter 2, he explained that
he found out the gospel he received and preached by revelation was
indeed the same. Paul felt so strongly about baptism in the name of
Jesus that he actually re-baptized some folks in Acts Chapter 19. He
gave a very stearn warning to all of us in Galations concerning our
gospel message ....
Galatians Chapter 1
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel
unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other
gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Bobby (from previous email): **IF** Jesus' Great Commission was to
baptize in a "title" (singular) or "titles" (plural), He would have so
stated. However He did not.
Jim: Yes He did; that is precisely the question here! I understand
that you want there to be a distinction between "name" and "title" but,
as demonstrated repeatedly in the Bible, titles are used as a name or
as names, as in Isaiah 9:6, Rev. 19, and so on. I could easily turn
your statement around, and say, "If Jesus' Great Commission was to
baptize using "in the name of Jesus" liturgically, He would have so
stated; however He did not."
Bobby: **IF** the titles of Matthew are actually names as you
insist, then to interpret Matthew 28:19 in a way to be referring to
THREE PERSONS ... the way you interpret it ..., it would have to read
like this ... Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the names (plural) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost: .... Otherwise, the single form of the word name would be
referring to ONLY ONE PERSON ... just as the following uses of the word
NAME (singular) in the Scriptures you referred to alluded to ONLY ONE
PERSON.
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and
the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
Prince of Peace. .... the singular use of the word "NAME" here in
Isaish 9:6 identifies ONLY ONE PERSON ... a child, who is specifically
referred to as a son ... NOT two different "persons."
Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood:
and his name is called The Word of God. .... Again the singular use of
the word "NAME" identifies ONLY ONE PERSON ... the One called The Word
of God.
Revelation 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name
written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. ... Again the singular use
of the word "NAME" identifies ONLY ONE PERSON ... the KING OF KINGS, AND
LORD OF LORDS ... the same one identified in verse 13 above.
Bobby (from previous email) ... He was very specific about a NAME
(singular) being used ... and not just any name. He COMMANDED it to be
the NAME (singular) of the Father, AND the Son, AND the Holy Ghost.
Jim: Again, you are simply superimposing an English definition of "name" over the ancient Greek usage.
Bobby: Just following the simple rules of English and the evidence
in the Bible. Well, since a valid Bible doctrine has to have a "second
witness" just find me a place in the New Testament where the singular
use of the word "NAME" was used to identify more than ONE PERSON, OR
where anyone else applied the words "... in the NAME of the Father, AND
of the Son, AND of the Holy Ghost." I don't think you will find any.
Therefore, you are left without a second "witness" to establish this as a
valid Bible doctrine to be held dogmatically as "sound" doctrine.
That's the simple truth of the matter, Jim.
Jim: While the occasion of the giving of the Great Commission was
not the overseeing of a baptism, Matthew intended his Gospel to be
liturgically useful, as I've said before, and it is against the
authorial intent -- and the Authorial intent -- to say that no one
should be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit. By this question you are obviously trying to give the
impression that there is no Biblical warrant for baptizing in the name
of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and you even state that all such
baptisms would be disapproved of by the apostles. That is a false
impression and a false statement. I think that about sums it up.
Bobby (from previous email): Jim, let me tell you something about
"Authorial intent." The Bible has just ONE author. Granted there were
many "writers," but there was only ONE author. And that author is GOD.
He inspired it, and the writers wrote it. Sort of like a stenographer
who takes dictation, for the letter they are being commissioned to
write.
Jim: Eh? You equate "inspiration" with "dictation?" You don't
think that Matthew put any thought into the form and structure of his
Gospel? You don't think he made use of any written sources or previous
compilations and notes about Jesus' ministry?
Bobby: Well, from what I understand concerning those who were
involved in prophecy, which would include the Word of God, they were
moved upon by the Holy Spirit and unless they specified (as Paul did)
that it was "them" excercising some literary license (so to speak), then
I accept what is written to be the "inspired" Word of God. What do you
do???
Bobby (from previous email): You are never going to get me to
accept the doctrine that followed generations AFTER the Ascension and
the passing of the "original" New Testament leaders, when man cooked up
this theory based on implied meanings given to a handful of very
carefully selected Scriptures.
Jim: That's quite a caricature of what I'm saying! My proposal is,
basically, that Matthew intended for the contents of Matthew 28:19 to
be used liturgically. Saying that it was thought up later in no way
diminishes the strength of the evidence. That's just another way to --
(let's put it to music) -- re-state your position!
Bobby: Quoting Matthew 28:19 is used exclusively by trinitarians to
be very best of my knowledge. As a matter of fact, Matthew 28:19 is
one of the pillars of the trinitarian doctrine. Once a person comes to
the realization (as I did) that to fulfill Matthew 28:19 was NOT to
"quote" Matthew 28:19, then a major crack develops in the man made
doctrine that most of us were indoctrinated to accept without question.
Bobby (from previous email): When the words " ... in the name of
the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Ghost." (of Matthew 28:19)
are uttered and the name of Jesus has not actually been invoked, then NO
NAME has been applied in the baptismal ceremony.
Jim: Obviously I disagree, but I decline to comment further here since that charge does not describe how I perform baptisms.
Bobby: You don't have any more Scripture for doing it the way you
do it than those who just quote the titles of Matthew 28:19, Jim. It's
still without a second "witness" and as a result is NOT a "sound"
doctrine to embrace dogmatically.
Bobby (from previous email): ... IT TAKES THE NAME FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS!
Jim: Eh? Are you sure about that? No doubt you are thinking,
"Yes, I'm sure," but think about the implications here: suppose a
preacher has a speech impediment and pronounces the name incorrectly,
but no humans at the time notice his mistake? What about countries
where the name "Jesus" is never heard at all -- places where the New
Testament translations render the Greek word "Iesous" as something like
"Geezoo" or "Yassa" or whatever? Does that count? What if the
ceremony takes place at a school for the deaf, and is performed in
sign-language? For that matter, why attribute any worth to the English
words at all? Jesus never spoke English. If one wants to say the
original name is important, well, one should utilize the original Greek
or Aramaic, and insist that, if one is to do things the way Jesus'
"footprint" followers did them, one should use the name "Iesous" or
"Yashuah." And there are some folks who insist on doing that! But you
do not do that.
It looks to me as if you are practically attributing efficacy to the
name rather than the Person -- which amounts to a superstition, not a
Biblical doctrine. Yours in Christ, Jim
Bobby: Yep, I'm sure about it, Jim. God can make a way where there
don't seem to be a way. I am not concerned about speak impediments and
the exceptions those who kick against the pricks try to make the rule.
If you were not bothered by your position you would be having any
problems whatsoever with the word "trinty" or baptizing the way you do.
The sooner you come out of her, the sooner you will begin to feel
better about a whole bunch of stuff ... I'm telling you. And I'm
talking from first hand knowledge here, Jim. Running late for prayer
meeting. I'll get back with you later tonight or tomorrow. God bless! -
Bobby
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response # 20 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 11:38 PM
Subject: Response to Jim's Part 5
Jim: Greetings in Christ to Bobby Richardson ~ there was enough
extra material in your additional notes to call for another response, so
here it is. New material is in blue.
Bobby: Jim, it is my position that the reason you make such a
statement about the "original" New Testament leaders is because you
place more credibility on the "later" writings of others than you do on
the "verbatim" words that are written upon the pages of the Word of God.
That is a real shame and a disgrace ... in my opinion.
Jim: If it were true, it would be a real shame and disgrace,
regardless of your opinion! But while I regard the ante-Nicean writings
as useful supplements and as historically valuable, which shed light on
the meaning of some Scriptures here and there, they are not my
foundation for any doctrine.
Bobby: I'm convinced that, unless a person is trying to find
additional support for a man made doctrine, or feel the need to
investigate these "later" writings in order to be able to understand
and/or communicate better with with those who elevate them to the level
of (or above) the Inspired Word of God, that everything the average
person will ever need to know God, the true plan of salvation, and
victorious Christian living and soul winning can be found written on the
pages of the ole faithful KJV.
Bobby (from previous email): Furthermore, the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine that this ole boy embraces
Jim: --- I suppose, to reciprocate, I shall have to constantly call
my position the Apostles' Biblical Model of the Godhead Doctrine, in
order to re-state my position as you re-state yours. ---
Bobby: **IF** any of the "original" New Testament leaders had used
the word "persons" to describe God or the Godhead, or **IF** any of the
"original" New Testament leaders had ever baptized anyone as you do,
then you might have a valid point there, Jim. But in reality, you are
left with holding the bag ... without a shred of SPECIFIC Bible
authority for your trinity or three co-equal, co-eternal, co-existent
"persons"... and, instead, only implied interpretations given to a
handful of very carefully selected Scriptures which contradict a whole
host of other Scriptures on the same subject found else where in the
Word of God.
Bobby (from previous email): is NOT the result of reading some book
OR being indoctrinated. ... Long story short, Jim. God revealed to me
the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine
Jim: Hmm. Well, there's not much point trying to dissuade
somebody once he says "God revealed this to me!" Careful, analytical
study is no match for that! I see why you call your teaching the
"Apostles'" teaching -- you make yourself the equal of the Apostles.
Bobby: WHEW! Good jab, Jim, good one! Now, I guess I'll correct
the record ... again... Here's what I have said about the Apostles' One
God Monotheistic Doctrine being revealed to me ....
* * * * * *
Bobby (from previous email): ... Now, up until the time God revealed
the Apostles' One God Monotheistic doctrine, and I departed from
trinitarianism, repented of my sins, got re-baptized in the name of
Jesus for the remission of sins, experienced the infilling of the Holy
Ghost (the Bible way), and very diligently searched all this stuff out
for myself, I could not have said what all I just said.
Bobby (from previous email): ...So I grew up around a pretty good
mixture of Protestantism. Anyway, I decided I would (for the first time
in my life) really get down to some serious Bible study. I started in
the Book of Matthew and just started reading as if I was reading a novel
or something. Man, was it some slow going there for a while. But I
stayed with it. Every once in a while I would read something that would
sort of cause me to raise my eyebrows and think, "I don't recall ever
hearing anything about this." Long story short, Jim. God revealed to me
the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine even though I had set out
to prove my wife's church wrong. There was no denying it. Oh, I guess I
could have denied what God had shown me, but that would have meant I
would be living a lie.
Bobby (from previous email): ... But in answer to your accusation
about me being spoon fed by some book or something, it just ain't so,
Jim. God truly revealed this stuff to me ... I just had to decide what I
was going to do about it, that's all. And I have absolutely no regrets
that I chose to embrace it ... AND proclaim it.
Bobby (from previous email): ... Yes, Jim, God revealed the
Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine to me through His Word as I was
independently studied it. You may not believe that. But I sure hope I
never forget the moment I "saw" it. The moment the Scriptures came to
life to me, while studying very late one night ... or actually very
early one morning ... while I was alone in a tiny railroad depot way
back in the woods, out in the middle of nowhere. It was if I had been
gazing into a 3-D picture and all of a suddes I saw "into" it for the
very first time. It was AWESOME! From that moment on, the Bible became
very much alive to me, and my understanding was very dramatically
increased.
Bobby (from previous email): I've already told you, I used to be a
trinitarian. Unless you come up with a silver bullet that trumps
everything in the Word of God, that God has shown to me and revealed to
me over a period of many years of independent research and study, you're
just spitting in the wind.
* * * * * * * *
Bobby: So, as you can see, Jim, the Apostles' One God Monotheistic
Doctrine was revealed to me as I independently studied the Word of God
... ALONE. I do not put my self forth as some great one, Jim. I, mean,
I used to be an alcoholic ... and a red neck, good ole boy back in
Mississippi. I don't even feel worthy to be counted among the number of
God's people. And I for sure don't feel worthy to put self forth as a
minister. Naw, Jim, you have the wrong impression about this ole boy.
One thing I will own up to and that is this .... way back in 1985 when I
came out of the red neck beer joints of Mississippi my life was so
messed up until it was pathetic. And I knew that unless God
miraculously delivered me from some stuff, I would very likely not
attain any real victory or joy whatsoever. As a matter of fact, I felt
that unless I did get delivered from those demons that were tormenting
my sould and dragging me down to a devil's hell, I'd probably be washed
up within a matter of a few weeks (if that long). I truly thank God for
putting it on my heart to pour myself into prayer and study. I knew if
I focus the same amount of energy on the things of God that I once
focused on the sins I was caught up in, that I might grow strong enough
to whip the demons and slay a few dragons by the authority of the Word
of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit vested in the name of Jesus.
Well, a long story short, I focused my attention almost entirely on
nothing but the Bible, prayer and the things of God. And God helped me
over the hump, and I've never entertained the notion of going back. I
remember telling my wife one day a little later on, that I was beginning
to feel like I was going to make it. But for the first little while, I
was honestly struggling with some fear, doubt and intimidation.
Actually, I allowed the adversary to beat up on me for several years, by
dredging up my past and bringing it to my mind, even though I truly
felt that God had forgiven me. But old slough foot has been at it a
long time, and he knows just how to try and discourage someone who may
be struggling a little bit. Well, so much for all of that, this is NOT
about me. It's all about HIM! However, I felt like I needed to set the
records straight, that I do NOT put myself as some great one.
Bobby (from previous email): God truly revealed this stuff to me
... And I have absolutely no regrets that I chose to embrace it ... AND
proclaim it.
Jim: Well, regarding what you found that was truly in harmony with
the Word of God, sure, God revealed it to you through His Word.
Regarding what you found that was just the result of a misunderstanding,
that was your doing.
Bobby: I didn't realize that I had put anything forth during this
debate which was not in harmony with what is found in the Word of God.
Can you please be more specific???
Bobby (from previous email): ... YHWH is not even a name in Hebrew.
Jim: Yes it is; it's the "Sacred Tetragrammaton," the name of God!
Bobby: What I meant by that Jim, is this ... vowels had to be added
in order for it to become a name "per sae" Yehovah or Jehovah.
Otherwise, it could not even be pronounced. Also, I said that I thought
YHWH was a prelude to the revealed name of Jesus because the name Jesus
literally means "Jehovah-Saviour" or "Jehovah has become salvation" ...
and the name "Jesus" came from God ... NOT man
Bobby (from previous email): Without vowels added, it can't even be pronounced in Hebrew or English.
Jim: That's typical of the consonantal Hebrew text.
Bobby: But no typical name.
Bobby (from previous email): ... the revealed name of the Father is JESUS.
Jim: Wrong-o. The revealed name of the Son is Jesus. More
accurately, "Iesous" or "Yeshua." YHWH has a special significance all
its own.
Bobby: Matthew 28:19 .... IN THE NAME ...
of the Father ...................... Jesus .... St. John 5:43; Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; and 19:5
AND of the Son ................. Jesus .... Matthew 1:21; 1:25; Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; and 19:5
AND of the Holy Ghost .... Jesus .... St. John 14:26; Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; and 19:5
Bobby (from previous email): ... I would be really be curious to know what you think the name of the Holy Spirit is.
Jim: As far as I can tell, the name of the Holy Spirit -- if the Holy Spirit has a name -- is not revealed.
Bobby: Oh yes, it is revealed. Matthew 28:19 ... IN THE NAME OF ...
AND of the Holy Ghost .... Jesus .... St. John 14:26; Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; and 19:5
Bobby (from previous email): ... why shouldn't the name "Jesus" be invoked at a baptismal service also?
JIM: As it happens, I do invoke the name "Jesus" as part of the
baptismal formula, using phrases from both Acts 2:38 and Matthew 28:19.
... you are taking an aggressive stance: you are not simply saying
that it is right to invoke the name of Jesus; you are saying that it is
wrong to use the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Spirit" as a baptismal formula, or even as part of a
baptismal formula. ...
Bobby (from previous email): **IF** you must ... include the titles
of Matthew 28:19 but you do also invoke the name of Jesus Christ for
the remission of sins at baptism, then, I suppose, that would be another
matter. You just don't have any Biblical examples of where it was done
that way, that's all.
Jim: It sounds like you would consider it a matter of liberty,
then, and tolerate the practice of using "in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," as long as the name "Jesus" was
also used. Is that a fair observation?
Bobby (from previous email): Provided faith is present when the
name of Jesus is invoked by someone who is authorized to invoke the name
of Jesus.
Jim: Okay; we both agree that faith is a pre-requisite for salvation in the first place. So I'll take that as a "Yes."
Bobby: In your above example it would be the same as if NO name was
used unless faith is present when the name of Jesus is invoked by
someone who is authorized to invoke the name of Jesus. It's really that
simple. Here's what I mean by someone being authorized to invoke the
name of Jesus ...
Mark Chapter 16
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing,
it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working
with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
And here's what I mean by faith being present when in the name of Jesus is invoked ....
Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I
have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and
walk.
Acts 3:16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man
strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given
him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.
**IF** you are inserting the name of Jesus here just to be attempt
to be "technically" correct, but insist on invoking the titles of
Matthew too, that is a pretty good indication that your understanding of
the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine is EXTREMELY limited ...
and that you probably do NOT understand who Jesus "really" is. All of
which could make baptism for the remission of sins as ineffective as the
following example where the name of Jesus was invoked by those who
apparently were doing what they had seen done by true "believers" ...
but were NOT true believers themselves ... and were doing things "their"
way ... which did not work at all, even though they invoked the name of
Jesus ....
Acts Chapter 19
13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to
call over them which had evil spirits the name of the LORD Jesus,
saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.
14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.
15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and
overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that
house naked and wounded.
When a woman marries a man, they (or at least they used to) take
upon them the name of their husband during the ceremony. It is my
position that the place a Christian literally takes upon them the name
of Jesus is in the baptismal ceremony when they are buried in that
watery grave in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins (which
they have previously repented of, I might add).
Bobby (from previous email): **IF** you are inserting the name of
Jesus here just to be attempt to be "technically" correct, but insist on
invoking the titles of Matthew too, that is a pretty good indication
that your understanding of the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine
is EXTREMELY limited ... and that you probably do NOT understand who
Jesus "really" is.
Jim: Well, I certainly do not believe that "Jesus," (who told
people, "The Father Himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of
me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape,"
while standing there with a voice and a shape) is the name of the
Father.
Bobby: The name of Jesus being invoked at baptism, alone, is enough
evidence that the "original" New Testament" leaders understood who Jesus
"really" is. And Paul received it "by revelation."
St. John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou
gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me;
and they have kept thy word.
St. John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in
thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is
lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
St. John 17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will
declare [it]: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them,
and I in them.
Hebrews 2:12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
*** The "original" New Testament leaders had it right, Jim. Don't feel sorry for them.
Bobby (from previous email): All of which could make baptism for the remission of sins as ineffective
Jim: Ah; now you are basically saying that if a person does not
believe that Jesus is the Father, and Jesus is the Holy Spirit, then
that person cannot be saved. That is the apostles' doctrine? Where is
the Scripture to that effect?
Bobby: I'll get to some Scriptures in a minute. But, without a
proper understanding of who Jesus "really" is ... God manifest in the
flesh ... it would seem to me that a person's understanding would be
darkened, and they would be spiritually blind. However, I do have
enough confidence in the grace and power of God that He can save to the
uttermost, and make a way where there doesn't even seem to be no way.
Therefore, if and when a person truly hungers and thirsts after
righteousness, I am totally convinced that God will make a way for them
.... some way ... some how. I don't care if they're a native in some
isolated village in the deepest, darkest jungle in Africa. That's how
strong I believe the grace and power of my God is. Now, having said
that, God is a gentleman (so to speak) He will not force Himself on
anyone. He will not go (nor stay) where He is not wanted. Here's some
Scriptures which reveal the importance of knowing who Jesus "really" is
...
Isaiah 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations
from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant
whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that
I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be
after me.
St. John 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus
answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye
should have known my Father also.
St. John 8:23-24 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am
from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.I said
therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe
not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
Isaiah 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
Revelation 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:
Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And
he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the
first and the last:
Bobby (from previous email): How do you know what Matthew's intent was, Jim?
Jim: For starters, by analyzing the Gospel of Matthew as a whole,
and noticing the arrangement of material. Example: the teachings of
Christ are arranged in five blocks, set apart by narrative, climaxed by
the "Passion." Also, by considering Matthew in its original form -- as a
Gospel bound by itself, separate from the other books of the New
Testament. (This is not the only perspective to consider it from, but
it certainly is a perspective which is worth careful consideration.)
Also, by considering the liturgical features, for instance, Matthew
provides an example of prayer (in Matthew 6); he recollects the Lord's
Supper (26:26-30), and he provides precise instructions about how to
baptize (obviously describing immersion in chapter 3, and recording
Christ's words, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit," in chapter 28).
Bobby: That's a slide ruler explanation if I ever heard one. And I
wouldn't be surprised if that was a copy and paste from somebody else
more complicated than you. The bottom line is, you don't know for
certain what Matthew's "intent" was. At best, it would be a guess, and
at worse it would be groundless assertion .... but we DO know how the
"original" New Testament leaders performed their water baptisms - in the
NAME of Jesus!
Bobby (from previous email): By the way, it wasn't even Matthew's
intent anyway. It was the words of Jesus as recorded by Matthew.
Jim: It was both.
Bobby: It couldn't have been both **IF** Matthew 28:19 was truly
the words of Christ, Jim. All Matthew was doing was writing the words
Jesus spoke. Therefore, Matthew's intent would not have had squat to do
with Matthew 28:19.
Bobby (from previous email): ... Peter ... sure bound Jesus name
baptism on earth, didn't he? And the rest of the "original" New
Testament leaders followed suit ... until some generations later
Jim: --- ahem. Matthew himself, repeating the words of Christ Himself, is not "generations later!"
Bobby: Correct, but anyone "reciting" the words of Matthew 28:19 as
opposed to invoking the NAME alluded to in Matthew 28:19 was most
definitely generations after ... or at least a good number of years (in
case you whip that slide ruler back out).
Bobby (from previous email): Well, I can see you have been very effectively indoctrinated, indeed.
Jim: The Word of God is effective indeed.
Bobby: Your beliefs are based on a tad bit more than what the
preponderance of Scriptural evidence found written on the pages of the
Word of God is. Tell me the truth, Jim. How did you come to be
affiliated with the Church of Christ? Did you grow up in that
denomination? Did someone knock on your door and win you over to the
Church of Christ? Or did you get to studying your Bible and decide the
Church of Christ was the Church that was telling like it "really" is???
Also, are you affiliated with the United Church of Christ or what
particular branch of the denomination ... or are you strictly
independent? Just curious.
Bobby (from previous email): ... I must remind you that when we go
to passing your flawed doctrine on to others, that is when it becomes an
EXCEPTIONALLY serious matter in the eyes of God.
Jim: As I recall, I think I have said almost the very same thing to you.
Bobby: So you don't deny that your doctrine is flawed, eh? Now, show me where the doctrine I have presented is flawed, Jim.
Bobby (from previous email): ... God is extremely picky about His COMMANDMENTS being followed to the letter.
Jim: Well ... I see some hope for clumsy interpreters in the
parable of the Prodigal Son: "while he was still afar off, his father
saw him." And there's that incident at Hezekiah's Great Passover to
consider, too. But I agree with the sentiment that those who have the
truth have the responsibility to express, apply, and share it properly,
and we will be held accountable for those who look to us for God's
message.
Bobby: Straw man, Jim? Look, while it is a serious charge, there
is a world of difference in a man or a group of men translating the
Bible from one language to another, or seeking to gather the most
accurate information from the most reliable sources, and that of being
obedient to the commandments of God. Jim a minor deviation will lead to
a major derailment. Like I've told you before, being "close" only
counts if you're throwing horse shoes or hand grenades. Aaron lost a
couple of sons for offering strange fire before the Lord. You'd better
beware of strange "doctrines" that did not make up any part of the
teaching, preaching or practices of the "original" New Testament Church.
Bobby (from previous email): ... Look, the name "Jesus" is essential.
Jim: Hmm. Not that I wish to make a habit of making inferences
from personal experiences, but how do you account for the thousands of
people who are baptized under the formula "in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," and proceed to speak in
tongues? If tongues-speaking is a sign of salvation, the name "Jesus"
does not seem very essential in those cases.
Bobby: Some folks spoke in tongues in Acts 10:44-48, but if you
care to take a look at it, you will see that Peter still COMMANDED them
to be baptized in the name of Jesus. Not that I am raising an argument
here because that would be a whole separate debate, but I am really
curious about your statement, "If tongues-speaking is a sign of
salvation ..." Where did you hear that tongues-speaking is a sign of
salvation? Most folks don't even know that there is more than one
operation of tongues, nor that there are "counterfeit" tongues.
Bobby (from previous email): I don't have to account for them, Jim.
Jim: Eh? If you regard authentic tongues-speaking as a sign of
salvation, or as an activity reserved for saved people, you do.
Otherwise you're in a situation analogous to a person in a park who
says, "My dog is the only one that can catch a frisbee" while all around
him other people's dogs are catching frisbees.
Bobby: I am called to be a witness, but you are called to be a the
minister. **IF** there is something about tongues that people need to
know about, and you don't tell them, you're going to be in worse shape
than someone with a bunch of dogs around catching frisbees. I'll debate
you on the tongues issue later on. But, I thought we were planning to
stay on topic for now. Actually, I thought we were going to be staying
in the Bible more than what we have. It seems like we've been doing a
good bit of conversing logic, which I am not entirely opposed to, but I
do prefer staying in the Bible on important doctrinal subjects like
we're discussing.
Bobby (from previous email): ... If those dudes hadn't ripped Acts Chapter 10 out of your Bible
Jim: -- see previous comments about this misinterpretation of my statement --
Bobby: Now, Jim, lighten up. You know I was only ribbing your about
your erroneous statement that it is "Scripturally and historically a
proven fact that the "original" New Testament church baptized only
Jews." Acts Chapter 10 is where the Bible proves that statement wrong.
And I've just been having a little fun with you about it, that's all.
Bobby (from previous email): you would be able to go read about a
man who was devout, feared God with all his house, gave much alms to the
people and who prayed to God all the time. Why, he was so righteous
until an angel came to see him one day. By today's standards, I guess,
it would be safe to say that this man would be considered a "professing"
Christian.
Jim: Eh? Not by the standard I have. No one is worthy to bear the
name "Christian" until he is baptized, and Cornelius was not baptized
at the beginning of Acts 10.
Bobby: Not by my standards either. That's why I qualified the
statment with "By today's standards, I guess, it would be safe to say
...." By the way, what about the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts
Chapter 19 who "believed" and had been baptized once already? Would
they have been considered Christians by your standards?
Bobby (from previous email): ... In verse 48 he COMMANDED them to be
baptized in the ... name of the Lord (KJV) ... name of Jesus Christ
(RSV), (ASV) & (NASB) ... name of Yeshua the Messiah. (HNV). You
sure excercise a whole lot more latitude than ole Brother Peter, Jim.
Jim: If you simply mean that my response to the scenario you
described is different than Peter's response to Cornelius, then, yes,
sure -- because when one considers them closely it is clear that they
are different scenarios in several respects (not least of which is that
the person in the scenario you presented had already been baptized, with
faith in the Lord Jesus)!
Bobby: Receiving the Holy Spirit and speaking with tongues as the
Spirit of God gives the utterance is NOT directly or indirectly related
to water baptism. That is an entirely different aspect of the "new
birth." Let me see if I can put this together where you can follow it. A
person can receive the Holy Spirit and speak with tongues as the Spirit
of God gives them the utterance BEFORE ... OR ... AFTER water baptism
... BUT NOT BEFORE Repentance I am hopeful that you agree with me that
Repentance should always come before water but must come before the
infilling of the Spirit of the Holy Spirit. Even though this is
indirectly related to what we are discussing, I will take a moment just
to touch on it. As I've already stated, we can debate this whole issue
later. At any rate, here's what I will say for now ...
Some ministers teach that the Holy Spirit is received
"automatically" ... with no apparent outward manifestation ... when a
person "believes" and accepts Christ as their personal Savior. However,
in Acts 8:12-17, we read about people who believed, yet they had NOT
received the Holy Spirit.
Acts Chapter 8
12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the
kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both
men and women.
13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he
continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs
which were done.
14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria
had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
*** Here it is self evident that, even though these people
"believed" and had already been baptized, they had not received the Holy
Spirit. So the theory that a person "automatically receives the Holy
Spirit" at the point of believing and/or being baptized is refuted here
with Scriptural evidence to the contrary.
Some ministers teach that the Holy Spirit is received
"automatically" ... with no apparent outward manifestation ... at the
same time a person is baptized in water. However, in Acts 8:12-17 (shown
above) & Acts 19:1-6 (below) we read about those who received the
Holy Spirit AFTER being baptized... but in Acts 10:44-48 (below) we read
about others who received the Holy Spirit BEFORE being baptized.
Acts Chapter 19
1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul
having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding
certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye
believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether
there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of
repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him
which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
*** Here it is self evident that these people both believed and had
been baptized, but had not received the Holy Spirit either. However,
they got re-baptized, but in the name of Jesus this time, and later
received the Holy Spirit and spoke with tongues. So the theory that a
person "automatically receives the Holy Spirit" at the point of
believing and/or being baptized is also refuted here with Scriptural
evidence to the contrary.
Acts Chapter 10
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as
many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured
out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
*** Here it is self evident that these people received the Holy
Spirit BEFORE being baptized, but was still COMMANDED by Peter to be
baptized in the name of the Lord (KJV); in the name of Jesus (RSV),
(ASV) & (NASB); name of Yeshua the Messiah (HNV). Also, the Jews who
accompanied Peter were astonished that the Gentiles had also received
the Holy Spirit the same way they had because they heard them speaking
with tongues.
Bobby (from previous email): .... Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver
and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of
Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
Jim: -- note: here, only "Jesus" is actually a name. The rest of
the phrase -- "Christ of Nazareth" -- is not. "Christ" is a title; that
is, Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. This is an example of the
interchangeability of names and titles. Which seems to erode your
initial objection to the use of titles. --
Bobby (from previous email): Ain't nothing "eroded" about it at all --
Jim: -- Yes there is! If the name "Jesus" had the exclusive
significance which you assign to it, Peter would not have included
"Christ" in the name. Peter does not say "In the name of Jesus, who is
entitled the Christ." He refers to "the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth." This shows that the distinction you make between "name" and
"title" is contrived. Yours in Christ, Jim
Bobby: Jim, I honestly don't follow you completely here. Let's make another run at it ...
Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I
have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and
walk.
*** Now, Jim, you said, "here, only "Jesus" is actually a name. The
rest of the phrase -- "Christ of Nazareth" -- is not. "Christ" is a
title; that is, Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah." Jim, that is my
position ... that Christ is not actually a name, but a title. Nazareth
is a name. However, neither Christ nor Nazareth is an essential part of
the Baptismal Formula, or in this case, whatsoever ye do in word or
deed, doing all in the name of Jesus. The bottom line here is, the name
of Jesus is the essential ingredient couple with faith and invoked by
someone authorized to invoke it, as I've already stated. God bless! -
Bobby
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Response # 21 of 21
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Richardson
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 6:10 AM
Subject: Response to Jim's email - Recycling Part 1 & 2
Jim: Greetings in Christ to Bobby Richardson ~ This is an
incomplete response to "Recycled and/or miscellaneous stuff to be
addressed later ..." I'll try to finish it tomorrow.
Bobby (from previous email): I am NOT attempting to cover you up
with stuff, so take whatever time you need to respond, but please do
respond "point-by-point" as I do.
Jim: Um ... it's a good thing you told me, or I might have gotten that impression!
I'll try to give everything the attention it deserves. Some of this
stuff is tangential, and that's why I did not spent much time (if any)
addressing it.
Bobby: Whatever, Jim. I will continue to copy and paste your
emails entirely and address everything right down the line. If I miss
something, you can rest assured it was just an over sight.
Bobby (from previous email): ... can you think of any other term in
the Bible which does for (defines) the term "persons" what "caught up"
does for the word rapture? ("eternal" cannot be used to replace the
word "persons")
Jim: The simple use of "us" and "we" when Jesus refers to Himself
and His Father, and Jesus' repeated description of the Father in terms
one does not use to refer to oneself, and the sundry references to the
Word existing eternally "with" the Father.
Bobby: I realize your theology requires you to interpret passages
like that quite literally and also to disregard the absolute train load
of Scriptures which would contradict an "implied" interpretation that
there is more than ONE PERSON of Deity. Because of the overwhelming
preponderance of Scriptural evidence which contradict the literal
inerpretations of a few Scriptures like this is why I maintain that when
Jesus spoke like that, it was Him speaking as a man and using terms
like that as a figure of speech. He did not come down here and just
speak openly and plainly all the time and to everyone. It was
prophesied that He would open His mouth in a parable and utter dark
sayings of old (Psalms 78:2). I know you don't want to hear about Clark
Kent/Superman, Jim. But, honestly it amazes me that you are having
such a struggle with the two "natures" of Jesus and how that there were
times His words were strictly for the benefit of those who heard Him (or
would one day read them, no doubt, ... He was the example we are to
emulate), and there were times when He was speaking from the standpoint
of humanity, and still other times when He was speaking from the
standpoint of Divinity. Again, I know you don't want to hear that, but
it is my custom to put things back into the record where I feel it is
needed. In conclusion, I will say that under normal circumstances the
words "us" and "we" would indicate a reference to more than one person
... but there is even an exception to that. I sometimes say, "We'll see
y'all later." when I am not talking about anyone else but me. I even
sometimes say to myself, "Well, let's (let us) see, here," when there
ain't another soul around. And **IF** I were to gamble, I would wager
you do too. I understand writers even sometimes use pronouns like that
too. About this exception, you said, "Grammarians call that a
"Deliberative 'we.'" Anyway, my position still stands there is ONLY ONE
PERSON up there because the vast preponderance of Scriptural evidence
on the subject refers to God as I, ME, MY, HE, HIS, HIM and MINE. And
we KNOW Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.
Bobby (from previous email): ... you whoop out your slide ruler
explanations and go to using the logic, intellect, human reasoning and
"other" material that you've been indoctrinated to believe .... INSTEAD
of just allowing the Bible to speak for itself on that particular
subject.
Jim: Eh? I grasp the charge here -- but from my perspective, it's
the careful study of the Greek text, and an awareness of the setting of
the text, and a certain slowness to draw conclusions, which allows one
to avoid "reading one's own fingerprints," so to speak -- to circumvent
one's own preconceptions to arrive at the actual meaning of the text
rather than what it may seem to mean at first glance, or through a
particular translation.
Bobby: I think taking the vast preponderance of Scriptural evidence
on any subject is a very safe approach to independent Bible study, as
well as doing particular Greek and Hebrew word searches and studies to
find out how a particular word is used and how it is not used as well
... the Greek word "with" (# 4314) comes to mind. Remember it?
Bobby (from previous email): ... unless your ... conclusion can be
drawn from the Scriptures on a particular subject, you have no problem
with just going outside the Bible and elevating that material to the
same level or higher than that of what is found in the Word of God
itself (which you ignore).
Jim: That's simply not true. I think I mentioned something about
this in Part 3 or 4. I like to consider all the evidence, but I
consider non-Biblical evidence to be supplemental, not foundational.
Bobby: I did not get that impression about my position concerning
baptism, quoting the words, "... in the NAME of the Father, AND of the
Son, AND of the Holy Ghost/Spirit." It appeared to me that you came on
real strong with the later writings in defense of quoting the words of
Matthew 28:19.
...
St. John 14:26 says, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and
bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Bobby (from previous email): The name of Jesus is not only "alluded" to as being the "proper" name of Deity --
Jim: Eh? If you are saying that, when Jesus says that the Father
will send the Spirit "in my name," the Spirit comes having personally
been named "Jesus," you are really skewing the text! Look at Matthew
7:22 -- do you think that the people described there were calling
themselves "Jesus," or were they simply doing things "in Jesus' name?"
The latter, of course.
Bobby: Names in Bible days were very significant and actually meant
something more than just what somebody was called by at supper time.
And the name of the LORD is extremely significant because His name is
HIM (so to speak). Jesus did say the Holy Spirit was coming in His
(Jesus') name. The Bible has already proven that the Holy Spirit "IS"
the Spirit of Christ ... the same Spirit that was "IN" Christ.
Bobby (from previous email): ... we actually have the following
examples of where Jesus is alluded to, or described, as being Deity:
1 Timothy 3:16
Jim: (just chiming in to note that there's a textual variant here.)
Bobby: Well, by all means tell me what your problem with it is, Jim.
Bobby (from previous email): Now, Jim, these are just a small
representation of overwhelming Scriptural "evidence" which is why I
embrace the Apostles' One God Monotheistic Doctrine .
Jim: Do you think that I am not aware of the verses you cited? I
embrace the Apostolic Biblical Model of the Godhead Doctrine because of
the very same verses! We do not disagree about their presence, just
their meaning. Which is no little difference, but is something that
will take more than mere quotation to resolve. To be continued. Yours in
Christ, Jim
Bobby: I noticed you do not refer to your doctrine as the Apostolic
Biblical Monotheistic Doctrine. We need to re-visit those verses and
take them one at a time to find out where we agree and where we disagree
about them. How do the following Scriptures help you establish your
position that YHWH is NOT a person, but a "substance" shared in a
pluralistic "union" of "three eternal persons" who are each YHWH
individually OR collectively????
St. John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
St. John 14:26 says, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and
bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
The name of Jesus is not only "alluded" to as being the "proper"
name of Deity, we actually have the following examples of where Jesus is
alluded to, or described, as being Deity ....
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and
the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
Prince of Peace.
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen
of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world,
received up into glory.
St. John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Colossians 2:8-10 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy
and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the
world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the
Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all
principality and power:
Colossians 1:15 " ... the image of the invisible God, ..."
Philippians 2:6 " ... being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
St. John 14:9 " ... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; ..."
St. John 14:10 " ... the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
Jim: Continuing the response: It looks to me that Matthew's
original readers would naturally conclude that one should baptize using
the formula, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit."
Bobby: Exactly what do you base your opinion on here, Jim? Where was this "formula" ever invoked for any reason in the Bible?
Jim: When a wife gives her husband a razor for Christmas, he knows
he's expected to shave with it. Matthew -- in the Great Commission and
in the other passages I have already pointed out -- supplies the church
with liturgically useful texts. It doesn't take rocket science to
realize what he (and the Holy Spirit guiding him) intended to be done
with them.
Bobby: Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the NAME of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the
Holy Ghost:
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every
one of you in the NAME of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the NAME of the Lord Jesus.)
Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the NAME of Jesus
Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. ((RSV))
**** The Scriptural evidence proves they did it right. All you
have to go on about Matthew expecting people to shave with his razor ...
quote the words Jesus spoke in Matthew 28:19 ... is opinions, theories,
and an implied interpretation given to the Scripture concerning the
word "NAME" (singular).
Jim: If, by the second question, you are asking me to cite an
example of someone in the book of Acts quoting the Great Commission at a
baptism, there is no narrative account with that detail, just as there
is no narrative account that details the keeping of some other commands
of Christ. That does not add up to a license to disobey or belittle the
command!
Bobby: Hey, I didn't have anything to do with nobody in the
"original" New Testament leadership obeying Matthew 28:19 the way you
"think" it is to be obeyed. Disobedience is a rather strong charge you
have leveled against Brother Peter, Philip and Paul. I'm going to stand
with them on knowing more about what the Lord meant in Matthew 28:19
that you do.
Jim: We have at least one very early example of how the early
church understood this passage: the document called the "Didache," --
Bobby: ... According to the information I have, the Didache refers
both to baptism into the name of the Lord (9:5) and to baptism in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Jim: In the early church, there was no contradiction between the
act of describing Christian baptism as being baptized "into Christ" and
being baptized using the formula "in the name of the Father, and the
Son, and the Holy Spirit." Unlike some other people, they knew metonymy
when they saw it.
Bobby: Jim, you're making this stuff up as you go along aren't you?
The subject of baptizing in the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost
because it was very well known by the "original" New Testament leaders
that the proper formula for baptism was in the Name of Jesus. Nobody
was doing it any other way, Jim. Face it!
Bobby (from previous email): The Didache is a very controversial document
Jim: -- controversial to whom? Controversial in what respect?
There is some disagreement about its date, and the meaning of some
phrases here and there, but not about its authenticity.
Bobby: There are a number of controversial things about it, but
having the Bible I do not see any need for any "later" writings by God
only knows who or where or when and how many times it has been doctored.
One passage about baptism indicates that the titles of Matthew 28:19
are to be recited, but we know how the "original" New Testament leaders
interpreted and applied Matthew 28:19. Then in another place it talks
about baptism in the NAME of the Lord, which is the way it is described
in the KJV in Acts 10:48 and translated in the NAME of JESUS in other
translations. So that would be a controversy for trinitarians. Then it
talks about fasting being a requirement for both the person being
baptized and the person doing the baptizing which is completely
unScriptural. Then it talks about baptism by just pouring water three
times on a person's head and reciting the titles of Matthew 28:19,
another completely unScriptural mention.
Bobby (from previous email): which turned up in the 1800's, held by
some to be the oldest "post" Apostolic document in existence.
Jim: I think First Clement and possibly some of the letters of Ignatius are older.
Bobby: The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is, no "later
writings" are on the same level of ... and certainly not superior to
.... the Bible. As a matter of fact, having the Bible, I can't think of
any reason why a person would need them. The Bible is complete, and
tells us everything we need to know about God, Salvation, "Sound"
Doctrine, Soul Winning and Victorious living.
Bobby (from previous email): There is most certainly some
controversial wording in it concerning baptism. Didache 7:1 states, "But
concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these
precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit, in running water; ... (words that were never recited at any
baptism of the "original" New Testament Church.) .... while Didache 9:5
says, "And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have
been baptized into the name of the Lord ."
... (A DEFINITE reference to baptism in the NAME of Jesus.)
Jim: First, metonymy and synecdoche are not controversial, except
to those who do not recognize them when they see them. Second, in your
comments here you are once again re-stating your own position! Do you
somehow imagine that those who use the formula "in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" believe that their
baptism into Christ is some other baptism? Of course we do not do so!
Bobby: Well, Jim, my position is that there is no controversy with
Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48 and Acts 19:5, except
to those who do not understand the proper interpretation and
application of Matthew 28:19 as witnessed by the examples in Acts. If
the name of Jesus is not invoked, a person has not been baptized
properly. Period, end of issue, as far as I'm concerned.
Bobby (from previous email): 2) Even with Matthew 28:19 being
worded as it is, (and, no doubt, as misunderstood by those back then who
did NOT have "ears to hear" as is often the case to this very day)
Jim: (From here on I shall insert to initials "RYP" every time you
re-state your position rather than add new evidence to its defense.)
Bobby: Unless you have Scriptural evidence which refutes my position, then it will stand correct as stated .. or re-stated.
Bobby (from previous email): not a single one of the "original" New
Testament leaders ever COMMANDED ... or even so much as suggested ...
someone to conduct a baptism, or to be baptized, with the words of
Matthew 28:19 invoked, " ... in the NAME of the Father, AND of the Son,
AND of the Holy Spirit."
Jim: RYP
Bobby: Unless you have Scriptural evidence which refutes my position, then it will stand correct as stated .. or re-stated.
Bobby (from previous email): 3) Didache 7:4 states, "But before the
baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously,
and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is
baptized to fast one or two days before. .... Now, Jim, do you follow
this part of the Didache too?
Jim: No, not as a rule. If a person is scheduled to be baptized on
a Sunday morning, though, and is reasonably healthy, I might recommend
that he fast the previous day, just as Paul fasted prior to his baptism.
Bobby: Jim, there is a difference in a recommendation and a
commandment. I noticed you said you "might" recommend that a person
fast the previous day. That doesn't sound like you're too committed to
the ole Didache ....
7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is
baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt
command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before.
Bobby (from previous email): Jim, I'm telling you once again in the
fear of God that these man made precepts being elevated to the same
level (or greater) that the verbatim [Word] of God itself is a very real
and present danger
Jim: -- Eh? I have already said that I consider the early writings
not in Scripture to be supplemental, not foundational. When you keep
on repeating the same thing after I have defined my approach as
something other that what you're describing, I get the impression that
you are talking at me rather than with me.
Bobby: There are two ways information is effectively retained and
that is by repetition and instant shock. The commercial world is very
familar with the former via advertising. Besides, I get the impression
at times that you are hearing me but you're not listening.
Jim: Matthew 28:19 is evidence that Matthew intended for those
words to be used liturgically. It was not the earliest baptismal
formula, but it certainly is an apostolic baptismal formula, recorded
from the lips of Christ Himself.
Bobby: WHAT??? You said, "It was not the earliest baptismal
formula, but it certainly is an apostolic baptismal formula, ..." So
you do think the earliest formula was wrong, don't you?
Jim: You seem to throw this out rhetorically and keep going, but
allow me to answer anyway: I do not think the earliest formula was
wrong; neither was it wrong for the early church to tarry in Jerusalem
before Pentecost.
Bobby: The earliest formula "practiced" was in obedience to the
words of our Lord's Great COMMANDMENT. As far as the early church
tarrying in Jerusalem, that was in obedience to another COMMANDMENT ....
Luke 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you:
but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power
from on high.
Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them
that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of
the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
Jim: But certainly it would have been wrong for the early Christians
to remain perpetually in Jerusalem after Pentecost. There is a
continuum of development in the New Testament which does not seem to be
considered in your approach, and it should be considered.
Bobby: The tarrying was directly related to the promise of the
Father .... the baptism of the Holy Spirit. About 120 of them tarried
something like 7 days in prayer and supplication prior to the
inauguration of the "original" New Testament Church on the Day of
Pentecost in Acts Chapter 2. God placed gifts in His Church which some
claim He has taken away, when the Scriptures plainly state the gifts and
calling of God are without repentance (Romans 11:29). Well, that
another debate for another day.
Bobby (from previous email): ... the Great Commission was NOT ...
AND IS NOT ... actually carried out in the manner which trinitarians
insist it is to be carried out.
Jim: RYP
Bobby: Unless you have Scriptural evidence which refutes my position, then it will stand correct as stated .. or re-stated.
Bobby (from previous email): ... you have also got to admit that I
provided you with "verbatim" scriptures where you can actually turn to
and read in your own Bible where it says it ... AND does it ... just
exactly as I believe it, which is more than you can do, Jim.
Jim: RYP
Bobby: Unless you have Scriptural evidence which refutes my position, then it will stand correct as stated .. or re-stated.
Jim: Bob, Matthew 28:19 supports my position. If you can't see the
crafted usefulness of this passage, I think it may be because you do
not want to see. Perhaps you can't see it or admit it due to invisible
"blinders" which have pre-convinced you that "God showed you" the
position you currently hold. What you say here, those who regard
Sabbath-keeping on Saturdays as essential also say. And their basic
mistake is much the same as yours; they simply do not consider the
continuum of development in the New Testament church.
Bobby: There is no association between the proper formula of water
baptism and the first day of the week being the day Christians assembled
to worship ... the day the Lord rose from the grave ... the day the
Church was inaugurated (on the Day of Pentecost). The baptism of the
Holy Spirit "IS" the Sabbath. Entering into the Lord's Sabbath or
Lord's rest and ceasing from one's own works is what the Sabbath was all
about. And that's what the baptism of the Holy Spirit ... being
baptized into Christ ... is all about, actually. When we put on Christ
and enter into the Lord's rest.
Bobby (from previous email): ... the overwhelming preponderance of
Scriptural "evidence" plainly shows you are on the wrong path .... and
paddling upstream.
Jim: RYP
Bobby: Unless you have Scriptural evidence which refutes my position, then it will stand correct as stated .. or re-stated.
Jim: Therein, Justin explains that new believers are instructed to
pray and fast and then they are taken to some place where there is
water, and "In the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and
of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive
the washing of the water." (I:61)
Bobby (from previous email): Justin's words are very similar to the
words of Jesus words in Matthew 28:19 ... and neither one of them
instructed their words to be "recited."
Jim: I encourage you to read the complete text of Justin's description, which you can find at the ccel.org website.
Bobby: I don't have any reason to, Jim. But I will say this, if
ole Justin teaches that Matthew 28:19 is a different formula that that
which the "original" New Testament leaders employed ... and is just as
acceptable, making TWO formulas of baptism that are acceptable instead
of just ONE, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. You do whatever
you want to.
Bobby (from previous email): Jim, the GREAT COMMISSION of Matthew
28:19 wasn't the Great Suggestion. The "original" New Testament leaders
carried it out precisely as Jesus "COMMANDED" them.
Jim: They did not do so in one turn of the page. They did not "Go
therefore and make disciples of all the nations" in one day, or one
year, or one decade.
Bobby: You know, Jim, to be honest with you, it sort of galls me
for you to come across about half way critical of the "original" New
Testament Church leaders, as if you are some how superior to them. You
may think they drug their feet, but they turned their world upside down
without a telephone, computer, automobile or any of the modern day
marvels most of us take for granted. Also, I'll tell you this, they had
the correct interpretation of the Baptismal formula nailed.
Bobby (from previous email): Now you may "think" it took years to
get the shuttle off the pad, but I can tell you, she was in orbit in a
very short period of time after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit took
place, and lit the candle.
Jim: In your comments about Acts 2:5 you seem to consider Jews from
every nation coming to Jerusalem the same as the disciples going to all
nations. It's not the same thing. Going into all the world, and
staying in Jerusalem, are not the same thing.
Bobby: Duh, Jim, they made disciples out of a bunch of them who did
go to all nations ... or back to their places of abode with the gospel,
don't you think? I, mean, about 3120 folks is a pretty good bunch for
the very first day's business (so to speak). And the Bible says the
Lord added to the Church ... "daily." I, mean, they didn't have just
one or two every 6 months to a year coming in. They were blazing some
trials!
Bobby (from previous email): ... You just hate to admit you've been sincerely wrong about a very important Bible doctrine.
Jim: Hmm; here I was telling you the same sort of thing just a minute ago.
Bobby: The difference between what I'm telling you and what you're
telling me is, I have SPECIFIC Bible authority with "verbatim"
Scriptural "witnesses" to back it up the way I present it. You don't.
Bobby (from previous email): When I came to that bridge a number of
years ago, I made a decision to repent, and admit it, embrace it, and
get on with it ... instead of continuing to try and put square pegs into
round holes.
Jim: Translation: you did not realize the liturgical usefulness of
the Gospel of Matthew, you did not realize that titles were called
"names" in New Testament Greek, and you probably had never heard of the
Didache, and Justin Martyr's "First Apology," so you took what seemed at
the time to be the right road, and invested a lot of time and resources
into it, and became so attached to it that you are consider it
something shown to you by God, and thus you are practically incapable of
considering that you are wrong.
Bobby: If I am wrong, the Bible is wrong. And I'll stand flat
footed on it, come what may. I don't need some slide ruler explanation
that has been cooked up by someone who has been educated beyond their
intelligence. I'll tell you what, Jim. You can have what you "think"
is the "liturgical usefulness" of Matthew 28:19, you can have the
Didache, and Justin Martyr's "First Apology," for all I care. I don't
need any of that to be able to rightly divide the Word of God and
identify what is Truth in its entirety and what is traditions and
doctrines of man. **IF** the titles of Matthew are actually names as
you insist, then to interpret Matthew 28:19 in a way to be referring to
THREE PERSONS ... the way you interpret it ..., it would have to read
like this ... Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the names (plural) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost: .... Otherwise, the single form of the word name would be
referring to ONLY ONE PERSON ... just as the following uses of the word
NAME (singular) in the Scriptures you referred to alluded to ONLY ONE
PERSON.
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and
the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
Prince of Peace. .... the singular use of the word "NAME" here in
Isaish 9:6 identifies ONLY ONE PERSON ... a child, who is specifically
referred to as a son ... NOT two different "persons."
Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood:
and his name is called The Word of God. .... Again the singular use of
the word "NAME" identifies ONLY ONE PERSON ... the One called The Word
of God.
Revelation 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name
written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. ... Again the singular use
of the word "NAME" identifies ONLY ONE PERSON ... the KING OF KINGS, AND
LORD OF LORDS ... the same one identified in verse 13 above.
Bobby (from previous email): ... your way above (with or without
the name of Jesus) has absolutely no Scriptural evidence of having been
carried out as you insist it is to be carried out.
Jim: RYP
Bobby: Unless you have Scriptural evidence which refutes my position, then it will stand correct as stated .. or re-stated.
Jim: I think it has Scriptural authority, inasmuch as it is in
harmony with all texts, but to keep things moving (and avoid just
repeating my position), I respond thusly: it is not forbidden, either.
There is no Scriptural evidence of indoor baptistries being used.
Would you consider baptisms done in indoor baptistries to be
illegitimate on the grounds that they do not have an explicit New
Testament precedent? Or is that -- and this -- merely a point of
method?
Bobby: Jim, we are not talking about the method of baptism, we are
talking about the "formula" of baptism. By the way, there is nothing in
Scripture forbidding sleeping on the railroad tracks either, but that
wouldn't be too smart. I'm truly amazed that you feel that you must be
told what "not" to do as opposed to what "to" do.
Jim: Likewise it is Scripturally and historically a proven fact that the "original" New Testament church baptized only Jews,
Bobby: This is an inaccurate statement. And I would greatly
appreciate it if you would go on record and acknowledge its inaccuracy,
o.k.? There is no point in letting something that blatantly wrong,
stand without a retraction on your part.
Jim: Accent on the word "Likewise," Bobby. Of course the statement
is inaccurate; I was showing that your presentation of the "original"
church not using the formula in Matthew 28 is likewise inaccurate!
Bobby: They didn't quote from Matthew 28:19, as you seem to be
implying. Granted they obeyed Matthew 28:19 when they baptized in the
name of Jesus. But let's replay this little likewise deal ....
* * * * *
Bobby (from previous email): Jim, it is Scripturally and
historically a proven fact that the "original" New Testament Church
baptized their converts to Christianity "in the name of Jesus" ... NOT
"in the name of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Spirit."
Jim: Likewise it is Scripturally and historically a proven fact
that the "original" New Testament church baptized only Jews, and
generally had no private property, if one arbitrarily considers only one
day in the life of the early church rather than the entire picture to
which the New Testament bears witness.
* * * * *
Bobby: Now, Jim, when you said above .... "Accent on the word
"Likewise," Bobby. Of course the statement is inaccurate; I was showing
that your presentation of the "original" church not using the formula
in Matthew 28 is likewise inaccurate!" Since you are now saying you
purposely stated an inaccuracy about only Jews being baptized, that you
were "likewise" purposely stating an inaccuracy about them generally not
having private property? Or are you just sort of doing your chameleon
act about this little deal?
Jim: When you say that various passages show that the "original"
church did not baptize using the liturgical formula in Matthew 28, that
is the same sort of thing someone would be doing when stating that
various passages show that the "original" church did not baptize
Gentiles -- namely, they would be coming to the text with a carnival
mirror in their heads (so to speak), enlarging some verses and shrinking
others, rather than considering them all and integrating them into one
smooth picture.
Bobby: I'd say you probably know all about that carnival stuff.
However, it would be good if you started practicing that portion of the
last sentense as it related to the Scriptures ... considering them all
and integrating them into one smooth picture.
Bobby (from previous email): ... people are to be baptized in the
NAME of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Spirit. But
"quoting" those words doesn't FULFILL those words and actually "apply" a
NAME.
Jim: RYP!
Bobby: Unless you have Scriptural evidence which refutes my position, then it will stand correct as stated .. or re-stated.
Jim: It does fulfill those words. Just look at how "His name shall
be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, the Everlasting Father,
Prince of Peace" in Isaiah 9:6. Look at how "His name is called the
Word of God" in Revelation 19. Technically, those are not personal
names; they're titles -- but to the ancient Hebrew-speakers and
Greek-speakers, titles were used interchangeably as names. That's why
Peter can easily refer to "the name of Jesus Christ" without making the
laborious differentiation which you superimpose on the text; "Christ" is
technically a title, not a name, but Peter describes them both as "the
name."
Bobby: **IF** the titles of Matthew are actually names as you
insist, then to interpret Matthew 28:19 in a way to be referring to
THREE PERSONS ... the way you interpret it ..., it would have to read
like this ... Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the names (plural) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost: .... Otherwise, the single form of the word name would be
referring to ONLY ONE PERSON ... just as the following uses of the word
NAME (singular) in the Scriptures you referred to alluded to ONLY ONE
PERSON.
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and
the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The
Prince of Peace. .... the singular use of the word "NAME" here in
Isaish 9:6 identifies ONLY ONE PERSON ... a child, who is specifically
referred to as a son ... NOT two different "persons."
Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood:
and his name is called The Word of God. .... Again the singular use of
the word "NAME" identifies ONLY ONE PERSON ... the One called The Word
of God.
Revelation 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name
written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. ... Again the singular use
of the word "NAME" identifies ONLY ONE PERSON ... the KING OF KINGS, AND
LORD OF LORDS ... the same one identified in verse 13 above.
Bobby (from previous email): ... The Bible is only complicated to complicated people.
Jim: What a reversal this is! A while ago you were saying that
Matthew 28:19 was spoken so as to be misunderstood by those who did not
have ears to hear. Now say that it was entirely straightforward! In
that case, it seems that a simple person would most definitely
understand these words in the plain straightforward way that the
Didache, Justin Martyr, and the rest of the writers of the early church
understood them.
Bobby: It was the complicated ones who didn't get Matthew 28:19,
Jim. For those who have ears to hear, it really is pretty simple and
straightforward. Sooo, I guess it just depends upon which side of the
fence one is grazing on, doesn't it? Truth ... or ... Tradition!
Bobby (from previous email): ... And please don't come back with
that stuff about a concept without any terminology because it had to be
hammered out at a later date ... because I ain't buying it, Jim.
Jim: Bobby, is there any point in discussing this with you, really?
Here is the scenario I am faced with: the person I am talking to
says, "Don't tell me your position because... -- multiple choice --
(a) "There is a logical fallacy in your approach,"
(b) "There is a historical error being assumed in a premise,"
(c) "There is a flawed definition in your presentation," or
(d) "I'm not going to believe you."
If he said "a," "b," or "c," I would see that as an invitation for
more detailed discussion. But "d" seems like an invitation to conclude
discussion.
Bobby: Do what ever makes you happy, Jim. I just ain't buying the
old man made, pagan Rome doctrine you're trying to sell, that's all.
Bobby (from previous email): The name Jesus is not like some fictional magical phrase like "abra-cadabra-ala-cazam."
Jim: I'm glad to hear (so to speak) you say that, lest one get the
impression that you superstitiously credit efficacy to the name itself
(and not even to His actual name, but to an English translation of it),
rather than to the Person of Jesus Christ.
Bobby: I feel reasonably sure that God is multi-lingual, Jim.
There shouldn't be any problems with me referring to His name in my
native language. By the way, if you are so convinced the titles of
Matthew 28:19 are names, then I guess you could just start referring to
Jesus as "the Son," huh?
Bobby (from previous email): ... most certainly understanding who
the Person "really" is who wears that name is a qualification.
Jim: You mean that one must believe that Jesus is the Father, Jesus
is the Son, and Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Obviously I disagree, but
since so much has already been said about that already I will decline
further comment here for the sake of maintaining an aesthetic
discussion. Let us agree, at least, that one should acknowledge that
Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, who died for our sins. I think we
can use Acts 8:37 as a precedent for this (despite its absence in
modern translations!).
Bobby: Jim, I think the records will reflect that I have
consistently maintained that YHWH is the LORD .... GOD ... THE FATHER
.... THE ONE SPIRIT .... Who was manifest in the flesh.
Bobby (from previous email): Baptism is an essential part of the new birth (St. John 3:5; Titus 3:5).
Jim: You're preachin' to the choir on this point!
Bobby: Believe it or not, but I have debated ministers who did not believe baptism was essential.
Bobby (from previous email): The bottom line is, that NAME of Jesus invoked at a baptismal ceremoney is EXTREMELY important.
Jim: As previously noted -- no problem.
Bobby: Well, thank God for that!
Jim: the distinction between the English words "name" and "title"
is not relevant to the Greek of the New Testament, in which the two were
interchangeable -- pretty much the same way we call the "name" of a
book and the "title" of a book the same thing.
Bobby: Let's look into this ...
Matthew 28:19 ... name [3686] ...
name [3686] onoma {on'-om-ah}
from a presumed derivative of the base of 1097 (cf 3685);
TDNT - 5:242,694; n n
Jim: You use the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament? If I
thought I needed further evidence to show that your objection to
analytical "slide rule" research is inconsistent with your own methods,
this would clinch it!
Bobby: Actually, Jim, I use a couple on line concordances, this one
has the Hebrew and Greek Dictionary. There are some tools that are
very helpful. Especially when someone whips out a word ... like "with"
... and tries to use it in a way that is inconsistent with the Greek,
then it is handle to have these study tools.
Bobby (from previous): Translated as: name 193 times, named=28
times, called=4 times, surname + 2007=2 times, named + 2564=1 times, not
tr 1; for a total of 229 times.
Defintions:
1) name: univ. of proper names
2) the name is used for everything which the name covers, everything
the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning,
hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank,
authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc.
3) persons reckoned up by name
4) the cause or reason named: on this account, because he suffers as a Christian, for this reason
I could only find two New Testament referenced to "title." Here they are ...
St. John 19:19 ... title [5102], ... St. John 19:20 ... title [5102]
title [5102] titlos {tit'-los}
of Latin origin;; n m
Translated as: title 2 times
Definitions:
1) a title
2) an inscription, giving the accusation or crime for which a criminal suffered
Jim: Then suddenly, you conclude:
Bobby: Jim, I don't agree with your assertion that the words NAME
and TITLE are "interchangeable" when it comes to water baptism.
Jim: Um ... lemme see here: "let's look into this," you said.
Then you presented the definitions. And then suddenly you state your
conclusion! Isn't there supposed to be some step in between, connecting
the evidence to the conclusions? The very definitions you cited --
drawn from reference books by people who disagreed diametrically with
your view of the meaning of Matthew 28:19 -- clearly show that onoma is
broad enough to mean what is meant in English by "name" and by "title."
Bobby: Jim, we're beating a dead horse here because nobody quoted
the words of Matthew 28:19 in a baptism anyway. There is just not a
scratch of Scriptural evidence that supports such a view. Granted, the
Scriptural don't say that they didn't ... but just because it doesn't
say they didn't doesn't give you or anyone else the license to do it
anyway. But, hey, it's your wagon, pull it.
Bobby (from previous email): ...1 Peter 4:14 ... the name [3686] of Christ [5547], ...
(same as Matthew 28:19 above)
Jim: See? That which is technically a title, "Christ," is referred
to as onoma, name. And the same thing occurs in the other passages I
mentioned (such as Rev. 19).
Bobby: Jim, you can interpret 1 Peter 4:14 to be referring to the
word Christ as a name, but I don't see it that way at all. Granted,
Christ is one of the titles Jesus had and when you use the title Christ
most folks know who you are talking about, but the word translated
Christ in 1 Peter 4:14 is # 5547 Christos Christ = "anointed" 1) Christ
was the Messiah, the Son of God 2) anointed ... the "name of Christ"
means the name of the Messiah, the name of the Son of God ... Jesus.
Bobby (from previous email): I disagree with your assertion that
Peter was referring to the "title" of Christ as a name in 1 Peter 4:14.
Jim: Why?? The only thing that stands in the way of concluding
that Peter was referring to "Christ" as onoma is your preconceived
notion that it just can't be so!
Bobby: Call it what you will, Jim. If I were to refer to the name
of my wife, I would not be referring to her name being "wife." At this
point I could say something about your preconceived notion standing in
the way of a couple things. But I'm afraid that would be about as
productive as trying to get a pig to sing .... I'd just waste my time
and annoy the pig.
Bobby (from previous email): ... Jesus did tell His followers, "If
ye love me, keep MY commandments." One of those COMMANDMENTS was
recorded in Matthew 28:19 ... and I say those who knew best what He
meant, did so.
Jim: I say the same thing; we just disagree about how Matthew intended the Great Commission to be understood and applied.
Bobby: Well, we may disagree on that, but we sure can't disagree on
how the "original" New Testament leaders understood it and applied it,
now can we???
3. How many "Spirits" are in the Godhead?
Jim: Three. One could also use phraseology from Revelation to say seven, though.
Bobby (from previous email): : **IF** one used the phraseology from
Revelation to say seven, would all seven be "persons" ... since you are
on record insisting that 3 of them are??? **IF** so, what role did the
other 4 play? And, do you claim they are also co-equal eternal
persons???
Jim: Notice my choice of words: "one could use phraseology...."
But I do not do so, since I see the phase "seven spirits of God" as a
way of describing the full manifestation of the Holy Spirit. I just
leave the option open for others since the expression has a Biblical
precedent.
Bobby: I knew it was in the Bible, Jim. So you could have just
saved a little keyboard time as far as I'm concerned. By the way, how
could there be a partial manifestation of the Holy Spirit??? A couple
spirits didn't show up? I honestly don't know where you come up with
some of the stuff you come up with.
Bobby (from previous email): In what form did Jesus exist prior to the Incarnation?
Jim: Generally as the Word, eternally emanating from the Father.
Bobby: Just how is it that you explain your position of Jesus being
an "eternal person" ... a different Spirit in the Godhead ... eternally
emanating from the Father PRIOR to the Incarnation. Is it your
position that Jesus was "begotten" at some point AFTER the Father ...
like, maybe, Bethlehem???
Jim: Certainly not. The Son is described as the begotten Son in
Psalm 2. He did not "become" the Son at the Incarnation. I like the
analogy to light from a light that is forever shining, and was never not
shining; in such a way the Son eternally proceeds from the Father.
Bobby: Soooo, the Son was begotten in Psalms Chapter 2, huh?
That's pretty interesting. Funny, but I don't get the impression that
Psalms Chapter 2 is taking about the Creation or in the Beginning, do
you?
Bobby (from previous email): ... Jesus must have existed in "Spirit"
form prior to the Incarnation ... as one of the three Spirits in the
Godhead according to your belief, right? But here you are saying Jesus
was also a theophany? Please clarify.
Jim: Okay: just as God the Father could appear specially to, say, Moses and Isaiah and Ezekiel, so could Jesus.
Bobby: I've read a little bit of what Moses, Isaiah and Ezekiel
wrote, and I don't recall any one of the three ever alluding to TWO
PERSONS .... TWO SPIRITS ... OR ... TWO SAVIOURS in the Godhead like you
do, let alone THREE.
Jim: -- There seemed to be some sort of overlap of material in your
post. I decided to pursue what seemed to be the topic at hand: the
question of Jesus appearing as a theophany in the Old Testament.
Bobby: Do you recall Moses, Isaiah or Ezekiel ever alluding to
THREE PERSONS (or 2).... THREE SPIRITS (or 2)... OR ... THREE SAVIOURS
(or 2) in the Godhead like you do??
Bobby (from previous email): ... Here we have (according to your
theology) TWO different "persons" ... I will ask you for your Scriptural
evidence ... book, chapter and verse ... without the commentary.
Jim: Okay, without commentary, a few references are Zechariah
3:1-2, Daniel 3:25, Exodus 15:11, and Judges 13:18. I think I should
note, however, that I consider this an option, a possible
interpretation, not something which the text absolutely requires.
Bobby: I hope you are not meaning Zechariah 3:1-2 to be in
reference to Jesus. If you are look down at Verses 7- 8. In Verse 7
Joshua is told "if thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my
charge .... " Then in Verse 8 Joshua is told that the LORD was going to
bering forth the BRANCH ... that's a reference to Jesus, but not a
vision.
Bobby (from previous email): 7. How far back have you been able to
find documentation which refers to Almighty God as "three persons" or as
a "trinity?"
Jim: I'm pretty sure I addressed this question previously.
Bobby: Do these sound familar??? ... The term "Trinity" emerged
"officially," as a concrete expression, in the A.D. 300's, although some
early writers such as Tertullian had kicked the idea around previously.
I believe I did answer the question: the era of Tertullian (roughly
A.D. 180-220, as I recall).
Bobby (from previous email): ... Most professing Christians don't
have a clue that the three "persons" concept was a later development ...
by several hundred years.
Jim: I object to the subtle shift of language here! And still do,
for the same reasons: this is precisely why I was averse to answering
vaguely-worded questions previously -- you seemed to make little, if
any, distinction between concepts and terminology. The concept of the
Godhead consisting of three Persons in a Trinity did not originate in
the 300's; the terminology did.
Bobby: Technically you are correct. The concept of the trinity is
actually an ancient pagan concept, but what I was talking about was the
concept of the trinity as it relates to Christianity did not evolved
until many years AFTER the passing of the "original" New Testament
leaders. I think you are correct about ole Tertullian kicking around
the theory of "persons" somewhere around 200 A.D. give or take a few
years. But it wasn't refined, and defined until many years later. It
became the official doctrine of the "universal" mother church of Rome
... and it still is her official doctrine ... as well as all her
daughters too.
Bobby (from previous email): ... I want to be sure you understand
that my position is there was NO concept in Christianity of there being
"three eternal persons" of God which was a union and formed a triune
Godhead ... until many years AFTER the ascension and the passing of the
"original" New Testament leaders.
Jim: I understand that that is your position. (How could I not,
after you have re-stated it so many times?!) But prior to the apostles,
in the Old Testament, the prophets referred to the Father, and to the
Son, and to the Holy Spirit, in terms that were not in all respects
interchangeable. That is not a "pagan" origin; that is a Divine,
Biblical origin.
Bobby: It would sure be beneficial if you could provide book,
chapter and verse when you throw something like that out. Because you
know I'm not going to just take your word for it. I would have to take a
look at it for myself. Soooo, how about sharing that with me? That's a
new wrinkle.
Jim: A few comments on the "Thunder Ministries" material:
Thunder Ministries Web Page: Statement: The Dove has always been the Catholic root Goddess symbol.
Jim: Do you really think that the Church of Christ, Southern
Baptists, and conservative churches which believe God is eternally the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit consider the dove to be the symbol of a
goddess? What is this statement based on, anyway? I don't think normal
Roman Catholic theologians give the dove any special association with
any "goddess."
Bobby: Symbol of a goddess? No, a person would be more accurate.
However, a person can be a woman, can't it? By the way, I'm not familar
with "Thunder Ministries." I just found their information on the
concept of the triune Godhead to be of particular interest. If you have
any questions, I'm sure they have an email address where you can
contact them.
Thunder Ministries Web Page: Statement: "Jesus is the only "Name of God."
Jim: Huh? Are they saying that the Sacred Tetragrammaton
(represented in English as "YHWH") is not the name of God??? If so, I
guess that made the third commandment pretty easy for the Israelites to
keep!
Bobby: I guess you'd need to see if they have any information on the subject, Jim.
Thunder Ministries Web Page: Statement: Tritheistic Worship, as we
know today, all started with Israel, who, in Bablylonian captivity,
allowed the teachings and practices of Nimrod to be observed ...
Jim: The Bible does not actually say very much about Nimrod. This
statement looks to me like something similar to other works in which an
author has a premise to prove and attempts to do so by creating a
history of Nimrod and Semiramis and other characters which has its
origin more in his imagination than it does in any verifiable,
documented history.
Bobby: I found a good bit about Nimrod in my Unger's Bible
Dictionary. But again, you would need to contact Thunder Ministries if
you have a question concerning their position on something.
Thunder Ministries Web Page: Statement: ... From these practices
we find the birth of Kabbalism, then Mysticism, Hinduism, Islam,
Egyptian Mysticism, Gnosticism. Down it traveled the lineages until it
reached Rome at the Nicene Council of 325 A.D.
Jim: What?! Islam did not begin until the 620's A.D., some 295
years after the Council of Nicea! It's this sort of flat-out error that
makes me suspect that someone has written with a point to prove,
without worrying about facts getting in the way of a good premise!
Plus, Muslims (followers of Islam) are about as far from being
Trinitarian as one can be; they don't think Jesus was/is God at all.
Yours in Christ, Jim
Bobby: Jim, I beleive you may have misread something. I went and
dug up the partial statement you copied and pasted above. Here is the
paragraph it came out of ...
Thunder Ministries Web Page: In conclusion this author would like
to make one point clear. Tritheistic Worship, as we know today, all
started with Israel, who, in Bablylonian captivity, allowed the
teachings and practices of Nimrod to be observed, thereby turning
against the God of Israel. The Old Testament proves this time and time
again. From these practices we find the birth of Kabbalism, then
Mysticism, Hinduism, Islam, Egyptian Mysticism, Gnosticism. Down it
traveled the lineages until it reached Rome at the Nicene Council of 325
A.D. From that point in time, the Babylonian Trinity concept entered
the New Testament age and has become the most cunning heresy in the
churches who claim Jesus as Lord today. This is why we have
"denominations" in the church today.
Bobby: My take on the paragraph in question is different from
yours. It looks to me like the main subject is Tritheistic Worship
Then it talks about the teachings and practices of Nimrod (founder of
Babylon), and that from "these practices" evolved the different
religions mentioned. And it concludes by saying Down "IT" traveled
until it reached 325 A.D. etc, etc, etc, What I understood the Down
"IT" traveled to mean, was related to Tritheistic Worship NOT Islam or
the other religions. That was my take on it anyway. God bless!
-Bobby
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
***NOTE: Bobby's last SEVEN responses to Jim on 07-10-01 and
07-11-01 haven't been answered yet. Any further correspondence will be
probably be started on a new web page (due to the length) and linked to
this one once that is done .....