Again, quite a bit to address.....sorry I could not post this earlier. I have had a bereavement in the family.
Very sorry. Loss of someone in the family *must* be our priority at a time like this!
And yet you seem to think that there are two “gods”, one who is in a lesser form on earth, whilst the other remains in greater form in heaven.....where will I find that idea in the Bible? How does God make himself into two separate beings who talk to one another? How does one pray to the other but only one way?
Prayer in the Bible seems directed to God in the name of Jesus. So prayer involves recognition that Deity is in both Father and Son. Jesus is depicted as one who "forgives sin" in a way that only God can do. Jesus appears as sinless, unlike regular mankind, all of whom have sin. Jesus exercises control over nature, in a far more powerful way than the Prophets. In my view, Jesus is viewed as the source of our redemption, which is a divine thing.
The word "beings" has to do with the translation of Hebrew concepts into Greek/Roman philosophical language. That was an essential part of early evangelism, to explain Hebrew things in the language of Greek and Latin. In Hebrew, Messiah is portrayed as representative of God in the form of a man. In Greek/Roman language, there is concern, like you have, on how "two beings," as such, can represent a "single Being?"
Christendom actually embraces three gods, all of whom are supposedly equal.....so where is it stated that God can exist in different levels of existence whilst still maintaining his Sovereign position as "The Sovereign Lord" in heaven as the Creator of all things?
As I said, the Trinity doesn't exist on different levels or different planes. They are different revelations. The source of all 3 revelations is the infinite Word of God, which has the capacity to express God's personality in all 3 ways, as a Spirit in any geographical location, as a man in only one geographical location, and as a divine Being exceeding any geographical bearing. God can express His personality in all 3 of these ways without sacrificing Himself as the Source of all 3 revelations. What His Word reveals is God's Personality in all 3 of these different expressions.
Where is the third party? He is invariably missing when the other two are mentioned together. (John 17:3; 1 Cor 8:5-6)
Or it could be that the Supreme God has always dealt with the human race by means of his appointed representatives. The incidents mentioned in Genesis 18 tell us of three angels who visited Abraham and Sarah to inform them that a son would be born to Sarah in her old age......one of those angels was identified as “Jehovah”.....so who was this angel in human form who spoke as God, and who ate and drank with Abraham, and who stayed whist the other two went on to Sodom to rescue Lot and his family?
The very idea that God's Personality was expressed as this "3rd angel" indicates that God can express His Divine Personality on a finite level. It was a different revelation of God and yet consistent with His Personality, or who He was.
This marks God's identity being expressed in 2 distinct ways, one as the supreme Being before creation and the other as revealed in a finite angelic form, extending from eternity and into time. What extends from God in eternity into time and the finite world remains "of God," and the form this revelation takes can still be "God."
If God's Word still *is God,* even after it assumes for God a finite shape, then God assumes the form of at least 2 distinct beings without sacrificing His original infinite bearing. This material is quite "lofty," so perhaps we cannot go much farther?
If John tells us that “no one has seen God at any time” (John 1:18) then this was not “God”, but his representative (his Logos) in material form. Once the mission was completed these angels returned to the spirit realm.
But you are admitting that God existed at least "for a time" in the temporal realm, as an "angel!" If so, then God appeared as "two!" If He can do so for a while, then the fact is that He *can do so!*
When we are told that "nobody has seen God" I believe the context has to do with seeing Him *before Creation* as an *infinite Being.* This is not saying God cannot reveal His personality in a way people can see.
Clearly, we are told Moses saw at least part of God. And we are told that in some sense Abraham saw God. These things have to do with God's finite revelations about Himself that are accomplished by His powerful Word.
God can create a compressed image of Himself which nevertheless *is Him* in a lower way. It is a *lesser revelation* of God, as I said. A "theophany," for example, is a lesser revelation of God's personality.
So all through the Bible we see God communicating with humans through his appointed representatives....why would the Sovereign of the Universe need to take the form of one of his lower creatures to carry out tasks? He always used his servants in conjunction with his holy spirit to accomplish his will.
It's not a matter of God "needing" to do anything. It has to do with what God *wanted* to do! And Paul said He wanted Jesus to be "firstborn" among many brethren, ie brothers and sisters. God wanted to take His place "with men," as was always said in OT Scriptures.
Where did this word "theophanies" come from...? It came from "the church"....not scripture.
All foreign words come from outside Scripture, just as French does not come from English. However, English and French words can mean the same thing. A "theophany," as expressed in Hebrew words, as an angelic visitation from God, is still a "theophany." "Theophany" is just another way of expressing the same.
The Bible calls Jesus "the son of God"....never "God the Son"....so I believe that this idea was grafted in much later because the first Christians did not believe that Jesus was "God incarnate". That would have been a blasphemy of monumental proportions to them.
Jesus had to die as an innocent man, so no charge of blasphemy could ever stand against him. If you can point out where in any verse, Jesus confessed to being God incarnate, then I would like to see it.
I suppose that's your explanation. But I don't find the arrangement of the words to be the problem. For me, "God the Son" is the same as "the Son of God." It depends on how Jesus portrayed himself in connection with the great "I Am." It depends on how Jesus portrayed himself in light of his claim to be able to "forgive sins." Was he doing so, thinking he was God, or was he just doing it as any man would forgive another man? Was he saying he was THE Way, or was he saying he was A way?
No, it wasn't. Christianity stands alone in any culture because the culture has to yield to Christ's teachings....not the other way around.
You cannot combine pagan elements into Christ's teachings and expect them to remain pure.
It depends on what you mean by "pagan elements?" If what *used to be pagan* is now introduced into a Christian culture that is *no longer pagan* and has been *fully Christianized* then no--"pagan elements" do remain pure as long as they don't return to their pagan roots, meaning, and use.
