The Jesus-Event

 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

(Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:17)

God tabernacled (John 1:14) with us. "God is with us" in the person of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:23, Colossians 2:9) God was "in Christ" reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). God entered into His very own creation and existed as a man. It includes an historical event. For over 30 years God, while existing as a man walked on earth. Once He was despised, rejected, beaten, crucified, and buried He did as He had said, and raised Himself from the dead on the third day (John 2:19). He is God all in all and seated at the supreme place of the universe.

This is the Jesus-event. This is where the invisible God was made visible. This is not to say God stopped being God or that God had to empty heaven. Simply, the Creator partook in creation. God is simultaneously creator, sustainer, father, son, holy, redeemer at the same time. Since Jesus is God in quality, rather than in terms of quantity, the personality, identity and character of God was in Christ Jesus (Colossians 2:9).

The Scriptures also speak of Saul, a Christ-hater, turned Christ-lover, better known as Paul who gave his life for what he once considered heresy and worthy of death (Acts 7:50ff.). Paul makes this contribution to the testimony of the Resurrection of our Lord and its life-changing effect. Notice 1 Corinthians 15:

1 Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, 2 through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless you have come to believe in vain. 3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me has not been in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them—though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we proclaim and so you have come to believe.

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. NRSV

Notice some of these statements of Paul:

1. In vs. 3 he has and is handing them something of "first importance". 

2. Christ died and was buried in accordance with Scripture.

3. Christ appeared to Cephas, the twelve, more than 500 people most of which were still alive, to James, all the apostles and lastly Paul himself.

4. God's grace in him has not been in vain.

5. If Christ has not been raised our proclamation and faith is in vain.

6. If Christ has not been raised then you are faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 

Notice that Paul correlates the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as being in accordance with the Scriptures. Paul obviously sees Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament Messianic references (e.g. Genesis 3:15; Psalms 2:1–2; 16:10; 22:1; 22:6–7; 22:22; 69:21; 89:26–28; Isaiah 7:14; 24:16; 42:1; 42:6; 49:6; 53:5). This conviction, shared by all the New Testament writers, was core to the early church. Notice also that Paul is making propositions that he emphatically believes to be true. He also shows it to be true based upon a) being in accordance with Scripture (cf. John 5:39) b) eyewitness accounts including his own first hand account. 

The Resurrection of Christ provides us with a future hope of resurrection. Clement of Rome (A.D. 30-101) speaks of this hope and even calls it the "future resurrection" in The First Epistle of Clement. These only serve to echo was Paul had earlier written. In Ephesians 2:6 Paul says that Christ has "raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus." (NRSV). Therefore, since we are united with Christ we will also be raised as Christ. 

In the Old Testament Jacob left his encounter with God at the river and he left never to be the same. He left changed. The physical and psychological impact of Jesus upon the Bible writers and clearly Paul here is indeed profound. Penetrating to the depths of the human person. Paul was smitten. He was struck by Jesus, the Christ, the man from Nazareth. He was so moved by his encounter with Jesus that it changed not only his career direction but caused him to leave what he had known to be true until that point. As a devout Pharisee he left no doubt people and things he loved. Are we that moved by the Jesus-event? Are you that moved by the Jesus-event? Would you believe even if you're life depended on it? 

The Resurrection does not rely only in an empty tomb but also, among other evidences, eyewitness accounts of the risen Lord. (See Matt 28:8-10, 16-20; Luke 24:13; John 20:11-29 and Acts 1:1-11). This ratifies the faith and personal experiences (Paul's in Acts 9 and 22) that multiplied millions have had and are having with Jesus until this day. The tomb was empty, the disciples were transformed from uncertain to bold preachers of the Resurrection, for which they would die.

JN Anderson

The Discipleship Book on The Trinity

Philosopher and blogger Dale Tuggy writes about a new book by Michael Patton which includes a chapter on the Trinity. Click here to read from his blog - trinities : theories about the father, son, and holy spirit.

Excerpt below:

Over at Parchment and Pen Michael Patton has posted a chapter on the Trinty, part of a forthcoming book called The Discipleship Book, intended to instruct new Christians.
Dear new Christians – beware. Patton is sincere, but misinformed. He thinks the Bible obviously teaches what he’s asserting, and reasons that any prior Bible-loving Christians must’ve thought likewise.
But having studied a vast amount of historical writings by Christians, I can assure you that this is demonstrably not so, even if we stick to “mainstream” Christians (so ignoring, e.g. “Arians”, Marcionites, etc.) I take no pleasure in pointing this out, and I wish it were as simple as Patton says. But facts are facts.
I’ve discussed his sort of take on the Trinty before. It is not, as Patton says in a comment, “what the Bible teaches and Christians for 2000 years have believed.” It is what (some? many?) theologians at Dallas Theological Seminarythink about the Trinity. How widespread these views are, I’m not sure. But the many evangelical and other theologians riding the “social trinitarian” bandwagonwould not agree with what Patton says.

Re-Examining "Baptism in the Name of Jesus" by Jason L. Weatherly

Jason L. Weatherly has a series of blogs posts entitled: Re-Examining "Baptism in the Name of Jesus". Here Weatherly is examining some of the claims of Church of Christ teachers like Bruce Reeves and Don McClain. So far this is a 5 part series so enjoy. Click here to go to the Weatherly Report!

Shariamerica: Islam, Obama, and the Establishment Clause

<$BlogItemFeedLinks$>

Modesty and Intimacy by Steve Pixler

One of the deepest desires of the human heart is to experience intimacy. Intimacy is an aspect of love, for intimacy is the mutual sharing of self that only occurs in true love. We often think of love as being purely selfless service, but there is much more to love than this. Love that seeks only the satisfaction of others is actually self-love twisted into masochistic self-loathing. Love not only seeks to satisfy others by serving their genuine needs (not necessarily all their wants), but love also seeks to find satisfaction for self in such selfless service. In other words, love seeks mutual satisfaction, which is existential fulfillment, and this sort of mutual self-realization is intimacy. 

Intimacy requires secrecy. In order to truly experience intimacy we must share relationship in a mutually inclusive and exclusive way. There must be boundaries. We must shut some people in and some people out in order to experience intimacy. All healthy relationships entail this polar balance of mutual inclusivity and exclusivity. The parent-child relationship is inclusive of their children and exclusive of everyone else's children. My children will never feel special in their relationship to me if I insist that they mean no more to me than the neighbor's kids. The same is true in marriage. A healthy marriage requires recognizing who is "in" and who is "out" of the relationship. People who cannot tell the difference become adulterers. 

Relationships that are strong and healthy are all "closed" to some degree. In fact, those who boast that they have an "open" relationship are simply admitting that they don't have much of a relationship at all. The deeper a relationship goes, the more closed it becomes, and the more closed it becomes, the closer it becomes. This is a fact of human existence, and to deny it is to deny reality. 

The point here is that the human body and its physical appearance was created to be an instrument of intimacy, specifically an instrument of the sexual relationship that celebrates and communicates the covenantal unity of marriage. Sex was designed to make a man and woman one in both body and spirit, thus actualizing the contractual and legal union effected in holy matrimony. Sex was created to facilitate intimacy, to enact it and enable it, and this intimacy is manifested physically in the glory of covenantal nakedness and the private celebration of physical beauty and attraction that occurs in the secret chamber of a married man and woman. This is why fornication is so deeply dissatisfying and requires ever-increasingly bizarre experimentation. Sex without covenant acts out a lie. Married sexual relations actualize marital oneness, and thus fornication has nothing to offer but the empty bodily actions of a sick charade. Fornication is a farce. 

So, the nakedness of the body was created to facilitate intimacy. God designed the naked body to arouse the sexual passions that make two people one. Nakedness is an invitation, a powerful, primal call, to enter into the secret places of the body and share oneness of soul. Thus, when we expose our nakedness to the general public by dressing immodestly, we confuse both our psyche and the psyche of the beholder by issuing an invitation we likely have no intention of fulfilling. When we undress in public, we frustrate intimacy. We reveal the secrets of our body to everyone, and we all know what happens to a relationship when someone breaks a confidence and tells all your secrets. 

Immodesty makes intimacy more elusive. Immodesty shares the secrets of the body with total strangers, and this means that there is less for the husband and wife to share exclusively. This causes deep angst within the human psyche that is often unrecognized and contributes to the ongoing dissatisfaction that characterizes the average couple's love life. Immodesty is live, public pornography, and it has exactly the same soul-numbing effect on the love life. When intimacy is lost, love is lost. 

There is something very troubling happening to the human race. We are having great difficulty loving because we have trouble keeping secrets. We have real problems with intimacy. We know very little these days about what it means to share in covenantal exclusivity. A planet full of psychiatrists will never be able to sort out the damage that is being done to our daughters and wives as lecherous fathers and husbands encourage their women to display in public the treasures of physical beauty that God gave for a husband to enjoy alone. When a man encourages his wife to expose her body, he is telling her that she is worth very little to him--so little, in fact, that he is willing for the man on the street to share her secret beauty, the beauty that was given by God to facilitate sexual oneness. 

Now, I should say here that I am not against women being beautiful and displaying that beauty for all to see. In fact, I am planning a separate post on Modesty and Beauty to further elaborate this point. The Word of God goes to great lengths in various places to show us the beauty of many leading women of scripture, and the Bride of Christ is a woman of eternal and spectacular beauty. No, I am not condemning beauty. For all those who equate holiness with homeliness, I am not on your bandwagon. Rather, what I am referring to is the public display of the parts of the body that are considered to be secret parts and sanctified to the priestly love of a godly husband. And this is more than what hides in a bathing suit. Much more. (See my earlier post on Modesty and Scripture.) 

I once had an awkward experience on an airplane. A very provocatively dressed young woman was seated next to me, and she immediately began telling me that she was a stripper and Playboy model. She told me that she had won Cyber-Playmate of the year. I listened for a few minutes while she told me all this, and then she asked me what I did for a living. I told her I was a pastor. She gasped and sputtered and began apologizing profusely for even mentioning what she did for a living. She was bright red for a bit, and I was grateful that she at least still had the capacity for shame. 

We talked for nearly two hours on the flight as I told her about my wife and children and showed her all my pictures. She told me my wife was lovely and that led us to discuss the question of what is real beauty. In our discussion on beauty, she made the statement that she felt like her beauty should be shared with the world. I responded that her beauty was like gravel on the ground--anyone can pick up gravel and put it in their pocket. Thus, it has no real value. But my wife's beauty, on the other hand, is like diamonds. Because my wife's beauty is for my eyes only, her beauty is rare and valuable. We don't throw diamonds on the ground for anyone to pick up. No, we treasure them and place them in a vault for safekeeping. She confessed that she had never heard it put like that.

I need to wrap this up before it becomes a book. One last comment: modesty promotes intimacy because modesty recognizes the value of physical beauty and the role that nakedness plays in promoting mental and spiritual health through sexual wholeness in marriage. Modesty declares to the world that both the man and the woman treasure intimacy so much that they will not violate it in deference to worldly fashion. If you are a secret worth keeping, then cover up. 

Does the Doctrine of the Trinity Correctly Define the Godhead? by Clifford Readout, Jr.

The doctrine of the Trinity is a theological construct of relatively early Roman Christianity (c. 220-325 A.D.), based on Philo's philosophical definitions of the Logos (Word) in the prologue of the Gospel of John. The doctrine has evolved through the centuries to be refined and recorded in the written doctrinal statements of the various denominations into a definition of the Godhead which states that God has eternally existed as three separate and distinct Persons, who are, always were, and always will be, co-equal, co-eternal, co-powerful, and co-present. These three Persons are called "God the Father," and "God the Son," and "God the Holy Spirit." God the Father is neither God the Son or God the Holy Spirit; God the Son is neither God the Father or God the Holy Spirit; and God the Holy Spirit is neither God the Father or God the Son, but all Three mystically share the same "substance." It further states that "God the Son" was sent by "God the Father" to be the sacrifice to atone for human sins. It resolves the Scriptural conflicts created by the doctrine by including some statement to the effect that the doctrine is not explainable by human reason, cannot be comprehended by human reason, but is not contrary to human reason, rather, it is a "divine mystery" which must be accepted by "faith."

The Doctrine of the Trinity is very close in idea to various pagan theologies dating back to ancient Babylonian idolatry, but finds its entry into Christianity through adoption of ideas contained in Greek philosophy. (Philo, mentioned above, and others, notably Tertullian.) The earliest record of Trinitarian terminology is found in the writings of Tertullian (c. 220 A.D.), who also wrote, in his "Against Praxeas," that the majority of Christians rejected his ideas as idolatry, holding instead to "the Monarchy," i.e. the doctrine that there is only One Person who is God, that He is a Spirit, and that He became flesh to be the Saviour. The doctrine of the Trinity was codified by the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. to satisfy the demand of Emperor Constantine to reconcile the teachings of Arius and his followers, who denied the Deity of Christ, with the rest of Christianity which held firmly to the exclusive Deity of Jesus Christ. The resulting compromise satisfied neither camp, but became the single issue which determined "orthodoxy" under the rule of Rome.

It is not simple to determine the understanding of "early Trinitarians." First, it is difficult to determine just when there were "early Trinitarians." We can determine when "modern" Trinitarianism came into being, but the designation "early" makes it subject to varying interpretations. (This problem is explained in more detail in problem three, following). Second, it is difficult to determine what anyone in the past understood about anything! We can only look closely at the words they employed to write their doctrines, and try to determine what those words must have meant to them. We can do this linguistic work with the help of the scholars. But that brings us to the third problem: It is in the nature of believers to be anachronistic in their historical research, that is, people tend to read back into history their present day understanding, and attribute it to those they are looking back at, and interpreting their words accordingly. (This simply demonstrates that the Bondage of Belief is the strongest bondage known to men. It is possible to believe a lie, but you cannot know a lie. Only truth can be known. And it is only by knowing the truth that we can be freed from the Bondage of Belief.) So, a Trinitarian will see in the historical accounts evidence of his own belief, and so will the Oneness believer. Intellectual honesty is more rare among theologians than it should be! However, it is not impossible to be intellectually honest, and to avoid anachronistic errors. Fourth, there is the problem of the nature of historical evidence. All histories either have developed, or will develop, through a three-fold process:

1. they begin as the biased account of the winner of a conflict;
2. they undergo revisionist alterations when that winner no longer dominates the process;
3. finally historians far removed from the time and events sort through the tainted records trying to determine what really happened.

Since history is generally written by the "winners," they often do not preserve any original records of the thinking of the "losers," except as "adversarial testimony." In other words, all we know about many of the theologies now considered to be heretical comes from the negative comments written about them by those whose doctrine came to dominate as orthodoxy. That makes it difficult to determine what the heretics really believed. Nevertheless, adversarial testimony can sometimes do more to discredit the orthodoxy than it does the heresy. Again, intellectual honesty is required to come to any sound conclusions. Only the intellectually honest theological historian can render an honest judgment about another's conclusions, but he will be roundly condemned if his judgment does not confirm the beliefs of the others!

Tertullian (c. 180-220 AD) wrote that most believers rejected his concept of a "trinity" because they believed that there was no division in the Godhead, nor any plurality of persons. This would indicate that his own concept is very close to that held by most official Trinitarian doctrine today. It is, however, very important to note that Tertullian's ideas were rejected as being idolatrous by the large majority of Christians of his day. His "heresy" was not official doctrine until the codification of certain terminology at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, followed by "refinements" and additions in later councils, particularly Chalcedon in 451 AD. But, it can be argued, with significant support from the historical records, that not even the bishops who formulated the doctrine at Nicea would have considered Tertullian's concept orthodox. There was discussion and disagreement about terminology among them, but they were faced with an impossible task, i.e. to reconcile the Arian doctrine with that of the rest of Christianity. Their intent was to officially establish the Deity of Christ as orthodoxy, while answering the arguments of Arius against Christ being God.

One of the primary words chosen by the council was the Latin word "persono," the word translated into the English, "person." However, the Latin word persono was a theatrical term, meaning "mask," and derived from the verb meaning "to speak through." Roman drama was performed by one actor, regardless of how many characters were in the story. The one actor would play all the parts. He would signify which part he was playing by holding up a "persono," or mask which represented that particular character, and "speaking through" that mask the character's lines. Then he would hold up the persono of the next character, and speak through it the next character's lines. And so on. This makes it apparent that the word "person" was not intended to mean "individual center of consciousness" as it is commonly understood today. Thus, it appears that Tertullian's concept of a plurality of individuals in the Godhead was not the intent of the language drafted at Nicea. It wasn't until later councils incorporated other philosophical concepts, such as Philo's "logos" musings, that "persono" was morphed into meaning "individual" in the manner of modern Trinitarian doctrine.

Many Trinitarian historians have acknowledged this. There are other words in the original Nicean Creed which opened a door to theological difficulties. And the various camps of bishops there had several points of contention about such terms. It happens that those of the bishops who would now be considered to have been Modalistic Monarchians (very close to modern Oneness theology), and who were the largest minority among the bishops at Nicea, left without consenting to the creed because of the possible misunderstandings allowed by some of the terminology.

All this indicates that "early Trinitarians" (assuming agreement with the modern definition) were originally a small and unorthodox (heretical) minority until after the Council of Nicea in 325 AD adopted the terminology which would give rise to definitions accepted today. But, if we are to label all who could accept the original meaning of "persono" as "early Trinitarians," then it is manifest that their doctrine has little in common with modern Trinitarianism. They were much closer to the Oneness view than to the Trinitarian. This is made even more manifest when one discovers that the original Nicean deliberations almost totally excluded mention of the Holy Spirit. The "Third Person" was written into the "Nicean Creed" by later councils.

The doctrine of the Trinity has been changed several times through the centuries since it was first codified by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Because of its mystical and contradictory terminology it has been given various definitions by various groups based on subjective objections raised by their leadership.

The doctrine of the Trinity was never a part of the thinking of any of the OT writers, at least as far as can be determined from the many documents recording their words. No significant tenet of the doctrine exists in their prophecies. Rather they are adamant in their insistence on the exclusive, indivisible, and absolute deity of Yahweh.

The NT writers promoted the idea that God is One, a Spirit, and He became flesh by means of the incarnation and virgin birth. Historians of both the Church and Christian doctrine acknowledge this fact. To the NT writers, Jesus Christ is the Almighty God manifest in flesh, not one of three persons in the Godhead.

Proponents of the doctrine of the Trinity, forced by the historical record to acknowledge these facts, strive to circumvent them through theological innovations, most drawn from philosophical musings:

1. The "primitive church" (led by the Apostles, whose understanding the Lord had opened, and who were to teach everyone else...see Luke 24:45, Matthew 28:20, etc.) was ignorant of the truth, God having chosen to reveal it progressively to succeeding generations. Today, they say, we understand the most important doctrines far better than they did.
2. The doctrine of the Trinity exists as a divine mystery, which can neither be understood or explained by rationality, and must be accepted by "faith." It is something which can only be believed, but not known.
3. The contradictions contained within the terminology of the doctrine of the Trinity are necessary to avoid certain heresies condemned throughout Christina history. The doctrine offers no explanation of how the contradictions actually are not contradictory other than that they are part of the "divine mystery." 

My conclusion is that the doctrine of the Trinity was not part of the understanding of the Apostles, and when its terminology was first formulated, it was not intended to convey the concepts of Tertullian, which are the foundation of the "official" doctrine of the Trinity. I do not think there is any significant difference between Trinitarian doctrines then and now, but I also do not believe that the theologians of those days should be considered Trinitarians, either.

Interestingly enough, the adoption of the Doctrine of the Trinity marks an tremendous change in Christian history. Prior to 325 A.D. Christians were persecuted by pagans, and others who rejected the exclusive Deity of Jesus Christ as God manifest in flesh. Within fifty years of the adoption of the doctrine of the Trinity, Trinitarian Christians were persecuting anyone who would not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. It seems to me like something went wrong.

I think there are better, and more scriptural ways to define the Godhead than the doctrine of the Trinity. The following statements express a more scriptural confession of the doctrine of the Person, Identity, and Name of God:

1. God is One. Deuteronomy 6:4; Mark 12:29; et al.
2. God is a Spirit. John 4:24; Ephesians 4:4; et al.
3. God (who is a Spirit) became a Man. Exodus 15:2; Isaiah 12:2; Psalm 118:14 - 21; John 1:1, 14; 2 Corinthians 3:17; et al.
4. The Man God became is identified by the Name “Jesus,” with various other titles added: “The Lord Jesus,” “Jesus Christ,” “The Lord Jesus Christ,” “Jesus of Nazareth,” etc. Luke 1:31; Matthew 1:21; Acts 8:16; 10:36; 11:17; 22:8; et al.
5. The Man God became was fully God in the Absolute sense through “the mystery of godliness,” which is the Incarnation. Thus, the Man God became is “God with us,” “the Mighty God,” “the Everlasting Father,” and “the Almighty.” 1 Timothy 3:16; Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:6; Revelation 1:8; etc.
6. The Man God became was also fully Human in the Ultimate sense through the seed of the virgin woman of the lineage of Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and David, yet totally without any sin nature because He was also God Incarnate. Genesis 3:15; Genesis 49:10; 1 Kings 8:26 - 27; Acts 2:30; Romans 9:5; Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 4:15; etc.
7. As a Man, He increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man; learned obedience, suffered, died by crucifixion, was buried and rose again the third day. Luke 2:52; Hebrews 5:8 - 9; 1 Corinthians 15:1 - 4; et al.
8. As a Man, the scriptures use the following titles to designate His Deity (Godhead) and Humanity:
1. “The Son of God,” 1 John 4:15; 1 John 5:20; et al.
2. “The Son of Man,” Matthew 12:8; John 5:27; et al. 

The One True and Almighty God became a Man called The Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ is both the One and Only Lord God Almighty and the Human Messiah, called “the Son,” who gave His life to redeem us. Elohim (God) hath made that same Yeshua’ (Jesus) whom ye crucified both Yahweh (Lord) and Messiah (Christ). The Lord Jesus Christ is not part God and part Man. He is not part of God. He is fully, completely, and exclusively God in the Absolute sense, and also fully, completely, and absolutely Human in the Ultimate sense. In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. He is not a “second person” in the Godhead. There is no other God or “Divine Person” than He. Beside Him there is no Saviour. Acts 2:36; Colossians 2:8 - 10; et al.

It is fully as serious an error to detract from or deny His Perfect and Ultimate Humanity as it is to lessen or dilute His Absolute and Exclusive Deity. He is both fully Human and fully God. This is one factor of His Uniqueness and Incomparability. There is none like Him!

© 2000 Clifford H. Readout, Jr.

Click here to check out C.H. Readout at All Experts.com!