Is the Father the Son? [Archive] - Apostolic Friends Forum

mizpeh

09-08-2007, 01:11 AM

According to the Oneness doctrine Jesus is the Father. Is this true in reverse? Is the Father also the Son?

The Oneness doctrine teaches there is one God who manifests himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These titles are used to show relationship, attributes, work, and substance.

God's manifestation as Father is revealed in the Bible as Father of creation, Father of the Son, and Father of those who are born again of the Spirit. The word, Father, implies a relationship.

God's manifestation as the Son is God is his revelation of himself in flesh, not an indwelling but a true man, who died for our sins. He is the only begotten Son of God because of a supernatural conception of the Holy Spirit.

God in his manifestation as Spirit is not only speaking to his nature but the active interaction of God with his creation.

When you say the Son is the Father, you are misapplying these descriptive terms. The Son refers to God in his mode as man. The Father refers to God in his mode as Spirit.

Isaiah 9:6 declares the Son shall be called the everlasting Father, the mighty God. I have no problem saying the Son is the Father manifest in the flesh. or the same God who is called the Father is also called the Son yet in a different mode of existence.

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 10:05 AM

Jesus identified the Father as a Spirit in John 4:23-24. When you think of the Father, you should think of the eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent Spirit.

The angel identified the Son as "that holy thing which was born of Mary" (Luke 1:35). Thus, the Son was the humanity which was born of Mary.

The Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father. However, Jesus is both Father and Son.

Your spirit is not your flesh, nor is your flesh your spirit. However, you are not two persons.

I hope this helps.

Believer

09-08-2007, 01:45 PM

Little bit of a confusion....Oneness doctrine does NOT say the Son is the Father...the reverse of that would be is the Father also the Son.

Actually the confuse is coming from you. I said that Oneness say that Jesus is the Father. According to scripture Jesus is the Son of God. Oneness say that Jesus is also the Father. So, is the Father also the Son?

Believer

09-08-2007, 01:46 PM

Believer

09-08-2007, 01:49 PM

Isaiah 9:6 declares the Son shall be called the everlasting Father, the mighty God. I have no problem saying the Son is the Father manifest in the flesh. or the same God who is called the Father is also called the Son yet in a different mode of existence.

And if we take Isa. 9:6, according to your translation, it says that the Son is the Father. This statement has already has been rejected by a Oneness pastor in this thread already. So, according to you and the verse you posted... is the Son the Father?

Praxeas

09-08-2007, 01:55 PM

Actually the confuse is coming from you. I said that Oneness say that Jesus is the Father. According to scripture Jesus is the Son of God. Oneness say that Jesus is also the Father. So, is the Father also the Son?
No, it was your question. It's like me asking you why you believe in three gods knowing that you don't. You said "Oneness say Jesus is the Father" then you said the converse of that is, "is the Father the Son?".

You say you used to be Oneness, then you should know that OPs do NOT equate Father with Son.

So then your question might be more along the lines of explaining that.

From my perspective when OPs say "Jesus is the Father" they mean the "person" who is the Son is also the person that is the Father. The DISTINTION that exists between Father and Son is not one of Hypostasis, but rather of nature and existentially. HOW the Son exists is different than the Father because of the Human nature. HOW the Son thinks is different because of the human nature (mind, will, psyche)

In other words they would say Jesus (the person) is both Father and Son in two distinct modes of being or manifestations or forms or whatever term one uses.

When they say "Jesus is the Father" they are NOT saying "The son is the Father"...and as I said you were once oneness so you should know that (in fact from all the dialog at CARM and other places you should know that)...

So the question is a little confusing and perhaps needs to be rephrased that's all. :hypercoffee

Praxeas

09-08-2007, 01:59 PM

If the Father isn't the Son, then you have two "persons." You have the Father and the Son, and neither is the other.

You're right, my spirit is not my flesh, but my spirit and my flesh is one person...ME.

If I said "then the dodge isn't the chevy, so you must have two persons" would you agree? What you are doing is using your own theology to define ours. We woudl say the Father isn't the Son in nature when it comes to the Human nature OF the Son and existentially, when it comes to HOW the Son exists or the mode or manner of His being. And also we would say the Father is NOT the Son in will, mind and or phsyche. But in "person" or as the creed uses, the hypostasis, Father and Son are the same.

Then again in person, as the greek word puts it, the prosopon, Father and Son are NOT the same.

Hypostatically they are the same
Psychologically they are not.
Father is the same Person in relation and being through the Divine nature and essence and Son is that person functioning and existing in relation to God and man through the Human nature exclusively (because of the Kenosis)

Praxeas

09-08-2007, 02:06 PM

And if we take Isa. 9:6, according to your translation, it says that the Son is the Father. This statement has already has been rejected by a Oneness pastor in this thread already. So, according to you and the verse you posted... is the Son the Father?
It's been rejected to mean there is no distinction at all between Father and Son. However it has not been rejected to mean that both Father and Son are the same Ego Eimi or the Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh...the single "WHO or He" that Trinitarians often say "God Himself is revealed in three persons"...just that when we say God Himself we really mean Himself...one individual Person who is the I AM and who has always existed exclusively as God in nature. At the incarnation He began to exist similtaneously as the man Christ Jesus with all the human qualities.

I would agree with you though that most OPs have not throught this through when quoting this verse because without explanation it would seem to the Trinitarian they are saying Father is the Son with no distinctions whatsoever.

To the trinitarian though it often seems to us, the ONLY distinction that exists is person. We deny that notion that there are other things that we should look at that not only makes them distinct from one another but also makes they FUNCTIONALLY different to the point that on a pyschological level there are two persons, but not on a hypostatic level.

Father and Son ontologically share the same Divine nature/essence but the Son, on an ontological level includes the Humanity. The humanity is limited to only that sphere of being we call "The man Christ Jesus" while ontologically and hypostatically the Father continues to exist and function as He always has been external to the Son and external to the temporal world.

Now, if anyone did not have a clue what I just said...perhaps I'll try to get to it later. I have a wedding to get ready for. later

Believer

09-08-2007, 02:08 PM

No, it was your question. It's like me asking you why you believe in three gods knowing that you don't. You said "Oneness say Jesus is the Father" then you said the converse of that is, "is the Father the Son?".

You say you used to be Oneness, then you should know that OPs do NOT equate Father with Son.

So then your question might be more along the lines of explaining that.

From my perspective when OPs say "Jesus is the Father" they mean the "person" who is the Son is also the person that is the Father. The DISTINTION that exists between Father and Son is not one of Hypostasis, but rather of nature and existentially. HOW the Son exists is different than the Father because of the Human nature. HOW the Son thinks is different because of the human nature (mind, will, psyche)

In other words they would say Jesus (the person) is both Father and Son in two distinct modes of being or manifestations or forms or whatever term one uses.

When they say "Jesus is the Father" they are NOT saying "The son is the Father"...and as I said you were once oneness so you should know that (in fact from all the dialog at CARM and other places you should know that)...

So the question is a little confusing and perhaps needs to be rephrased that's all. :hypercoffee

The question was written in the simplest way possible.

Here is the question again.. pay close attention to what I asked:

According to the Oneness doctrine Jesus is the Father. Is this true in reverse? Is the Father also the Son?

Please noticed that I worded it....according to the Oneness doctrine Jesus is the Father.

Jesus is the Son of God. Do you agree or disagree?

If Jesus is the Son, and you also claim that He is the Father, then is the Father the Son? Very simple and straight forward question.

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 03:01 PM

If the Father isn't the Son, then you have two "persons." You have the Father and the Son, and neither is the other.

You're right, my spirit is not my flesh, but my spirit and my flesh is one person...ME.

That's my point -- while there is a difference between the Father (Divinity) and the Son (Humanity), together there is still only ONE PERSON.

A "Spirit" is not a person. The Father is not a person.

The Father (Divinity) indwelt the Son (Humanity), making one person -- "God was IN Christ, reconciling the world to HIMSELF."

Believer

09-08-2007, 03:21 PM

That's my point -- while there is a difference between the Father (Divinity) and the Son (Humanity), together there is still only ONE PERSON.

If the Father is NOT the Son, then the Father is not the same Person as the Son. The Son prays, eats, sleeps, laughs, talks. If this isn't the Father, then you have more than one "person." And, according to John, the Word (who is God) became flesh, He didn't simply indwell the flesh.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Please notice it doesn't say the Word indwelled, but actually became flesh and dwelt among us.

A "Spirit" is not a person. The Father is not a person.

The Father (Divinity) indwelt the Son (Humanity), making one person -- "God was IN Christ, reconciling the world to HIMSELF."

What we mean when we say "person"

What are the qualities and attributes of being a person?

A person exists and has identity.
A person is aware of his own existence and identity.
This precludes the condition of being unconscious.
A self aware person will use such a statement as "I am", "me", "mine", etc.
A person can recognize the existence of other persons.
This is true provided there were other persons around him or her.
Such recognition would include the use of such statements as "you are", "you", "yours", etc.
A person possesses a will.
A will is the capability of conscious choice, decision, intention, desire, and or purpose.
A single person cannot have two separate and distinct wills at the same time on the exact same subject.
Regarding the exact same subject, a person can desire/will one thing at one moment and another at a different moment.
Separate and simultaneous wills imply separate and simultaneous persons.
A person has the ability to communicate -- under normal conditions.
Persons do not need to have bodies.
God the Father possesses personhood without a body, as do the angels.
Biblically speaking, upon death we are "absent from the body and home with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8).
God qualifies as having personhood in that He exists, is self aware, has identity, uses terms such as "Me", "I AM", "My", and possesses a will.
The question now becomes whether or not there is more than one "person" in the Godhead.

http://www.carm.org/oneness/3persons.htm

Believer

09-08-2007, 03:24 PM

That's my point -- while there is a difference between the Father (Divinity) and the Son (Humanity), together there is still only ONE PERSON.

A "Spirit" is not a person. The Father is not a person.

The Father (Divinity) indwelt the Son (Humanity), making one person -- "God was IN Christ, reconciling the world to HIMSELF."

But your flesh doesn't LOVE your spirit and talk to it. You flesh never tells your spirit to glory it with the glory it had with it before the world was. Basically your flesh and your spirit don't have a loving relationship with each other. And your spirit never sent your flesh into the world!

BobDylan

09-08-2007, 04:16 PM

But your flesh doesn't LOVE your spirit and talk to it. You flesh never tells your spirit to glory it with the glory it had with it before the world was. Basically your flesh and your spirit don't have a loving relationship with each other. And your spirit never sent your flesh into the world!

You are appealing to a conversation that took place between "father and son" while the incarnate Christ walked on the earth. There is no evidence scripturally that after the ascention, that any further conversation takes place. If you have conversation between two distince "persons" in heaven, then you effective have two Gods... and then if there are conversations between three persons.... then there are three Gods.

By the way, the doctrine of the trinity suggest that the "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all coeterna, coequal, and coexistant persons"...

If the "son" is equal with the father, then why did the son say "my father is greater than I"? Were they coequal, or was one indeed greater than the other?

BobDylan

09-08-2007, 04:18 PM

Felicity

09-08-2007, 04:23 PM

Jesus said,

"I and My Father are One."

Simple as that. Isn't it? ;) :)

Believer

09-08-2007, 04:30 PM

Jesus said,

"I and My Father are One."

Simple as that. Isn't it? ;) :)

One what? The word used here is not masculine, its neuter. So Jesus isn’t saying one person. If Jesus wanted to say one Person, he would have used the word heis, which is masculine.

RWP: Joh 10:30 -
One (hen). Neuter, not masculine (heis). Not one person (cf. heis in Gal_3:28), but one essence or nature.

Gill: Joh 10:30 - I and my Father are one. Not in person, for the Father must be a distinct person from the Son, and the Son a distinct person from the Father; and which is further manifest, from the use of the verb plural, "I and my Father", εσμεν, "we are one"; that is, in nature and essence,

Barnes: Joh 10:30 -
I and my Father are one - The word translated “one” is not in the masculine, but in the neuter gender. It expresses union, but not the precise nature of the union.

VWS: Joh 10:30 -
One (ἕν)
The neuter, not the masculine εἶς, one person. It implies unity of essence, not merely of will or of power.

Believer

09-08-2007, 04:33 PM

If a "person" has a unique "identiy", as you suggest here, then there are three unique identies in heaven. This equates to three individuals... tritheism.

Strawman alert!!! :sos

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 04:34 PM

Same God ,different manifestation.I understand there is but one God ,but God is plural in attributes not in being.

Felicity

09-08-2007, 04:36 PM

One what? The word used here is not masculine, its neuter. So Jesus isn’t saying one person. If Jesus wanted to say one Person, he would have used the word heis, which is masculine.

RWP: Joh 10:30 -
One (hen). Neuter, not masculine (heis). Not one person (cf. heis in Gal_3:28), but one essence or nature.

Gill: Joh 10:30 - I and my Father are one. Not in person, for the Father must be a distinct person from the Son, and the Son a distinct person from the Father; and which is further manifest, from the use of the verb plural, "I and my Father", εσμεν, "we are one"; that is, in nature and essence,

Barnes: Joh 10:30 -
I and my Father are one - The word translated “one” is not in the masculine, but in the neuter gender. It expresses union, but not the precise nature of the union.

VWS: Joh 10:30 -
One (ἕν)
The neuter, not the masculine εἶς, one person. It implies unity of essence, not merely of will or of power.Doesn't unity of essence kind of say it all? I mean the Father is God and Jesus is God manifest in the flesh.

I think so much of these arguments re the Godhead are semantics. Not totally of course but to a certain extent.

The fact is we will see how many .... WHO .... in heaven?

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 04:40 PM

We will see One ,like John who saw One that sitteth on the throne.
I can't swallow the eternal sonship doctrine that classical Trinitarism teaches.

Believer

09-08-2007, 04:42 PM

You are appealing to a conversation that took place between "father and son" while the incarnate Christ walked on the earth. There is no evidence scripturally that after the ascention, that any further conversation takes place. If you have conversation between two distince "persons" in heaven, then you effective have two Gods... and then if there are conversations between three persons.... then there are three Gods.

By the way, the doctrine of the trinity suggest that the "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all coeterna, coequal, and coexistant persons"...

If the "son" is equal with the father, then why did the son say "my father is greater than I"? Were they coequal, or was one indeed greater than the other?

No evidence? Do you take scripture for what it says?

Rev 3:5 'He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

Who is Jesus going to confess the believers name to? Lets remember, Jesus return to the Father.

Joh 13:3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God,

Where did Jesus come from and where is He going back to? Its in plain English for us all to read. I'm not trying to trick you into believe anything but what is written.

Rev 3:21 'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

Again, believe what you want, but to me (not promoting any doctrine, just pointing out simple scripture) this clearly says that Jesus went back to God (his Father) and is now sitting with His Father on His Father's throne.

Whose throne is Jesus sitting on and who with?

The Son can say that the Father is greater than I because Jesus was in His humanity, He willing came to die on the cross! This is not speaking of deity, but position.

Believer

09-08-2007, 04:43 PM

We will see One ,like John who saw One that sitteth on the throne.
I can't swallow the eternal sonship doctrine that classical Trinitarism teaches.

He also saw one standing between the throne, the Lamb of God. Who was this? And the Son sat down with His Father on HIs Fathers throne.

Rev 3:21 'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

You do understand that eternal life is in the Son right? No eternal Son, no eternal life. I believe the Son to be eternal myself

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 04:44 PM

If Jesus wanted to say one Person, he would have used the word heis, which is masculine.

While we are discussing what Jesus did and did not say, please explain why Jesus did not say in John 4:24, "God is three persons." Instead, He said, "God is a Spirit." Had He identified God as "three persons," He would forever have settled the issue.

On another note, I would like an answer to the following question: "Who is your God?" Is He "the Trinity"? Is He "the Father"?

Who is "God"?

Felicity

09-08-2007, 04:45 PM

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 04:49 PM

Believer do you believe that Christ existed as the Son of God before His virgin birth ? Can you reconcile GAL.4:4 with that ?

Believer

09-08-2007, 04:50 PM

While we are discussing what Jesus did and did not say, please explain why Jesus did not say in John 4:24, "God is three persons." Instead, He said, "God is a Spirit."

On another note, I would like an answer to the following question: "Who is your God?" Is He "the Trinity"? Is He "the Father"?

Who is "God"?

The actual Greek is "God is Spirit." Because God is Spirit we are to worship God in spirit and truth. This verse is not telling us that God is one "person." All Trinitarians agree with this verse.

Well, we know the Father is God. We know that the Son is God, and we know that the Holy Spirit is God. According to scripture Jesus never claimed to be the Father, nor the Holy Spirit. The Father wasn't sent so He isn’t the Son. The Holy Spirit was sent by the Father and the Son, so Jesus and the Father are not the Holy Spirit.

My question to you is, is the Son God?

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 04:54 PM

The actual Greek is "God is Spirit." Because God is Spirit we are to worship God in spirit and truth. This verse is not telling us that God is one "person." All Trinitarians agree with this verse.

Well, we know the Father is God. We know that the Son is God, and we know that the Holy Spirit is God. According to scripture Jesus never claimed to be the Father, nor the Holy Spirit. The Father wasn't sent so He isn’t the Son. The Holy Spirit was sent by the Father and the Son, so Jesus and the Father are not the Holy Spirit.

My question to you is, is the Son God?
You were responding before I was able to edit my post. Accordingly, I will say again what I later inserted: Had Jesus said, "God is three persons," He would have forever settled the issue. However He did not. Rather, He identified God as "Spirit."

You didn't really answer my question as to Who "God" is. You sidestepped it, so I will ask again. When you read the term "God" in the scripture, to Whom does that refer? It is a "floating" term that should be indiscriminately applied to whichever person of the Godhead you believe is being discussed? Or, is there a definite, conclusive answer to the question. I ask again, WHO IS "GOD"?

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 04:55 PM

My question to you is, is the Son God?

He Who was was the Son was God.

There, I answered your question. Now, please answer mine.

Believer

09-08-2007, 04:57 PM

Believer do you believe that Christ existed as the Son of God before His virgin birth ? Can you reconcile GAL.4:4 with that ?

Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,

two things to look at.

1. The Son was sent forth before He was born of a woman. Simple context observation.
2. The word sent forth means being sent from a place, thus proves he preexisted before his incarnation. Its not the same word used in John 1:6 as David Bernard tries to use.

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 05:00 PM

Well in the virgin birth did not God manifest Himself in human flesh?

SDG

09-08-2007, 05:01 PM

He Who was was the Son was God.

There, I answered your question. Now, please answer mine.

Was God?

Cant this be said about each manifestation, mode or person ... depending on your semantics ... of the Godhead?

Believer

09-08-2007, 05:02 PM

You were responding before I was able to edit my post. Accordingly, I will say again what I later inserted: Had Jesus said, "God is three persons," He would have forever settled the issue. However He did not. Rather, He identified God as "Spirit."

You didn't really answer my question as to Who "God" is. You sidestepped it, so I will ask again. When you read the term "God" in the scripture, to Whom does that refer? It is a "floating" term that should be indiscriminately applied to whichever person of the Godhead you believe is being discussed? Or, is there a definite, conclusive answer to the question. I ask again, WHO IS "GOD"?

The scripture wasn’t meant to prove or disprove that God is triune. It simply states that God is Spirit.

God is "I AM." God is LORD. God is YHWH. God is God.

Isa 48:12 "Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.
Isa 48:13 "Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together.

Isa 48:16 "Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit."

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 05:04 PM

Was God?

Cant this be said about each manifestation, mode or person ... depending on your semantics ... of the Godhead?

I'm doing too many things at one time. You can't believe how many times I went back and edited that post.

Let me try again,

He who IS the Son IS God!

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 05:04 PM

The scripture wasn’t meant to prove or disprove that God is triune. It simply states that God is Spirit.

God is "I AM." God is LORD. God is YHWH. God is God.

Isa 48:12 "Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.
Isa 48:13 "Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together.

Isa 48:16 "Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit."

In other words, you won't answer. Oh, well, I tried.

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 05:05 PM

Believer you'll really good at making us prove what we believe.
You're proably one of those guys that knows both sides of a argument that could debate himself.

Believer

09-08-2007, 05:06 PM

Well in the virgin birth did not God manifest Himself in human flesh?

The Word BECAME flesh, the Word is God, and He was with God. My question to you. Who was manifested?

1Jo 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

If the Son of God didn't exist before his incarnation, then He couldn't be the one that was manifested.

Believer

09-08-2007, 05:07 PM

Believer you'll really good at making us prove what we believe.
You're proably one of those guys that knows both sides of a argument that could debate himself.

yes, I was Oneness for many years. Please understand, I'm not here to change you. I don't question your salvation. That isn't my place. I just like to talk and discuss. Its fun for me!

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 05:07 PM

God is "I AM." God is LORD. God is YHWH. God is God.

Let me take this answer and see how you apply it to the scripture. If your definition of the identity of God is "I AM," then we should be able to substitute that in passages which mention "God" without problems.

Let's try John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with I AM and the Word was I AM."

Verse 14, "And the Word (I AM) was made flesh ..."

I've got no problem with that, but I have an idea that you might.

SDG

09-08-2007, 05:07 PM

In other words, you won't answer. Oh, well, I tried.

How is that any different KP from your answer ... He said the I Am ... you said he who is ...

If he wants he could answer you w/ your own words:

He who IS the Father IS God!
He who IS the Son IS God!
He who IS the Holy Spirit IS God!

Believer

09-08-2007, 05:07 PM

In other words, you won't answer. Oh, well, I tried.

I did answer...lol

Believer

09-08-2007, 05:10 PM

I'm doing too many things at one time. You can't believe how many times I went back and edited that post.

Let me try again,

He who IS the Son IS God!

The Son is Jesus Christ.

Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

pretty clear who Jesus is.
Jesus never once claimed to be anyone other than the Son of God.

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 05:10 PM

SDG

09-08-2007, 05:10 PM

Let me take this answer and see how you apply it to the scripture. If your definition of the identity of God is "I AM," then we should be able to substitute that in passages which mention "God" without problems.

Let's try John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with I AM and the Word was I AM."

Verse 14, "And the Word (I AM) was made flesh ..."

I've got no problem with that, but I have an idea that you might.

Red alert ....

IF THE SON IS HE WHO IS ... OR THE IAM ....
AND THE I AM WAS IN THE BEGINNING

THEN THE SON IS ETERNAL?

Most OPs will not accept an eternal sonship.

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 05:11 PM

No joke you're really Trinity,well you are still my friend.
Prior to the incarnation if the Son is eternal then who was His mother ?

Believer

09-08-2007, 05:12 PM

I've got no problem with that. I believe that. I just don't believe there are three different people "WHO IS."

Ok.. do natures talk, pray, love each other?

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 05:13 PM

Red alert ....

IF THE SON IS HE WHO IS ... OR THE IAM ....
AND THE I AM WAS IN THE BEGINNING

THEN THE SON IS ETERNAL?

Most OPs will not accept an eternal sonship.

He Who IS the Son IS eternal. The Son, however, is NOT. The Eternal One is Eternal. However, He BECAME the "begotten" (NOT "eternal") Son of God.

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 05:14 PM

Red alert ....

IF THE SON IS HE WHO IS ... OR THE IAM ....
AND THE I AM WAS IN THE BEGINNING

THEN THE SON IS ETERNAL?

Most OPs will not accept an eternal sonship.

Me included.But I say this in kindness.

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 05:14 PM

Ok.. do natures talk, pray, love each other?

Do "coequal persons" pray to one another?

SDG

09-08-2007, 05:14 PM

I did answer...lol

The "you won't answer" or 'you are dancing' is an old tactic used by many of the UCs on the forum, Believer. Get used to it ... even when you do ... if its not the answer they seek then they'll hit you w/ it again.

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 05:15 PM

He Who IS the Son IS eternal. The Son, however, is NOT. The Eternal One is Eternal. However, He BECAME the "begotten" (NOT "eternal") Son of God.

My UC brother I feel the same.

Believer

09-08-2007, 05:15 PM

No joke you're really Trinity,well you are still my friend.
Prior to the incarnation if the Son is eternal then who was His mother ?

This is what we call a "non-sense" question. The "Father" and "Son" are relational terms. nice try though :clap

SDG

09-08-2007, 05:16 PM

Ok.. do natures talk, pray, love each other?

Do "coequal persons" pray to one another?

KP .. I believe you've answered a question w/ a question ... He answered your question ... then he asked you about natures ... perhaps he'll answer yours after you answer his.

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 05:17 PM

The "you won't answer" or 'you are dancing' is an old tactic used by many of the UCs on the forum, Believer. Get used to it ... even when you do ... if its not the answer they seek then they'll hit you w/ it again.

Daniel, I asked a very specific question TWICE, but got no specific answer either time. It was not some "old tactic." I was trying to point out a problem.

If we want to talk about "old tactics," how about the use of "UC" (i.e., "ultra-con") -- calling names rather than dealing with issues?

SDG

09-08-2007, 05:19 PM

Daniel, I asked a very specific question TWICE, but got no specific answer either time. It was not some "old tactic." I was trying to point out a problem.

If we want to talk about "old tactics," how about the use of "UC" (i.e., "ultra-con") -- calling names rather than dealing with issues?

THE I AM ANSWER WAS THE SAME ANSWER YOU GAVE HIM ... but keep repeating the question ... maybe he'll acquiesce and say you've been right all along.

Care to answer his question, now? :poloroid

Believer

09-08-2007, 05:19 PM

My UC brother I feel the same.

That's because you are using the 21st century term for begotten. The word translated from Greek is monogenes, mono means "alone" or "only," and genos, means "kind," or "type." The literal Greek actually means one and only. This is also a relational term

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 05:20 PM

This is what we call a "non-sense" question. The "Father" and "Son" are relational terms. nice try though :clap

I don't see it as a "non-sense" question. I see it as perfectly valid. Luke 1:35 teaches "that holy thing" which was born of Mary was "called the Son of God." If the Son of God is eternal, then so is Mary. Furthermore, if He is, in fact, God the Son, then Mary IS the "mother of God."

Brother Hutchinson, your question is valid.

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 05:21 PM

This is what we call a "non-sense" question. The "Father" and "Son" are relational terms. nice try though :clap

You are my friend.I was not trying to bait you.

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 05:23 PM

I don't see it as a "non-sense" question. I see it as perfectly valid. Luke 1:35 teaches "that holy thing" which was born of Mary was "called the Son of God." If the Son of God is eternal, then so is Mary. Furthermore, if He is, in fact, God the Son, then Mary IS the "mother of God."

Brother Hutchinson, your question is valid.
Mary did not mother God, but Jesus Christ got his flesh from her.

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 05:24 PM

Mary did not mother God, but Jesus Christ got his flesh from her.
Exactly.

However, the "Son" was "made of a woman" (Galatians 4:4). If the Son is eternal, Mary has to be as well.

SDG

09-08-2007, 05:27 PM

Ok.. do natures talk, pray, love each other?

Bump for KP

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 05:27 PM

THE I AM ANSWER WAS THE SAME ANSWER YOU GAVE HIM ... but keep repeating the question ... maybe he'll acquiesce and say you've been right all along.

Care to answer his question, now? :poloroid
I did not give him "the same answer." I finally decided that was the only answer I would get from him (which didn't really answer the question at all). I took the best I could get and used it.

In response to his "natures" question, I have not used the term "natures" in this discussion. He is the one who brought it up. I have discussed that the Father is the Divinity. The Son is the Humanity. Can humanity love and pray to Deity? Of course!

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 05:28 PM

Believer

09-08-2007, 05:28 PM

Do "coequal persons" pray to one another?

Jesus in humanity did.

Believer

09-08-2007, 05:30 PM

The Son did exist in the mind of God prior to His virgin birth , but God did not manifest Himself as a Son till His virgin birth.
I can't understand this with Human reasoning ,but I do accept what the scriptures declare.

If God manifested himself as a Son, then the Father has to be the Son. Maybe you worded it wrong? :coffee2

Also, what scripture says that the Son was in the mind of God?

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 05:30 PM

Jesus in humanity did.

I agree. That's EXACTLY the way I explain the prayer as well.

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 05:30 PM

Believer how would you explain your view on the composition of God?

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 05:31 PM

If God manifested himself as a Son, then the Father has to be the Son. Maybe you worded it wrong? :coffee2

Also, what scripture says that the Son was in the mind of God?

Earlier, you defined "God" as "I AM," not as the "the Father." Here, however, you define "God" as "the Father." Thus, you DO indescriminately apply whatever definition you choose.

If we are going to accomplish any meaningful discussion, you need to define your terms.

Believer

09-08-2007, 05:33 PM

Exactly.

However, the "Son" was "made of a woman" (Galatians 4:4). If the Son is eternal, Mary has to be as well.

You didn't get this doctrine from Gal 4:4. If you read it in context, it clearly states the Son was sent forth...then He was born of a woman. the sending forth came first. Well, if you take the scripture a face value.

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 05:33 PM

Believer I do believe God has manifested or revealed Himself as Father,Son,Holy Ghost.The Divine side of Jesus Christ as the God man was the same as the Father.Jesus Christ said I and my Father are one.

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 05:34 PM

The Word BECAME flesh, the Word is God, and He was with God. My question to you. Who was manifested?

Since you defined "God" as "I AM," then we can read the following verse for your answer:

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God [I AM] was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (I Timothy 3:16).

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 05:35 PM

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 05:36 PM

God sent His son can mean God became a son.Unless there are two Gods ?
If the Son was God manifested in flesh,then God became a Son without dimishing His divinity.

Believer

09-08-2007, 05:37 PM

Earlier, you defined "God" as "I AM," not as the "the Father." Here, however, you define "God" as "the Father." Thus, you DO indescriminately apply whatever definition you choose.

If we are going to accomplish any meaningful discussion, you need to define your terms.

What more do you want? Doesn't the Bible say that God is the "I AM?"

Did Jesus also say He existed before Abraham and claim to be eternal?

Lets look at the context so we can see that Jesus is the same person speaking, meaning not as the Son one moment and the Father the next.

Joh 8:49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honor my Father, and ye do dishonor me.

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 05:39 PM

If the Father and Son are two different persons of God ? Then why was the Son to die at Calvary? Only God himself could redeem His fallen creation.

Believer

09-08-2007, 05:40 PM

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 05:40 PM

You didn't get this doctrine from Gal 4:4. If you read it in context, it clearly states the Son was sent forth...then He was born of a woman. the sending forth came first. Well, if you take the scripture a face value.

Look at the verse again, in its entirety.

"But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law" (Galatians 4:4).

You are saying the Son is eternal, but the Bible says He was "sent forth" WHEN THE FULLNESS OF THE TIME WAS COME. There seems to be a discrepancy with your interpretation and the ability to "take the scripture at face value."

Believer

09-08-2007, 05:40 PM

If the Father and Son are two different persons of God ? Then why was the Son to die at Calvary? Only God himself could redeem His fallen creation.

Is Jesus God Scott?

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 05:42 PM

What more do you want? Doesn't the Bible say that God is the "I AM?"

Did Jesus also say He existed before Abraham and claim to be eternal?

Lets look at the context so we can see that Jesus is the same person speaking, meaning not as the Son one moment and the Father the next.

Joh 8:49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honor my Father, and ye do dishonor me.

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

I have no problem with this. Jesus identified Himself as "I AM" on more than one occasion. I'm just pointing out the fact that, for you to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, you have to indiscriminately define "God." One moment, He is "I AM." Another moment, He is "the Father." Later, He is "the Son." There is no consistent way to take the term "God" and identify the One about Whom the scripture is speaking. Unless, of course, you believe in the Oneness!

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 05:45 PM

Certainly Jesus is God.The Father and Son are part of the One God.Different manifestations but the same God.
Believer How many will we see in Heaven ?

Believer

09-08-2007, 05:45 PM

Look at the verse again, in its entirety.

"But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law" (Galatians 4:4).

You are saying the Son is eternal, but the Bible says He was "sent forth" WHEN THE FULLNESS OF THE TIME WAS COME. There seems to be a discrepancy with your interpretation and the ability to "take the scripture at face value."

He was sent forth, from the Father. The word sent forth means to "sent away." How many scripture say that Jesus was sent from the Father?

exapostellō; from G1537 and G649; to send forth or away: - send...away (1), sending forth (1), sent (3), sent...away (3), sent away (1), sent forth (3), sent...off (1).

Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Where was the Son of man before his incarnation? From Jesus' on words, He was ascending to that place

Joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Here Jesus states that He came down from heaven to do the Father's will.

So where was Jesus sent forth from...before he was born of a woman?

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 05:49 PM

Believer I don't have a probelm with God having a plural of attributes, I just don't buy more than being or persons of God.
In a kind way ,to me to suggest three beings of God in heaven sounds like Tritheism.

Believer

09-08-2007, 05:50 PM

Certainly Jesus is God.The Father and Son are part of the One God.Different manifestations but the same God.
Believer How many will we see in Heaven ?

It is my believe that we will only see the Son, thus the reason He added humanity to Himself. See Phil 2. Notice in Rev.

Rev 4:2 Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne was standing in heaven, and One sitting on the throne.
Rev 4:3 And He who was sitting was like a jasper stone and a sardius in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, like an emerald in appearance.

John was not able to see the Father, but was only able to describe him in this unusual way. But, when He saw the Son, John was able to desricbe him as the Lamb of God. Notice He was standing, not sitting.

Rev 5:6 And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth.

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 05:50 PM

He was sent forth, from the Father. The word sent forth means to "sent away." How many scripture say that Jesus was sent from the Father?

exapostellō; from G1537 and G649; to send forth or away: - send...away (1), sending forth (1), sent (3), sent...away (3), sent away (1), sent forth (3), sent...off (1).

Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

Where was the Son of man before his incarnation? From Jesus' on words, He was ascending to that place

Joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Here Jesus states that He came down from heaven to do the Father's will.

So where was Jesus sent forth from...before he was born of a woman?
Since you refused to answer my question until I answered yours, I will do the same. I am still waiting on an answer. Please explain how you rectify an "eternal Son" being "eternally sent" with the phrase "WHEN THE FULLNESS OF THE TIME WAS COME."

Galatians 4:4 does not say, "God sent forth His son and THEN the Son was made of a woman." If you are basing your interpretation of this verse on the order of the phrases contained in it, then:

1. The fullness of the time came
2. God sent forth His Son
3. His Son was made of a woman.

This interpretation begs the question: When was the "fullness of the time"? Furthermore, I ask again, how do you reconcile that SPECIFIC reference to a POINT IN TIME to an "eternal Son?"

Believer

09-08-2007, 05:50 PM

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 05:52 PM

Believer you don't seem to follow the classical Trinitarian creeds which I have read and they are very confusing to me.

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 05:55 PM

Believer

09-08-2007, 05:56 PM

Since you refused to answer my question until I answered yours, I will do the same. I am still waiting on an answer. Please explain how you rectify an "eternal Son" being "eternally sent" with the phrase "WHEN THE FULLNESS OF THE TIME WAS COME."

Galatians 4:4 does not say, "God sent forth His son and THEN the Son was made of a woman." If you are basing your interpretation of this verse on the order of the phrases contained in it, then:

1. The fullness of the time came
2. God sent forth His Son
3. His Son was made of a woman.

This interpretation begs the question: When was the "fullness of the time"? Furthermore, I ask again, how do you reconcile that SPECIFIC reference to a POINT IN TIME to an "eternal Son?"

Define what you mean by "fullness of time has come" because to me its talking about the time God needed to send us a Savior. And sent forth, as I already posted means that He was sent away from somewhere.

NASEC: exapostellō; from G1537 and G649; to send forth or away: - send...away (1),

Strong's: From G1537 and G649; to send away forth, that is, (on a mission) to despatch,

The Son was sent forth, or sent away from a place...on a mission. How many scripture is needed to show that Jesus came down from heaven?

Joh 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
Joh 6:39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

Joh 13:3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God,

Pastor, please tell me what this is literally telling us? Is Jesus going back to God as the scripture states?

Sam

09-08-2007, 05:56 PM

It is my believe that we will only see the Son, thus the reason He added humanity to Himself. See Phil 2. Notice in Rev.

Rev 4:2 Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne was standing in heaven, and One sitting on the throne.
Rev 4:3 And He who was sitting was like a jasper stone and a sardius in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, like an emerald in appearance.

John was not able to see the Father, but was only able to describe him in this unusual way. But, when He saw the Son, John was able to desricbe him as the Lamb of God. Notice He was standing, not sitting.

Rev 5:6 And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth.

Questions for those of us who consider ourselves oneness and for those who consider ourselves trinitarian:
Whom did Isaiah see in Isaiah chapter 6? the Father, the Son, the Word, the Holy Spirit?
With whom did Jacob wrestle in Genesis chapter 35? The Father, the Son, the Word, or the Holy Spirit?
Whom did Moses and the elders see in Ex 24:9-11? the Father, the Son, the Word, the Holy Spirit?

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 05:57 PM

OK brother Sam quit trying to make us think.

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 05:58 PM

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 06:00 PM

Brother Sam in those scriptures The Lord was seen.In GEN.35 this could have possibily been a theophany ?

Believer

09-08-2007, 06:00 PM

I might also add that, according to Hebrews, there was a particular DAY in which the Son was "begotten" -- "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee" (Hebrews 1:5).

Hebrews 1:5 is referring to the resurrection of Christ. As was Paul in Acts 13:33.

Paul, Act_13:33, as referring to the resurrection of Christ.

Act 13:33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.'
Act 13:34 "As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: 'I WILL GIVE YOU THE HOLY and SURE blessings OF DAVID.'

But lets keep to the context.

Heb 1:6 And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, "AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM."

If the Son is not God also, then why would the Father allow all the angels to worship Him? Is this not the same Son we see in verse 2, that through whom He made the world?

Heb 1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

Scott Hutchinson

09-08-2007, 06:01 PM

KP I trust yall have good church tomorrow.

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 06:03 PM

Define what you mean by "fullness of time has come" because to me its talking about the time God needed to send us a Savior.

...

Pastor, please tell me what this is literally telling us? Is Jesus going back to God as the scripture states?

Again, I'll deal with your question when you answer mine (and I REALLY need to go, but I'll try again).

If "the fullness of the time" means when I Am (I'm going to keep using your terms) "needed to send us a Savior," the the Son wasn't SENT OR MADE until that time. Furthermore, when He WAS made, He was "MADE OF A WOMAN."

You can't keep jumping from an "eternal Son" who was "eternally sent" to a SPECIFIC time in WHICH He was sent to an "eternal Son" who was LATER "made of a woman." That interpretation just doesn't fit.

Kansas Preacher

09-08-2007, 06:04 PM

Sorry. It's been fun. I'll check back in later, but I've GOT to run.

It's been enjoyable, to say the least. I enjoy this dialog. Feel free to PM me for my email address. I want to continue this discussion.

Believer

09-08-2007, 06:06 PM

I'm going to have to leave for a while, but I want to post one more scripture for your consideration:

You have defined "God" as "I AM." Let us substitute this definition in Acts 7.

"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God [I AM]" (Acts 7:55).

You defined later defined "I AM" as "Jesus," whom you have repeatedly defined as "the Son." Was the Son standing on the right hand of the Son? Or, is this another indiscriminate application of "God" to mean someone else?

Stephen saw the glory of God, the shekinah, the splendor or manifestation of the Divine Majesty. And Jesus "standing" on the right hand of God. Jesus is the mediator between God and man. Jesus is and always will be in His resurrected body.

Also, you misquoted me. I said that Jesus claimed to be the "I Am," and I posted the scripture where He said it. I also showed a few verses before that to show that Jesus honors the Father to prove that Jesus wasn't speaking as the Father when He said it.

Believer

09-08-2007, 06:14 PM

Again, I'll deal with your question when you answer mine (and I REALLY need to go, but I'll try again).

If "the fullness of the time" means when I Am (I'm going to keep using your terms) "needed to send us a Savior," the the Son wasn't SENT OR MADE until that time. Furthermore, when He WAS made, He was "MADE OF A WOMAN."

You can't keep jumping from an "eternal Son" who was "eternally sent" to a SPECIFIC time in WHICH He was sent to an "eternal Son" who was LATER "made of a woman." That interpretation just doesn't fit.

LOL...I've answered all your questions. You may not have like what I said, but they were answered. I used scripture as well.

I never once said eternally sent, anyone can go back and read what I said. Please, lets not start putting words in each other mouths. I simply said that the Son was sent forth from a place...on a mission an I provided the Strongs and NASEC Greek meanings. I notice you don't respond to those. I'm trying to be as clear as I can.

The phrase "the fullness of the time" has no bearing whether the Son was sent before or after being born, it only means that the time had come, the world was ready for her savior. There isn't a hidden meaning there.

Gal 4:4 -
Fullness of the time (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου)
The moment by which the whole pre-messianic period was completed.

Gal 4:4 -
The fulness of the time (to plērōma tou chronou). Old word from plēroō, to fill. Here the complement of the preceding time as in Eph_1:10.

When the fulness of time. The time appointed by the Father.

Gal 4:4 - the fulness of the time--namely, "the time appointed by the Father"

I want to make another point concerning Gal 4:4. The first few verses before verse 4, Paul is using an analogy of a child that is be a heir. This child is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. Paul goes on to say even we, while we were children, were help in bondage under the elemental things of the world. This analogy is speaking of a child that already exist, and the child isn’t of age for his inheritance. If we keep verse 4 in its context there isn’t any way we can conclude that the Son didn’t preexist before the time appointed by the Father…I.e. “when the fullness of time was come," as being presented in the first few verses.

Gal 4:2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Believer

09-08-2007, 06:18 PM

Brother Sam in those scriptures The Lord was seen.In GEN.35 this could have possibily been a theophany ?

Do you think it was the Father?

Joh 6:46 "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.

Exo 24:9 Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel,
Exo 24:10 and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.
Exo 24:11 Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank.

Who did they see?

Believer

09-08-2007, 07:02 PM

Praxeas

09-08-2007, 09:00 PM

The question was written in the simplest way possible.

Here is the question again.. pay close attention to what I asked:

And I repeat, please pay attention, the question is flawed because it assumes something that is NOT true.

Please noticed that I worded it....according to the Oneness doctrine Jesus is the Father.
No, you said according to the Oneness doctrine jesus is Father and the opposte or the converse question is but is the Father the Son. That question leads to the conclusion that what you mean by "jesus is the Father" is "The Son is the Father". Thus you question is a logical fallacy. When OPs say "Jesus is the Father" they are NOT saying "The Son is the Father"

Jesus is the Son of God. Do you agree or disagree?
Are you just trying to to see the point? When OPs say Jesus is the Father they are NOT saying "Jesus is God"...may I ask...is Jesus God? Is the Son God? Yes in OP theology Jesus is the Son, but also Jesus is the Father. HOW is Jesus both? Because when OPs are saying that they are speaking of the Person of Jesus who has those two distinct roles or modes

If Jesus is the Son, and you also claim that He is the Father, then is the Father the Son? Very simple and straight forward question.
Ok, well God has revealed Himself as Father and as Son....does that make Father the Son? Trinitarians have said Father is Yahweh and Son is Yahweh...does that make Father the Son? and you complain about what Oneness do with Trinitarian doctrine. This is why we only argue.

mizpeh

09-08-2007, 09:15 PM

And if we take Isa. 9:6, according to your translation, it says that the Son is the Father. This statement has already has been rejected by a Oneness pastor in this thread already. So, according to you and the verse you posted... is the Son the Father?

Believer, Did you read my response to your initial post? I already answered your question Is the Son the Father in that post.

The same God who manifests himself as the Father also manifested himself as the Son.

I also said you are misapplying the terms, Father and Son, to different ways God has revealed himself (manifestations)

As for Isa 9:6, it says what is says and is very clear to me. The Son shall be called the Everlasting Father, the Mighty God. Please know that the Son is a human being, God with us. The Son is a different mode of existence of God. Here is my initial response in which I made a distinction between the manifestation of God as Father and as Son which you failed to acknowledge in your question to me: Isaiah 9:6 declares the Son shall be called the everlasting Father, the mighty God. I have no problem saying the Son is the Father manifest in the flesh. or the same God who is called the Father is also called the Son yet in a different mode of existence

It doesn't matter to me if someone disagrees with me whether it is a Trinitarian, or Oneness, or a pastor, or a theologian. If they can prove I'm wrong with scriptures then I'll concede to an incorrect understanding.

mizpeh

09-08-2007, 09:29 PM

What we mean when we say "person"

What are the qualities and attributes of being a person?

A person exists and has identity.
A person is aware of his own existence and identity.
This precludes the condition of being unconscious.
A self aware person will use such a statement as "I am", "me", "mine", etc.
A person can recognize the existence of other persons.
This is true provided there were other persons around him or her.
Such recognition would include the use of such statements as "you are", "you", "yours", etc.
A person possesses a will.
A will is the capability of conscious choice, decision, intention, desire, and or purpose.
A single person cannot have two separate and distinct wills at the same time on the exact same subject.
Regarding the exact same subject, a person can desire/will one thing at one moment and another at a different moment.
Separate and simultaneous wills imply separate and simultaneous persons.
A person has the ability to communicate -- under normal conditions.
Persons do not need to have bodies.
God the Father possesses personhood without a body, as do the angels.
Biblically speaking, upon death we are "absent from the body and home with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8).
God qualifies as having personhood in that He exists, is self aware, has identity, uses terms such as "Me", "I AM", "My", and possesses a will.
The question now becomes whether or not there is more than one "person" in the Godhead.

http://www.carm.org/oneness/3persons.htm

We don't have to play by CARM's definition of person. Please go to the Bible and elucidate the definition of person from the scriptures.

But let's take CARM's definition and see if we find that the Trinity is in fact tritheism.

A person possesses a will.
A will is the capability of conscious choice, decision, intention, desire, and or purpose. A single person cannot have two separate and distinct wills at the same time on the exact same subject.
Regarding the exact same subject, a person can desire/will one thing at one moment and another at a different moment.
Separate and simultaneous wills imply separate and simultaneous persons.
If each person of the Trinity has his own will then there are three Gods. They can each independently decide what to do and therefore there is the possibility of disagreement. One being who is called God disagreeing within himself is inconsistent and ridiculous.

mizpeh

09-08-2007, 09:32 PM

mizpeh

09-08-2007, 09:36 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobDylan
If a "person" has a unique "identiy", as you suggest here, then there are three unique identies in heaven. This equates to three individuals... tritheism.

Strawman alert!!!

This is not a strawman! An unique identity can say "I". Explain how each person can say "I" and then God as a whole can say "I"?

Do you need examples from the scriptures?

Praxeas

09-08-2007, 09:37 PM

If the Father is NOT the Son, then the Father is not the same Person as the Son. The Son prays, eats, sleeps, laughs, talks. If this isn't the Father, then you have more than one "person." And, according to John, the Word (who is God) became flesh, He didn't simply indwell the flesh.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Please notice it doesn't say the Word indwelled, but actually became flesh and dwelt among us.

What we mean when we say "person"

What are the qualities and attributes of being a person?

A person exists and has identity.
A person is aware of his own existence and identity.
This precludes the condition of being unconscious.
A self aware person will use such a statement as "I am", "me", "mine", etc.
A person can recognize the existence of other persons.
This is true provided there were other persons around him or her.
Such recognition would include the use of such statements as "you are", "you", "yours", etc.
A person possesses a will.
A will is the capability of conscious choice, decision, intention, desire, and or purpose.
A single person cannot have two separate and distinct wills at the same time on the exact same subject.
Regarding the exact same subject, a person can desire/will one thing at one moment and another at a different moment.
Separate and simultaneous wills imply separate and simultaneous persons.
A person has the ability to communicate -- under normal conditions.
Persons do not need to have bodies.
God the Father possesses personhood without a body, as do the angels.
Biblically speaking, upon death we are "absent from the body and home with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8).
God qualifies as having personhood in that He exists, is self aware, has identity, uses terms such as "Me", "I AM", "My", and possesses a will.
The question now becomes whether or not there is more than one "person" in the Godhead.

http://www.carm.org/oneness/3persons.htm
Based on what you posted here and I embolded, can you comment on these quotes and explain them in relation to this post from CARM where will is an attribte of Person and not nature. Also, how many minds did the Son have? How many minds does the Trinity have? Are three three minds and wills or just one?

The heresy that there is only one will in in the incarnate Christ is called monothelitism and arose from the Monophysite heresy (which said that there was only one nature in Christ). Christ distinguishes his will from that of his Father in John 6:38 (http://www.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=RSV&search=&passage=John+6:38), Matt 26:39 (http://www.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=RSV&search=&passage=Matt+26:39), etc. Christ's relationship of obedience to the Father only makes sense if Christ has a human will.

Athanasius said in his treatise on the Incarnation in 365 AD, "And when [Christ] says, "Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from Me; yet, not My will be done, but Yours;" and "the spirit is ready, but the flesh is weak," He gives evidence therein of two wills, the one human, which is of the flesh, and the other divine, which is of God. That which is human, because of the weakness of the flesh, shrinks from suffering. That, however, which is divine, is ready. Then too, Peter, hearing about the passion, says, "Cheer up, Lord;" but the Lord, chiding him, says, "Get behind me Satan; you are a scandal to Me, because you are mindful not of the things of God but of the things of men." This too, then, is to be understood in the suffering; but being God and, in accord with the divine substance, really being not subject to suffering, He readily accepts suffering and death" (Quotation from Faith of the Early Fathers by William Jurgens). The Council of Chalcedon said, "Similarly we promulgate, according to the teaching of the Holy Fathers, that in Him are also two natural wills and two natural modes of working, unseparated, untransformed, undivided, unmixed; and these two natural wills are not opposed to each other as the impious heretics maintained." (Quoted from Ludwig Ott, "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," Denzinger 291)
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/monothel.htm

Monothelitism (a Greek loanword (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loanword) meaning "one will") is a particular teaching about how the divine and human relate in the person of Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus), known as a Christological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christological) doctrine. Specifically, Monothelitism teaches that Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus) Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ) had two natures but only one will. This is contrary to the orthodox interpretation of Christology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology), which teaches that Jesus Christ has two wills (human and divine) corresponding to his two natures. Monothelitism is a development of the Monophysite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysite) position in the Christological debates. It enjoyed considerable support in the 7th century before being rejected as heretical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monothelitism

mizpeh

09-08-2007, 09:40 PM

[QUOTE=Believer;236176]The actual Greek is "God is Spirit." Because God is Spirit we are to worship God in spirit and truth. This verse is not telling us that God is one "person." All Trinitarians agree with this verse. If you take this verse in context, Jesus is saying God is the Father.

21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Verse 23 and 24 equate God with the Father, the one who must be worshipped in Spirit and in truth. The one who is a Spirit or spirit whichever you prefer.

Believer

09-08-2007, 09:41 PM

And I repeat, please pay attention, the question is flawed because it assumes something that is NOT true. What is not true?

No, you said according to the Oneness doctrine jesus is Father and the opposte or the converse question is but is the Father the Son. That question leads to the conclusion that what you mean by "jesus is the Father" is "The Son is the Father". Thus you question is a logical fallacy. When OPs say "Jesus is the Father" they are NOT saying "The Son is the Father"

If Jesus is also the Father, and the Son, but the Father (who is Jesus) is not the Son, then there appears to be a contradiction. If I understand this right, the Father really didn't become flesh, He only indwells the Son?

Are you just trying to to see the point? When OPs say Jesus is the Father they are NOT saying "Jesus is God"...may I ask...is Jesus God? Is the Son God? Yes in OP theology Jesus is the Son, but also Jesus is the Father. HOW is Jesus both? Because when OPs are saying that they are speaking of the Person of Jesus who has those two distinct roles or modes

Oh, so Jesus is not God? Yikes! What did Jesus (the Son) say about this?

Unless you believe that I AM [egō eimi] you will die in your sins (John 8:24).

Jesus is very much God, and all of our salvation rests in that fact.

Ok, well God has revealed Himself as Father and as Son....does that make Father the Son? Trinitarians have said Father is Yahweh and Son is Yahweh...does that make Father the Son? and you complain about what Oneness do with Trinitarian doctrine. This is why we only argue.

You just contradicted yourself. If you say that Jesus is the Father (who is God) and also reveals Himself as the Son, then you have the Father who is God, (remember, the Father is not the Son) and the Son who is God, you have two distinct "persons" who are the same God.

mizpeh

09-08-2007, 09:44 PM

Believer

09-08-2007, 09:45 PM

Believer, Did you read my response to your initial post? I already answered your question Is the Son the Father in that post.

The same God who manifests himself as the Father also manifested himself as the Son.

I also said you are misapplying the terms, Father and Son, to different ways God has revealed himself (manifestations)

As for Isa 9:6, it says what is says and is very clear to me. The Son shall be called the Everlasting Father, the Mighty God. Please know that the Son is a human being, God with us. The Son is a different mode of existence of God. Here is my initial response in which I made a distinction between the manifestation of God as Father and as Son which you failed to acknowledge in your question to me:

It doesn't matter to me if someone disagrees with me whether it is a Trinitarian, or Oneness, or a pastor, or a theologian. If they can prove I'm wrong with scriptures then I'll concede to an incorrect understanding.

If I miss a post here and there I'm sorry. I have so many posts to read and respond to. I'm trying to stay away from the confrontational posts because I can get banned where a Oneness will not.

Now, concerning Isaiah 9:6.

Do you believe that the Son is the Father?

mizpeh

09-08-2007, 09:50 PM

Do "coequal persons" pray to one another?

Haven't you read Romans 8:26?

26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Trinitarians interpret this as the Spirit interceding for the believer with groanings APART from being indwelled within the believer! One coequal eternal person praying to another coequal eternal person who possess the same mind. Convoluted to say the least.

I find their interpretation inconsistent with the context of Romans 8.

Believer

09-08-2007, 09:52 PM

We don't have to play by CARM's definition of person. Please go to the Bible and elucidate the definition of person from the scriptures.

But let's take CARM's definition and see if we find that the Trinity is in fact tritheism.

If each person of the Trinity has his own will then there are three Gods. They can each independently decide what to do and therefore there is the possibility of disagreement. One being who is called God disagreeing within himself is inconsistent and ridiculous.

All Trinitarians agree that God only has one will. The difinition I posted doesn't all apply to God. One cannot help but notice the "personal pronouns" applied to each of the "Persons" in the Godhead.

The grace of the [tou] Lord Jesus Christ, and [kai] the love of God [tou theou (lit. “the God”)], and [kai] the fellowship of the [tou] Holy Spirit be with you all

To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion for ever and ever

mizpeh

09-08-2007, 09:53 PM

Bump for KP

Dan,

Do natures talk or love? What is your answer to that question? What is human nature? Or what constitutes human nature in your opinion?

mizpeh

09-08-2007, 09:55 PM

Jesus in humanity did.

What does this mean?

Jesus in his humanity prayed to God. Are you Nestorian Trinitarian?

Praxeas

09-08-2007, 09:56 PM

Oh, so Jesus is not God? Yikes! What did Jesus (the Son) say about this?

Unless you believe that I AM [egō eimi] you will die in your sins (John 8:24).

Jesus is very much God, and all of our salvation rests in that fact.

I meant to say "When OPs say Jesus is the Father they are NOT trying to say the Son is the Father"...I explained this enough that it just seems like you are being argumentative

You just contradicted yourself. If you say that Jesus is the Father (who is God) and also reveals Himself as the Son, then you have the Father who is God, (remember, the Father is not the Son) and the Son who is God, you have two distinct "persons" who are the same God.
Then you have the same problem when you say the Son is God and the Father is God but the Father is not the son. What you are doing here is ignoring my explanation entirely to build a strawman argument.

Jesus is both Man and God according to you...using your logic His Divine nature is His Human nature.

But you would explain that. Yet why can't you just accept our explanation of what we are saying?

How about this? The PERSON of the Father IS the PERSON of the Son, however the Father is Distinct from the Son in nature (Human nature). Even a Trinitarian would argue Father and Son are not just distinct persons but that the Son possesses a nature the Father does not.

Believer

09-08-2007, 09:56 PM

Haven't you read Romans 8:26?

26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Trinitarians interpret this as the Spirit interceding for the believer with groanings APART from being indwelled within the believer! One coequal eternal person praying to another coequal eternal person who possess the same mind. Convoluted to say the least.

I find their interpretation inconsistent with the context of Romans 8.

Probably because your understanding is wrong. I have never heard anyone, not even a Oneness believer ever say such a thing. :coffee2

Praxeas

09-08-2007, 09:57 PM

Praxeas

09-08-2007, 09:58 PM

Based on what you posted here and I embolded, can you comment on these quotes and explain them in relation to this post from CARM where will is an attribte of Person and not nature. Also, how many minds did the Son have? How many minds does the Trinity have? Are three three minds and wills or just one?

The heresy that there is only one will in in the incarnate Christ is called monothelitism and arose from the Monophysite heresy (which said that there was only one nature in Christ). Christ distinguishes his will from that of his Father in John 6:38 (http://www.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=RSV&search=&passage=John+6:38), Matt 26:39 (http://www.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=RSV&search=&passage=Matt+26:39), etc. Christ's relationship of obedience to the Father only makes sense if Christ has a human will.

Athanasius said in his treatise on the Incarnation in 365 AD, "And when [Christ] says, "Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from Me; yet, not My will be done, but Yours;" and "the spirit is ready, but the flesh is weak," He gives evidence therein of two wills, the one human, which is of the flesh, and the other divine, which is of God. That which is human, because of the weakness of the flesh, shrinks from suffering. That, however, which is divine, is ready. Then too, Peter, hearing about the passion, says, "Cheer up, Lord;" but the Lord, chiding him, says, "Get behind me Satan; you are a scandal to Me, because you are mindful not of the things of God but of the things of men." This too, then, is to be understood in the suffering; but being God and, in accord with the divine substance, really being not subject to suffering, He readily accepts suffering and death" (Quotation from Faith of the Early Fathers by William Jurgens). The Council of Chalcedon said, "Similarly we promulgate, according to the teaching of the Holy Fathers, that in Him are also two natural wills and two natural modes of working, unseparated, untransformed, undivided, unmixed; and these two natural wills are not opposed to each other as the impious heretics maintained." (Quoted from Ludwig Ott, "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma," Denzinger 291)
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/monothel.htm

Monothelitism (a Greek loanword (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loanword) meaning "one will") is a particular teaching about how the divine and human relate in the person of Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus), known as a Christological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christological) doctrine. Specifically, Monothelitism teaches that Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus) Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ) had two natures but only one will. This is contrary to the orthodox interpretation of Christology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology), which teaches that Jesus Christ has two wills (human and divine) corresponding to his two natures. Monothelitism is a development of the Monophysite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysite) position in the Christological debates. It enjoyed considerable support in the 7th century before being rejected as heretical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monothelitism

Bump for Believer. thank you

Believer

09-08-2007, 10:03 PM

I meant to say "When OPs say Jesus is the Father they are NOT trying to say the Son is the Father"...I explained this enough that it just seems like you are being argumentative

Come on prax, please don't start playing the victim. I'm not here to argue with you. Calm down.

Then you have the same problem when you say the Son is God and the Father is God but the Father is not the son. What you are doing here is ignoring my explanation entirely to build a strawman argument.

Not true, because we say that they are not the same "person." If I say the Father is God and the Son is God, doesn't mean they are the same "persons" within the Godhead. But you know that already.....

Jesus is both Man and God according to you...using your logic His Divine nature is His Human nature.

Using my logic, the Son added humanity to Himself. It was the Son of God that was manifested, not the Father.

But you would explain that. Yet why can't you just accept our explanation of what we are saying?

How about this? The PERSON of the Father IS the PERSON of the Son, however the Father is Distinct from the Son in nature (Human nature). Even a Trinitarian would argue Father and Son are not just distinct persons but that the Son possesses a nature the Father does not.

If the "person" the Father is the same "person" of the Son, then they are the same "person" which would make the Father the Son. it won't work. No matter how you put it, you have two "persons."

Believer

09-08-2007, 10:04 PM

Bump for Believer. thank you

what does this prove?

Believer

09-08-2007, 10:07 PM

What does this mean?

Jesus in his humanity prayed to God. Are you Nestorian Trinitarian?

Did Jesus pray to His Father or not?

Joh 17:1 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,

Mat 26:39 And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will."

Jesus, in the flesh, prayed to His Father.

Praxeas

09-08-2007, 10:09 PM

what does this prove?
I asked you some questions regarding what you posted from CARM on what the word PERSON means in light of your saying we have our own definition. I am attempting to ASK you for clarification...I believe I did ask you some questions. So I am not sure why you are asking me what this proves. Can you please go through my post and consider my questions and quotes....Please answer them because I find it confusing what you posted on person in regards to will.

Thank you

Believer

09-08-2007, 10:09 PM

But the definition you gave was of person...if the persons are distinct persons, ie not the same persons, then using that definition it stands to reason there are three wills.

Strawman

Believer

09-08-2007, 10:11 PM

I asked you some questions regarding what you posted from CARM on what the word PERSON means in light of your saying we have our own definition. I am attempting to ASK you for clarification...I believe I did ask you some questions. So I am not sure why you are asking me what this proves. Can you please go through my post and consider my questions and quotes....Please answer them because I find it confusing what you posted on person in regards to will.

Thank you

The church in the West utilized per-sona (Lat.; from per (through) and sono (speak), and the churches in the East used the term hypostasis (Gk).
Inflected forms: pl. hy·pos·ta·ses (-sz)

1. Philosophy The substance, essence, or underlying reality. 2. Christianity a. Any of the persons of the Trinity. b. The essential person of Jesus in which his human and divine natures are united.

The word "Person" in the English was not the original word used. But, it best discribes the distinctions.

Good night all...I'm off to bed for an early rise!!!!

Praxeas

09-08-2007, 10:16 PM

Come on prax, please don't start playing the victim. I'm not here to argue with you. Calm down.
How am I playing the victim? I don't feel like one. Im just trying to have a dialogue with you. If that upsets you then maybe you are just not cut out for this kind of discussion.

Not true, because we say that they are not the same "person." If I say the Father is God and the Son is God, doesn't mean they are the same "persons" within the Godhead. But you know that already.....
Right, thus YOUR explanation and I would allow you to do that. It would be nice if you reciprocated

Using my logic, the Son added humanity to Himself. It was the Son of God that was manifested, not the Father.
Using my theology I would say God or Yahweh added Humanity to Himself and came to exist as both Father (of the Son) and the Son. If one wants to argue the Father became the Son fine but that does not mean the Father is equal to the Son. The problem here is when someone says "is the Father the Son" are they asking "Is the Father the same person AS the Son" or are they asking "Is the Father EQUAL to the Son"

If the "person" the Father is the same "person" of the Son, then they are the same "person" which would make the Father the Son. it won't work. No matter how you put it, you have two "persons."
No it would make the person of the Father the same person as the Son, but that does NOT mean there are no distinctions between Father and Son.

I said it already, Father and Son are the same in PERSON but DIFFERENT ontologically due to the Human nature of the Son.

Praxeas

09-08-2007, 10:16 PM

The church in the West utilized per-sona (Lat.; from per (through) and sono (speak), and the churches in the East used the term hypostasis (Gk).
Inflected forms: pl. hy·pos·ta·ses (-sz)

1. Philosophy The substance, essence, or underlying reality. 2. Christianity a. Any of the persons of the Trinity. b. The essential person of Jesus in which his human and divine natures are united.

The word "Person" in the English was not the original word used. But, it best discribes the distinctions.

Good night all...I'm off to bed for an early rise!!!!
You didn't answer my questions....you answered something I did not ask. I asked about WILL and how CARM was using it

Praxeas

09-08-2007, 10:20 PM

Strawman
that's not a strawman...good grief. Why don't you just go through my original post and answer my questions so we can understand. Im trying to understand how CARM and TRINITARIANS understand WILL and PERSON using what you posted from CARM. If I misunderstand then I admit....Im trying to get you to answer my questions now for a couple posts already to clarify this issue. That does not make what I posted a strawman. Im saying based on what CARM said about person and will then it would seem like there should be THREE WILLS in the Trinity.

If you would just kindly answer my questions it would really help. You said before you are not trying to argue, so then it is bothersome that you keep avoiding the questions and charging people with 'strawman' and nothing more. Please believer, Im serious. Please go back to my orginal post where I quoted you and then posted some other trinitarian statements regarding will and asked you some questions. Help us here.

mizpeh

09-08-2007, 10:21 PM

Probably because your understanding is wrong. I have never heard anyone, not even a Oneness believer ever say such a thing. :coffee2
I've heard JWB and Cassius on CARM argue this point with me over and over and over again. I've given up talking to them about it.

They disagree that there is a human element involved ie: the Spirit is indwelling a believer when intercession with groanings that cannot be spoken is made. The context of the chapter is geared toward the Spirit of Christ in us.

SDG

09-08-2007, 10:32 PM

I'm doing too many things at one time. You can't believe how many times I went back and edited that post.

Let me try again,

He who IS the Son IS God!

How is that any different KP from your answer ... He said the I Am ... you said he who is ...

If he wants he could answer you w/ your own words:

He who IS the Father IS God!
He who IS the Son IS God!
He who IS the Holy Spirit IS God!

I've got no problem with that. I believe that. I just don't believe there are three different people "WHO IS."

LOL, Dan, your more Trinitarian than Believer is!!!!!

Really??? you have a problem w/ what I've said??? ... KP didn't ...

Perhaps mentioning all three modes, manifestations, aspects, distinctions together spooks you.

You have issue w/ it? LOL. Perhaps you are not Oneness enough?

Praxeas

09-08-2007, 10:35 PM

Red alert ....

IF THE SON IS HE WHO IS ... OR THE IAM ....
AND THE I AM WAS IN THE BEGINNING

THEN THE SON IS ETERNAL?

Most OPs will not accept an eternal sonship.
An Eternal Sonship means there was a Father and a Son distinct from one another eternally. Oneness, while saying the Son is the I AM are NOT saying The I AM always existed as the Son. In other words the Son is the I AM because the I AM is that WHO that became the Son when the incarnatin happened or He added a human nature

Praxeas

09-08-2007, 10:36 PM

How is that any different KP from your answer ... He said the I Am ... you said he who is ...

If he wants he could answer you w/ your own words:

He who IS the Father IS God!
He who IS the Son IS God!
He who IS the Holy Spirit IS God!
Yes but that is not the same thing as a Oneness. Oneness would say it's the same HE. They would say three distinct HE's

SDG

09-08-2007, 10:40 PM

Yes but that is not the same thing as a Oneness. Oneness would say it's the same HE. They would say three distinct HE's

LOL ... you can't say those three statements without qualifying it .... sad.

Insecurities.

Praxeas

09-08-2007, 10:43 PM

LOL ... you can't say those three statements without qualifying it .... sad.

Insecurities.

I qualify it Dan because I know it is NOT the same statement to a Trinitarian that it is to a Oneness. Hiding behind the LOLs and mockery is not helping your case.

mizpeh

09-08-2007, 10:45 PM

Really??? you have a problem w/ what I've said??? ... KP didn't ...

Perhaps mentioning all three modes, manifestations, aspects, distinctions together spooks you.

You have issue w/ it? LOL. Perhaps you are not Oneness enough?

Dan,

I was joking with you! You keep fighting against the Oneness believers on this thread without giving your thoughts on the differences between our views on the oneness of God and the Trinity, nor have you answered the intial post. Who's side are you on? And what do you believe?

Discussing modes, manifestation, aspects, distinctions doesn't spook me. I've been discussing this with Trinitarians on CARM for over a year now and with Trinitarians on the GNC for months as well.

Are you trying to say I'm a Trinophobic?

SDG

09-08-2007, 10:55 PM

Dan,

I was joking with you! You keep fighting against the Oneness believers on this thread without giving your thoughts on the differences between our views on the oneness of God and the Trinity, nor have you answered the intial post. Who's side are you on? And what do you believe?

Discussing modes, manifestation, aspects, distinctions doesn't spook me. I've been discussing this with Trinitarians on CARM for over a year now and with Trinitarians on the GNC for months as well.

Let me help out with this issue once again ... [One more LOL, for Praxeas.]

First, indubitably, I'm more Oneness than you'll ever be ... and questioning that fact does nothing to change it. I'm secure in it.

The Oneness model to understanding our God is easiest for me to comprehend for many reasons ... most probably because I grew up in it...

It's about focus, my dear friend.

We focus on the deity of Jesus Christ while still acknowledging the distinctions in how God has revealed himself ....

Trinitarians focus a lot of their energies on the distinctions of God while still acknowledging the deity of Jesus Christ ....

As i stated earlier an earlier thread:

... the existence of this inane debate revolves around:

1. semantics over words such as persons, distinctions, modes, etc.
2. pride in presenting facts, figures,scripture, grammar, logic, scholarship and Church history while debunking the other side's facts, figures, logic, interpretation of scripture, grammar, scholarship and Church history. {I want to be right and prove you wrong while never admitting when I am wrong}
3. prejudices and hatreds based on a century old feud

eventually leading to more circular debates on:

4. the proper baptismal formula and questioning the other's salvation

and most often culminates in:

5. name calling, sensitivities hurt, and insults
---------------------------

In the end, this is what matters ... both sides whole heartedly agree and believe in:

1. One God
2.The Mighty God in Christ
3. Jesus is fully man and fully God
4. Jesus is the Son of God
5. Jesus died for our sins and was raised to give us new life.
6. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Carry on ... lol.

Once again, I'll reiterate ... the minute I can fully explain and define an infinite and Almighty God ... He ceases to be God ....

and I've become an idolater.

----------------

Are you a Trinophobic, Mizpeh ???... I'd get over it because you'll be spending eternity with several million.

mizpeh

09-08-2007, 11:10 PM

1. semantics over words such as persons, distinctions, modes, etc.
2. pride in presenting facts, figures,scripture, grammar, logic, scholarship and Church history while debunking the other side's facts, figures, logic, interpretation of scripture, grammar, scholarship and Church history. {I want to be right and prove you wrong while never admitting when I am wrong}
3. prejudices and hatreds based on a century old feud

eventually leading to more circular debates on:

4. the proper baptismal formula and questioning the other's salvation

and most often culminates in:

5. name calling, sensitivities hurt, and insults
---------------------------

In the end, this is what matters ... both sides whole heartedly agree and believe in:

1. One God
2.The Mighty God in Christ
3. Jesus is fully man and fully God
4. Jesus is the Son of God
5. Jesus died for our sins and was raised to give us new life.
6. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Carry on ... lol.

Once again, I'll reiterate ... the minute I can fully explain and define an infinite and Almighty God ... He ceases to be God ....

I've become an idolater.

Dan,

I believe discussions like this can be done without name calling.

Both sides, Oneness and Trinitarians, may agree on your points BUT you are speaking in generalities. Seriously, there are profound differences in the Trinitarian God and the Oneness God which leads to a difference in who Jesus is : an eternal Son vs a Son by conception. There are differences in what we mean by Jesus being fully God and fully man as well.... different Christological views.

I can see you want to placate both parties into coming together on the common ground we agree on. You will find that Trinitarians and Oneness cannot speak the same thing nor be united in one belief because FUNDAMENTALLY we believe different things though our wording may be very similar at times. You see how difficult it is to have unity in a Oneness camp (the UPC or even the AFF) what makes you think it is possible to have unity with two completely separate views on who and what God is? You take an ecumenical view which to some may be commendable, but to me it compromises truth.

SDG

09-08-2007, 11:15 PM

Dan,

I believe discussions like this can be done without name calling.

Both sides may agree on your points BUT you are speaking in generalities. Seriously, there are profound differences in the Trinitarian God and the Oneness God which leads to a difference in who Jesus is : an eternal Son vs a Son by conception. There are differences in what we mean by Jesus being fully God and fully man as well.... different Christological views.

I can see you want to placate both parties into coming together on the common ground we agree on. You will find that Trinitarians and Oneness cannot speak the same thing nor be united in one belief because FUNDAMENTALLY we believe different things though our wording may be very similar at times. You see how difficult it is to have unity in a Oneness camp (the UPC or even the AFF) what makes you think it is possible to have unity with two completely separate views on who and what God is? You take an ecumenical view which to some may be commendable, to me it compromises truth.

BTW, there are Oneness believers that believe in Eternal Sonship ...

This issue is only an issue to most PAJC Oneness believers primarily because of their soteriological view, namely a baptismal formula ....

as long as that's the case ... you will see those who place their trust in Jesus Christ and enter into a binding relationship w/ him ... as lost ... and just well-intentioned.

If they are born of God and are filled w/ His Spirit .... they are my brethren .. . regardless if I view their explanation of God as lacking.

Your focus is in being able to explain God ... when He yearns for relationship.

My prayer is that of Jesus ... make us one .... as He and the Father are One.

BoredOutOfMyMind

09-08-2007, 11:17 PM

How is that any different KP from your answer ... He said the I Am ... you said he who is ...

If he wants he could answer you w/ your own words:

He who IS the Father IS God!
He who IS the Son IS God!
He who IS the Holy Spirit IS God!

I've got no problem with that. I believe that. I just don't believe there are three different people "WHO IS."

Let me help out with this issue once again ... [One more LOL, for Praxeas.]

First, indubitably, I'm more Oneness than you'll ever be ... and questioning that fact does nothing to change it. I'm secure in it.

The Oneness model to understanding our God is easiest for me to comprehend for many reasons ... most probably because I grew up in it...

It's about focus, my dear friend.

We focus on the deity of Jesus Christ while still acknowledging the distinctions in how God has revealed himself ....

Trinitarians focus a lot of their energies on the distinctions of God while still acknowledging the deity of Jesus Christ ....

As i stated earlier an earlier thread:

... the existence of this inane debate revolves around:
<snip>
In the end, this is what matters ... both sides whole heartedly agree and believe in:

1. One God
2.The Mighty God in Christ
3. Jesus is fully man and fully God
4. Jesus is the Son of God
5. Jesus died for our sins and was raised to give us new life.
6. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Carry on ... lol.

Once again, I'll reiterate ... the minute I can fully explain and define an infinite and Almighty God ... He ceases to be God ....

and I've become an idolater.

----------------

Are you a Trinophobic, Mizpeh ???... I'd get over it because you'll be spending eternity with several million.

Daniel, again you are promoting Three persons. You are not Oneness, no matter how many times you say it with your lips.

There may be several million there, but they will not be staying, for they lack identity and they do not know The Unknown God.

I know Jesus is the Father
I know Jesus is the Son
I know jesus is The Holy Ghost
And all these three are one!

Praxeas

09-08-2007, 11:17 PM

BTW, there are Oneness believers that believe in Eternal Sonship ...

This issue is only an issue to most PAJC Oneness belierver primarily in how it relates to their soteriological view .... as long as that's the case ... you will see those who place their trust in Jesus Christ and enter into a binding relationship w/ him ... as lost ... and just well-intentioned.

If they of born of God and are filled w/ His Spirit .... they are my brethren .. . regardless if I view their explanation of God as lacking.
It's a theological issue and has nothing to do with a PAJC view.

BTW what OPs believe in an Eternal Sonship?

mizpeh

09-08-2007, 11:22 PM

BTW, there are Oneness believers that believe in Eternal Sonship ...

This issue is only an issue to most PAJC Oneness belierer primarily because of their soteriological view, namely a baptismal formula ....

as long as that's the case ... you will see those who place their trust in Jesus Christ and enter into a binding relationship w/ him ... as lost ... and just well-intentioned.

If they are born of God and are filled w/ His Spirit .... they are my brethren .. . regardless if I view their explanation of God as lacking.

Your focus is in being able to explain God ... when He yearns for relationship.

My prayer is that of Jesus ... make us one .... as He and the Father are One.
If you don't know God in truth, how can you have a relationship with Him?

Felicity

09-08-2007, 11:23 PM

If you don't know God in truth, how can you have a relationship with Him?Can a child know God in truth the way you're intimating here Mizpeh? Yet a child can have a relationship with God.

mizpeh

09-08-2007, 11:26 PM

Can a child know God in truth the way you're intimating here Mizpeh? Yet a child can have a relationship with God.

I see your point and agree with you, but children grow in knowledge. Our relationship with God changes and matures as we come to know him in a fuller way.

Felicity, I can't tell you how much I like talking with you even when we disagree. :)

Praxeas

09-08-2007, 11:31 PM

Can a child know God in truth the way you're intimating here Mizpeh? Yet a child can have a relationship with God.
Correct, though a persons understanding will affect the level of that relationship.

SDG

09-08-2007, 11:34 PM

Good nite, my Oneness Ninjas.

One more lol, for Praxeas.

BoredOutOfMyMind

09-08-2007, 11:37 PM

Good nite, my Oneness Ninjas.

One more lol, for Praxeas.

Admin mode here for you-

Watch that edge Dan, The fall is great.

This is about the 18th time you have taken swipes at Prax. They are noticed and not appreciated.

They do need to stop.

Immediately.

:tiphat

SDG

09-08-2007, 11:48 PM

Daniel, again you are promoting Three persons. You are not Oneness, no matter how many times you say it with your lips.

There may be several million there, but they will not be staying, for they lack identity and they do not know The Unknown God.

I know Jesus is the Father
I know Jesus is the Son
I know jesus is The Holy Ghost
And all these three are one!

BOOM ... I promote One God .... If we are going make inferences please base it on my posts ....

not once have I promoted 3 persons here .... even an elementary, cursory reading would indicate so ....

Stuff like this flusters me only because conclusions are drawn that are way off base ... don't let personal biases jade you on this.

I'm promoting tolerance as I view it .... don't get one confused w/ the other ....

Felicity

09-08-2007, 11:51 PM

Correct, though a persons understanding will affect the level of that relationship.Understanding of what exactly?

BoredOutOfMyMind

09-08-2007, 11:53 PM

SDG

09-08-2007, 11:56 PM

Tolerance is fine, but promotion of only the Trinitarian has been pointed out many times by many here tonight.

Elementary indeed reading what you post continually for Tolerance is indeed for only the acceptance of 3-gods.

-based on YOUR posts.

:coffee2

Perhaps it's time to go to bed .... maybe a re-reading in the morning will help us all .... enjoy the rest of your evening.

mizpeh

09-08-2007, 11:56 PM

BOOM ... I promote One God .... If we are going make inferences please base it on my posts ....

not once have I promoted 3 persons here .... even an elementary, cursory reading would indicate so ....

Stuff like this flusters me only because conclusions are drawn that are way off base.

I'm promoting tolerance as I view it .... don't get one confused w/ the other ....

Dan, you may not see it but your advocacy of tolerance alienates Oneness believers because you seem to take offence with what we are saying and advocating what a Trinitarian says. It leads some to believe you agree with the doctrine of the Trinity and disagree with Oneness theology.

This is the impression you are giving. If someone came in to read this discussion who has never been here before or knew who you were, they might think you were a Trinitarian because you never AMEN or pat the Oneness believers on the back for their well-made points but you have consistently been giving kudos and support to a Trinitarian.

This is not to say you can never agree with a Trinitarian. I'm just making an observation. You are being one-sided with your cheerleading. Spread the love around, Dan.

stmatthew

09-08-2007, 11:58 PM

I have a question.

If Jesus was God the Son and he is co-equal to God the Father (If there is only One God, then they must be co-equal) then how come we see the following demonstrating the man Jesus not being co-equal to God?

Luke 10:22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: - This signifies that Jesus did not have ALL THINGS at some point.
Mark 13:32 But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. - This shows that the Father knew something the Son did not know.
Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. - This shows that Jesus had a will separate from the Father

These are just a few of the verses that show a "separation" of Son and Father. Again, you can't be co-equal, and not equal at the same time.

Felicity

09-08-2007, 11:59 PM

I see your point and agree with you, but children grow in knowledge. Our relationship with God changes and matures as we come to know him in a fuller way.

Felicity, I can't tell you how much I like talking with you even when we disagree. :)I don't know that we disagree on much really.

Thanks! :)

BoredOutOfMyMind

09-09-2007, 12:00 AM

Perhaps it's time to go to bed .... maybe a re-reading in the morning will help us all .... enjoy the rest of your evening.

I quoted you from page 5 and 15.

You requested YOUR posts.

I quoted them WITH the linkbacks.

:coffee2

SDG

09-09-2007, 12:03 AM

Dan, you may not see it but your advocacy of tolerance alienates Oneness believers because you seem to take offence with what we are saying and advocating what a Trinitarian says. It leads some to believe you agree with the doctrine of the Trinity and disagree with Oneness theology.

This is the impression you are giving. If someone came into read this discussion who has never been here before or knew who you were, they might think you were a Trinitarian because you never AMEN or pat the Oneness believers on the back for their well-made points but you have consistently been giving kudos and support to a Trinitarian.

This is not to say you can never agree with a Trinitarian. I'm just making an observation. You are being one-sided with your cheerleading. Spread the love around, Dan.

Oh boy ....

Perhaps we should disallow Trinitarians to post here .... as not to tempt me :killinmeor make a handful of us wonder how Oneness I am. We're all big boys and girls and if we can't handle scrutiny of our beliefs then Deeper Waters may not be for us.

BoredOutOfMyMind

09-09-2007, 12:06 AM

Oh boy ....

Perhaps we should disallow Trinitarians to post here .... as not to tempt me :killinmeor make a handful of us wonder how Oneness I am. We're all big boys and girls and if we can't handle scrutiny of our beliefs then Deeper Waters may not be for us.

Their is a vast difference scrutiny and promotion of opposing views.

Oh, and I read this entire thread.

:bedtime

mizpeh

09-09-2007, 12:06 AM

Oh boy ....

Perhaps we should disallow Trinitarians to post here .... as not to tempt me :killinmeor make a handful of us wonder how Oneness I am. We're all big boys and girls and if we can't handle scrutiny of our beliefs then Deeper Waters may not be for us.

Dan, your not hearing what I'm saying.

I like discussing the Bible with Trinitarians. I believe our beliefs can handle scrutiny.

Once in awhile you should show some solidarity with other Oneness believers, that's all. I'm not questioning whether you are Oneness or not. I believe you are.

SDG

09-09-2007, 12:07 AM

I quoted you from page 5 and 15.

You requested YOUR posts.

I quoted them WITH the linkbacks.

:coffee2

Help me out BOOM ... You accuse me of promoting 3 persons ...

You see that in this post? I see One.

He who IS the Father IS God!
He who IS the Son IS God!
He who IS the Holy Spirit IS God!

It will take a some acrobatics to pin tri-theism on me.

SDG

09-09-2007, 12:09 AM

Let me help out with this issue once again ... [One more LOL, for Praxeas.]

First, indubitably, I'm more Oneness than you'll ever be ... and questioning that fact does nothing to change it. I'm secure in it.

The Oneness model to understanding our God is easiest for me to comprehend for many reasons ... most probably because I grew up in it...

It's about focus, my dear friend.

We focus on the deity of Jesus Christ while still acknowledging the distinctions in how God has revealed himself ....

Trinitarians focus a lot of their energies on the distinctions of God while still acknowledging the deity of Jesus Christ ....

As i stated earlier an earlier thread:

... the existence of this inane debate revolves around:

1. semantics over words such as persons, distinctions, modes, etc.
2. pride in presenting facts, figures,scripture, grammar, logic, scholarship and Church history while debunking the other side's facts, figures, logic, interpretation of scripture, grammar, scholarship and Church history. {I want to be right and prove you wrong while never admitting when I am wrong}
3. prejudices and hatreds based on a century old feud

eventually leading to more circular debates on:

4. the proper baptismal formula and questioning the other's salvation

and most often culminates in:

5. name calling, sensitivities hurt, and insults
---------------------------

In the end, this is what matters ... both sides whole heartedly agree and believe in:

1. One God
2.The Mighty God in Christ
3. Jesus is fully man and fully God
4. Jesus is the Son of God
5. Jesus died for our sins and was raised to give us new life.
6. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Carry on ... lol.

Once again, I'll reiterate ... the minute I can fully explain and define an infinite and Almighty God ... He ceases to be God ....

and I've become an idolater.

----------------

Are you a Trinophobic, Mizpeh ???... I'd get over it because you'll be spending eternity with several million.

Hmm ... where is that post on promoting three persons being attributed to me?

stmatthew

09-09-2007, 12:17 AM

SDG

09-09-2007, 12:18 AM

Bump

You'll have to wait on the Trinitarian to answer it ..... He's asleep. :poloroid

J-Roc

09-09-2007, 12:59 AM

:toofunny:toofunny:toofunny

BobDylan

09-09-2007, 01:11 AM

LOL ... you can't say those three statements without qualifying it .... sad.

Insecurities.

I can say those three statements without qualifying it, and I believe Praxeas can too...

He who is the Father is God!
He who is the Son is God!
He who is the Holy Spirit is God!

But I can also take that logic to the next level, whereas the trinitarian cannot!

He (singular) who is the father, is the son...and the spirit!

On the contrary, the trinitarian would say:

"He who is the father, IS NOT He who is the son"
"He who is the father, IS NOT He who is the spirit..."
and so forth and so on...

To the trinitarian, there are three "he's" in God...

To the oneness, there is only one "He", who is the almight, YHWH/Jesus!

mizpeh

09-09-2007, 01:21 AM

I can say those three statements without qualifying it, and I believe Praxeas can too...

He who is the Father is God!
He who is the Son is God!
He who is the Holy Spirit is God!

But I can also take that logic to the next level, whereas the trinitarian cannot!

He (singular) who is the father, is the son...and the spirit!

On the contrary, the trinitarian would say:

"He who is the father, IS NOT He who is the son"
"He who is the father, IS NOT He who is the spirit..."
and so forth and so on...

To the trinitarian, there are three "he's" in God...

To the oneness, there is only one "He", who is the almight, YHWH/Jesus!
Can you see what I mean, Dan? This is a Oneness believer justifying his beliefs to another Oneness believer about who God is. We shouldn't have to do this. This should be common ground between all of us. This is what we should be doing with Trinitarians, not between Oneness folks.

mizpeh

09-09-2007, 01:41 AM

All Trinitarians agree that God only has one will. The difinition I posted doesn't all apply to God. One cannot help but notice the "personal pronouns" applied to each of the "Persons" in the Godhead.

The grace of the [tou] Lord Jesus Christ, and [kai] the love of God [tou theou (lit. “the God”)], and [kai] the fellowship of the [tou] Holy Spirit be with you all

To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion for ever and ever

You can call them 'personal' pronouns if you wish to justify your use of the word, person, for God or just plain pronouns. But the use of these pronouns can be applied to the God of the OT who calls himself "I Am". That is a singular pronoun which means one entity or to you, one person. But you say God is three persons. Equivocation.

Yet when you speak of the differences between the Son and the Father who both say "I" in the NT you want them to be different persons. You place emphasis on pronouns correctly in the NT but misapply them in the OT. There are two in view, the Son and the Father, but not two persons. Two manifestions or modes of being of the one God who in the OT calls himself, I AM. How is this possible? Just as you said earlier, Jesus spoke in his humanity. Jesus as a man thought, felt, spoke as one of us. He had a God. John 20:17 Just as Praxeas has tried to explain. Jesus as man percieved himself to be a man because he was a man. Though he was God revealed in flesh, he never thought of himself as God. This is why we see a "personal distinction" between the Father and the Son.

But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. John 8:40

BobDylan

09-09-2007, 01:41 AM

Do you see what I mean, Dan? This is a Oneness believer justifying his beliefs to another Oneness believer about who God is. We shouldn't have to do this. This should be common ground between all of us. This is what we should be doing with Trinitarians, not between Oneness folks.

Mizpeh, I am concerned that Dan may only be a professing "oneness folk"... but in reality, in his mind the only difference between oneness and trintarians are semantics. What I have observed from Dan in this thread is a constant assault on basic oneness logic and presentation of their theology. The problem here is when a person fails to realize the real difference between oneness and trinitarian theology, they have in effect accepted a theology that embraces a godhead that is contrary to the God presented in the bible. The three-in-one God of the trinitarians is a completely foreign concept from the God of the Hebrew scriptures and Greek New Testament. Any theology that presents God as anything else but ONE is not a biblical theology. Three-in-one IS NOT one.

Deut 6:4
4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

mizpeh

09-09-2007, 01:51 AM

SDG

09-09-2007, 09:27 AM

I can say those three statements without qualifying it, and I believe Praxeas can too...

He who is the Father is God!
He who is the Son is God!
He who is the Holy Spirit is God!

But I can also take that logic to the next level, whereas the trinitarian cannot!

He (singular) who is the father, is the son...and the spirit!

On the contrary, the trinitarian would say:

"He who is the father, IS NOT He who is the son"
"He who is the father, IS NOT He who is the spirit..."
and so forth and so on...

To the trinitarian, there are three "he's" in God...

To the oneness, there is only one "He", who is the almight, YHWH/Jesus!

You have qualified it ...

No one disagrees with your qualification.

Praxeas

09-09-2007, 09:42 AM

Help me out BOOM ... You accuse me of promoting 3 persons ...

You see that in this post? I see One.

It will take a some acrobatics to pin tri-theism on me.
Dan Trinitarians aren't Tritheists. So much for toleration. Well at least Dan finally stopped attacking Oneness and here attacks Trinity, albeit a strawman argument :poloroid

Praxeas

09-09-2007, 09:43 AM

Can you see what I mean, Dan? This is a Oneness believer justifying his beliefs to another Oneness believer about who God is. We shouldn't have to do this. This should be common ground between all of us. This is what we should be doing with Trinitarians, not between Oneness folks.
Sadly DA does not just stand for Daniel Alicea but also Devils Advocate

SDG

09-09-2007, 09:53 AM

Mizpeh, I am concerned that Dan may only be a professing "oneness folk"... but in reality, in his mind the only difference between oneness and trintarians are semantics. What I have observed from Dan in this thread is a constant assault on basic oneness logic and presentation of their theology. The problem here is when a person fails to realize the real difference between oneness and trinitarian theology, they have in effect accepted a theology that embraces a godhead that is contrary to the God presented in the bible. The three-in-one God of the trinitarians is a completely foreign concept from the God of the Hebrew scriptures and Greek New Testament. Any theology that presents God as anything else but ONE is not a biblical theology. Three-in-one IS NOT one.

Deut 6:4
4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

The thing that bothers me is Dan will read your reply to his post and instead of affirming what you say with an Amen or I agree, he will be offensive and resist your remarks with something contrary. He says he is Oneness but fights against those that hold his own doctrine to support an opposite opinion. :crazy

It gets tiresome and even slanderous that some of us can't be questioned on our logic, traditions and approach to many of these issues without being labeled a liar or false claiming.

I will not ask for an apology as these recent posts questioning my integrity as a Oneness child of God infer I'm a lying Oneness believer ...

however, please note that there are many on this forum, mostly PCIers, who will not quibble w/ one statement I've made on this thread.

They often do not post in these type of topics, I speculate, because those who maintain they are our Oneness brethren will do as some have here ....and impugn their reputations w/ false accusations as not being Apostolic or Oneness enough.

I've even had accusations that I have not been taught Apostolic principles in a proper manner by my pastor and father. {Which may be entirely another issue that is now dead}

Furthermore, BD, Oneness pioneer Andrew Urshan had no issues using the term three-in-one, or triune. He used it w/ regularity in his books to describe God.

Urshan, father of Nathaniel Urshan, objected to the use of the term "oneness" preferring to describe God as a "tri-unity" or "Three-One God" in his book: The Almighty God in the Lord Jesus Christ, (pgs 6,42,78,93) or : The Blessed Three-ness of the Godhead. WG 4 (July 1923), 2-4.

Are we to question his integrity as a Oneness believer also? I think not.

This also is part of the problem with some modern OPs. They have solidified their thinking to the point that any mention of what may be deemed as as Trinitarian language is ANATHEMA.

If you want cheerleaders, BD and Mizpeh, you have quite a few already. My poms-poms are mainly reserved for other issues. This united front argument has serious holes and wreaks of "us against them", IMO.

I will not, and do not see in our forum rules, where I have to agree with your logic or approach.

I have and always affirm to be Oneness. If questioning logic, history, or aspects of our own doctrines on some these issues is deemed as promotion of Trinitarianism than we need to define promotion as a forum.

As I read the rules they state:
On matters of doctrine, feel free to post your views supported with scripture. It is okay to disagree, just let the conversation flow, letting go of the need to prove yourself right.

Secondly, if I understand the forum policy ... promotion is proselytizing. If this is the case , then I have never told someone to believe in 3 persons, as by conscience I cannot. It also seems odd that we would invite trinitarians to post here and debate us on our beliefs but do not also see it as a form of promotion by allowing a platform.

SDG

09-09-2007, 09:56 AM

Sadly DA does not just stand for Daniel Alicea but also Devils Advocate

Are you stating that I am working for the devil ... if so ... I will be reporting this post and demanding a public apology.

I'm told not to make swipes at you w/ humor so you can step in and try to land haymakers?

Praxeas

09-09-2007, 10:16 AM

Are you stating that I am working for the devil ... if so ... I will be reporting this post and demanding a public apology.

I'm told not to make swipes at you w/ humor so you can step in and try to land haymakers?
Oh brother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate
In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who takes a position for the sake of argument. This practice is generally an instructional technique in which one person argues a position that another is less familiar with, thereby teaching proper argument.

Formerly, during the canonization process of the Roman Catholic Church, the Promoter of the Faith (Latin Promotor Fidei), or Devil's Advocate (Latin advocatus diaboli), was a canon lawyer appointed by the Church to argue against the canonization of the candidate. It was his job to take a skeptical view of the candidate's character, to look for holes in the evidence, to argue that any miracles attributed to the candidate were fraudulent, etc. The Devil's advocate was opposed by God's advocate, whose job was to make the argument in favor of canonization. The office was established in 1587 during the reign of Pope Sixtus V and was abolished by Pope John Paul II in 1983. This abolition streamlined the canonization process considerably, helping John Paul II to usher in an unprecedented number of elevations: nearly 500 individuals were canonized and over 1,300 were beatified during his tenure as Pope as compared to only 98 canonizations by all his 20th-century predecessors.

Such a dramatic increase suggests that the office of the Devil's Advocate had served to reduce the number of canonizations by complicating the process. Some argue that it served a useful role in ensuring that canonizations did not proceed without due care and hence the status of sainthood was not easily achieved. In cases of controversy the Vatican may still seek to informally solicit the testimony of critics of a candidate for canonization. The British born American columnist Christopher Hitchens was famously asked to testify against the canonization of Mother Teresa in 2002, a role he would later humorously describe as being akin to "representing the devil pro bono".[1]

SDG

09-09-2007, 10:23 AM

Oh brother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate
In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who takes a position for the sake of argument. This practice is generally an instructional technique in which one person argues a position that another is less familiar with, thereby teaching proper argument.

Formerly, during the canonization process of the Roman Catholic Church, the Promoter of the Faith (Latin Promotor Fidei), or Devil's Advocate (Latin advocatus diaboli), was a canon lawyer appointed by the Church to argue against the canonization of the candidate. It was his job to take a skeptical view of the candidate's character, to look for holes in the evidence, to argue that any miracles attributed to the candidate were fraudulent, etc. The Devil's advocate was opposed by God's advocate, whose job was to make the argument in favor of canonization. The office was established in 1587 during the reign of Pope Sixtus V and was abolished by Pope John Paul II in 1983. This abolition streamlined the canonization process considerably, helping John Paul II to usher in an unprecedented number of elevations: nearly 500 individuals were canonized and over 1,300 were beatified during his tenure as Pope as compared to only 98 canonizations by all his 20th-century predecessors.

Such a dramatic increase suggests that the office of the Devil's Advocate had served to reduce the number of canonizations by complicating the process. Some argue that it served a useful role in ensuring that canonizations did not proceed without due care and hence the status of sainthood was not easily achieved. In cases of controversy the Vatican may still seek to informally solicit the testimony of critics of a candidate for canonization. The British born American columnist Christopher Hitchens was famously asked to testify against the canonization of Mother Teresa in 2002, a role he would later humorously describe as being akin to "representing the devil pro bono".[1]

I'm told that my humorous swipes at you using "LOL" are not going to be tolerated as they are deemed inappropriate by Admin... but you can turn around post double entendantes ... or double meanings that include I might be working for the enemy our souls ... and I need to take it as humor.

Thank you Praxeas for defining a term I'm well aware w/ as public school teacher who has taught debate in Social Studies classes for 9 years.

SDG

09-09-2007, 10:26 AM

Sadly DA does not just stand for Daniel Alicea but also Devils Advocate

Sadly ... the adverb in this sentence gives added meaning to the context of this swipe.

Praxeas

09-09-2007, 10:31 AM

I'm told that my humorous swipes at you using "LOL" are not going to be tolerated as they are deemed inappropriate by Admin... but you can turn around post double entendantes ... or double meanings that includes I might be working for the enemy our souls ... and I need to take it as humor.

Thank you Praxeas for defining a term I'm well aware w/ as public school teacher who has taught debate in Social Studies classes for 9 years.
If you know what the term means then you would never have claimed I was saying you were working for the devil....unbelievable that you continue to milk this stuff Dan.

I also find it somewhat troubling that you taught school kids debate when most of the time here you resort to mockery and actually ridicule anyone for trying to use logic

By Devils Advocate it means you were taking a Trinitarians side in opposition of the Oneness. Now, if YOU want to be the one to say that means you were working with the enemy of our souls, I wonder what the Trinitarians have to say about that...

Again this is just unbelievable. I think you are just looking for something Dan because you were told to stop your swipes. I summed up what Mizpeh said and what others here are saying. You play Devils Advocate with doctrine. Other times you seem to just be outright disagreeing of your own opinion.

Well if you are not playing Devils advocate but really are in opposition to Oneness arguments, then I apologize...but not because I was insulting you. Devils Advocate is not a pejorative term.
Unlike trying to insult someone just because they explained or defined the differences between how a Trinitarian views what you said and a Oneness.

BoredOutOfMyMind

09-09-2007, 10:32 AM

Once again Daniel, you instead of answering a question, take a side approach and enlarge even a dead issue.

You requested we refer to your posts. They still ring true from last night.

And the questions are unanswered in your dance.

SDG

09-09-2007, 10:32 AM

If you know what the term means then you would never have claimed I was saying you were working for the devil....unbelievable that you continue to milk this stuff Dan.

I also find it somewhat troubling that you taught school kids debate when most of the time here you resort to mockery and actually ridicule anyone for trying to use logic

By Devils Advocate it means you were taking a Trinitarians side in opposition of the Oneness. Now, if YOU want to be the one to say that means you were working with the enemy of our souls, I wonder what the Trinitarians have to say about that...

Again this is just unbelievable. I think you are just looking for something Dan because you were told to stop your swipes. I summed up what Mizpeh said and what others here are saying. You play Devils Advocate with doctrine. Other times you seem to just be outright disagreeing of your own opinion.

Well if you are not playing Devils advocate but really are in opposition to Oneness arguments, then I apologize...but not because I was insulting you. Devils Advocate is not a pejorative term.

Thank you for playing .... :hypercoffee

SDG

09-09-2007, 10:33 AM

SDG

09-09-2007, 10:37 AM

Praxeas

09-09-2007, 10:38 AM

Sadly ... the adverb in this sentence gives added meaning to the context of this swipe.
Oh brother...milk it as much as you want Dan...keep it up Brother. You might just finally score.

Sadly, yes it IS sadly. You do it often and it appears to OTHERS, not just me, that you are taking the Trinitarian side. Your appear divisive and an advocate to the Trinitarians anti-Oneness views. I thought you were just playing devils advocate and though I do find that a sad thing to constantly see here on this board, perhaps you aren't trying to play devils advocate....which makes us wonder if you aren't really leaning towards Trinitarianism. Perhaps you don't see it....the other members here do. You join ranks with the Trinitarians when they are having a discussion with Oneness advocates here. You resort to mockery and insults too against the OP but not the Trinitarian...then you claim it's all in the name of tolerance.

My suggestion was that you are playing Devils advocate in a misguided attempt at tolerance. Sadly...yes sadly I think that is what you do, I say sadly because it appears to be divisive and there are others that are frustrated by it as well. Im not the only one that sees this. I just happen to be the only one you were told to lay off of and now you are just begging for something to pick on. Devils advocate. You know what it means. I could have said "Sadly It seems like Dan is just taking the opposing side for the sake of argument" same thing..

Devils advocate means you are in cahoots with the devil?? give me a break :killinme

BoredOutOfMyMind

09-09-2007, 10:39 AM

Dancing w/ the stars ... my posts speak for themselves.

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh.

:coffee2

Willy Jacks

09-09-2007, 12:37 PM

BTW, there are Oneness believers that believe in Eternal Sonship ...

This issue is only an issue to most PAJC Oneness believers primarily because of their soteriological view, namely a baptismal formula ....

as long as that's the case ... you will see those who place their trust in Jesus Christ and enter into a binding relationship w/ him ... as lost ... and just well-intentioned.

If they are born of God and are filled w/ His Spirit .... they are my brethren .. . regardless if I view their explanation of God as lacking.

Your focus is in being able to explain God ... when He yearns for relationship.

My prayer is that of Jesus ... make us one .... as He and the Father are One.

Dan, thank you for confirming this. As a Oneness believer I've always had an issue the doctrine that says that the Sonship will end. When I hear Oneness claim that the Son will someday end, I cringe at the thought. I don't think they understand what they're saying.

Willy Jacks

09-09-2007, 12:40 PM

mizpeh

09-09-2007, 12:48 PM

It gets tiresome and even slanderous that some of us can't be questioned on our logic, traditions and approach to many of these issues without being labeled a liar or false claiming.

I will not ask for an apology as these recent posts questioning my integrity as a Oneness child of God infer I'm a lying Oneness believer ...This knife cuts both ways. I didn't call you a liar. I truly don't understand why you chide Oneness folks who are discussing doctrine with Trinitarians.

however, please note that there are many on this forum, mostly PCIers, who will not quibble w/ one statement I've made on this thread.

They often do not post in these type of topics, I speculate, because those who maintain they are our Oneness brethren will do as some have here ....and impugn their reputations w/ false accusations as not being Apostolic or Oneness enough.This is not Elpey's thread which questions whether Trinitarians are lost, but a doctrinal thread on who the Son is and basically on the Oneness doctrine. None of us are condemning this Trinitarian to hell or even questioning his salvation. If we were I could understand your defense of this Trinitarian but we are discussing doctrine on God. So why are you continually cheerleading the Trinitarian point of view or at the least being extremely sypathetic to the point of opposing your fellow Oneness believers? That is what is confusing me. I put it down to your decision to be tolerant but your doing it at the expense of alienating your brethren. This Trinitarian doesn't need a protector on this site. He appears able to handle the discussion.

I've even had accusations that I have not been taught Apostolic principles in a proper manner by my pastor and father. {Which may be entirely another issue that is now dead}Rehashing an accusation from another thread. An inappropiate accusation but not related to the discussion on this thread.

Furthermore, BD, Oneness pioneer Andrew Urshan had no issues using the term three-in-one, or triune. He used it w/ regularity in his books to describe God.

Urshan, father of Nathaniel Urshan, objected to the use of the term "oneness" preferring to describe God as a "tri-unity" or "Three-One God" in his book: The Almighty God in the Lord Jesus Christ, (pgs 6,42,78,93) or : The Blessed Three-ness of the Godhead. WG 4 (July 1923), 2-4.

Are we to question his integrity as a Oneness believer also? I think not.Dan, you're more Oneness than I am, so why don't you defend it?

This also is part of the problem with some modern OPs. They have solidified their thinking to the point that any mention of what may be deemed as as Trinitarian language is ANATHEMA.

If you want cheerleaders, BD and Mizpeh, you have quite a few already. My poms-poms are mainly reserved for other issues. This united front argument has serious holes and wreaks of "us against them", IMO.Dan, I just don't want to explain myself to a fellow Oneness believer who appears to be siding with an opposite belief whether its JW or Mormonism or Trinitarianism.

I will not, and do not see in our forum rules, where I have to agree with your logic or approach.

I have and always affirm to be Oneness. If questioning logic, history, or aspects of our own doctrines on some these issues is deemed as promotion of Trinitarianism than we need to define promotion as a forum. I was asking you to spread the love around, Dan. Give it up for your Oneness brethren once in awhile who are promoting the Oneness of God.

mizpeh

09-09-2007, 12:50 PM

Dan, thank you for confirming this. As a Oneness believer I've always had an issue the doctrine that says that the Sonship will end. When I hear Oneness claim that the Son will someday end, I cringe at the thought. I don't think they understand what they're saying.

He was responding to what I said about the doctrine of an eternal Son, as in eternal generation and the second person of the Trinity. I'm not sure why he mentioned eternal Sonship.

mizpeh

09-09-2007, 12:50 PM

Praxeas

09-09-2007, 12:50 PM

Dan, thank you for confirming this. As a Oneness believer I've always had an issue the doctrine that says that the Sonship will end. When I hear Oneness claim that the Son will someday end, I cringe at the thought. I don't think they understand what they're saying.
Willy Dan isn't talking about the Sonship ENDING. He's talking about a Sonship that has always existed...like Trinitarians..Father and Son before the world began

Willy Jacks

09-09-2007, 12:57 PM

Bump

I'll try to answer the question from a Trinitarain perspective. Any Trinity folks can correct me if I'm off. Here Goes.

5. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

According to the Bible, Jesus is shown to be the Son of God only. So the subject is not the Father or the Holy Spirit.

6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Jesus Christ, existed (continually existing) in the form of God..i.e. Spirit.

7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Jesus Christ took on the form, added humanity to himself. He didn't empty himself of deity, just the glory, which his later prayer in John 17:5 asked the Father to glorify him with the glory he had with the Father before the world was.

8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

It was Jesus who was found in the appearance of a man, not the Father. No man has ever seen the Father (Jn 6:46)

9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

It was because Jesus came to do the Father's will that God highly exalted Him. So to answer your question, Jesus willing sujected himself to do the Fathers will. So, in his humanity the Father is greater than the Son.

10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Jesus is Lord to the glory of the Father. Jesus is still Lord, and it is to Jesus that every knew will bow.

Willy Jacks

09-09-2007, 12:59 PM

Willy Dan isn't talking about the Sonship ENDING. He's talking about a Sonship that has always existed...like Trinitarians..Father and Son before the world began

Well, if dan said the Son always existed, then that would speak to the future as well? I took it as meaning eternally.

Willy Jacks

09-09-2007, 12:59 PM

The word they used means a numerical one.

what?

BoredOutOfMyMind

09-09-2007, 01:14 PM

Well, if dan said the Son always existed, then that would speak to the future as well? I took it as meaning eternally.

The son existed - in that God saw from the beginning of time he would redeem mankind by the sacrifice of the son- giving himself.

There was not a seperate person(s) at anytime.

Praxeas

09-09-2007, 01:14 PM

Bob, why didn't Moses you the Hebrew word that means “absolute one,” instead he used the word that also means “compound unity?”

Wrong. Echad is the Hebrew word for the numeric value ONE. It is in fact the word Hebrews would use to mean one in number absolutely. Echad CAN mean a unity, just as One in our language does. But that is not always the case

The Trinitarian argument that the word used would or should have been yachid is fallicious. Just look up the word and see how it is used.

BDB
yâchîyd
BDB Definition:
1) only, only one, solitary, one (adjective)
1a) only, unique, one
1b) solitary
1c) (TWOT) only begotten son
2) one (substantive)

TWOT
Derivative TWOT Number: 858a
Derivative Transliteration: yahid
Derivative Strong's Cross Reference: 3173
Derivative Definition: only, only begotten son.

Derivative TWOT Number: 858c
Derivative Transliteration: yahdaw,
Derivative Strong's Cross Reference: 3162
Derivative Definition: together.

yahid. Only, only begotten son, beloved, solitary. Appears eleven times (KJV twice uses "darling," RSV renders "my life" following the poetic parallel with napsh? or Psa_22:20, [H 21]; Psa_35:17 (NIV "My precious life") and "desolate" in Psa_68:6 [H 7] (ASV follows KJV). LXX translates it seven times with agapetos "beloved" and four times with monogenes "only begotten." The Ugaritic cognate is yhd.

Theologically, yahid is important as it impinges on NT Christology. The word basically refers to an only child (cf, Ug yhd "either 'a person without kith or kin' or 'an only son' subject to military service only under extenuating circumstances," UT 19: no. 410). Jephthah's daughter is described accordingly, "now she was his one and only child, besides her he had neither son nor daughter" (Jdg_11:34). Consider the pathos elicited in Amo_8:10 where the judgment of God is described as "a time of mourning for an only son" (cf. Jer_6:26; Zec_12:10). However, in Gen 22 Abraham is told, "take now your son, your only son (yahid), whom you love ('ahab), Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah. " Here the LXX uses agapetos "beloved" rather than monogenes "only begotten" as in Jdg_11:34. monogenes may be more specific. if so, it could not apply to Isaac who had Ishmael as a half brother. It must be pointed out, however, that even monogenes may "be used more generally without reference to its etymological derivation in the sense of 'unique', 'unparalleled,' 'incomparable,' " (TDNT, IV, p. 738; see especially nn. 5-6).

Another use of yahid is "solitary," "isolated," "lonely." It is used of men, as when David cries out "turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted" (Psa_25:16). God expresses his concern for such in Psa_68:5-6 [H 6-7], "A father of the fatherless and a judge for the widows... God make s a home for the lonely; he leads out the prisoners into prosperity." Dahood, by vocalizing MT yahed as yahid in Psa_86:11, translates, "Yahweh, teach me your way, that I may walk faithfully to you alone; teach my heart to revere your name." (Cf. Psa_88:17 [H 181 "they close in on me alone" as in contrast to "encompassed me altogether.") He then comments, "The king pledges fidelity to Yahweh alone since he alone is God, as afrirmed in the preceeding verse" (AB, Psalms, II, p. 295). Generally, yahad describes the community in action, doing things together. In Psa_34:3 [H 4]; Isa_52:9, the community extols the praise of God together. This unanimity especially for the people of God is beautifully underscored by the LXX'S use of homothumadon ("with the same emotion," i.e. "with the same mind") "unanimously." Demosthenes urges the people to set aside personal feelings replacing it by homothumadon to resist Philip. Hence, personal feelings are not to be considered in "unity." The NT stresses the inner unanimity of the church, as in Rom_15:4-5, "May God... grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus, that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." See also Act_1:14; Act_2:1, Act_2:46; Act_4:24; Act_5:12; Act_15:25.

Now check Echad
BDB
1) one (number)
1a) one (number)
1b) each, every
1c) a certain
1d) an (indefinite article)
1e) only, once, once for all
1f) one...another, the one...the other, one after another, one by one
1g) first
1h) eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal)

TWOT
'ehad can refer to a certain individual (Jdg_13:2) or a single blessing (Gen_27:38). Solomon alone was chosen by the Lord (1Ch_29:1). The notion of uniqueness is also found in 2Sa_7:23 and Eze_33:24 (for this verse with reference to God, see below). The phrase "in a single day" can refer to the suddenness of judgment (Isa_10:17; Isa_47:9) or blessing (Isa_66:8).

Adverbially, 'head means "once" or "one time" (2Ki_6:10). God solemnly swore to David "one time" that his descendants and throne would last forever (Psa_89:35 [H 361). In Hag_2:6 the Lord warned that he would shake heaven and earth "once more in a little while." Yet this prediction of the overthrow of nations probably included a near as well as a far fulfilment (cf. Heb_12:26). The expression "in one day" denotes the swiftness of the Lord's acts (Isa_9:14 [H 131; Zec_3:9).

Sometimes the phrase "as one man" can mean "all at once" (Num_14:15), but when Gideon was told he would defeat Midian "as one man" it probably meant "as easily as a single man" (Jdg_6:16). The phrase can also refer to a nation aroused to take united action against gross injustice (Jdg_20:8; 1Sa_11:7). Zephaniah's mention of people serving God "with one shoulder" (Zep_3:9) likely means "shoulder to shoulder," solidly united. Likewise in Exo_24:3 "with one voice" expresses that all Israel was involved in entering into the Covenant with Yahweh.

And the TWOT adds
In the famous Shema of Deu_6:4, "Hear, O Israel... the LORD is one," the question of diversity within unity has theological implications. Some scholars have felt that, though "one" is singular, the usage of the word allows for the doctrine of the Trinity. While it is true that this doctrine is foreshadowed in the OT, the verse concentrates on the fact that there is one God and that Israel owes its exclusive loyalty to him (Deu_5:9; Deu_6:5). The NT also is strictly monotheistic while at the same time teaching diversity within the unity (Jam_2:19; 1Co_8:5-6).

Praxeas

09-09-2007, 01:16 PM

Well, if dan said the Son always existed, then that would speak to the future as well? I took it as meaning eternally.
Dan's argument was about the Son always existing, not "never ending", which many OPs believe the Son is not going to end.

BobDylan

09-09-2007, 03:02 PM

Bob, why didn't Moses you the Hebrew word that means “absolute one,” instead he used the word that also means “compound unity?”
The Hebrew word "echad" in Deut 6:4 means one in it's numerical value.

This is from the Brown-Drive-Briggs Hebrew lexicon:

OT:259

'echad --

one (number)
a) one (number)
b) each, every
c) a certain
d) an (indefinite article)
e) only, once, once for all
f) one...another, the one...the other, one after another, one by one
g) first
h) eleven (in combination), eleventh (or dinal)

(from The Online Bible Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, Copyright (c)1993, Woodside Bible Fellowship, Ontario, Canada. Licensed from the Institute for Creation Research.)

Willy Jacks

09-09-2007, 03:07 PM

The son existed - in that God saw from the beginning of time he would redeem mankind by the sacrifice of the son- giving himself.

There was not a seperate person(s) at anytime.

It would be helpful if you would posts scriptures to back this up. thanks

Willy Jacks

09-09-2007, 03:13 PM

The Hebrew word "echad" in Deut 6:4 means one in it's numerical value.

This is from the Brown-Drive-Briggs Hebrew lexicon:

OT:259

'echad --

one (number)
a) one (number)
b) each, every
c) a certain
d) an (indefinite article)
e) only, once, once for all
f) one...another, the one...the other, one after another, one by one
g) first
h) eleven (in combination), eleventh (or dinal)

(from The Online Bible Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, Copyright (c)1993, Woodside Bible Fellowship, Ontario, Canada. Licensed from the Institute for Creation Research.)

I found this web site..please read.

The debate over the implications of the various usage's of two Hebrew words [Yachid vs. Echad] translated "one" is as intriguing as it is complex.
The etymology of the Hebrew word yachid (one) is derived from echad in the same way that the English word "only" is derived from the word "one". That yachid is from the same root family of words as echad is seen from the similarity of spelling. So "yachid" is to "only", what "echad" is to "one".
About the only fact that all on both sides of the debate agree on, is that yachid indisputably means an absolute numeric one and is never used to describe God. Anti-Trinitarians would naturally expect such a word to be commonly used of God. Having said this, when we cross over to the Greek, in parallel passages that use "yachid", we find a correspondence with the Greek word "mono". We do find "mono" used of God in the New Testament describing his oneness. So while yachid is never used of God’s oneness in the Old Testament, the corresponding word "mono" is used of God’s oneness in the New Testament. But this is exactly what Trinitarians would expect to be the case because there are three persons in the one God.
Hebrew is a very simple language, but Greek is quite complex and specific. Some Trinitarians overemphasize the clear differences between "yachid and echad" in the Hebrew. Yes, "echad" is a unified one, but it is also used of a numeric one as well. Yes, "yachid" is never used in reference to God's oneness, but the word "bad" is used and it is synonymous with numeric oneness to yachid. When we cross over to the Greek, we find a similar blur in the words used of God that mean unified versus numeric oneness. If the Holy Spirit intended to convey Trinity hidden in the Old Testament in the words "yachid and echad", we would expect such a distinction to be even more pronounced in the Greek, since it is a more specific language than Hebrew. But we find exactly the same in the New Testament as we do in the old, namely a combination of words meaning unified versus numeric oneness being employed to describe God's oneness.
Having said all this, perhaps the Holy Spirit did want us to look back at the Old Testament and perceive the differences between "yachid and echad". Add to this plural pronouns like: "let US make man in OUR image" and Trinitarians have irrefutable evidence of the trinity in the Old Testament.
Trinitarians can be confident that such diversity of words like "yachid and echad" used to describe God's oneness is exactly what we would expect to find. Anti-Trinitarians and Unitarians are nervous about the fact that the most direct and important statements in the Old Testament about God's oneness (Deut 6:4) use the unified one [echad] instead of a words that always mean numeric oneness like "yachid" and "bad".
Perhaps one of the strongest arguments the Trinitarian can use in the discussion of the words "echad" and "yachid" is the fact that Jews shortly after the rise of Christianity removed "echad" from Deut 6:4 and added in its place the word "yachid".
Jesus quoted Deut 6:4 in Mk 12:29 and chose the "unified oneness" word "hen" which is the same word used by Jesus in Mt 19:5, "the two shall become one (hen) flesh. It is significant that Jesus did not use "mono" in Mk 12:29. The word

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-yachid-vs-echad.htm

Willy Jacks

09-09-2007, 03:15 PM

Dan's argument was about the Son always existing, not "never ending", which many OPs believe the Son is not going to end.

Ok, I hear you. I have a question though. If the Son (who is not the Father) is not going to end, then who is He in heaven?

Willy Jacks

09-09-2007, 03:17 PM

Wrong. Echad is the Hebrew word for the numeric value ONE. It is in fact the word Hebrews would use to mean one in number absolutely. Echad CAN mean a unity, just as One in our language does. But that is not always the case

The Trinitarian argument that the word used would or should have been yachid is fallicious. Just look up the word and see how it is used.

BDB
yâchîyd
BDB Definition:
1) only, only one, solitary, one (adjective)
1a) only, unique, one
1b) solitary
1c) (TWOT) only begotten son
2) one (substantive)

TWOT
Derivative TWOT Number: 858a
Derivative Transliteration: yahid
Derivative Strong's Cross Reference: 3173
Derivative Definition: only, only begotten son.

Derivative TWOT Number: 858c
Derivative Transliteration: yahdaw,
Derivative Strong's Cross Reference: 3162
Derivative Definition: together.

yahid. Only, only begotten son, beloved, solitary. Appears eleven times (KJV twice uses "darling," RSV renders "my life" following the poetic parallel with napsh? or Psa_22:20, [H 21]; Psa_35:17 (NIV "My precious life") and "desolate" in Psa_68:6 [H 7] (ASV follows KJV). LXX translates it seven times with agapetos "beloved" and four times with monogenes "only begotten." The Ugaritic cognate is yhd.

Theologically, yahid is important as it impinges on NT Christology. The word basically refers to an only child (cf, Ug yhd "either 'a person without kith or kin' or 'an only son' subject to military service only under extenuating circumstances," UT 19: no. 410). Jephthah's daughter is described accordingly, "now she was his one and only child, besides her he had neither son nor daughter" (Jdg_11:34). Consider the pathos elicited in Amo_8:10 where the judgment of God is described as "a time of mourning for an only son" (cf. Jer_6:26; Zec_12:10). However, in Gen 22 Abraham is told, "take now your son, your only son (yahid), whom you love ('ahab), Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah. " Here the LXX uses agapetos "beloved" rather than monogenes "only begotten" as in Jdg_11:34. monogenes may be more specific. if so, it could not apply to Isaac who had Ishmael as a half brother. It must be pointed out, however, that even monogenes may "be used more generally without reference to its etymological derivation in the sense of 'unique', 'unparalleled,' 'incomparable,' " (TDNT, IV, p. 738; see especially nn. 5-6).

Another use of yahid is "solitary," "isolated," "lonely." It is used of men, as when David cries out "turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted" (Psa_25:16). God expresses his concern for such in Psa_68:5-6 [H 6-7], "A father of the fatherless and a judge for the widows... God make s a home for the lonely; he leads out the prisoners into prosperity." Dahood, by vocalizing MT yahed as yahid in Psa_86:11, translates, "Yahweh, teach me your way, that I may walk faithfully to you alone; teach my heart to revere your name." (Cf. Psa_88:17 [H 181 "they close in on me alone" as in contrast to "encompassed me altogether.") He then comments, "The king pledges fidelity to Yahweh alone since he alone is God, as afrirmed in the preceeding verse" (AB, Psalms, II, p. 295). Generally, yahad describes the community in action, doing things together. In Psa_34:3 [H 4]; Isa_52:9, the community extols the praise of God together. This unanimity especially for the people of God is beautifully underscored by the LXX'S use of homothumadon ("with the same emotion," i.e. "with the same mind") "unanimously." Demosthenes urges the people to set aside personal feelings replacing it by homothumadon to resist Philip. Hence, personal feelings are not to be considered in "unity." The NT stresses the inner unanimity of the church, as in Rom_15:4-5, "May God... grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus, that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." See also Act_1:14; Act_2:1, Act_2:46; Act_4:24; Act_5:12; Act_15:25.

Now check Echad
BDB
1) one (number)
1a) one (number)
1b) each, every
1c) a certain
1d) an (indefinite article)
1e) only, once, once for all
1f) one...another, the one...the other, one after another, one by one
1g) first
1h) eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal)

TWOT
'ehad can refer to a certain individual (Jdg_13:2) or a single blessing (Gen_27:38). Solomon alone was chosen by the Lord (1Ch_29:1). The notion of uniqueness is also found in 2Sa_7:23 and Eze_33:24 (for this verse with reference to God, see below). The phrase "in a single day" can refer to the suddenness of judgment (Isa_10:17; Isa_47:9) or blessing (Isa_66:8).

Adverbially, 'head means "once" or "one time" (2Ki_6:10). God solemnly swore to David "one time" that his descendants and throne would last forever (Psa_89:35 [H 361). In Hag_2:6 the Lord warned that he would shake heaven and earth "once more in a little while." Yet this prediction of the overthrow of nations probably included a near as well as a far fulfilment (cf. Heb_12:26). The expression "in one day" denotes the swiftness of the Lord's acts (Isa_9:14 [H 131; Zec_3:9).

Sometimes the phrase "as one man" can mean "all at once" (Num_14:15), but when Gideon was told he would defeat Midian "as one man" it probably meant "as easily as a single man" (Jdg_6:16). The phrase can also refer to a nation aroused to take united action against gross injustice (Jdg_20:8; 1Sa_11:7). Zephaniah's mention of people serving God "with one shoulder" (Zep_3:9) likely means "shoulder to shoulder," solidly united. Likewise in Exo_24:3 "with one voice" expresses that all Israel was involved in entering into the Covenant with Yahweh.

And the TWOT adds
In the famous Shema of Deu_6:4, "Hear, O Israel... the LORD is one," the question of diversity within unity has theological implications. Some scholars have felt that, though "one" is singular, the usage of the word allows for the doctrine of the Trinity. While it is true that this doctrine is foreshadowed in the OT, the verse concentrates on the fact that there is one God and that Israel owes its exclusive loyalty to him (Deu_5:9; Deu_6:5). The NT also is strictly monotheistic while at the same time teaching diversity within the unity (Jam_2:19; 1Co_8:5-6).

That is a lot said without posting the links! :driving

Willy Jacks

09-09-2007, 03:18 PM

The son existed - in that God saw from the beginning of time he would redeem mankind by the sacrifice of the son- giving himself.

There was not a seperate person(s) at anytime.

Show scripture please.

Willy Jacks

09-09-2007, 03:29 PM

Did Jesus pray to His Father or not?

Joh 17:1 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,

Mat 26:39 And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will."

Jesus, in the flesh, prayed to His Father.

believer this is about where I started to get confuse with my Oneness beliefs. Could you please explain it bit further for me?

BobDylan

09-09-2007, 03:57 PM

It gets tiresome and even slanderous that some of us can't be questioned on our logic, traditions and approach to many of these issues without being labeled a liar or false claiming.

I will not ask for an apology as these recent posts questioning my integrity as a Oneness child of God infer I'm a lying Oneness believer ...

however, please note that there are many on this forum, mostly PCIers, who will not quibble w/ one statement I've made on this thread.

They often do not post in these type of topics, I speculate, because those who maintain they are our Oneness brethren will do as some have here ....and impugn their reputations w/ false accusations as not being Apostolic or Oneness enough.

I've even had accusations that I have not been taught Apostolic principles in a proper manner by my pastor and father. {Which may be entirely another issue that is now dead}

Furthermore, BD, Oneness pioneer Andrew Urshan had no issues using the term three-in-one, or triune. He used it w/ regularity in his books to describe God.

Urshan, father of Nathaniel Urshan, objected to the use of the term "oneness" preferring to describe God as a "tri-unity" or "Three-One God" in his book: The Almighty God in the Lord Jesus Christ, (pgs 6,42,78,93) or : The Blessed Three-ness of the Godhead. WG 4 (July 1923), 2-4.

Are we to question his integrity as a Oneness believer also? I think not.

This also is part of the problem with some modern OPs. They have solidified their thinking to the point that any mention of what may be deemed as as Trinitarian language is ANATHEMA.

If you want cheerleaders, BD and Mizpeh, you have quite a few already. My poms-poms are mainly reserved for other issues. This united front argument has serious holes and wreaks of "us against them", IMO.

I will not, and do not see in our forum rules, where I have to agree with your logic or approach.

I have and always affirm to be Oneness. If questioning logic, history, or aspects of our own doctrines on some these issues is deemed as promotion of Trinitarianism than we need to define promotion as a forum.

As I read the rules they state:
On matters of doctrine, feel free to post your views supported with scripture. It is okay to disagree, just let the conversation flow, letting go of the need to prove yourself right.

Secondly, if I understand the forum policy ... promotion is proselytizing. If this is the case , then I have never told someone to believe in 3 persons, as by conscience I cannot. It also seems odd that we would invite trinitarians to post here and debate us on our beliefs but do not also see it as a form of promotion by allowing a platform.

IF a history as presented by a oneness is indeed incorrect, then suggest an alternate, more correct history from your own original research (or someone else's) that better proves the oneness position. If you question a history, if you are going to try to disprove it (with real evidence, not just stateing "this is false"), the provide the appropriate explaination. What I have observed is you attack oneness historians, accuse them of propogating falsehoods and lies, (while in doing so undermining their position), and then fail to offer an alternative.

Also, if a logic is inapproprately applied, suggest a more accurate logic with which to arrive at proper conclusions. Again, what I have observed from you is an erroneous critique of oneness logical analysis, without you providing a more accurate approach. If you are indeed a oneness adherent, and you disagree with a logic or history I or someone else presents, don't fight against us, work with us to arrive at the proper logic and correct history. If you have nothing of substance to offer in these areas, then your critique is more damaging than fruitful. I will stand by Chalfant and Weisser's histories, and the logic that has been presented, until someone shows contradictory and original historic evidence that suggests otherwise. Simply saying "these histories and conlusions are false" offers nothing of real substance.

I am certainly interested in seeing what you believe about the real believers between 500AD and 1500 AD? Where were they in history? Who were they? What were they called? What did they believe? If you disagree with Chalfants research, show HOW it's incorrect with real historical references (not rote parroted encyclopedic references), but real history. I will consider it. Also, offer your alternative analysis and what you feel are the proper conclusions!

SDG

09-09-2007, 05:19 PM

IF a history as presented by a oneness is indeed incorrect, then suggest an alternate, more correct history from your own original research (or someone else's) that better proves the oneness position. If you question a history, if you are going to try to disprove it (with real evidence, not just stateing "this is false"), the provide the appropriate explaination. What I have observed is you attack oneness historians, accuse them of propogating falsehoods and lies, (while in doing so undermining their position), and then fail to offer an alternative.

Also, if a logic is inapproprately applied, suggest a more accurate logic with which to arrive at proper conclusions. Again, what I have observed from you is an erroneous critique of oneness logical analysis, without you providing a more accurate approach. If you are indeed a oneness adherent, and you disagree with a logic or history I or someone else presents, don't fight against us, work with us to arrive at the proper logic and correct history. If you have nothing of substance to offer in these areas, then your critique is more damaging than fruitful. I will stand by Chalfant and Weisser's histories, and the logic that has been presented, until someone shows contradictory and original historic evidence that suggests otherwise. Simply saying "these histories and conlusions are false" offers nothing of real substance.

I am certainly interested in seeing what you believe about the real believers between 500AD and 1500 AD? Where were they in history? Who were they? What were they called? What did they believe? If you disagree with Chalfants research, show HOW it's incorrect with real historical references (not rote parroted encyclopedic references), but real history. I will consider it. Also, offer your alternative analysis and what you feel are the proper conclusions!

You've got your threads mixed up BD. This discussion about history is in the Monarchians thread ... and is now being discussed in the Fudge thread. Mizpeh has decided to discuss the issue of Remnant History there also. Me thinks this is sour grapes because your info presented was aptly refuted. We can continue this discussion in th Fudge thread where other ONENESS BELIEVERS have also stated in agreement w/ me ....

I'll post the thrust of this post there minus the attacks on my integrity ... if you like?. :sshhh