In article <384be833.250089058@news.midtown.net>,
  keithk@midtown.net wrote:

> The doctrine of the United Pentecostal Church affirms Jesus Christ
> is eternal but at the same time they deny the Son of God is eternal.
> If the Son of God is not eternal, that means the Son of God can only
> be temporal. The problem is, it is impossible for something eternal
> to be something temporal, and it is also impossible for something
> temporal to be something eternal. This being the case, the UPC is
> alleging Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, and the Son of God is
> not Jesus Christ. What is wrong with this picture?
>
> Sincerely, Keith K
 
 
 
 
 

To which QBaal Replies
 

It may be that the reality of the Christ event is more mundane
than the 4 gospels and classsical Church doctrine have maintained.
 For 2000 years.

  Year 2000 would be a good time for the church 1) to rejoice in
the Christ's Church having lived into the third millennium.  And, 2)
to pare back some of the hocus pocus affirmations of Christian theology.
Believe me, Jesus of Nazareth will look all the better for the paring.
And not be any less loved for it.
 

  As Rober Funk of  Jesus Seminar fame maintains, Jesus is asking
for, and very desirous, and merits a severe downgrading from the
exalted titles imposed on him by authors of Mark, Luke John and
whoever composed the Nicean Creed.
 

  First, look at Jesus as a man.  Actually, a Palestinian peasant.  A  marginal
Jew.  And regard him more as your reference for what God is like in terms
of personality, attitude (toward the poor and oppressed) and future
expectations for God's Kingdom and the future of the human race.
And then, like Bishop John Spong, emphasize the giving of the Spirit
which propelled Jesus (traditionally at his baptism) onto the stage
of history.  Despite his escatological trimmings Jesus was astute
enough to realize God's rule is here and now.  And not in year 134,
3000...  Opening line in Mark "Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand)."
Now!

Jesus probably realized he was the embodiment of  Old Testament
writings  yearning for God's saving Agent on earth.  The
Agent was called Son of God, Messiah, etc.  The Christians
certainly  identified Jesus with the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. 
 

Anyway, Jesus thought  the exalted titles pointed to the reality of
God acting deciscively in history throught him to save and direct
believers.  Still, he could not buy completely into  titles such as
Messiah, Son of God and maybe Son of Man.  At least not as certain passages
in the Old Testament portrayed him. The Psalm 2 messiah was definitely
too nationalistic and a warrior king for Jesus!
 

Son of Man probably avoided the Jesus nationalistic connotations of Messiah
and Son of God.  So Jesus  often referred to himself as Son of Man
to avoid run-in with Romans or even Jewish authorities. Obviously,
he not successful at that and was nailed to a cross, probably as another
Jesus messianic (rymes with fanatic) seeking to undermine Roman authority
in Palestine.
 

So take Jesus as God or as Son of God with some critical savvy.
Titles are dime a dozen. What counts is the reality of Jesus of Nazareth.
I mean what's important is his teaching, healings, deeds which were
100% married to his words.  And how, in good and bad times, he
remained tremendously focused not on himself but God.
 

Well, we should understand that the common people have almost baldly
equated Jesus with God.  So have some preachers.  Even today.  But we
should not worship Jesus. Rather worship and obey God, through Jesus
Christ or in the name of Jesus Christ.  Just as Jesus told  us to.  The
same Jesus who so identified with God and the Kingdom of God he
become an icon representing God.