SC, Western Cape
I trust you are well. Are u able to give a response for this reply to the “Who came in the flesh” post on your website?
To base this doctrine on seven different Scripture is not enough for me.
These passages need to be interpreted within the context of the authors audience and the intent in which he writes the letter.
Also, what needs attention is the source which you are basing this doctrine on . Is it a reliable source. It seems its not one of the well known theologians We are exposed too so . We need to question their theology views holistically.
Also, your Jewish referencing indicates your theological preference. Hermeneutically We need to try to subdue our own preference and allow God to interpret the text by using more than one source but multiple views so We rely on God for illuminating our minds.
Also, have to review the original text for those 7 passages. Don’t forget about John chapter 1 – the word was God and Jesus is the word which became flesh.
Jewish literature denies Jesus being God because they deny Him as the Messiah. Remember Jesus is our King, they crucified their King, they don’t want that guilt, so they construct theology around their beliefs – their own systematic theology.
Would like to chat about this further.
Maybe make it an apologetic discussion.
Just a brief response:
My article was not intended to state or to formulate a doctrine. It was intended to be a critical and Scriptural verifiable look at one claim that is often quoted or stipulated within the context of the trinity doctrine. This claim is that Y’shua (or Jesus) is or was Yahweh (God) who came in the flesh. The fact is that not once does Scriptures clearly state that Yahweh came in the flesh. On the other side of the coin we have at least 8 clear statements that Y’shua came in the flesh. For this reason alone (there are many other reasons, too) my suggestion was that we needed to take a new and honest look at what Scriptures are really saying about Y’shua and Yahweh, keeping in mind that the writers of Scriptures came from a Hebrew (not a Greek or Westernized or even a modern-day Jewish!) background and that it was quite likely that the Hebrew way of thinking may have reflected in some of their writings. I am not defending Jewish literature or the views presented within those writings. Like many respected theologians today, I just think that it would be wise to try to understand the Hebrew mindset in the process of trying to find out exactly what certain passages in Scriptures are saying. There is a tendency among the defenders of the trinity doctrine to pick one possible interpretation of the rather difficult passage of John 1 and make this interpretation to override other possible interpretations and, more importantly, also override several other passages in Scriptures (like the ones that I have highlighted in my article) in order to “proof the correctness” of the trinity doctrine. All of this happens while, for a very long time now, scores of respected theologians (even within the mainstream Christian arena) have warned that the trinity doctrine cannot truly be proven from Scriptures and that it is furthermore flawed with foreign and philosophical influences that were typical of the third and fourth century, when this doctrine was formulated for the first time. I do not wish to be named among the theologians that the leaders of Christian churches are exposed to. My only wish is for honest believers to be bold enough to approach Scripture without any preconceived doctrines that may blur their vision and may keep them from discovering the depths and the beauty of Scriptures. May Yahweh help us all to see more clearly and follow more truthfully!