Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Boy Mike, you sure know how to pick em !-:)


    I don't have a great deal of time to get into this one, but the best
    source of information that I have read on the theology of the Trinity
    so far is from a book called, "Theology For Beginners" by Frank Sheed.

    Even though it's says it's for beginners it's quit deep and needs time 
    to grasp.


    Jim

    The BIBLE say's....GOD,the Father...GOD,the Son...God the Holy Spirit!!
     
    One,two,three!!!!....there you go....GOD IN THREE PERSONS BLESSED TRINITY!!
    
    ...easy peesy!!
                     
    I believe it!!.....
    
    Chris
    
    LYTB's (as Irena would say!!)

    If one were to try to describe all that is, three words might come to
    mind:  One, Whole and All.  One way of thinking of the Trinity is to
    match the foregoing words with the "persons" of the Trinity --
    
    One - The Son
    Whole - The Father
    All - The Holy Spirit
    
    They are, as it were, aspects of the same thing.  
    
    (From the teachings of my Dad)
    
    DR

    Mike, from my own unitarian perspective, I must admit that I never
    understood the concept of the Trinity either.  There's a wonderful
    scene in the movie "Nuns on the Run" in which one character attempts to
    explain the concept to Eric Idle.  Idle was a confused by it as I am. 
    Anyway, as I understand it, the idea is that there is one God, but the
    divinity is manifested in three "persons".  The philosophical basis for
    this is actually rather esoteric, as far as I can tell, and lay
    interpretation can easily find itself interpreting the doctrine more as
    a form of tritheism than trinitarianism.  Also, there is apparently a
    major point of disagreement between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman
    Catholic interpretations of the Trinity, but I'm not quite sure what it
    is.

    -- Mike

    re .2 (AYOV24::CFLOYD)
    
>    The BIBLE say's....GOD,the Father...GOD,the Son...God the Holy Spirit!!
    
    	At the moment, as a personal-study project, I'm reading the Bible
    through, and taking notes on verses that seem to argue either for or
    against the trinity doctrine.  With the exception of the Gospels, which
    I've saved for last, I'm almost finished with the NT.
    
    	I've *definitely* come across verses which literally identify God
    the Father as "God the Father", but nowhere is there any verse (that I
    have read) which likewise explicity identifies Jesus as "God the Son"
    and the holy spirit as "God the Holy Spirit".
    
    	This should definitely be an interesting topic, once it gets going.
    
    								-mark.

    I'm not sure how clear I am on this subject either.  It's been
    explained to me in several different ways but what it all seems to come
    down to for me is one being with three different aspects.  In Sunday
    school at the Episcopalian church (eons ago :-) the aspects were
    described to me as God being the head, Christ the right hand and the
    Holy Spirit, the left hand.  All of these are part of the one God but
    have different functions.  The problem I had with this is that, from my
    point of view God could function very well without one or both of His
    hands.  So why the emphasis on Christ being the only way to get to God? 
    And why would God need to have these other aspects act as interfaces to
    humanity?  And if God has these three aspects, why not others?  I mean,
    our temporal bodies wouldn't get very far with only a head and hands. 
    What about the other organs?
    
    Sorry - I guess I have more questions than answers.  
    
    :-} (sheepish grin) 
    
    Nanci

re Note 59.4 by CSC32::M_VALENZA:

>     Anyway, as I understand it, the idea is that there is one God, but the
>     divinity is manifested in three "persons".  

        I certainly agree that the Bible, in the New Testament,
        describes three different divine personalities.  The Bible is
        also emphatic that God is one.

        Unfortunately, we humans are not satisfied with that.  We
        want to give it a name.  We want to explain it (all the while
        we say that "it can't be explained!").  We want to dissect it
        with all the tools of whatever philosophical background we
        have at the time.

        We then take the result of our logic, and use it to divide
        the followers of Jesus into factions.

        We take a profound truth, and reduce it to human misery.


>     Also, there is apparently a
>     major point of disagreement between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman
>     Catholic interpretations of the Trinity, but I'm not quite sure what it
>     is.

        The issue is whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father
        and the Son (the RC view), or whether the Holy Spirit
        proceeds from the Father (the EO view).

        Where does the Bible say anything about "proceeds"?  Why is it
        a big issue?

        Bob

    re .5
         Mark keep searchin'..their there!!....chris

    Here is the simplest Sunday School lesson on the topic:
    
      Ice\
          \
    Water--> 3 in 1
          /             Pretty cute, eh?
    Steam/
    
    Actually, the Trinity is part of church doctrine.  Its emphasis is of
    extremely low priority to me personally.
    
    Islam says Christianity is polytheistic.  I can understand why they say
    that.  Incidently, did you know that Jesus got a brief write up in the
    Koran?
    
    Richard
    Richard

    Richard, since you signed your name twice, does that mean that you are
    2 persons in 1?  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    Well, if so, I wish the other guy would pay the bills and deal with the
    teenager! ;-)
    
    Richard

    re .8 (AYOV24::CFLOYD)/Chris
    
>         Mark keep searchin'..their there!!....chris
    
    Thanks for the encouragement, but with all due respect, that's not a
    real answer.  The problem at hand (finding verses which explicity
    confirm what is stated in the non-Biblical trinitarian creeds) is
    definitely finite, meaning that there are only so many verses in the
    Bible, and there aren't so many that a single person couldn't read them
    all in a reasonable span of time (which is what I'm doing).
    
    I own more than a dozen Bible translations, and a few Bible
    concordances, which I can easily use to verify the presence or absence
    of verses which plainly state that Jesus is "God the Son" and that
    God's holy spirit is, in fact, a distinct personality which the Bible
    writers call "God the Holy Spirit," just as I can do when looking for
    identifications of the Father as "God the Father."
    
    Now, yes, we can talk about verses which *imply* (by a certain train of
    logic) that Jesus is "God the Son", and that the holy spirit is "God
    the Holy Spirit" -- and for the most part, I already know which verses
    are alleged to serve this purpose -- but an implication isn't the same
    as a literal assertion.
    
    If you can find a verse which calls Jesus "God the Son", and the holy
    spirit "God the Holy Spirit," I'd appreciate it if you'd post a
    reference to it.  To illustrate exactly what I'm mean, take Gal 1:1,
    which is Paul's opening salutation, and which reads:
    
    		"Paul an apostle -- not from men nor through
    		man, but through Jesus Christ and God the
    		Father, who raised him from the dead --" (RSV)
    
    In this verse, Paul calls God "God the Father."  What I'm talking about
    is a verse which uses the parallel form "God the Son" or "God the Holy
    Spirit."  Of course, if you'd like to post a list of references to
    verses which convince you that Jesus is God, and that the holy spirit
    is God, I invite you to do so; but I hope that you see the distinction
    that I'm making between implications that Jesus is God and clear,
    unambiguous assertions that he is.
    
    Thanks in advance.
    
    								-mark.

    -mark
    
    My memory of my church history is a big vague, but I think that
    what you are looking for actually was the result of one of the
    early church councils that produced the apostles and Nicene
    creeds as statments of what we as Christians believe.
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie - 
    
    Your memory serves us well.  The Nicene Creed evolved as a result of
    the council at Nicea, which I think was sometime between 400 and 500
    A.D.  (Corrections welcomed.)  I'll check some old notes for exact time
    and possible text.
    
    Nanci

    Another Sunday school analogy:
    
     Man was made in the image of God - 
    
        Man:    God:
        body    Jesus
        mind    God the Father
        spirit  Holy Spirit
    
    Sue

re Note 59.12 by ILLUSN::SORNSON:

        "... but an implication isn't the same as a literal
        assertion."

        A very important point, indeed!

        Bob

    re .13 (WMOIS::B_REINKE)/Bonnie
    
>    My memory of my church history is a big vague, but I think that
>    what you are looking for actually was the result of one of the
>    early church councils that produced the apostles and Nicene
>    creeds as statments of what we as Christians believe.
    
    	Quite right ... that's what I already believe, in fact.  But it
    appears that not everyone in Christendom holds or concedes to that same
    historical perspective.  Over the years, here at DEC in the religious
    NOTES conferences, people have been asserting that the Bible actually
    calls Jesus "God the Son" and the holy spirit "God the Holy Spirit",
    and literally affirms that "Jesus is God" and "the Holy Spirit is God."
    
    	The way I see it, a good number of church historians and
    theologians have the intellectual honesty (and/or candor) to admit that
    the details of the trinitarian creeds have their origins in the
    councils alone (and not the Bible, directly), but those admissions lay
    buried in scholarly tomes which the layman cares little for.  'Popular
    theology' -- which asserts that the Bible says that "Jesus is God" --
    rules the day; and although, to its credit, it casts off the stuffy and
    obfuscating pedagoguery of 'formal theology,' it also casts off the
    intrinsic conservatism which has, at best, allowed many a formal
    theologian to assert only that the Bible *hints* at the details of
    trinitarianism which were later formalized and ratified by later church
    councils.
    
    	Since this conference professes no implicit 'house creed,' this
    seems to be an ideal forum for laying out and comparing the real
    Biblical basis of each side (trinitarian and unitarian).  Since the
    assertion that the Bible actually says that "Jesus is God" is so basic,
    this is as good a starting issue as any.  It's also as good a time as
    any to ante up or fold.
    
    								-mark.

    Council at Nicea Turkey was in 325 A.D. called by Constantine, as a
    result of  beliefs spread by a priest named Arius, of Alexandria. 
    Arianism belief held that Jesus was not God, but the highest creature 
    of God. The dispute did not end there. The Nicene Creed was created at
    the council and it should of ended there. However, Arianism spread and 
    the new emperor and the succeeding emperors adopted the Arian opinion, 
    and they expelled a number of pro-Nicene Bishops and persecuted anyone 
    who held fast to the Nicene Creed. 
    
    
    Jim

re Note 59.18 by PCCAD1::RICHARDJ:

>     The dispute did not end there. The Nicene Creed was created at
>     the council and it should of ended there. 

        Of course, the folly was to think that simply because a
        dominant group declares their position to be true, and their
        opponents' position false, that that "settles it".  It almost
        never does.

        Bob

    re .19
    
    Bob,
    
    I think you may have just made *the* definitive statement of the week!
    
    :-)
    RICHARD

    Thanks, Jim.  For some reason 425 A.D. sticks in my head but that's
    probably faulty memory.
    
    :-)
    
    Nanci

>>     The dispute did not end there. The Nicene Creed was created at
>>     the council and it should of ended there. 

  >      Of course, the folly was to think that simply because a
   >     dominant group declares their position to be true, and their
    >    opponents' position false, that that "settles it".  It almost
     >   never does.

      Well Bob, blame me for the folly, the thinking was on my part not the
      Nicaea council.
    
    Jim

    
    I am a father
    I am a son
    I am a husband
    I am a friend
    I am...
    
    
    I manifest in many different persons, depending upon the situation. I
    think that God manifesting himself as a son was the best mechanism for
    communicating how a son should act to a father, his friends, his
    brothers, etc.
    
    I think that there are many other manifestations to come, but for the
    time being, He has chosen for us to learn Father/Son/Spirit. Those are
    the names he has given us in the new testament. There is also Jehova
    Jireh and on and on. It is in the realm of the Father, the Son, and the
    Holy Spirit that we as Christians have been commissioned. That's about
    all I can handle for the moment.
    
    Jamey
    
    
    

    re .23 (COOKIE::JANORDBY)
    
>    I am a father
>    I am a son
>    I am a husband
>    I am a friend
>    I am...
    
>    I manifest in many different persons, depending upon the situation.
    
    Really?  They have ways to treat multiple personality disorders, you
    know? :-)
    
    Jamey, aren't you really simply describing your relationships with
    others, which come about because of changes in your circumstances? 
    Although your circumstances and experiences change as time goes on, you
    are still the same person with a single identity.  Although you are a
    son (i.e., your father's son), and a father yourself (of your
    children), you can't ever (in reality) be your own father or your own
    son.  Although each experience adds something to your personality, you
    are always the same person, right?
    
    Along the same lines, although you are a son, and bear a certain
    resemblence to your own father, and have certain physical traits in
    common, you and he are not different manifestations of the same person. 
    The two of you are distinct, and will always exist separately from one
    another, even though you may share ideals, goals, likes, loves, and
    whatever.
    
    								-mark.
    
    								-mark.

    
    
    > Really?  They have ways to treat multiple personality disorders, you 
    > know? :-)
    
    :)
    
    >    Jamey, aren't you really simply describing your relationships with
    >    others, which come about because of changes in your circumstances?
    >    Although your circumstances and experiences change as time goes on,
    >    you are still the same person with a single identity.  Although you are
    >    a son (i.e., your father's son), and a father yourself (of your
    >    children), you can't ever (in reality) be your own father or your
    >    own son.  Although each experience adds something to your personality,
    >    you are always the same person, right?
    
    Absolutely. I cannot father myself. I am not God. I am always the same
    person. The Lord our God is one God. Thank goodness he decided to
    personify himself so that we could relate. 
    
    Note that although I am a father to my sons, they will never know me as
    a son, unless I were somehow able to manifest myself as a child to show
    them what it would be like.
    
    >    Along the same lines, although you are a son, and bear a certain
    >    resemblence to your own father, and have certain physical traits in
    >    common, you and he are not different manifestations of the same
    >    person. The two of you are distinct, and will always exist separately 
    >    from one another, even though you may share ideals, goals, likes, 
    >    loves, and whatever.
    
    In essence, I inherited the nature of my father, and his, and his....
    This is where Jesus differs so much from us, he inherited the nature of
    His Father, the essence of God.
    
    Jamey
    
    

    Well, I think they are the three [chief] ways that we *experience* God.

    me too, Nancy,
    
    (do you ever get tired of my agreeing with you?)
    
    
    love
    
    bonnie

    
    Mike
    
    There have been so many persons that tried to give a logical explanation to 
    the Trinity. Sometimes people try to make comparisons like; water, vapor 
    and ice or light, heat and energy. Even if those examples could be more or 
    less valid, this is not what I believe. Neither I can agree to people that 
    say; "It is a mistery, we have only to believe".
    Every aspect of our faith comes from the perfect revelation of God and from 
    His word: the Bible.

    The Trinity is everywhere in the Bible even is sometimes we cannot easily 
    see it. In Genesis God is mentioned in plural form. In the moment of the 
    divine creation the Word by which God is creating is a clear 
    reference to Jesus (John 1:1-3) and also the Spirit of God is mentioned in 
    Gen 1:2.

    The doctrine of God being one and three together was not invented by some 
    teologist like Tertulliano, Agostino (Italian spelling) or by the decision 
    of some Council: Nicea or Costantinopoli, but it is in the Word of God.

    Like for any other biblical doctrine, also the Trinity has practical 
    implication very important for each of us.

    Both in the creation and in the redemption God Father is who makes the 
    "plans", God Son is who "executes" this plan, and God Spirit is who applies 
    the effects of the "divine plan". For example; God Father in the fall of man 
    revealed His plan for salvation through the "descendant" that will crush 
    the head of Satan, but will suffer onthe cross. But is the the Holy Spirit 
    that convince the world of sin, justice and judgement and makes people born 
    again in the Lord Jesus.

    If the Trinity doesn't exist than God is not the Father....

    If the Trinity doesn't exist than Jesus is not God and if He is not God 
    than His sacrifice has been vain because it couldn't be done as an 
    expiation for the whole world. If we deny the Trinity we also deny the 
    divinity of Christ, His physical resurrection  and the Salvation by Grace. 
    Then our faith is vain ....

    Christian life is full of difficulties and it couldn't be lived without the 
    work and the power of the Holy Spirit.

    Please if you want to know more, let me know and I will love to answer
    to your doubts .... if I can.
    
    Marinella
    
    

    
    Perhas a better way to approach this topic is for those who hold to a
    Trinitarian position to enter those verse(s) that support that view for
    them.
     
    Those holding differing views can show where and why they disagree.
    
    -c.

    re: .27, Bonnie -
    Of course not -- I'm always glad to find someone else who 
    has the 'truth'!  :->

	Ciao Marinella

	Though your last reply in .28 was addressed to Mike , I would like to 
	make a comment . 
    
>    The Trinity is everywhere in the Bible even is sometimes we cannot easily 
>    see it. In Genesis God is mentioned in plural form. In the moment of the 
>    divine creation the Word by which God is creating is a clear 
>    reference to Jesus (John 1:1-3) and also the Spirit of God is mentioned in 
>    Gen 1:2.

	One thing I find confusing about the plural form of God , in Genesis ,
	is how it backs the doctrine of the Trinity . For example , most 
	Trinity doctrines that I know about , show the Godhead to be three
	persons in one and not three Gods in one . For it would go against
	Bible teaching 1 Cor 8:5,6 NWT "there is .... one God the Father."
	I am not sure how the plural form of God can point to persons rather
	than God's , when looked at in the literal sense .

	As I understand it the plural form of God is used to show majesty .
 	A good example for us English is the royal "we", as in the case of 
	Queen Victoria who said "We are not amused" .

	Phil.
  

    Phil,
    
    In the creation God is mentioned as "Elohim" (plural) while the verbs are
    singular. May be a grammatical error? I do not think so, or else we
    will be politeistic. 
    
    There are other religion which believe in the "trinity" but that are
    completely different from christianism, because we believe in one God
    in three Persons and other believe in three different Gods. In
    Babilonia (sp?) Anu was the God of the sky, Bel of the earth and Ea of
    the underground; the Hinduism believes in Brahma, Vishnu and Siva as
    three different Gods. 
    
    There is only ONE God which manifests himself in three different
    persons, still the same and made inthe sme way. The term Trinity I
    believe was first said by Tertulliano in the II century to express this
    truth.
    
    To answer to other notes:
    
    There is only one God (I Tim 2:5)
    He is the Father (Is 64:8, Mt 7:11)
    He is the Son (Joh 1:1-3, 10:30-33, Col 2:9)
    He is the Holy Spirit (I Cor 2:11, 3:16, II Cor 3:17, Is 11:2)
    They are united in only ONE God (Mt 28:19, I Cor 12:4-6, II Cor
    13:13-14, I Pet 1:2)
    
    If you also look in the Bible you will notice that the Father, the Son
    and the Holy Spirit accept to be worshipped, but the Angels and man do
    not accept it (Rev 19:10, Acts 10:25).
    
    Hope I cleared some questions.
    
    Ciao (Bye)
    
    and God bless you
    
    Marinella
     

The Trinity?

I don't understand it.

Collis

re Note 59.32 by ROMCSA::FIASCHI:

>     There are other religion which believe in the "trinity" but that are
>     completely different from christianism, because we believe in one God
>     in three Persons and other believe in three different Gods. In
>     Babilonia (sp?) Anu was the God of the sky, Bel of the earth and Ea of
>     the underground; the Hinduism believes in Brahma, Vishnu and Siva as
>     three different Gods. 
  
        Actually, such correspondences are used by some
        non-trinitarians to suggest that the doctrine of the trinity,
        just as in the case of the Christmas holiday, was a result of
        pagan influence on the early church.

        Bob

    From The Christlike God by Francis J. McConnell (1927):
    
    "Another instance of the insistence of the church on the primacy of the
    moral is to be found in the persistence with which the mysterious and
    baffling doctrine of the Trinity has maintained itself though the ages....
    
    "I think the secret of the longevity of the dogma is not
    merely the pressure to make a place for Christ in the Divine Life, in
    the sense of granting him divine honors, but, rather, to carry the
    Christ-spirit into the Divine, or, rather, to reveal the divine as
    throughout Christlike.  The life which men say in Christ they came to
    believe in as the life of God himself.  They were willing to follow
    that life even into their theories about the inner constitution of
    divinity.  Moral unity has weighed more than metaphysical unity."
    
    

    More from The Christlike God by Francis J. McConnell (1927):
 
    "...while I am on this theme I may as well remark that the danger in the
    usual ideas of the Trinity is not so much to the metaphysical unity as
    to the moral unity -- the very end which the doctrine has sought to
    conserve.  In seeking for distinctions in the life of the Divine the
    church has too often made the Father stand for one moral mood and the
    Son for another.  Or, if the distinction has not been conceived of as
    strictly personal, Father has often been made to stand as the phase of
    righteousness, and Son, of Love....Think of the tendency to put Father
    and Son over against one another in opposed moods.  The Father is, or
    used to be, conceived of as in wrath and the Son molifies the wrath
    with the aid of the Spirit.  To what extremes have we not heard
    evangelistic appeals rush in such representation of the work of the
    Son!  Yet the teaching that God forgives men their sins for Christ's
    sake lends itself naturally to just such difference of moral moods in
    the inner life of the Godhead.  If, now, we are to think of a
    complexity in the God life, all the factors, or phases, must be
    Christlike -- that is, if we are to have a Christian God."

        This morning I was reading Acts 2.

        This is the chapter in which the Eleven receive the Holy
        Spirit and then begin preaching in many languages.

        Peter then addresses the crowd, giving what must be the first
        Christian sermon.

        Peter's use of language to describe Jesus, and his
        relationship to God, is very interesting (I must note that I
        am only using the English translation of the NIV).

        God worked the miracles through Jesus ... God raised Jesus
        (not Jesus raising himself) ... God made Jesus both Lord and
        Christ ...

        A clear implication of this language is that Jesus is someone
        other than God.

        Of course, one might argue that we have to look at the whole
        of Scripture, but note that this is a speech -- it was meant
        to stand alone.  Those who heard this most fundamental
        message had no access to any Christian Scripture.  How would
        they have interpreted it?  If Peter intended "Jesus is God",
        why isn't such a fundamental message made explicit in his
        speech?

        Bob

    The following is another way of viewing the Trinity, which rings
    true for me:
    
Remember the purpose of life - it is not to escape from the earth and 
to idle away your time in a more beautiful place of thought or 
conscious being, but rather to perfect your ability meet the everyday 
demands of life by bringing through into practical manifestation the 
beauty and harmony of that heavenly state, and thus give the very 
finest service to your fellow men.  It is that the God-consciousness 
within will expand into the perfection which lies within the mind of 
our Father-Mother God.  For man was created in God's own image; the 
conception of the Perfect One is within the Trinity, is part of God.  
And you, my brother, my sister, *you* are that perfect conception of 
the child or son of God held within the mind of the Father-Mother.  
Meditate upon this, upon the holy three - God the Father, God the 
Mother, and you, the child .. the very child of God, an aspect of that 
Trinity.

If, each day, you aspire to become in tune with the infinite, you will 
be developing the child of God, the Christ child in your heart.  Men 
so sorely need that closer relationship with the Source of all life, 
the Father-Mother God, and when man's life on earth is built on an 
understanding of this relationship of child and parent, man and God, 
there will be no more suffering and sickness, chaos and war.

			From White Eagle on Spiritual Unfoldment
    

Re:  .37

You are quite right, Bob, in pointing out the Peter distinguishes
Jesus and God.  The usual understanding is that he is distinguishing
between Jesus and God the Father (since they are different "persons").

In most things, we consider that X cannot both be "Y" and not be "Y'"
(Y prime).  The doctrine of the Trinity explicitly refutes that logic
in the case of God.  It affirms that X (Jesus) CAN be both "Y" (God)
and not be "Y'" (God the Father).  Therefore, using this form of argument
does not lead to "disproving" the Trinity.

Collis

                               The Trinity
    
    The closest comments to understanding the Trinity entered so far are #9
    and #38.  "Water-Ice-Steam" is a very appropriate example of a Trinity. 
    The first paragraph of 38, gets off to a real good start.
    
    However, having studied and meditated on this very matter for over ten
    years.  Having delved deep into the heart of the matter, I will offer
    you what I have come to know...I hope you'll understand.
    
    First, the history and origin:
    
    The Trinity is a concept, a method of "perception," that comes down
    through the ages via the Egyptians.  The Pyramid incorporates this
    symbol within its doctrine.  The majority of major religions have a 
    "Trinity" conception of God.
    
    The Doctrine of the Trinity:
    
    Pythagorus (An Egyptian Initiate) taught, "Man cannot become truly wise
    unless he sees each thing in three aspects."  (The Secret Teachings of
    All Ages, by Manly P. Hall)
    
    The Trinity, is not God (God is One God), but it is a practical manner
    by which we "perceive" God.  And, since we are made in the image of
    God, and all things were made by God, all things can also be perceived,
    fundamentally, in three aspects.
    
    The Triangle is considered to be "three equal points", however, the
    Trinity, is to be considered "three points in equilibrium", and there's
    a difference, a world of difference.  "Three points in equilibrium," is
    understood, in its most basic form, as represented by the three natural
    forces of the universe, of which all things consist.  They are
    "Positive, Negative and Neutral" forces.
    
    When you understand the correspondences of these three natural forces,
    you'll find that you'll easily come to perceive the "Triune" God,
    "Triune" refering to "The One God in three aspects".
    
    Every force in the universe can be classified under one of the three
    forces aforementioned.  However, we must understand that there are two
    types of Neutral forces, 1)Double Positive and 2)Double Negatives.  Let
    me illustrate this, when you see this symbol it helps you understand.  
    
    (Note:  One misconception of the African Oral Tradition is that it was
    "error prone", which is erroneously represented by the example of
    "place ten people in a row, whisper a phrase to the first, and by the
    time it gets to the last you've got a whole different phrase", by this
    they say the Oral Tradition is not credible.  However, they fail to
    mention and include the fact that the Oral Tradition also consists of
    "symbols", and Africans/Egyptians would draw the symbol and orally
    relate the meaning of the symbol, and each time you see the symbol you
    automatically remember the meaning associated with the symbol.  Thus,
    making the Oral Tradition extremely credible.)
    
                              Natural Forces
    
                                 Neutral
                            (Double Positive)
                                (+/-|-/+)
                                    /\
                                  /    \
                                /        \
                   Positive + <------------> - Negative
                                \        /
                                  \    /
                                    \/
                                (-/+|+/-)
                            (Double Negative)
    
    In science, we are taught that the Double Positive point is the
    "Zenith" point, the hottest point of this correspondence.  It is the
    point of "conception", called the "Son".  It results from the
    interaction of the Positive and Negative points.  No doubt you've all
    seen a Frankenstein movie, and have seen the two electrodes (one
    positive and one negative) when charged, the electric current arches up
    and meets, that is the "Zenith" point.
    
    The Double Negative point is an invisible phenomenon, that has only
    recently been discovered by scientist, and is still under
    investigation.  Yet, they have firmly established that opposite the
    Zenith point is created an opposing force, which is called Double
    Negative.
    
    The Double Positive point, represents all things good, right, light,
    substantial, etc.  The Double Negative point, represents are things
    evil, wrong, dark, unsubstantial (no substance, a shadow).  The Double
    Negative is equated with the "shadow".  The Double Positive is equated
    with the "real" which casts the shadow, from being in the light.  Thus,
    the religious concept, "all good casts the shadow of evil", or "all
    things in the light casts a shadow."  Even as Satan (who is described 
    as an aberration, and not substantial, the "Whisper") was the first 
    created Angel, after the Word/Jesus. 
    
    Religious doctrine focuses on the upper three points of this
    correspondence (i.e. Positive and Negative forces as they combine to
    create Double Positive force).  Thus, Religion uses the symbol of the
    upward triangle, and refer to this as the "Trinity".
    
    Satanic doctrine focuses on the lower three points of this
    correspondence (i.e. Positive and Negative forces as they combine to
    create Double Negative force).  Thus, Satanist' use the inverted
    triangle, and that is their trinity symbol.
    
    Note: The Star of David, symbols the mixture of good and evil in Man,
    or man's propensity to do both good and evil.  It consists of both the
    upward and the downward triangle.
    
    To study and learn the Trinity doctrine it is necessary to begin to
    find and place each "thing" properly on the symbol, in correct
    correspondence to its tri-force aspects.  You may also consider the
    four aspects (i.e. include the Double Negative aspect), but you'll
    quickly see the irrelevance of that aspect, for religious purposes
    anyway.  
    
    Let me illustrate two major correspondences:
    
                                  Heaven
                                    /|\
                                  /  |  \
                                /    |    \
       Knowledge/Act of Good + <---Earth---> - Knowledge/Act of Evil
                                \    |    /
                                  \  |  /
                                    \|/
                                   Hell
    
    
                                   Son
                                    |
                                    |
                         God + ---------- - Holy Spirit
                                    |
                                    |
                                  Satan
    
    Understanding that Satan too, knows God and works by the Holy Spirit to
    create His evil.  This is understood, especially, by the fact that
    Satanist' invert righteous symbols, and even use the Bible to support
    their faith.  I can present examples inferences Satanist' use.  For
    example in Exodus 33 (last verse), when God desires to show himself to
    Moses, it is written, "thou can only see my hinder parts", and by
    inference Satanist' "kiss the hinder part" of their leader to honor
    them.  Also, in each statement, in scripture, that acknowledges how the
    Christian must overcome certain evil forces, these statements are sited
    as proofs to the Satanist of the reality and validity of their faith.
    
    You must meditate on How is God a Positive Force, and the Holy Spirit a
    Negative Force and Jesus (the Son) a Neutral (Double Positive) Force. 
    Also, everything can be placed on this symbol according to force, and
    better understood.  Thus, we perceive that the "Trinity" is really a
    "method of perception".

re Note 59.39 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> Therefore, using this form of argument
> does not lead to "disproving" the Trinity.

        First, I must observe that I had no intention of "disproving"
        the Trinity.  However, I did want to point out that the
        Trinity, as we would express it, does not play a central role
        in the gospel, since it plays no role in Peter's first
        sermon.

        My conclusion is that it is inappropriate to brand some
        followers of Jesus as heathens, i.e., non-christian, on the
        basis of a rejection of trinitarianism.


> In most things, we consider that X cannot both be "Y" and not be "Y'"
> (Y prime).  The doctrine of the Trinity explicitly refutes that logic
> in the case of God.  

        (I would also like to point out that once we take the
        position that we are in a realm where the normal rules of
        logic don't always apply, then it is pretty hard to prove or
        disprove anything.)

        Bob

Re:  .41

It is not the normal rules of logic that do not apply, rather it is the
normal assumptions of people that do not apply.

Collis

	Hi,


	The Trinity to me is a reality - but it is a reality beyond our
	understanding, simply because the reality of God is beyond our
	understanding - as infinity is beyond finity.
        I like the triangle perception where the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
	are equal and one (same angle) - but as in all our analogies, they
	are merely that, because we cannot imagine what God is like. We could
	come up with numerous other analogies like the shamrock for example,
	each analogy has within it some aspect representative of that we are
	trying hard to define but none can ever match the reality.

	I've included below something I had written on the Trinity some time
	ago, in order to establish the equality of the Father and the Son 
	that they of necessity are indeed ONE, eternally begotten NOT made,
	one with the Father in the Unity of the Holy Spirit. It also
    	relates to the 'Original Sin' topic.
    
    
	The term 'redemption' means the act of bying back, the act by which
God-Man bought back for mankind the opportunity lost by original sin, that
is the opportunity of attaining God and eternal happiness. The price paid
for this purchase was the sufferings and death of the Redeemer. 

	The door that was closed to us through Adams' sin (Heavens door)
was opened again by Christ and the covenant that Christ established would
help mankind ascend the steps to Heaven. 

So then the injury wrought towards God by man's sin had to be wiped out,
paid for, fully atoned for, because that sin of Adam was an affront to the
dignity of God. It was an offence of infinite proportions, so how could
finite man make reparation in justice, so that the extent of the offence
should be equaled by the extent of the atonement ? What I mean is that man
committed the offence, but he could not atone for the infinite hurt to the
dignity of God. It was an infinite hurt, because the magnitude of the offence
is measured by the person grieved. For example, if a soldier, a private,
struck another private, this offence is not as bad as if he had hurt a
sergeant, which again would not be as bad as if he hurt a general, if you
see what I mean, the actual offence was just the same, but it was measured
by the status of the person grieved. God himself is infinite, therefore
the offence against Him took infinite proportion. So how could finite man
make reparation, because the extent of the offence should be equaled by
the extent of the atonement. Man committed it but by himself could not atone
for it, but man should atone in the measure exacted by justice.

	What I'm saying is that no ordinary finite man could achieve our
Redemption - because of the very nature of the offence of Adam. Also if man
could achieve his own redemption by his own means - then why go through the
agony of the cross. Could we not just have said -'Sorry' and all things 
would have been put right ?? NO - because there is an infinite gulf between
ourselves and God - that NO man can jump over, simply because we are finite.
Therefore Redemption is a total GIFT from God. Which is why Christ is the ONLY
way to God - he is the Bridge, no matter what your religion, the only possible
way that you can achieve Salvation, that is Heaven, is by the Sacrifice of
Christ. The Way the Truth and the Life.

	So here we had an impasse; man owes an infinite debt and cannot
pay it; God can pay an infinite price, but does not owe it. So is redemption
impossible ? No, for the wisdom and power of God now shone forth in a work
beyond our wildest dreams and hopes: God gives a Redeemer who is both God
and Man. He is God and can pay the infinite price of redemption in the measure
of justice; He is man, and of the race that should pay that price.
	The results of Christs death and resurrection were :- the satisfaction
of Gods' justice for the sin of man, and the opening of Heaven and the gaining
of grace (help to Heaven). 
	
	Therefore Jesus Christ must be God - because He alone paid the price,
deemed of infinite value, for man's sin. Because you cannot have two
infinities, (because neither would be infinite) Jesus and the Father MUST be 
ONE - God, and the Love that unites them is the Holy Spirit. The Triune God.

        Jesus Christ lowered himself to become one of us. He did not cling to
	His EQUALITY with God, but humbled himself to share in our humanity.
	Christ is the manifestation of God's Love for us.

	I read someone saying that Christ never said he was God - what he did
	say was - 'Before Abraham was I AM' - I AM, no human being can ever
	say that because were exist by God's will, God exists of Himself only
	HE IS - therefore Christ claimed to be God, which of course the Jews
	recognised - and why they wanted to stone him.


	Your brother in Christ - eternally Begotten Son of the Father.

							Tom
	

	Hi Marinella

	Apoligies that it as taken over a week to reply , I have a lot
	of work on at the moment and kept on saying to myself "Si domani"
	that I would reply . But I am interested in your views regarding
	the Trinity , and would like to thank you for your prompt reply .

re.32

;In the creation God is mentioned as "Elohim" (plural) while the verbs are
;singular. May be a grammatical error? I do not think so, or else we
;will be politeistic.

	I do not believe it is a grammactical error either . But
	can only go by what Hebrew scholars say , for example in a
	Dictionary of the Bible , William Smith says: "The fanciful
	idea that [Elohim] referred to the trinity of persons in the
	Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars . It is
	either what grammarians  call the plural of majesty, or it
	denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers
	displayed by God." Also , The American Journal of Semitic
	Languages and Literatures says of Elohim:"It is almost
	invariably construed with a singular adjectival attribute."
	As you mentioned earlier in the account of creation , everytime
	the verb describing what God said and did is singular . Well,
	the publication concludes: "[Elohim] must rather be explained
	as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty."
 
;There are other religion which believe in the "trinity" but that are
;completely different from christianism, because we believe in one God
;in three Persons and other believe in three different Gods. In
;Babilonia (sp?) Anu was the God of the sky, Bel of the earth and Ea of
;the underground; the Hinduism believes in Brahma, Vishnu and Siva as
;three different Gods.

	For the very reason that so many other religions believe
	in a trinity of gods is it not wise to fully check the doctrine
	of the trinity ? . The reason I say this is because I do not see 
	it as being completely different and see many similarities when 
	these trinity of gods are examined more closely .  
    
;There is only ONE God which manifests himself in three different
;persons, still the same and made inthe sme way. The term Trinity I
;believe was first said by Tertulliano in the II century to express this
;truth.

        The Catholic Encyclopedia comments: "In Scripture there is as
	yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are
	denoted together. The word [tri'as] [Greek] (of which the Latin
	trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of
	Antioch about A.D. 180 ..... shortly afterwards it appears in
	its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian."

	However, this is no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the
	Trinity . The Catholic work Trinitas - A Theological Encyclopedia
	of the Holy Trinity, For example , notes that some of Tertullian's
	words were later used by others to describe the Trinity. Then it 
	cautions:"But hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he
	does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology."


	One interesting thing in your last reply was that you said that the 
	Bible mentions that the Holy Spirit accepts to be worshipped , can
	you give me a pointer to this ? just to clarify .

	ciao
	
	Phil.
 

    One common construal of the "us" and "our" in "Let us make man in our
    image" is that God is addressing the angels, whose creation was not
    explicitly mentioned.
    
    On the idea that "Elohim" is an intensive plural -- just to show that
    "intensive plural" was not an idea invented to explain this one word, I
    happen to know another intensive plural in Hebrew: "behemoth."  The
    "-oth" ending is a feminine plural; the literal translation of
    "behemoth" would be `beasts.'  It is used, rather aptly, for the
    hippopotamus.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    REPLY TO .5    (All verses in KJV)
                   
    God the Son: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given and
    the government shall be upon his shoulders: and his name shall be
    called Wonderful, Counsellor, the might God, the everlasting Father,
    the Prince of Peace."(Isa. 9:6,7)
    
    Acts 20:28, Hebrews 1:8, and Titus 2:13.
    
    
    Yes, JESUS CHRIST, THE MIGHTY GOD, AND EVERLASTING FATHER!!!!!!!!
    
    
                              AMEN
    
    
    
    
                            Marshall

re Note 59.46 by RAVEN1::WATKINS:

>     God the Son: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given and
>     the government shall be upon his shoulders: and his name shall be
>     called Wonderful, Counselor, the might God, the everlasting Father,
>     the Prince of Peace."(Isa. 9:6,7)
  
        Marshall,

        A quote like this may raise as many questions as it answers.

        Given that this is God-breathed inerrant Scripture from the
        same God who is able to foretell the future with such
        accuracy:  why doesn't it mention the name "Jesus", or at
        least the very important title "anointed one," i.e.,
        "Messiah" or "Christ"?

        Another issue:  if this refers to Jesus, and Jesus in the
        gospels clearly makes reference to "the Father" as distinct
        from himself, why does it say "his name shall be called ...
        Father"?  Do you refer to Jesus as the Father -- ever?

        Bob

      To begin with it clearly states "a child is born" and "a Son is
    given" and he SHALL be called "the mighty God" and "the everlasting
    Father".  It is almost word for word what Matthew tells us in the
    Gospel about Jesus.  When understanding the Bible we are given rules
    by the Bible on how to study to come to the correct concept.  Those
    rules are given, yes, in Isaiah.  Line upon line, precept upon precept,
    here a little and there a little.  So one must look at the other places
    where the terms child is born and Son is given.  Those terms are used
    concerning Jesus in the New Testament.  You must remember that when you
    are talking to me about doctrine I view the KJV as the word of God.  I
    will not except other versions.  If you want to debate that we would
    have to start another topic.  
    
    Now, in John 10:33 and John 20:24-28  we see that Jesus "made himself
    to be God".  As DM Lloyd-Jones said "The characteristic term which is
    used of Jesus Christ in the New Testament epistles is "The Lord". 
    This, as J.G. Machen once said, is "a designation of divinity", and 
    it is generally agreed that it conveys in the New Testament the full
    significance of the Old Testament term "Jehovah"." (AUTHORITY by
    DM Lloyd-Jones. pg28 1958).
    
    In Matthew 28:17 and Luke 24:52  we see that to worship Jesus was
    right.  But in Exodus 20:3  the law clearly states that God is
    the only one we are to worship.  Here again precept upon percept
    here a little there a little.  
    
    Now one more thing, Who is called the Prince of Peace?  If it is Jesus
    then Isa 9:6,7 is talking about Jesus.  If Jesus is the Son and if
    Jesus is the Prince of Peace then Jesus is the mighty God and the 
    everlasting Father.  Also Jesus did call Himself the Father in Matthew.
    He said I and the Father are one and if you know me you know the
    Father.  Jesus did not come out and say things directly because He
    wanted to confound the children of the devil, because their father was
    the devil.  In Romans 9 it clearly states that there are vessals fitted
    for destruction.  So if we are to know the truth we must follow these
    rules, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a
    little.
    
    You may also want to read Col. 2:9 and Phil. 2:9-11
    
    
    
                                 In Jesus Christ, mighty God
    
    
                                          Marshall
    
    
    as
    

      In anwser to your question, do I ever refer to Jesus as my Father?
    Yes, two weeks ago when my Pastor picked me to lead in prayer at a 
    worship service I ended my prayer as follows: In Jesus Christ, mighty
    God, everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, Amen.  And you know what 
    the whole body said Amen!  This is a basic teaching of my church.
    
    This is a reply to .47
    
                             In Jesus Christ, mighty God

    I am curious about the implications of referring to Jesus as the Father
    in the trinitarian scheme.  My understanding of Trinitarianism is that
    Jesus is considered the Son, not the Father, and that while both the
    Son and the Father are God, they are different personae of that one
    divinity.  Given that understanding, I would not perceive the Son and
    the Father to be interchangeable.  If you call Jesus the Father, does
    this then mean that the three components of the Trinity are, in fact,
    interchangeable?  Do you also call Jesus the Holy Spirit?  Do you call
    the Father the Holy Spirit?  If they are interchangeable, it seems to
    me that in a sense you have collapsed the Trinity into a Unity.
    
    But then, this doctrine has always struck me as rather esoteric to
    begin with.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

      The teaching of the Southern Baptist College I went to is
    just that, a unity and not three different persons.  They tought that 
    God is like an adult male.  The adult male is a father to his children,
    son to his father, and grandson to his grandfather.  Three different
    relationships but same adult male.  They develop that doctrine from
    Isaiah chapter nine.  They call it a Tri-unity.
    
    I do not say that I believe in the trinity, I believe what the Bible
    says about God the Father, Son the mighty God, and the Holy Spirit.
    On this subject I do not try to squeeze God into any kind of box not
    shown in the Bible.  Again I say that if the names in Isaiah nine fit
    Jesus Christ then the name "everlasting Father" must fit also.  Context
    is the reason.  Which in the Bible is called line upon line.  Now if
    you do not hold that every verse in the KJV is the word of God then you
    can through out what ever you want to.   Other wise who does fit the
    Son in Isaiah 9 and at the same time has the name "everlasting Father"?
    
    Let's also remember that we are now talking about God's very nature. 
    Who are we to be able to completely understand His nature.  We can
    only come to the edge.  Up to an image that is still dark in this world of
    flesh.   We will see more clearly when we enter heaven.
    
    
    
                                Marshall
    
    
    

    "can through out what ever you want to"  should be "can THROW out what
    ever you want to"  sorry for the bad spelling.
    
    
    
                           Marshall

    It sounds to me as if the Southern Baptist view of the Trinity is not
    necessarily the same as that believed by other denominations.  It was
    my understanding that Roman Catholicism viewed the Trinity as three
    persons in one divine nature.  Perhaps someone who knows more about
    this can clarify the issue.

    -- Mike

    To state more clearly what I believe I will give it a name.  One I find
    in the Bible.  Godhead.  I believe in the Godhead.
    
    Col. 2:9
    
    "For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,"
    See also these verses: Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20.
    
    John in John 1:1 states clearly that Jesus, ie the Word, is God.
    
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
    Word was God."
    
    John 1:10 also backs this teaching.
    
    I have some other work to do now I will give more scripture on this
    a little later.
    
    
                               Marshall
    

    Matthew 1:23
    
    "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and
    they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God
    with us."
    
    Here again we see Jesus Christ being called God.  You may be able to
    walk your way around these individual verses but when you place them 
    all together you will see the doctrine of Jesus Christ being God.
    
    Phil. 2:6
     
    "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equil with
    God..."
    
    Read also I Tim. 3:16
    
    Titus 2:13
    
    "looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great
    God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;"
    
    Again Jesus is called God.
    
    Read Heb. 1:8; I John 5:7,20   In I John we see that not only Jesus but
    the Holy Spirit is God.
    
    
    Looking at all these verses makes it clear to me that the Bible teaches
    the Deity of Jesus Christ.  I will be studing the Holy Spirit/Ghost
    and what I see I will bring to this note in regards to the Godhead.
    
    
    
                                 In Christ,
    
                                  Marshall
    

Re:	>>Note 59.55
     	>>RAVEN1::WATKINS

>>Matthew 1:23
>>    
>>"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and
>>they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God
>>with us."
>>    
>>Here again we see Jesus Christ being called God.  

     You'd never make a living as a lawyer.... (neither would I, for that
     matter ;^)) )

     Quoting from 'Insight from the Scriptures':

     	It was not unusual for Hebrew names to include within
     	them the word for God or even an abbreviated form of
     	God's name. For example, Eli'athah means "God Has Come";
     	Jehu means "Jehovah Is He"; Elijah means "My God Is
     	Jehovah." But none of these names implied that the
     	possessor was himself God.


>>Phil. 2:6
>>     
>>"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equil with
>>God..."

     other translations render it a little differently:

     	"who, although he was existing in God's form, gave 
     	 no consideration to a seizure [Greek, harpagmon'], 
     	 namely, that he should be equal to God." NWT 
     	 (RS, NE, TEV, NAB convey the same thought)

     On the surface, the difference in translations may appear to be minor, 
     but in reality they say something quite differently from the thought
     expressed in the KJ (and DY, JB). 

     Considering the context, in verse 5 we see that Christians are counseled
     to imitate Christ in this matter - but which though?  That they should
     consider it "not robbery", but their right, "to be equal with God"?
     Or rather should they imitate the one who "gave no consideration to a
     seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God"? Such a translation
     would agree with what Jesus Christ himself said: "The Father is greater
     than I." -John 14:28

>>Read also I Tim. 3:16
  
     But from what translation???

         From the KJ:

     		"... God was manifest in the flesh..."

         Others:

     		"...he who was manifested in flesh..."
     		"...He was made manifest in the flesh..."

>>Read Heb. 1:8; 

     Again, different translations, different slant:

     	From KJ:

     		"But unto the Son, he saith, Thy throne, O God, is
     		 for ever and ever;..."

     	Others:

     		"But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne
     		 forever and ever,...'"

     		"but as to the Son 'God is your throne forever and ever...'"


>>		I John 5:7,20   In I John we see that not only Jesus but
>>the Holy Spirit is God.

     I don't think so -- most scholars (even the RC church) agree that these
     are spurious (IMHO, a blatant attempt by the translator(s) to support 
     their belief in a trinity). Check out the other translations that leave
     out that passage completely: NWT, RS, NE, TEV, JB, NAB.
     
>>Looking at all these verses makes it clear to me that the Bible teaches
>>the Deity of Jesus Christ.  

     Still clear to you?

>>I will be studing the Holy Spirit/Ghost
>>and what I see I will bring to this note in regards to the Godhead.

     Might I suggest using other translations for comparison?


     -Len    

Phil 2 verse

  The context says that Jesus determined that equality with
God was not a thing to be grasped (i.e. held onto), but rather he
laid aside part of his privileges to come down in the flesh for a
death on the cross.

  The time will come when every knee will bow (i.e. worship Jesus,
where worship is always reserved for God) and every tongue will confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord (i.e. Yahweh!!!!!!!)

Collis

    Len,
    
    Thank you very much for providing a side-by-side comparison of the 
    various biblical texts in .56.  I found that to be very informative,
    and thought provoking...
    
    Karen

    re .57 (XLIB::JACKSON)/Collis
    
    	I know you were talking to Phil, but you don't mind if I cut in, do
    you?
    
>  The context says that Jesus determined that equality with
>God was not a thing to be grasped (i.e. held onto), but rather he
>laid aside part of his privileges to come down in the flesh for a
>death on the cross.
    
    	I suppose this reply *really* belongs in the newly started note 93
    (for the Witness view on the deity of Christ, & etc.), but just to keep
    this reply in context with yours, I'll keep it here.
    
    	Although all my reference works are at home, I recall that the
    Greek word which the RSV translates as "grasped" conveys the thought of
    "snatching" at something which one doesn't have possession of, rather
    than of maintaining a grasp on something one already has.  In my
    estimation, this is one instance where trinitarian translators have
    gone out of their way to bend the meaning of the literal Greek so as
    not to have to admit that the verse does more harm than good to the
    orthodox view.
    
>  The time will come when every knee will bow (i.e. worship Jesus,
>where worship is always reserved for God) and every tongue will confess
>that Jesus Christ is Lord (i.e. Yahweh!!!!!!!)
    
    	Oh, I don't know, Collis ... you didn't finish quoting the rest of
    the verse.  It says, "... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is
    Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:11 RSV).  The passage
    *doesn't* say that Jesus is Jehovah; the "Lordship" that Jesus
    possesses is that which Jehovah confered upon him when "God ... highly
    exalted him" (v.9 RSV).  Paul made it clear that a Christian's
    confession that "Jesus is Lord" is a way of giving worshipful honor and
    glory to "God the Father" who set up the arrangement with Jesus as
    "Lord" over the likes of us.
    
    								-mark.

You are quite right, Mark, that what is done for Jesus by the people
(which I call worship) is done for the glory of God the Father.  By
no means should this be a stumbling block to acknowledging the diety
of Jesus.

Collis

    re .60 (XLIB::JACKSON)/Collis
    
>                                  -< Agreed >-
>
>You are quite right, Mark, that what is done for Jesus by the people
>(which I call worship) is done for the glory of God the Father.  By
>no means should this be a stumbling block to acknowledging the diety
>of Jesus.
    
    	It's funny how agreements like this still don't seem to bring us
    into agreement.  (Maybe I'm just not sure about what you're agreeing
    with.)
    
    	Perhaps what's needed is a definition of what "diety" (and
    "divinity") means.  A case in point which illustrates why this is
    important is in Acts, wherein Paul was addressing the philosophers in
    Athens.  He was (obviously) preaching about the risen Christ, and some
    were under the impression that:
    
    		"He [Paul] seems to be a preacher of foreign
    		divinities" (Acts 17:18 RSV; "strange gods" KJV;
    		"foreign deities" NWT, ftn., lit. "demons,"
    		Gk. _daimonion_)
    
    As I was reading just the other day (in a work by the late Bishop
    Wescott), in those days, pagan societies tended to respect the worship
    of other gods not their own if they had established reputations, as the
    Israelite God Jehovah had; but *new* divinities were looked upon with
    suspicion, as it was often felt that they represented a direct
    rebellion against the established socio-political order, which had a
    pervading religious element woven into its fabric.  (In other words, new
    gods or divinities were an affront to the old gods and the political
    order into which their worship was incorporated.)
    
    	Evidently, they understood that Paul was preaching about Jesus as a
    heavenly being; and as such, it appeared to them that Jesus was being
    preached about as a new "divinity" or "deity" or "god"; but yet, that
    Jesus was a "strange god" indicates that Paul wasn't preaching about
    him as an incarnation of the Israelite God Jehovah (who wasn't
    "strange" to them, in the sense of having been unheard of before that
    time).
    
    	The question is, therefore, what kind of "deity" or "divinity" was
    the (risen) Jesus of the Bible, and ought we to assume (without
    investigation) that the now accepted orthodox definition of "Deity" --
    as it is applied by trinitarians to Jesus -- is 1) understood by all
    and 2) the same definition as was understood by the people of the first
    century?
    
    								-mark.

Mark,

Re:  harpagmon  (to grasp or seize)

You are quite right in pointing out that this verb can be used to mean
either to hold onto what is yours or to grasp something that is not
yours.  The context of Phil 2 says that Jesus, although he was in the
form of God (or in his nature God), chose not to grasp this, but rather
made himself nothing.  The first interpretation is a better understanding,
in my opinion, because the immediately preceeding statement indicates
that he had something and the subsequent statement says that he let
go of something (made himself nothing).

Re:  reflections on pagans in Acts

Speculations on what pagans thought they understood of what Paul was
proclaiming are not best evidence (or even very good evidence).  However,
you argument argues against what you believe.  If the pagans truly 
understood Paul to be preaching other gods, then he was preaching Jesus
Christ to be a god, since that is who Paul preached.  And there is
*only* one god.  (We can both agree on that.)

Yes, I know, you wish to define god as someone who is not deity.  Oh well.

:-)

Collis 

    re .62 (XLIB::JACKSON)/Collis
    
>Re:  harpagmon  (to grasp or seize)
>
>You are quite right in pointing out that this verb can be used to mean
>either to hold onto what is yours or to grasp something that is not
>yours.  The context of Phil 2 says that Jesus, although he was in the
>form of God (or in his nature God), chose not to grasp this, but rather
>made himself nothing.  The first interpretation is a better understanding,
>in my opinion, because the immediately preceeding statement indicates
>that he had something and the subsequent statement says that he let
>go of something (made himself nothing).
    
    	Not quite ...... first (not that I have every Greek lexicon ever
    printed, mind you), but as I recall, _harpagmon_ *only* means "to grasp
    something that is not yours," and this is the sense that all of its
    other usages (in the Bible) has, and is the only meaning that lexicons
    give it (unless they are citing Phil 2 as an example, that is). 
    Second, if I'm correct about the first part, then what it really boils
    down to is that trinitarian Bible translators have invented a new
    meaning for the verb in order to make the sense of the passage fit in
    with what they believe.
    
    	You say that the context indicates that _harpagmon_ is supposed to
    have the sense of "hold onto what is yours"; but if the real (and only
    meaning) of the word is "to grasp or seize what isn't yours", then it's
    superfluous to say that the context allows one to choose the other
    meaning.  I think it's pretty obvious that translators in the King
    Jamesian lineage rendered the verb as though it meant "hold onto what
    is yours" -- which gives us the odd phrase "thought it not robbery to
    be equal with God" -- but it's evident to me that at least a few more
    modern translators have had the candor to admit that it doesn't mean
    that at all, which is why the RSV renders the passage as it does ("did
    not count equality with God a thing to be grasped").  Also, as I
    recall, when the likes of the RSV came along, this particular verse in
    Phil 2 rankled the sensibilities of the more hardcore trinitarians,
    since it seemingly watered down or changed the meaning that came
    through in the old KJV rendition.
    
    	Speaking of the context, the real context is that Paul is trying to
    get them to adopt a certain attitude toward one another, and that each
    person should feel a certain way toward every other individual.  Since
    Paul likens Jesus' attitude to the one they [and we] should be holding
    to toward our fellow Christians, either way we look at this passage
    (that Jesus either didn't grasp at equality with God, or let go of an
    equality that he had), for the comparision to make sense, we have to
    admit that *Jesus wasn't God*, but rather was someone (in heaven) who
    either was or was not equal to God, since the application to us is that
    we are separate people, too, and that whether we are all naturally
    equal to one another, or naturally inferior, we should always take the
    view that others are "better" than we (as individuals) are, and
    willingly place ourselves in their service.  If we say that Jesus is
    God, it's rather meaningless to say that he subjected himself to
    himself.
    
    	Since the nature of the comparision requires that we recognize that
    Jesus was a person who was being compared *with* God -- and was not
    being identified *as* God -- it doesn't fit into either of our
    theologies to say that Jesus existed in heaven as a person distinct
    from God, but yet was *equal to God* at the same time.  And this being
    so, we are only left with one possibility, that Jesus was *not* God,
    and he didn't attempt to grasp at equality with God.  (If you've
    managed to follow all of this, then you win a genuine, 14-carrot
    *No-prize*. :-)
    
>Speculations on what pagans thought they understood of what Paul was
>proclaiming are not best evidence (or even very good evidence).  However,
>you argument argues against what you believe.  If the pagans truly 
>understood Paul to be preaching other gods, then he was preaching Jesus
>Christ to be a god, since that is who Paul preached.  And there is
>*only* one god.  (We can both agree on that.)
    
    	Well, it's funny you should put it that way, because a good many
    pro-trinity arguments are based on what Jesus' Jewish opposers thought
    they had understood Jesus to have said.  If it's valid to consider the
    opinions of hostile Jews in support of one's case, isn't turn about
    fair play?  Now yes, what the pagans thought they heard Paul say isn't
    "the best evidence" for my case, but that doesn't automatically mean
    that it's invalid evidence, does it?
    
    	When I get around to it, I'll type in some historical analysis of
    early Christian thinking, since there's evidence that the doctrine that
    both Jews and Christians held, that there was "only one God," didn't
    forbid them from thinking about other heavenly beings as lesser "gods"
    who were subordinate to Jehovah God himself.
    
    	What I want to do is avoid superimposing what are now conventional
    patterns of orthodox (trinitarian) thought back onto the very
    nontrinitarian views of the first century writers.  Back when the Bible
    was written, the trinitarian ideas (as we've now come to recognize
    them) were not the subject of any of the Bible writers.  The Christian
    writers focused on establishing that 1) Jesus was the (expected)
    Messiah, or Christ, and 2) that Jesus was God's Son.  The ideas and
    concise assertions that Jesus (and the holy spirit) were *also* God,
    and part of a trinity, came long after the Bible writings were
    concluded.

>Yes, I know, you wish to define god as someone who is not deity.  Oh well.
    
    	You don't have to worry about what *I* wish to see defined, Collis
    ... I'm simply interested in an unambiguous definition of what *you*
    (or the orthodox community in general) consider "deity" to mean or
    signify.  (Direct tie-ins with Bible verses would be helpful, too.)
    
    								-mark.

Re:  59.63

  >..._harpagmon_ *only* means "to grasp something that is not yours,"...

Don't know about this.  You could be right.

  >...for the comparision to make sense, we have to admit that *Jesus 
  >wasn't God*, but rather was someone (in heaven) who either was or was 
  >not equal to God, since the application to us is that we are separate 
  >people, too,...

But for trinitarians, this is not a problem because Jesus both *was*
God and *was* a separate person (from the Father).

  >Well, it's funny you should put it that way, because a good many
  >pro-trinity arguments are based on what Jesus' Jewish opposers thought
  >they had understood Jesus to have said.  

I think the argument from the Jewish leaders who spent much time with
Jesus and *knew* where He was coming from is a much better argument
than pagans who were (probably) rather unfamiliar with both Jesus
and Judaism.  That point being accepted, I also believe that Jesus'
response is very important to understand.  Knowing the Jesus believed
it was as wrong as wrong can be to claim to be God (without being God,
that is), he did nothing to deny their assertion, but rather accepted
it.  (In interpret the discussion that followed in John 10 as Jesus
saying, "If even these people who were not gods could be called gods,
then certainly I [who am God] can accept this.")

  >What I want to do is avoid superimposing what are now conventional
  >patterns of orthodox (trinitarian) thought back onto the very
  >nontrinitarian views of the first century writers.  

I'm sure (from your perspective) this is what you are trying to do.

From my perspective, it looks a little different.  :-)

  >I'm simply interested in an unambiguous definition of what *you*
  >(or the orthodox community in general) consider "deity" to mean or signify.  

Diety is God.

Collis

    Hi everybody, mind if I jump in? I believe that Christ is God, and
    I have many scriptures that support this view. Let me start with
    Christ's words himself.
    
    Luke 4:8 (KJV) And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Get thee behind
    me Satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
    and him only shalt thou serve."
    
    Ex 20:3 (KJV) "Thou shalt have [or worship] no gods before [but]
    me"
    
    If we are to believe Christ, then only God(Jehovah) can be worshiped;
    therefore since He accepted worship and did not rebuke those who
    did so during His life on earth (Jn 9:35-38; 20:24-29), the Son
    too is Jehovah God. The Bible teaches us that God cannot lie (Titus
    1:2). There are other references (Rev 19:10, 22:9) that teach that
    worship belongs only to God. And one in Heb 1:6 where the angels
    themselves worship Christ.
    
    John 20:28 "Thomas answered and said to him, My Lord and my God!"
    
    Thomas calls the risen Christ, God, and Christ did not deny it but
    confirmed it saying, "Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed;
    Blessed are they not having seen yet have believed".
    
    Isaiah 42:8 "I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I
    not give to another"
                 
    Isaiah 43:3 "For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel,
    thy Saviour: "
    
    Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations
    from the beginning? I the Lord, the first, and the last; I am he.
    
    Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer
    the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside
    me there is no God.
    
    I'm afraid I'll have to continue tommorrow, sorry......
    
    Carlos                  

    I must not have made it clear.  To begain with I hold that the King
    James Version is the Word of God in English.  If you must go to other
    versions to prove something to me you are wasting your time and mine.
    I studied in College all versions and I, by faith, hold that the KJV
    is the Word of God in english.  I am not trying to make any of you
    believe that, I am just letting you know where I come from as a base
    to my doctrines.  I also took three years of New Testament Greek.
    However, I hold that the KJV is God's word.  You are not dealing 
    with a person who has not studied all versions and the Greek.
    
    
    NOTE: This is a reply to .56
    

Well, I've finally done it.

I've brought my "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Leterature" by Arndt, Bauer, Gingrich and Danker
into work.  Now I can look up these words while noting.  (Fits nicely with
my Septuagint, parsing guide, lexical aids, Greek book...) Onto harpagmos.

  1.  robbery (next to impossible meaning of Phil 2:6 according to
      comments.  General agreement on this.

  2.  AS equal to harpagma.  This meaning cannot be quoted from non-Christian
      literature, but is grammatically justifiable.

      a)  This can be taken 'sensu malo' to mean prize, booty (so LXX) and
          only the context and an understanding of Paul's thought in general
          can decide whether it means holding fast to a prize already obtained
          or the appropriation to oneself of a prize which is sought after.

      b)  However, a good sense is also poss., a piece of good fortune,
          windfall; again it remains an open question whether the windfall
          has already been seized and is waiting to be used, or whether
          it has not yet been appropriated.

  3.  another less probable meaning is rapture

My comment:

The context, from my perspective, argues for the meaning of not holding
onto something which has already been obtained.

Collis

    re .64 (XLIB::JACKSON)/Collis
    
me >  >...for the comparision to make sense, we have to admit that *Jesus 
   >  >wasn't God*, but rather was someone (in heaven) who either was or was 
   >  >not equal to God, since the application to us is that we are separate 
   >  >people, too,...
   >
you>But for trinitarians, this is not a problem because Jesus both *was*
   >God and *was* a separate person (from the Father).
    
    	Yeah, I know, but to me, that seems more like reading your
    conclusion back onto the evidence, rather than letting the evidence
    lead you to a conclusion. Besides, the passage in Phil 2 doesn't speak
    of God as "the Father," and make that distinction; instead, it speaks
    of Jesus and God as being separate persons (and hence, separate
    beings).
    
>I think the argument from the Jewish leaders who spent much time with
>Jesus and *knew* where He was coming from is a much better argument
>than pagans who were (probably) rather unfamiliar with both Jesus
>and Judaism.  That point being accepted, ...
    
    	Well, given that Jesus' own disciples often failed to understand
    him -- and they were the ones whose hearts were open to what Jesus was
    saying -- shouldn't we figure that the Jewish leaders who *opposed*
    Jesus might have had similar difficulties?  Just because they made
    their religion a profession doesn't mean that they weren't immune to
    bouts of thick-headedness and hard-heartedness.
    
>                                     ... I also believe that Jesus'
>response is very important to understand.  Knowing the Jesus believed
>it was as wrong as wrong can be to claim to be God (without being God,
>that is), he did nothing to deny their assertion, but rather accepted
>it.  (In interpret the discussion that followed in John 10 as Jesus
>saying, "If even these people who were not gods could be called gods,
>then certainly I [who am God] can accept this.")
    
    	I'll pass on John 10 for now, except to say that Jesus' answer
    didn't do any more than to refute their charge of blasphemy, which was
    motivated by his having said "I am God's Son" (v.36).  Since (I'm sure
    we both agree) Jesus *wasn't* guilty of blasphemy, then it follows that
    his accusors were laboring under a misconception about the meaning of
    Jesus' claim to have been God's Son.
    
>  >I'm simply interested in an unambiguous definition of what *you*
>  >(or the orthodox community in general) consider "deity" to mean or signify. 
>
>Diety is God.
    
    	Oh, well thank you very much ... that clears things right up. ;-)
    Dare I ask how you define "divinity"?
    
    								-mark.

Re:  59.68

  >Yeah, I know, but to me, that seems more like reading your
  >conclusion back onto the evidence, rather than letting the evidence
  >lead you to a conclusion. 

I think part of the problem here is the way we think.  We are used to
thinking dualisticly, i.e. that if A <> B (in some sense) that A = B
(in some sense) cannot be true.  This, I (and many others) believe is
not necessarily true.  So, if we take this assumption away from this
passage, then the interpretation I offer is a reasonable one.

  >Well, given that Jesus' own disciples often failed to understand
  >him -- and they were the ones whose hearts were open to what Jesus was
  >saying -- shouldn't we figure that the Jewish leaders who *opposed*
  >Jesus might have had similar difficulties?  

Point well taken.  So, on a sliding scale, we have

  pagans            Jewish leaders        disciples

   <--less accurate    --------    more accurate --->


  >Since (I'm sure we both agree) Jesus *wasn't* guilty of blasphemy, then 
  >it follows that his accusors were laboring under a misconception about the 
  >meaning of Jesus' claim to have been God's Son.

Or (much more likely given the response, in my opinion) that they 
understood his claim correctly and refused to believe it.

  >Dare I ask how you define "divinity"?

My, that cake is divine!

(Must be an angel's food cake.  :-)  )

Collis

    Back again, I was kinda rushed yesterday and didn't get into this
    as deeply as I wanted to, so I'll try to today. Yesterday I stated
    that I felt that Christ is God, let me clarify. I along with most
    Christians as a whole do not believe that there are 'three gods
    in one' but do believe that there are three Persons all of the same
    substance, coequal, coexistent, and coeternal, immutable forever.
    There is ample ground for this belief in Scriptures, where plurality
    in the Godhead is very strongly intimated if not expressly declared. 
    Lets look at a few of these references. 
    
    In Gen 1:26 God says "Let US create man in OUR image after OUR 
                          likeness."  
    
    Now it's obvious that God did not need the angels help to create
    us, nor were we made in the image of angels if he were talking to
    them, so He must have been addressing someone else, and who, but
    His Son and the Holy Spirit who are equal in substance, could He
    address in such familiar terms? Since there is no other god but
    Jehovah,
    
    Is 43:10-11 "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. I, even
                 I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.
    
    not even 'a lesser migty god' as some would affirm Christ to be,
    there must be a unity in plurality and substance, or the passage
    is not meaningful. The same is true of Gen 11:7, at the tower of
    Babel, when God said, "Let us go down," and also of Is 6:8, "Who
    will go for us". These instances of plurality indicate something
    deeper than an impersonal relationship; they strongly suggest what
    the New Testament fully develops, namely, a tri-unity in the one
    God. Christians do not believe that the Trinity was incarnate in
    Christ and that they were 'three in one' during Christ's ministry.
    Christ voluntarily limited Himself in His earthly body, but heaven
    was always open to Him. Compare the baptism of Christ, 
    
    Mt 3:16-17 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway
               out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto
               him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove,
               and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying,
               This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
    
    with the commission to preach the threefold name of God, 
    
    Mt 28:19   Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them
               in the name (not name's) of the Father, the Son, and
               of the Holy Ghost:
    
    also, 
    
    Col 2:9  For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
                                                                        
    and, 
    
    1 Tim 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 the world, received up into glory.
                                                     
    When Jesus said, "My Father is greater than I," He spoke the truth;
    for in the form of a servant, 
    
    Phil 2:7-8  But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the
                form form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of
                men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled
                himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death
                of the cross.
    
    and as a man, the Son was subject to the Father willingly; but upon
    His resurrection and the radiance of his glory, He showed forth
    His deity when he declared, 
    
    Mat 28:18  "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth"
    
    proof positive of his genuine nature and unity of substance. Throughout
    the entire content of the inspired Scripture, the fact of Christ's
    identity is clearly taught. He is revealed as God in human form,
    
    Is 7:14  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold,
             a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call
             his name Immanuel. (God with us)
    
    Is 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, Counselor, The mighty God, The
             Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
    
    Mic 5:2  But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among
             the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth
             unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth
             have been from old, from everlasting. (or the days of
             eternity) 
    
    Jn 1:1   In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
             and the Word was God.
    
    Jn 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, 
    
    
    to be continued..........

    re .67 (XLIB::JACKSON)
    
    Collis,
    
    	Are you quoting Arndt, et al. directly, or paraphrasing what they
    said?  Either way, I don't understand everything you've written (but
    then again, I'm not home right this instant with all of my reference
    material).
    
>                                                       ... Onto harpagmos.

>  1.  robbery (next to impossible meaning of Phil 2:6 according to
>      comments.  General agreement on this.
    
    	I think I understand this, and I gather that there's a consensus
    among certain scholars (and between you and I) that the wording in the
    KJV is too far afield from the sense the Greek, no matter which way we
    look at it.  (Right?)
    
>  2.  AS equal to harpagma.  This meaning cannot be quoted from non-Christian
>      literature, but is grammatically justifiable.
    
    	Help me out a little bit here, please.  What's the significance of
    comparing _harpagmos_ "as equal to" _harpagma_?  How does the meaning
    of _harpagma_ differ from _harpagmos_ (which is what we're trying to
    define in the first place)?
    
    	It sounds to me as though the point is that grammar supports the
    idea that _harpagmos_ is equal to _harpagma_, even though non-sacred
    literature (which is really all we have to sample from, other than the
    Bible to figure out the meanings of words) don't provide support for
    this idea, either.  Is this the point you are trying to establish (that
    grammar alone is sufficient reason to interpret the two as equal in
    meaning, even though usage studies don't provide supporting evidence)?
    
>      a)  This can be taken 'sensu malo' to mean prize, booty (so LXX) and
>          only the context and an understanding of Paul's thought in general
>          can decide whether it means holding fast to a prize already obtained
>          or the appropriation to oneself of a prize which is sought after.
    
    	I need help here, too.  What does "sensu malo" mean?  Apart from
    this, though, I understand what is being said; but to say, "only the
    context and an understanding of Paul's thought in general can decide
    [the meaning]," only begs the question we are considering.  After all,
    Paul's words convey his thoughts, and it seems rather circular to say
    that we can only understand his words if we first understand his
    thoughts, when we're first faced with having to understand his words in
    order to *figure out* what his thoughts are.
    
    	Now, I'll also admit that the context *does* seem to help; but you
    haven't yet explained to me *your* view of Paul's overall point to the
    Philippians.  After all, Paul wasn't really teaching the just the fact
    that Jesus existed in heaven and came down to earth to die, and then
    was resurrected and exalted as Lord that "every knee" should bow to
    him; they already knew that.  Instead, Paul was trying to impress upon
    them the need to have a certain way of thinking, and used Jesus'
    experience as an illustration to make his point.  In your view, Collis,
    what point was Paul making, and how did it directly apply to the
    Philippian Christians?  I ask all of these questions, because in my
    estimation, their answers are what REALLY establishes the context of the
    passage.
    
    	After all, Paul first said,
    
    		"Have this attitude in yourselves which was
    		also in Christ Jesus, ..." (v.5 NASB)
    
    Now, if we are to suppose that the attitude that Jesus had was that he
    *was* equal to God, but didn't consider that equality as something to
    be held on to, how does *that* attitude translate into something that
    the Philippian Christians could have in themselves?
    
    	One last thought:  isn't it true that something which is a "prize"
    or "booty" is something which one *didn't* have at some point in time?
    Even if the saying that "Jesus is equal to God" is true, and that this
    means that Jesus *is* God, how can it be said that this equality or
    Godship is a "prize" or "booty" to Jesus?  If the loftiness of God is a
    fundamental aspect of his Diety, and is something that he always
    possessed, how could Jesus (as God the Son) have possibly considered
    that something which was part of his nature (or essense) was "a prize"
    -- which word carries the thought of having been awarded to him or
    acquired by him?
    
>      b)  However, a good sense is also poss., a piece of good fortune,
>          windfall; again it remains an open question whether the windfall
>          has already been seized and is waiting to be used, or whether
>          it has not yet been appropriated.
    
    	This explanation still indicates that the thing in possession was
    *not* possessed at some time in the past.  If I have in my possession
    at present something that I "seized" yesterday, even if that something
    is "equality with God," that I had to "seize" (although I am now
    "grasping it" or holding on to it) it is proof that it wasn't mine to
    begin with.
    
>  3.  another less probable meaning is rapture
    
    	There's no point to argue over this, right?
    
    	Could you send me a photocopy of the page from your lexicon which
    addresses this word?  If you can, I'll e-mail you my address.
    
    								-mark.

Re:  59.71

  >Are you quoting Arndt, et al. directly, or paraphrasing what they said?  

What I wrote was all quoted with some information left out.  I covered
all the categories (to be exhaustive) but did not include everything
said under every category.

     >>  1.  robbery 

Right.  Not a possibility.

  >Help me out a little bit here, please.  What's the significance of
  >comparing _harpagmos_ "as equal to" _harpagma_?  

Evidently, harpagmos just doesn't appear in literature often enough to
get a good grasp of the meaning based on this form of the word.  Harpagma
is another form of the word (although exactly which form, I'd have to
research.)
    
>      a)  This can be taken 'sensu malo' to mean prize, booty (so LXX) and
>          only the context and an understanding of Paul's thought in general
>          can decide whether it means holding fast to a prize already obtained
>          or the appropriation to oneself of a prize which is sought after.
    
  >What does "sensu malo" mean?  

I didn't know so I copied it as is.

  >...but to say, "only the context and an understanding of Paul's thought in 
  >general can decide [the meaning]," only begs the question we are considering

This is a quote.  I think it does more than that.  It indicates that (in
the opinion of those who put the lexicon together) that a word study
on this word is inconclusive.

  >...but you haven't yet explained to me *your* view of Paul's overall point 
  >to the Philippians.  

Jesus laid aside some of his privileges and abilities as (the Son of) God
that he had in heaven in order to reach out to us.  We are to do the
same.

  >One last thought:  isn't it true that something which is a "prize"
  >or "booty" is something which one *didn't* have at some point in time?

Yes, that is true.

  >Even if the saying that "Jesus is equal to God" is true, and that this
  >means that Jesus *is* God, how can it be said that this equality or
  >Godship is a "prize" or "booty" to Jesus?  

Good question.  I would say that if this is the best meaning, that
it should be interpreted (NIV + CJJ) "Who, being in very nature God, did
not consider equality with God something to be grasped [like you would
grasp a prize or booty] but made himself nothing...
    
     >>3.

  >There's no point to argue over this, right?

Right.
    
  >Could you send me a photocopy of the page from your lexicon which
  >addresses this word?  

Sure.

Collis

    I hold to the translation found in the KJV as being correct.  Arpagmon
    is the correct transliteration of the Greek word found in Phil. 2:6
    that everyone is talking about.  The verb that means the same idea is
    Arpagn.  The root word is Arpag.  According to George R. Berry, PH.D
    in his lexicon the words mean the following.
    
    Arpagmon: spoil, an object of eager desire, a prize.
    
    Arpan: means to plunder or spoil.
    
    
    To spoil equates with robbery in the 1611 word usage.  Therefore it is
    a very good translation of the word.  
    
    Why did Jesus not think that it was robbery?  Because in John 1 we see
    that Jesus being the Word made flesh is God.
    
    
                                      Marshall

    Continuing where I left off. Throughout the entire content of inspired
    Scripture, the fact of Christ's identity is clearly taught. He is
    revealed as God in human form, 
    
    Jn 8:28  Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you,
             Before Abraham was, I am."
    
    Jn 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.
    
    Ex 3:14  And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus
             shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent
             me unto you.
    
    Heb 1:3  Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express
             image of his person, and upholding all things by the word
             of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat
             down on the right of the Majesty on high;
    
    Heb 1:8  But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever
             and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of
             thy kingdom.
    
    Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation
             of the the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine
             hands:
    
    Heb 2:9-10  But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the
                angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and
                honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death
                for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things,
                and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto
                glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect
                through sufferings.
    
    Phil 2:11  And that every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
               to the glory of God the Father.
    
    Rev 1:8  I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith
             the Lord, which is, and which was , and which is to come,
             the Almighty.
    
    Rev 1:17-18  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: I am he that liveth,
                 and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore,
                 Amen; 
    
    There are many more Scriptures that further prove the Diety of Christ,
    but I will not enter them unless somebody wants me to. 
    
    Carlos

harpargmon is the word we're dealing with, not harpargmos.  Harpargmos
is the "dictionary" form of the word.  The "h" comes from the breathing
mark over the "a".

Collis

    I understand the breathing mark but TRANSLITARATION is letter for
    letter.  That is what I was tought in 1975, Gardner Webb College.
    English does not use breathing marks as Greek does.  Now Arpargmos
    is the word.  The mos or mon only changes the form not the meaning.
    Meaning wise Arpargmos means the same thing as Arpargmon.  That is
    why you do not find Arpargmon in the "Lexicon" (not dictionary) but
    you do find Arpargmos. 
    
    
                                    Marshall

      If the use of Greek is to show pride in this debate, then I do not
    need to debate.  To worry over a breathing mark when we have to use
    an english key board is going a bit far.  
    
    
    
                                   Marshall

    re .76 (RAVEN1::WATKINS)
    
>    I understand the breathing mark but TRANSLITARATION is letter for
>    letter.  That is what I was tought in 1975, Gardner Webb College.
>    English does not use breathing marks as Greek does.  Now Arpargmos
>    is the word.
    
    	In the lexicons, the word is listed alphabetically among the "a"
    (or alpha) words, but its still common practice to transliterate
    words with leading breathing marks as beginning with the letter "h".
    For instance, in discussions of the word for "god" (theos) as it's used
    in John 1:1, it's common to see references to the difference between
    "theos" (anarthrous; or without the definite article preceding it) and
    "ho theos" (with the definite article preceding it), where the article,
    "ho", is actually the single Greek letter, omicron, with a breathing
    mark.
    
    	Regardless of what you were taught at Gardner Webb College, it's a
    common practice elsewhere to render the breathing mark as a leading
    "h".
    
    								-mark.

    re .77 (RAVEN1::WATKINS)
    
>      If the use of Greek is to show pride in this debate, then I do not
>    need to debate.  To worry over a breathing mark when we have to use
>    an english key board is going a bit far.  
    
    	Well, I'm not too proud to admit to never having taken *any* Greek
    in college; what I know I've learned more or less on my own, by doing
    my homework in private study.  I, for one, wouldn't claim to be a Greek
    scholar; but I *do* know how to read scholarly works in English which
    discuss matters of Greek.
    
    	I agree that flaunting one's educational background and knowledge,
    as though it marked one as *serious* and *not to be tangled with* isn't
    exactly in accord with the spirit of Paul's remarks about his own
    scholarly background and theological pedigree (cf. Phil 3:8, esp. in
    the KJV!); but let's not confuse an unpretentious, but scholarly
    approach to a subject with self-importance and theological snobbery,
    OK?  A discussion of the Bible with references to the original
    languages isn't too esoteric for this conference, is it?
    
    								-mark.

    Reply to .79
    
    I agree with you on this.  I just hope that we do not get too carried
    away with Greek.  I personally  believe God gave us His word in english
    even though I have studied Greek.  
    
    
    
                                  Marshall

re Note 59.80 by RAVEN1::WATKINS:

>     I agree with you on this.  I just hope that we do not get too carried
>     away with Greek.  I personally  believe God gave us His word in english
>     even though I have studied Greek.  
  
        I personally believe that God gave us his Word accessible to
        hearers of any language -- his Word is Jesus the Messiah.

        I personally believe that the emphasis on detailed study of
        the written word as evidenced in the recent discussion under
        this topic is a seriously mistaken diversion from a knowledge
        of the true Word.

        Bob  

    Re: .58
    
    hi Karen - you're quite welcome!
    
    
    Re: .66
    
>>I must not have made it clear.  To begain with I hold that the King
>>James Version is the Word of God in English.  If you must go to other
>>versions to prove something to me you are wasting your time and mine.
    
    Why am I wasting my time?  Aren't some of the other available 
    translations just as valid as the King James? You're not saying that 
    the other translations are NOT the word of God, are you?
    
    
    -Len
    

    
    Re: .65
    
    hi Carlos:
    
>>Luke 4:8 (KJV) And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Get thee behind
>>me Satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
>>and him only shalt thou serve."
    
    How is it that Satan could tempt Jesus if he were God Almighty? Isn't
    that a rather silly concept?
    
    
    -Len
    

Len,

How is it that Satan could not tempt Jesus, the man?

It's interesting that in the early centuries, it was the manhood of
Jesus that was usually questioned; nowadays it is the diety.

Collis

    
    Temptation is precisely the weapon that Satan had to attack Jesus with,
    just as it was with Adam. The wilderness temptation is the point at
    which Jesus defeated Satan. He then died to pay the price for all
    others' defeat at the hands of Satan and he then gained authority for
    all mankind over Satan in ressurection, a rather humiliating time for
    the old snake. The fact that God might have stacked the deck by
    conceiving Jesus himself is too bad for Satan, but it seems appropriate
    that Satan is defeated by a man in the same way he caused mankind to fall.
    
    Those demons do shudder now since Jesus has been raised 'so that he
    might be supreme above all things on heaven and earth'. 
    
    Jamey
    

    hi Collis:
    
>>How is it that Satan could not tempt Jesus, the man?
    
    That's just my point - simply as a man he could be tempted...
    if he were in fact part of a 'godhead' do you believe Satan could 
    still tempt him?
    
>>It's interesting that in the early centuries, it was the manhood of
>>Jesus that was usually questioned; nowadays it is the diety.
    
    Was that the main reason for the council at Nicaea?
    
    
    -Len

Re:  .86

  >...if he we in fact part of a 'godhead', do you believe Satan could
  >still tempt him?

Since He *is* part of the Godhead, the answer is yes.  :-)

If you mean, "If Jesus was God and not a man (instead of being both),
could he have been tempted?", I don't have a quick answer for that.  I'm
not even sure that Scripture addresses that since it is a hypothetical
question.

  >Was that the main reason for the council at Nicea?

It was part of the reason.  A well-defined theology became one of the first
orders of business once Christians were allowed to organize an an
"international" basis without fear of persecution.

Collis

re Note 59.87 by XLIB::JACKSON:

>   >Was that the main reason for the council at Nicea?
> 
> It was part of the reason.  A well-defined theology became one of the first
> orders of business once Christians were allowed to organize an an
> "international" basis without fear of persecution.
  
        That certainly was a humanly reasonable thing to do -- any
        "religion" might want to have some well-defined teachings --
        but was it a good thing for the Christians to have done?

        Bob

Re:  .88

  >...but was it a good thing for the Christians to have done?

In my opinion, most certainly yes.  The question "who is Jesus" is
critical to deciding who you will follow.  If your answer is that Jesus
is God in flesh who came primarily to die for your sins (and mine) and
that by accepting Him by faith you will be fogiven and have eternal life,
then the Scriptures indicate that you will be saved (because of your
faith).

If, however, you see that Jesus is a great moral teacher whose purpose
was to show us by example what it means to love another and whose death
was not for the sins of all, then you are preaching a different gospel
(as Paul would call it) and not holding firmly to the faith, once for
all delivered to the saints.  There is no salvation by Jesus' death
in this gospel, there is only the eternal punishment in hell for the
sins that you have committed (and continue to commit).

Make no mistake about it.  The first 4 councils were dealing primarily
with the very basics of the Christian faith.  That is why almost all
Christian churches (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) accept the teachings
from these 4 councils.

Collis

re Note 59.89 by XLIB::JACKSON:

>   >...but was it a good thing for the Christians to have done?
> 
> In my opinion, most certainly yes.  The question "who is Jesus" is
> critical to deciding who you will follow.  If your answer is that Jesus
> is God in flesh who came primarily to die for your sins (and mine) and
> that by accepting Him by faith you will be fogiven and have eternal life,
> then the Scriptures indicate that you will be saved (because of your
> faith).

        This sure sounds contradictory to me.

        First you say that if you can give the correct answer to a
        certain theological question, then you are saved.

        Then you seem to be saying that faith saves you.

        Or is it both?  Faith in Jesus is insufficient if you can't
        answer the 10-point question?

        Or are you taking the RC position that equates "faith" to
        assent to theological doctrine?

        Bob

Re:  59.90

     >> In my opinion, most certainly yes.  The question "who is Jesus" is
     >> critical to deciding who you will follow.  If your answer is that Jesus
     >> is God in flesh who came primarily to die for your sins (and mine) and
     >> that by accepting Him by faith you will be fogiven and have eternal 
     >life, then the Scriptures indicate that you will be saved (because of 
     >your faith).

  >This sure sounds contradictory to me.

  >First you say that if you can give the correct answer to a
  >certain theological question, then you are saved.

  >Then you seem to be saying that faith saves you.

The parenthesized comment was meant as a fuller explanation of the first.
You are not saved by answering a question correctly.  I realized near
the end of the statement a possible wrong interpretation of saying
"if your answer is" and so included "(because of your faith)".  In
other words, faith isn't an option if you haven't even understood the
question.  You need to respond with faith after answering the question
correctly to be saved (i.e. you need to accept what Jesus has actually
done for you, not just accept that Jesus did something which may or may
not have some value to you and reject the substitutionary atonement).

Collis

re Note 59.91 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> You need to respond with faith after answering the question
> correctly to be saved (i.e. you need to accept what Jesus has actually
> done for you, not just accept that Jesus did something which may or may
> not have some value to you and reject the substitutionary atonement).

        (I don't think I misunderstood you the first time, since the
        above says basically the same thing that I thought your
        earlier note was saying.)

        This still sounds suspiciously like "faith plus" rather than
        "faith alone".

        Bob

Let me try again.

As I understand the Bible, it says you have to have faith in God in order
to be saved.  But who is God?  Is God the table in my office?  Is God
the computer I'm typing into?  Is God my neighbor in the next cubicle?

You see, we have to faith in that which saves.  Faith in something which
does not save will not (by definition) save.  All I'm trying to say is
that if someone has rejected the work that Christ has done, then they
do not have a "saving" faith because they are saved only when they *trust*
in the work that Christ has done (for salvation).

Now it is certainly possible to be saved by God without fully understanding
what God's work is.  For example, Abraham did not know exactly *how* God
would save him, just that God *would* do something to save him.  But, if
we are told how God will save us and then reject it, we do not have a
saving faith.  

I don't know if this is any clearer, but it's quite clear in my mind.  All
I'm doing is defining a little more closely (and Biblically) what a saving
faith is.  I'm not trying to add anything to "faith".  Just trying to say
what that faith must be in.

Collis

    Although this is off the topic.  I will make a short statement here
    about what I believe is salvation.
    
    Salvation is in phases.  Eternal, legal, vital, practical, and final.
    Most people make a misstake when they say that only one of these phases
    is salvation.  For an example: Some say salvation is only by faith. 
    Faith is part of practical salvation.  Therefore, they reject, for the
    most part, the verses in the Bible that say salvation is by election,
    or even by the blood of Christ.  So, that is how people get caught up
    in a net when they hold that salvation is only one thing.  Even those
    who say that salvation is only election fail to take into account
    verses that teach the legal, vital, practical, and final phases of 
    salvation.
    
    Eternal=election
    
    Legal=justification
    
    Vital=born again
    
    Practical=faith, baptism, and all other works
    
    Final=glorification
    
    
                             Marshall

    Panentheism versus Trinitarianism?
    
    Are they really different?
    
    How?

>    Panentheism versus Trinitarianism?
    
>    Are they really different?
    
>    How?
    
    	
    Panentheism conceives a dipolar God.  Also, panentheism is strictly a
    product of philosophy.
    
    The God of the Bible is monopolar.
    
    jeff

    what is the difference between dipolar and monipolar.  Isn't the
    Christian God Tri-polar?

No.  He is One.  A perfect example of complete unity.

/john

    There were trinities in the worship of the Babylonians and the
    religions founded by Nimrod, the great Hunter.  Nimrod was the founder
    of Baal Worship.  The "trinities" of those religions were based on
    Panentheism as they were dipolar deities
    
    -Jack

>    what is the difference between dipolar and monipolar.  Isn't the
>    Christian God Tri-polar?
    
     The conception of a dipolar God (as in panentheism) says that God has
    two poles, one actual and one potential.
    
    The Christian God of the Bible is monopolar in that He is all actuality
    with no potential whatsoever.
    
    jeff
    
    
    
    

    
    Patricia, did you respond to my last entry somewhere else?  I thought I
    was reading your response to my note but found myself in another topic
    and then couldn't find the note I thought I had just read!
    
    Anyway, I'm confused.  Just point me to where your response is and I'll
    take a shot at it.
    
    jeff

    It's the wierdest thing.  There are two separate notes in 13.33.
    
    The only way I can see the second one is to do a set seen/before=today
    and then the second 13.33 appears.  I have tried extracting, modifying
    etc.  I can only extract the first 13.33.  When I change the note_id it
    changes both of them.
    
    It is truly a dipolar mystery!

    
    It is very wierd.  Sounds like we need a notes expert to solve this
    problem.  Any experts out there who would like to assist in the name of
    good conversation?
    
    jeff