Before I was Oneness Pentecostal, I was...

[Esaias]

What were you before you became a Oneness Pentecostal?

Note: the poll is OPEN, people can see how you voted...

[Praxeas]

No denominational association

[n david]

Always been, always will be a Oneness Pentecostal; although I'm not in the UPC anymore.

[Esaias]

No denominational association

So what were you? Trinitarian Pentecostal/charismatic? Baptist? 'Other'?

[Esaias]

Always been, always will be a Oneness Pentecostal; although I'm not in the UPC anymore.


You were raised in the truth?

What a blessing! Wish I had been. Would have saved me a WHOLE lot of heartache and issues. lol

[Esaias]

So what were you? Trinitarian Pentecostal/charismatic? Baptist? 'Other'?

Never mind. I just figured out how this thing works. lol

So... church of Christ? Disciples of Christ? Solo flyer?

[Farfel]

I was borned in it.

[Praxeas]

No denominational association

So what were you? Trinitarian Pentecostal/charismatic? Baptist? 'Other'?

No denominational association
:foottap

[commonsense]

Always been, always will be a Oneness Pentecostal; although I'm not in the UPC anymore.

:thumbsup Born into it........physically and spiritually // 3rd generation!

[Esaias]

:foottap

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1277260&postcount=6

[seekerman]

I was oneness pentecostal from a very small child. Stayed that way for about 40 years.

[houston]

Roman Catholic-> Agnostic-> Non denominational-> Oneness Pentecostal-> Glossolalic Reformed/Protestant

[renee819]

Raised in it, from age 6 upwards.

[Margies3]

Went to the Missionary Church till I was 14. Got kicked out of there. Became Oneness Pentecostal (UPC). Stayed there till I was 27. Switched to the United Methodist Church with Walt. Went there till about 12 years ago. Now we go to the Swanton Alliance Church. Not sure where the Missionary Church falls in your list of categories tho.

[Praxeas]

Essias, nothing. Absolutely nothing. Did I believe IN Jesus? Yes. Did I go to church? I visited a Presbyterian once and a Methodist once. Did I know what they believed? No. Did I know what baptist believed? No. Catholics? Nope. I was not associated with ANY denomination whatsoever

[seguidordejesus]

In utero.

[Jermyn Davidson]

What were you before you became a Oneness Pentecostal?



A gleam in my father's eye!

[Ferd]

Not born.
my Mom and Dad were Apostolic before I was born.
my maternal Grandmother was Apostolic before I was born.
Her mother was an Apostolic preacher
Her mother was an Apostolic from the earliest days of Pentecost in our area.

I am raising 6th generation Apostolic Oneness kids!

[endtimer]

I was raised around OP starting at age 6. Was skeptical about the existence of a God and if there was a God, He was distant and had little to do with humanity. Held this point of view till I met Him at age 18.

[RandyWayne]

I'd love to say that I was something cool like a Jedi, but the reality is that I/we were Catholic.

[CC1]

I was born into a Oneness Pentecostal family so that is all I have ever been. However as an adult I prefer to be identified as a Christian rather than Pentecostal. Not because I am no longer Oneness as I still am and not because I don't believe in things associated with Pentecost like the baptism of the Holy Spirit with speakig in tongues, gifts of the Spirit, etc because I still do. I just think that through the church age groups have emphasized their new found piece of truth and have camped on it. The Baptist about baptism and the Pentecostals on speaking in tongues and gifts of the Spirit. I think being a "Christian" is what I strive for and want to be identified with rather than any sub group.

[ILG]

Raised Catholic. Was baptized trinity pentecostal at age 19. Was rebaptized Oneness pentecostal at age 19. Left at age 38. Don't attend church.

[KWSS1976]

Was semi baptist till I got married, then my wife was Apostolic, and we had some pretty good arguments from time to time about the Apostolic way, would say attended Apostolic churches for about 15 years then my wifes eyes were opened when my son asked mom why do you always were skirts and she could not tell him. She started noticing the way the women in the church were dressing and getting mannicures and pedicures done when they believe in no makeup and fingernail polish but it is ok to go get your finger and toenails done with the white tips and was noticing the women "trimming" there hair. Now we are AOG...

[Disciple4life]

My father was/is Catholic but my grandmother convinced him I should be raised Pentecostal (trinity, AOG). I attended a AOG church as a youth. When I was 20 I was invited to a UPCI church. I started dating a apostolic girl. Her father was a preacher. The rest is history.

[KWSS1976]

So your Apostolic now Disciple4life?

[Aquila]

Happy.

[Disciple4life]

KWSS1976,

YESS!! Praise the LORD!!!

I am apostolic as they come.

The only difference is that I have this bad problem of always thinking for myself. I came to my faith by studying the scripture. I did not believe everything the UPCI church told me. When I started reading the bible I realized that Jesus Christ died for my sins, I needed to repent and be baptized in Jesus name and I needed to receive the Holy Ghost by the evidence of speaking in tongues. I kept arguing with my father in law about the Godhead. I truly believed that there was a trinity until one night in service God gave me the revelation that when I meet the Lord there will only be one person on the throne and his name is going to be Jesus! Hallelujah

[KWSS1976]

Ok Disciple4life, you do know that the Majority of the Trinity believing crowd will be the first to tell you there is only one in heaven right..I have never heard of a UPCI believing in 3 Gods...

[Disciple4life]

I was raised in the trinity church and I know what they preach. This is what they usually say "You might see the Father when we get to Heaven and you may see Jesus by his side but you won't see the Holy Ghost because he is there but you can't see him but God is unknowable because he is so Holy. We come to accept that no man can really know all there is to know about God, blah blah, blah.

Most Trinitarians that sit in the pew have no idea what they are going to see when they get to heaven. The preachers are usually clueless to. It is usually the theologians that push the idea that the Son is eternal.

[Disciple4life]

Yeah I was always taught there is one God. BUT how can there be one God sitting on the left and one God sitting on the right? One and One makes two.

I am convinced that Greek thought crept into the church when Christianity became the official religion of Rome. It was just easier to rename gods and holidays that to preach the real word of God.

[KWSS1976]

Dont know what trinity church you went to..lol, but if it was UPCI I would really like to read there statement of faith and what they believe..

[Disciple4life]

I went to a Assemblies Of God church. Many of my friends were Presbyterian, Baptist and Lutheran. My friends and I would discuss religion all the time. One thing that never seemed right to me is that nobody could give me a straight answer on the Godhead. When I would talk to a minister they would always say that God was so holy we can never truly know the relationship that the Father and the Son have. To me it just sounds like an excuse for them not knowing what they are talking about.

The disciples asked Jesus to show them the Father and he was astonished and said how long have I been with you and you ask to see the Father. Me and my Father are one.

[KWSS1976]

Yea your AOG was way off base or your Pastor was not very good...If it is explained correctly, you would not really see any diffrence in Trinity vs Oneness translation.

[Disciple4life]

Ok?
This is the stock answer that I have gotten from many pastors. I would visit my friends churches to. Their pastors gave the same answer.

Please explain correctly.

[Jason B]

Really I wasn't anything. I put baptist on the poll, that's pretty much the default denomination in Texas. I was in the world and lived pretty shameful and wicked. I sometimes point out things I wish the UPC would change, but one thing I never deny is on Jan 23, 2000 I went to a UPC church for the first time, and God radically changed my life. I've never been the same since. Looks like most here had a church upbringing, I wonder how many others didn't convert until adulthood, on their own, apart from any family influence?

[KWSS1976]

...Disciple4 life.. this is my Churches stance... http://firstassemblywm.org/new-here/what-we-believe/

[KWSS1976]

You can read this also..

http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_fundamental_truths/sft_full.cfm#3

[Disciple4life]

O.K. I went to the website. I agree with many things how the Godhead is portrayed. I would state things differently. God revealed himself in three different ways, not three different persons. Jesus is not seated at God’s right hand.
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition

I am not trying to be argumentative. When me and my father in law would debate I would tell him that we basically believed the same thing. Jesus is God and he died for my sins and then he was resurrected and sits in Heaven on a throne. Jesus has always existed. When you get to Heaven you will see one throne or two. The point is that we should focus on the things we agree on and not be argumentative on issues that we see differently.

I understand what you are saying. Simply put I think there will be one throne.
I am not trying to start a scripture war. :highfive

[KWSS1976]

O no not starting anything, like I said its a termonolgy diffrence is all," rather its ways or persons" it all comes out the same..like this statement here says..We are on the same page just off by a word....lol

d. Identity and Cooperation in the Godhead
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are never identical as to Person; nor confused as to relation; nor divided in respect to the Godhead; nor opposed as to cooperation. The Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son as to relationship. The Son is with the Father and the Father is with the Son, as to fellowship. The Father is not from the Son, but the Son is from the Father, as to authority. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son proceeding, as to nature, relationship, cooperation and authority. Hence, neither Person in the Godhead either exists or works separately or independently of the others

[Disciple4life]

Off by one word?

Who gets the last word? You or me?

When I get to Heaven there will only be one person sitting on a throne.


Revelation 4:2

2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

Sounds pretty simple to me. :foottap

Seriously can't we all just get along. Peace Brother Peace :heeheehee

[KWSS1976]

Yes there will only be one person..Not stating that there will be more then one, I just showed you they are all one....lol

[navygoat1998]

I went to a Assemblies Of God church. Many of my friends were Presbyterian, Baptist and Lutheran. My friends and I would discuss religion all the time. One thing that never seemed right to me is that nobody could give me a straight answer on the Godhead. When I would talk to a minister they would always say that God was so holy we can never truly know the relationship that the Father and the Son have. To me it just sounds like an excuse for them not knowing what they are talking about.

The disciples asked Jesus to show them the Father and he was astonished and said how long have I been with you and you ask to see the Father. Me and my Father are one.

I am former UPC and but have been Assemblies for about 8 years and I hold to the Oneness of the Godhead as I understand it.

I was told by a hardcore reformist that am modalistic and that I need to repent and go to the elders of the church for further training.

[Disciple4life]

Hey navygoat1998,
I just read a book where the author describes receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost but went back to his original church. The book is not apostolic but is a very good read. They Speak with Other Tongues by John L. Sherrill
I personally do not care where anybody goes to church or what denomination they are apart of. When we get to heaven there are going to be some shocked people.
How did he get to Heaven?!?! :woot

[KWSS1976]

Yea I am like you Disciple, there will be some very shocked people..

[endtimer]

I am former UPC and but have been Assemblies for about 8 years and I hold to the Oneness of the Godhead as I understand it.

I was told by a hardcore reformist that am modalistic and that I need to repent and go to the elders of the church for further training.

:heeheehee Hows the training going?

[Disciple4life]

:highfive
:happydance
:chat:ursofunny:mal:clap:yahoo:bliss

[navygoat1998]

Hey navygoat1998,
I just read a book where the author describes receiving the Baptism of the Holy Ghost but went back to his original church. The book is not apostolic but is a very good read. They Speak with Other Tongues by John L. Sherrill
I personally do not care where anybody goes to church or what denomination they are apart of. When we get to heaven there are going to be some shocked people.
How did he get to Heaven?!?! :woot

I agree with you! and that book is a classic and is on my read list. :thumbsup

[navygoat1998]

:heeheehee Hows the training going?

It would be a waste of time, because ain't nobody got time time for that. :happydance

[endtimer]

It would be a waste of time, because ain't nobody got time time for that. :happydance
:girlfriend :thumbsup For whatever reason, "training" kinda reminded me of the scientology audits we occasionally hear of

[Praxeas]

Yea your AOG was way off base or your Pastor was not very good...If it is explained correctly, you would not really see any diffrence in Trinity vs Oneness translation.
I don't know what Trinity church you go to but there is a huge HUGE difference between Trinity and Oneness


Trinity believes God is One being that is Three in Person

Oneness believes God is One Being that is ONE in Person

Most Trinitarians I encounter DO believe that in Heaven Father and Son can both be seen and that the Son is literally standing or sitting Eternally next to the Father. The Father has His own body and the Son has His

[seekerman]

One thing that never seemed right to me is that nobody could give me a straight answer on the Godhead. When I would talk to a minister they would always say that God was so holy we can never truly know the relationship that the Father and the Son have. To me it just sounds like an excuse for them not knowing what they are talking about.

I understand that, I could never get a straight answer on the Godhead in the oneness sect either. For example, someone on the forum posted this a few days ago....."Oneness does not teach the father is the son or the son is the father". I was quite surprised at that and when an attempt was made to clarify the statement I was soundly rebuffed with the ole "I already answered that" and another who agreed with the statement responding with "It's a paradox", both being non-answers.

You seem to be saying that Jesus *IS* the Father while other oneness adherents don't believe Jesus is the Father.

There's as much confusion in the oneness ranks as the trinitarian ranks it seems.

The disciples asked Jesus to show them the Father and he was astonished and said how long have I been with you and you ask to see the Father. Me and my Father are one.

This passage is a great example of what I encountered in the oneness sect. I've heard that particular verse quoted probably a thousand times in my 40 years in the oneness sect, but I never heard the passage quoted, with the scripture immediately following with an explanation of how God and Jesus are in each other but are the same person. An explanation how the Father was the Son who was Himself and the Son was His own Father yet they were just one person.

Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. 12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

[Esaias]

You seem to be saying that Jesus *IS* the Father while other oneness adherents don't believe Jesus is the Father.



Not only are you confused about the incarnation, you are confused about us and about what you are talking about.

:laffatu

[TGBTG]

Not only are you confused about the incarnation, you are confused about us and about what you are talking about.

:laffatu

I don't think it's fair to accuse Seekerman of being "confused about us." Some oneness do believe that Jesus IS the Father

I had to go dig out this post from this thread:
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=33638&page=1

Jesus Is His Own Father: I Am Not Ashamed



Why should I be ashamed to say Jesus is his own Father? The scriptures teach this explicitly. Why do I say so? Simple. Follow me here:

13: The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. Acts 3:13

Here we see Jesus has a Father. Peter said his Father is the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. All we have to do is find out who HE is. Then we will know who is the Father of Jesus.

Who IS the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob?

13: And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
14: And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
15: And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. Ex. 3:13-15

The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob says he is I AM.
So we can see very plainly that the I AM is the Father of Jesus Christ.

Who is Jesus Christ HIMSELF?

57: Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58: Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. John 8: 57-58

There it is. The Father of Jesus is I AM. Jesus is I AM.

Jesus is BOTH the Father and the Son.

Peter said The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob IS the Father of Jesus.

Yet Jesus IS the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.

According to the doctrine of Peter Jesus is his own Father.

And then some oneness say that the Son is not the Father, but Jesus is the Father.

And then some oneness say that the Father is God transcedent of time and space while the Son (Jesus) is God limited to time and space. Thus, God was existing simultaneously in two modes.

Just my observations.

To be fair, IMO, we have various views just like trinitarians have various views. Although, from my experience, the main thing that distinguished oneness from trinitarians back in the day was the claim that Jesus is the Father, but that's a whole different thread...lol

[seekerman]

Not only are you confused about the incarnation, you are confused about us and about what you are talking about.

:laffatu

Maybe. Could you point out the the various points of my confusion?

[Praxeas]

Not only are you confused about the incarnation, you are confused about us and about what you are talking about.

:laffatu
Exactly and I DID already answer the question, several times. Seeker has this problem where he asks a question gets an answer then demands he was not answered simply because in addition to a direct answer an explanation was included. He gets allk huffy that other words were included besides just a yes or no.

Also he re-asks the same question already asked and answered or discussed with him before as if he doesnt already know that.

I could assume he suffers from alzhiemers and just forgets but I rather not just repeat myself over and over to the same person :-)

[Praxeas]

Its been explained here ad nauseum that what many OPs mean is there is one God (person) whose name is "Jesus" and who has dstinct manifestations of himself as Father and Son.

That gets acknowledged, proven then conveniently ignored later on

[seekerman]

Exactly and I DID already answer the question, several times. Seeker has this problem where he asks a question gets an answer then demands he was not answered simply because in addition to a direct answer an explanation was included. He gets allk huffy that other words were included besides just a yes or no.

Also he re-asks the same question already asked and answered or discussed with him before as if he doesnt already know that.

I could assume he suffers from alzhiemers and just forgets but I rather not just repeat myself over and over to the same person :-)

This what is called 'answering the question' folks....

Praxaes: Oneness does not teach the father is the son or the son is the father.

Seekerman: Oneness doesn't teach that Jesus is the Father?

Praxaes: What Oneness means by that is not the same thing as what you are thinking

Seekerman: That didn't answer my question

Praxaes: Yes it did answer the question. You cant even see that what I posted is an admssion Oneness say that? Seriously?


Now, again, does oneness teach that Jesus isn't the Father? Depends on which oneness believer you ask. As you can see, there was no answer to the question.

[Michael The Disciple]

Before I was Oneness I identified with the Jesus Movement, Trinitarian Pentecostals, and the Charismatic Movement. I loved the Lord for sure! I had great experiences. Yet I did not understand the all together magnificent truth of who Jesus is.

I felt very amazed to be brought into this revelation. Nothing is greater than this!

Am I happy with Oneness Churches ? Nope.

Am I happy to know Christ as both Father and Son? YEP

[seekerman]

Before I was Oneness I identified with the Jesus Movement, Trinitarian Pentecostals, and the Charismatic Movement. I loved the Lord for sure! I had great experiences. Yet I did not understand the all together magnificent truth of who Jesus is.

I felt very amazed to be brought into this revelation. Nothing is greater than this!

Am I happy with Oneness Churches ? Nope.

Am I happy to know Christ as both Father and Son? YEP

In a previous post, you indicated that you believe that Jesus is His own Father. Do you also believe that Jesus is His own Son?

[Michael The Disciple]

In a previous post, you indicated that you believe that Jesus is His own Father. Do you also believe that Jesus is His own Son?

Of course Jesus is his own Father. And he is his own Son. You have to go deep to get it. Most wont. Its their loss.

[Praxeas]

This what is called 'answering the question' folks....

Praxaes: Oneness does not teach the father is the son or the son is the father.

Seekerman: Oneness doesn't teach that Jesus is the Father?

Praxaes: What Oneness means by that is not the same thing as what you are thinking

Seekerman: That didn't answer my question

Praxaes: Yes it did answer the question. You cant even see that what I posted is an admssion Oneness say that? Seriously?


Now, again, does oneness teach that Jesus isn't the Father? Depends on which oneness believer you ask. As you can see, there was no answer to the question.
Can anyone besides Seeker not see that "What Oneness means by that" is an affirmative answer to the question?

[seekerman]

Can anyone besides Seeker not see that "What Oneness means by that" is an affirmative answer to the question?

Ok, let's try it again......

Praxaes: Oneness does not teach the father is the son or the son is the father.

Seekerman: Oneness doesn't teach that Jesus is the Father?

Praxaes: What Oneness means by that is not the same thing as what you are thinking

So, the answer to my question is YES, oneness does not teach that Jesus is the Father? Your response "What Oneness means by that is not the same thing as what you are thinking" doesn't answer the question I asked you.

[seekerman]

Of course Jesus is his own Father. And he is his own Son. You have to go deep to get it. Most wont. Its their loss.

Do you have scripture which supports your view that Jesus is His own Son?

[Praxeas]

Ok, let's try it again......

Praxaes: Oneness does not teach the father is the son or the son is the father.

Seekerman: Oneness doesn't teach that Jesus is the Father?

Praxaes: What Oneness means by that is not the same thing as what you are thinking

So, the answer to my question is YES, oneness does not teach that Jesus is the Father? Your response "What Oneness means by that is not the same thing as what you are thinking" doesn't answer the question I asked you.
Good grief...
What Oneness means by "Jesus is the Father"...is it really THAT hard for you to understand? It's an affirmation as to the fact Oneness say "Jesus is the Father".

[seekerman]

oGood grief...
What Oneness means by "Jesus is the Father"...is it really THAT hard for you to understand? It's an affirmation as to the fact Oneness say "Jesus is the Father".

Your statement contradicts that. You said "oneness does not teach...the son is the father". Now you're saying that oneness DOES teach that Jesus is the Father.

[Praxeas]

o

Your statement contradicts that. You said "oneness does not teach...the son is the father". Now you're saying that oneness DOES teach that Jesus is the Father.
lol

See? What YOU thought was meant by "Jesus is the Father" was that "The Son is the Father"..

That is why I said it does NOT mean what you thought it meant.

[seekerman]

lol

See? What YOU thought was meant by "Jesus is the Father" was that "The Son is the Father"..

That is why I said it does NOT mean what you thought it meant.

This is getting stranger and stranger.

Are you now saying that Jesus isn't the Son?

[Praxeas]

This is getting stranger and stranger.

Are you now saying that Jesus isn't the Son?
No Im saying exactly what I said, when OPs say "Jesus is the father" what THEY mean by that and what YOU THINK they mean by that are NOT the same things.

I am not saying anything different than I've ever said since you joined this forum

[Praxeas]

Do you know that OPs say "Jesus is the Father, Jesus is the Son and Jesus is the Holy Ghost"????

[seekerman]

No Im saying exactly what I said, when OPs say "Jesus is the father" what THEY mean by that and what YOU THINK they mean by that are NOT the same things.

I am not saying anything different than I've ever said since you joined this forum

I'm only questioning your claim concerning oneness beliefs. You said "oneness does not teach the father is the son or the son is the father".

If you believe that Jesus is the Son, then the only conclusion one can come to is that Jesus is not the Father, according to your statement 'oneness does not teach the father is the son [Jesus] or the son [Jesus] is the father'.

[Praxeas]

I'm only questioning your claim concerning oneness beliefs. You said "oneness does not teach the father is the son or the son is the father".

If you believe that Jesus is the Son, then the only conclusion one can come to is that Jesus is not the Father, according to your statement 'oneness does not teach the father is the son [Jesus] or the son [Jesus] is the father'.

Oneness teaches there is One person who is God and manifests Himself as three DIFFERENT manifestations of Father, Son and Spirit. So the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. They are two different manifestations of the same Person named "Jesus"

[MawMaw]

Oneness teaches there is One person who is God and manifests Himself as three DIFFERENT manifestations of Father, Son and Spirit. So the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. They are two different manifestations of the same Person named "Jesus"

I can't understand why that is so hard to understand for
some folks. :dunno

[Esaias]

I don't think it's fair to accuse Seekerman of being "confused about us." Some oneness do believe that Jesus IS the Father



You must be confused, too.

lol

[Esaias]

If you a DON'T believe 'Jesus is the Father', then you ain't Oneness.

[TGBTG]

You must be confused, too.

lol

Condescending remarks is all you got, mmkay

[seekerman]

Oneness teaches there is One person who is God and manifests Himself as three DIFFERENT manifestations of Father, Son and Spirit. So the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. They are two different manifestations of the same Person named "Jesus"

I think we're getting somewhere. It would then be accurate to state that the Jesus manifesting as the Father is not Jesus manifesting as the Son and Jesus manifesting as the Son is not Jesus manifesting as the Father? But that Jesus does manifest Himself as both persons?

If you had used 'manifestations' in your original statement that would have explained your position much better, IMO. 'Oneness does not teach the manifestation of the Father is the manifestation of Son or the manifestation of the Son is the manifestation of the Father' would have helped a lot in understanding your position.

[seekerman]

I can't understand why that is so hard to understand for
some folks. :dunno

It's nigh impossible to take the 'manifestation' view and have it agree with scripture. For example, Jesus on the cross....

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

If the Father and the Son are manifestations of one person, then that one person has simultaneous manifestations of Himself interacting with each other as if they were different, distinct, separate, not the same person, different people. You have Jesus manifesting as the Son is crying out to Himself as Jesus manifesting as the Father. This Jesus manifesting as the Son has a Father who is Himself but not the same manifestation. One person, two manifestations, one which is the Son, not the Father and another who is the Father, not the Son, but have the attributes of persons but really aren't persons but are manifestations.

In other words, a one of the two manifestations died, was in the grave three days, rose on the third day and ascended to another manifestation in heaven.

All that simply doesn't work, scripturally.

And that's why it's so hard to understand.

[seekerman]

If you a DON'T believe 'Jesus is the Father', then you ain't Oneness.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the Father is a manifestation of Jesus in explaining the oneness view?

[Originalist]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the Father is a manifestation of Jesus in explaining the oneness view?

No.

[Esaias]

It's nigh impossible to take the 'manifestation' view and have it agree with scripture. For example, Jesus on the cross....

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

If the Father and the Son are manifestations of one person, then that one person has simultaneous manifestations of Himself interacting with each other as if they were different, distinct, separate, not the same person, different people.

In that verse you posted, where is the 'manifestation of the Father'?

Besides, Jesus was quoting the opening lines of Psalm 22... a psalm which appears to prophesy events surrounding the crucifixion.

One person, two manifestations, one which is the Son, not the Father and another who is the Father, not the Son, but have the attributes of persons but really aren't persons but are manifestations.

What are the 'attributes of persons'? And where is the biblical definition of such 'attributes of persons'?

There is one God. According to John, he was 'made flesh'. According to Paul he was 'manifested in the flesh'. According to Hebrews he is the 'visible image of the invisible God and the express image of His (God's) person.'

Difficult to understand, perhaps, but easy to accept, if you accept all the bible says about the subject.

[seekerman]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the Father is a manifestation of Jesus in explaining the oneness view?

No.

Would you explain the oneness view then....and include the word 'manifestation' in your explanation, if you would.

[seekerman]

In that verse you posted, where is the 'manifestation of the Father'?

When Jesus, who was allegedly manifesting as the Son, was crying out to "my God", wasn't He speaking to the manifestation of God the Father? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Besides, Jesus was quoting the opening lines of Psalm 22... a psalm which appears to prophesy events surrounding the crucifixion.

Yes, I agree, Psalm 22 is speaking prophetically of the events surrounding the crucifixion. That said, Jesus was crying out to His God not just quoting prophetic scripture. He was fulfilling the prophecy, He was who Psalm 22 was pointing to.

What are the 'attributes of persons'? And where is the biblical definition of such 'attributes of persons'?

Some of the attributes of persons is that they love each other, speak to each other, have a separate will, ect. There is no biblical definition of persons, it's simply a term used to describe those entities with the attributes I listed.

I ask you the same questions concerning 'manifestations'. What are the attributes of 'manifestations'? Where is the biblical definition of such 'manifestations of one person'?

There is one God. According to John, he was 'made flesh'. According to Paul he was 'manifested in the flesh'. According to Hebrews he is the 'visible image of the invisible God and the express image of His (God's) person.'

Difficult to understand, perhaps, but easy to accept, if you accept all the bible says about the subject.

It's impossible to understand when the oneness multiple manifestation view is applied to scripture.

Yes, the issue is accepting all the bible says about the subject. It's my view that when you take all the bible has to say about Jesus, not just a few favorite scriptures, the view that Jesus is His own Father and Jesus is His own Son isn't supported by what the bible says about the issue.

[Esaias]

Yes, the issue is accepting all the bible says about the subject. It's my view that when you take all the bible has to say about Jesus, not just a few favorite scriptures, the view that Jesus is His own Father and Jesus is His own Son isn't supported by what the bible says about the issue.

If the Word was God, and the Word became flesh, and that 'flesh' person is Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ is God made flesh.

Do you believe that?

[seekerman]

When Jesus, who was allegedly manifesting as the Son, was crying out to "my God", wasn't He speaking to the manifestation of God the Father?

If the Word was God, and the Word became flesh, and that 'flesh' person is Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ is God made flesh.

Do you believe that?

I'd appreciate it if you answered my question.

Now, to your post. You're not quoting the entire John 1:1-2, 14 verses.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God....14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

No, I don't believe God was with God. I do believe the Word was made flesh though.

In the oneness view, there is a manifestation of Jesus was God and another manifestation of Jesus was was flesh. Looking again at the passage.....

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

If the Word is flesh then the flesh is God according to your reasoning, isn't it. Do you believe that?

[Originalist]

Would you explain the oneness view then....and include the word 'manifestation' in your explanation, if you would.

What if manifestation is not a part of my view?

[Esaias]

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God....14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

No, I don't believe God was with God. I do believe the Word was made flesh though.



So, when it says 'and the word was God', you don't believe that?

[seekerman]

So, when it says 'and the word was God', you don't believe that?

I'll certainly answer, but I'd appreciate it if you would answer my question I asked about in my last post.

No, I don't believe that. Do you believe that God was with God?

[Originalist]

In the oneness view, there is a manifestation of Jesus was God and another manifestation of Jesus was was flesh. Looking again at the passage.....



I've never heard that wording ever spoken in describing the Oneness doctrine ever.

We believe that God is Spirit, and took on a new form of existence (that was simultaneous with the way he had always existed, as Spirit). This new existence was that of a man in the person of Jesus Christ.

So therefore, we do not believe that "God was a manifestation of Jesus" or that "another manifestation of Jesus was flesh".

[seekerman]

What if manifestation is not a part of my view?

Sorry, I guess I was wrong in my assumption that 'manifestations' was part of your view. I assumed you were oneness.

[seekerman]

I've never heard that wording ever spoken in describing the Oneness doctrine ever.

We believe that God is Spirit, and took on a new form of existence (that was simultaneous with the way he had always existed, as Spirit). This new existence was that of a man in the person of Jesus Christ.

So therefore, we do not believe that "God was a manifestation of Jesus" or that "another manifestation of Jesus was flesh".

Honestly, I'm confused. I think the problem, other than my lack of comprehension, is that I'm getting responses from folks who have differing views of what oneness means. I'm responding as if oneness have the same view. Another oneness posted this.....

"Oneness teaches there is One person who is God and manifests Himself as three DIFFERENT manifestations of Father, Son and Spirit. So the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. They are two different manifestations of the same Person named "Jesus""

Are you suggesting that 'existence' and 'manifestation' are the same or different concepts? I'm not sure how that reconciles with the other oneness view.

[Real Realism]

"God was manifest in the flesh..." How could we "not" believe in the manifestation of God in his earthly existence?

[seekerman]

"God was manifest in the flesh..." How could we "not" believe in the manifestation of God in his earthly existence?

I'm not denying that God was manifest in the flesh. Was this flesh God? Of course not.

[Real Realism]

I was stating that for the benefit of Originalist, who I think was the one who'd said "manifestation" was not part of his view.

[Praxeas]

If you had used 'manifestations' in your original statement that would have explained your position much better, IMO. 'Oneness does not teach the manifestation of the Father is the manifestation of Son or the manifestation of the Son is the manifestation of the Father' would have helped a lot in understanding your position.
You claimed to have once been Oneness correct?

[Praxeas]

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

If the Father and the Son are manifestations of one person, then that one person has simultaneous manifestations of Himself interacting with each other as if they were different, distinct, separate, not the same person, different people.
First of all Distinct and Different is redundant

Second Yes he DOES in fact Manifest Himself in simultaneous manifestations (I prefer modes of existence) as if they were not the same person.

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/jesusprayerstango.htm

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/jesusprayers3.htm

[Originalist]

I was stating that for the benefit of Originalist, who I think was the one who'd said "manifestation" was not part of his view.

Actually I never said that. I was answering seekermans request that I use "manifestation" in my description. He tends to try force his rules of debate on everyone and I was trying to see how he'd react if one could not comply with his request.

[Esaias]

I'm not denying that God was manifest in the flesh. Was this flesh God? Of course not.

:smack

If God was manifest in the flesh, then He who is manifested in the flesh is God.

Was the flesh itself God? Gee, let's see... that flesh DIED ON A ROMAN CROSS. Hmmm... my word, this stuff is complicated, ain't it? I almost don't know what I'd do without David Bernard to come explain it all to me...

:smack

[Esaias]

Oh, and yes, I have no problem saying 'God died', either.

Go and learn what that meaneth, padawan, and you might learn something useful.

[seekerman]

You claimed to have once been Oneness correct?

Yep. For about 40 years. Until I really started examining the bible and questioning some doctrines.

[seekerman]

:smack

If God was manifest in the flesh, then He who is manifested in the flesh is God.

Was the flesh itself God? Gee, let's see... that flesh DIED ON A ROMAN CROSS. Hmmm... my word, this stuff is complicated, ain't it? I almost don't know what I'd do without David Bernard to come explain it all to me...

:smack

Yes, it's complicated....if you're oneness. :)

[seekerman]

It's nigh impossible to take the 'manifestation' view and have it agree with scripture. For example, Jesus on the cross....

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

If the Father and the Son are manifestations of one person, then that one person has simultaneous manifestations of Himself interacting with each other as if they were different, distinct, separate, not the same person, different people. You have Jesus manifesting as the Son and crying out to Himself as Jesus manifesting as the Father (Jesus' Son manifestation interacting with Jesus' Father manifestation. This Jesus manifesting as the Son has a Father who is Himself but not the same manifestation. One person, two manifestations, one which is the Son, not the Father and another who is the Father, not the Son, but have the attributes of persons but really aren't persons but are manifestations.

In other words, a one of the two manifestations died and one manifestation was in the grave three days, rose on the third day and ascended to another separate and distinct manifestation in heaven.

All that simply doesn't work, scripturally.

And that's why it's so hard to understand.

First of all Distinct and Different is redundant

I was attempting to convey the distinction between two entities which were distinct, separately identifiable, different in their wills and set apart from each other in a relationship.

Second Yes he DOES in fact Manifest Himself in simultaneous manifestations (I prefer modes of existence) as if they were not the same person.

You were the one who introduced 'manifestations' into the conversation. If you wish to use 'modes of existence' that's fine with me.

It's not really about simultaneous manifestations, it's about the personal relationship between two entities, two persons which happens hundreds and hundreds of times in the New Testament. Everything about the interaction between the God the Father and Jesus points to not one person but two.

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/jesusprayerstango.htm

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/jesusprayers3.htm

I don't go down the rabbit trails of url links. If you have something to say, simply say it. Put it in your own words or quote someone else, but I would appreciate it if you would simply give your personal view.

[seekerman]

Oh, and yes, I have no problem saying 'God died', either.



Well.....actually God didn't die only a manifestation of Him died, right?

[Esaias]

Well.....actually God didn't die only a manifestation of Him died, right?

Acts 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

There is no antecedent for 'blood' except 'God' in that passage.

So, God purchased the church with 'his own blood'.

:thumbsup

[Praxeas]

You were the one who introduced 'manifestations' into the conversation.
I didn't need you to tell me that.

If you wish to use 'modes of existence' that's fine with me.
We aren't talking about me but Oneness in general. Some like using the word "manifestation" and others like me use different words

It's not really about simultaneous manifestations, it's about the personal relationship between two entities, two persons which happens hundreds and hundreds of times in the New Testament.
I knew that

Everything about the interaction between the God the Father and Jesus points to not one person but two.
I knew that too, thus my explanation as to WHY

I don't go down the rabbit trails of url links.
Rabbit trails infers introducing irrelevant information to change the topic. The links explained what I was saying in detail about Father and Son functioning as though they are two persons.

If you are interested the information is there to read

[Praxeas]

Well.....actually God didn't die only a manifestation of Him died, right?
See, you also have a wrong idea of what manifestation means.

A manifestation of God IS God as a different form or "manifestation".

So for example, God became a man. That manifestation OF God is God Himself existing AS a man. That is WHO He is.

BTW didn't you used to be Oneness?

[seekerman]

Acts 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

There is no antecedent for 'blood' except 'God' in that passage.

So, God purchased the church with 'his own blood'.

:thumbsup

The question is, what is the proper usage of 'blood' in the passage. It doesn't necessarily mean the literal blood of God, the blood which runs through the veins of God.

aima
hah'ee-mah
Of uncertain derivation; blood, literally (of men or animals), figuratively (the juice of grapes) or specifically (the atoning blood of Christ); by implication bloodshed, also kindred: - blood.

:thumbsup

[seekerman]

See, you also have a wrong idea of what manifestation means.

A manifestation of God IS God as a different form or "manifestation".

So for example, God became a man. That manifestation OF God is God Himself existing AS a man. That is WHO He is.

BTW didn't you used to be Oneness?

First, your claim in this post that a man is God isn't supported by scripture. In fact, scripture specifically teaches the contrary.

Now, let's return to your statement you made earlier and compare it to this post of yours. You said..."Oneness teaches there is One person who is God and manifests Himself as three DIFFERENT manifestations of Father, Son and Spirit. So the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. They are two different manifestations of the same Person named "Jesus""

If we take your post above and compare it to the earlier post, you're having God being a man, the flesh, of God which is called the Son. This flesh man Son shares another manifestation identified as God the Father as His Father and God. You also have a contradictory view that God not a flesh man called the Son but is instead a being in heaven who interacts with Himself as His Son, and the Son interacting with Himself as His own Father. The manifestations view doesn't explain the oneness view that Jesus is His own Father, God the Father, and also His own Son, the Lamb of God, the flesh of a man.

If I'm not mistaken there was a great uproar in one of the largest oneness organizations concerning the doctrine of 'divine flesh'. Is that what you're suggesting when you state "that manifestation OF God is God Himself existing AS a man"?

As I said in an earlier post, I was oneness pentecostal for about 40 years.

[Praxeas]

First, your claim in this post that a man is God isn't supported by scripture.
I didn't claim a man is god. There is another problem we have here discussing. You read what I said about God becoming a man and turned that around into a man being God.

[Praxeas]

If we take your post above and compare it to the earlier post, you're having God being a man, the flesh, of God which is called the Son..
That is NOT what I said. That is what YOU are saying. Esias is correct, you don't actually deal with what I post. You first redefine it then you attack it. That is a classic Strawman argument

I never used the term "flesh of God"

I never defined the Son as "the flesh of God"..so you see we have a huge problem. It's impossible to dialogue with you when you change what I say. This goes hand in hand with your reversing of what I said about God becoming a man into a man being God.

That goes hand in hand with your lack of understanding of what a manifestation is as well as other issues.

[Praxeas]

If I'm not mistaken there was a great uproar in one of the largest oneness organizations concerning the doctrine of 'divine flesh'. Is that what you're suggesting when you state "that manifestation OF God is God Himself existing AS a man"?

As I said in an earlier post, I was oneness pentecostal for about 40 years.
First of all the problem is you constantly reinterpret what I said to mean something OTHER than what I am saying.

Second of all the Divine Flesh controversy surrounded the idea that the Son's humanity did not come from Mary but was a heavenly creation and that the Son's humanity was not like ours.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

I find it hard to believe you were Oneness

[seekerman]

I didn't claim a man is god. There is another problem we have here discussing. You read what I said about God becoming a man and turned that around into a man being God.

The problem is that you're playing word games. If God became a man, then a man is God. Simple as that.

[seekerman]

That is NOT what I said. That is what YOU are saying. Esias is correct, you don't actually deal with what I post. You first redefine it then you attack it. That is a classic Strawman argument

I never used the term "flesh of God"

I never defined the Son as "the flesh of God"..so you see we have a huge problem. It's impossible to dialogue with you when you change what I say. This goes hand in hand with your reversing of what I said about God becoming a man into a man being God.

That goes hand in hand with your lack of understanding of what a manifestation is as well as other issues.

If God became a man and a man is flesh then God has flesh. Stop playing word games.

[seekerman]

First of all the problem is you constantly reinterpret what I said to mean something OTHER than what I am saying.

Second of all the Divine Flesh controversy surrounded the idea that the Son's humanity did not come from Mary but was a heavenly creation and that the Son's humanity was not like ours.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

I find it hard to believe you were Oneness

I don't care if you believe I was oneness pentecostal or not. You asked a question, I answered it.

You're behaving as most oneness pentecostals do when discussing the oneness view. Wisps of words with double meanings, innuendo, switcheroo and 'that's not what I said' responses.

This is why it's virtually impossible to simply discuss the oneness view of God.

[Praxeas]

The problem is that you're playing word games. If God became a man, then a man is God. Simple as that.
There is a huge difference between "A man is God" and "God became a man", you do realize that right?

And if there isn't why do you HAVE to change what I said all the time?

[Praxeas]

If God became a man and a man is flesh then God has flesh. Stop playing word games.
flesh is skin cells. Man is MORE than a body.

Second the point was you claimed I said the son was just "the flesh of God"

Once again rather than deal with what I say you have to reword it for some reason.

[Praxeas]

I don't care if you believe I was oneness pentecostal or not. You asked a question, I answered it.

You're behaving as most oneness pentecostals do when discussing the oneness view. Wisps of words with double meanings, innuendo, switcheroo and 'that's not what I said' responses.

This is why it's virtually impossible to simply discuss the oneness view of God.
Actually it's YOU that applies double meanings to MY words, just as Esias said. You take what I post and then apply your own meanings to them. Your the one that is actually doing the "switcheroo" and that is why it is impossible to dialog with you.

[renee819]

To me it is very simple.

God is Spirit---invisible
There is only One Spirit
The Holy Ghost is used interchangably as Gods Spirit, as well as the Spirit of Jesus.
Jesus is the Body---” A Body thou has't prepared Me.”

There is One Body sitting on the Throne.

Is Jesus the Father?

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

If I am wrong, will someone please point it out.

This is so simple. I don't know why our people are not taught this. I didn't learn this in church, but thru study and revelation.

[KWSS1976]

1in3,3in1,10in1,1in10 its all the same, they all equal one...who cares how you come up with it, or the terminolgy used......lol

[Real Realism]

That's kinda where I'm at, too KWSS. It all feels like semantics. There is one God. Through his miraculous power, he came to earth (as himself, robed in flesh, as a "second person" robed in flesh, as a manifestation of himself in flesh) and lived a sinless life to be sacrificed so that my sin could be forgiven. He died and rose again and now enters into my life through is Spirit, empowering me to live above sin and to be a witness for him.

3 in 1, 1 in 3 - it's all one powerful God and an amazing love he has shown for the humanity he desires to save.

[seekerman]

There is a huge difference between "A man is God" and "God became a man", you do realize that right?

And if there isn't why do you HAVE to change what I said all the time?,

The issue is your inability, or unwillingness, to clarify your statements. For example, you said in an earlier post that oneness doesn't teach that the Father Son nor the Son the Father. When I pointed out that the oneness does teach that Jesus is the Father and questions your statemetn, you then modified your original statement to say that the MANIFESTATION of the Father and the MANIFESTATION of the Son were two different manifestations. Now that's quite a bit different than your original statement that the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father.

You said "There is a huge difference between "A man is God" and "God became a man", you do realize that right?". But no explanation was forthcoming. If God became a man then a man is God. It's as simple as that. But you, following your usual behavior of 'I didn't say that' will respond with little or no explanation of your view.

So if you would, and this is something you should have done in your last post instead of speaking cryptically yet another time, explain how God became a man therefore a man isn't God.

To be honest, I'm expecting yet another cryptic reply from you. And I'm not trying to change anything you say, I'm attempting to clarify what you say.

[seekerman]

flesh is skin cells. Man is MORE than a body.

Second the point was you claimed I said the son was just "the flesh of God"

Once again rather than deal with what I say you have to reword it for some reason.

I said that was the conclusion that one must come to if your claim that God is a man is true. Men are flesh. Jesus had flesh.

[seekerman]

To me it is very simple.

God is Spirit---invisible
There is only One Spirit
The Holy Ghost is used interchangably as Gods Spirit, as well as the Spirit of Jesus.
Jesus is the Body---” A Body thou has't prepared Me.”

There is One Body sitting on the Throne.

Is Jesus the Father?

.

If I am wrong, will someone please point it out.

This is so simple. I don't know why our people are not taught this. I didn't learn this in church, but thru study and revelation.

You're wrong. :)

Jesus isn't the Father, Jesus is the Son of the Father, per scripture.

Concerning thrones in heaven, I doubt you've ever heard this from a oneness pulpit, I know I didn't, but there are two thrones in heaven. One for Jesus, another for His Father....per scripture.

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Notice, there is a 'my throne' and there is a separate and distinct 'his throne'. Two thrones.

[seekerman]

That's kinda where I'm at, too KWSS. It all feels like semantics. There is one God. Through his miraculous power, he came to earth (as himself, robed in flesh, as a "second person" robed in flesh, as a manifestation of himself in flesh) and lived a sinless life to be sacrificed so that my sin could be forgiven. He died and rose again and now enters into my life through is Spirit, empowering me to live above sin and to be a witness for him.

3 in 1, 1 in 3 - it's all one powerful God and an amazing love he has shown for the humanity he desires to save.

God isn't three anything. Not one in three nor three in one. Jesus is one with His God and Father though He is in His God and Father and His God and Father is in Him. There is only one God, the Father, and His Son, Jesus the Christ, who isn't God.

[Esaias]

God isn't three anything. Not one in three nor three in one. Jesus is one with His God and Father though He is in His God and Father and His God and Father is in Him. There is only one God, the Father, and His Son, Jesus the Christ, who isn't God.

If the Word was God, and the Word was made flesh, and that 'word made flesh' is Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ is the Word (who was God) made flesh, and thus Jesus is 'God made flesh'.

If the Word = God, and if the Word became flesh, then God became flesh.

If the Word = God, and if Jesus is the Word incarnate, then Jesus is God incarnate.

:highfive

[KWSS1976]

O well in Revelation 4:2 it says there is one throne,then in Revelation 4:5 it states there are seven spirits of God, so I just thought I would confuse you guys somemore, cant never have to much confusion....lol

[seekerman]

O well in Revelation 4:2 it says there is one throne,then in Revelation 4:5 it states there are seven spirits of God, so I just thought I would confuse you guys somemore, cant never have to much confusion....lol

Not too much confusion? Too late!! :)

[Real Realism]

God isn't three anything. Not one in three nor three in one. Jesus is one with His God and Father though He is in His God and Father and His God and Father is in Him. There is only one God, the Father, and His Son, Jesus the Christ, who isn't God.

I agree that "God" isn't three. I didn't define "what" was three and "what" was one. I've never known anyone who believes in "three Gods".

Three persons in one God. One God who manifested himself in three distinct ways. Three distinct manifestations of one God. Semantics.

[seekerman]

If the Word was God, and the Word was made flesh, and that 'word made flesh' is Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ is the Word (who was God) made flesh, and thus Jesus is 'God made flesh'.

If the Word = God, and if the Word became flesh, then God became flesh.

If the Word = God, and if Jesus is the Word incarnate, then Jesus is God incarnate.

:highfive

If the Word was God and the Word was with God, then God was with God and the God who was with God was a flesh man who had a God.

[Esaias]

I've just been informed that not only am I not 'an apostolic', I am actually a 'catholic in the shadows', along with all the rest of you.

So I guess we can forget all about this poll.

rofl

[Real Realism]

I'd like to submit 1 John 1:5 into this debate. God is light.

Seekerman or any other takers - how do you interpret the assertion that God is light in comparison with John chapter 1, which states God is (or was) the Word (or the Word was God)?

[seekerman]

I'd like to submit 1 John 1:5 into this debate. God is light.

Seekerman or any other takers - how do you interpret the assertion that God is light in comparison with John chapter 1, which states God is (or was) the Word (or the Word was God)?

I view 1 John 1:5 as God being presented as simply good, sinless, without any flaw or variance, pure purity, love.

I guess John 1:1 could be equating the Word with this God-light in 1 John 1:5, I've never really thought about it that way. Interesting concept though.

[seekerman]

I've just been informed that not only am I not 'an apostolic', I am actually a 'catholic in the shadows', along with all the rest of you.

So I guess we can forget all about this poll.

rofl

Well, that does it. You're/we're going to hell now. :)

[Esaias]

Well, that does it. You're/we're going to hell now. :)

Impossible, catholics can't go to hell. They just go to Purgatory.

Hey, anybody want to donate to my Get-Out-Of-Purgatory fund?

[KWSS1976]

O well yall carry on I am going to take Ozzy Osburnes advise in one of his songs..."Too many Religions only one God I don't need another savor.....

[Real Realism]

I view 1 John 1:5 as God being presented as simply good, sinless, without any flaw or variance, pure purity, love.

I guess John 1:1 could be equating the Word with this God-light in 1 John 1:5, I've never really thought about it that way. Interesting concept though.

I honestly hadn't thought of the connection before today, either. But that Scripture came to mind as I was reading the comments here.

Both have in common the thread of being there at the beginning (i.e. Creation).

Both are rather intangible concepts that represent larger ideas. (i.e. the Light representing purity, goodness...the Word representing authority, truth)

In the beginning was Truth and the Truth was with God and the Truth was God and the Truth became flesh. The essence of God, which cannot be boiled down to one concept, but is a grander enigma...a concept like "truth" or like "light" or like "authority" - became a human form - flesh - and dwelt among us.

[Praxeas]

To me it is very simple.

God is Spirit---invisible
There is only One Spirit
The Holy Ghost is used interchangably as Gods Spirit, as well as the Spirit of Jesus.
Jesus is the Body---” A Body thou has't prepared Me.”

There is One Body sitting on the Throne.

Is Jesus the Father?

.

If I am wrong, will someone please point it out.

This is so simple. I don't know why our people are not taught this. I didn't learn this in church, but thru study and revelation.
Jesus is the body? Sorry but if Jesus is the Father then the father if just a body.

My Jesus is a living person. Body, soul and spirit, not a thing

[Praxeas]

I clarify my statements all the time. Most of the time they don't need clarification until someone comes along and changes what I said into something other than what I said

[Real Realism]

Even John 1 itself gives us the same definition of God as Light and God as the Word, and the Word as Christ and the Light as Christ. This debate certainly won't be "solved" by anything I have to say, but...

Word = God (John 1:1)
Word = Creator (John 1:3)
In the Word = Life (John 1:4)
Life = Light (John 1:5)
Light = John bore witness of (John 1:8)
Word = Flesh (Jesus) (John 1:14)
Flesh (Jesus) = John bore witness of (John 1:15)

But then you throw in...
God = Light (1 John 1:5)

And now you have not one, but two instances of transitive logic at work here. Not only does the gospel of John state that Logos = God and Logos became flesh. But the epistle of John states that Light = God. And John bore witness of the Light (God), he also bore witness of the Word that became Flesh (God that became Flesh, Light that became Flesh).

No one is saying that the actual skin, blood, sweat, hair of Jesus was "God". But God - the Word - the Light - the Creator - became Human Flesh, which resulted an a man who was fully God and fully human by divine creation/truth (logos) that willed his existence.

[Praxeas]

I believe the Logos should be viewed in light of John's jewishness and their use of circumlocutions, the memra and personification of wisdom

[Esaias]

DONATE -------> http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=44624 <----