Heresy?

[Billy Cox]

Also, I'd suggest that while this view is clearly heretical (in the technical definition of the word), holding a heretical view isn't necessarily equitable with being excluded from the kingdom of God.

Perhaps not, but the church historically has taken ample license with putting heretics on the express train to the afterlife. How different would today's religious landscape be if the RCC had whacked Martin Luther when he started showing signs of being a wise guy?

I think people are in the habit of hearing "that's heretical" and mentally adding "and therefore not a Christian." The history of Christianity is filled with saints who struggled with certain aspects of orthodoxy.

Good observation, however I would point out that the heretic hall of fame is not merely populated with those who had doubts, but rather with people whose doubts morphed into new ways of thinking/believing which they proceeded to propagate and evangelize.

Private doubts never got anybody excommunicated or killed; rather it was only when private doubts turned into public teaching that then hurt the religious establishment's market share.

[Bob Carabbio]

"He said that Jesus emptied himself and therefore became solely human, till He went back to heaven, where he became God again. So basically, Jesus on earth was not God".

Two things: First - NOBODY really KNOWS the scientific details of "Jesus", and Secondly, nobody really KNOWS the scientific details of "God" Himself. Every trinitarian creed or attempted definition always contains the disclaimer: "we'll never REALLY understand" - etc,etc. And then we go ahead and teach it as thought we DID understand.

IN the mid 20th Century, it appeared that the "Popular" concept of Jesus was that He was "God almighty" hiding inside a "Man suit" pretending to be a human being. In the '70s we became more conscious that Jesus WAS, in fact walking and ministering as a "Spirit Filled" Human - John 12:

49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

Jesus was operating with ALL the lusts, pains, emotions, and intellectual limitations that are common to humanity, and when the Bible SAYS HE was tempted in EVERY WAY as we are, it means what it says. The MIRACLE is that HE remained true and sinless for 33 years (give or take) as a functional human - which He HAD to do in order to be the Savior.

Which is essentially identical to the way WE, as Christians should walk and minister - led and guided by the Holy Spirit, and living Christ's life in us, rather than our own (that "Crucifying the flesh with its lusts, and affections" thing).

Where "the guy in church" gets foolish is when he says that Jesus on earth WASN'T GOD!!! - when the Bible itself specifically states that the "Word" (who WAS God) became flesh and dwelled among us. We DON'T know how that worked exactly, but Jesus was the WORD INCARNATE - AND during His ministry He was also indwelled by the Holy Spirit (like WE are as Christians) - who is ALSO God. There ARE, and will always be mysteries on this side of the grass.

Arianism had Jesus as a "Deity" also, "Similar" to God, and with many variations, not the SAME AS God (the homoousias (the SAME) vs. homoiousianism/homoeanism/homoeusious thing.) so I think "the guy" is blazing his OWN little heretical trail.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Jesus was before the beginning (creation)
The creation was created through Jesus.
Jesus has Gods fullness. All that the Father is.

I see Johns statements as fitting with Paul's.

I think we need to include Jesus's statements as well.

Randy

Would you agree or disagree with the statement "there was a time when the Son was not"?

[Randy Wise]

Would you agree or disagree with the statement "there was a time when the Son was not"?

I thought I was clear on this. Jesus has always been the Son and has a beginning. (agree)

Randy

[Benjamin Hobbs]

I thought I was clear on this. Jesus has always been the Son and has a beginning. (agree)

Randy

Just trying to make sure. That is the platform (and direct quote) of Arius.

[Randy Wise]

Just trying to make sure. That is the platform (and direct quote) of Arius.

I have never studied arius. I base my source on the NT. Jesus called the Father the One true God. If one states Jesus was God and always was then how does one believe in one God for Jesus stated on the cross "Father into your hands I commit My Spirit"? If Jesus always was and always was God how then did He become the Son?

Isn't the reasoning "Mystery"

Jesus is all that the Father is because its clear to me God was pleased to have His fullness dwell in His Firstborn.

And when Gods brings His Firstborn into the world God commands all His angels to worship Him. (Jesus)

So as I write
Yes Jesus is God in the context of being but No He isn't God in the context He has always been the Son and was born form the Father. Jesus Himself declares the Father is His God even from what we read in the book Of Revelation as Jesus speaks to the 7 churches.

As I have also reasoned Jesus by Himself apart from the Father has never existed. Jesus taught the Father is in Him and He and the Father are One.

Paul wrote this:"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

One God One Lord


Randy

[Benjamin Hobbs]

I have never studied arius. I base my source on the NT. Jesus called the Father the One true God. If one states Jesus was God and always was then how does one believe in one God for Jesus stated on the cross "Father into your hands I commit My Spirit"? If Jesus always was and always was God how then did He become the Son?

Isn't the reasoning "Mystery"

Jesus is all that the Father is because its clear to me God was pleased to have His fullness dwell in His Firstborn.

And when Gods brings His Firstborn into the world God commands all His angels to worship Him. (Jesus)

So as I write
Yes Jesus is God in the context of being but No He isn't God in the context He has always been the Son and was born form the Father. Jesus Himself declares the Father is His God even from what we read in the book Of Revelation as Jesus speaks to the 7 churches.

As I have also reasoned Jesus by Himself apart from the Father has never existed. Jesus taught the Father is in Him and He and the Father are One.

Paul wrote this:"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

One God One Lord


Randy

Few questions.

1) Have you ever taken any theology/exegetical/hermeneutics training or class?

2) Have you ever taken Greek? Hebrew? Latin?

3) Could you please show from the Bible where Christ is "his [God's] firstborn"?

4) Are you aware that the word "Lord" in the NT is the exact same word used in the OT in describing God the Father?

5) Are you a layman? Clergy? Do you oversee any instruction or hold any church position?

Thanks.

[Benjamin Burch]

Few questions.

1) Have you ever taken any theology/exegetical/hermeneutics training or class?

2) Have you ever taken Greek? Hebrew? Latin?

3) Could you please show from the Bible where Christ is "his [God's] firstborn"?

4) Are you aware that the word "Lord" in the NT is the exact same word used in the OT in describing God the Father?

5) Are you a layman? Clergy? Do you oversee any instruction or hold any church position?

Thanks.

Would you be willing to pursue this via PM? I'm more than comfortable with people holding heretical positions. No problem. However, I don't think the public forum should be one where they defend them?

[Paul DeBaufer]

Few questions.

1) Have you ever taken any theology/exegetical/hermeneutics training or class?

2) Have you ever taken Greek? Hebrew? Latin?

3) Could you please show from the Bible where Christ is "his [God's] firstborn"?

4) Are you aware that the word "Lord" in the NT is the exact same word used in the OT in describing God the Father?

5) Are you a layman? Clergy? Do you oversee any instruction or hold any church position?

Thanks.

I question your question number 4. Seems to me that most often in the OT Lord, when speaking of God is a rendering of the tetragrammaton, God's proper name oft rendered Yahweh or Jehovah, whereas the Greek Kyrios is translated Lord in the NT. Seems that they are not exactly the same word. Maybe you could explain a bit further as I have had neither Hebrew nor Greek and am simply going by what I read in lexicons.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Would you be willing to pursue this via PM? I'm more than comfortable with people holding heretical positions. No problem. However, I don't think the public forum should be one where they defend them?

I actually think that the PT forum is a good place to flesh this out. Maybe that's because I'm kinda leaning with Randy on this because I am questioning the validity of the creeds. I for one would find a healthy discussion beneficial. Though I will probably not contribute much, I will be reading.

[Benjamin Burch]

I question your question number 4. Seems to me that most often in the OT Lord, when speaking of God is a rendering of the tetragrammaton, God's proper name oft rendered Yahweh or Jehovah, whereas the Greek Kyrios is translated Lord in the NT. Seems that they are not exactly the same word. Maybe you could explain a bit further as I have had neither Hebrew nor Greek and am simply going by what I read in lexicons.

If I am correct, the Greek OT texts which early Christians (and NT writers) would have been using and reading use Kyrios to translate YHWH. I will say, however, I have a very limited knowledge of this.

[Randy Wise]

Few questions.

1) Have you ever taken any theology/exegetical/hermeneutics training or class?

2) Have you ever taken Greek? Hebrew? Latin?

3) Could you please show from the Bible where Christ is "his [God's] firstborn"?

4) Are you aware that the word "Lord" in the NT is the exact same word used in the OT in describing God the Father?

5) Are you a layman? Clergy? Do you oversee any instruction or hold any church position?

Thanks.

Are you aware of the word Father?

Are you aware that no where in scripture it states Jesus always was and always was God? Though as I stated at the point Jesus was He had the Fullness given and that is assumption as it stated "the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him"

Are you aware Jesus stated the Father is greater then Him?

Are you aware Jesus remains in the Fathers love by obeying His commands?

Can you answer the question I posed in how you believe in one God other then Mystery?

Don't worry about who I am we are speaking of who Jesus is. Stick to scripture.

How did Jesus (a God who always was according to your belief) become the Son?

Jesus declared the Father the One true God. How then do you believe in One God as Jesus stated on the cross "Father into your hands I commit my Spirit?"

How many Gods are there? ONE

Are you aware who gave Jesus authority? Why did tJesus need the fullness to dwell in Him. Wouldn't Jesus be God Almighty if He always was and always was God?

In regard to Firstborn, Jesus was declared the "Firstborn of all creation". Whose Firstborn is He if not the Fathers? The one Jesus declared is His God


Is Jesus God?
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.
He never dies as He lives by the living Father.



Randy

[Paul DeBaufer]

If I am correct, the Greek OT texts which early Christians (and NT writers) would have been using and reading use Kyrios to translate YHWH. I will say, however, I have a very limited knowledge of this.

I have no doubt that the Greek translators used Kyrios to translate YHWH, but the words are not exactly the same as was posited.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

I question your question number 4. Seems to me that most often in the OT Lord, when speaking of God is a rendering of the tetragrammaton, God's proper name oft rendered Yahweh or Jehovah, whereas the Greek Kyrios is translated Lord in the NT. Seems that they are not exactly the same word. Maybe you could explain a bit further as I have had neither Hebrew nor Greek and am simply going by what I read in lexicons.

Background info: The Septuagint was the OT of the NT, the Greek translation of the OT. In translating from Hebrew to Greek the scribes used the word kyrios to "mask" the divine name.

It's quite obvious at that point that the same title being used for God in the OT is being referenced for Christ in the NT.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

I have no doubt that the Greek translators used Kyrios to translate YHWH, but the words are not exactly the same as was posited.

No one is arguing that the words are different, but they used it to mask the divine name. Are you going to suggest that writing the tetragrammaton in Greek was a good idea?

I'm just trying to figure out the point of the your statement. It is a fact that the translators used kyrios instead of the Hebrew Adonai and in place of the Tetragrammaton because they felt kyrios was a viable translation.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Would you be willing to pursue this via PM? I'm more than comfortable with people holding heretical positions. No problem. However, I don't think the public forum should be one where they defend them?

No I wouldn't. The heresy was made in the public forum so it must be corrected in the public forum.

What else would the forum be used for?

[Hans Deventer]

No I wouldn't. The heresy was made in the public forum so it must be corrected in the public forum.

No, it must not. The "must" part is what you are deciding for yourself alone, but it isn't your call to decide. You are free to discuss the issue here. That's something different. And this forum actually allows for more room in views than the others would.

What else would the forum be used for?

That is an easy one! Any NazNet forum is for "building community among Nazarenes and friends."

This is a moderator's post.

[Hans Deventer]

I actually think that the PT forum is a good place to flesh this out. Maybe that's because I'm kinda leaning with Randy on this because I am questioning the validity of the creeds. I for one would find a healthy discussion beneficial. Though I will probably not contribute much, I will be reading.

Paul, this forum is certainly a good place to discuss an issue like this one. With respect and with fellowship as its goal.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Background info: The Septuagint was the OT of the NT, the Greek translation of the OT. In translating from Hebrew to Greek the scribes used the word kyrios to "mask" the divine name.

It's quite obvious at that point that the same title being used for God in the OT is being referenced for Christ in the NT.

No one is arguing that the words are different, but they used it to mask the divine name. Are you going to suggest that writing the tetragrammaton in Greek was a good idea?

I'm just trying to figure out the point of the your statement. It is a fact that the translators used kyrios instead of the Hebrew Adonai and in place of the Tetragrammaton because they felt kyrios was a viable translation.

Then you could have just as well made your point by using English translation as the example. Lord really is exactly Lord, in the OT it is used as a mask for YHWH. So, I guess I just don't get the point of your question #4. Also, Randy has consistently maintained Jesus' Lordship.

[Benjamin Burch]

No I wouldn't. The heresy was made in the public forum so it must be corrected in the public forum.

What else would the forum be used for?

It's just that we've had this same discussion no less than 4x.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Are you aware of the word Father?

Are you aware that no where in scripture it states Jesus always was and always was God? Though as I stated at the point Jesus was He had the Fullness given and that is assumption as it stated "the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him"

Are you aware Jesus stated the Father is greater then Him?

Yes and I am also very familiar with the use of it as "creator" or "source".

So what of it?

Are you aware Jesus remains in the Fathers love by obeying His commands?

Yes, I am. But what of it?

Can you answer the question I posed in how you believe in one God other then Mystery?

The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4)

"Hear/submit O Israel, the Lord your God is One"

This is absolute monotheism. Not anything revolutionary, Orthodox Jews to this day repeat the Shema. Jesus quoted the Shema several times. Paul even had a commentary on it.

Don't worry about who I am we are speaking of who Jesus is. Stick to scripture.

I have to know what you know and what you don't.

If you are a layman, wandering aimlessly through scripture with no confidence in the reliability and authority of all of the Bible... I'd like to know that.

If you are in a position of authority or confidence in the church YOUR PASTOR needs to know.

How did Jesus (a God who always was according to your belief) become the Son?

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Are you not reading the NT the same way all other Christians have?

Jesus declared the Father the One true God. How then do you believe in One God as Jesus stated on the cross "Father into your hands I commit my Spirit?"

I believe in the Trinity. I believe this because the entirety of Scripture asserts strict monotheism, that Father, Son and Spirit are all called God and that there is an individuality of each person.

To assert that Christ is created and not eternal is to suggest a second God.

How many Gods are there? ONE

Are you aware who gave Jesus authority? Why did tJesus need the fullness to dwell in Him. Wouldn't Jesus be God Almighty if He always was and always was God?

Jesus is God almighty, or didn't you know?

"Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil 2:5b-11)

There are several passages that describe this very thing. That Christ, being God, subjected himself to be in the form of a man. To suggest that he was created at some point is to ignore scripture.

In regard to Firstborn, Jesus was declared the "Firstborn of all creation". Whose Firstborn is He if not the Fathers? The one Jesus declared is His God

Firstborn should be more accurately translated as "source". Just as the faucet is not the first created thing before the water it sources, Christ is no more the creation than the creation he has made.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything." (Col. 1:15-18)

Is Jesus God?
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.
He never dies as He lives by the living Father.

Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Spirit is God. The Spirit is not the Father. The Son is not the Spirit. The Father is not the Son.

Or do you have no idea what the Trinity is or why it exists?

Randy, it appears that you need to sit down and READ. Read your Bible, get some good Biblical instruction. Read some history. Find out why exactly the creeds were created and how. Do some research on Arius, Nicea and why there was an ecumenical council in the first place.

The things you are offering aren't new. In fact the position you are holding to was refuted and condemned publicly 1600 years ago. There was a reason for Arius being declared a heretic, the same reason exists even today.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

It's just that we've had this same discussion no less than 4x.

Then there needs to be a fifth time. Or a sixth until those needing correction are corrected.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Then you could have just as well made your point by using English translation as the example. Lord really is exactly Lord, in the OT it is used as a mask for YHWH. So, I guess I just don't get the point of your question #4.

It was to point out the lack of Biblical knowledge in his position.

Also, Randy has consistently maintained Jesus' Lordship.

And Mormons have consistently maintained the diety (notice lowercase) of Christ. This means nothing.

[Benjamin Burch]

Then there needs to be a fifth time. Or a sixth until those needing correction are corrected.

There will be no correcting. Only more and more defense of obvious heresy on the public forum. Again, if others are comfortable with that, fine. I personally don't like it.

[Randy Wise]

Yes and I am also very familiar with the use of it as "creator" or "source".

So what of it? Yes, I am. But what of it? The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4)

"Hear/submit O Israel, the Lord your God is One"

This is absolute monotheism. Not anything revolutionary, Orthodox Jews to this day repeat the Shema. Jesus quoted the Shema several times. Paul even had a commentary on it. I have to know what you know and what you don't.

If you are a layman, wandering aimlessly through scripture with no confidence in the reliability and authority of all of the Bible... I'd like to know that.

If you are in a position of authority or confidence in the church YOUR PASTOR needs to know. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Are you not reading the NT the same way all other Christians have? I believe in the Trinity. I believe this because the entirety of Scripture asserts strict monotheism, that Father, Son and Spirit are all called God and that there is an individuality of each person.

To assert that Christ is created and not eternal is to suggest a second God. Jesus is God almighty, or didn't you know?

"Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phil 2:5b-11)

There are several passages that describe this very thing. That Christ, being God, subjected himself to be in the form of a man. To suggest that he was created at some point is to ignore scripture. Firstborn should be more accurately translated as "source". Just as the faucet is not the first created thing before the water it sources, Christ is no more the creation than the creation he has made.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything." (Col. 1:15-18) Jesus is God. The Father is God. The Spirit is God. The Spirit is not the Father. The Son is not the Spirit. The Father is not the Son.

Or do you have no idea what the Trinity is or why it exists?

Randy, it appears that you need to sit down and READ. Read your Bible, get some good Biblical instruction. Read some history. Find out why exactly the creeds were created and how. Do some research on Arius, Nicea and why there was an ecumenical council in the first place.

The things you are offering aren't new. In fact the position you are holding to was refuted and condemned publicly 1600 years ago. There was a reason for Arius being declared a heretic, the same reason exists even today.

I don't know how you read the NT without seeing Jesus received all from the Father and the Father is greater. Jesus is and always has been the Son.

Since I believe in this order Father=>Son=>angels=>creation (aspects listed in Genesis) then Jesus was before creation. I also can state Jesus was with God in the beginning (creation) and was God and that which was created was created through Him. That doesn't state Jesus always was. I don't dispute Jesus is called both God and Son. I don't dispute God the Father created through Jesus. I have stated all along Jesus is all that the Father is. (The fullness was given to Him and indwells Him from my perspective) Jesus taught that the Father is in Him and in that they are one.. I also can state in the name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit however I note the word SON. The Holy Spirit is the Fathers Spirit as in Spirit of the Soverign Lord. That Spirit follows the will of the Mind of the Spirit. Jesus has been granted authority over all but the Father. Therefore Jesus wills and the Holy Spirit acts. The miracles performed were by God's Holy Spirit. The Father refers to that Spirit as His Spirit such as, "I shall put my Spirit on Him and He shall bring justice to the nations".

You have testimony in the NT that supports the Father stating He is the God of Jesus and Jesus stating the Father is His God. (About the SON, You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy)

The Father has no equal. The Father is the One true God per Jesus the Son of God.

Randy

[Benjamin Hobbs]

I don't know how you read the NT without seeing Jesus received all from the Father and the Father is greater. Jesus is and always has been the Son.

Since I believe in this order Father=>Son=>angels=>creation (aspects listed in Genesis) then Jesus was before creation. I also can state Jesus was with God in the beginning (creation) and was God and that which was created was created through Him. That doesn't state Jesus always was. I don't dispute Jesus is called both God and Son. I don't dispute God the Father created through Jesus. I have stated all along Jesus is all that the Father is. (The fullness was given to Him and indwells Him from my perspective) Jesus taught that the Father is in Him and in that they are one.. I also can state in the name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit however I note the word SON. The Holy Spirit is the Fathers Spirit as in Spirit of the Soverign Lord. That Spirit follows the will of the Mind of the Spirit. Jesus has been granted authority over all but the Father. Therefore Jesus wills and the Holy Spirit acts. The miracles performed were by God's Holy Spirit. The Father refers to that Spirit as His Spirit such as, "I shall put my Spirit on Him and He shall bring justice to the nations".

You have testimony in the NT that supports the Father stating He is the God of Jesus and Jesus stating the Father is His God. (About the SON, You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy)

The Father has no equal. The Father is the One true God per Jesus the Son of God.

Randy

Am I to assume that you are what I assumed you were, a layman wandering under his own assertions?

I'll state again that you are in heresy, a heresy that is millenia old.

Have you ever wondered what God means when he says he is an "unchangeable being" or "the same yesterday, today and forever"? I would assert that any addition to his character is a change.

Is Jesus God? Or is he A god?

[Randy Wise]

Am I to assume that you are what I assumed you were, a layman wandering under his own assertions?

I'll state again that you are in heresy, a heresy that is millenia old.

Have you ever wondered what God means when he says he is an "unchangeable being" or "the same yesterday, today and forever"? I would assert that any addition to his character is a change.

Is Jesus God? Or is he A god?

God= Father to me and Jesus. As I do read what Jesus teaches (His God; our God) God alone is good (as I read what Jesus stated) and in that to me God is unchangable.

Don't get me wrong as I do boast about Jesus and if He isn't good we are really in bad shape. But I do read His words.



Randy

[Paul DeBaufer]

And Mormons have consistently maintained the diety (notice lowercase) of Christ. This means nothing.

I'm not sure Randy's position reflects a lack of biblical knowledge so much as it reflects viewing the biblical texts without the lens of the ecumenical creeds.

I know we use the Shema in defense of the Trinity, but I'm not sure that that is what the authors of Deuteronomy had in mind. I mean they were unaware of Jesus, not sure that for them holy spirit reflected The Holy Spirit as Christians understand Him. That is to say the Shema was not intended as a Trinitarian statement when originally asserted, but has taken on that meaning, rightly or wrongly, sometime after Christ. But you and I will probably disagree on this.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Dennis Bratcher has a very helpful piece on this very subject here

[Hans Deventer]

Then there needs to be a fifth time. Or a sixth until those needing correction are corrected.

Benjamin, you don't seem to be listening very well. Or I don't explain very well. Let me give it another try. There NEEDS to be nothing. Please let this sink in. The very thing that destroys NazNet is this NEED to correct, this "something MUST be done". No sir. Nothing NEEDS to be done, nothing MUST be done but to pursue fellowship.

Well, one thing NEEDS to be done: this MUST be acknowledged in order to participate.

This is another moderator's post.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Am I to assume that you are what I assumed you were, a layman wandering under his own assertions?

I'll state again that you are in heresy, a heresy that is millenia old.

Have you ever wondered what God means when he says he is an "unchangeable being" or "the same yesterday, today and forever"? I would assert that any addition to his character is a change.

Is Jesus God? Or is he A god?

Here is a very good article on the Malachi 3:6 verse you are referring to. One that returns to the Hebrew and taking away the Greek philosophy.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Benjamin, you don't seem to be listening very well. Or I don't explain very well. Let me give it another try. There NEEDS to be nothing. Please let this sink in. The very thing that destroys NazNet is this NEED to correct, this "something MUST be done". No sir. Nothing NEEDS to be done, nothing MUST be done but to pursue fellowship.

Well, one thing NEEDS to be done: this MUST be acknowledged in order to participate.

This is another moderator's post.

No sarcasm or disrespect is meant, but is NazNet then nothing but a breeding ground for bad theology and heresy under the guise of fellowship? Does it have anything to do with it's namesake organization anymore?

[Benjamin Hobbs]

I'm not sure Randy's position reflects a lack of biblical knowledge so much as it reflects viewing the biblical texts without the lens of the ecumenical creeds.

Your accusation is rather bankrupt as I have never presumed to argue on the basis of any creed. I simply come to the same conclusion as the first ecumenical council on this issue.

I know we use the Shema in defense of the Trinity, but I'm not sure that that is what the authors of Deuteronomy had in mind.

They, like us meant to assert strict monothiesm.

I mean they were unaware of Jesus, not sure that for them holy spirit reflected The Holy Spirit as Christians understand Him.

But that is irrelevent to those with proper understanding of the Trinity.

That is to say the Shema was not intended as a Trinitarian statement when originally asserted, but has taken on that meaning, rightly or wrongly, sometime after Christ. But you and I will probably disagree on this.

It appears that you might not understand what the Trinity is. Could you please define the Trinity for me?

[Benjamin Hobbs]

God= Father to me and Jesus. As I do read what Jesus teaches (His God; our God) God alone is good (as I read what Jesus stated) and in that to me God is unchangable.

Don't get me wrong as I do boast about Jesus and if He isn't good we are really in bad shape. But I do read His words.



Randy

You've dodged the issue long enough.

Who are you. Lay? Clergy? Trained? Educated?

[Hans Deventer]

No sarcasm or disrespect is meant, but is NazNet then nothing but a breeding ground for bad theology and heresy under the guise of fellowship? Does it have anything to do with it's namesake organization anymore?

Well, as Dave wrote:

"Welcome to NazNet, the web site for members and friends of the Church of the Nazarene. NazNet is proud to be a loyal supporter of the denomination and its world wide mission, -- to respond to the Great Commission of Christ to "go and make disciples of all nations." This is a Nazarene friendly site and our purpose is: "building community among Nazarenes and friends.""

I don't read that we should purge all of NazNet from doctrinal deviations from the Nazarene Articles of Faith. If so, it might get very quiet indeed. Apart from those who have to say they agree 100% to avoid running the risk of losing their credentials, not that many will agree completely with everything it says. In fact, even the General Assembly doesn't, for it frequently changes them.

To be more specific, I don't think you will be able to convince Randy. He's been around here for a long time and we've had this discussion many times. He knows he doesn't align with orthodox Christianity. But he will be convinced when Jesus will meet him on the last day and I am certain he will worship Him and say, as Thomas did: "My Lord and my God".

Till that day, as long as he (as goes for anyone else) considers himself a Nazarene or a friend of Nazarenes and pursues that fellowship, he's welcome to post here.

We can do this because though NazNet does support the CotN, it is not an officially recognized part of it. Nor is anyone writing on NazNet in some official capacity. What we write, we write in our own name. Nobody can say: "NazNet says". The most one can do is say, "Someone wrote on NazNet". Back to Randy again, his views are his, and nobody else's. As goes for your view and mine.

This is what Dave McClung, NazNet's owner, has in mind for NazNet, and as hosts and moderators, we support him in that endeavour

BTW, thanks for asking and allowing me to explain.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

Here is a very good article on the Malachi 3:6 verse you are referring to. One that returns to the Hebrew and taking away the Greek philosophy.

With regards to the article, I agree ever so slightly.

However, God's immutability is mentioned as:
-his steadfastness of promise
-his unchanging will
-his unchanging purpose
-his unchanging mind
-his "sameness" in comparison to man
-his inability to lie
-his lack of variation or "shifting shadow/shadow of turning"

We know that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. We know that there was no god before God, neither shall there be one after him.

There doesn't seem to be any room of for ambiguity.

[Hans Deventer]

With regards to the article, I agree ever so slightly.

However, God's immutability is mentioned as:
-his steadfastness of promise
-his unchanging will
-his unchanging purpose
-his unchanging mind
-his "sameness" in comparison to man
-his inability to lie
-his lack of variation or "shifting shadow/shadow of turning"

We know that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. We know that there was no god before God, neither shall there be one after him.

There doesn't seem to be any room of for ambiguity.

The Bible testifies to God changing his mind. That seems totally clear. In fact, He explains why in Jeremiah 18. But now we are moving to another topic.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Your accusation is rather bankrupt as I have never presumed to argue on the basis of any creed. I simply come to the same conclusion as the first ecumenical council on this issue. They, like us meant to assert strict monothiesm. But that is irrelevent to those with proper understanding of the Trinity. It appears that you might not understand what the Trinity is. Could you please define the Trinity for me?

There is NO accusation. I don't even know how you can think of that. But you do. Oh well.

[Paul DeBaufer]

With regards to the article, I agree ever so slightly.

However, God's immutability is mentioned as:
-his steadfastness of promise
-his unchanging will
-his unchanging purpose
-his unchanging mind
-his "sameness" in comparison to man
-his inability to lie
-his lack of variation or "shifting shadow/shadow of turning"

We know that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. We know that there was no god before God, neither shall there be one after him.

There doesn't seem to be any room of for ambiguity.

So, you agree with Dennis' article yet you still insist that Malachi is making ontological claims? I don't get it. I am not suggesting that you have to agree with Dennis, I am sure that there are many who don't. You are free to think that Malachi is making ontological claims as to God's nature. I happen to agree with him, but then his view of inspiration and mine are similar.

No one, Randy included, has made any claims to there being any other God/gods than the one true God. I, personally, don't think that Randy's view does any violence at all to the notion of Trinity. I know that you see Randy as trying to make Jesus a separate god, but I just don't happen to see it that way. I do not think that that is necessarily a necessary outcome of his position.

I second Ben's request that you, who has asked for another's, state your position and education.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

There is NO accusation. I don't even know how you can think of that. But you do. Oh well.

The accusation, whether intended or not, was that while Randy does not interpret via the ecumenical creeds I and others do. This seems to be a misunderstanding on my part.

If you had simply said that Randy rejected the creeds I would have had no objection to your information.