The Oneness Anti "Christ" doctrine ....

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I remember, in the early 1990's, here in Houston, there were a group of ultraconservative churches headed by some extreme pastors who were killing the rest of the Spanish-speaking fellowship for using the word "Cristo" or Christ.

They believed that those who used the term lacked revelation and were somehow unholy being that Jesus is his name. Christ was reference to his flesh .... They asserted that after the resurrection, and his subsequent glorification, he was no longer the Christ [flesh] .... the Christ died at Calvary.

They even formulated a well-thought out doctrine to support this belief. They sought to lift the name of Jesus Christ and shunned those that used "Christ" in their testimonies, songs, or preachings.

Dozens of songs containing Christ/Cristo were edited and the name Jesus replaced the blasphemous lyrics .... even if it disregarded rhyme or the author's intent

It was their new "revelation", and air of higher spirituality, that brought huge division and problems to the Spanish work especially here in the Houston area.

Ironically, some of these ministers leading "the revelation" were dealing with other immoral issues.

Even today, this teaching is pervasive in many Spanish speaking churches, especially here in the South.

I also recall Bishop Scotty Teets stating that this teaching was formulated many years ago by an American pastor ... does anyone know anything about the genesis of this teaching ?

Bump for Bishop1.

If you can add to this discussion it would be greatly appreciated.

[SDG]

bump

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Recently a friend told me that he is sometimes feels a little uncomfortable if someone uses Christ too much in their dialogue .... Does anyone else feel this way also?

A million times no. It may be a throw-back from the same idea (false, in my opinion) presented, even here by some, that there is no humanity in Jesus today.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by philjones

Dan,

I understand that you are not seeking to offend. I simply choose not to debate this issue.

Suffice it to say that I believe that between the bodily resurrection and his ascension the body was glorified and the transition from son (Christ) to Jesus the Almighty God took place.

Hi Phil,

The transition from the Son holding all power and giving it to the Father occurs after the yet-future resurrection, which is what dan quoted in 1 Cor 15. Man can never become God, not even the manhood of Christ, and I wonder if what you are saying above is insinuating that humanity was lost when Christ resurrected.

I believe that at Calvary it was "finished". he will never die again nor will he bleed again.

Everyone here agrees with that.

The provision is complete and the last enemy, death, has been conquered and defeated and therefore all enemies have been put under His feet and subsequently under our feet as the flesh of God. We may not abide in the provision but it is certainly there!

Agreed again.

I know we both discussed this before, but to clarify my position, let me say that I think some have taken a far too simplistic approach to the issue of the flesh of Christ that resurrected 2000 years ago and where it stands today, thinking ONLY GODHOOD exists in Christ now, and that there is no humanity left with which He resurrected 2000 years ago. What changed between His immortalized human ascension and now? And I think this has been due to lack of undestanding of what Hebrews and 1 Cor 15, especially, says.

As I stated, Christ is still manifest in humanity in glory right now standing as high priest in active duty right now. That is why we read he ever lives for the purpose of making intercession. That cannot refer to a work of intercession accomplished 2000 years ago once and for all. He shed His blood and made atonement once and for all, but He still intercedes for the purpose of seeing us overcome sin... not be forgiven of sins. This was manifested in the conversations beforehand about this issue. Folks who opposed any present humanity in Christ did not see any other intercession than that for sins. If the intercession occurred once and for all 2000 years ago in one moment of time, then it would make no sense to say that He ever lives TO MAKE intercession. There would be no association with living forever with the thought of intercession. The text reads that his everliving life was necessary to make intercession. Only one moment of time would have been required, rather than forever, if intercession occurred in one moment of time 2000 years ago.

Intercession was only accomplished by the HIGH PRIEST when He entered the most holy place. How could He intercede on the cross in DYING??? It breaks the entire purpose of typology in the Old Testament High Priesthood. HEAVEN is distinctly said to be the Most Holy Place in Hebrews 9. THAT is where both atonement and intercession were made in the Old Testament. He did not even present atonement while on the cross! The cross corresponds to the OUTER COURT, not the most holy place where the atonement was presented.

The entire book of Hebrews and its overall theme and POINT has never hardly been preached amongst our circles, just as Romans 6 through 7 has hardly ever been preached. Hence, our people have gotten all sorts of lacking beliefs, in my opinion. Our generation of ministers today has to veritably pioneer these understandings all over again, when the early church had them down pat. We would not read He ever lives TO MAKE intercession, but rather He remained human until the end of the cross' work in order to make intercession for us if it was true there is no intercession occurring now.

The fact remains that Romans 6 teaches CHRIST LIVES UNTO GOD since He has died to sin once. It does not say He died to sin once and for all and lived to God once and for all, as if the humanity that is implied in distinction from God, seen in the very phrase "unto God", is not the case today. But LIVETH unto God in Rom 6:10 is an ongoing event, even to now. Paul said HE LIVES UNTO GOD EVEN NOW in that verse! And it is the basis upon which we can compare our position in Romans 6:11 when we are told we likewise are alive unto God. As much as He liveth unto God STILL, He continues to make intercession which required an everliving existence.

As I said, ...my thoughts, anyway.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Old Paths

Back in 1966 I heard W.T. Hemphill (Joel Hemphill's father) preach a fellowship meeting in North Louisana and he came down HARD on "using God's titles and not using the name of Jesus".

He evermore gave the title "Christ" a slamming.

That is insane.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by mfblume

That is insane.

Crazy, huh?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Crazy, huh?

Yes. I want to be afar apart from such things, and diassociated from it, as is possible. Whew!

[meBNme]

Interesting comments.

Now, I am certainly NOT "Jesus only" but I can see the point behind the actions taken in this topic. I agree, they may have been taken to far, but I can still see the point.

Here are my reasons.

Phi 2:9
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.

There is emphasis on the name Jesus. And Jesus is the name, that has all this power.
Now it goes further to say that Jesus Christ is Lord, but again, "Christ", and "Lord" are just descriptions of the man/God, Jesus.

So we have established that there is indeed a name that holds much power.

Then we have :

Acts 4
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead...........

12 Neither is there salvation in any other : for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

This tells us that there is no other name that will save us.
And again, "Jesus" being the name of, "the Christ" who is from "Nazareth".

How do we know that "Jesus" is his name?
The angel told us,

Luke 1:
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS

So, according to these scriptures, it seems pretty plain that there is:
1 - a specific name
2 - that name has much power, to save, heal, etc.
3 - That name is Jesus.

Some may say that "Christ" is part of his name. But how did he refer to himself?

Acts 9:5
And he said, who art thou Lord? And the lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Again, Jesus is his name, Christ is just what he is.
If the power is in the name, then why in the world would anyone NOT use the name?

Now personally, I see no reason NOT to include "Christ", or "Lord".
But I certainly see reason that the name Jesus must be used, and not excluded.

[Neck]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I remember, in the early 1990's, here in Houston, there were a group of ultraconservative churches headed by some extreme pastors who were killing the rest of the Spanish-speaking fellowship for using the word "Cristo" or Christ.

They believed that those who used the term lacked revelation and were somehow unholy being that Jesus is his name. Christ was reference to his flesh .... They asserted that after the resurrection, and his subsequent glorification, he was no longer the Christ [flesh] .... the Christ died at Calvary.

They even formulated a well-thought out doctrine to support this belief. They sought to lift the name of Jesus Christ and shunned those that used "Christ" in their testimonies, songs, or preachings.

Dozens of songs containing Christ/Cristo were edited and the name Jesus replaced the blasphemous lyrics .... even if it disregarded rhyme or the author's intent

It was their new "revelation", and air of higher spirituality, that brought huge division and problems to the Spanish work especially here in the Houston area.

Ironically, some of these ministers leading "the revelation" were dealing with other immoral issues.

Even today, this teaching is pervasive in many Spanish speaking churches, especially here in the South.

I also recall Bishop Scotty Teets stating that this teaching was formulated many years ago by an American pastor ... does anyone know anything about the genesis of this teaching ?

Is Jesus know more in the NT as Christ Jesus? Or Jesus Christ?

[meBNme]

Originally Posted by Neckstadt

Is Jesus know more in the NT as Christ Jesus? Or Jesus Christ?

Doesn't matter really. It's like saying "God the father" or "father God". right?