The Development of the Trinity

[thesonofdavid]

To all: Re a new book:
The Development of the Trinity: The Evolution of a New Doctrine

The book is finally out! It is the tip of the iceberg of over 7 years of serious study on the graduate school level. My M.A. is in church history.

This was accepted as "sound" historically by the Baptist seminary. The school now has a copy of the book. It is published---and featured on the opening page "new works" of Pentecostal Publishing House. (pentecostalpublsihing.com)

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.

I might open up a webs site where both those that agree and those that want to challenge me (us) can write in. I an not computer savvy enough so will have to get some help.

Anyway, enjoy the book and write back with response. You can get a download at Amazon.com, or a free sample of it at Barnes and Noble.

I am available for seminars in this and related (church history, oneness) issues, especially for pastors and ministers. Have taught this at Gateway Bible School on-line and other schools in person.

God bless and use us!

Bro Davidson
(619 955 8685)

[mizpeh]

To all: Re a new book:
The Development of the Trinity: The Evolution of a New Doctrine

The book is finally out! It is the tip of the iceberg of over 7 years of serious study on the graduate school level. My M.A. is in church history.

This was accepted as "sound" historically by the Baptist seminary. The school now has a copy of the book. It is published---and featured on the opening page "new works" of Pentecostal Publishing House. (pentecostalpublsihing.com)

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.

I might open up a webs site where both those that agree and those that want to challenge me (us) can write in. I an not computer savvy enough so will have to get some help.

Anyway, enjoy the book and write back with response. You can get a download at Amazon.com, or a free sample of it at Barnes and Noble.

I am available for seminars in this and related (church history, oneness) issues, especially for pastors and ministers. Have taught this at Gateway Bible School on-line and other schools in person.

God bless and use us!

Bro Davidson
(619 955 8685)You went to Bethel? Did you get to talk to Greg Boyd about Oneness Pentecostal doctrine or about the development of the Trinity?

[Praxeas]

Christ DID pre-exist

[Rose]

Christ DID pre-exist

More details and scriptures, please.

[Michael The Disciple]

Christ DID pre-exist

Oneness understands that Christ existed before coming to Earth as God The Father. The controversy is how he existed as the LOGOS. That is where modern Oneness is weak.

[Praxeas]

More details and scriptures, please.
Jesus Christ said Before Abraham was, I am.

Is Jesus "God"? If so then Jesus pre-existed

[Sam]

To all: Re a new book:
The Development of the Trinity: The Evolution of a New Doctrine

The book is finally out! It is the tip of the iceberg of over 7 years of serious study on the graduate school level. My M.A. is in church history.

This was accepted as "sound" historically by the Baptist seminary. The school now has a copy of the book. It is published---and featured on the opening page "new works" of Pentecostal Publishing House. (pentecostalpublsihing.com)

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.

I might open up a webs site where both those that agree and those that want to challenge me (us) can write in. I an not computer savvy enough so will have to get some help.

Anyway, enjoy the book and write back with response. You can get a download at Amazon.com, or a free sample of it at Barnes and Noble.

I am available for seminars in this and related (church history, oneness) issues, especially for pastors and ministers. Have taught this at Gateway Bible School on-line and other schools in person.

God bless and use us!

Bro Davidson
(619 955 8685)

So, the Baptists like it and consider it "sound" and the UPC likes it enough to offer it in their catalog digitally and in paper. How did you accomplish that?

[samuelofisrael]

[QUOTE=thesonofdavid;1175744]To all: Re a new book:
The Development of the Trinity: The Evolution of a New Doctrine

The book is finally out! It is the tip of the iceberg of over 7 years of serious study on the graduate school level. My M.A. is in church history.

This was accepted as "sound" historically by the Baptist seminary. The school now has a copy of the book. It is published---and featured on the opening page "new works" of Pentecostal Publishing House. (pentecostalpublsihing.com)

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.



I somehow doubt the mainstream "Baptists" receive the findings [theories] of the author as "sound" in that they agree with the traditional "Oneness" POV. Rather they most likely agree that it is sound in the "historically developmental" sense. I know of no Baptist association, fellowship or gathering that embraces the UPC concept of the Godhead, Person and Work of Yeshua Messiah. That is, that they agree He was the Father clothed in the tabrenacle of the Son in the sense the Oneness describe Him.

Yet, to a point it is the truth but only as revealed in Holy Writ and this is the struggle. My point is that NONE have the total and absolutely accurate exegesis of what is called the 'Godhead' but that of the many dissenting groups.

Clearly the God of all creation and the Creator of Man is ONE. It can be no other way IF Holy Writ is received. And to be truthful I know of not a single trinitarian or Tri-Unitarian who believes otherwise. This subject will be cast about until the Day of the Lord and even then we may not understand it as we might. Strident opinions, papers, books, blogs, the casting of dust in the air does not mean one has "that" absolute truth they desire, it means they are on their way to the Celestial City.

Isn't it somehow humbling and to some extent, discouraging to know you [I] are yet to learn many things while on the perpetual "destroy the trinitarians" objective? Doesn't anyone ever get weary of nonsense, of misrepresenting others such as charging the Trins as "polytheists?" This is why I refuse to entered into lengthy discussion any longer with a spittle flying, voice raising, arm waving fanatic who declares all trinitarians or Tri-Unitarians believe and worship "three gods." It is demeaning for a person to allow such debate to occupy his time and mental hardware knowing the challenge is a never ending, round and round series of largely fruitless discussions.

There are trins who are as unsaved as the demonic host. There are Oneness who will never tread the courts of the King. In effect, the Oneness are as ignorant as the trins in this area of knowledge. What each "think" they know as generated out of minds yet unperfected and eyes yet to fully open is not the same as absolute truth.

Even so, come soon Lord Yeshua.

[Michael The Disciple]

[QUOTE=thesonofdavid;1175744]To all: Re a new book:
The Development of the Trinity: The Evolution of a New Doctrine

The book is finally out! It is the tip of the iceberg of over 7 years of serious study on the graduate school level. My M.A. is in church history.

This was accepted as "sound" historically by the Baptist seminary. The school now has a copy of the book. It is published---and featured on the opening page "new works" of Pentecostal Publishing House. (pentecostalpublsihing.com)

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.



I somehow doubt the mainstream "Baptists" receive the findings [theories] of the author as "sound" in that they agree with the traditional "Oneness" POV. Rather they most likely agree that it is sound in the "historically developmental" sense. I know of no Baptist association, fellowship or gathering that embraces the UPC concept of the Godhead, Person and Work of Yeshua Messiah. That is, that they agree He was the Father clothed in the tabrenacle of the Son in the sense the Oneness describe Him.

Yet, to a point it is the truth but only as revealed in Holy Writ and this is the struggle. My point is that NONE have the total and absolutely accurate exegesis of what is called the 'Godhead' but that of the many dissenting groups.

Clearly the God of all creation and the Creator of Man is ONE. It can be no other way IF Holy Writ is received. And to be truthful I know of not a single trinitarian or Tri-Unitarian who believes otherwise. This subject will be cast about until the Day of the Lord and even then we may not understand it as we might. Strident opinions, papers, books, blogs, the casting of dust in the air does not mean one has "that" absolute truth they desire, it means they are on their way to the Celestial City.

Isn't it somehow humbling and to some extent, discouraging to know you [I] are yet to learn many things while on the perpetual "destroy the trinitarians" objective? Doesn't anyone ever get weary of nonsense, of misrepresenting others such as charging the Trins as "polytheists?" This is why I refuse to entered into lengthy discussion any longer with a spittle flying, voice raising, arm waving fanatic who declares all trinitarians or Tri-Unitarians believe and worship "three gods." It is demeaning for a person to allow such debate to occupy his time and mental hardware knowing the challenge is a never ending, round and round series of largely fruitless discussions.

There are trins who are as unsaved as the demonic host. There are Oneness who will never tread the courts of the King. In effect, the Oneness are as ignorant as the trins in this area of knowledge. What each "think" they know as generated out of minds yet unperfected and eyes yet to fully open is not the same as absolute truth.

Even so, come soon Lord Yeshua.



Hi Sam,

You could not be more wrong. When one understands the doctrine of Christ, Yeshua being both the Father and the Son it is the greatest truth there is. Only the truth that Eloah exists is greater.

Im going to reach out and guess that if the Baptists find some point of agreement with him maybe it is that both agree that Yeshua pre existed as the Angel Of The Lord. Trins generally accept that difference being of course to them the Angel Of YHWH is the second person of God where true Oneness believes he was the visible image of the one and only El, Eloah, and Elohim.

[Praxeas]

Im concerned this man is publishing a Oneness book that rejects the Deity of Jesus Christ..

How can Jesus Christ be God and NOT pre-exist?

David Bernard

Of course, we know that Jesus as God pre-existed
the Incarnation, since the deity of Jesus is none
other than the Father Himself

The Pre-existence of Jesus
Many passages of Scripture refer to the existence
of Jesus before His human life began. However, the
Bible does not teach us that He existed separate and
apart from the Father. On the contrary, in His deity
He is the Father and Creator. The Spirit of Jesus existed
from all eternity because He is God Himself.
However, the humanity of Jesus did not exist before
the Incarnation, except as a plan in the mind of God.
Therefore, we can say the Spirit of Jesus pre-existed
the Incarnation, but we cannot say the Son pre-existed
the Incarnation in any substantial sense.

John 1:1, 14
is a good summary of the teaching on the pre-existence
of Jesus: “In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . .
And the Word was made flesh. . . .” In other words,
Jesus existed from all eternity as God.

discussion of Hebrews 1, see Chapter 5.)
Let us apply these concepts to various verses of
Scripture that speak of the pre-existence of Christ.
We can understand John 8:58 (“Before Abraham was,
I am”) to be a reference to the pre-existence of Jesus
as the God of the Old Testament

In John 16:28 Jesus said, “I came forth
from the Father.” This, too, refers to His pre-existence
as God.

[seekerman]

Why does Jesus need to be God to preexist?

[Praxeas]

Why does Jesus need to be God to preexist?
I didn't say He did. I said if Jesus is God then He DID pre-exist.

[seekerman]

Ok. :)

It was just a general question.

[Esaias]

Im concerned this man is publishing a Oneness book that rejects the Deity of Jesus Christ..



Why do you think he might be doing that?

I haven't read his book, but the gist of his post seems to be how trinitarians and Oneness-ians disagree on HOW Jesus pre-existed: either as the second person of a trinity, or as God himself.

I would also say we are often careless in our use of terms which can lead to misunderstandings.

'Christ pre-existed'. Technically, that is not correct, since CHRIST means MESSIAH, and the prophesied Son of David did not exist until he was conceived.

God became Messiah, in otherwords. So when we say 'Jesus pre-existed' or 'christ pre-existed' WE generally understand what we are trying to say but others may not. Do we mean THE MAN pre-existed? Do we mean a Divine Person OTHER THAN THE FATHER pre-existed? etc.

Hence the need to either hold a series of ecumenical councils to get the explanations down as specific as possible... or on the other hand to just stick with biblical terms/phrases for biblical concepts and by-pass all the debate about 'hypostases' and 'essences' and 'the nature of being - is it one, or many?' and so on so forth.

Of course, we could all just join in a rousing chorus of Trinity Shminity and be done with it, eh?

:icecream

[Michael The Disciple]

'Christ pre-existed'. Technically, that is not correct, since CHRIST means MESSIAH, and the prophesied Son of David did not exist until he was conceived.

And yet Paul says:

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them : and that Rock was Christ. 1 Cor. 10:4

Sometimes we define narrow. Other times we define broad. Christ was the rock with the Israelites.

The rock was defined by Moses and the prophets.

3 Because I will publish the name of YHWH: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. 4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. 5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation. 6 Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? Duet. 32:4-6

If Christ was the rock he was YHWH, God, our Father.

Thats a simple way to prove Yeshua is THE GOD of the OT. Our Father.

[Praxeas]

Why do you think he might be doing that?

I haven't read his book, but the gist of his post seems to be how trinitarians and Oneness-ians disagree on HOW Jesus pre-existed: either as the second person of a trinity, or as God himself.

I would also say we are often careless in our use of terms which can lead to misunderstandings.

'Christ pre-existed'. Technically, that is not correct, since CHRIST means MESSIAH, and the prophesied Son of David did not exist until he was conceived.

God became Messiah, in otherwords. So when we say 'Jesus pre-existed' or 'christ pre-existed' WE generally understand what we are trying to say but others may not. Do we mean THE MAN pre-existed? Do we mean a Divine Person OTHER THAN THE FATHER pre-existed? etc.

Hence the need to either hold a series of ecumenical councils to get the explanations down as specific as possible... or on the other hand to just stick with biblical terms/phrases for biblical concepts and by-pass all the debate about 'hypostases' and 'essences' and 'the nature of being - is it one, or many?' and so on so forth.

Of course, we could all just join in a rousing chorus of Trinity Shminity and be done with it, eh?

:icecream

He said "We in the OP have not had a solid answer of how the preexistence of Christ and related issues evolved."

Christ and Jesus are not two different persons..if they were then sure you can say Jesus pre-existed but Christ did not.

If God became Messiah then Messiah is God and God has always existed. Messiah therefore always existed AS God.

[Michael The Disciple]

I dont see anywhere the author denies the deity of Yeshua. He said the Oneness movement does not have a clear understanding of the pre existence. I totally agree. The issue of the LOGOS is a weak link in an otherwise solid iron theology in the Oneness movement.

He may mean something else? Hopefully he will come back and discuss and was not merely trying to sell his book.

[Praxeas]

I dont see anywhere the author denies the deity of Yeshua.
How can Jesus NOT pre-exist and yet be God?

[Esaias]

And yet Paul says:

4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them : and that Rock was Christ. 1 Cor. 10:4

Sometimes we define narrow. Other times we define broad. Christ was the rock with the Israelites.

The rock was defined by Moses and the prophets.

3 Because I will publish the name of YHWH: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. 4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. 5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation. 6 Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? Duet. 32:4-6

If Christ was the rock he was YHWH, God, our Father.

Thats a simple way to prove Yeshua is THE GOD of the OT. Our Father.

Yes, Paul is saying 'He whom ye know as Christ, that Man from Galilee, that Messiah, is the ROCK of whom Moses spake, and who gave living water to Israel out of the earthly rock. In other words, this man Jesus, the Messiah, is YHVH GOD.'

Agreed.

A great mystery, indeed.

:yourock

[Esaias]

He said "We in the OP have not had a solid answer of how the preexistence of Christ and related issues evolved."

Christ and Jesus are not two different persons..if they were then sure you can say Jesus pre-existed but Christ did not.

If God became Messiah then Messiah is God and God has always existed. Messiah therefore always existed AS God.

Could we be more specific and say 'God always existed as God and then in a point in time became Messiah?'

If God became Messiah... then Messiah AS SUCH did not exist until that point. HE WHO IS THE MESSIAH was (and is) also GOD ETERNAL.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? lol

Honestly, I don't know what the guy believes, as I haven't read his book. I suspect however he is talking about 'the pre-existent second person of a triune godhead' being an evolved doctrine.

'Christology in the Making' is probably the best book out there on that particular subject, by the way.

[Esaias]

How can Jesus NOT pre-exist and yet be God?

Jesus can NOT pre-exist AS A HUMAN BEING, obviously.

As God, He always was, is and shall be.

Furthermore, the man is nothing less than GOD CARVED INTO HUMAN NATURE.

[Praxeas]

Jesus can NOT pre-exist AS A HUMAN BEING, obviously.

As God, He always was, is and shall be.

Furthermore, the man is nothing less than GOD CARVED INTO HUMAN NATURE.
Then if "as God, He always, was, is and shall be" then Jesus Christ DID pre-exist.

[Esaias]

Then if "as God, He always, was, is and shall be" then Jesus Christ DID pre-exist.

Yes He did, I am simply pointing out that because He is BOTH God and man there is created an issue with explaining things.

homo-ousion vs homoi-ousion, anyone?

[Michael The Disciple]

How can Jesus NOT pre-exist and yet be God?

Well again MY GUESS is that he is referring to the teaching among many Oneness that the LOGOS was merely Gods plan he thought of in the beginning.

That makes it seem as if they deny his pre existing.

I never heard of a group that teaches Yeshua pre existed as a human being. Who teaches that?

[Esaias]

Well again MY GUESS is that he is referring to the teaching among many Oneness that the LOGOS was merely Gods plan he thought of in the beginning.

That makes it seem as if they deny his pre existing.

I never heard of a group that teaches Yeshua pre existed as a human being. Who teaches that?

I have heard some who teach that all humans - Jesus included - pre-existed before the Flood. That we were born into this life to learn the lessons we did not learn (and have an opportunity to repent and follow God) from our lives prior to the Flood. Not exactly a 'reincarnation' thing, but something similar.

[Praxeas]

Yes He did, I am simply pointing out that because He is BOTH God and man there is created an issue with explaining things.

homo-ousion vs homoi-ousion, anyone?
I don't think so. Ive never met anyone that says Jesus pre-existed being a man as a man

[Praxeas]

Well again MY GUESS is that he is referring to the teaching among many Oneness that the LOGOS was merely Gods plan he thought of in the beginning.

That makes it seem as if they deny his pre existing.

I never heard of a group that teaches Yeshua pre existed as a human being. Who teaches that?
He is referring to Trinitarians Michael. He is making an argument that the teaching that Christ pre-existed can be traced back to a beginning, not the bible

We in the OP have not had a solid answer of how the preexistence of Christ and related issues evolved.

[Praxeas]

I have heard some who teach that all humans - Jesus included - pre-existed before the Flood. That we were born into this life to learn the lessons we did not learn (and have an opportunity to repent and follow God) from our lives prior to the Flood. Not exactly a 'reincarnation' thing, but something similar.
Mormonism?

[Rose]

Jesus Christ said Before Abraham was, I am.

Is Jesus "God"? If so then Jesus pre-existed

Amen. Sorry Praxeas, I thought you were coming from a different direction.

[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.

[Praxeas]

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]

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]

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]

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]

- "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]

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]

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]

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.

[Praxeas]

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.
He's oneness. He was saying Oneness does not know enough about how the trinity evolved

[Sam]

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.

I ordered his book from the PPH.
It is not in stock and has been back ordered.
The $18.24 cost has been debited from my checking account.

The sad thing is that by the time the book gets here it will be put away some where and added to an ever growing list of unread books.

[Sam]

To all: Re a new book:
The Development of the Trinity: The Evolution of a New Doctrine

The book is finally out! It is the tip of the iceberg of over 7 years of serious study on the graduate school level. My M.A. is in church history.

This was accepted as "sound" historically by the Baptist seminary. The school now has a copy of the book. It is published---and featured on the opening page "new works" of Pentecostal Publishing House. (pentecostalpublsihing.com)

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.

I might open up a webs site where both those that agree and those that want to challenge me (us) can write in. I an not computer savvy enough so will have to get some help.

Anyway, enjoy the book and write back with response. You can get a download at Amazon.com, or a free sample of it at Barnes and Noble.

I am available for seminars in this and related (church history, oneness) issues, especially for pastors and ministers. Have taught this at Gateway Bible School on-line and other schools in person.

God bless and use us!

Bro Davidson
(619 955 8685)


The book arrived today.
Unfortunately I have no idea when I will read it

[Michael The Disciple]

The book arrived today.
Unfortunately I have no idea when I will read it

Just read the chapter on pre existence. Thats the thing he accented. And yes I want to know what he said!:highfive

[Pandora]

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

- What 'oneness' scriptures are there ? Thanks.

[Sam]

- What 'oneness' scriptures are there ? Thanks.

There are just scriptures, some see oneness there and some see trinity

[Praxeas]

I had the privilege to meet this gentleman at campmeeting. He was very kind and signed my book for me.

The book seems to have an extensive bibliography.

[Michael The Disciple]

I had the privilege to meet this gentleman at campmeeting. He was very kind and signed my book for me.

The book seems to have an extensive bibliography.

Will be waiting for your review.

[Michael The Disciple]

Well my wife ordered this book. I was skimming it today hoping to find something to get excited about. Unfortunately theres not much there except a rehash of former Oneness views concerning the evolution of the Trinity. I had read these things back in 1980 or somewhere in that time frame.

He says the Logos was the root of the Trinity. Then astonishingly he marginally mentions what (modern) Oneness believes. He from what I have seen makes no attempt to actually analyze the "logos".

Very disappointing to me. Now if you are a Oneness who has never occasioned to study the evolution of the Trinity doctrine there would be things to learn. It still fails in the sense of giving no, or at least so little Biblical teaching on "Logos" that one would hardly notice.

For anyone interested the most profound Oneness book I know of was:

If Ye Know These Things by Elder Ross Drysdale

It was written to refute Greg Boyd, a backslidden Oneness believer now popular among Trins.

There is a section on the Pre Existence Of Christ that gives the true Oneness revelation of the LOGOS DOCTRINE.

Follow this link from my web site. Its on the way back machine archived by Michael Blume. The whole book is there online.

http://www.freeforum101.com/inthelight/viewtopic.php?t=36&mforum=inthelight

[Praxeas]

Well my wife ordered this book. I was skimming it today hoping to find something to get excited about. Unfortunately theres not much there except a rehash of former Oneness views concerning the evolution of the Trinity. I had read these things back in 1980 or somewhere in that time frame.

He says the Logos was the root of the Trinity. Then astonishingly he marginally mentions what (modern) Oneness believes. He from what I have seen makes no attempt to actually analyze the "logos".

Very disappointing to me. Now if you are a Oneness who has never occasioned to study the evolution of the Trinity doctrine there would be things to learn. It still fails in the sense of giving no, or at least so little Biblical teaching on "Logos" that one would hardly notice.

For anyone interested the most profound Oneness book I know of was:

If Ye Know These Things by Elder Ross Drysdale

It was written to refute Greg Boyd, a backslidden Oneness believer now popular among Trins.

There is a section on the Pre Existence Of Christ that gives the true Oneness revelation of the LOGOS DOCTRINE.

Follow this link from my web site. Its on the way back machine archived by Michael Blume. The whole book is there online.

http://www.freeforum101.com/inthelight/viewtopic.php?t=36&mforum=inthelight
Why be disappointed a book set out to do what he said it would? Would you read a book about dogs and say "I was disappointed it did not mention birds"?

[Michael The Disciple]

I misunderstood him in thinking he was going to give info on the evolution of apostolic LOGOS teaching into Trinitarian error. Yes it was my mistake. Had I known it was just about how Trinity came along I would not have been excited about it. Again I say if one has not read anything how Trinitarianism started it would be worthwhile.

[Sam]

I have a paper copy of Eld. Drysdale's book, If Ye Know These Things. I have skimmed parts of it but have never read the whole book through. I have read through chapter chapter 15, The Pre-existence of the Son and have quoted from it on here in at least one post.

[Sam]

I have a paper copy of Eld. Drysdale's book, If Ye Know These Things. I have skimmed parts of it but have never read the whole book through. I have read through chapter chapter 15, The Pre-existence of the Son and have quoted from it on here in at least one post.

as far as the identity of the Word/Logos/Son this has been discussed many times here. The teaching of Eld. Drysdale in which he quotes many OP ministers is found at
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=28949&highlight=Drysdale

[apostolic of f]

God said he would not share his glory with another.
In Revelation it says "one" sat upon the throne.
When God said "let us make man in our image", he was referring to the diety of Jesus Christ.Not another seperate entity.

Hear o Israel the Lord our God is one Lord.Nothing has changed in that respect.
Jesus sat down on the right hand of power.All authority was relinquished back to the Father.

[seekerman]

It was written to refute Greg Boyd, a backslidden Oneness believer now popular among Trins.



How did you determine that Greg Boyd was backslidden?

[DaveC519]

Well my wife ordered this book. I was skimming it today hoping to find something to get excited about. Unfortunately theres not much there except a rehash of former Oneness views concerning the evolution of the Trinity. I had read these things back in 1980 or somewhere in that time frame.

He says the Logos was the root of the Trinity. Then astonishingly he marginally mentions what (modern) Oneness believes. He from what I have seen makes no attempt to actually analyze the "logos".

Very disappointing to me. Now if you are a Oneness who has never occasioned to study the evolution of the Trinity doctrine there would be things to learn. It still fails in the sense of giving no, or at least so little Biblical teaching on "Logos" that one would hardly notice.

For anyone interested the most profound Oneness book I know of was:

If Ye Know These Things by Elder Ross Drysdale

It was written to refute Greg Boyd, a backslidden Oneness believer now popular among Trins.

There is a section on the Pre Existence Of Christ that gives the true Oneness revelation of the LOGOS DOCTRINE.

Follow this link from my web site. Its on the way back machine archived by Michael Blume. The whole book is there online.

http://www.freeforum101.com/inthelight/viewtopic.php?t=36&mforum=inthelight
Hello Michael,

I followed your link, and read the section of the Pre-Existence Of Christ. I disagree with this position, because I believe there is a stronger case biblically to be made that OT "christophanies" were actually angels, and that people (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc.) didn't see God himself, or even a pre-incarnate "visible" Logos.

This idea of an OT visible Logos is not new, and was in fact part of a larger doctrine (known as Logos-Christology) which was the precursor of Trinitarianism. Much of Logos-Christology was appropriated from the teachings of Philo the Jew of Alexandria, who wrote in the 1st ce. Philo had constructed his Logos doctrine from a synthesis of Jewish and Greek thought. He even referred to the Logos as the "first-begotten of God", "eldest son", and "image of God". For him, the Logos (a creation of God) emanated from God over a period of time, and was a mediator between God and creation- specifically, between God and man.

Unfortunately, Logos-Christology posited an ontologically-subordinate Son who was not eternal. This belief system eventually evolved into Arianism, which was addressed at the Council of Nicea.

Is there a correct, biblical doctrine of the Logos? I believe there is, and John addressed it in the Prologue of his Gospel. The Logos is the immanent self-expression of God. How does a transcendent God, whose very thoughts are so far above ours (Is 55:8-9), communicate with us? By expressing himself in a way which we CAN understand. This is the Logos: God's self-expression.

In his Prologue, the Apostle John was re-capturing and re-stating the original, biblical Dabar (Hebrew: "Word") motif, over against all Greek and Hellenized-Jewish constructions of prior Logos teachings. Did the Logos originate over a period of time? No, it was with God in the beginning (Jn 1:1). Was the Logos a semi-divine mediator? No, the Logos WAS God!

The writer of Hebrews (chapter one) stated that God spoke (his Word/Dabar/Logos) in times past by his prophets, but in these last days spoke by his Son- the Word/Dabar/Logos made flesh (Jn 1:14).

[mizpeh]

Hi Dave,

What do you think Jesus meant when he said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad."? John 8:56

[Praxeas]

Hello Michael,

I followed your link, and read the section of the Pre-Existence Of Christ. I disagree with this position, because I believe there is a stronger case biblically to be made that OT "christophanies" were actually angels, and that people (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc.) didn't see God himself, or even a pre-incarnate "visible" Logos.

I was beginning to think I was the only one that had that view

[deltaguitar]

Just a couple of questions:

Where is Jesus now, scripture says he is at the right hand of the Father? What does that mean to you guys?

Does he have a body? I am thinking about his resurrection and how he clearly had a glorified body and rose up into the clouds.

Also, scripture is clear that Christ is interceding on our behalf. What does this mean to you guys?

[mizpeh]

Just a couple of questions:

Where is Jesus now, scripture says he is at the right hand of the Father? What does that mean to you guys?

Does he have a body? I am thinking about his resurrection and how he clearly had a glorified body and rose up into the clouds.

Also, scripture is clear that Christ is interceding on our behalf. What does this mean to you guys?Jesus has a body and sits on the throne of God making intercession. He rules over heaven and earth. I'm not sure what that entails but it must keep him busy.

[deltaguitar]

Jesus has a body and sits on the throne of God making intercession. He rules over heaven and earth. I'm not sure what that entails but it must keep him busy.

Where are the Father and Holy Spirit? Are they sitting on the throne as well?

[Praxeas]

Just a couple of questions:

Where is Jesus now, scripture says he is at the right hand of the Father? What does that mean to you guys?

Does he have a body? I am thinking about his resurrection and how he clearly had a glorified body and rose up into the clouds.

Also, scripture is clear that Christ is interceding on our behalf. What does this mean to you guys?
Jesus is in heaven

Right hand is an idiom for position of power.

Yes

He is the Mediator by means of sitting on the throne of God as our Great High Priest.

Heb 7:26 For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.
Heb 7:27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.


Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
Heb 9:13 For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh,
Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
Heb 9:15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant

Heb 10:8 When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law),
Heb 10:9 then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.
Heb 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,

[Praxeas]

Where are the Father and Holy Spirit? Are they sitting on the throne as well?
Throne is not a literal chair in heaven God gets tired and sits down on

The bible says ALL of heaven is God's throne. Heaven is where God rules from. Throne refers then to where one rules from. Israel's throne was Jerusalem

The Father is not an tired old man that sits on a throne. The Father is Spirit. He rules from heaven. His Spirit in the form of the Holy Spirit is working on the earth in the believers

[deltaguitar]

Throne is not a literal chair in heaven God gets tired and sits down on

The bible says ALL of heaven is God's throne. Heaven is where God rules from. Throne refers then to where one rules from. Israel's throne was Jerusalem

The Father is not an tired old man that sits on a throne. The Father is Spirit. He rules from heaven. His Spirit in the form of the Holy Spirit is working on the earth in the believers

Interesting. Prax, do you make a distinction between the God the whole spirit and the Holy Spirit in his role on the earth?

[Praxeas]

Interesting. Prax, do you make a distinction between the God the whole spirit and the Holy Spirit in his role on the earth?
The distinction is functional

[DaveC519]

Hi Dave,

What do you think Jesus meant when he said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad."? John 8:56
Hi Mizpeh,

Scripture is not forthcoming about what knowledge those in Abraham's bosom (including Abraham!) possessed. We of course know about the conversation Jesus held with Moses and Elijah on the Mt. of Transfiguration. And we know Jesus "preached unto the spirits in prison" (1Pet 3:19).

When exactly did Abraham rejoice to see Christ's "day", and which "day" was that? His birth? His baptism? It simply doesn't elaborate. Any guesses?

[DaveC519]

I was beginning to think I was the only one that had that view
No, sir. I think I came to that conclusion about five years ago. :)

[Praxeas]

BTW if Shekina is a circumlocution for the presence of God could Holy Spirit be sort of a circumlocution for the presence of God here on earth?

[seekerman]

Just a couple of questions:

Where is Jesus now, scripture says he is at the right hand of the Father? What does that mean to you guys?

Does he have a body? I am thinking about his resurrection and how he clearly had a glorified body and rose up into the clouds.

Also, scripture is clear that Christ is interceding on our behalf. What does this mean to you guys?

It means Jesus is WITH His God and Father. He's sitting in His God and Father's throne with Him.

Yes, Jesus has a spiritual body.

Jesus interceeding means that He's the person who defends us, secures help for us, provides support for us.

[DaveC519]

BTW if Shekina is a circumlocution for the presence of God could Holy Spirit be sort of a circumlocution for the presence of God here on earth?
Could be. I imagine people in the OT may have viewed the term Spirit of God that way.

I found an interesting article from the Jewish Encyclopedia regarding the development of the Shekinah within Jewish Intermediary Theology:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13537-shekinah

[mizpeh]

Hi Mizpeh,

Scripture is not forthcoming about what knowledge those in Abraham's bosom (including Abraham!) possessed. We of course know about the conversation Jesus held with Moses and Elijah on the Mt. of Transfiguration. And we know Jesus "preached unto the spirits in prison" (1Pet 3:19).

When exactly did Abraham rejoice to see Christ's "day", and which "day" was that? His birth? His baptism? It simply doesn't elaborate. Any guesses?

Do you think that Abraham was given a vision of Christ?

[seekerman]

Do you think that Abraham was given a vision of Christ?

And, did Abraham eat with Christ a few thousand years before His incarnation?

[Praxeas]

Could be. I imagine people in the OT may have viewed the term Spirit of God that way.

I found an interesting article from the Jewish Encyclopedia regarding the development of the Shekinah within Jewish Intermediary Theology:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13537-shekinah
Awesome

The Spirit resting on Jesus was Shekinah

Those on Whom the Shekinah Rested. The Shekinah was one of the five things lacking in the Second Temple (Targ. to Hag. i. 8; Yer. Ta'an. 65a, and parallel passages). Shunning the Gentiles, it rested solely among the Israelites (Shab. 22b), and even there only when they numbered at least 2,002 myriads (Ber. 7a; Yeb. 64a; B. B. 15b; comp. Sanh. 105b), confining itself solely to those of this multitude who were of pure and therefore aristocratic lineage (Ḳid. 70b) and who were wise, brave, wealthy, and tall (Shab. 92a; comp. Ned. 38a); but even for such it would not descend into an atmosphere of sadness (Shab. 30b and parallel passages), since there can be no sorrow in the presence of God (Ḥag. 5b); nor should one pray in a sorrowful frame of mind (Ber. 31a).
The polemic attitude which the conception of the Shekinah betrays toward the founder and the ideal of Christianity is unmistakable. The Shekinah rested upon the priests even if they were unclean (Yoma 56b); and if it was lacking, none approached them for an oracle (ib. 75b). Prominent doctors of the Law were considered worthy of the Shekinah, but both their generation. (i.e., their contemporaries) and their place of residence (i.e., in a foreign land) deprived them of its presence (Suk. 28a; B. B. 60a; Soṭah 48b; M. Ḳ. 25a). In all these statements the Shekinah is identical with the Holy Spirit. It was received by thirty-six pious persons (Suk. 45b), a number which recalls the thirty-six nomes of Egypt and their gods. The Shekinah was also believed to be a protection, as is still the case in the night prayer: "on my four sides four angels, and above my head the Shekinah of God" (comp. Ḳid. 31a). The Shekinah is found at the head of the sick (Shab. 12b) and at the right hand of man (Targ. to Ps. xvi. 8). Pharaoh's daughter saw it at the side of Moses (Soṭah 11a; comp. Targ. to Judges vi. 13), and it spoke with the prophet Jonah twice (Zeb. 98a), with Adam, with the serpent (Bek. 8a; Shab. 87a; Pes. 87b et passim), and with others.

[DaveC519]

Do you think that Abraham was given a vision of Christ?
Abraham was somehow "in the know" to be able to rejoice at Christ's day. I'm going to add this to the list of questions I'd like answered when I go home. hehe

[Michael The Disciple]

I thought people here understood that Christ was the God of Abraham?

[Praxeas]

And?

[Michael The Disciple]

Is there a correct, biblical doctrine of the Logos? I believe there is, and John addressed it in the Prologue of his Gospel. The Logos is the immanent self-expression of God. How does a transcendent God, whose very thoughts are so far above ours (Is 55:8-9), communicate with us? By expressing himself in a way which we CAN understand. This is the Logos: God's self-expression.

In his Prologue, the Apostle John was re-capturing and re-stating the original, biblical Dabar (Hebrew: "Word") motif, over against all Greek and Hellenized-Jewish constructions of prior Logos teachings. Did the Logos originate over a period of time? No, it was with God in the beginning (Jn 1:1). Was the Logos a semi-divine mediator? No, the Logos WAS God!

I agree with this quote. I have not said anything different than this since 1980.

You just dont get the fact that the Logos (which was God) is that self expression that is consistent throughout the Old Testament.

8 For he said , Surely they are my people, children that will not lie : so he was their Saviour . 9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: Isaiah 63:9

Angel means MESSENGER. The self expression, shekinah, dabar is all the same.

Not MANY mere pop up angels.

One ANGEL OF HIS PRESENCE which was the omnipresent eternal Spirit clothing a portion of his eternal life in an angelic form.

[Praxeas]

I agree with this quote. I have not said anything different than this since 1980.

You just dont get the fact that the Logos (which was God) is that self expression that is consistent throughout the Old Testament.

8 For he said , Surely they are my people, children that will not lie : so he was their Saviour . 9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: Isaiah 63:9

Angel means MESSENGER. The self expression, shekinah, dabar is all the same.

Not MANY mere pop up angels.

One ANGEL OF HIS PRESENCE which was the omnipresent eternal Spirit clothing a portion of his eternal life in an angelic form.
I doubt it's that someone does not "get it". It seems to be they just disagree with you.

[Timmy]

The development of the Trinity is all well and good. But what I want to know about is the development of the Schminity. :lol