Dear Peter,
thank you very much for your reply and for your thoughtful notes. I am glad to hear from you and Theokrat how you affirm each other in personal terms. I hope it is ok for you both that I have come into your correspondence. Also, since I am not a native english speaker excuse my imperfect english at times.

I am not sure whether I have made myslef very well understood and I would like to respond to your reply passage by passage.

‘I agree that when we look back from at least a 3rd or 4th century onwards point of view, we begin to apply frameworks for discussion about the nature of Jesus which were not the ones used in the 1st century. Nevertheless, that does not invalidate them.’

I do agree with you here that every culture must answer the questions raised in teir own culture. so we today in the 21 st century (and that is what emerging church is all about, isn’t it?)have to do that, and therefore also the christians in the 3 rd and 4 th century. Maybe this is based on my rather protestant tradition as opposed to catholic and especially the conciliearen orthodox church which I by the way still highly value. Anyway, I do not consider church councils as of the same importance as the biblical texts. I do not suggest of what you have written that you are holding such a view ( I don’t know), but just that you know where I am coming from.

‘From a 1st century point of view, which I take to be largely the developed Jewish point of view as seen in people like Paul, there is, to my mind, overwhelming evidence for a Jesus who was part of the godhead. It’s just that the nature of the discussion is different from post-1st century definitions.’

In principle I do not disagree that Jesus is part of the Godhead. Going back to the term that Jesus repeatedly attributes to himself, son of God, implies that Jesus is from the ‘same essence’ if you want so, as his father. This is what this title intrinsically implies. It also implies, and this is where we might differ, that Jesus is not God himself, but his son. But therefore still divine. In my eyes this is very, very biblical.

‘Within that direction, Jesus was being described through the symbols of the language of Judaism, which were the same symbols and language that had previously been used of YHWH’

I agree with you here that Jesus in the new testament sometimes takes the place of YHWH of the Old Testament. Im my mind this is due the very close relationship of the divine son and his father. they are so, so close. both are divine and are prayed to. However, common trinitarian thinking (i say ‘common trinitarian’, since I also consider myslef as being a trinitarian - but more to that maybe later)doesn’t help this line of thought either since as commonly suggested with YHWH in the OT God the father was ment and since ‘God the son’ is not the same person within the Godhead the interchange of persons in the Godhead doesn’t work either.

’ I would point again to the passages which have already been used on this thread - such as John 8; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Philippians 2:6-11; Colossians 1:15-20, and also to evidence within the gospels themselves - other than John 8.’

it is hard for me to give a general answer to all of this references; this is why I would like to go throght them step by step.

John 8 - I am not sure what of John 8 supports your view. Maybe you can be more specific. But here are some remarks to John 8. in John 8,17 and 18 Jesus says the testimony (according to the Jew’s law) of ‘two men’ are sufficient. And then Jesus points out that since there is the testimony of the Father and of his are two (not one!) this law is ‘fullfilled’. so Jesus sees himself and the father as being two entities, not one.
Further, John 8,29 is very remarkable. the reason given why God the Father is with Jesus (which in itself is another indication that the two are not equal) is ‘for I always do the things that are pleasing to him’ does not very much support common trinitarian understanding. the reason why God the Father is with Jesus should be much more something like because Jesus is intrinsicially God and therefore God is with him, and not because Jesus is obidient to God.
John 8,54 is very difficult to explain if you hold common trinitarian views. that Jesus does not want to take glory but that the glory should only go to God or the father shows that he places himself outside of ‘the one and only’ God. If Jesus is God, why should it be invalid if he glorified himself? this only makes sense if he isn’t ‘the God’.
with the last verses that Jesus was before Abraham, I do not have a problem with. That the son of God pre existed I do not question.
Now to 1. Corinthians 8,6 I couldn’t say it better: there is one God which is the Father and there is our Lord Jesus Christ different to the one God. I don’t know how more clear my point could be expressed than in this verse! And it says here that Jesus is the means which God created things. I honestly don’t know where trinitarian thoughts could be found in this.
Now to Philippians 2, 6 to 11. I honestly want to say that those verses are the strongest I can find to support trinitarian views. However let me try to explain how those verses I understand (and this is only a try)and if Theokrat is back from his trip outside the country I would appreciate his input into this… . if equality with God is something that Jesus doesn’t want something to be grasped; in other words he wants to share this privilege with others (does the greek text allow this interpretation - or better suggest it; who can help? maybe you, Peter?)than it is something that persons that are not God can share. In more direct words: Jesus invites humans to be a little bit like him. To become like Christ. To become brother and sister of Christ. To become sons and daughters of God. Which actually happened as a result of Jesus incarnation and witnessed throughout the NT. Still - Chist is the ‘only begotten Son’ (John 3,16) of God. non of his brothers and sisters can reach that (just in case you suggest that I think every ordinary person can become essentially like Christ - no!). Those verses for me show that Chist went down to earth to share something (even though not his essence as being the only begotten son of God since there can be only one firstborn son of God) with mankind that was former something that the son shared with the father only. Does all this make sense? I hope. If not then please know that I am very open for correction or comments.
Now to Colossians 1, 15-20. Since this is a long text I am pasting it in this comment and comment it along the way. Comments are in ALL CABS:
‘15 He is the image of the invisible God, THE IMAGE OF SOMETHING IS GENERALLY NOT EQUAL WITH THE SOURCE ITSELF the firstborn of all creation.THIS EXPLAINS WHY HE CAN BE THE CREATOR AND THE MEANS OF CREATION BUT NOT THE ULTIMAT CREATOR HIMSELF, SINCE GOD CREATED ‘THROUGH’ HIM 16 For by [1] him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. SEE PRESEDING COMMENT 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,IF JESUS WAS THE GOD HIMSELF, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO STRESS THAT THE FULLNESS OF GOD WAS IN HIM. THAT WOULD GO WITHOUT SAYING. IT ONLY SHOWS THAT THE FULLNESS OF GOD IS GIVEN TO HIM - FROM GOD 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.JESUS IS THE MEANS BY WHICH GOD RECONSILES ALL THINGS WITH GOD. ANOTHER CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN GOD AND JESUS.

The references in Hebrews 1 simply set out the position for a divine Jesus; the subsequent chapters are pursuing in detail the ministry of Jesus.
with Hebrews 1 I will comment again like above.

1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things,IF JESUS WAS GOD HOW WOULD IT MAKE SENSE THAT HE APPONTS HIMSELF? through whom also he created the world. WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS ABOVE 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature,AGAIN - THIS PICTURE OF THE IMRINT SHOULD LEAVE NO DOUBT THAT JESUS IS NOT GOD HIMSELF. THE PICTURE HERE ARE LIKE FOOTPRINT IN SAND - THE FOOTRPINT - OR IMPRINT- IS NOT THE FOOT OR THE PERSON ITSELF and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.IN MANY PARTS OF THE BIBLE IT IS STRESSED THAT JESUS IS GIVEN POWER FROM GOD. IT IS HIS POWER FROM GOD. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,MEANING HE IS NOT THE MAJESTY ON HIGH, BUT SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF IT 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.IF JESUS WAS GOD ( AS I MENTIONED IN MY LAST POST) WHIY SHOULD HE BE COMPARED TO ANGELS TO MAKE A POINT IN SHOWING HE IS ‘EVEN’ SUPERIOR TO THEM? IT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO SAY THAT HE WAS GOD. THIS APPLIES TO MANY OF THE FOLLOWING VERSES AS WELL.

5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son,
today I have begotten you”?

Or again,

“I will be to him a father,
and he shall be to me a son”?

6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

7 Of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels winds,
and his ministers a flame of fire.”

8 But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, PETER, WHAT YOU DO WITH THIS LAST VERSE. IF JESUS IS GOD, HOW CAN THERE BE ANOTHER GOD OVER HIM?

10 And,

“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12 like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed. [1]
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”

13 And to which of the angels has he ever said,

“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER ALL ENEMIES ARE A ‘TOOTSTOOL TO HIS FEET’? THIS IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION. I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT BUT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO GET MORE IMPUT HERE.

14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?

‘Even in the NT there is an incipient trinitarianism in some of the formulations - eg Matthew 28:19, THIS VERSE REMINDS ME OF THE APOSTOLIC CREED. THIS IS ACTUALLY A CREDD THAT ALL CHURCHES ( AND HERE i INCLUDE THE ARIANS) HAVE IN COMMON. IT WAS A 2 ND CENTURY CREED) TO MENTION THE FATHER, THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT IN ONE PHRASE I LIKE VERY MUCH AND IS VERY BIBLICAL. UNFORTUNATELY THINGS CHANGED IN THE 3 RD AND 4 TH CENTURY 1 Corinthians 12:4-6,THIS IS INTERESTING. IF THIS SHOULD BE TAKEN TRINITARIEN, WHY DOESN’T IT SAY :SPIRIT, SON AND FATHER? SINCE IT SAYS ‘SPIRIT, SON AND GOD’, DOESN’T THIS IMPLY THAT THE FIRST TWO MENTIONED AREN’T GOD AND THEREFORE WORKS AGAINST COMMON TRINITARIAN BELIEFS? 2 Corinthians 13:14,THE SAME APPLIES TO THIS VERSE: ITS ABOUT JESUS, gOD AND THE SPIRIT. IF THERE IS GOD THE FATHER, GOD THE SON AND GOD THE SPIRIT, WHY IS THERE NO REFERENCE IN THE BIBLE THAT WOULD SAY FOR EXAMPLE :IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, OF GOD AND THE HOLY SPIRIT?, OR IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, THE SON AND GOD? OR : IN THE NAME OF THE SPIRIT, THE FATHER AND GOD? WHY IS ALWAYS IN THIS KIND OF FORMULATIONS THE FATHER = EQUAL WITH GOD? DOESN’T THIS MEAN SOMETHING? Ephesians 4:4-6, SEE COMMENT BEFORE. 1 Peter 1:2. SEE COMMENT BEFORE

‘Without a divine Jesus, there can be no outpouring of the divine Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and no people of God experiencing what is basic to the new covenant: the universal and continuous indwelling life of the Spirit. A mere man elevated to the heavens has no authority to dispense this divine gift.’

I agree with you and I do not deny a devine Jesus.

And back-tracking from this: without a divine Jesus, the significance of the crucifixion is lost. We are left with an angry God seeking retribution, and taking it out on an innocent person. (Except, as Paul makes clear in Romans, there are no innocent people born of Adam).

As I said before - I also believe in a devine Jesus even though I disagree with you with what you said here but on other terms. I do not believe the Bible supports the view that a sacrifice by Jesus was beeded in order to calm down his angryness. if God is God he can forgive freely (how would the parable of the lost son would make sense in the light of Jesus before his cruxifiction if God needed the killing of his own son to forgive sins?) there is much to say here but maybe we should start a new post for that - i would like to.

‘Much as your intervention is attractive, it won’t work without undercutting issues basic to the Christian faith.’
which basic christian issues are undercut?

‘This does not mean that Theocrat and I cannot respect each other, and listen to each other’s viewpoint. I have to say that Theocrat comes across as a highly gracious and courteous person, and his scholarship is in a league beyond mine. There is a refreshing humility in his approach. It has already been a pleasure to spend time in his company - more of a pleasure than with some people who hold the same views as myself. I sometimes wonder if the difference between us more one of the use of words than reality, but I haven’t got to that point yet.’
this is very nice!

thank you for your time! thank you for letting me be part of this conversation!
 paulchen