37 replies to this topic

[Naphal]

""There are not three Gods in the Godhead; nor are there but three in manifestation; nevertheless, the Father is God and Jesus is God; and we may add, so are all the brethren of Jesus gods; and 'a multitude which no man can number.' The Godhead is the homogeneous fountain of the Deity; these other gods are the many streams which form this fountain flow. The springhead of Deity is one, not many; the streams as numerous as the orbs of the universe, in which a manifestation of Deity may have hitherto occurred.""


I am aware that it is likely most do not agree with this anymore but just curious if anyone does, or if anyone has heard of a Christadelphian that does.

Thanks!

[Jeremy]

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 08:47 AM, said:

""There are not three Gods in the Godhead; nor are there but three in manifestation; nevertheless, the Father is God and Jesus is God; and we may add, so are all the brethren of Jesus gods; and 'a multitude which no man can number.' The Godhead is the homogeneous fountain of the Deity; these other gods are the many streams which form this fountain flow. The springhead of Deity is one, not many; the streams as numerous as the orbs of the universe, in which a manifestation of Deity may have hitherto occurred.""


I am aware that it is likely most do not agree with this anymore but just curious if anyone does, or if anyone has heard of a Christadelphian that does.

Thanks!

My guess is that most Christadelphians wouldn't understand it fully (I include myself in that). To answer your question, however, yes, we believe that Jesus is occasionally called God, but is not God Himself. The same title is true of Jesus' followers. We have never changed our beliefs on this, if that's what you're inferring.

[R2D2]

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 07:47 PM, said:

""There are not three Gods in the Godhead; nor are there but three in manifestation; nevertheless, the Father is God and Jesus is God; and we may add, so are all the brethren of Jesus gods; and 'a multitude which no man can number.' The Godhead is the homogeneous fountain of the Deity; these other gods are the many streams which form this fountain flow. The springhead of Deity is one, not many; the streams as numerous as the orbs of the universe, in which a manifestation of Deity may have hitherto occurred.""


I am aware that it is likely most do not agree with this anymore but just curious if anyone does, or if anyone has heard of a Christadelphian that does.

Thanks!

I'm not familiar with the quotation from John Thomas but I've heard some Christadelphian Bible students use this type of explanation to explain the meaning of one of God's titles "LORD of hosts". In that way, God is represented or manifested as a spiritual multitude, which includes Jesus and all those who truly follow God. It's never understood literally though, only in a spiritual sense. We believe that as Jesus and God are one, that brothers and sisters will be one with them also. Jesus prayed for this to happen. Have a look at John 17:11-24 to get the idea.

Edited by R2D2, 08 February 2010 - 10:00 AM.

[Evangelion]

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 06:17 PM, said:

""There are not three Gods in the Godhead; nor are there but three in manifestation; nevertheless, the Father is God and Jesus is God; and we may add, so are all the brethren of Jesus gods; and 'a multitude which no man can number.' The Godhead is the homogeneous fountain of the Deity; these other gods are the many streams which form this fountain flow. The springhead of Deity is one, not many; the streams as numerous as the orbs of the universe, in which a manifestation of Deity may have hitherto occurred.""

This quote comes from a book called Phanerosis. Have you read that book or have you only read this single, out-of-context paragraph? Do you actually know what John Thomas means when he says this?

Here is the section which immediately precedes the paragaph you have quoted:

[indent]IN our previous articles expository of the scripture revelation which the Eternal Spirit has given concerning "God," we have shown --

1. That Moses, the prophets, and Jesus all teach that the Godhead is one AIL, or Power and that this unity is absolute;
2. That they teach, that the ONE SELF-EXISTENT ETERNAL AlL hath never been seen by any mortal man -- that He is an undivided and invisible unity, pre-existent before the beginning of all things, intelligent and material;
3. That they teach, that He dwells in unapproachable light;
4. That they teach, that SPIRIT emanates from His substance; and the SPACE, which is unbounded, or infinite, is filled with this SPIRIT--Spirit which is seen in the lightning: and heard in the thunder, "the voice of God";
5. That they teach, that all created things are ex ou out of this Spirit, and by it; and therefore out of and by the Eternal Power: who is consequently "the Father" of whatever exists;
6. That they teach, that "there be Gods many and Lords many," which are called Elohim, Shaddai, Adonai, and so forth; and that these are created intelligences -- corporeal manifestations of the Spirit of the light-inhabiting ETERNAL INCREATE;
7. That they teach expressly or by implication, that these created deities have all been originally subject to evil even as we; and that they have become Immortal Gods after the moral and physical type exhibited in the biography of Jesus of Nazareth;
8. That they teach, that all immortals are "the sons of God" -- of Him who only hath immortality as an essential quality of His self-existing and uncreated substance;
9. That they teach, that in seeing God, men saw embodiments of the Spirit of the Eternal lncreate, not the Eternal Himself, "whom no man can see and live"; and that these embodiments are Sons of Power, i.e., of Deity;
10. That they all teach, that the doctrine concerning God reveals the multitudinous manifestations of the ONE ETERNAL IN-CREATE by His Spirit; which is styled "the Manifestation of the Sons of Deity";
11. We have shown, that these Sons of Power ("sown in weakness, raised in power") in the aggregate constitute THE NAME OF YAHWEH -- a Name of Multitude; a myriad-manifestation of THE SPIRIT OF THE INVISIBLE GOD -- THE ONE I SHALL BE: "God manifested in flesh"; which is a grand mystery, but apostolically revealed;
12. We have shown, that Sonship to the Eternal One is an Old Testament element of this great mystery; and that an individual son was as necessary to the development of the "Many Sons," as an Isaac was to "Israelites indeed"; we through Jesus."[/indent]

As you can see, John Thomas believed in one single God (the Father) Who is reflected in His perfected creation, of which the angels and Christ are a part. When John Thomas says that they are also called "god", he follows the same principle as Scripture, which correctly uses this term in reference to any representative of the Father:

• Exodus 7:1-2
  So the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.
  You are to speak everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh that he must release the Israelites from his land.
  
  
  
• Psalm 82:6-7
  I thought, 'You are gods;
  all of you are sons of the Most High.'
  Yet you will die like mortals;
  you will fall like all the other rulers."

Quote

I am aware that it is likely most do not agree with this anymore but just curious if anyone does, or if anyone has heard of a Christadelphian that does.

Thanks!

How would you be "aware that it is likely most do not agree with this anymore"? Are you familiar with our community? Do you know exactly what we believe and teach? I don't think you've demonstrated that you even know what John Thomas was talking about, let alone anything else.

[Naphal]

Hi Jeremy,

Quote

My guess is that most Christadelphians wouldn't understand it fully (I include myself in that).

Prolly true for anyone on such a topic

Quote

To answer your question, however, yes, we believe that Jesus is occasionally called God, but is not God Himself. The same title is true of Jesus' followers. We have never changed our beliefs on this, if that's what you're inferring.

Well yes, I have been doing much study and reading on John Thomas and today's followers etc, and it is generally said that many have changed to different beliefs on some issues. Thomas said that Jesus is God, not that he was called God. "the Father is God and Jesus is God" I definitely infer from your post that you would not agree with Thomas on that, correct? You wouldn't say "Jesus is God"....?

So back to my initial question, do any Christadelphians believe Jesus was God while maintaining the other standard core beliefs the main congregation believes in?

Jeremy, on Feb 8 2010, 01:31 AM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 08:47 AM, said:

""There are not three Gods in the Godhead; nor are there but three in manifestation; nevertheless, the Father is God and Jesus is God; and we may add, so are all the brethren of Jesus gods; and 'a multitude which no man can number.' The Godhead is the homogeneous fountain of the Deity; these other gods are the many streams which form this fountain flow. The springhead of Deity is one, not many; the streams as numerous as the orbs of the universe, in which a manifestation of Deity may have hitherto occurred.""


I am aware that it is likely most do not agree with this anymore but just curious if anyone does, or if anyone has heard of a Christadelphian that does.

Thanks!

My guess is that most Christadelphians wouldn't understand it fully (I include myself in that). To answer your question, however, yes, we believe that Jesus is occasionally called God, but is not God Himself. The same title is true of Jesus' followers. We have never changed our beliefs on this, if that's what you're inferring.

[Naphal]

Quote

I'm not familiar with the quotation from John Thomas but I've heard some Christadelphian Bible students use this type of explanation to explain the meaning of one of God's titles "LORD of hosts". In that way, God is represented or manifested as a spiritual multitude, which includes Jesus and all those who truly follow God.

This is the perplexing part of your beliefs to me. There is so much made out of God being one, not two or 3 (such as Trinity) but you have no issue in the concept of God being composed of a huge multitude. So why can't you start with the concept of 3 and move into your multitude concept? Is it that you have more distaste for Trinitarians themselves than their concept of God being composed of a plurality (just less of a plurality than you accept)

Quote

It's never understood literally though, only in a spiritual sense.

Ok, would you accept a spiritual trinity then?

R2D2, on Feb 8 2010, 01:42 AM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 07:47 PM, said:

""There are not three Gods in the Godhead; nor are there but three in manifestation; nevertheless, the Father is God and Jesus is God; and we may add, so are all the brethren of Jesus gods; and 'a multitude which no man can number.' The Godhead is the homogeneous fountain of the Deity; these other gods are the many streams which form this fountain flow. The springhead of Deity is one, not many; the streams as numerous as the orbs of the universe, in which a manifestation of Deity may have hitherto occurred.""


I am aware that it is likely most do not agree with this anymore but just curious if anyone does, or if anyone has heard of a Christadelphian that does.

Thanks!

I'm not familiar with the quotation from John Thomas but I've heard some Christadelphian Bible students use this type of explanation to explain the meaning of one of God's titles "LORD of hosts". In that way, God is represented or manifested as a spiritual multitude, which includes Jesus and all those who truly follow God. It's never understood literally though, only in a spiritual sense. We believe that as Jesus and God are one, that brothers and sisters will be one with them also. Jesus prayed for this to happen. Have a look at John 17:11-24 to get the idea.

[Naphal]

Quote

Do you actually know what John Thomas means when he says this?

Yes I believe so and your posted list of shown things also helps in this. So, Jesus is God but for different reasons than a typical Christian might believe in. Still, its a good starting point for dialogue and understanding.

BTW, I have started to read the book but have not yet finished.

Evangelion, on Feb 8 2010, 02:38 AM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 06:17 PM, said:

""There are not three Gods in the Godhead; nor are there but three in manifestation; nevertheless, the Father is God and Jesus is God; and we may add, so are all the brethren of Jesus gods; and 'a multitude which no man can number.' The Godhead is the homogeneous fountain of the Deity; these other gods are the many streams which form this fountain flow. The springhead of Deity is one, not many; the streams as numerous as the orbs of the universe, in which a manifestation of Deity may have hitherto occurred.""

This quote comes from a book called Phanerosis. Have you read that book or have you only read this single, out-of-context paragraph? Do you actually know what John Thomas means when he says this?

Here is the section which immediately precedes the paragaph you have quoted:

[indent]IN our previous articles expository of the scripture revelation which the Eternal Spirit has given concerning "God," we have shown --

1. That Moses, the prophets, and Jesus all teach that the Godhead is one AIL, or Power and that this unity is absolute;
2. That they teach, that the ONE SELF-EXISTENT ETERNAL AlL hath never been seen by any mortal man -- that He is an undivided and invisible unity, pre-existent before the beginning of all things, intelligent and material;
3. That they teach, that He dwells in unapproachable light;
4. That they teach, that SPIRIT emanates from His substance; and the SPACE, which is unbounded, or infinite, is filled with this SPIRIT--Spirit which is seen in the lightning: and heard in the thunder, "the voice of God";
5. That they teach, that all created things are ex ou out of this Spirit, and by it; and therefore out of and by the Eternal Power: who is consequently "the Father" of whatever exists;
6. That they teach, that "there be Gods many and Lords many," which are called Elohim, Shaddai, Adonai, and so forth; and that these are created intelligences -- corporeal manifestations of the Spirit of the light-inhabiting ETERNAL INCREATE;
7. That they teach expressly or by implication, that these created deities have all been originally subject to evil even as we; and that they have become Immortal Gods after the moral and physical type exhibited in the biography of Jesus of Nazareth;
8. That they teach, that all immortals are "the sons of God" -- of Him who only hath immortality as an essential quality of His self-existing and uncreated substance;
9. That they teach, that in seeing God, men saw embodiments of the Spirit of the Eternal lncreate, not the Eternal Himself, "whom no man can see and live"; and that these embodiments are Sons of Power, i.e., of Deity;
10. That they all teach, that the doctrine concerning God reveals the multitudinous manifestations of the ONE ETERNAL IN-CREATE by His Spirit; which is styled "the Manifestation of the Sons of Deity";
11. We have shown, that these Sons of Power ("sown in weakness, raised in power") in the aggregate constitute THE NAME OF YAHWEH -- a Name of Multitude; a myriad-manifestation of THE SPIRIT OF THE INVISIBLE GOD -- THE ONE I SHALL BE: "God manifested in flesh"; which is a grand mystery, but apostolically revealed;
12. We have shown, that Sonship to the Eternal One is an Old Testament element of this great mystery; and that an individual son was as necessary to the development of the "Many Sons," as an Isaac was to "Israelites indeed"; we through Jesus."[/indent]

As you can see, John Thomas believed in one single God (the Father) Who is reflected in His perfected creation, of which the angels and Christ are a part. When John Thomas says that they are also called "god", he follows the same principle as Scripture, which correctly uses this term in reference to any representative of the Father:

• Exodus 7:1-2
  So the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.
  You are to speak everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh that he must release the Israelites from his land.
  
  
  
• Psalm 82:6-7
  I thought, 'You are gods;
  all of you are sons of the Most High.'
  Yet you will die like mortals;
  you will fall like all the other rulers."

Quote

I am aware that it is likely most do not agree with this anymore but just curious if anyone does, or if anyone has heard of a Christadelphian that does.

Thanks!

How would you be "aware that it is likely most do not agree with this anymore"? Are you familiar with our community? Do you know exactly what we believe and teach? I don't think you've demonstrated that you even know what John Thomas was talking about, let alone anything else.

[Jeremy]

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 11:35 AM, said:

Prolly true for anyone on such a topic

Quote

Well yes, I have been doing much study and reading on John Thomas and today's followers etc, and it is generally said that many have changed to different beliefs on some issues.

"Generally said" by whom? Our statement of faith hasn't changed for over 100 years.

Quote

Thomas said that Jesus is God, not that he was called God. "the Father is God and Jesus is God" I definitely infer from your post that you would not agree with Thomas on that, correct?

I don't believe Thomas believed that, no. There will be threads on that subject somewhere - I'll see if I can find something, or perhaps someone else will be able to help.

Quote

You wouldn't say "Jesus is God"....?

So back to my initial question, do any Christadelphians believe Jesus was God while maintaining the other standard core beliefs the main congregation believes in?

I think this has already been answered, but Christadelphians believe that Jesus was God in the sense that the Scriptures use that phrase only. We don't believe that Scripture teaches that Jesus is God Almighty in person, and John Thomas isn't saying that in the quote you refer to. Christadelphian beliefs have not changed.

[Evangelion]

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 10:23 PM, said:

Quote

Do you actually know what John Thomas means when he says this?

Yes I believe so and your posted list of shown things also helps in this. So, Jesus is God but for different reasons than a typical Christian might believe in. Still, its a good starting point for dialogue and understanding.

BTW, I have started to read the book but have not yet finished.

Reading what John Thomas wrote more than 100 years ago is not a good way to learn what Christadelphians believe. Phanerosis is a helpful book when discussing the names and titles of God. Beyond this, it is not very helpful - not even to Christadelphians.

Please understand that Christadelphian beliefs are defined by our Statement of Faith, not by the books of John Thomas or any other Christadelphian. I believe that he believed what I believe, but even if he hadn't believed what I believe, that wouldn't make any difference to me. We are not obliged to accept anything that he wrote, so there's no point in copy/pasting random paragraphs out of context and asking us if we agree with them. I could say "Nope, I don't agree with any of that!" and it wouldn't make me any less a Christadelphian.

[Jeremy]

Good answer.

[Naphal]

Quote

"Generally said" by whom? Our statement of faith hasn't changed for over 100 years.

lol, so it has changed? I think that's what tehy spoke of, they being various peoples on various websites both Christadelphian and non-Christadelphian. Just Google "Christadelphian" and start reading every link like I did.

Quote

I don't believe Thomas believed that, no. There will be threads on that subject somewhere - I'll see if I can find something, or perhaps someone else will be able to help.

I quoted Thomas earlier. Part of that quote was "the Father is God and Jesus is God", not "Jesus was called God" or "Jesus is spiritually God but not actually God"
:-)

But if you find other quotes please post them, thanks.

Jeremy, on Feb 8 2010, 03:54 AM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 11:35 AM, said:

Prolly true for anyone on such a topic

Quote

Well yes, I have been doing much study and reading on John Thomas and today's followers etc, and it is generally said that many have changed to different beliefs on some issues.

"Generally said" by whom? Our statement of faith hasn't changed for over 100 years.

Quote

Thomas said that Jesus is God, not that he was called God. "the Father is God and Jesus is God" I definitely infer from your post that you would not agree with Thomas on that, correct?

I don't believe Thomas believed that, no. There will be threads on that subject somewhere - I'll see if I can find something, or perhaps someone else will be able to help.

Quote

You wouldn't say "Jesus is God"....?

So back to my initial question, do any Christadelphians believe Jesus was God while maintaining the other standard core beliefs the main congregation believes in?

I think this has already been answered, but Christadelphians believe that Jesus was God in the sense that the Scriptures use that phrase only. We don't believe that Scripture teaches that Jesus is God Almighty in person, and John Thomas isn't saying that in the quote you refer to. Christadelphian beliefs have not changed.

[Netsach Yisrael]

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 04:10 PM, said:

I quoted Thomas earlier. Part of that quote was "the Father is God and Jesus is God", not "Jesus was called God" or "Jesus is spiritually God but not actually God"
:-)

Of course Jesus is God--in just the same sense that we are God (Psalm 82:6). You noticed brother Thomas pointing out that we, too, "are God" in this sense, because you decided to ask, "Whoah, wait a minute! Do you Christadelphians really believe that?" The answer is yes, we do. We don't usually say it in those terms, because it's too easy for someone to completely misunderstand us. We're not claiming to be deity, any more than Christ is deity. God's agents "are God" in a representative sense only, the way a policeman "is the law" or "is the government."

Psalm 82 and John 17 clinch this case, if you read both of them carefully.

[Naphal]

Quote

We are not obliged to accept anything that he wrote, so there's no point in copy/pasting random paragraphs out of context and asking us if we agree with them.

My intent of this thread was not to "divide and conquer" but simply to find out if anyone today agreed with his statement that "Jesus is God". From my readings I ahve learned that not all Christadelphians agree on everything so I wanted to know if there is any disagreement on this.

Evangelion, on Feb 8 2010, 04:38 AM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 10:23 PM, said:

Quote

Do you actually know what John Thomas means when he says this?

Yes I believe so and your posted list of shown things also helps in this. So, Jesus is God but for different reasons than a typical Christian might believe in. Still, its a good starting point for dialogue and understanding.

BTW, I have started to read the book but have not yet finished.

Reading what John Thomas wrote more than 100 years ago is not a good way to learn what Christadelphians believe. Phanerosis is a helpful book when discussing the names and titles of God. Beyond this, it is not very helpful - not even to Christadelphians.

Please understand that Christadelphian beliefs are defined by our Statement of Faith, not by the books of John Thomas or any other Christadelphian. I believe that he believed what I believe, but even if he hadn't believed what I believe, that wouldn't make any difference to me. We are not obliged to accept anything that he wrote, so there's no point in copy/pasting random paragraphs out of context and asking us if we agree with them. I could say "Nope, I don't agree with any of that!" and it wouldn't make me any less a Christadelphian.

[Naphal]

Quote

We're not claiming to be deity, any more than Christ is deity. God's agents "are God" in a representative sense only, the way a policeman "is the law" or "is the government."

gods only in a representative way? I thought you believed that everyone was to be "one" with and in God?

Netsach Yisrael, on Feb 8 2010, 08:14 AM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 04:10 PM, said:

I quoted Thomas earlier. Part of that quote was "the Father is God and Jesus is God", not "Jesus was called God" or "Jesus is spiritually God but not actually God"
:-)

Of course Jesus is God--in just the same sense that we are God (Psalm 82:6). You noticed brother Thomas pointing out that we, too, "are God" in this sense, because you decided to ask, "Whoah, wait a minute! Do you Christadelphians really believe that?" The answer is yes, we do. We don't usually say it in those terms, because it's too easy for someone to completely misunderstand us. We're not claiming to be deity, any more than Christ is deity. God's agents "are God" in a representative sense only, the way a policeman "is the law" or "is the government."

Psalm 82 and John 17 clinch this case, if you read both of them carefully.

[Jeremy]

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 04:10 PM, said:

lol, so it has changed?

The wording was changed once, yes, to clear up one sentence which later proved to be open to more than one interpretation.

Quote

I think that's what tehy spoke of, they being various peoples on various websites both Christadelphian and non-Christadelphian. Just Google "Christadelphian" and start reading every link like I did.

Well, I suggest that's probably where you've been going wrong. BTDF is a pretty good place for finding out what we believe, and I hope you find your time here worthwhile.

Quote

Quote

I don't believe Thomas believed that, no. There will be threads on that subject somewhere - I'll see if I can find something, or perhaps someone else will be able to help.

I quoted Thomas earlier. Part of that quote was "the Father is God and Jesus is God", not "Jesus was called God" or "Jesus is spiritually God but not actually God"

Ah, you were still talking about John Thomas? When you said "Thomas said that Jesus is God", I thought you were taklking about John 20 v 28, LOL!

[Netsach Yisrael]

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 04:20 PM, said:

Quote

We're not claiming to be deity, any more than Christ is deity. God's agents "are God" in a representative sense only, the way a policeman "is the law" or "is the government."

gods only in a representative way? I thought you believed that everyone was to be "one" with and in God?

Sure! But I'm really not sure what you think "one with" means. We're not talking about jivan mukti here.

[Naphal]

Quote

Ah, you were still talking about John Thomas? When you said "Thomas said that Jesus is God", I thought you were taklking about John 20 v 28, LOL!

That Thomas said it also but, no, I meant John Thomas

Jeremy, on Feb 8 2010, 08:24 AM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 04:10 PM, said:

lol, so it has changed?

The wording was changed once, yes, to clear up one sentence which later proved to be open to more than one interpretation.

Quote

I think that's what tehy spoke of, they being various peoples on various websites both Christadelphian and non-Christadelphian. Just Google "Christadelphian" and start reading every link like I did.

Well, I suggest that's probably where you've been going wrong. BTDF is a pretty good place for finding out what we believe, and I hope you find your time here worthwhile.

Quote

Quote

I don't believe Thomas believed that, no. There will be threads on that subject somewhere - I'll see if I can find something, or perhaps someone else will be able to help.

I quoted Thomas earlier. Part of that quote was "the Father is God and Jesus is God", not "Jesus was called God" or "Jesus is spiritually God but not actually God"

Ah, you were still talking about John Thomas? When you said "Thomas said that Jesus is God", I thought you were taklking about John 20 v 28, LOL!

[Naphal]

I am referring to "oneness" mentioned in this post:

Quote

We believe that as Jesus and God are one, that brothers and sisters will be one with them also. Jesus prayed for this to happen. Have a look at John 17:11-24 to get the idea.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
John 17:13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
John 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
John 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
John 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
John 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
John 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
John 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Netsach Yisrael, on Feb 8 2010, 08:25 AM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 04:20 PM, said:

Quote

We're not claiming to be deity, any more than Christ is deity. God's agents "are God" in a representative sense only, the way a policeman "is the law" or "is the government."

gods only in a representative way? I thought you believed that everyone was to be "one" with and in God?

Sure! But I'm really not sure what you think "one with" means. We're not talking about jivan mukti here.

[Richie]

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 11:15 AM, said:

Quote

We are not obliged to accept anything that he wrote, so there's no point in copy/pasting random paragraphs out of context and asking us if we agree with them.

My intent of this thread was not to "divide and conquer" but simply to find out if anyone today agreed with his statement that "Jesus is God". From my readings I ahve learned that not all Christadelphians agree on everything so I wanted to know if there is any disagreement on this.

I have yet to meet a Christadelphian who believes Jesus is God, and John Thomas didn't believe it either - not in the sense you're thinking of.

[Netsach Yisrael]

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 04:45 PM, said:

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
John 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Yes, those are the verses I wanted you to look at. Now, if Jesus is praying for all of us to share precisely the same oneness with God that Jesus has... you you really think he's talking about "persons" in a "godhead"? Either he is, and we really are "God," or you should rethink this "Trinity" that you believe in. I suggest the latter.

[Rebel]

Netsach Yisrael, on Feb 8 2010, 05:14 PM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 04:10 PM, said:

I quoted Thomas earlier. Part of that quote was "the Father is God and Jesus is God", not "Jesus was called God" or "Jesus is spiritually God but not actually God"
:-)

Of course Jesus is God--in just the same sense that we are God (Psalm 82:6). You noticed brother Thomas pointing out that we, too, "are God" in this sense, because you decided to ask, "Whoah, wait a minute! Do you Christadelphians really believe that?" The answer is yes, we do. We don't usually say it in those terms, because it's too easy for someone to completely misunderstand us. We're not claiming to be deity, any more than Christ is deity. God's agents "are God" in a representative sense only, the way a policeman "is the law" or "is the government."

Psalm 82 and John 17 clinch this case, if you read both of them carefully.

Very well said.
To pull "Jesus is God" from the context is a disaster. That way one can pull anything out of Bible, which contradicts the rest of the Bible.

[R2D2]

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 10:46 PM, said:

This is the perplexing part of your beliefs to me. There is so much made out of God being one, not two or 3 (such as Trinity) but you have no issue in the concept of God being composed of a huge multitude. So why can't you start with the concept of 3 and move into your multitude concept? Is it that you have more distaste for Trinitarians themselves than their concept of God being composed of a plurality (just less of a plurality than you accept)

It's not difficult to understand at all. Under the idea of the trinity all the persons aren't just one but they are co-equal to each other as well. However, to us any other man or person being equal to God is blasphemy. Jesus made it very clear that he was not equal to God. Jesus said "my father is greater than I" John 14:28 and this is restated in 1 Cor 11:3 and other places in scripture.
We can only be "gods" if we are given His name to bear - the concept is not disimilar to a soldier saying to someone "I come in the name of Queen Elizabeth II" and so the recipient of that greeting sees that soldier as representing or manifesting that queen. It doesn't make the soldier Queen Elizabeth literally or equal to her though.

Quote

Quote

It's never understood literally though, only in a spiritual sense.

Ok, would you accept a spiritual trinity then?

No for the reason stated above. Trinitarianism involves all the persons involved being equal. I'm sure you too would balk at the idea of us ordinary men and women being equal on the same level as God anyway.

[Evangelion]

Naphal, on Feb 9 2010, 02:45 AM, said:

My intent of this thread was not to "divide and conquer" but simply to find out if anyone today agreed with his statement that "Jesus is God". From my readings I ahve learned that not all Christadelphians agree on everything so I wanted to know if there is any disagreement on this.

We agree with the statement that "Jesus is god" in the same sense that God called Moses "god." The word is used as a title, not as a description of what Jesus actually is. In this context it is better to stay with the Hebrew word (elohim) which simply means "mighty ones" and is frequently translated "God", "god" or "gods."

Quote

Yes I believe so and your posted list of shown things also helps in this. So, Jesus is God but for different reasons than a typical Christian might believe in. Still, its a good starting point for dialogue and understanding.

Jesus is "God" in a figurative sense only. He is not literally God and neither is anyone else. We believe in a single God consisting of a single person: the Father. We do not believe in a plurality of gods and we do not believe that God comprises a plurality of persons.

[Naphal]

Richie, on Feb 8 2010, 08:48 AM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 11:15 AM, said:

Quote

We are not obliged to accept anything that he wrote, so there's no point in copy/pasting random paragraphs out of context and asking us if we agree with them.

My intent of this thread was not to "divide and conquer" but simply to find out if anyone today agreed with his statement that "Jesus is God". From my readings I ahve learned that not all Christadelphians agree on everything so I wanted to know if there is any disagreement on this.

I have yet to meet a Christadelphian who believes Jesus is God, and John Thomas didn't believe it either - not in the sense you're thinking of.

The sense isn't an issue really for me. I an more interested in that he did believe Jesus was God even if its not exactly why I might. How and why and the justification is more minor IMO.

[Naphal]

Netsach Yisrael, on Feb 8 2010, 08:55 AM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 04:45 PM, said:

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
John 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Yes, those are the verses I wanted you to look at. Now, if Jesus is praying for all of us to share precisely the same oneness with God that Jesus has... you you really think he's talking about "persons" in a "godhead"? Either he is, and we really are "God," or you should rethink this "Trinity" that you believe in. I suggest the latter.

This doesn't affect the Trinity or the genetic relationship the Father and Son share, which we do not share. This "oneness" is limited to what the word one means here and it is a spiritual oneness, also described as sharing "essence". In the same way all Christians should be "one", as in united in the Christian faith, but are literally a group of individuals forming a single (one) group. This is the concept of a single being composed of multiples. The way thing for God, the Godhead commonly called the Trinity. One God but composed of 3. So so is the Church or body of Christ, Christians. They are also one yet composed of multiples.

In the same way I and another Christian are to be one, we can be also "one" with God, yet not the same as being God. You will understand that in that you also believe Jesus is one with God yet isnt deity. So you should understand how I can accept Christians being one with God without their being deity as well. Our main difference in this issue would seem to be the actual relationship between the Father and the Son. I believe it is genetic, literal as well as spiritual, and you deny the genetic relationship.

[Naphal]

Rebel, on Feb 8 2010, 05:11 PM, said:

Netsach Yisrael, on Feb 8 2010, 05:14 PM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 04:10 PM, said:

I quoted Thomas earlier. Part of that quote was "the Father is God and Jesus is God", not "Jesus was called God" or "Jesus is spiritually God but not actually God"
:-)

Of course Jesus is God--in just the same sense that we are God (Psalm 82:6). You noticed brother Thomas pointing out that we, too, "are God" in this sense, because you decided to ask, "Whoah, wait a minute! Do you Christadelphians really believe that?" The answer is yes, we do. We don't usually say it in those terms, because it's too easy for someone to completely misunderstand us. We're not claiming to be deity, any more than Christ is deity. God's agents "are God" in a representative sense only, the way a policeman "is the law" or "is the government."

Psalm 82 and John 17 clinch this case, if you read both of them carefully.

Very well said.
To pull "Jesus is God" from the context is a disaster. That way one can pull anything out of Bible, which contradicts the rest of the Bible.

Please explain to us all how quoting a man is the same as "pulling" something as if that is to construct the quote out of spurious or misleading evidence. It was Thomas himself which summed up his understanding in a concise way. We all already understand Christadelphians consider Jesus to be God in a lesser sense than others do but that doesnt mean Thomas didnt mean nor say "Jesus is God". I suspect those three words, no matter how they are justified, are slightly offensive to some ears ;-)

[Naphal]

Quote

We agree with the statement that "Jesus is god" in the same sense that God called Moses "god." The word is used as a title, not as a description of what Jesus actually is.

I am aware of this. What I don't understand is why you wont accept your own special version of the Trinity, composed of others who are God in title since you accept such concepts.

Quote

In this context it is better to stay with the Hebrew word (elohim) which simply means "mighty ones" and is frequently translated "God", "god" or "gods."

A very small minority of the time that definition would apply but overwhelmingly Elohim is the plural of El which means God. When the word Elohim appears and means "God", it speaks to the plurality which composes God.

Quote

Jesus is "God" in a figurative sense only. He is not literally God and neither is anyone else. We believe in a single God consisting of a single person: the Father.

Yet God speaks of God in the plural (elohim).

Quote

We do not believe in a plurality of gods and we do not believe that God comprises a plurality of persons.

Eh, its a messy thing with all the God-titles for everyone and the oneness concept. There is a decent contradiction afoot

Evangelion, on Feb 8 2010, 07:35 PM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 9 2010, 02:45 AM, said:

My intent of this thread was not to "divide and conquer" but simply to find out if anyone today agreed with his statement that "Jesus is God". From my readings I ahve learned that not all Christadelphians agree on everything so I wanted to know if there is any disagreement on this.

We agree with the statement that "Jesus is god" in the same sense that God called Moses "god." The word is used as a title, not as a description of what Jesus actually is. In this context it is better to stay with the Hebrew word (elohim) which simply means "mighty ones" and is frequently translated "God", "god" or "gods."

Quote

Yes I believe so and your posted list of shown things also helps in this. So, Jesus is God but for different reasons than a typical Christian might believe in. Still, its a good starting point for dialogue and understanding.

Jesus is "God" in a figurative sense only. He is not literally God and neither is anyone else. We believe in a single God consisting of a single person: the Father. We do not believe in a plurality of gods and we do not believe that God comprises a plurality of persons.

Edited by Naphal, 09 February 2010 - 07:52 AM.

[Evangelion]

Naphal, on Feb 9 2010, 06:11 PM, said:

Quote

We agree with the statement that "Jesus is god" in the same sense that God called Moses "god." The word is used as a title, not as a description of what Jesus actually is.

I am aware of this. What I don't understand is why you wont accept your own special version of the Trinity, composed of others who are God in title since you accept such concepts.

If you're aware of it, why are you still misrepresenting it?

We don't have a special version of the Trinity. The Trinity teaches that God consists of three persons in one essence. We teach that God consists of one person in one essence. The Trinity teaches that Jesus is God and shares the Father's. We teach that Jesus is not God and does not share His essence. We teach that angels are divine beings and that humans will also be made divine beings if they receive immortal life. We do not believe that angels are gods and we do not believe that immortalised humans are gods.

So why do you say that we have a "special version of the Trinity"?

Quote

Quote

In this context it is better to stay with the Hebrew word (elohim) which simply means "mighty ones" and is frequently translated "God", "god" or "gods."

A very small minority of the time that definition would apply but overwhelmingly Elohim is the plural of El which means God.

Yes, that's right. And sometimes it refers to mortal men, who are obviously not God or literal gods.

Quote

When the word Elohim appears and means "God", it speaks to the plurality which composes God.

Nonsense. Where on earth did you get that idea? Not from Scripture!

Quote

Quote

Jesus is "God" in a figurative sense only. He is not literally God and neither is anyone else. We believe in a single God consisting of a single person: the Father.

Yet God speaks of God in the plural (elohim).

Yes that's right. The plural "elohim" is occasionally used in reference to single persons and beings. Elohim is not the only Hebrew word used in this way. There are other words whose plural form is applied to singular persons and beings. Would you like to see some examples? Click here.

You can make nothing from the plural form of "elohim." It does not substantiate Trinitarianism.

Quote

Quote

We do not believe in a plurality of gods and we do not believe that God comprises a plurality of persons.

Eh, its a messy thing with all the God-titles for everyone and the oneness concept. There is a decent contradiction afoot

What "oneness concept"? Where's the contradiction? What do you think God meant when He told Moses "I have made you a god to Pharaoh and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet"?

[Evangelion]

Naphal, on Feb 9 2010, 05:58 PM, said:

Please explain to us all how quoting a man is the same as "pulling" something as if that is to construct the quote out of spurious or misleading evidence. It was Thomas himself which summed up his understanding in a concise way. We all already understand Christadelphians consider Jesus to be God in a lesser sense than others do but that doesnt mean Thomas didnt mean nor say "Jesus is God". I suspect those three words, no matter how they are justified, are slightly offensive to some ears ;-)

I don't find them offensive at all. But they certainly don't help the Trinitarian argument, because Trinitarians believe that God is more than just Jesus. It is not enough to say "Jesus is God"; Thomas also needs to say "the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God." Yet he does not say this.

The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that Thomas meant that Jesus is God in the same way that the Father is God, instead of being "god" in the same way that God said Moses was "god."

[Jeremy]

Naphal, on Feb 9 2010, 07:41 AM, said:

I am aware of this. What I don't understand is why you wont accept your own special version of the Trinity, composed of others who are God in title since you accept such concepts.

Because there's no comparison. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches three persons which together and indivisibly constitute the Godhead. We believe in one God who manifests Himself through other individuals (including Christ, the angels, human prophets and even us - all of whom Scripture calls "God"). They're very different ideas.

Quote

A very small minority of the time that definition would apply but overwhelmingly Elohim is the plural of El which means God. When the word Elohim appears and means "God", it speaks to the plurality which composes God.

You'll not find every linguist out there agreeing with that. Even Scripturally, this "plural" word is applied to single deities (including false ones).