The Development of the Trinity

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sam

I ordered the book from the PPH. When I placed my order the online catalog said there were two copies available. Earlier this evening I got an email telling me the book was back ordered.

You can get an e book version for tablets, smart phones or PCs

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You can get an e book version for tablets, smart phones or PCs

for books I still like the old fashioned paper kind.

I do use YouVersion on my Blackberry some times for reading or quick look up when I am away from the desk. I often use Bible Gateway if I am sitting at my desk but I also have quite a few paper Bibles of various versions close enough that I can scoot my chair to one of the book cases and grab one.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't think so. Ive never met anyone that says Jesus pre-existed being a man as a man

You don't think the matter of the Incarnation - two natures, one Person - creates some difficulty for apologetics? Or in other words, the subject is one in which people often misunderstand what other people are saying, implying, inferring, etc?

That is, we can say something, meaning one thing, but others may misunderstand what we mean, requiring us to clarify?

Has that not been THE history of Christological and godhead discussion for... well, forever? lol

OR was the "I don't think so" directed towards the idea of christ pre-existing His incarnation, as a human? If that's the case, then I was simply pointing out as an aside (not pertinent to this discussion) that I HAVE heard some teach Jesus was a pre-existent person, but not pre-existing as GOD, but a 'spirit son of God' pretty much like all of us. It's all very vague anyway, I can't remember who I heard it from, but no it wasn't the Mormons lol.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You don't think the matter of the Incarnation - two natures, one Person - creates some difficulty for apologetics? Or in other words, the subject is one in which people often misunderstand what other people are saying, implying, inferring, etc?

That is, we can say something, meaning one thing, but others may misunderstand what we mean, requiring us to clarify?

Has that not been THE history of Christological and godhead discussion for... well, forever? lol

OR was the "I don't think so" directed towards the idea of christ pre-existing His incarnation, as a human? If that's the case, then I was simply pointing out as an aside (not pertinent to this discussion) that I HAVE heard some teach Jesus was a pre-existent person, but not pre-existing as GOD, but a 'spirit son of God' pretty much like all of us. It's all very vague anyway, I can't remember who I heard it from, but no it wasn't the Mormons lol.

I don't know anyone that when I say "Jesus pre-existed" they need an explanation of whether I mean as a man or not. Seriously.

BUT that is not the issue. The ISSUE is saying "Jesus did not pre-exist" which the opening post is implying, that Jesus did not pre-exist. How is irreelvant because the statement as is does not say "Jesus did not pre-exist as a man" it just casts doubt on the pre-existence of God.

Here let me post the quote again

But....I need help to get the book and its message out to pastors and churches. We in the OP have not had a solid answer of how the preexistence of Christ and related issues evolved. It is tremendously influential to trinitarian pastors. But it will work if we understand this first. If anyone can help spread the word, that is great.

You see? This book is a negative polemic aimed at proving the doctrine of the Trinity AND other RELATED issues such as the pre-existence of Christ, evolved. In other words the author is asserting they are not biblical doctrines but evolved over time.

He does not stipulate HOW.

Nor do I need to say "HOW" Christ pre-exists in order for it to be a true statement or not.

[Pandora]

- "In the Beginning WAS the word..."

When, 'WAS the word...' ? 'In The Beginning...'

- "...and the word WAS with God..."

When 'WAS' 'the word' 'With God' ? "In the Beginning..'

- 'and the word WAS God."

When 'WAS the word God' ? 'In the Beginning...'

- The word, that (WAS) (in the BEGINNING with God) and (Was) God ?

"The WORD Became Flesh". The word did not become God.

These Scriptures are believed and taught as saying:

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word (IS) God.

And the word became (God) among us.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Pandora

- "In the Beginning WAS the word..."

When, 'WAS the word...' ? 'In The Beginning...'

- "...and the word WAS with God..."

When 'WAS' 'the word' 'With God' ? "In the Beginning..'

- 'and the word WAS God."

When 'WAS the word God' ? 'In the Beginning...'

- The word, that (WAS) (in the BEGINNING with God) and (Was) God ?

"The WORD Became Flesh". The word did not become God.

These Scriptures are believed and taught as saying:

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word (IS) God.

And the word became (God) among us.

I think we can agree with that whether we consider ourselves to be trinity or oneness.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't know anyone that when I say "Jesus pre-existed" they need an explanation of whether I mean as a man or not. Seriously.

BUT that is not the issue. The ISSUE is saying "Jesus did not pre-exist" which the opening post is implying, that Jesus did not pre-exist. How is irreelvant because the statement as is does not say "Jesus did not pre-exist as a man" it just casts doubt on the pre-existence of God.

Here let me post the quote again

But....I need help to get the book and its message out to pastors and churches. We in the OP have not had a solid answer of how the preexistence of Christ and related issues evolved. It is tremendously influential to trinitarian pastors. But it will work if we understand this first. If anyone can help spread the word, that is great.

You see? This book is a negative polemic aimed at proving the doctrine of the Trinity AND other RELATED issues such as the pre-existence of Christ, evolved. In other words the author is asserting they are not biblical doctrines but evolved over time.

He does not stipulate HOW.

Nor do I need to say "HOW" Christ pre-exists in order for it to be a true statement or not.

When I read his statement: We in the OP have not had a solid answer of how the preexistence of Christ and related issues evolved I come away with this understanding: He is saying the trinitarian doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ is an evolved doctrine, developing over time. Or in other words, the trinitarian UNDERSTANDING of Christ as the 'second person in a divine three-person godhead' is an evolved doctrine, which I (and most trinitarian scholars) agree with.

I for some reason did not take him to mean that the idea that Christ pre-existed (in whatever mode) is itself an 'evolved doctrine'.

What I was saying about communication issues is that when people say 'the pre-existence of Christ' the trinitarian concept is usually in view. Do not Oneness believers usually say 'Christ pre-existed as God' or some other such statement?

Anyways, I would have to see the author's actual arguments to see what he was saying.

[Pandora]

Originally Posted by Sam

I think we can agree with that whether we consider ourselves to be trinity or oneness.

- Amen, I hope so.

It continues for me in that Jesus did not come to 'show' He 'WAS' God.

Jesus said, He came to Show Them The Father.
And, Jesus said The Father and I are One.
Not, God and I are One.

Didn't Jesus even prayed to The Father that
He would go back to Him in Heaven
and be with Him as He WAS before?

So after He went back into heaven with God
we see Him speak in Rev.1:8 He says He is 'The Almighty'.

Too often we've been taught to mix-up different times with different peoples
and say that's the way it's always been or that's the way it is now.

And it has led us to not be able to worshiping God IN Spirit and IN Truth.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

When I read his statement: We in the OP have not had a solid answer of how the preexistence of Christ and related issues evolved I come away with this understanding: He is saying the trinitarian doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ is an evolved doctrine, developing over time. Or in other words, the trinitarian UNDERSTANDING of Christ as the 'second person in a divine three-person godhead' is an evolved doctrine, which I (and most trinitarian scholars) agree with.

I for some reason did not take him to mean that the idea that Christ pre-existed (in whatever mode) is itself an 'evolved doctrine'.

What I was saying about communication issues is that when people say 'the pre-existence of Christ' the trinitarian concept is usually in view. Do not Oneness believers usually say 'Christ pre-existed as God' or some other such statement?

Anyways, I would have to see the author's actual arguments to see what he was saying.

I read it as Christ pre-existing is a Trinitarian doctrine

[Michael The Disciple]

It never occured to me when I read it that he was Trin. Just that he felt Oneness was deficient in its view of the pre existence. To bad he never came back I really wanted to hear his view. Almost tempted to buy the book.