Am I right about the trinity?

[jfrog]

First of all I would love to get some thoughts from actual trinity believers on this.

I firmly believe the problem that oneness believers have with the trinity is more a problem of presentation than substance. Now before I get 100+ objections hear me out on this.

A trinity believer typically presents three main points in any explanation on the trinity:

1. God is one being that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
2. The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
3. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God.

This presentation is confusing because "The trinity believer seems to use two different definitions for God"

1. God is defined as a being that is the Father Son and Holy Spirit
2. The Father is defined as God in a different way (typically God here simply refers to divine)

These apparent conflicting definitions lead to two incorrect inferences about what the trinity teaches.

1. The trinity teaches 3 Gods because they say the Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God and at the same time say the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
2. The trinity teaches that God is the one being that is the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Since the Father is not the Father Son and Holy Spirit then this implies the Trinity believer doesn't actually believe the Father is God.

I propose all the objections and misunderstandings and mystery around the trinity can be resolved if the trinity believer simply starts acknowledging that the trinity is going to use a single definition for God. That definition should be the one he started with, God is one being that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So when he says the Father is God he simply needs to acknowledge that the Father is the one being that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When he says the Son is God he simply needs to acknowledge that the Son is the one being that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and so on....

OBJECTION!!!!! Aren't those statements some kind of contradiction that needs avoided and thus why the trinity believer started explaining the trinity with two definitions of God in the first place?

MY ANSWER! Saying "the Father is the one being that is the Father Son and Holy Spirit" isn't actually a contradiction. However, if we were to say the Father is the Father Son and Holy Spirit that would be a contradiction due to the fact that it's already been said that the Father is not the Son. I hope that distinction is clear. If not maybe I can try to elaborate on it later.

So once its admitted that the Father is the one being that is the Father Son and Holy Spirit it becomes clear how the trinity teaches there is one God and how the Father is God and how the Son is God and how the Holy Spirit is God and how the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit. In other words once this is admitted the trinity doesn't sound nearly as mysterious or hard to understand.

This is why I say it's a problem with presentation, because most trinity believers would have denied that the Father is the one being that is the Father Son and Holy Spirit out of the seeming contradiction it makes. However, if they had examined closer they would have realized that statement creates no contradiction and actually resolves most of the objections people have to the trinity.

Any opinions from trinity believers? Is this what the trinity doctrine is trying to teach?
Any opinions from oneness believers? Would you object to the trinity if the trinity was presented this way?

Am I right about any of this or am I way off in left field somewhere?

[shazeep]

ok, my reply to the last question is "yes." :lol

[obriencp]

I was raised oneness and still lean that way. However, when I openly and honestly talk to trinitarians, we agree on most everything. That leads me to believe all the judgementalism and fear I had toward them was based on what my oneness teachers/pastors wanted me to believe about them. Strawman anyone?

I still don't like the term "Person" and while I speak of the Holy Spirit(Holy Ghost), i think of it as the spirit of God or Jesus inside of us. When i hear some speak of the Holy Spirit, it seems as they think of it as a him or separate person from the Father and Jesus. Don't know if I'll ever really understand it.

Some of these threads really expose the fact that in oneness and in trinitarianism there are a lot of differing views.

[shazeep]

yup--which seem to me to be tempests in teacups; manufactured to divide. While we may only directly interact with Three, God has seven Spirits, we are told. While i get why many, Prax, would say that we can know God, i still think there is a sense in which we cannot, or do not.

[TGBTG]

I was raised oneness and still lean that way. However, when I openly and honestly talk to trinitarians, we agree on most everything. That leads me to believe all the judgementalism and fear I had toward them was based on what my oneness teachers/pastors wanted me to believe about them. Strawman anyone?

I still don't like the term "Person" and while I speak of the Holy Spirit(Holy Ghost), i think of it as the spirit of God or Jesus inside of us. When i hear some speak of the Holy Spirit, it seems as they think of it as a him or separate person from the Father and Jesus. Don't know if I'll ever really understand it.

Some of these threads really expose the fact that in oneness and in trinitarianism there are a lot of differing views.

Perhaps this is why:

Jn 14
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

[mfblume]

It's more than presentation. Trinitarians believe the Son existed for eternity and forever loved the Father and the Holy Ghost, and the experience was mutual. This eternal mutual interaction is just simply too polytheistic.

[Originalist]

It's more than presentation. Trinitarians believe the Son existed for eternity and forever loved the Father and the Holy Ghost, and the experience was mutual. This eternal mutual interaction is just simply too polytheistic.


This goes with the fairy tale that says "God had this fellowship within himself so he wouldn't be lonely".


BUNK!! God was and is completely sufficient within himself. He lacked for nothing. Creation was an result not of his lack, but from his ABUNDANCE!

Even when I was a Trinitarian I scoffed at these silly notions.

[Jermyn Davidson]

It's more than presentation. Trinitarians believe the Son existed for eternity and forever loved the Father and the Holy Ghost, and the experience was mutual. This eternal mutual interaction is just simply too polytheistic.

When Jesus said He is Alpha and Omega, what is He referring to?

When Paul says the world was made by Jesus, what was he saying?

When Jesus speaks of the GLORY He shared with the Father from the begining, what was He talking about?

I believe that the Son existed before Bethlehem.

[Originalist]

When Jesus said He is Alpha and Omega, what is referring to?

When Paul says the world was made by Jesus, what was he saying?

When Jesus speaks of the GLORY He shared with the Father from the begining, what was He talking about?

I believe that the Son existed before Bethlehem.


The WORD that was "IN God" existed before Bethlehem. If he pre-existed IN God before the incarnation, then naturally he shared the glory of the God he was IN. In Mary's womb that WORD became flesh. That's where Sonship began.

[Jermyn Davidson]

The WORD that "IN God" existed before Bethlehem. If he pre-existed IN God before the incarnation, then naturally he shared the glory of the God he was IN. In Mary's womb that WORD became flesh. That's where Sonship began.

"Who will go for us?"

"Before Abraham was, I AM."

"The same was in the begining with God."

Does anyone believe that one must believe that Jesus' Sonship didn't begin until the Immaculate Conception in order for someone to be saved?

[jfrog]

It's more than presentation. Trinitarians believe the Son existed for eternity and forever loved the Father and the Holy Ghost, and the experience was mutual. This eternal mutual interaction is just simply too polytheistic.

If that's the only thing that you can find to disagree with my assessment of the trinity on then I'd say we have made progress :)

Come on... surely you could find something more to disagree with my assessment on than that. Surely the divide between your beliefs and my explanation of the trinity is far bigger than "they say the Son existed before bethleham and I say he didn't".

[Luke]

I don't think God was ever lonely and I have never heard that fellowship within the trinity keeps God from loneliness. There is two much evidence for me to be oneness yet at the same time I cannot condemn those who hold to a oneness view of the Godhead as heretics.

JFROG to answer your question isn't what your saying oneness theology or am I misreading?

[Bowas]

Here is a fact of history. The doctrine of the trinity,"one God in three persons" is no where found in the Bible and is in fact an evolved concept through hundreds of years and was not in the consciousness of the early church and is not found in either the New testament or the old testament.
According to:

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=47023&page=8

Post 74 and 75

[jfrog]

I don't think God was ever lonely and I have never heard that fellowship within the trinity keeps God from loneliness. There is two much evidence for me to be oneness yet at the same time I cannot condemn those who hold to a oneness view of the Godhead as heretics.

JFROG to answer your question isn't what your saying oneness theology or am I misreading?

Well it was an attempt at describing the trinity. Maybe I failed? Do you disagree with any of it? If so what parts specifically?

[jfrog]

I was raised oneness and still lean that way. However, when I openly and honestly talk to trinitarians, we agree on most everything. That leads me to believe all the judgementalism and fear I had toward them was based on what my oneness teachers/pastors wanted me to believe about them. Strawman anyone?

I still don't like the term "Person" and while I speak of the Holy Spirit(Holy Ghost), i think of it as the spirit of God or Jesus inside of us. When i hear some speak of the Holy Spirit, it seems as they think of it as a him or separate person from the Father and Jesus. Don't know if I'll ever really understand it.

Some of these threads really expose the fact that in oneness and in trinitarianism there are a lot of differing views.

Thanks for the insight. I feel that way to.

I avoided using the word person in my description of the trinity because ultimately the word person in relation to the trinity was supposed to be descriptive and enlightening but it's really a very confusing description since the word person means so many different things these days.

I think trinitarians have caused many of their own problems on that front by constantly calling the trinity a mystery instead of finding ways to explain it. I think they have caused their own problems by using two different definitions of God when they discuss the trinity. I think they have caused their own problems by using the word person and not trying to define what they mean by it. I don't even think they realize they are doing these things either.

I think if trinitarians ever got away from using two different definitions of God and calling the trinity a mystery any time a hard question is asked and most especially if they set down and explained what they meant by person before using the word to refer to the members of the trinity..... if all these things were done by their side I think the trinity and oneness would start sounding strangely similar.

[jfrog]

It's more than presentation. Trinitarians believe the Son existed for eternity and forever loved the Father and the Holy Ghost, and the experience was mutual. This eternal mutual interaction is just simply too polytheistic.

Blume the Son did exist for all eternity as God. Even you believe that. Was there interaction between the Father and Son before the incarnation? I'm not sure. I do know that even in the oneness perspective that the incarnation proves that a single person can interact with himself and love himself. So whose to say that such interaction and love couldn't have extended before the incarnation?

[jfrog]

The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated; the Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, and the Holy Spirit is infinite; the Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal; and nevertheless there are not three eternals but one eternal; just as there are not three uncreated beings, nor three infinite beings, but one uncreated, and one infinite; similarly the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, and the Holy Spirit is almighty; and yet there are not three almightys but one almighty; thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and nevertheless there are not three gods, but there is one God; so the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord; and yet there are not three lords, but there is one Lord

This is the part of the doctrine of the trinity. Anyone disagree with this?

[Praxeas]

First of all I would love to get some thoughts from actual trinity believers on this.

I firmly believe the problem that oneness believers have with the trinity is more a problem of presentation than substance. Now before I get 100+ objections hear me out on this.

A trinity believer typically presents three main points in any explanation on the trinity:

1. God is one being that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
2. The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
3. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God.

This presentation is confusing because "The trinity believer seems to use two different definitions for God"

1. God is defined as a being that is the Father Son and Holy Spirit
2. The Father is defined as God in a different way (typically God here simply refers to divine)

These apparent conflicting definitions lead to two incorrect inferences about what the trinity teaches.

1. The trinity teaches 3 Gods because they say the Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God and at the same time say the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
2. The trinity teaches that God is the one being that is the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Since the Father is not the Father Son and Holy Spirit then this implies the Trinity believer doesn't actually believe the Father is God.

I propose all the objections and misunderstandings and mystery around the trinity can be resolved if the trinity believer simply starts acknowledging that the trinity is going to use a single definition for God. That definition should be the one he started with, God is one being that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So when he says the Father is God he simply needs to acknowledge that the Father is the one being that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When he says the Son is God he simply needs to acknowledge that the Son is the one being that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and so on....

OBJECTION!!!!! Aren't those statements some kind of contradiction that needs avoided and thus why the trinity believer started explaining the trinity with two definitions of God in the first place?

MY ANSWER! Saying "the Father is the one being that is the Father Son and Holy Spirit" isn't actually a contradiction. However, if we were to say the Father is the Father Son and Holy Spirit that would be a contradiction due to the fact that it's already been said that the Father is not the Son. I hope that distinction is clear. If not maybe I can try to elaborate on it later.

So once its admitted that the Father is the one being that is the Father Son and Holy Spirit it becomes clear how the trinity teaches there is one God and how the Father is God and how the Son is God and how the Holy Spirit is God and how the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit. In other words once this is admitted the trinity doesn't sound nearly as mysterious or hard to understand.

This is why I say it's a problem with presentation, because most trinity believers would have denied that the Father is the one being that is the Father Son and Holy Spirit out of the seeming contradiction it makes. However, if they had examined closer they would have realized that statement creates no contradiction and actually resolves most of the objections people have to the trinity.

Any opinions from trinity believers? Is this what the trinity doctrine is trying to teach?
Any opinions from oneness believers? Would you object to the trinity if the trinity was presented this way?

Am I right about any of this or am I way off in left field somewhere?
Your "definition" is incomplete and the data must include certain terms such as Persons

They believe in 1 Being (God) and three Divine PERSONS.

Second when and if ever I believe someone has three Gods has nothing to do with what you presented but rather with whether or not they appear to separate these Persons into distinct BEINGS.

Key words

Persons

Distinct

Separate.

[Originalist]

"Who will go for us?"

"Before Abraham was, I AM."

"The same was in the begining with God."

Does anyone believe that one must believe that Jesus' Sonship didn't begin until the Immaculate Conception in order for someone to be saved?

There can be no "male human offspring" without a birth.

Furthermore you cited, "Who will go for US".
This is from Isaiah's vision in chapter 6 where he said, "I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. ". Isaiah did not see three persons of God. He saw the one Lord sitting on one throne and describes HIS train (not "their trains" or even their train). Thus it is logical to deduct that whoever the Lord was addressing when he said "who will go for us" it was somebody other than the Lord.

John 1:1 the WORD (not the Son) was IN God and with (pertained to) God.

[Originalist]

The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated; the Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, and the Holy Spirit is infinite; the Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal; and nevertheless there are not three eternals but one eternal; just as there are not three uncreated beings, nor three infinite beings, but one uncreated, and one infinite; similarly the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, and the Holy Spirit is almighty; and yet there are not three almightys but one almighty; thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and nevertheless there are not three gods, but there is one God; so the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord; and yet there are not three lords, but there is one Lord

This is the part of the doctrine of the trinity. Anyone disagree with this?

I disagree.

In John 4 Jesus has already shown the Father to be both the one true God and the Spirit. Remember that the context of Jesus' words were concerning the Spirit being placed inside people like a well of living water and how it would effect worship....

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 (the Father) is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
No mention of worship of a triune God. The only God that would be worshipped is the Father, who is Spirit, and who will one day indwell men as a fountain of living water. The Father (God) had already referred to himself as a fountain of living water....

For my people have committed two evils:
they have forsaken me,
the fountain of living waters,
and hewed out cisterns for themselves,
broken cisterns that can hold no water. (Jeremiah 2:13)

Thus any hint at the Holy Ghost being distinct in John 14 must be interpreted in light of what Jesus already had declared about God in John 4, as well as what God had already declared about himself in Jeremiah.

[jfrog]

I think I can discount every objection you just raised with one question. Do you believe the son is God.

I disagree.

In John 4 Jesus has already shown the Father to be both the one true God and the Spirit. Remember that the context of Jesus' words were concerning the Spirit being placed inside people like a well of living water and how it would effect worship....

No mention of worship of a triune God. The only God that would be worshipped is the Father, who is Spirit, and who will one day indwell men as a fountain of living water. The Father (God) had already referred to himself as a fountain of living water....



Thus any hint at the Holy Ghost being distinct in John 14 must be interpreted in light of what Jesus already had declared about God in John 4, as well as what God had already declared about himself in Jeremiah.

[Originalist]

I think I can discount every objection you just raised with one question. Do you believe the son is God.

That question does not change the substance of any point I raised at all, as much as you dream it might.

The facts will remain that....

1)Jesus affirmed that the Father was the only God the Jews worshipped

2) Jesus affirmed that the Spirit that would one day indwell men would be the Father.

Since his conception in the womb (when the Holy Ghost or Father overshadowed Mary) there has never been a time that Jesus was not God. However, there was a time when God was not incarnated in Jesus the son.

Now God's entire BEING is mediated through the Son. There was a time that was not so.

[jfrog]

Your "definition" is incomplete and the data must include certain terms such as Persons

They believe in 1 Being (God) and three Divine PERSONS.

Second when and if ever I believe someone has three Gods has nothing to do with what you presented but rather with whether or not they appear to separate these Persons into distinct BEINGS.

Key words

Persons

Distinct

Separate.

A discussion of the trinity doesn't need to use undefined terms that all have multiple definitions, like person, distinct, separate...

Not using the word person in my explanation of the trinity doesn't mean it's an incorrect explanation of the trinity

[Originalist]

A discussion of the trinity doesn't need to use undefined terms that all have multiple definitions, like person, distinct, separate...

Not using the word person in my explanation of the trinity doesn't mean it's an incorrect explanation of the trinity

I agree. But most Trinitarian apologists/schoolars will not like you.

[mfblume]

Blume the Son did exist for all eternity as God.

No, the Son did not exist for all eternity.

There was no eternal interaction between Father and Son and Holy Ghost. Let's not miss the point.


Even you believe that.

No I most certainly do not.

Was there interaction between the Father and Son before the incarnation? I'm not sure.

My opinion is settled. No.

I do know that even in the oneness perspective that the incarnation proves that a single person can interact with himself and love himself. So whose to say that such interaction and love couldn't have extended before the incarnation?

When deity manifests as genuine humanity, of course the humanity loves the deity, or it's a farce.

[mfblume]

I don't think God was ever lonely and I have never heard that fellowship within the trinity keeps God from loneliness. There is two much evidence for me to be oneness yet at the same time I cannot condemn those who hold to a oneness view of the Godhead as heretics.

JFROG to answer your question isn't what your saying oneness theology or am I misreading?

To have persons interacting for eternity is polytheism, regardless of terminology to escape that.

[mfblume]

When Jesus said He is Alpha and Omega, what is He referring to?

When Paul says the world was made by Jesus, what was he saying?

When Jesus speaks of the GLORY He shared with the Father from the begining, what was He talking about?

I believe that the Son existed before Bethlehem.

I think that means you do not know what Sonship is. Gabriel gave the only reason for being called Son of God -- because a human woman would birth a child begotten by God.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

That should convince anyone.

[mfblume]

This goes with the fairy tale that says "God had this fellowship within himself so he wouldn't be lonely".


BUNK!! God was and is completely sufficient within himself. He lacked for nothing. Creation was an result not of his lack, but from his ABUNDANCE!

Even when I was a Trinitarian I scoffed at these silly notions.

:thumbsup

[Praxeas]

A discussion of the trinity doesn't need to use undefined terms that all have multiple definitions, like person, distinct, separate...

Not using the word person in my explanation of the trinity doesn't mean it's an incorrect explanation of the trinity
Actually a discussion of the trinity requires using DEFINED terms such as Person. That is my point

Yes it does mean it's incorrect because that they are distinct PERSONS is the whole crux of a Trinity

[mfblume]

People, if trinity were true, and the simple explanation of one God throughout the Old Testament was not full truth, then Christ and the apostles would have spent chapters on the issue! Think about it! It is a doctrine developed centuries after the bible was completed. Doesn't that mean anything to you?

[jfrog]

Actually a discussion of the trinity requires using DEFINED terms such as Person. That is my point

Yes it does mean it's incorrect because that they are distinct PERSONS is the whole crux of a Trinity

If the term is that important then it's just a discussion about semantics. It's the concept behind the term that matters and if that concept is the same it doesn't matter what you call it

[jfrog]

I agree. But most Trinitarian apologists/schoolars will not like you.

Prolly so. But do you think they would disagree with how I've described it?

[seguidordejesus]

Jesus spent a lot of time using language that makes him distinct from the Father.
Jesus spent a lot of time using language that makes him "one with" the Father (the interpretation of this is key, of course).

I'm convinced that God is bigger than simplistic Oneness explanations would have him be, but I'm not to the point of trinitarianism.

So - I don't mind their being a little "mystery" to the Godhead. Why should we have God all figured out? I can't even figure myself out, why should I HAVE to have God all figured out.

I think an important thing to note is Colossians 2:9, "For the entire fullness of God's nature dwells bodily in Christ," HCSB. Whatever the mechanics of how God is made, worked out, or whatever - the vision and example that we are to follow is of the person of Jesus Christ.

Let's not lose sight of that.

[Originalist]

Jesus spent a lot of time using language that makes him distinct from the Father.
Jesus spent a lot of time using language that makes him "one with" the Father (the interpretation of this is key, of course).

I'm convinced that God is bigger than simplistic Oneness explanations would have him be, but I'm not to the point of trinitarianism.

So - I don't mind their being a little "mystery" to the Godhead. Why should we have God all figured out? I can't even figure myself out, why should I HAVE to have God all figured out.

I think an important thing to note is Colossians 2:9, "For the entire fullness of God's nature dwells bodily in Christ," HCSB. Whatever the mechanics of how God is made, worked out, or whatever - the vision and example that we are to follow is of the person of Jesus Christ.

Let's not lose sight of that.

Amen.

[Praxeas]

If the term is that important then it's just a discussion about semantics. It's the concept behind the term that matters and if that concept is the same it doesn't matter what you call it

You aren't contradicting what I just said. Yes it's the concept behind the word Person and the word Person in THEIR concept is a nuanced definition that we Oneness disagree with

Manifestation is not another word for Person. Person is not another word for Mode.

Merely saying

1. God is one being that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
2. The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
3. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God.

is not enough. Study Economic Trinitarianism vs Hypostatic Trinitarianism

[jfrog]

You aren't contradicting what I just said. Yes it's the concept behind the word Person and the word Person in THEIR concept is a nuanced definition that we Oneness disagree with

Then tell me where they would disagree with what I posted. Where did I go wrong in explaining the trinity. If you can avoid semantics arguments about me not using the word person that would be great, because as you say its the concept behind their use of the word person that really matters and not their use of the word person. So where does the trinitarian doctrine disagree with my post?



Manifestation is not another word for Person. Person is not another word for Mode.

Merely saying

1. God is one being that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
2. The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
3. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God.

is not enough. Study Economic Trinitarianism vs Hypostatic Trinitarianism

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Are you trying to say that a trinity believer would agree with the basic points of my post but that those basic points are not all that is required for the trinity doctrine?

[jfrog]

That question does not change the substance of any point I raised at all, as much as you dream it might.

The facts will remain that....

1)Jesus affirmed that the Father was the only God the Jews worshipped

2) Jesus affirmed that the Spirit that would one day indwell men would be the Father.

Since his conception in the womb (when the Holy Ghost or Father overshadowed Mary) there has never been a time that Jesus was not God. However, there was a time when God was not incarnated in Jesus the son.

Now God's entire BEING is mediated through the Son. There was a time that was not so.

Sure it does. If you really believe the Son is God then the Son must be uncreated, eternal, almighty....

That's all the portion of the creed I posted said wasn't it. That the Son was uncreated, eternal, almighty.....

[MarkBelosa]

-----PRAISE BREAK------

Give me eyes to see more of who You are
May what I behold still my anxious heart
Take what I have known and break it all apart
For You my God are greater still

Hillsong - The Greatness Of Our God

___________________

My thoughts...

1. Yes, God is so great that we cannot contain all there is to know about Him, but everything that we NEED to know is accessible to us and perceivable by our finite understanding (He is not as mysterious as others suggest).

Romans 1:20

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


2. Terminologies need to be well defined in order to have a meaningful exchange of thoughts and opinions. I personally try not to use labels but I have realized that we cannot avoid them, especially in forums like this.

3. God's oneness is a subject that is important to Him so we have to give importance to it as well. While I understand that some Trinitarians don't necessarily emphasize the "threeness" of the Trinity, the fact remains that their view of the Godhead is not scripturally sound.

4. The ultimate purpose of any Biblical discussion should be the glory of God. I know a lot of Trinitarian folks who are "sincere" and seem to have a "good" relationship with God. But I believe they will have a deeper appreciation of God from a oneness' point of view. The way they pray and worship would change positively once they see that there really is One God who clothed Himself with humanity in order to save us from sin and who now resides in us in Spirit "form." This is why I believe it is important for us Christians to learn the difference between oneness and trinitarianism, so that we can give God the glory for who He truly is.

-----

I am not sure why this thread was started. I mean, are we trying to reconcile the doctrine of the Trinity with Oneness theology? As mentioned in one of the responses, it is not just about presentation.

The Bible tells us that the son was "made of a woman, made under the law." Subject to time. Not eternal. Any references to Jesus' being eternal or his preexistence has something to do with his deity, which is not separate nor distinct from the Father. The Word (Logos) is eternal and did preexist "with" God. But it doesn't imply that there is more than one person (define person!) in the Godhead. It just so happened that Jesus is referred to in different titles or names (Son, Logos, etc).

All this confusion about three persons started when someone made up a term and gave it a definition that is not directly taught by Scripture. I think it would be (relatively) easier to teach Oneness theology to a person who has not had any prior Trinitarian indoctrination. Did I hear somebody say Amen? :D

[jfrog]

-----PRAISE BREAK------

Give me eyes to see more of who You are
May what I behold still my anxious heart
Take what I have known and break it all apart
For You my God are greater still

Hillsong - The Greatness Of Our God

___________________

My thoughts...

1. Yes, we cannot contain all there is to know about God, but everything we NEED to know about him, is not hidden (mystery).

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


2. Terminologies need to be well defined in order to have a meaningful exchange of thoughts and opinions. I personally try not to use labels but I have realized that we cannot avoid them, especially in forums like this.

3. God's oneness is a subject that is important to Him so we have to give importance to it as well. While I understand that some Trinitarians don't necessarily emphasize the "threeness" of the Trinity, the fact remains that their view of the Godhead is not scripturally sound.

4. The ultimate purpose of any Biblical discussion should be the glory of God. I know a lot of Trinitarian folks who are "sincere" and seem to have a "good" relationship with God. But I believe they will have a deeper appreciation of God from a oneness' point of view. The way they pray and worship would change positively once they see that there really is One God who clothed Himself with humanity in order to save us from sin and who now resides in us in Spirit "form."

-----

I am not sure why this thread was started. I mean, are we trying to reconcile the doctrine of the Trinity with Oneness theology? As mentioned in one of the responses, it is not just about presentation.

The Bible tells us that the son was "made of a woman, made under the law." Subject to time. Not eternal. Any references to Jesus' being eternal or preexistence has something to do with his deity, which is not separate nor distinct from the Father. The Word (Logos) is eternal and did preexist "with" God. But it doesn't mean there is more than one person in the Godhead. It just so happened that Jesus is referred to in different titles or names (Son, Logos, etc).

All this confusion about three persons started when someone made up a term and gave it a definition that is not directly taught by Scripture. I think it would be (relatively) easier to teach Oneness theology to a person who has not had any prior Trinitarian indoctrination.

On 2)

I'm all for terminologies being well defined. When a well defined terminology can be used it's great. It makes discussion easier. It makes understanding the concepts behind the term easier. I get that. The problem is when one group constantly comes back and says that word doesn't mean whatever you just defined it as and therefore you are wrong. That's the problem with having a well defined term like person in this trinity vs oneness discussion.


So basically oneness believers tell trinitarians: you are wrong because "Term X (person)" doesn't mean what you think it does. Trying to make the term "person" be really well defined isn't going to fix that problem.

On 3)

What part of my opening post goes against trinity doctrine? The only thing I've heard so far is that what I described can't be the trinity because I didn't use the word person..... is that really the only objection to my claim that my post is describing the trinity?

As far as God's oneness, that's a concept that is very important to the trinity believer too. This is why their creeds constantly reference, yet there is not 3 almightys but 1. Yet there are not 3 uncreated but 1. Yet there are not 3 eternal but 1. You can't sound much more about oneness than that.

Conclusion:

If a oneness believer got up and said I believe the Father is almighty, I believe the Son is almighty, I believe the Holy Spirit is almighty but there are not 3 almighys but 1 because the Father Son and Holy Spirit are all the same person. They would get claps and probably a standing ovation in any oneness church. The only part the trinitarian creed I quoted left off was the "because they are all the same person".

That's the only difference. And if you really sit down and start pondering and thinking about how the Father Son and Holy Spirit can each be eternal while still having one God the only explanation is that "because they are all the same person (in oneness terminology)" or they "because they are all the same being (in trinitarian terminology)".

There's one and only one explanation that allows the things stated in that trinitarian creed to be true. Both oneness and the trinity use the same concept on that. In oneness the concept gets explicitly stated, "because they are the same person". In the trinity the concept just gets implied. But it's still the same concept no matter what terminology gets used to describe it.

[MarkBelosa]

On 2)

I'm all for terminologies being well defined. When a well defined terminology can be used it's great. It makes discussion easier. It makes understanding the concepts behind the term easier. I get that. The problem is when one group constantly comes back and says that word doesn't mean whatever you just defined it as and therefore you are wrong. That's the problem with having a well defined term like person in this trinity vs oneness discussion.


So basically oneness believers tell trinitarians: you are wrong because "Term X (person)" doesn't mean what you think it does. Trying to make the term "person" be really well defined isn't going to fix that problem.

On 3)

What part of my opening post goes against trinity doctrine? The only thing I've heard so far is that what I described can't be the trinity because I didn't use the word person..... is that really the only objection to my claim that my post is describing the trinity?

I beg to differ. There were aspects of the Oneness of God that were not as clear to me as when I finally understood (or at least, got an explanation of) the term PERSON. :D I'd have to say "Trying to discuss Trinity without first defining "person" would only result to a never ending discussion." :D

Regarding your opening post...

This part here:

1. God is one being that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
2. The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
3. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God.

Yes, that is how Trinity is often defined or presented.
Now this part here:

1. The trinity teaches 3 Gods because they say the Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God and at the same time say the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
2. The trinity teaches that God is the one being that is the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Since the Father is not the Father Son and Holy Spirit then this implies the Trinity believer doesn't actually believe the Father is God.

Three Gods - that is not what Trinitarians "say" they believe. But since they consider Father, Son and Spirit as distinct (persons), they end up saying it is a "mystery" simply because it goes against human logic and reason.

The Father is God - both Trinitarian and Oneness folks believe that. This is the first time that I heard this statement from anyone: "Since the Father is not the Father Son and Holy Spirit then this implies the Trinity believer doesn't actually believe the Father is God.

I hope this answers your question "What part of my opening post goes against trinity doctrine?"

[MarkBelosa]

On 2)

As far as God's oneness, that's a concept that is very important to the trinity believer too. This is why their creeds constantly reference, yet there is not 3 almightys but 1. Yet there are not 3 uncreated but 1. Yet there are not 3 eternal but 1. You can't sound much more about oneness than that.

Conclusion:

If a oneness believer got up and said I believe the Father is almighty, I believe the Son is almighty, I believe the Holy Spirit is almighty but there are not 3 almighys but 1 because the Father Son and Holy Spirit are all the same person. They would get claps and probably a standing ovation in any oneness church. The only part the trinitarian creed I quoted left off was the "because they are all the same person".

That's the only difference. And if you really sit down and start pondering and thinking about how the Father Son and Holy Spirit can each be eternal while still having one God the only explanation is that "because they are all the same person (in oneness terminology)" or they "because they are all the same being (in trinitarian terminology)".

There's one and only one explanation that allows the things stated in that trinitarian creed to be true. Both oneness and the trinity use the same concept on that. In oneness the concept gets explicitly stated, "because they are the same person". In the trinity the concept just gets implied. But it's still the same concept no matter what terminology gets used to describe it.

I had a different understanding of the term or title "Son" when I was Trinitarian. And when I have embraced the Oneness view, I still did not have a very clear understanding of the term "person" so every time I come across that word "Son," I would often pause to think, was that verse talking about Jesus' humanity or His deity. In that sense, I don't necessarily agree when you said this:

If a oneness believer got up and said I believe the Father is almighty, I believe the Son is almighty, I believe the Holy Spirit is almighty but there are not 3 almighys but 1 because the Father Son and Holy Spirit are all the same person.... and the rest of the quote (your conclusion)

Simply because a oneness believer has a different understanding of how the term Son is used.

Now, if I had the chance to stand up and declare what I believe about God, I would phrase it this way:

I believe in One God. He revealed Himself through many different names names and titles (not just three, btw). He is our Father and He is Almighty. He clothed himself with humanity - born of a woman, just like us, that is why He is called Son of God and Son of Man. He died (his humanity) to save us from sin but He rose again and ascended up to heaven, and now He resides in our hearts through his Spirit. There is only One God and although He is also called by many names and titles, I would like to address him as JESUS - the name above all names. He is the Jehovah God of the Old Testament, the El Shaddai. He is Alpha and Omega, the Great I AM, the same yesterday, today and forever.

[jfrog]

I beg to differ. There were aspects of the Oneness of God that were not as clear to me as when I finally understood (or at least, got an explanation of) the term PERSON. :D I'd have to say "Trying to discuss Trinity without first defining "person" would only result to a never ending discussion." :D

I'd have to say that trying to define person is going to result in a never ending discussion....


Regarding your opening post...

This part here:

1. God is one being that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
2. The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
3. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God.

Yes, that is how Trinity is often defined or presented.


Yay, so the first part is describing the trinity. That's a start.


Now this part here:

1. The trinity teaches 3 Gods because they say the Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God and at the same time say the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
2. The trinity teaches that God is the one being that is the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Since the Father is not the Father Son and Holy Spirit then this implies the Trinity believer doesn't actually believe the Father is God.

Three Gods - that is not what Trinitarians "say" they believe.


If you will notice that in my opening post I stated that those were objections to the trinity that primarily stemmed from a trinity believers attempt as using the term "God" in two different ways. So that part of my post wasn't an attempt to describe the trinity doctrine but instead was discussing how some trinitarians go wrong in explaining the trinity and the implications of those bad explanations.


But since they consider Father, Son and Spirit as distinct (persons), they end up saying it is a "mystery" simply because it goes against human logic and reason.


I think my explanation for why they have to start referring to it as a mystery is better. They often unintentionally use two different definitions of God when they are discussing the trinity. This leads to the parts that defy human logic. IMO Them sounding like they are saying they have 3 Gods really has nothing to do with them claiming 3 distinct persons in 1 God. IMO if them using the word person is the only thing that makes a oneness believer think they have 3 Gods then it's pretty obvious that the oneness believer is simply refusing to use whatever definition of person that the trinity believer is using (thus them saying 3 persons is just a semantics problem and not a conceptual problem). The conceptual problem is having two different defitions of God IMO. I thought I explained pretty well how having those two different definitions of God lead to claims of them having 3 Gods? Am I wrong on that?


The Father is God - both Trinitarian and Oneness folks believe that. This is the first time that I heard this statement from anyone: "Since the Father is not the Father Son and Holy Spirit then this implies the Trinity believer doesn't actually believe the Father is God.

I hope this answers your question "What part of my opening post goes against trinity doctrine?"

Now, you have to understand some of my post was critiquing some of the explanations trinity believers use for the trinity. So you can't really point to those statements and say look here you said "a trintarian doesn't believe he has 3 gods so you aren't describing the trinity in a way he would agree with."

I mean WOW. Where did I actually say they have 3 Gods? I didn't. I said sometimes the trinity gets explained wrong and that leads others to believe it implies the trinity believer believes in 3 Gods. That you are trying to point to those parts of my post and say this goes against the trinity doctrine almost feels like you didn't even read the post and are now just quickly skimming through looking for things to nitpick about.

In fact that you would even point to that as your example of where they would disagree leaves me almost speechless.

[jfrog]

I had a different understanding of the term or title "Son" when I was Trinitarian. And when I have embraced the Oneness view, I still did not have a very clear understanding of the term "person" so every time I come across that word "Son," I would often pause to think, was that verse talking about Jesus' humanity or His deity. In that sense, I don't necessarily agree when you said this:

If a oneness believer got up and said I believe the Father is almighty, I believe the Son is almighty, I believe the Holy Spirit is almighty but there are not 3 almighys but 1 because the Father Son and Holy Spirit are all the same person.... and the rest of the quote (your conclusion)

Simply because a oneness believer has a different understanding of how the term Son is used.



I need some clarification: Are you saying a oneness believer would never say "I believe the Father is almighty, I believe the Son is almighty, I believe the Holy Spirit is almighty but there are not 3 almighys but 1 because the Father Son and Holy Spirit are all the same person"?

And are you saying he would never say that because he would disagree with the statement or simply because he has a better way to explain his thoughts than that?



Now, if I had the chance to stand up and declare what I believe about God, I would phrase it this way:

I believe in One God. He revealed Himself through many different names names and titles (not just three, btw). He is our Father and He is Almighty. He clothed himself with humanity - born of a woman, just like us, that is why He is called Son of God and Son of Man. He died (his humanity) to save us from sin but He rose again and ascended up to heaven, and now He resides in our hearts through his Spirit.


I'm pretty sure a trinitarian would agree with all this so far and may even say a large part of this or something like this on his own.



There is only One God and although He is also called by many names and titles, I would like to address him as JESUS - the name above all names. He is the Jehovah God of the Old Testament, the El Shaddai. He is Alpha and Omega, the Great I AM, the same yesterday, today and forever.

I don' even think a trinitarian would necessarily disagree with calling God by the name Jesus, but they probably wouldn't have added this part on their own.

Maybe I'm wrong though?

[shazeep]

ha i'm sure it would depend upon which trinny you happened upon--you might even be founding a new sect here! :lol
btw, that was nice back there, SJ. And Mark, you reveal to me why, perhaps, Prax et al say that one may 'know God.' Well put

[jfrog]

ha i'm sure it would depend upon which trinny you happened upon--you might even be founding a new sect here! :lol
btw, that was nice back there, SJ. And Mark, you reveal to me why, perhaps, Prax et al say that one may 'know God.' Well put

LOL well that is true. There are as many if not more versions of the trinity than there are versions of oneness.

[Originalist]

Sure it does. If you really believe the Son is God then the Son must be uncreated, eternal, almighty....

That's all the portion of the creed I posted said wasn't it. That the Son was uncreated, eternal, almighty.....

The Son was not created, he was begotten. His very existence was due to the fact that God's Spirit overshadowed a virgin and merged himself (if you will) with one of her eggs. Jesus is a very unique human being in that he was not a product of sperm. Rather he was a product of the union of the Spirit of God and a human egg. This act produced a Son (male human offspring) to which God has eternally joined himself producing one new creature. Jesus, though having his own human identity like any other man, also knew he was completely one in being with his Father to the point he could recall creation, Satan falling, and Abraham. God completely mediates his very being through this Son. There was no eternal God the Son in eternity past who became a man. Pure mythology.

[jfrog]

The Son was not created, he was begotten. His very existence was due to the fact that God's Spirit overshadowed a virgin and merged himself (if you will) with one of her eggs. Jesus is a very unique human being in that he was not a product of sperm. Rather he was a product of the union of the Spirit of God and a human egg. This act produced a Son (male human offspring) to which God has eternally joined himself producing one new creature. Jesus, though having his own human identity like any other man, also knew he was completely one in being with his Father to the point he could recall creation, Satan falling, and Abraham. God completely mediates his very being through this Son. There was no eternal God the Son in eternity past who became a man. Pure mythology.

The son existed before he was born. Else how could he say before Abraham was i am. You know this is true. It's very basic oneness teaching no matter which oneness variation you believe.

Or do you believe it wasn't the Son that said before Abraham was I am?

I think your view is best stated that gods role as son had a beginning but the son is a person and the person that is the son has always existed. This is why it is true to claim the son is eternal because there was never a time when the person who is the son didn't exist.

[Praxeas]

Then tell me where they would disagree with what I posted. Where did I go wrong in explaining the trinity. If you can avoid semantics arguments about me not using the word person that would be great, because as you say its the concept behind their use of the word person that really matters and not their use of the word person. So where does the trinitarian doctrine disagree with my post?




Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Are you trying to say that a trinity believer would agree with the basic points of my post but that those basic points are not all that is required for the trinity doctrine?
I already told you where. You did not define each as a distinct PERSON. Leaving it as it is is open to Economic trinitarianism

A Trinitarian can agree with the basic points

Also the original point I made has been obfuscated now, which was not "Trinitarians won't agree" but why we might say it's Tritheism...when they separate the Persons rather than distinguishing them

[Praxeas]

The son existed before he was born. Else how could he say before Abraham was i am. You know this is true. It's very basic oneness teaching no matter which oneness variation you believe.

Or do you believe it wasn't the Son that said before Abraham was I am?

I think your view is best stated that gods role as son had a beginning but the son is a person and the person that is the son has always existed. This is why it is true to claim the son is eternal because there was never a time when the person who is the son didn't exist.

Personally that is true. He existed Personally before He became the Son

[jfrog]

I already told you where. You did not define each as a distinct PERSON. Leaving it as it is is open to Economic trinitarianism

A Trinitarian can agree with the basic points

Also the original point I made has been obfuscated now, which was not "Trinitarians won't agree" but why we might say it's Tritheism...when they separate the Persons rather than distinguishing them

Ah, I'm sorry if I had misunderstood your point. I still think "persons" is less of the reason we see tritheism and it's more simple logical deduction based on their two different definitions of God.

They define the Father as God the Son as God and the Holy Ghost as God. However, they also freely admit God is three persons and that the Father is one person.

The contradiction comes about always because of their two different definitions of God. Even if they tried to explain the trinity without the word person the same contradiction would arise because it's based on them having two different definitions of God. (In fact my opening post demonstrated that the same contradiction arose without the use of the word person).

My proposed solution was for trinitarians to start using a single definition for God and showed how it would affect the discussion if they did. I don't think there was anything I said when I tried to explain everything with the single definition of God that they would disagree with. However, using that single definition of God to explain the trinity actually made the trinity sound almost oneness. What did you think of that?

[Praxeas]

Ah, I'm sorry if I had misunderstood your point. I still think "persons" is less of the reason we see tritheism and it's more simple logical deduction based on their two different definitions of God.

They define the Father as God the Son as God and the Holy Ghost as God. However, they also freely admit God is three persons and that the Father is one person.

The contradiction comes about always because of their two different definitions of God. Even if they tried to explain the trinity without the word person the same contradiction would arise because it's based on them having two different definitions of God. (In fact my opening post demonstrated that the same contradiction arose without the use of the word person).

My proposed solution was for trinitarians to start using a single definition for God and showed how it would affect the discussion if they did. I don't think there was anything I said when I tried to explain everything with the single definition of God that they would disagree with. However, using that single definition of God to explain the trinity actually made the trinity sound almost oneness. What did you think of that?
For me it's not merely about Persons. As I said it's when they separate the persons either saying the word Separate or describing them as if they were separate ie each has their own spacial location

When that happens, they become more than mere persons, they become distinct personal beings

[Michael The Disciple]

My main issue with Trins is they reject Christ as the only God.

[mfblume]

It's like Gordon Magee said. Trinity denies Jesus alone is the Supreme Deity.

[jfrog]

My main issue with Trins is they reject Christ as the only God.

I'm pretty sure if pressed they would admit that Jesus is the only God. Though that thought would not come naturally to them.

I say this because: If they say Jesus is not the only God then they have admitted to either more than one God or that Jesus is not God. Both of these things directly contradict the trinity doctrine so I don't see any way that they could not admit that Jesus is the only God.

I could be wrong though? Maybe they have admitted such in the past?

[jfrog]

I've tried to ask some trinity believers if they believe that Jesus is the only God?

All the replies I've gotten have been yes Jesus is the only God. In fact one source even asserted that this answer should be a typical trinitarian response. Now admittedly this was a small sample size and the people I asked may not have been well versed theologians but it does reaffirm my point that it's possible for trinity believers to agree that Jesus is the only God.

[Luke]

That is not really a good question. It is like being asked if you have stopped beating your wife and only be allowed to answer yes or no even if you have (as is m case) never beat you're wife. The question assumes that either it is Jesus only or a person is a polytheist. However this is not the car at all. As a Trinitarian I believe that there is One God eternally manifest in three persons namely God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), God the Holy Ghost and these three are one. In the same sense as a family is one unit but made up of three parts Father Mother Children. Another great example would be as Paul pointed out we as Christians are many members but one body.

[jfrog]

That is not really a good question. It is like being asked if you have stopped beating your wife and only be allowed to answer yes or no even if you have (as is m case) never beat you're wife. The question assumes that either it is Jesus only or a person is a polytheist. However this is not the car at all. As a Trinitarian I believe that there is One God eternally manifest in three persons namely God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), God the Holy Ghost and these three are one. In the same sense as a family is one unit but made up of three parts Father Mother Children. Another great example would be as Paul pointed out we as Christians are many members but one body.

We can break it apart into two questions if you like. Is Jesus God? Is there only 1 god?

If the answer is yes to both then you believe that Jesus is the only God.

If you answer no to either question then you believe that Jesus is not the only God.

It's simple and really not comparable to asking someone if they still beat their wife.

[mfblume]

It's better to ask people if they think ONLY JESUS is the true God. Trinitarians cannot say He is. Guys, get out of that catholic nonsense. Seriously. If trinity was true, how come the doctrine is not explained in the bible and only explained in the third century?

[jfrog]

It's better to ask people if they think ONLY JESUS is the true God. Trinitarians cannot say He is. Guys, get out of that catholic nonsense. Seriously. If trinity was true, how come the doctrine is not explained in the bible and only explained in the third century?

Blume, even oneness teaches that personally, only Jesus is God. However they also admit that manifestationally that the father is God as well as Jesus.

[mfblume]

Blume, even oneness teaches that personally, only Jesus is God. However they also admit that manifestationally that the father is God as well as Jesus.

Of course. How does that say anything to what I said, though? Jesus being God's name has us saying Jesus is the only one who is God. Trinitarians read that and deny it because they say the Father is not Jesus. So, that means the statement that only Jesus is God discounts the Father, but not in Oneness.

[jfrog]

Of course. How does that say anything to what I said, though? Jesus being God's name has us saying Jesus is the only one who is God. Trinitarians read that and deny it because they say the Father is not Jesus. So, that means the statement that only Jesus is God discounts the Father, but not in Oneness.

It's just a perspective thing is my point. That's why i pointed out that even you can say Not only Jesus is God. They agree with that. in fact oneness doesn't actually teach that only Jesus is god.... But that's a different story. And it's one that depends on perspective.

While the trinitys problem is that they use the word God two different ways... The problem with oneness is that they use the word Jesus in two different ways.

I think our discussion here adaquetley shows that. Sometimes Jesus is the person. Sometimes Jesus is the manifestation.

[mfblume]

It's just a perspective thing is my point. That's why i pointed out that even you can say Not only Jesus is God.

No, okay something is missing in our chats. lol. I cannot say "Not only Jesus is God." Jesus, to me, is the NAME OF GOD eternally. Before there was a manifestation of Him in flesh, He was the sole person of the Godhead and still is. So, Jesus, being God;s name, is the only God. There is none other bedside Him, he knows not any.

They agree with that. in fact oneness doesn't actually teach that only Jesus is god.... But that's a different story. And it's one that depends on perspective.
Yes it does teach that, J. I've been in this thing for over 30 years and Oneness does teach ONLY JESUS is God.

While the trinitys problem is that they use the word God two different ways... The problem with oneness is that they use the word Jesus in two different ways.

I think our discussion here adaquetley shows that. Sometimes Jesus is the person. Sometimes Jesus is the manifestation.

Jesus is the person first and foremost. And because the same person is manifest as the Son, then the Son's name is Jesus, obviously. I think you need to tweak your understanding of oneness somewhat. I do know what I am talking about in this issue.

[Michael The Disciple]

I tried to show dozens of Trins yesterday that Jesus is the only God. The insults came raining down! They were angry (at least the vocal ones) and rejected the thought of Jesus as being the ONLY GOD.

[Praxeas]

That is not really a good question. It is like being asked if you have stopped beating your wife and only be allowed to answer yes or no even if you have (as is m case) never beat you're wife. The question assumes that either it is Jesus only or a person is a polytheist. However this is not the car at all. As a Trinitarian I believe that there is One God eternally manifest in three persons namely God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), God the Holy Ghost and these three are one.

That is not what the question assumes. That is what you assumed he meant when he asked it.

In the same sense as a family is one unit but made up of three parts Father Mother Children. Another great example would be as Paul pointed out we as Christians are many members but one body.

Then you don't really believe in 1 God. What you just explained is not 1 being

Further more it can't be said "The father is the family" or "the mother is the family", rather they are only parts that make up the whole

And from what I have learned about the Trinity, that is not the Trinity

The Trinity asserts God is 1 Being and each person are fully that Being

[jfrog]

I tried to show dozens of Trins yesterday that Jesus is the only God. The insults came raining down! They were angry (at least the vocal ones) and rejected the thought of Jesus as being the ONLY GOD.

I don't doubt it. I half assumed that's what would happen. However, I think a lot of heated debate happens because of presentation moreso than substance.

For example, Blume disagrees with a lot if my statements at first because he knows what I'm trying to show and the least little thing he can latch onto to disagree about he always does. Its because he already knows my conclusion and disagrees with it and so will always disagree with anything I say.

I think I could ask those same trinitarians about whether jesus is the only God and get a much different response. Because they won't feel I'm trying to oppose their doctrine and so instead of picking the way to describe the trinity that disagrees with me they will instead describe it in a way that will agree with me.

[jfrog]

That is not what the question assumes. That is what you assumed he meant when he asked it.



Then you don't really believe in 1 God. What you just explained is not 1 being

Further more it can't be said "The father is the family" or "the mother is the family", rather they are only parts that make up the whole

And from what I have learned about the Trinity, that is not the Trinity

The Trinity asserts God is 1 Being and each person are fully that Being

Thanks prax, that last statement is what I've been trying to say and you said it much better.

[Praxeas]

Thanks prax, that last statement is what I've been trying to say and you said it much better.
:thumbsup

[thephnxman]

The WORD that was "IN God" existed before Bethlehem. If he pre-existed IN God before the incarnation, then naturally he shared the glory of the God he was IN. In Mary's womb that WORD became flesh. That's where Sonship began.

Beloved, you got that exactly right! God commanded, and that commandment (word) became flesh in Mary's womb.

[Luke]

That is not what the question assumes. That is what you assumed he meant when he asked it

I was not referring to the original post question but rather to comments 52 & 53
in which the words "only&alone" were used which would imply that to disagree with the question contained in those post would be to believe in polytheism.


Then you don't really believe in 1 God. What you just explained is not 1 being

Further more it can't be said "The father is the family" or "the mother is the family", rather they are only parts that make up the whole

And from what I have learned about the Trinity, that is not the Trinity

The Trinity asserts God is 1 Being and each person are fully that Being

The trinity asserts that there is 1 God eternally manifest in three persons God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost and these three agree or are united in/as 1. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Ghost. The Son is not the Father nor the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is not the Father nor the Son. In this sense the family and the body illustration works in that they are unified unit of distinct parts being one.

[Luke]

Two other good illustration and perhaps even better would be:

1. Man is a three part being according to scripture. He is made up of body, soul and spirit. These are separate and distinct from each other but the together make up one man/woman.

2. The incarnation of Jesus we as trinitarians and oneness would agree that He ws both God and man at the same time. However it would be wrong to say that the humanity of Jesus was God or that the diety of Jesus was man. Rather it was the fact that diety took on humanity and God became united to man a fact which both oneness and trinitarians call the hypostatic union. In Jesus there were two substances but one being He was both God and man.

[mfblume]

Two other good illustration and perhaps even better would be:

1. Man is a three part being according to scripture. He is made up of body, soul and spirit. These are separate and distinct from each other but the together make up one man/woman.

And man is ONE PERSON WITH ONE NAME for all three parts. Voila! Oneness!


2. The incarnation of Jesus we as trinitarians and oneness would agree that He ws both God and man at the same time. However it would be wrong to say that the humanity of Jesus was God or that the diety of Jesus was man. Rather it was the fact that diety took on humanity and God became united to man a fact which both oneness and trinitarians call the hypostatic union. In Jesus there were two substances but one being He was both God and man.

Still one person. Luke, how can you believe trinity when it was not laid out in the bible anywhere, and the teaching was not laid out until the 3rd or 4th century after the bible was long since written? It's catholic! Constantine and all his pagan invasions into the church brought that about.

[Luke]

And man is ONE PERSON WITH ONE NAME for all three parts. Voila! Oneness!



Still one person. Luke, how can you believe trinity when it was not laid out in the bible anywhere, and the teaching was not laid out until the 3rd or 4th century after the bible was long since written? It's catholic! Constantine and all his pagan invasions into the church brought that about.

I can see the trinity clearly in scripture. I agree that is no verse that specificly says there is a trinity but there are plenty that show it.

I also agree that all three distinct parts of man body soul and spirit together make one man. In the same way that the Father Son and Holy Ghost distinct though they are make up our one God. Thus three in one the trinity.

[shazeep]

a convenient icon, imo; but cannot fully describe God.

[jfrog]

I was not referring to the original post question but rather to comments 52 & 53
in which the words "only&alone" were used which would imply that to disagree with the question contained in those post would be to believe in polytheism.



The trinity asserts that there is 1 God eternally manifest in three persons God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost and these three agree or are united in/as 1. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Ghost. The Son is not the Father nor the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is not the Father nor the Son. In this sense the family and the body illustration works in that they are unified unit of distinct parts being one.

I'm pretty sure Prax was commenting on the question from posts 52 and 53 as well.

The question was: Do you believe Jesus is the only God? That question wasn't a loaded question.

I know why you thought it was though. You believed it was because you believe that no matter what your answer that it puts you in a hard place. However even if that was true, that alone doesn't make something a loaded question. If someone says something illogical and you ask them a question about it they are going to be placed in just as hard of a place as someone trying to answer a loaded question. So it may feel like a loaded question because of that but that doesn't make it one.

Moving on from that thought, I believe that answering that question should even put you in a hard spot nor do I believe that the trinity is illogical. I think you and other trinity believes should answer yes Jesus is the only God. You all should answer that because:
A. They believe Jesus is God
B. They believe there is only one God.
C. Therefore they must believe that Jesus is the only God.

That you think you can't answer the question that way is quite strange. That you think affirming that Jesus is the only God is somehow against the trinity is strange. Care to elaborate on how you think answering the question on whether Jesus is the only God puts you in a hard place? I can see how answering that question with a no would be bad. But what is wrong with the yes response?

[mfblume]

I can see the trinity clearly in scripture. I agree that is no verse that specificly says there is a trinity but there are plenty that show it.

What we see is interaction with Father and Son. But there is no explanation as to why that is so. Trinity came about centuries after the fact as an explanation of why that was taking place. But the bible itself never taught that was why.

Since the bible does not explain WHY it happened, then the understanding the Jews had of ONE GOD in the Old Testament is what we are meant to believe. If trinity were correct, AGAIN I SAY, the New Testament would be loaded with chapters about the why's and wherefores. But it's not.

I also agree that all three distinct parts of man body soul and spirit together make one man. In the same way that the Father Son and Holy Ghost distinct though they are make up our one God. Thus three in one the trinity.

But the three parts of man make ONE PERSON with ONE NAME, not three persons with three names.

Of course you can see trinity because you read the bible through a perceptual grid. A perceptual grid is a mindset that throws interpretations onto what is read, while those interpretations are not in the bible itself. It is a grid of interpretation that is supplied from sources outside the bible. It's like you're trained to read GOD and think COMMITTEE, for example, rather than ONE PERSON. So, for the life of you, you cannot see anything else, even though the bible itself never said THREE PERSONS or COMMITTEE. But when the perceptual grid is so entrenched in a person, they do not even know they have it nor that they do this with the Word.

[Luke]

Shazeep Can you fully explain God?

[Bowas]

I can see the trinity clearly in scripture. I agree that is no verse that specificly says there is a trinity but there are plenty that show it.

I also agree that all three distinct parts of man body soul and spirit together make one man. In the same way that the Father Son and Holy Ghost distinct though they are make up our one God. Thus three in one the trinity.

With due respect, and I do respect you. Earlier I posted several references from the New Catholic Encyclopedia where they themselves admit the trinity is not found in the scriptures but is the product of centuries of an evolved concept that none of the original church had even a concept of it. That, in and of itself should raise red flags and have one reconsider the implications of that.

[Praxeas]

I was not referring to the original post question but rather to comments 52 & 53
in which the words "only&alone" were used which would imply that to disagree with the question contained in those post would be to believe in polytheism.

I knew that and that was the question I was referring to. Jfrog confirmed it

The trinity asserts that there is 1 God eternally manifest in three persons God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost and these three agree or are united in/as 1. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Ghost. The Son is not the Father nor the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is not the Father nor the Son. In this sense the family and the body illustration works in that they are unified unit of distinct parts being one.
the Orthodox historical view of the Trinity asserts that 1 God is not merely a union of three Persons but is numerically 1 being. Not a club or a moral unity but 1 actual Being.

And again no one member of a Family can be said to BE that Family. Each member of the Trinity is said to be the One God, not merely a member of a club called "God"

[Praxeas]

Two other good illustration and perhaps even better would be:

1. Man is a three part being according to scripture. He is made up of body, soul and spirit. These are separate and distinct from each other but the together make up one man/woman.

1) why do you say "separate AND distinct" unless you really mean "Divided and Different"? If you don't then isn't "Separate AND distinct" redundant?

2) Man's body is not "Fully the man". Man's spirit is not fully "the Man".

In the Trinity, each Person is said to be fully the one God. Not merely a part of God.

Most Orthodox trinitarians I know would disagree with your representation.

[Praxeas]

I can see the trinity clearly in scripture. I agree that is no verse that specificly says there is a trinity but there are plenty that show it.

I also agree that all three distinct parts of man body soul and spirit together make one man. In the same way that the Father Son and Holy Ghost distinct though they are make up our one God. Thus three in one the trinity.
You don't seem to realize but your analogy and then your explicitly words make each person only 1/3 of God

[jfrog]

With due respect, and I do respect you. Earlier I posted several references from the New Catholic Encyclopedia where they themselves admit the trinity is not found in the scriptures but is the product of centuries of an evolved concept that none of the original church had even a concept of it. That, in and of itself should raise red flags and have one reconsider the implications of that.


Do you think oneness is understood and explained the same exact way that it was 100 years ago? Do you think oneness is directly explained in the bible. Do you think the writers of the New Testament understood oneness the way you do? I don't. They used much different language than I've ever heard in a oneness church.

Blessed be the God and father of our lord Jesus christ. Amen? Doesn't really sound oneness enough does it?

[Luke]

I knew that and that was the question I was referring to. Jfrog confirmed it


the Orthodox historical view of the Trinity asserts that 1 God is not merely a union of three Persons but is numerically 1 being. Not a club or a moral unity but 1 actual Being.

And again no one member of a Family can be said to BE that Family. Each member of the Trinity is said to be the One God, not merely a member of a club called "God"

stated in my explanation of the trinity the fact that there is One God eternally manifest in three persons. To say that are one in unity is very orthodox notice the following quote from tertullian:
Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], IN RESPECT OF UNITY OF BEING not singularity of number."

Or of the distinctness seen in the trinity notice the following quote from Justin martyr:

Although the Jews were always of the opinion that it was the Father of all who had spoken to Moses, IT WAS IN FACT THE SON OF GOD, who is called both Angel and Apostle, who spoke to him; they are, therefore, justly accused by both the PROPHETIC SPIRIT AND BY CHRIST HIMSELF of knowing neither the Father nor the Son. They who assert that the Son is the Father are proved to know neither the Father, nor that the Father of all has a Son, who is both the first-born Word of God AND IS GOD"

Also notice this same distinction in the quote from Athenagoas of athens:
"The Son of God is the Word of the Father, in thought and in actuality. BY HIM AND THROUGH HIM ALL THINGS WERE MADE, the Father and the Son BEING ONE. Since the Son is IN the Father and the Father is IN the Son BY THE UNITY AND POWER OF THE SPIRIT, the Mind and Word of the Father is the Son of God. And if, in your exceedingly great wisdom, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by 'the Son', I will tell you briefly: He is the First-begotten of the Father, NOT AS HAVING BEEN PRODUCED -- FOR FROM THE BEGINNING GOD HAD THE WORD IN HIMSELF... Who, then, would not be astonished to hear those called atheists, who speak of GOD THE FATHER AND OF GOD THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, and who proclaim THEIR power in UNION and THEIR distinction in order...Just as we assert that there is a God, and a Son who is His Word, and a Holy Spirit, UNITED IN POWER -- THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE SPIRIT"

These quotes are taken from the following website:

Philvaz.com/apologetics/debates5.htm

Also please note these quotes are from ante-nicene church fathers.

[obriencp]

Blessed be the God and father of our lord Jesus christ. Amen? Doesn't really sound oneness enough does it?

Being raised oneness, this opening line Paul used seems to go against the grain for me. I know it's just how I've been taught and there shouldn't be anything wrong with it since Jesus himself revealed his Lordship to Saul/Paul. I also believe that since Paul was a very educated and zealous Israellite, he was certainly "oneness" according to Deut 6:4, etc. He didn't seem to have an issue with the Godhead and although we have his letters, we somehow do.

[Michael The Disciple]

Being raised oneness, this opening line Paul used seems to go against the grain for me. I know it's just how I've been taught and there shouldn't be anything wrong with it since Jesus himself revealed his Lordship to Saul/Paul. I also believe that since Paul was a very educated and zealous Israellite, he was certainly "oneness" according to Deut 6:4, etc. He didn't seem to have an issue with the Godhead and although we have his letters, we somehow do.

Does it sound Trinity? 3 co equal co eternal persons each one God in himself?

If co eternal why is one the Father of the other? If co equal why did one pray to the other? Also what happened to the 3rd all important person the Holy Spirit?

[obriencp]

I don't think it's trinity sounding, but it does show a distiction (not necessarily a separation) between the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ (son). I don't believe the son was eternal or with the father from the beginning, else he wouldn't be the son (born of a father). This is the primary reason I don't hold to the trinity doctrine, the eternal sonship.

But I do understand what JFrog is doing on this thread. He's trying to show that most of the arguements from both sides is founded in misunderstandings and terminology and that most trinitarians are not polytheistic.

[Praxeas]

stated in my explanation of the trinity the fact that there is One God eternally manifest in three persons.
Orthodoxy teaches 1 Ousia..1 in number. 1 Being that is tripersonal. Not a moral unity such as united in purpose but a Unity of Essence.

thus all the analogies you give are contradictory to the idea of One being in number, one essence, a unity of essence.

Your examples are a cohesive unit not a single being that is tripersonal

[Luke]

Orthodoxy teaches 1 Ousia..1 in number. 1 Being that is tripersonal. Not a moral unity such as united in purpose but a Unity of Essence.

thus all the analogies you give are contradictory to the idea of One being in number, one essence, a unity of essence.

Your examples are a cohesive unit not a single being that is tripersonal

I am saying the same thing that Tertullian said:

Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], IN RESPECT OF UNITY OF BEING not singularity of number."

[jfrog]

I am saying the same thing that Tertullian said:

Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], IN RESPECT OF UNITY OF BEING not singularity of number."

That quote is fine. Your analogies are poo

Your examples aren't exampling what that quote is saying. Hopefully that makes more sense

[Originalist]

I am saying the same thing that Tertullian said:

Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], IN RESPECT OF UNITY OF BEING not singularity of number."


The unity of a divine being and a human being did indeed produce one new being. It was more than unity. God completely mediates his person and being through that Son. He will receive no worship apart from the worship of his Son.

[Pendragon]

You can see the confusion of Trinitarians just by looking at the three crosses they put up outside their churches. Were the Father and Holy Spirit crucified as well? Are they commemorating the thieves?

[jfrog]

You can see the confusion of Trinitarians just by looking at the three crosses they put up outside their churches. Were the Father and Holy Spirit crucified as well? Are they commemorating the thieves?

The thieves.

[Luke]

That quote is fine. Your analogies are poo

Your examples aren't exampling what that quote is saying. Hopefully that makes more sense

I would have to disagree. The illustration of the incarnation of Jesus is a good illustration. Jesus was fully God and fully man at the same time. His humanity was not diety and His diety was not humanity. However the humanity of Jesus was 100% Jesus and the diety of Jesus was 100% Jesus yet there was a distinction. This is the same as the trinity. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Ghost just as the Son is not the Father or the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost is not the Father or the Son. However just as there was not two Jesus' walking around on earth (though there was in a literal sense two persons unified in one) there is not three God's though there be three persons unified in one.

[jfrog]

I would have to disagree. The illustration of the incarnation of Jesus is a good illustration. Jesus was fully God and fully man at the same time. His humanity was not diety and His diety was not humanity. However the humanity of Jesus was 100% Jesus and the diety of Jesus was 100% Jesus yet there was a distinction. This is the same as the trinity. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Ghost just as the Son is not the Father or the Holy Ghost and the Holy Ghost is not the Father or the Son. However just as there was not two Jesus' walking around on earth (though there was in a literal sense two persons unified in one) there is not three God's though there be three persons unified in one.

Saying your analogies were bad isn't the same as saying there isn't a distinction. Your analogies were bad because you kept on picking things that had 3 parts and the 3 parts were not that thing themselves.

The trinity teaches that the Son both is and isn't the Father. I'll tell you how.

The trinity teaches the Son is the one being that is God. The trinity teaches the Father is the one being that is God. Therefore the Son is the same being as the father since there is only one being that is God. (This is how the trinity claims the Son is the Father and it's according to being). In other words, the Son is the Father according to being.

However, the trinity also teaches that the Son is a distinct person from the father. The Father does different actions than the Son. However it's one God that does all the actions. The Son does different actions than the Father but it's one God that does all the actions. In other words, the Son is not the Father according to person.

The trinity focuses more on the distinct persons of the Father and the Son than the single being that is both of them. They do this because of the numerous passages where the Father and Son are spoke of as distinct. However, while the focus is on the Father and Son being distinct the only way for them to both be God and not be different Gods is if they are both the same being.

With all this said, let me make a comparison. You are as those who attempt to deny the deity of Christ by pointing out that he was a man. I say this because they think that by showing Christ is something which cannot be God (a man) that it by necessity makes him not God. You think that by showing that the Father and Son are distinct that it will mean that you have proven that the Father is not the Son. That's not entirely the case though. They can be 100% distinct (The father is not the Son) while the Father is also 100% the Son. It's just in different ways. That's all. One according to being and the other according to person.

[Luke]

You will have hard time finding any post that I have posted in which I any way deny the diety of Jesus. How did you get that from my analogy?

[mfblume]

You will have hard time finding any post that I have posted in which I any way deny the diety of Jesus. How did you get that from my analogy?

You totally missed his point. He didn't say you deny His deity, but are AS those who handle another issue in the same way people who deny His deity handle it.

Read it again:

" You are as those who attempt to deny the deity of Christ by pointing out that he was a man. I say this because they think that by showing Christ is something which cannot be God (a man) that it by necessity makes him not God. You think that by showing that the Father and Son are distinct that it will mean that you have proven that the Father is not the Son."

[Luke]

You totally missed his point. He didn't say you deny His deity, but are AS those who handle another issue in the same way people who deny His deity handle it.

Read it again:

" You are as those who attempt to deny the deity of Christ by pointing out that he was a man. I say this because they think that by showing Christ is something which cannot be God (a man) that it by necessity makes him not God. You think that by showing that the Father and Son are distinct that it will mean that you have proven that the Father is not the Son."

Very true I did mistake the meaning of the post I apologize jfrog. Thank you for pointing that out bro mfblume. However I do not see how what I posts could even seem to be like some who deny the diety of Jesus. Please elaborate.

[jfrog]

Very true I did mistake the meaning of the post I apologize jfrog. Thank you for pointing that out bro mfblume. However I do not see how what I posts could even seem to be like some who deny the diety of Jesus. Please elaborate.

:smack

It was an analogy about thinking that asserting one thing is true means that something else which sounds contradictory cannot be true.

[Luke]

:smack

It was an analogy about thinking that asserting one thing is true means that something else which sounds contradictory cannot be true.

Did you disagree with the facts stated in the analogy about Jesus. I ask this because I don't see what I said that could be seen as contradictory. I understand you disagreeing with what I was attempting to prove but not with the facts stated.

[Praxeas]

Saying your analogies were bad isn't the same as saying there isn't a distinction. Your analogies were bad because you kept on picking things that had 3 parts and the 3 parts were not that thing themselves.

The trinity teaches that the Son both is and isn't the Father. I'll tell you how.

The trinity teaches the Son is the one being that is God. The trinity teaches the Father is the one being that is God. Therefore the Son is the same being as the father since there is only one being that is God. (This is how the trinity claims the Son is the Father and it's according to being). In other words, the Son is the Father according to being.

However, the trinity also teaches that the Son is a distinct person from the father. The Father does different actions than the Son. However it's one God that does all the actions. The Son does different actions than the Father but it's one God that does all the actions. In other words, the Son is not the Father according to person.

The trinity focuses more on the distinct persons of the Father and the Son than the single being that is both of them. They do this because of the numerous passages where the Father and Son are spoke of as distinct. However, while the focus is on the Father and Son being distinct the only way for them to both be God and not be different Gods is if they are both the same being.

With all this said, let me make a comparison. You are as those who attempt to deny the deity of Christ by pointing out that he was a man. I say this because they think that by showing Christ is something which cannot be God (a man) that it by necessity makes him not God. You think that by showing that the Father and Son are distinct that it will mean that you have proven that the Father is not the Son. That's not entirely the case though. They can be 100% distinct (The father is not the Son) while the Father is also 100% the Son. It's just in different ways. That's all. One according to being and the other according to person.
Exactly

I have no doubt that if I ever converted to Trinitarianism, I'd be more orthodox than most claimed Trinitarians today lol :heeheehee

[jfrog]

Did you disagree with the facts stated in the analogy about Jesus. I ask this because I don't see what I said that could be seen as contradictory. I understand you disagreeing with what I was attempting to prove but not with the facts stated.

I'm not trying to say you were being contradictory. I am trying to say That showing The son is not the father doesn't mean that it can't also be true that the son is the father.

[Luke]

I'm not trying to say you were being contradictory. I am trying to say That showing The son is not the father doesn't mean that it can't also be true that the son is the father.

I see so you are not disagreeing with the distinction between the Father and the Son but how that distinction is interpreted?

[Praxeas]

I see so you are not disagreeing with the distinction between the Father and the Son but how that distinction is interpreted?
WE all agree Father and Son are distinct.

[jfrog]

I see so you are not disagreeing with the distinction between the Father and the Son but how that distinction is interpreted?

You are getting a little closer. Remember back to the original discussion. what were we discussing?

We were discussing whether Jesus is the only God? Remember that?

[Luke]

From my admittedly limited knowledge of oneness theology I do not see how a oneness believer can say that the Father is distinct from the Son. Unless you mean in the sense of same person different mode. Such as I am a son to my parents but I am also a (soon to be) father to my (soon to be born) son. Same person just operating in different modes. If this is incorrect please explain your view of distinction between the Father and the Son in the Godhead and their relationship.

[thephnxman]

I was raised oneness and still lean that way. However, when I openly and honestly talk to trinitarians, we agree on most everything. That leads me to believe all the judgementalism and fear I had toward them was based on what my oneness teachers/pastors wanted me to believe about them. Strawman anyone?

I still don't like the term "Person" and while I speak of the Holy Spirit(Holy Ghost), i think of it as the spirit of God or Jesus inside of us. When i hear some speak of the Holy Spirit, it seems as they think of it as a him or separate person from the Father and Jesus. Don't know if I'll ever really understand it.

Some of these threads really expose the fact that in oneness and in trinitarianism there are a lot of differing views.

I hear those who profess "one-ness", and they sound very similar to believers of a trinity. Sometimes I cannot differentiate between them. The most obvious difference, to me, is that the Catholics baptize on the concept of three names; hence, three persons. One-ness baptize in the NAME of the son, but seem to believe that the flesh of the son is God. So the only thing that distinguishes them from the trinity is baptism.

[jfrog]

From my admittedly limited knowledge of oneness theology I do not see how a oneness believer can say that the Father is distinct from the Son. Unless you mean in the sense of same person different mode. Such as I am a son to my parents but I am also a (soon to be) father to my (soon to be born) son. Same person just operating in different modes. If this is incorrect please explain your view of distinction between the Father and the Son in the Godhead and their relationship.

I think that's a harder question to answer than it seems. While I'm pondering how to best respond could you tell us how the father and son are distinct in the trinity?

[jfrog]

From my admittedly limited knowledge of oneness theology I do not see how a oneness believer can say that the Father is distinct from the Son. Unless you mean in the sense of same person different mode. Such as I am a son to my parents but I am also a (soon to be) father to my (soon to be born) son. Same person just operating in different modes. If this is incorrect please explain your view of distinction between the Father and the Son in the Godhead and their relationship.

You are right that the distinction in oneness is in mode or manifestation. God does different things in the mode of the father than he does in the mode of the son. It's very similar to how the trinity has the one being that is God doing different things in the person of the father than the person of the son.

[phareztamar]

I was not referring to the original post question but rather to comments 52 & 53
in which the words "only&alone" were used which would imply that to disagree with the question contained in those post would be to believe in polytheism.



The trinity asserts that there is 1 God eternally manifest in three persons God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost and these three agree or are united in/as 1. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Ghost. The Son is not the Father nor the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is not the Father nor the Son. In this sense the family and the body illustration works in that they are unified unit of distinct parts being one.

Again with the non-biblical terms. "God the son" and "God the Holy Ghost" are not found in the scriptures.

[Luke]

Again with the non-biblical terms. "God the son" and "God the Holy Ghost" are not found in the scriptures.

The Son is specifically called God. The Father is called God. The Holy Ghost is called God.

[phareztamar]

The Son is specifically called God. The Father is called God. The Holy Ghost is called God.

Please show me where "God the son" and "God the Holy Ghost" are written in the scripture. And if you cannot, then that is my point...non-biblical terms.

[Luke]

I think that's a harder question to answer than it seems. While I'm pondering how to best respond could you tell us how the father and son are distinct in the trinity?

The best way that I know to explain it is to point to Jesus himself as I already have in His incarnation. I assume that we would agree that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man both at the same time. These two were present together yet distinct from each other. It was not not that humanity was deified or even that God was some how mixed with man rather God took on humanity not mixed but unified yet distinct. The humanity of Jesus was 100% human and the diety of Jesus was 100% diety. There was no mixture only unity. The same with God there is no mixture or changing of hats rather there is distinction the one is not the other but at the same time they are one in unity.

[Luke]

Please show me where "God the son" and "God the Holy Ghost" are written in the scripture. And if you cannot, then that is my point...non-biblical terms.

I never said the term God the Son or the term God the Holy Ghost was in scripture. However do you deny that the Son is specificly called God or that the Holy Ghost is specifically called God?

[phareztamar]

I never said the term God the Son or the term God the Holy Ghost was in scripture. However do you deny that the Son is specificly called God or that the Holy Ghost is specifically called God?

My issue was with you using non-biblical terms to argue your trinity. If you want to know my position on the Godhead, it is well documented in the debate room in the thread of the same name. So after you've read "Emmanuel", "God in Christ", and "The Christ", if you still have questions about what I believe the bible teaches, I'll be happy to respond.

[mfblume]

I never said the term God the Son or the term God the Holy Ghost was in scripture. However do you deny that the Son is specificly called God or that the Holy Ghost is specifically called God?

What is the difference between what you believe about three eternal persons and three gods? Just terms? Just the Bible's statement there is one God?

[jfrog]

The best way that I know to explain it is to point to Jesus himself as I already have in His incarnation. I assume that we would agree that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man both at the same time. These two were present together yet distinct from each other. It was not not that humanity was deified or even that God was some how mixed with man rather God took on humanity not mixed but unified yet distinct. The humanity of Jesus was 100% human and the diety of Jesus was 100% diety. There was no mixture only unity. The same with God there is no mixture or changing of hats rather there is distinction the one is not the other but at the same time they are one in unity.

Good. Now tell me about how the Father Son and Holy Spirit are united. How are each called God when there is only one God?

[Luke]

Good. Now tell me about how the Father Son and Holy Spirit are united. How are each called God when there is only one God?

Once again I point to the incarnation Jesus was both 100%God and 100% man united not mixed. Thus the diety of Jesus could claim to be Jesus and the humanity of Jesus could claim to be Jesus and both would be right. However there is only one Jesus. In the same way the trinity is united yet distinct.

[jfrog]

Once again I point to the incarnation Jesus was both 100%God and 100% man united not mixed. Thus the diety of Jesus could claim to be Jesus and the humanity of Jesus could claim to be Jesus and both would be right. However there is only one Jesus. In the same way the trinity is united yet distinct.

I'm sure you admit Jesus is a single person and not 2. So basically you compare the trinity to a single person with 2 different natures? The more you go down the path of comparing the trinity to the dual nature of Christ the more oneness you sound.

[jfrog]

What is the difference between what you believe about three eternal persons and three gods? Just terms? Just the Bible's statement there is one God?

The same claims can be laid against the dual nature doctrine for Jesus.

There is no functional difference between Jesus being a separate human person from God and believing in the dual nature of Christ. However, there is a significant conceptual difference. Likewise there is no functional difference in the trinity and 3 Gods. However there is a significant conceptual difference.

[shazeep]

:lol sic 'em, froggie.

[Luke]

I'm sure you admit Jesus is a single person and not 2. So basically you compare the trinity to a single person with 2 different natures? The more you go down the path of comparing the trinity to the dual nature of Christ the more oneness you sound.

In the Bible Jesus is called both God and man. Also most oneness would explain Jesus praying as the man praying to diety part.

[Luke]

Let me also add that by admitting two natures are you not technically admitting two distinct persons/personalities? You are who you are by virtue of your nature not your physical form. The Bible states that God is a Spirit therefore a person/being exist without a physical form. Therefore it is not incorrect to say that Jesus is a great picture of the trinity's united oneness as He was both God and man unmixed yet united as one.

[Esaias]

Let me also add that by admitting two natures are you not technically admitting two distinct persons/personalities?

If that were true then Christ must of necessity be two persons. Which even trinitarians deny. If trinitarians can believe Christ is ONE person with TWO natures then so can we.

If Christ's two natures admits two persons (for us) it does for trinitarians as well.

[mfblume]

The same claims can be laid against the dual nature doctrine for Jesus.


I don't think so.... again, because of eternal interaction not being present.

[Praxeas]

From my admittedly limited knowledge of oneness theology I do not see how a oneness believer can say that the Father is distinct from the Son. Unless you mean in the sense of same person different mode. Such as I am a son to my parents but I am also a (soon to be) father to my (soon to be born) son. Same person just operating in different modes. If this is incorrect please explain your view of distinction between the Father and the Son in the Godhead and their relationship.
God's Dual Manner of Existence

While there is only one person in the Godhead, YHWH, this one person has come to exist in two distinct ways simultaneously: in the incarnation as man, and in His continued existence as God beyond the incarnation.22 Jesus is the same divine person as the Father, but in a new mode of existence and self-revelation (as man). As Father, YHWH experiences His existence in a divine manner; as Son, YHWH experiences His existence in a human manner. While the Son is modally distinct from the Father, He is not personally distinct from the Father. Jesus is God's personal existence as man, while the Father is that same God's continued manner of existence beyond the incarnation.23

After the incarnation, then, we know God in two distinct ways: beyond the incarnation as Father, and in the incarnation as Son. The Father-Son distinction, then, is a distinction between the one God’s dual modes of personal existence.24

God Existing as Man

God's human manner of existence should not be conceived of as God merely living in and acting through a human body. God did not just come to be in a man, but He came to be man.25 God utilized the attributes of human nature to personally exist as man. When He assumed a human existence, God assumed all that pertains to a human existence including a human consciousness, psyche, volition, etc. In His incarnate existence, then, God came to be conscious as man, and to know and act26 as man.27 He truly experienced human existence as man, not merely in His human nature, but through His human mode of existence/consciousness.

A nature is not a who, but a what (a set of capacities unique to a particular kind). Natures are devoid of personality. To be instantiated in reality, human natures usually derive their personality from human persons. In the case of Christ, however, the human nature derives its personality from God Himself (called enhypostasis), not a separate human person. God did not assume a servant, but the nature of a servant; He did not assume a man, but the nature of man (Philippians 2:7-8). God personalized the human nature He assumed so that He could be a human person. “Christ is not a Spirit-filled person as we are, capable of living as a human apart from the Spirit.”28 Jesus' humanity finds its subsistence in the divine person, and has no independent existence from Him.29 God became man by personalizing Christ’s human nature so that He could personally exist as man. Just as we are the personal subject of all our experiences, likewise God is the personal subject of all Christ’s experiences. So whatever can be said of Christ’s human nature, can be said of God Himself.

Human existence is finite in nature. God's becoming a man, then, was contingent on His willful acceptance of human limitations (Philippians 2:5-11): spatial limitations, epistemic limitations, etc. He could not simply discard those limitations when it was convenient for Him, because they are inherent to the existence He assumed. To cast off the limitations would require casting off His human existence. Seeing that the incarnation is permanent, it follows that in Christ, God is always conscious of Himself as man, and always functions as a genuine human being. Only in His cosmic existence transcendent to the incarnation is YHWH conscious of Himself as God, and experiences divine functions.

What’s important to grasp is that YHWH’s duality of consciousness/function is not internal to Christ between His two natures, but external to Christ, between YHWH’s two modes of existence.As Father, YHWH is conscious of Himself as God, and functions as God via the attributes of the divine nature. As Son, YHWH is conscious of Himself as man, and functions as man via the attributes of the human nature. So Jesus qua Jesus does not experience both omnipresence and limited presence. As Son, YHWH only experiences limited presence and limited knowledge. And yet that same divine person transcends the incarnation as the unlimited God, and in that mode of existence He continues to experience omnipresence and omniscience.

When He assumed human nature, God assumed all that pertains to a human existence including human mental functioning such as consciousness, psyche, volition, etc. Christ’s mind is the divine mind, but willingly constrained by the limitations inherent to human nature, so that it is functionally equivalent to the mind of a human person. This is no case of divine amnesia, but rather an act of divine self-limitation and accommodation to human existence. As Garrett DeWeese writes:

[T]he voluntarily constrained divine mind, restricted to operating through a human nature and a human body, just was a human mind. … The “human mind” of Christ refers to the mode of operation of the mind of the Logos functioning within the constraints of (voluntarily limited by) Jesus’ human nature and the organs of a human body. At the same time, the mind of the Logos, functioning gloriously and perfectly according to the divine nature, never sleeps, never ceases to be omniscient. Bur rather than constituting two minds, we should understand the human mind as sort of a limited subset of the divine mind.30

In Christ YHWH became conscious of Himself as man and functioned as man, not merely in His human nature, but through His human mode of existence. He continued to be conscious of Himself as God, and function as God in His cosmic mode of existence transcendent to the incarnation.31 While personally the same, the Father and Son are existentially, metaphysically, psychologically, volitionally, and functionally distinct.

That there is a real psychological, volitional, and functional distinction between the Father and Son is evident from Mark 5:30. Here we read of a woman with an issue of blood, who received healing when she touched Jesus’ clothes. Jesus responded by asking, “Who touched me?” He was not feigning ignorance. He was genuinely unaware of the woman’s identity. He knew someone had been healed only because He felt power flow out from Him. Now, we know supernatural events are not spontaneous. They happen only when God wills for them to happen. But it seems clear that Jesus did not exercise any volitional power to heal the woman, for if He had, He would have known who it was whom He willed to heal. But He didn’t. Jesus’ experience was passive, not active. So who healed her? Since it was not Jesus’ act of volition that resulted in the woman’s healing, it must have been the Father’s. This is highly significant, for it demonstrates a genuine psychological, volitional, and functional distinction between Father and Son. The Father was doing one thing (acting to heal), while the Son was doing another — completely unaware of what His Father is doing. An internalist understanding of the Father-Son distinction fails to account for this. How, after all, could Jesus be unaware of what the Father had done if the activity of the Father was internal to Jesus? It makes better sense to understand “Father” to refer to God’s continued existence transcendent to Christ, and His locus of activity to be external to Christ.
http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/ugstsymposium.htm

[Praxeas]

Again with the non-biblical terms. "God the son" and "God the Holy Ghost" are not found in the scriptures.
So? Where does the bible say we can only used words found in the bible and if so...which translation?

[Praxeas]

Let me also add that by admitting two natures are you not technically admitting two distinct persons/personalities?
No. That is a category fallacy

If not then the Trinity teaches 2 Persons. One is God and the other is a man

[mfblume]

No. That is a category fallacy

If not then the Trinity teaches 2 Persons. One is God and the other is a man

Our friend has a strong perceptual grid.

[phareztamar]

So? Where does the bible say we can only used words found in the bible and if so...which translation?

It doesn't. My apologies.

[jfrog]

Luke, I'm interested in your thoughts on these questions:

1. Did the Word die?
2. Did the Word that was made flesh die?
3. Did the Word that was with God and was God die?
4. Did the Word that was made flesh and was with God and was God die?

5. Isn't the Word that was made flesh also called Jesus the Son of God?
6. Isn't Jesus the Son of God also God?

7. Did Jesus who is the word made flesh die?
8. Did Jesus die?
9. Did Jesus who is God die?
10. Did God die?


I anticipate these questions will make you uncomfortable. Heck these questions would probably make most oneness believers uncomfortable. I'm not trying to trick you with them. They aren't loaded questions. They are just questions. They aren't even necessarily yes or no questions. Elaborate on them all as much as you like.

My answers:
1. Yes and No
2. Yes and No
3. Yes and No
4. Yes and No
5. Yes and No
6. Yes and No
7. Yes and No
8. Yes and No
9. Yes and No
10. Yes and No

I feel I can truthfully answer yes to all these questions and I can also truthfully answer no to all of them. Why? Because I answer yes in a different way than I answer no.

For example: Did God Die? As the man Jesus, Yes. As God, NO God cannot die.

My point and purpose is that I bet most of the things you debate with oneness believers are things that if you paused for a moment and really thought them through you would find that in most situations you can answer the question in a manner very similar to them. Likewise if they paused for a moment they would find they could answer their questions to you about the trinity in a manner very similar to you. Why? because most of the questions trying to describe God and Jesus aren't simple yes and no questions. They are questions that depending on what perspective you think about them can completely change your answer.

[RonMurray]

mfblume mentioned that it's more than presentation and pointing out their teaching about there being an eternal Son. It's also more than that. They teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead. They use the explanation that there's only one God because it's God in three persons, and three persons in one God. But this explanation doesn't work. That's a false explanation. Because if they are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead, then that in turn would also make them three separate and distinct Lords, and three separate and distinct Gods.

But aside from the doctrine. Before I started going online in 2008, I thought that all Trinitarians needed was just for someone to show them the scriptures and point out to them how God is Jesus and how Jesus and God are one in the same. I was very sincere in my thoughts and attitude towards Trinitarians and eager to share the truth with them. But when I started going online and communicating with other fellow believers, and started communicating with Trinitarians, I found that that wasn't the case. Many Trinitarians turned out not to be as sincere as I thought they were. And they just kept rejecting the truth no matter what. No matter how patiently I worked with them and shared things with them and explained things from scripture with wisdom and understanding, they would just turn around and reject it and refused to believe it. And in return, no matter how sincere I was being, they would make sarcastic remarks to me about it, and some even attack me.

I also found that not only do they not baptize in the name of Jesus, but they actually attack baptism being done in the name of Jesus, because in doing so, it denies the Trinity, which they hold and worship above all, even God Himself. So when they reject or attack baptism in the name of Jesus, it's not baptism they're rejecting or attacking, it's the Lord's name Himself they're rejecting or attacking. So that's when I discovered the shocking reality that the spirit of Trinitarianism is actually an antichrist spirit, because it rejects and attacks the name of Jesus, and by that, rejecting and attacking the Lord, because that's who He is, He's Jesus.

So not only is the teaching of the Trinity contrary to the word of God, but the Trinity is a worship of triune gods, and the spirit of trinitarianism is an antichrist spirit.

.

[Michael The Disciple]

So not only is the teaching of the Trinity contrary to the word of God, but the Trinity is a worship of triune gods, and the spirit of trinitarianism is an antichrist spirit.

Amen. Any doctrine that denies Jesus is THE CHRIST as in Isaiah 9:6 is antichrist. Trins say Jesus is the Son but not the Father. That makes them antichrist.