larocque@jupiter.crd.ge.com (David M. LaRocque) (03/16/90)
************ Recently a friend of mine who goes to what he calls "a Jesus only" church gave me some literature that dis- cussed why some people believe there are not three per- sons in the Godhead. Most of the bible verses in the literature were more centered on pointing out that there is in fact ONE god. Agreed. I won't go into the specifics of those verses. The ones that seemed at first to support him were Isaiah (ch. 7?), the verse that states (paraphrased) "...he will be called Wonderful, Counseller, Prince of Peace, Everlasting Father...". They said that since Jesus was refered to as Father, there couldn't be 3 persons. My Bible (Ryrie study) has a footnote the says this is literally translated "Father of Eternity". Is this correct? One of the other key verses used was in Revelation (ch 4?). This is where John saw one (only one) sitting on the throne. However, as I read further in the same chapter, the Lamb appear in the throne and takes the scroll from the right hand of the one sitting on the throne. Apparently more than one? Another verse pointed out was Jesus' baptism. Although there was the voice from heaven, the Spirit that descended like a dove, and Jesus, the literature claimed that only Jesus was present in bodily form. The concept of the Godhead as the trinity doesn't seem key to my personal beliefs, yet it apparently is to others and perhaps it should be for me. I frankly could swing either way given enough sound doctrine. The concept of the trinity is very difficult to understand (yes I've heard the sun, sunlight, and power of the sun analogy, but still find this difficult), perhaps it is out of the realm of human understanding. In contrast, the "Jesus only" concept is attractively simple. Any insights would be welcome. Thanks, Dave larocque@crd.ge.com ************* [I'll respond to the major issue directly as myself rather than as moderator. However let me comment on "father of eternity". I don't have a commentary on Isaiah with me so I can only guess. But Hebrew uses constructs like this a lot. Normally these constructs have specific idiomatic meanings, which are not what the literal English translation would suggest. Something whose literal translation is "father of eternity" could well mean "everlasting father". This is the kind of phrase where a literal translation can be very misleading. --clh]
ibrahim@syacus.acus.oz (Ibrahim Sifri) (10/29/90)
People often say they believe in the Trinity, yet they differ in their understanding of it. I would like to start a conversation with the following questions: 1) What, exactly, is the Trinity? 2) Does the Bible teach it? 3) Is Jesus Christ the Almighty God and part of the Trinity? I am hoping to have some logical answers to start a productive conversation that is not a waste of time. For this to happen, you must back your answers from the BIBLE. Ibrahim Sifri. [Trinitarian thought is a way of talking about God that attempts to do justice to both the separate existence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and to the fact that there is only one God. There have actually been several different approaches to the Trinity, with rather different emphases. The relevant doctrinal standards allow for this diversity. They simply set boundaries marking off areas that are known to result in problems. This whole business is Biblical if you agree that the Bible describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct, but that it commits us to worship only one God. I believe there are people who think they reject the Trinity as un-Biblical, but who are actually Trinitarian. The Trinity became inevitable as soon as the Church chose to read passages like John 1, Col. 1, and parts of Hebrews as describing a Son who had an eternal existence alongside the Father. I suppose one could regard passages such as Col. 1:15ff and John 1:1ff as metaphorical. But the moment you take them as saying that there was actually a Son existing from eternity alongside the Father, you are committed to either the Trinity, or some positions that have been pretty clearly rejected by the Church (the Son as a separate God, or the Son as an entity that is not truly God). The Trinity simply says that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct, but that they are only one God. How this can be, and what it all means is not properly speaking specified by the doctrinal standards, and different theologians have given different explanations. Your third question involves more than just the Trinity. The relationship between Jesus Christ and God is properly speaking the subject of the doctrine of the Incarnation. The Incarnation says that the Son -- the eternal person of the Trinity -- took to himself a human existence in such a way that there was a human being that can be said to be the "human face of God". However God and humanity remain separate things. Jesus, as a man, was not eternal, invisible, omnipotent, etc. He was mortal, just like the rest of us. Again, the doctrine does not explain how the two were united. However it says that God took to himself this human life in such a way that we encounter God directly through Jesus. I think it is OK to summarize this by saying that Jesus is God, though it may tend to be misleading. If you aren't careful, you can end up thinking that Jesus was a superman, or something altogether beyond human. That is not what the Church means to say. Jesus was an ordinary human being. The Incarnation says that God can manifest himself though a human being. It also safeguards the distinctness of God and humanity, ruling out concepts such as a demigod, halfway between God and human. As to the Biblical background for this, it is basically passages such as Col 1:19, which indicate that God was really present in Christ, and that Christ's sacrifice was actually God's action, acting in Christ. The Incarnation is inevitable if you accept both that God was really present in Christ, but that Christ remained human. --clh]
tp0x@spica.fac.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price) (10/30/90)
the Moderator commented
>As to the Biblical background for this, it is basically passages such
as Col 1:19, which indicate that God was really present in Christ, and
that Christ's sacrifice was actually God's action, acting in Christ.
The Incarnation is inevitable if you accept both that God was
really present in Christ, but that Christ remained human.<
I will protest that "Incarnation" is a nebulous term here. It is possible to
believe that Christ was Immanuel, God with us, that he declared God to us
(John 1:18), and still not to become bogged down in any mysterious confusion
about a Triune God.
I will draw your attention to the fact that in Exodus Moses receives the law
from the LORD, and the LORD there makes statements that only the Almighty could
make (for instance, "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of
the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other
gods before me -- Ex 20:1,2), but Stephen in Acts (7:38) claims that Moses
received the Law from an angel. Contradiction? Not if we accept the idea that
the Almighty is manifested through his servants the angels who act as his
perfect mouthpieces and wield his authority. A careful examination of Genesis
18 and 19 would seem to bear this out: e.g. Gen 19:13 ("we will destroy
this place") vs. 19:24 ("the LORD rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and
fire from the LORD out of heaven.")
There is no reason to believe that the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth
and the Almighty God was essentially different as far as "God being in him"
is concerned. I assert that Jesus was the Son of God, a sinless man who
now sits on the right hand of God and will act as God's viceregent in the
coming Kingdom (the seed promised to Abraham who will sit on David's throne,
etc.) but there is no reason to believe that Jesus pre-existed as part of a
Triune God.
Passages such as 1Tim 2:5,6 (for there is one God, and one mediator between
God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all...) can
be understood at face value. Wherever Jesus is spoken of as God, it can be
understood as a result of his office (Immanuel) and the power he wields as a
result of it, rather than because of his being part of a Triune God -- just
as the angel which delivered the Law to Moses was legitimately described as
the LORD.
Related question: What does it mean for the Spirit to dwell in us? Proposed
answer: check out John 6:63 ; 15:3,4,7 . Our task as disciples is to impress
the Godly character onto our own. In this way we fallen creatures attempt
to manifest the character of God, just as the perfect creatures the angels
do perfectly, and the sinless man Jesus did perfectly as our example.
Tom
[Hmmm..... Historically the doctrine of the Incarnation followed that
of the Trinity, and it's unlikely that it would have taken quite the
form it did had not the Trinitarian discussions already taken place.
Thus it took for granted the concept of the preexistent Son. As I
said in my original comment, this is based on an exegesis of passages
like John 1 and Col. 1. One can argue that these passages should be
read in the context of 1st Cent. Jewish Logos speculation, and that
they are intended metaphorically, but as the Church read them, they
implied a preexistent, eternal Son. It is the attempt to combine this
concept with a commitment to the humanity of Jesus that results in the
Incarnation as we know it. I believe that once one accepts this
literal preexistence of Christ, something like the Trinity is
inevitable, and given that, it's hard to see much alternative to the
Incarnation.
I think the most fruitful alternative position, which seems to be what
you are getting at, is to start with the assumption that Christ's
preexistence is not to be taken quite so literally. One could take
John 1 and Col 1 as being meant along the line of 1st Cent. Jewish
discussion about the preexistent Torah. This was surely not meant to
be taken literally. If you deny the preexistent Son, then you no
longer have two Sons, preexistent and human, to worry about, and you
can look for a rather different conception of the Incarnation. I
agree that in that case it would make sense to start with the concept
of God's presence through the prophets. But while you might start
there, I don't think you'll want to end there. While you are right
that the prophets' actions are in some sense God's, I think the NT
implies a somewhat closer identity between Jesus' actions and God's.
Among other things, I don't see how the death of a prophet could
accomplish what the NT says Jesus' death accomplished. It is seen as
God's self-sacrifice. So we need some concept that God is directly
present to us in Christ. I don't see any problem with starting with
Hebrew concepts of God's presence rather than metaphysical concepts,
as long as you end up saying something that does justice to the
situation.
There were some attempts to develop concepts like this in the early
church, particularly Theodore of Mopsuestia. While it is not his
primary model, I think Theodore's ideas are closely related to your
suggestion that God's presence with Christ is because of Christ's
specific office. I think the problem Theodore ran into was that the
Greek metaphysics being used by the Church saw only "things" as being
first-class metaphysical objects. A functional unity between Christ
and God didn't seem to them "real" enough to say what they wanted to
say.
However even if you undertake a functional exposition of some sort,
and try to avoid fancy metaphysics, I think you'll find yourself
coming back to ideas that are closely analogous to the traditional
ones. First, as to the Incarnation. The basic concept of the
Incarnation is that in Christ we have two things: a man, and God. The
main points that are made by the doctrine of the Incarnation are (1)
that in Christ, God himself is truly present, (2) that as a human
being, Christ is normal, without superhuman powers or nonstandard
metaphysical properties, (3) that these two aspects of the situation:
the presence of God and Christ's humanity, are present in toto, and
not via a compromise. I.e. that we don't have an entity halfway
between God and man. I think these basic principles are appropriate
even if you try to avoid the unusual metaphysics involved in
traditional Christian theology.
Second, as to the Trinity. Even if you don't like the metaphysical
discussions, with their tendency to look like they are saying 3 == 1,
I think you're going to want to say some things that are closely
related to the Trinity. E.g. if you take seriously the concept that
Christ really shows us God's nature -- even if you try to do this with
some kind of functional unity -- this has implications on how we see
God. We can't see him as a totally transcendent entity about which we
know nothing other than the commands that he gives us. Jesus is an
obedient servant. If we want to think of him as revealing God, then
this implies that somehow God himself is not just the transcendent
lawgiver, but the obedient child. And this is basically what the
Trinity is saying: God is not just the creator, lawgiver, etc. He is
both the lover and the beloved, the creator and the servant. If you
read Augustine's exposition of the Trinity, it seems that what he is
fishing for -- and he admits that he doesn't have the philosophical
language to do the idea justice -- is that the Persons of the Trinity
are distinguished only by the relationship between them. If you agree
that God has within himself the relationship of love, then the Father
and the Son are the two "ends" of that relationship. And the Holy
Spirit is what binds it together. You may not like the way these
ideas turned out after being expressed in neo-Platonic terms, but I
think you will want to preserve them in some way.
The one caution I have is that most attempts to avoid the classical
orthodox position have ended up creating analogies to the classical
heresies.
--clh]tp0x@spica.fac.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price) (11/02/90)
Moderator: > I don't see how the death of a prophet could accomplish what the > NT says Jesus' death accomplished. I don't either: Jesus was sinless; no other man ever was. Every other prophet would have deserved his own death on the cross: accordingly, the death of one of them would not have been a condemnation of the law of sin and death placed on creation at the fall. Moderator: > It is seen as God's self-sacrifice. I'm not sure which passages you are referring to -- could you list them below? Moderator: > Jesus is an obedient servant. If we want to think of him as revealing God, > then this implies that somehow God himself is not just the transcendent > lawgiver, but the obedient child. I don't see that this follows. Jesus swallowed his own spit every few seconds. Does this mean that God swallows His own spit every few seconds? I don't mean to be flippant: I suspect you may wish to divide characteristics of Jesus into some associated with humanity and some with divinity -- but then I could legitimately claim that the servitude belonged to the humanity-group. Tom [As to your question about God's self-sacrifice, a couple of passages I find immedidately are 2 Cor 5:18ff and Col 1:19. Both of these seem to say that God was acting through Christ on the cross. I did not mean to imply that the Father suffered on the cross directly. (That would in fact be a heresy.) But I think Paul would say that Christ's death for us was God's action through Christ. This sort of functional unity between God and Christ is certainly related to the relationship between God the prophets. The prophets speak for and in some cases act for God. But I don't think in their case God is seen as being present through them quite so directly. It's hard to imagine Col 1:19-20 being said in quite that form of Moses. --clh]
dg@pallio.uucp (David Goodenough) (11/05/90)
ibrahim@syacus.acus.oz (Ibrahim Sifri) asks: > People often say they believe in the Trinity, yet they differ in their > understanding of it. > I would like to start a conversation with the following questions: > > 1) What, exactly, is the Trinity? God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. Now, how do you explain the apparent dichotomy of "are there three in the trinity, or one". Perhaps the simplest analogy I can think of right now is to ask "Is this figure one square or four lines?" +---+ | | +---+ > 2) Does the Bible teach it? Matthew 28:19 - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." > 3) Is Jesus Christ the Almighty God and part of the Trinity? John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said unto him [Jesus] 'My Lord and my God'" Luke 3:22 "... and a voice came from heaven, which said 'Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased'" Luke 23:46 "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, 'Father into thy hands I commend my spirit' ...." For all the above, there are other Biblical quotes, but these are the first ones that come to mind to help answer the questions raised. In particular, if Jesus is part of the Trinity (God the Son), then there are many other places in the Gospels where he refers to God as his father, for example when he throws the money-changers out of the Temple he refers to it as "My Father's house". > I am hoping to have some logical answers to start a productive > conversation that is not a waste of time. For this to happen, you must > back your answers from the BIBLE. All the above are from the King James Bible. Other translations will have different wording, but the meaning won't change. -- dg@pallio.UUCP - David Goodenough +---+ IHS | +-+-+ ..... !harvard!xait!pallio!dg +-+-+ | AKA: dg%pallio.uucp@xait.xerox.com +---+
jow@pacbell.com (Jeff Westman) (11/06/90)
In article <Nov.5.05.18.59.1990.16566@athos.rutgers.edu> dg@pallio.uucp (David Goodenough) writes: > ibrahim@syacus.acus.oz (Ibrahim Sifri) asks: > > People often say they believe in the Trinity, yet they differ in their > > understanding of it. > > > > 1) What, exactly, is the Trinity? That is because it is so complicated and beyond human understanding! I have heard all the common analogies, the egg/shell/yolk, water/steam/ice, etc., and none of them really make sense to me. Understandably, perhaps, God is three Persons of the same Substance with different manifestations, functions and personalities. There are many things about God we do not understand; perhaps we are not meant to understand them, per se, but to accept them because God tells us they are true. > John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said unto him [Jesus] 'My Lord and > my God'" And interesting side-note here. When Thomas said 'My Lord and my God', he used a greek construction called the 'Gransville Sharp Rule'. I don't remember the exact "rules" involved (I could look them up if anyone is interested -- email me), but when the word "and" is joining two phrases of like tense and mood, one emphasises the other. In other words, in Thomas' astonishment, he exclaims to Jesus: You are my Lord __AND__ my God. This is agreat proof of Christ's deity to other faiths. There's another identical construction (emphasizing Christ's deity) in Titus, I believe (I don't have my Bible with me). Let me mention, too that this Gransville Sharp Rule is standard greek -- not some special rule just because the Bible is involved -- the same emphasis would still be intact in any greek literature (eg, Homer). -- Jeff
wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (11/08/90)
In article <Nov.6.03.57.25.1990.3550@athos.rutgers.edu> stevep@cadence.com (Steve Peterson) writes: > I wrote: >|I might add that I do not believe the Jehovah's Witnesses truly >|confess that Jesus Christ is their Lord. Their Lord is Jehovah, and >|they do not believe that Jehovah is the same as Jesus. (See Romans >|9:13 and compare Joel 2:32). > >What can I add to this except to say that I do confess Jesus as my Lord. This >is what the Bible says. This is what every witness that I have ever known has >confessed. It is also the "official" position of the Watchtower >Bible and Tract Society. Joel 2:32 says that "all who call on the name of >Jehovah will be saved." I am unsure why you are quoting Romans 9:13. > It seems my post had a typo. I should have referred to Romans 10:13: "for, 'Everone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.' " This is in direct reference to Romans 10:9: "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in you heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." That Paul quotes Joel 2:32 in this context clearly shows that he identified Christ with Jehovah. In addition, there are the more obvious texts such as John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The Witnesses, not believing these words, translate them "...the Word was a god." which appears to teach polytheism and subordinationism. But, christian scholars say that if you do this, then to be consistent you would also have to translate other passages: John 1:6: "There was a man from a god" John 1:12: "To all who received him...He gave power to become children of a god." John 1:18: "No one has ever seen a god." which passages, you will agree, clearly refer to God. In John 20:28 Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and my God!" and Christ does not rebuke him. By way of contrast, Peter (Acts 10:25-26), Barnabas and Paul (Acts 14:11-18), and an angel (Rev. 19:10, 22:8-9) rebuke others who tried to worship them. Yet Jesus commended Thomas. Hebrews 1:6 says "And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, Let all God's angels worship him." So Christ is to be worshipped -- because he is God. Hebrews 1: 10 quotes Psalm 102:25-27, referring again to Christ: "In the beginning, O Lord [Jehovah = Christ], you laid the foundations of the earth,..." Then we have Colossians 1:15-20: He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created; things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. This clearly speaks of Christ as God, for he 1. created all things, in heaven and on earth. If he was in fact created he must have created himself! 2. All of God's fullness dwells in him [see also Col 2:9] 3. He exercises the functions of 'Divine Providence' "In him all things hold together". 3. The passage does not say he is created, but 'firstborn'. This really speaks of his birthright: all created things must defer to him. A clear explanation of the truth is given in the Nicene Creed (I give an partially updated translation from memory): "We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, Begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made; ..." and as we confess in the Athanasian Creed: Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood; Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ: One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ;..." I could write much more, but I think I've made my point that the Scriptures teach that Jesus is God, is Jehovah. Sorry if I've rehashed ground covered previously. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. "Isaiah, mighty seer in days of old The Lord of all in spirit did behold High on a lofty throne, in splendor bright, With flowing train that filled the Temple quite. Above the throne were stately seraphim; Six wings had they, these messengers of Him. With twain they veiled their faces, as was meet, With twain in rev'rent awe they hid their feet, And with the other twain aloft they soared, One to the other called and praised the Lord: 'Holy is God the Lord of Sabaoth! Holy is God the Lord of Sabaoth! Holy is God the Lord of Sabaoth! Behold His glory filleth all the earth!' The beams and lintels trembled at the cry, And clouds of smoke enwrapped the throne on high." -- a hymn for the Trinity season based on Isaiah 6:1-4 by Martin Luther. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
rlove@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Rebecca M. Love) (11/08/90)
I am doing a paper (very short actually) on the rise of trinitarianism. But I need a few bible references to go along with it. Could someone send me some that reference the Trinity? Especially those that are intersting/ different. Any other ideas will also be galdly accepted. Becky -- \ //\-\ Becky Love rlove@gmuvax2.gmu.edu Internet \ \/o \/-\ RLOVE@gmuvax.gmu.edu Bitnet \ / _) \-\ / \ (__/ (____\-\ "Don't listen to me - I never do." Dr. Who / \ [I invite people to send responses directly to her. Last time we had a discussion I recall that several people had lists of references. Presumably they would be willing to forward those lists. I'd like to give a general warning though. If you are trying to do a historical paper, you want to know how the notion actually came about, not what passages are used today to defend it. These are not necessarily the same thing. This means that you will want to read documents from the 3rd and 4th Cent. A good sampler of such documents, together with a good introduction explaining where the ideas came from, can be found in Rusch, William (ed), The Trinitarian Controversy, Fortress Press. --clh]
ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe) (11/09/90)
In article <Oct.30.00.13.50.1990.6578@athos.rutgers.edu>, tp0x@spica.fac.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price) writes: > I will draw your attention to the fact that in Exodus Moses receives the law > from the LORD, and the LORD there makes statements that only the Almighty could > make (for instance, "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of > the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other > gods before me -- Ex 20:1,2), but Stephen in Acts (7:38) claims that Moses > received the Law from an angel. Contradiction? Not if we accept the idea that > the Almighty is manifested through his servants the angels who act as his > perfect mouthpieces and wield his authority. We don't have to accept anything of the kind in order to resolve the apparent contradiction. There are two distinctions to be made. The first is the distinction between what the Bible QUOTES and what the Bible TEACHES. Certainly, Acts is here _quoting_ Stephen. Does that necessarily mean that what Stephen said is part of the _teaching_ of the Bible? It probably does, but that _is_ an inference, so if there _were_ a contradiction, one way of resolving it would be to say that Stephen's speech is not authoritative. That would also resolve the apparent contradiction between Acts 5:38 "THE angel which spoke to [Moses]" and Acts 5:53 "[you] received the law by the arrangement of ANGELS [more than one]". The second distinction to be made is between English and Greek. We don't have Stephen's actual words; he probably spoke in Aramaic. What we have is a Greek translation of summary of Stephen's speech. And what _that_ says is not "angel" but "angelos". There's no denying that "angelos" can and often _does_ mean "angel". But its basic meaning is just "messenger", and it's sometimes used of human beings. The English word "angel" has a rather narrower range of meaning than the Greek word it here represents. The translation of "aggelos" as "angel" may be, and very likely _is_, justified, but it is an _inference_, and a theologically motivated one at that. We may resolve the _apparent_ contradiction here by noting that "aggelos" doesn't always mean "angel" and supposing that this is one of the cases where it doesn't. I was taught as a child that where the Pentateuch speaks of "The Angel of the Lord", it was actually Jesus. Who else was fit to represent the Father? Which other person of the Godhead could fitly appear is visible form? That interpretation explains how one and the same thing could be said to be God doing something (after all, the tablets were said to have been written by the finger of God) and by someone God had sent as a messenger. But would it ever be legitimate to call Jesus an "angel"? Well, in one of the pseudepigrapha, the angel Metatron is called "a little YHWH", so if an angel could be called by God's name, why not have God called an "aggelos"? > A careful examination of Genesis > 18 and 19 would seem to bear this out: e.g. Gen 19:13 ("we will destroy > this place") vs. 19:24 ("the LORD rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and > fire from the LORD out of heaven.") Ok, _let's_ examine Genesis 19 carefully. "The two angels" (19:1) are described as "men" (19:10). Lot addressed one of them as "Lord". Let's see that in full: "And Lot said, I pray, Lord, since thy servant has found mercy before thee, and thou hast magnified thy righteousness in what thou doest towards me that my soul may live ..." (19:18,19) And the "angel" he addressed replied "_I_ have had respect to thee about this that I should not destroy this city about which thou hast spoken." How are we to understand that? Well, if that angel was just an angel, it would appear to have been disobedient; it has made a unilateral decision to spare one of the cities of the plain. The "angel" didn't say "The Lord has granted your request". It's "I" that decides and acts. The choice, then, appears to be between a disobedient angel, or a member of the Godhead. If "men" is not to be read in the literal sense of the English word "men" (for men are not angels, nor angels men), how are we to insist on the literal sense of the _English_ word "angel" here? I checked this passage in the LXX. If there's someone who reads Hebrew who would care to discuss it, that would be best. > I assert that Jesus was the Son of God, a sinless man who > now sits on the right hand of God and will act as God's viceregent in the > coming Kingdom (the seed promised to Abraham who will sit on David's throne, > etc.) but there is no reason to believe that Jesus pre-existed as part of a > Triune God. Isn't that Adoptionism? How do you get around the classical arguments against that? How do you get around Jesus' claim "before Abraham was, I am"? An inadquate reason, mayhap, but surely not "NO reason". > Related question: What does it mean for the Spirit to dwell in us? > Proposed answer: check out John 6:63 ; 15:3,4,7 . Ok. I did. John 6:63 says nothing about the Spirit dwelling in us. to pneuma estin to zoopoioun | it is the spirit which gives life he sarx ouk ophelei ouden | the flesh is of no benefit ta rhemata ha ego lalo humin | the words which I speak to you pneuma estin kai zoe estin | is spirit and is life The word "pneuma" means wind, moving air, the human spirit or even the disposition of one's character, and can refer to angels, spirits, God in general, or the Holy Spirit. Bearing in mind the CONTEXT of this verse (let's never ignore the context!), which is not concerned with the Holy Spirit, I believe that this verse could be paraphrased as "Your human life is activated by your human spirit, the body alone is fruitless. In the same way, what I'm teaching you is the kind of disposition you should have that will make you really alive." I do not want to defend that paraphrase. I am not asserting that it is better than any others, or even much good. I just want to point out that reading "pneuma" here as a reference to the Holy Spirit is an INFERENCE which I can easily deny while retaining the utmost respect for the text, while indeed believing that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. And even if it _does_ refer to the Holy Spirit, it says nothing about the Spirit dwelling in us. As for John 15:3,4,7; not one of them refers to the Holy Spirit. (The word "pneuma" doesn't appear anywhere in that chapter until John 15:26, which _does_ refer to the Holy Spirit; that's the verse that gives us the bit about the Holy Spirit "proceeding from the Father".) For the most part John 15 is about us abiding in Jesus. Why refer us to verses that don't speak about the Holy Spirit at all in order to answer the question "What does it mean for the Spirit to dwell in us"? The moderator wrote irenically > One could take John 1 and Col 1 as being meant along the line of 1st > Cent. Jewish discussion about the preexistent Torah. This was surely > not meant to be taken literally. They still say "The Torah was not created for the sake of the world, but the world for the sake of the Torah." If we believe that God has foreknowledge, doesn't that compel us to believe that God already knew that the Torah would be needed and what it would say already at the very beginning of creation?