Oneness vs Monotheism

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by peter83

1)I said that Jesus said "who sees me (the Son) he sees the Father"(the unvisible Spirit).(John 14)
2)Yes we Christians have to be a light and who sees us ,can see Jesus in us.Through us. But we are not like Jesus, He had the Spirit of God without limit!
3)I did not said Jesus is not God. I said that Jesus is the Father inside a human body. That is the Son and has the name of the Father. (This is the mystery "God manifest in flesh). NOT that the flesh was God or that God became flesh but he manifest in and through flesh, Through his Son.
So yes Jesus is God,and if you want (can you?) take it farther.. the Glory that the Son received was the glory that he had before the world was formed Not that pre-existed the Son, But that the Spirit of Jesus (Father) did all things through that body even when Jesus the man was not born. Thats why you see :"No man ever saw God". But from the other site :many "saw" God, and they saw Him "like a son of man" (Abraham,Jakob,Daniel,Ezekiel etc.) That was the Glorified body of the Spirit and that is the glory has the Son today... We saw God in the face of Jesus Christ..all things were made BY him and FOR him...(i dont know if you are able to understand, but there is a simplicity and a glory to all that! I feel a pleasure right now..i dont know how you thought that i said "Jesus is not God!!!?? Why you dont understand my Words? the problem is:

4 )From all that Scripture i posted, you observe just that? What you did not like in real?(tell me exactly what you did not like? ) How you just dont say AMEN to all that? maybe you forgot to tell me..
With Love and peace from my Lord God Jesus Christ!

I said it before and I am now fully convinced, the problem here is the language barrier: our first language is English, and yours is Greek, so much of the conflict here is likely because of that.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Very interesting discussion.
Esais, could you please post the verses you used for your statement of faith?

Our profession of faith IS a bunch of verses (paraphrased for corporate use). Are you asking for the addresses? If so, here they are:

1 Cor 15:1-8
Phil 2:10-11
Col 1:15-18
Col 2:9
Isaiah 9:6-7a
1 Tim 3:16
Eph 4:3-6
1 Thesis 4:13-17
John 5:28-29
2 Cor 5:10
Rev 1:5-6

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Our profession of faith IS a bunch of verses (paraphrased for corporate use). Are you asking for the addresses? If so, here they are:

1 Cor 15:1-8
Phil 2:10-11
Col 1:15-18
Col 2:9
Isaiah 9:6-7a
1 Tim 3:16
Eph 4:3-6
1 Thesis 4:13-17
John 5:28-29
2 Cor 5:10
Rev 1:5-6

Thank you!

[peter83]

Originally Posted by coksiw

So it seems to me, hoping I’m not missing anything (I didn’t read all 10 pages of discussion) that you don’t have a problem with oneness, but with some terms that people use to explain it like roles or modes of manifestation, correct?

Well if that’s the case, if it works for you to not use them then good. Take into account that in this world full of the trinity doctrine and JW, those terms can help people to understand it by contrasting with the trinity or unitary.

I believe to in the "oneness" of God. Although i my language there is not that word (is just the term Monotheism ) .
Yes i try to dont use so much extra-biblical terms if possible to describe anything about God.
The hidden heresy behind some words and the damage they make is when people have problem to distinguish between Human and Divine. Spirit and Flesh, God and His Son.
The humanity of Jesus is the central teaching of scriptures. So to say ,if anyone dont believe that Jesus is the man Christ, the Son of the Living God ,he can not have salvation.
For this reason anything that contradicts this truth i beat it down .
Sure after and only after the revelation of Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God, if we walk with God we will see the Father in his face, Sure Jesus is the Father manifest in flesh and the only True God. The point is HOW? Is hew a trinity? NO.
Amen.
TRUTH:
Jesus is the Father and the Son. The Father in the Son.Divine and human.
LIES
LIE1)God came AS his won son. TRUTH: God came IN His Son
LIE 2) God became a man and died.TRUTH : God gave us his only Son.So his won blood.
LIE 3) God came as Father in creation,Son at redemption,Spirit at pentecostal,but never at the same time TRUTH: Father is invisible and only manifest through his only manifestation, His Son. The Spirit now manifests the glory that the Son has
LIE 4) Father-Son-Spirit are three modes TRUE God love the Son,he dont love a mode..
LIE 5) God has the role of Son. TRUTH : God is not a man ,neither an actress, He dont plays roles.
LIE 6) God has the office of sonship...till he will end that office.TRUTH The Son has the Glory of God and will have through the 1.000 years reighn and till the final judgement."For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son'And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man." After that the Son will be subject to His Father...he will not cease ,the glorified body will be total one with the Spirit without distinction..as mediator.

Love you all.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I said it before and I am now fully convinced, the problem here is the language barrier: our first language is English, and yours is Greek, so much of the conflict here is likely because of that.

Yes from one point you are right. In Greek for example ther is not the word oneness. not possible to translate in. So we use the word Monotheism.
For the rest, i saw also Greek people preaching that "Jesus came as his own son" and that "the Son had a holy body without his own will"
So there is slightly difference between God came in flesh and God came as flesh like between hell and heavens amen, peace to you.

And of course i know many Greek people preaching lies, and many English people preach the Truth! Is the Spiritual language of the Bible the most important

[Steven Avery]

First, I have never used the phrase modalism for my beliefs. I have heard it defined as a one-at-a-time switching modes beliefs.

Others may use it as a catch-phrase for early beliefs that are close to oneness, but the official definitions seem to veer to the one-at-a-time idea, which is pretty much absurd.

Your thoughts welcome.

Originally Posted by peter83

Modalism was also a trinitarian heresy that at 200 after Christ. They believed that God changed modes and was speaking like Father and then like Son . He changed modes ..that was a heresy too and there are many today in oneness.

So I find it interesting to see modalism defined as a "trinitarian heresy".

However, the phrase "trinitarian heresy" is used in a couple of distinct manners, it could be:

1) an error that is at core trinitarian and comes out of trinitarianism, as opposed to a Biblical belief or it could mean

2) an error that is away from trinitarian, into other realms, like gnosticism, binity, and much more

You are welcome to share how you mean it.

===========================

I understand your native language is Greek. And you do seem to quote from the pure Bible, the Authorized Version, at least at times. I would like to discuss with you a bit whether you have looked at the Critical Text Greek in 1 Timoithy 3:16 and 1 John 5:7-8. This is a question I often discuss with people who are truly fluent in Greek, especially if they are Bible believers.

We could start a new thread, or simply discuss privately, if this is something where you feel comfortable.

===========================

Thanks!

Steven

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

First, I have never used the phrase modalism for my beliefs. I have heard it defined as a one-at-a-time switching modes beliefs.

Others may use it as a catch-phrase for early beliefs that are close to oneness, but the official definitions seem to veer to the one-at-a-time idea, which is pretty much absurd.

Your thoughts welcome.

So I find it interesting to see modalism defined as a "trinitarian heresy".

However, the phrase "trinitarian heresy" is used in a couple of distinct manners, it could be:

1) an error that is at core trinitarian and comes out of trinitarianism, as opposed to a Biblical belief or it could mean

2) an error that is away from trinitarian, into other realms, like gnosticism, binity, and much more

You are welcome to share how you mean it.

===========================





===========================

Thanks!

Steven

for the first theme. MODALISM.
Yes i did mistake because of my poor English. Modalism i dound was a pre-trinitarian heresy.
That means that ,Modalism was First formed as a 2nd century heresy and was an influence for latter trinity doctrine. (you can also check wiki ,sure speaking about how Modalism, Monarchianism etc. doctrines ifluensed the trinity doctrine)
Anyway, in one of the earlier synods, i read from Orthodox courses that was not value! Because "the majority of the room was from Sabelius heresy" so the historian say "we did not came to a concussion, but we met second time against Arious " and that was the time did the first recognised Church Counsel were they came up with the first council "Apostolic Council" :
"We believe in one God the Father, maker af all things, and one Lord Jsus Christ ,His only begotten Son" etc.
That was because of Arianism heresy . And that was the time that Savelians used the term "prosopo" (person) But prosopo means only "face" And that wa their belief! They believe or they tried to desribe God in three modes. Theee faces, because Arian so believed that the Son of God was not God and that the Spirit was not Person.
That latter became the base for the Cousill of Nicea , they changed the symbol as "We believe in one God the Father..maker of earth and heavens and in one Lord,Jesus Christ the only begotten Soin of God .GOD FROM GOD, LIGHT FROM LIGHT" etc. So here the Greek Mithraists philosophers pouted together the terms Persons as personality substances etc. And they gave to every person his own personality , they described the trinity as "like 3 human beings, are 3 different persons but all share the same substance..Human!"
(after that, you know ,is not even worthly to speak about their philosophy and theories. )

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

===========================

I understand your native language is Greek. And you do seem to quote from the pure Bible, the Authorized Version, at least at times. I would like to discuss with you a bit whether you have looked at the Critical Text Greek in 1 Timoithy 3:16 and 1 John 5:7-8. This is a question I often discuss with people who are truly fluent in Greek, especially if they are Bible believers.

We could start a new thread, or simply discuss privately, if this is something where you feel comfortable.

===========================

Thanks!

Steven

Hi Steven. Stefane ! For the second theme,yes i have also Facebook and e-mail.
There is also a thread i did on this ,but there were not many interested about Hre it is: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=50861
Now for the 1 John 5:7 i keep respected just because my KJV only believers ,they think that is original, so i dont want to stress them. But as for me and every Greek Monotheist we dont even think about. Even the Greek Orthodox Texts has that verse inside parenthesis and asterisk with samll letters like a superinduction . Not a single ancient text has it ,neither any early Trinitarian Apologist makes any reference to that.
The texts we have today are all Critical works.
The main difference is the "text family" that a text may belongs.
We have thousands of texts and they fall in two categories:
1st The Majority Text which constitutes of 5.000 texts and the 2nd is the Minority which has only 2 texts.
Now the Critical science has some rules. For example ,when two texts difer they look first what the majority of the texts says, and second what the oldest text says.
So when we come to the 1 Timothy 3:16 almost all texts form the Majority type have "God manifest in flesh" BUT the Oldest texts are the Minority ,so they say that the Oldest the Better.
Now what is this Minority text? Minority text means that is a minor text and so the Old Church never considered as valid. But the historians today believe that they are right becsue are older than other.
Those two texts are the basis today for the new translations and they have HUGE diferences from the Bible we know. They misses Mark 16 chapter, and other important verses.
Now what i saw form my research :
1) The two "older" texts called Minority,Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus differ not only with the Majority Text, but also between the two texts!!! For example the 1st Text has:"He manifest in flesh" while the 2nd text has "which manifest in flersh"
This is just a small example, the texts have mistakes, inaccuracies,interpolations...so why to trust them?
2) The only trusted critical text is Robinson Byzantine Critical Text. (if you have The Word Bible Software there is this Text too and if you want there is an English site with the entire Greek-Byzantine Text in English!)
He used all the texts and manuscript avaible ,but: Only from the thousant Majority Text Types ,so he dont included the 2-3 so called Minority (Vatican and Sinaytic ) and he anly did use of the Ancient texts! That means he uses only ancient texts and not the new texts that the Textus Receptus used.
3) One of The most wonderful things i observed was :
-A The Byzantine Critical Text that uses all the thousands ancient (200-700 A.C) , -B the Textus Receptus that used 900-1500 A.C texts. and the -CTHE Greek Orthodox Text that uses all the Greek texts from 900-1600 A.C) all give us the same text with only minimal grammatical differences!!!!
4) When we speak for differences between the texts, the diferneces are mostly grammatical. For example a text may has "Lord Jesus said to them" while an other text has "Lord Jesus Christ said to them" and an othe text has "And the Lord told them" etc. So the Majority text is the Original Greek and noit the Roman Catholic text that misses the half scripture.

Here is the Greek-Byzantine-Majority-Greek Texts who uses only the most Ancient texts. I will give you an example to how may it difers from T.R
KING JAMES BIBLE:. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
BYZANTINE TEXT:. Holy Father, Holy Father, keep them in Your name which You have given to Me, that they may be one, as we are. Do you see? Jesus received his name from the Father!
Now take the text and check it for yourself:Maybe you can find an other format, buit this is good to take a look (Do you use the KJV?)ENJOY :
http://www.majoritytext.com/

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

I understand your native language is Greek. And you do seem to quote from the pure Bible, the Authorized Version, at least at times. I would like to discuss with you a bit whether you have looked at the Critical Text Greek in 1 Timoithy 3:16 and 1 John 5:7-8. This is a question I often discuss with people who are truly fluent in Greek, especially if they are Bible believers.

We could start a new thread, or simply discuss privately, if this is something where you feel comfortable.

And I should have made this clearer.

Above, I was not asking about the textual issues, about which I have written extensively, and could divert this thread.

My question was about the solecisms that are in the Greek Critical Text (and the Majority Text for the heavenly witnesses) for these two verses.

I find that Christians truly fluent in Greek, especially native fluency combined with Biblical Greek, can be very helpful in the discussions of these two verses.

Steven

[Michael The Disciple]

You all are making Oneness doctrine totally complicated. Reducing it to mere Unitarianism. I rejoice that the Oneness teaching that brought me into Oneness was clear cut, hard hitting, and to the point.

If Jesus is NOT the Father he isn't God period.