One In The Greek

[Michael The Disciple]

Help needed.

Can someone tell me if there is any difference in Greek between these words "one" in Greek from our English Bibles?

Mark 12:29

29And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

1 Tim. 2:5

5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

John 10:30

I and my Father are one.

1 John 5:7-8

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Appreciate the help!:highfive

[Scott Pitta]

One means one. It is best translated as one. But one could paraphrase it as one. The literal translation is one.

In Spanish, it is translated as uno. Not to be confused with the popular card game bearing the same name.

[Costeon]

Help needed.

Can someone tell me if there is any difference in Greek between these words "one" in Greek from our English Bibles?

Mark 12:29

29And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

1 Tim. 2:5

5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

John 10:30

I and my Father are one.

1 John 5:7-8

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Appreciate the help!:highfive

All these examples have the same Greek word for one. The difference between the Greek word one and the English word one is that the Greek word is inflected, that is, it has different forms depending on if it's modifying a masculine, feminine, or neuter word and depending on its grammatical case (nominative, genitive, dative, or accusative).

In all your examples, "one" is in the nominative case. The different forms for the Greek word in the nominative case are heis (masc), mia (fem), hen (neut).

In your first two examples, the Greek form of one is masculine heis because the word it is modifying is a masculine noun.

In your last two examples, the Greek form of one is neuter hen. There is debate about the significance of it being in the neuter. I have heard people argue that if the Father and Son are one person, John would have used "heis." And since he uses "hen," he is not saying they are one person but something like one in agreement or one in being or something like that.

Nowadays I don't generally hear people debating 1 John 5.7, but I suppose that Trinitarians would make a similar argument that if all three refer to one person, John would have used heis not hen.

[Michael The Disciple]

I use this a lot.

1 Tim 2:5

5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Can I confidently say both of these words mean one in the ONLY one sense?

[Scott Pitta]

Yes.

[Michael The Disciple]

Mark 12:29

29And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

According to the Greek word for one here can we confidently say the Kurios our Theos is ONE?

[Scott Pitta]

Yes. The Greek is the same as English.

Gotta go.

[Esaias]

Depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

[Michael The Disciple]

1 John 5:7 still comes up a lot in discussions I have had. It came up a few days ago.

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

I am aware of the controversy around it. I can say that it was used by my cousin many years ago to spark my curiosity about Oneness.

When the Trins use it for themselves I point out that the blood, water, and spirit AGREE in one.

But the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost ARE one.

I assume these are not 2 different Greek words for one in the verses and that the context points out the truth that to AGREE in one is different than to BE one.

[rdp]

*The gender of the Greek adjectives in conjunction w. the verbs used is very instructive. Indeed, the masculine pronominal/predicative adjective used in Mark 12.29 demands a sole person—and is never used for more than one person in the GNT.

*I am hoping to write a booklet using both diachronic and synchronic analyses on this topic in the next year or so (was actually just looking up the various usages of this masculine adjective the other night). In the meantime, if interested, here’s some blog articles I have written on this subject: https://apostolicacademics.com/?s=heis&submit=Search

*At the risk of appearing self-promoting, I have also done several public debates on this very topic replete w. lexical quotes if interested (cf. Bruce Reeves debates online). God bless.

[Scott Pitta]

I have no idea who Bruce Reeves is and where he learned Greek. I work all weekend, but I will dig around for a better answer.

The Greek part is easy. The sticky part is theology.

[coksiw]

*The gender of the Greek adjectives in conjunction w. the verbs used is very instructive. Indeed, the masculine pronominal/predicative adjective used in Mark 12.29 demands a sole person—and is never used for more than one person in the GNT.

*I am hoping to write a booklet using both diachronic and synchronic analyses on this topic in the next year or so (was actually just looking up the various usages of this masculine adjective the other night). In the meantime, if interested, here’s some blog articles I have written on this subject: https://apostolicacademics.com/?s=heis&submit=Search

*At the risk of appearing self-promoting, I have also done several public debates on this very topic replete w. lexical quotes if interested (cf. Bruce Reeves debates online). God bless.


Good website Roger. I appreciate you publishing your debates responses in defense of our faith. It is very instructive.
I watched a little bit of your debate as well on YouTube.

[Costeon]

1 John 5:7 still comes up a lot in discussions I have had. It came up a few days ago.

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

I am aware of the controversy around it. I can say that it was used by my cousin many years ago to spark my curiosity about Oneness.

When the Trins use it for themselves I point out that the blood, water, and spirit AGREE in one.

But the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost ARE one.

I assume these are not 2 different Greek words for one in the verses and that the context points out the truth that to AGREE in one is different than to BE one.

I just looked at 1 John 5.8, and interestingly, it does not contain a specific verb that means "agree." Regarding the blood, water, and Spirit, it literally says that "the three are in (or, into) the one," "one" being neuter. I guess that's an idiom that means "agreement."

Regarding v. 7, it says that the Father, Word, and Spirit are "hen," the neuter form of the Greek one. You are saying that all three refer to one person, but again, I think you'll need to have a good answer for why "one" is neuter and not the masculine "heis."

[Michael The Disciple]

I just looked at 1 John 5.8, and interestingly, it does not contain a specific verb that means "agree." Regarding the blood, water, and Spirit, it literally says that "the three are in (or, into) the one," "one" being neuter. I guess that's an idiom that means "agreement."

Regarding v. 7, it says that the Father, Word, and Spirit are "hen," the neuter form of the Greek one. You are saying that all three refer to one person, but again, I think you'll need to have a good answer for why "one" is neuter and not the masculine "heis."

So if one in verse 7 does not actually mean one as in an absolute way, what does it mean the Father, Word, and Spirit are one?

Do we surrender the verse to the Trins?

[Evang.Benincasa]

So if one in verse 7 does not actually mean one as in an absolute way, what does it mean the Father, Word, and Spirit are one?

Do we surrender the verse to the Trins?

It means ONE.

Again, this isn't rocket science. The ancients didn't believe God as a plurality. If they did they would of been the same as their pagan counterparts. Throughout the entire Hebrew Bible ONE God was to be SHEMA! They were to hear that God was literally ONE, and besides Him there was no other. Therefore the language in the Greek must always reflect the same as was believed by the ancient Hebrew.

[Michael The Disciple]

It means ONE.

Again, this isn't rocket science. The ancients didn't believe God as a plurality. If they did they would of been the same as their pagan counterparts. Throughout the entire Hebrew Bible ONE God was to be SHEMA! They were to hear that God was literally ONE, and besides Him there was no other. Therefore the language in the Greek must always reflect the same as was believed by the ancient Hebrew.

Well sure. That is the way I approach it. The problem is when the many people I have discussed/debated this with begin their very complicated (to those of us who dont speak it) teaching of how ONE does not mean ONE as an absolute.

Thats why I am asking for help. To me and you, what you said in this post makes perfect sense. But when the crowd of listeners hear a guy saying I am totally wrong because I dont know the Greek therefore they are teaching the truth and I a lie they tend to believe the "educated" or scholarly person.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Well sure. That is the way I approach it. The problem is when the many people I have discussed/debated this with begin their very complicated (to those of us who dont speak it) teaching of how ONE does not mean ONE as an absolute.

Thats why I am asking for help. To me and you, what you said in this post makes perfect sense. But when the crowd of listeners hear a guy saying I am totally wrong because I dont know the Greek therefore they are teaching the truth and I a lie they tend to believe the "educated" or scholarly person.

Michael, the person who tells you that you don't know Greek doesn't know Greek themselves. Basically they learned their Greek in some Pentecostal hall of higher learning. Where they were taught by some minister who had a basic Christian understanding of Greek. Christian understanding. Not an understanding of how Greek was employed by the Alexandrian Judeans, and also the Romans of the empire during the first century A.D. The Greek ἕν has other meanings in how its used in a sentence. Yet, plurality, or unity isn't one of them. The ancient Greeks who used koine "vulgar Greek" would of thought it foreign to use ἕν as to denote plurality.

[Michael The Disciple]

Michael, the person who tells you that you don't know Greek doesn't know Greek themselves. Basically they learned their Greek in some Pentecostal hall of higher learning. Where they were taught by some minister who had a basic Christian understanding of Greek. Christian understanding. Not an understanding of how Greek was employed by the Alexandrian Judeans, and also the Romans of the empire during the first century A.D. The Greek ἕν has other meanings in how its used in a sentence. Yet, plurality, or unity isn't one of them. The ancient Greeks who used koine "vulgar Greek" would of thought it foreign to use ἕν as to denote plurality.

So what about hen/heis controversy?

Is it irrelevant?

[Evang.Benincasa]

So what about hen/heis controversy?

Is it irrelevant?

Pretty much, and I have seen it debated over and over, where eyes just roll.
Look, we are English speakers, and we read English. Are birth language is English. One is one, I and the father are the same is actually what Jesus is saying to His audience. In Spanish, Yo y el Padre uno somos. Jesus and the father are the same. In French, Moi et le Père nous sommes un. All the way to modern Greek ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν. The father and I we are one. We are the same, the same being. It has more to do with the sentence, then it does with just a word. Literally, Jesus is telling His audience that He and His father are the same person. I know I know that sounds a bit far out, but it is what is being said. In Matthew 28:18 ἐξουσία, meaning authority is what Jesus was given through His death, burial and resurrection. Not by some other deity, but through His works. But I would like to point out that no verse stands by itself, but is reinforced by all other verses which Trinitarianism falls short to prove with Bible alone. Matthew 28:18 is a home run, because if there were two other separate persons other than Jesus, then they lose all authority. Namely the father. So, heis/hen debate can be hashed out by those who are true scholars. But as far as MeMaw and Aunt Bitty Joe, who speak common English, ONE means just that, ONE.

[Michael The Disciple]

It has more to do with the sentence, then it does with just a word.

Context.

But I would like to point out that no verse stands by itself, but is reinforced by all other verses which Trinitarianism falls short to prove with Bible alone.

And this has been the strength of Oneness doctrine. Rightly dividing the word of truth.

[Evang.Benincasa]

So, when it all comes down to the wording, we check the context of all scripture together. Understanding that Jesus is the total pinnacle. If He isn't the same as the father, then why did He say so? John 14:9, has Jesus asking a Greek Judian Don't you know me, if you have seen me you have seen the father. That in no way is speaking about seeing something physically, but knowing, understanding. To the ancient Greeks the word ἑωρακὼς meant to see with ones mind, which in plain English is understanding someone clearly as you are looking straight at it. While the Greek word Jesus uses in I and the father are one doesn't have a meaning for unity, or togetherness. Other Greek words known to first century Romans and Judeans alike would of been employed if they wanted to convey that message. You see, Trinitarians fall back on the lameness that it is all a mystery. Then if that is the case, then the discussion is ll over, and the Trinitarian just needs to admit that he or she are clueless. Therefore why on earth are they trying to straighten out anyone on doctrine. Since it is all some unattainable truth. They admit that they don't even know what they are talking about. The Greek and most of all the Hebrew you don't know what I know would be scholarship is baloney. Because no one needs to know anything other language other than their own to know the One God Truth. Or Jesus name baptism and infilling of the Holy Ghost. Uncle Boudreaux, with a basic understanding of French, or English can pick up the Bible and see the Mighty God in Jesus, and that Jesus is the father.

[Costeon]

So what about hen/heis controversy?

Is it irrelevant?

I'm not really sure what I think about it right now. I haven't studied it enough.

Here are some verses that probably need to be considered:

John 17.11: And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one (hen), even as we are one ["one" here is not actually in the Greek but is implied from the context].

John 17:21-23: 21 that they may all be one (hen), just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one (hen) even as we are one (hen), 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one (hen), so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me."

Here when Jesus says he and the Father are one it does not seem that he is saying they are the same person, but are in the closest possible relationship. Jesus even describes him and the Father as "us." He prays that the believers would have the same kind of unity.

Here is an example where "hen" is used of two people who are working together: 1 Cor 3.8: He who plants and he who waters are one (hen), and each will receive his wages according to his labor.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Again, everything is based on context within the sentence. The Bible is taught in a whole, not in bits and pieces. Jesus speaks as Himself as God, and that He is the father. In Revelation 21:7 Jesus calls Himself the father who is God and that the Church is His son.

In koine and modern Greek one means one, and from Byzantine Greek ἕν became ἕνα, still meaning one. The accusative εἷς. Again, One God the mighty God in Jesus is taught to us in KJV English (that's how I came to learn it) and in every language the Bible has be interpretaly translated into, all can see Jesus as literally ONE GOD.

[Michael The Disciple]

I'm not really sure what I think about it right now. I haven't studied it enough.

Here are some verses that probably need to be considered:

John 17.11: And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one (hen), even as we are one ["one" here is not actually in the Greek but is implied from the context].

John 17:21-23: 21 that they may all be one (hen), just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one (hen) even as we are one (hen), 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one (hen), so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me."

Here when Jesus says he and the Father are one it does not seem that he is saying they are the same person, but are in the closest possible relationship. Jesus even describes him and the Father as "us." He prays that the believers would have the same kind of unity.

Here is an example where "hen" is used of two people who are working together: 1 Cor 3.8: He who plants and he who waters are one (hen), and each will receive his wages according to his labor.

The verses you posted I believe by context is Jesus talking to God in his humanity. Indeed describing the close relationship he had/has with the Father and what he desires with the saints.

[Steven Avery]

1 John 5:7 still comes up a lot in discussions I have had. It came up a few days ago.

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

I am aware of the controversy around it. I can say that it was used by my cousin many years ago to spark my curiosity about Oneness.. There is solid evidence that Eusebius considered the verse as too oneness.

Pure Bible Forum
Jeroen Beekhuizen - The Comma Johanneum revisited
Eusebius and the Sabellian controversies
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?792-Jeroen-Beekhuizen-The-Comma-Johanneum-revisited&p=1699#post1699

[Evang.Benincasa]

There is solid evidence that Eusebius considered the verse as too oneness.

Pure Bible Forum
Jeroen Beekhuizen - The Comma Johanneum revisited
Eusebius and the Sabellian controversies
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?792-Jeroen-Beekhuizen-The-Comma-Johanneum-revisited&p=1699#post1699

Excellent, thank you Brother Avery!

[Michael The Disciple]

There is solid evidence that Eusebius considered the verse as too oneness.

Pure Bible Forum
Jeroen Beekhuizen - The Comma Johanneum revisited
Eusebius and the Sabellian controversies
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?792-Jeroen-Beekhuizen-The-Comma-Johanneum-revisited&p=1699#post1699

Amen:highfive

[Michael The Disciple]

If heis and hen are supposed to somehow be different, at least in context of Oneness-Trinity discussions why this?

Εἷς (Heis)
Adjective - Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong's Greek 1520: One. (including the neuter Hen); a primary numeral; one.

Heis includes hen?

Here is an example where "hen" is used of two people who are working together: 1 Cor 3.8: He who plants and he who waters are one (hen), and each will receive his wages according to his labor.

Yet on page 718 of my Youngs Concordance he lists this word "one" under the category of "heis"?

[Costeon]

The verses you posted I believe by context is Jesus talking to God in his humanity. Indeed describing the close relationship he had/has with the Father and what he desires with the saints.

How can Jesus and the Father be one person yet Jesus be in close relationship with and talk with the Father? How can Jesus be described as "he" in distinction from the Father, when he and the Father are one person?

Do you think of or refer to the Father and Jesus as "they" since Jesus describes his relationship with the Father as "We" and "us"? Jesus in one place even likens he and the Father to two witnesses giving testimony: "16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me" (John 8.16-18).

[Costeon]

If heis and hen are supposed to somehow be different, at least in context of Oneness-Trinity discussions why this?

Εἷς (Heis)
Adjective - Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong's Greek 1520: One. (including the neuter Hen); a primary numeral; one.

Heis includes hen?



Yet on page 718 of my Youngs Concordance he lists this word "one" under the category of "heis"?

Heis and hen are two different forms of the same word, the former being masculine and the latter neuter.

From a previous post: "The difference between the Greek word one and the English word one is that the Greek word is inflected, that is, it has different forms depending on if it's modifying a masculine, feminine, or neuter word and depending on its grammatical case (nominative, genitive, dative, or accusative)."

That's the most basic way to explain it; however, what about situations where one is not just modifying another single noun? With single nouns it's easy: if the noun is masculine gender, heis will be used; if the noun is feminine, mia, will be used. If the noun is neuter, then hen will be used. The issue to come to terms with is why Greek uses the neuter form to describe Jesus's oneness with the Father instead of heis. What is the significance to that? I don't know. But Trinitarians do note this usage and use it to assert Jesus is not personally the Father.

It may simply be that when two nouns are described as one, hen is always used. (I'm not sure if this is so because I have not looked up every example of this, though I have seen a lot of them.) Then we would have to determine from context what the oneness means. I have shown that the neuter form hen can be used of Jesus and the Father when it is not referring to oneness of person but of unity or relationship. Context determines that.

[Michael The Disciple]

How can Jesus and the Father be one person yet Jesus be in close relationship with and talk with the Father? How can Jesus be described as "he" in distinction from the Father, when he and the Father are one person?

Because of the concept of "modalism".

Jesus as a man was not one person with God. He was one person with God in his deity.

In one mode of being he was God. The only God.

In another mode of being he was man and not God.

It still works this way. Right now as God, Jesus is THE GOD. YAH.

Right now Jesus in his humanity is not God but rather he is THE MAN, JESUS CHRIST.

He is not as some SEEM to portray a God man. Kind of half God and half man.

The distinction when Jesus speaks of his God is between his humanity and his deity.

Do you think of or refer to the Father and Jesus as "they" since Jesus describes his relationship with the Father as "We" and "us"? Jesus in one place even likens he and the Father to two witnesses giving testimony: "16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me" (John 8.16-18).

Its when Jesus is speaking as a man he says "us" and "we" and rightly so. From his human nature Jesus sees God as his Father.

Rev. 1:6

6And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.

Rev 3:21

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

My creed is:

1 Tim. 2:5

5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

There is one God (Christ in his deity) and one man.

Not 2 God persons.

This is one reason I have been inquiring about the Greek for "one". I have been using this in discussion/debate with the Trins and so far they have not addressed it. To me it seems it cannot be refuted. Nonetheless if and when they challenge the Greek I want to be as certain as possible that the Greek for one God and one man is the same.

[Costeon]

Because of the concept of "modalism".

Jesus as a man was not one person with God. He was one person with God in his deity.

In one mode of being he was God. The only God.

In another mode of being he was man and not God.

It still works this way. Right now as God, Jesus is THE GOD. YAH.

Right now Jesus in his humanity is not God but rather he is THE MAN, JESUS CHRIST.

He is not as some SEEM to portray a God man. Kind of half God and half man.

The distinction when Jesus speaks of his God is between his humanity and his deity.



Its when Jesus is speaking as a man he says "us" and "we" and rightly so. From his human nature Jesus sees God as his Father.

Rev. 1:6

6And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.

Rev 3:21

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

My creed is:

1 Tim. 2:5

5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

There is one God (Christ in his deity) and one man.

Not 2 God persons.

This is one reason I have been inquiring about the Greek for "one". I have been using this in discussion/debate with the Trins and so far they have not addressed it. To me it seems it cannot be refuted. Nonetheless if and when they challenge the Greek I want to be as certain as possible that the Greek for one God and one man is the same.

You say, "Its when Jesus is speaking as a man he says "us" and "we" and rightly so. From his human nature Jesus sees God as his Father."

Based on John 1, I think everything Jesus says in the Gospel of John is as the Word incarnate. I don't see how his sayings can be divvied up between his man mode and God mode.

The issue with this brand of modalistic thinking is that nothing Jesus says really is as it seems. On just about every page of, say, the Gospel of John, Jesus the Word incarnate distinguishes himself from the Father. Just read the Gospel straight through. It's relentless. But, then we say, no, Jesus is actually the Father as well--just in another mode. Basically we have Jesus saying, "So all that talk about we and us, and my God, and he sent me, I only do what he tells me, etc., well, I was just talking about myself in one mode communicating with my other mode."

What books have you read on the Godhead or Christology that have helped you formulate your modalistic view and that you would recommend?

[Esaias]

If God became a man, actually began to exist as a human being, without ceasing to be God (omnipresent Spirit), how would that human being speak?

I imagine He would speak exactly like He does in the Bible.

On the other hand, if God were a trinity of persons, and one of them became a human, I suspect He would speak of God in the plural: "They", rather than "Him". Unless He had no human consciousness, but was just God-in-a-physical-body. In which case His speech would not really make sense to us, people would think He was schizophrenic or psychotic, not to mention He simply wouldn't act, think, or feel in any genuinely human manner at all.

I also think He would mention "Hey, we're a trinity of Divine Persons". That He never said that is enough for me to reject the speculative nonsense of 4th and 5th century catholic priests.

[Michael The Disciple]

Based on John 1, I think everything Jesus says in the Gospel of John is as the Word incarnate. I don't see how his sayings can be divvied up between his man mode and God mode.

The Logos which was God became human. The Logos was the FORM OF GOD, not the entirety of God.

John 1:14

14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Now there was still one God and now one man amen? That which was man saw himself as subject to that which was still God.


The issue with this brand of modalistic thinking is that nothing Jesus says really is as it seems. On just about every page of, say, the Gospel of John, Jesus the Word incarnate distinguishes himself from the Father. Just read the Gospel straight through. It's relentless. But, then we say, no, Jesus is actually the Father as well--just in another mode.

Wheres the issue? I agree the huge majority of what Jesus said was as a man. Then a few times in comparison, he begins to let out the secret of his full identity.

Basically we have Jesus saying, "So all that talk about we and us, and my God, and he sent me, I only do what he tells me, etc., well, I was just talking about myself in one mode communicating with my other mode."

Well if you have a better explanation say on. Otherwise for me I will accept the unacceptable in mens eyes.

Isaiah 9:6

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

The Christ, Messiah is BOTH.....THE SON.....AND THE FATHER. If Yeshua was not the Everlasting Father he was not the Messiah at all.

Not merely in sequence but simultaneously. Few things are deeper than this.

Paul called it a "hidden truth".

1 Tim. 3:16

16And without controversy great is the mystery (hidden truth) of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

There is a difference in "hidden truth" and deception. Our Lord never decieved anyone at anytime. Neither did he tell everything he knew to everyone. And then only in its proper time.

[Evang.Benincasa]

If God became a man, actually began to exist as a human being, without ceasing to be God (omnipresent Spirit), how would that human being speak?

I imagine He would speak exactly like He does in the Bible.

On the other hand, if God were a trinity of persons, and one of them became a human, I suspect He would speak of God in the plural: "They", rather than "Him". Unless He had no human consciousness, but was just God-in-a-physical-body. In which case His speech would not really make sense to us, people would think He was schizophrenic or psychotic, not to mention He simply wouldn't act, think, or feel in any genuinely human manner at all.

I also think He would mention "Hey, we're a trinity of Divine Persons". That He never said that is enough for me to reject the speculative nonsense of 4th and 5th century catholic priests.

:highfive

[Costeon]

Again, everything is based on context within the sentence. The Bible is taught in a whole, not in bits and pieces. Jesus speaks as Himself as God, and that He is the father. In Revelation 21:7 Jesus calls Himself the father who is God and that the Church is His son.


I agree very much that everything is based on context. But it was after reading the Gospel of John many times over a short period of time, and so feeling the weight of how often and how thoroughly John and Jesus distinguish Jesus from the Father, that made me doubt that Jesus was simply conflating himself with the Father without qualification in John 14.9 or 10.30.

The Gospel begins in John 1 with Jesus as the Word incarnate who will reveal the Father. No one has seen the Father, but the only Son who is at the side of the Father will reveal him. From chapter 1 to 10 and 14, Jesus over and over distinguishes himself from the Father while revealing him, and even in the very contexts of 10 and 14 thoroughly distinguishes himself from the Father, and continues to do so throughout the rest of the Gospel. In ch 14 we have one of the examples of Jesus describing Jesus and the Father as "we": "23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him" (14.23). This is an unusual example: Jesus says he and the Father will indwell people together.

So when I read 14.9, I understand him to be saying, "How can you say show us the Father? I've been showing you. I've been revealing who he is and what he is like. The Father can't be seen, but he can be seen in my actions and words, because I only do what the Father has taught me to do and say." I do not, and right now cannot, read it as, "Despite everything I have said about me being the Son and distinguishing myself from the Father, well actually, I am the Father."

Anyway, as far as Oneness goes, I do think the Scripture is against the idea that God's being consists of three divine persons. I noted in a post to BCsenior that any doctrine of God and Christ has to be built on the OT foundation and harmonize with this concept of God. But I have not read a Oneness Christology yet that I found compelling and persuasively explained the distinctions we see in John's works between the Father and Son, and I haven't been able to come up with anything myself. :-) It's frustrating. All I can say confidently right now is that there is one God and he has a Son. The Son is not merely a human being like us. He is divine and human.

If there are any books you could recommend that you have found useful on the subject, I would appreciate any recommendations.

[Ehud]

If God became a man, actually began to exist as a human being, without ceasing to be God (omnipresent Spirit), how would that human being speak?

I imagine He would speak exactly like He does in the Bible.

On the other hand, if God were a trinity of persons, and one of them became a human, I suspect He would speak of God in the plural: "They", rather than "Him". Unless He had no human consciousness, but was just God-in-a-physical-body. In which case His speech would not really make sense to us, people would think He was schizophrenic or psychotic, not to mention He simply wouldn't act, think, or feel in any genuinely human manner at all.

...

This. Absolutely this. :yourock

[Costeon]

I also think He would mention "Hey, we're a trinity of Divine Persons". That He never said that is enough for me to reject the speculative nonsense of 4th and 5th century catholic priests.

I would expect that too, especially at some point when he was alone with his disciples teaching them. Since he (and the apostles) never point blank reveal this about God--and how could they not in light of how important monotheism was to Judaism?--I too feel I must reject it.

But, I would also expect him to have taught his disciples plainly to the effect, "I have distinguished myself from the Father in public and have called myself the Son and have described my relationship with him as one of mutual love and of him teaching me things to say and showing me what to do, and I have said the Father is greater than I, and in every way have made it seem like I was not the Father, but do not be misled: I'm just the Father in a different mode. As the Son, I'm in a different human mode of being in contrast to my omnipresent Spirit mode of being. That's why I speak this way as if I'm distinguished from the Father, because these modes of being are distinguished." I would expect it all the more since this concept is hard to grasp and not obvious and so obviously open to misunderstanding. It seems to me that, because the Father-Son relationship is not explicitly explained, speculation has filled the void.

I came across this verse in John 16: 25 “I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father."

So this sounds promising. He is going to speak plainly in order to teach them about the Father, so we can apparently take what he says at face value. Does he just plainly tell them he's the Father? No.

26 In that day you will ask in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf; 27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”

When he said this, a light went off in their heads.

29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech! 30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.” 31 Jesus answered them, “Do you now believe? 32 Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me."

So in his plain teaching, Jesus tells them that they can pray directly to the Father and shouldn't seek to have Jesus ask the Father on their behalf. He notes that they believed He came from the Father. Then he sums up the history of his ministry: He came from the Father and came into the world, and once he completes his ministry, he will go to the Father. And he finishes by saying that he's never alone--even when the disciples will forsake him--because the Father is always with him.

I can't read this "plain" account and conclude, "Oh, he clearly means he's the Father in a different form or mode." Taking the language at face value, he is not simply the Father. At any rate, I can understand why millions have read passages like this and concluded that Jesus is not the Father.

[Esaias]

I agree very much that everything is based on context. But it was after reading the Gospel of John many times over a short period of time, and so feeling the weight of how often and how thoroughly John and Jesus distinguish Jesus from the Father, that made me doubt that Jesus was simply conflating himself with the Father without qualification in John 14.9 or 10.30.

The Gospel begins in John 1 with Jesus as the Word incarnate who will reveal the Father. No one has seen the Father, but the only Son who is at the side of the Father will reveal him. From chapter 1 to 10 and 14, Jesus over and over distinguishes himself from the Father while revealing him, and even in the very contexts of 10 and 14 thoroughly distinguishes himself from the Father, and continues to do so throughout the rest of the Gospel. In ch 14 we have one of the examples of Jesus describing Jesus and the Father as "we": "23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him" (14.23). This is an unusual example: Jesus says he and the Father will indwell people together.

So when I read 14.9, I understand him to be saying, "How can you say show us the Father? I've been showing you. I've been revealing who he is and what he is like. The Father can't be seen, but he can be seen in my actions and words, because I only do what the Father has taught me to do and say." I do not, and right now cannot, read it as, "Despite everything I have said about me being the Son and distinguishing myself from the Father, well actually, I am the Father."

Anyway, as far as Oneness goes, I do think the Scripture is against the idea that God's being consists of three divine persons. I noted in a post to BCsenior that any doctrine of God and Christ has to be built on the OT foundation and harmonize with this concept of God. But I have not read a Oneness Christology yet that I found compelling and persuasively explained the distinctions we see in John's works between the Father and Son, and I haven't been able to come up with anything myself. :-) It's frustrating. All I can say confidently right now is that there is one God and he has a Son. The Son is not merely a human being like us. He is divine and human.

If there are any books you could recommend that you have found useful on the subject, I would appreciate any recommendations.

If Jesus is a genuine human being, then the descriptions and statements in John make perfect sense. Including John 14:9.

So honestly I'm not seeing where any difficulty exists. The distinctions between the Father and the Son are the distinctions between God and the human being named Jesus. Which John ch 1 explains that the Son is the Word become flesh. 1 John 1 explains that this Word is basically the eternal life of God.

There is one God and He has a Son. But that Son is not merely "divine" unless He is also that One God. Otherwise you have two gods.

The great mystery of the faith is that GOD was manifested in the flesh etc. Putting all the data together, we have God taking on for Himself a genuine human existence which we call the Son of God. The distinctions are between God and the man, not God and another divinity or "divine person".

[Esaias]

I would expect that too, especially at some point when he was alone with his disciples teaching them. Since he (and the apostles) never point blank reveal this about God--and how could they not in light of how important monotheism was to Judaism?--I too feel I must reject it.

But, I would also expect him to have taught his disciples plainly to the effect, "I have distinguished myself from the Father in public and have called myself the Son and have described my relationship with him as one of mutual love and of him teaching me things to say and showing me what to do, and I have said the Father is greater than I, and in every way have made it seem like I was not the Father, but do not be misled: I'm just the Father in a different mode. As the Son, I'm in a different human mode of being in contrast to my omnipresent Spirit mode of being. That's why I speak this way as if I'm distinguished from the Father, because these modes of being are distinguished." I would expect it all the more since this concept is hard to grasp and not obvious and so obviously open to misunderstanding. It seems to me that, because the Father-Son relationship is not explicitly explained, speculation has filled the void.

I came across this verse in John 16: 25 “I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father."

So this sounds promising. He is going to speak plainly in order to teach them about the Father, so we can apparently take what he says at face value. Does he just plainly tell them he's the Father? No.

26 In that day you will ask in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf; 27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”

When he said this, a light went off in their heads.

29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech! 30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.” 31 Jesus answered them, “Do you now believe? 32 Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me."

So in his plain teaching, Jesus tells them that they can pray directly to the Father and shouldn't seek to have Jesus ask the Father on their behalf. He notes that they believed He came from the Father. Then he sums up the history of his ministry: He came from the Father and came into the world, and once he completes his ministry, he will go to the Father. And he finishes by saying that he's never alone--even when the disciples will forsake him--because the Father is always with him.

I can't read this "plain" account and conclude, "Oh, he clearly means he's the Father in a different form or mode." Taking the language at face value, he is not simply the Father. At any rate, I can understand why millions have read passages like this and concluded that Jesus is not the Father.

If He isn't the Father then He isn't God. But the disciples confessed Him to be God. Therefore He must be the Father.

Your description of what Jesus might have said seems to me to be a caricature of actual Oneness Christology.

When we confess that He is the Father, we do not mean the man - CONSIDERED AS A MAN - is the Father. We mean the man is the incarnation of the only God in existence, the God we identify as our Father and as the Father of us all. The PERSON is God, yet the PERSON is also a man. The humanity and Deity are not to be confused. Terms like "in a different mode" are borrowed from trinitarians and would have likely been unintelligible to the disciples. You would have Jesus explain things using 4th and 5th century metaphysical terms in vogue among Greek philosophers?

His explanations make perfect sense to me, at least.

[Michael The Disciple]

if he isn't the father then he isn't god. But the disciples confessed him to be god. Therefore he must be the father.

Home run!

[Costeon]

The Logos which was God became human. The Logos was the FORM OF GOD, not the entirety of God.

John 1:14

14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Now there was still one God and now one man amen? That which was man saw himself as subject to that which was still God.

When the Logos was made human, is he still God or just human? It sounds like you have an omnipresent God mode and a limited human mode.

[Scott Pitta]

The Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

Easy stuff.

[Costeon]

The Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

Easy stuff.

That is easy.

Till you start thinking about it. :-)

[Michael The Disciple]

When the Logos was made human, is he still God or just human? It sounds like you have an omnipresent God mode and a limited human mode.

Sure.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and me, the man Christ Jesus.

Another way of seeing it.

1 Tim. 6:14-16

14That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

[Costeon]

Sure.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and me, the man Christ Jesus.

Another way of seeing it.

1 Tim. 6:14-16

14That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

I'm not sure how to understand "sure." Do you believe that before the Word became human, the Word was the visible form of God, and so was God himself, but after becoming man, he is now just human?

[Michael The Disciple]

Do you believe that before the Word became human, the Word was the visible form of God, and so was God himself,

Yes

but after becoming man, he is now just human?

The logos part of God became human and still is. The omnipresence has always been the nature of God.

Jesus the man is the visible form of God now.

Read 1 Tim. 6:14-16 slowly.

14That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Who only has immortality speaks of his humanity. It stands distinct from his essential nature which no man HAS SEEN.....OR CAN SEE.

This is not 2 God persons.

It is one God and one man.

Jesus is both. Or another way of putting the same thing would be YAH is both.

[Scott Pitta]

He was with God in the beginning.

[Costeon]

He was with God in the beginning.

If we take Jesus's words at face value in the Gospel of John, it does seem that before his earthly ministry he already had existed in relationship with the Father in heaven--not "as God" but as the Word/Son.

[Costeon]

Yes

The logos part of God became human and still is. The omnipresence has always been the nature of God.

This is not 2 God persons.

It is one God and one man.

Jesus is both. Or another way of putting the same thing would be YAH is both.

You basically have a form of binitarianism.

"Yah" is one being existing in two modes, Father and Son, one divine, one human.

The Father and Son are distinguished and interact as persons, yet both are Yah.

"Yah" is the more general or comprehensive name. So, in effect, the name "Yah" (or "Jesus" for those who call "him" that) is your equivalent of how Trinitarians use the name "God," which refers to all three divine persons united in one being or which can refer individually to each person. But instead of 3 divine persons united together in one being, "God," you have two, one divine one human, united as one being, "Yah."

Who has taught your form of modalism before? I had asked for book recommendations in an earlier post. I may have overlooked your response, but I'm very interested in the various ways Oneness believers have explained the Oneness of God.

[Michael The Disciple]

You basically have a form of binitarianism.

"Yah" is one being existing in two modes, Father and Son, one divine, one human.

Binitarian IMO would be 2 co eternal co equal God persons.

The Father and Son are distinguished and interact as persons, yet both are Yah.

At least from the incarnation on. From that point the Son is YAH manifest in humanity.

"Yah" is the more general or comprehensive name. So, in effect, the name "Yah" (or "Jesus" for those who call "him" that) is your equivalent of how Trinitarians use the name "God," which refers to all three divine persons united in one being or which can refer individually to each person. But instead of 3 divine persons united together in one being, "God," you have two, one divine one human, united as one being, "Yah."

I personally would reserve the name YAH to where "God" is used in the NT. I do of course believe Jesus is YAH or again YAH is Jesus come in the flesh. Anyway I have no problem believing in a two person relationship as long as its understood one is God one is man......but its both Jesus.

Who has taught your form of modalism before? I had asked for book recommendations in an earlier post. I may have overlooked your response, but I'm very interested in the various ways Oneness believers have explained the Oneness of God.

If you mean Oneness doctrine, my old Charismatic turned Oneness Pastor taught it to me first. It was through his teaching on LOGOS in John 1:1 that I was able to fully transition from my Trinitarian view.

He told me later he had heard it taught by John Eckstat in the UPC. Eckstat never wrote any books. He made audio tapes. I was blessed to hear several magnificent ones. He taught at several Apostolic Colleges in the 70's and Pastored at least one Church in Cincinnati, Ohio. Last I know he was part of the Parkway Apostolic Church in Wisconsin and died in the 70's. His Son used to be an active member of this forum.

Elder Ross Drysdale of the PAW wrote IMO the best all around book on Oneness I ever saw.

IF YE KNOW THESE THINGS.

He laid out the doctrine of Logos/Angel of the Lord clearly.

Gordon Magee taught God had a visible form in the OT in his book Is Jesus In The Godhead Or Is The Godhead In Jesus.

There is a brother on Facebook Mark August who has written some good articles on the Logos featuring early Church beliefs and showing how the doctrine was lost over time.

There was a book out years ago by Pastor James Edding where he featured the "form" of God quite similar to what I believe.

Brother Irvin Baxter believes in the LOGOS/Angel doctrine. It is online in a teaching called understanding the Godhead. Unfortunately he spends only 5 minutes or so on it.

As to the "modalist" aspect of Oneness doctrine I have not seen any books on it. I have read some articles online about it. It is really just basic Oneness Christology. The dual nature doctrine.

I have expanded that somewhat in a short video I made called Explaining Modalism as concerning John 1:1 in OT times. I'm sure most would say its to simplistic.

The chief book for teaching Oneness doctrine in older times was by John Patterson GOD IN CHRIST JESUS. It is out of print. Used to have it, loaned it out. Gone.

[Esaias]

Did we figure how many 1 equals?

:slaphappy

[Evang.Benincasa]

Did we figure how many 1 equals?

:slaphappy

https://media1.giphy.com/media/WUGNg3FuhiywU/source.gif

[Costeon]

If you mean Oneness doctrine, my old Charismatic turned Oneness Pastor taught it to me first. It was through his teaching on LOGOS in John 1:1 that I was able to fully transition from my Trinitarian view.

He told me later he had heard it taught by John Eckstat in the UPC. Eckstat never wrote any books. He made audio tapes. I was blessed to hear several magnificent ones. He taught at several Apostolic Colleges in the 70's and Pastored at least one Church in Cincinnati, Ohio. Last I know he was part of the Parkway Apostolic Church in Wisconsin and died in the 70's. His Son used to be an active member of this forum.

Elder Ross Drysdale of the PAW wrote IMO the best all around book on Oneness I ever saw.

IF YE KNOW THESE THINGS.

He laid out the doctrine of Logos/Angel of the Lord clearly.

Gordon Magee taught God had a visible form in the OT in his book Is Jesus In The Godhead Or Is The Godhead In Jesus.

There is a brother on Facebook Mark August who has written some good articles on the Logos featuring early Church beliefs and showing how the doctrine was lost over time.

There was a book out years ago by Pastor James Edding where he featured the "form" of God quite similar to what I believe.

Brother Irvin Baxter believes in the LOGOS/Angel doctrine. It is online in a teaching called understanding the Godhead. Unfortunately he spends only 5 minutes or so on it.

As to the "modalist" aspect of Oneness doctrine I have not seen any books on it. I have read some articles online about it. It is really just basic Oneness Christology. The dual nature doctrine.

I have expanded that somewhat in a short video I made called Explaining Modalism as concerning John 1:1 in OT times. I'm sure most would say its to simplistic.

The chief book for teaching Oneness doctrine in older times was by John Patterson GOD IN CHRIST JESUS. It is out of print. Used to have it, loaned it out. Gone.

Thank you very much for these resources. Regarding the Magee book, do you know if this was the original edition or the current one published by Word Aflame Press? I had heard one time, I believe, that Magee's book was heavily edited by David Bernard while he was the associate editor of Word Aflame. I know someone who has Paterson's book, so I will check it out.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Thank you very much for these resources. Regarding the Magee book, do you know if this was the original edition or the current one published by Word Aflame Press? I had heard one time, I believe, that Magee's book was heavily edited by David Bernard while he was the associate editor of Word Aflame. I know someone who has Paterson's book, so I will check it out.

I would like to know the editings. How much was edited, what changes were made.

[Esaias]

Binitarian IMO would be 2 co eternal co equal God persons.



At least from the incarnation on. From that point the Son is YAH manifest in humanity.


I personally would reserve the name YAH to where "God" is used in the NT. I do of course believe Jesus is YAH or again YAH is Jesus come in the flesh. Anyway I have no problem believing in a two person relationship as long as its understood one is God one is man......but its both Jesus.



If you mean Oneness doctrine, my old Charismatic turned Oneness Pastor taught it to me first. It was through his teaching on LOGOS in John 1:1 that I was able to fully transition from my Trinitarian view.

He told me later he had heard it taught by John Eckstat in the UPC. Eckstat never wrote any books. He made audio tapes. I was blessed to hear several magnificent ones. He taught at several Apostolic Colleges in the 70's and Pastored at least one Church in Cincinnati, Ohio. Last I know he was part of the Parkway Apostolic Church in Wisconsin and died in the 70's. His Son used to be an active member of this forum.

Elder Ross Drysdale of the PAW wrote IMO the best all around book on Oneness I ever saw.

IF YE KNOW THESE THINGS.

He laid out the doctrine of Logos/Angel of the Lord clearly.

Gordon Magee taught God had a visible form in the OT in his book Is Jesus In The Godhead Or Is The Godhead In Jesus.

There is a brother on Facebook Mark August who has written some good articles on the Logos featuring early Church beliefs and showing how the doctrine was lost over time.

There was a book out years ago by Pastor James Edding where he featured the "form" of God quite similar to what I believe.

Brother Irvin Baxter believes in the LOGOS/Angel doctrine. It is online in a teaching called understanding the Godhead. Unfortunately he spends only 5 minutes or so on it.

As to the "modalist" aspect of Oneness doctrine I have not seen any books on it. I have read some articles online about it. It is really just basic Oneness Christology. The dual nature doctrine.

I have expanded that somewhat in a short video I made called Explaining Modalism as concerning John 1:1 in OT times. I'm sure most would say its to simplistic.

The chief book for teaching Oneness doctrine in older times was by John Patterson GOD IN CHRIST JESUS. It is out of print. Used to have it, loaned it out. Gone.

Don't forget Michael Servetus' On the Errors of the Trinity! Best book I've read on the subject.

[Scott Pitta]

There are other books on the oneness of God. Most are out of print. One came in the post today. Frank Ewart wrote a book titled Jesus, Man and Mystery.

[Costeon]

I would like to know the editings. How much was edited, what changes were made.

Found this: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=30062. Check out the last post on the first page.

I'm pretty sure I read the book many years ago, and I don't recall it containing anything but the standard Oneness view that I had been familiar with (basically from David Bernard's books), so it seems like anything about Jesus being the visible form of God, the Logos, before the incarnation was removed.

[Costeon]

Don't forget Michael Servetus' On the Errors of the Trinity! Best book I've read on the subject.

Is there an edition in print that you would recommend? Or did you perhaps read it online? If so, if you could share a link, I would appreciate it.

[Michael The Disciple]

Thank you very much for these resources. Regarding the Magee book, do you know if this was the original edition or the current one published by Word Aflame Press? I had heard one time, I believe, that Magee's book was heavily edited by David Bernard while he was the associate editor of Word Aflame. I know someone who has Paterson's book, so I will check it out.

It has no label or writing about Word Aflame Press. Neither any date. Just has what may be the authors PO Box in Pasedena, Texas. On pg 7 he writes a few sentences showing his belief God had a pre incarnate form.


Phillipians 2:6 is helpful in this respect. Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God.
Or in other words before Jesus was born with his human nature He was the Divine visible equation of the invisible God. He was originally in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but he made himself of no reputation, He took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men.

This being who prior to his visible birth was in the very form of God-the full equation in a majestic form of the invisible God-this being God, at his incarnation took upon him the likeness of men.

He simultaneously held to the mind/word theory or ''ideal" pre existing of Christ. Pg 29.

[Michael The Disciple]

Found this: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=30062. Check out the last post on the first page.

I'm pretty sure I read the book many years ago, and I don't recall it containing anything but the standard Oneness view that I had been familiar with (basically from David Bernard's books), so it seems like anything about Jesus being the visible form of God, the Logos, before the incarnation was removed.

If thats true shame on them.

[Michael The Disciple]

Found this link in the 2011 thread. Elder Drysdales book.

It dont get much better than this.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041010214804/http://mikeblume.com/drytitle.htm

For just the part about the form or Angel of the Lord doctrine go here.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041016002949/http://www.mikeblume.com/drysd15a.htm

Tip of the hat to Mike Blume.....

[Costeon]

Phillipians 2:6 is helpful in this respect. Who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Or in other words before Jesus was born with his human nature He was the Divine visible equation of the invisible God. He was originally in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but he made himself of no reputation, He took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men.

This being who prior to his visible birth was in the very form of God-the full equation in a majestic form of the invisible God-this being God, at his incarnation took upon him the likeness of men.

Here is how it reads now:

"Philippians 2:6 is helpful in this respect: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” In other words, before Jesus was born with His human nature He was the invisible God. He was in the form of God, but He “took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7).

At His incarnation God took upon Himself the likeness of men. He assumed human nature at His incarnation but did not cease to be God. Now, in addition to what He always was (Jehovah God), He was in possession of an assumed human nature."

[Costeon]

Found this link in the 2011 thread. Elder Drysdales book.

It dont get much better than this.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041010214804/http://mikeblume.com/drytitle.htm

For just the part about the form or Angel of the Lord doctrine go here.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041016002949/http://www.mikeblume.com/drysd15a.htm

Tip of the hat to Mike Blume.....

Thank you! I've started reading it.

[Michael The Disciple]

Here is how it reads now:

"Philippians 2:6 is helpful in this respect: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” In other words, before Jesus was born with His human nature He was the invisible God. He was in the form of God, but He “took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7).

At His incarnation God took upon Himself the likeness of men. He assumed human nature at His incarnation but did not cease to be God. Now, in addition to what He always was (Jehovah God), He was in possession of an assumed human nature."

Stunning. I hope Bernard is not so dishonest that he did this. But then again, who did?

It reads like this in Drysdales book.

"'Who being in the form of God, though it not robbery to be equal with God.' Or in other words, before Jesus was born with his human nature He was the divine visible equation of the invisible God. He was originally in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but he made himself of no reputation, 'He took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.' this being, who prior to His physical birth, was in the very form of God -- the full equation in a majestic form of the invisible God -- This Being, God, at His Incarnation took upon himself the likeness of men. He assumed human nature at his incarnation, but did not cease to be God..." (Gordon Magee, Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus, n.d., p. 7)

[Costeon]

Stunning. I hope Bernard is not so dishonest that he did this. But then again, who did?

It reads like this in Drysdales book.

Any book submitted to Word Aflame Press for publication is subject to their editorial process. The author of course can decline to have their book published if they disagree with the final edited manuscript. I don't know the circumstances surrounding Magee's book going from self-published to being published by Word Aflame, so I can't say if it was dishonest or not.

One thing that is interesting/odd to me is that I had never heard of the Logos doctrine that you believe till reading some of your posts within the last couple of years. I hadn't realized that there were other options in Oneness besides what I had encountered in Bernard's books. Since I had only read Magee's book as published by Word Aflame I didn't learn about this other view of the Logos from him.

It seems that there was more doctrinal diversity in early times than now in the UPCI.

[Esaias]

It has no label or writing about Word Aflame Press. Neither any date. Just has what may be the authors PO Box in Pasedena, Texas. On pg 7 he writes a few sentences showing his belief God had a pre incarnate form.



He simultaneously held to the mind/word theory or ''ideal" pre existing of Christ. Pg 29.

He misunderstood Philippians 2, it has nothing to do with Jesus "before the incarnation". A very common error, and an example of numerous catholic, trinitarian traditions still holding people's minds captive.

It is a shame that his book has been rewritten and edited. I wonder if it includes a disclaimer noting that? I wonder if he or his estate knew/knows about the rewriting of his book? Strikes me as fundamentally dishonest.

[Costeon]

It is a shame that his book has been rewritten and edited. I wonder if it includes a disclaimer noting that? I wonder if he or his estate knew/knows about the rewriting of his book? Strikes me as fundamentally dishonest.

As far as I can tell there is no disclaimer. But the publishing house would have had to obtain his or his estate's consent before publishing the edited book. I'm not sure when Bro. Magee passed away, but the copyright for the Word Aflame edition is 1988.

Do you by any chance hold the same view of the Logos as Michael?

[Costeon]

Found this link in the 2011 thread. Elder Drysdales book.

It dont get much better than this.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041010214804/http://mikeblume.com/drytitle.htm

For just the part about the form or Angel of the Lord doctrine go here.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041016002949/http://www.mikeblume.com/drysd15a.htm

Tip of the hat to Mike Blume.....

So I've been reading the book and am finally to the place where he describes the Word being the visible form of God. It's stimulated a lot of thought.

Why do you think something that is seen would be described as "Word" when a word is something heard?

[Michael The Disciple]

Perhaps the "word" of God was to come through a form as opposed to the omnipresent spirit? It would seem God made most of his creation with a visible form. Is there ANY creature we know anything about that does not have a form?

Some groups and teachers have likened the form to the SPOKESMAN.

[Michael The Disciple]

I bought a Holman Bible KJV the other day. I was surprised when the only reference underneath John 1:1 was Proverbs 8:22.

[Michael The Disciple]

He misunderstood Philippians 2, it has nothing to do with Jesus "before the incarnation". A very common error, and an example of numerous catholic, trinitarian traditions still holding people's minds captive.

What did he misunderstand?

[Esaias]

What did he misunderstand?

He believed Philippians 2 was about Christ before He incarnated. It is not. It is about Christ being the second Adam.

[Esaias]

So I've been reading the book and am finally to the place where he describes the Word being the visible form of God. It's stimulated a lot of thought.

Why do you think something that is seen would be described as "Word" when a word is something heard?

Spirit is breath. Word is vocalised breath, ie expressed spirit. So the Word is the expression of the Spirit.

[Steven Avery]

If you mean Oneness doctrine, my old Charismatic turned Oneness Pastor taught it to me first. ...

He told me later he had heard it taught by John Eckstat in the UPC.

Elder Ross Drysdale of the PAW wrote IMO the best all around book on Oneness I ever saw.

Gordon Magee taught God had a visible form in the OT in his book Is Jesus In The Godhead Or Is The Godhead In Jesus.

There is a brother on Facebook Mark August who has written some good articles on the Logos featuring early Church beliefs and showing how the doctrine was lost over time.

There was a book out years ago by Pastor James Edding where he featured the "form" of God quite similar to what I believe.

Brother Irvin Baxter believes in the LOGOS/Angel doctrine. It is online in a teaching called understanding the Godhead. Unfortunately he spends only 5 minutes or so on it.

... a short video I made called Explaining Modalism as concerning John 1:1 in OT times. I'm sure most would say its to simplistic.

The chief book for teaching Oneness doctrine in older times was by John Patterson GOD IN CHRIST JESUS. It is out of print. Used to have it, loaned it out. Gone. Thanks for this doctrinal review.

Would you say the Logos doctrine is an alternative to the two natures doctrine? I see that the Gordon Magee book does have a "dual nature" section.

And I am surprised a bit that you would accept the term "modalism" as having any real substance.

I had heard one time, I believe, that Magee's book was heavily edited by David Bernard while he was the associate editor of Word Aflame. And I would like to know more about this aspect. Let's conjecture that this is true.

Is the original version available? Do we have some bio info on Gordon Magee. Anybody know if the Word Aflame Press has been contacted? World Aflame has a copyright notice, but that should only apply to the edited version, and did those edits have the approval of Gordon Magee?

And I do see there was some additional discussion. :) Don't forget Michael Servetus' On the Errors of the Trinity! Best book I've read on the subject. Any good discussions of the book? The Unitarians try to claim the book for their doctrines, clearly that is incorrect. Some of his doctrines were unique and unusual.

There are other books on the oneness of God. Most are out of print. One came in the post today. Frank Ewart wrote a book titled Jesus, Man and Mystery. Have you read this? Not easily available. Would be nice to see even a page or two.

[Michael The Disciple]

Would you say the Logos doctrine is an alternative to the two natures doctrine? I see that the Gordon Magee book does have a "dual nature" section.

IMO the dual nature doctrine is true. Many years ago when you were still on Paltalk I remember asking you if you believed in Oneness. You said yes but "without all the dualism". I dont think we got a chance to finish that conversation. Did you mean you dont believe in the dual nature of Christ?

The doctrine of pre incarnate logos does SEEM somewhat akin to the doctrine of the dual nature of Christ. I'm not convinced it is EXACTLY the same because I dont see the angel/image being fully "angel" in nature, but rather in likeness or appearance.


And I am surprised a bit that you would accept the term "modalism" as having any real substance.

Dont allow the Trins to define modalism. They try to force it to mean something it is not. They hearken to the words of Tertullian or Hippolytus who no doubt distorted the teachings of Sabelleius.

Oneness Christology is NOT sequential modalism but rather "simultaneous" modalism.

Jesus showed how it works clearly.

John 3:13

13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

In one mode of being Jesus was standing here on the Earth talking to Nicodemus. Yet, SIMULTANEOUSLY, or in another mode of being he was still in Heaven.

I believe he was in Heaven as the Mighty God, Everlasting Father. As such he was giving grace to, and leading his human Son in his goings everyday. He was watching over the affairs of the rest of the Earth as well of events in Heaven.

It was BOTH HIM. If anyone has a better way to describe this concept than "simultaneous modalism" I'm open.

In his human nature he was living life in the mode or realm in which humans live.

In his deity he was living in the same realm or mode of being he always had. As the ELOHIM.

Is the original version available? Do we have some bio info on Gordon Magee. Anybody know if the Word Aflame Press has been contacted? World Aflame has a copyright notice, but that should only apply to the edited version, and did those edits have the approval of Gordon Magee?

The only thing I can say of a certainty concerning this is, the copy I own was not made by Word Aflame. I assume it is of the original run. And I can say it has been changed.

Originally Posted by Esaias View Post
Don't forget Michael Servetus' On the Errors of the Trinity! Best book I've read on the subject.

Any good discussions of the book? The Unitarians try to claim the book for their doctrines, clearly that is incorrect. Some of his doctrines were unique and unusual.

I have heard it both ways about him. I had always used him as a witness for Oneness. I remember the last time AFF had this discussion I had found writings supposedly of him that were not Oneness.

Esaias then countered with writings supposedly of his that confirmed a Oneness stand.

As far as Frank Ewart we know he was the founder of the modern Oneness movement as we know it today. The book I have by him is PHENOMENON OF PENTECOST.

It is a Word Aflame publication, at least the one I have. It is truly a magnificent story. I cant believe he is hardly mentioned in Oneness circles I am aware of.

[Steven Avery]

IMO the dual nature doctrine is true. Many years ago when you were still on Paltalk I remember asking you if you believed in Oneness. You said yes but "without all the dualism” Not something I remember ever saying, or thinking.

And I often point out the dozens of dual addressing verses in the Epistles, and note that neither Oneness or Trinitarians speak in this way.

This has especially come up in looking at the highlight verses of the Granville Sharp Rule for Fools.

[Esaias]

Would you say the Logos doctrine is an alternative to the two natures doctrine? I see that the Gordon Magee book does have a "dual nature" section.

Not speaking for MTD but I wouldn't say the Logos teaching is an "alternative to the two natures teaching" necessarily. Servetus points out the Scripture doesn't really concern itself with "Natures" (in the Aristotelian metaphysical sense"). The two natures teaching in a nutshell is that Jesus is both fully God and fully human, as I understand it.

Any good discussions of the book? The Unitarians try to claim the book for their doctrines, clearly that is incorrect. Some of his doctrines were unique and unusual.

Have you read this? Not easily available. Would be nice to see even a page or two.

No good discussions anywhere I know of. We could start one, though. :)

I have a pdf copy of the full text of the English translation. Go here: https://archive.org/details/M.ServetusTwoTreatisesOfServetusOnTheTrinity196915 31-1532

His writings are somewhat difficult for anyone unfamiliar with pre-20th century literature. Also, he wrote within a theological context dominated by near universal trinitarianism and Scholasticism, so his language must be understood in that light. That said, I disagree with some of his ideas, and others I would word differently. There may even be some internal inconsistencies (eg, in earlier parts he speaks of the divine Persons (plural) but in later parts he affirms there is only ONE Person of God).

But overall I have found his book to be the most thought provoking and over all accurate depiction of Scriptural Christology presented in "theological terms". A good second runner up (possibly more accessible to the reader) is James Dunn's Christology in the Making but that is actually a Biblical theology not a Systematic theology, so it's more of a ground laying treatise than a summary presentation.

[Esaias]

The bad news is the pdf I have is a scanned copy of the book, so I cannot copypaste any of the text.

[Costeon]

Not speaking for MTD but I wouldn't say the Logos teaching is an "alternative to the two natures teaching" necessarily. Servetus points out the Scripture doesn't really concern itself with "Natures" (in the Aristotelian metaphysical sense"). The two natures teaching in a nutshell is that Jesus is both fully God and fully human, as I understand it.



No good discussions anywhere I know of. We could start one, though. :)

I have a pdf copy of the full text of the English translation. Go here: https://archive.org/details/M.ServetusTwoTreatisesOfServetusOnTheTrinity196915 31-1532

His writings are somewhat difficult for anyone unfamiliar with pre-20th century literature. Also, he wrote within a theological context dominated by near universal trinitarianism and Scholasticism, so his language must be understood in that light. That said, I disagree with some of his ideas, and others I would word differently. There may even be some internal inconsistencies (eg, in earlier parts he speaks of the divine Persons (plural) but in later parts he affirms there is only ONE Person of God).

But overall I have found his book to be the most thought provoking and over all accurate depiction of Scriptural Christology presented in "theological terms". A good second runner up (possibly more accessible to the reader) is James Dunn's Christology in the Making but that is actually a Biblical theology not a Systematic theology, so it's more of a ground laying treatise than a summary presentation.

Thank you very much for posting the link to Servetus's book!

[Steven Avery]

I have a pdf copy of the full text of the English translation. Go here: https://archive.org/details/M.ServetusTwoTreatisesOfServetusOnTheTrinity196915 31-1532

His writings are somewhat difficult for anyone unfamiliar with pre-20th century literature. Also, he wrote within a theological context dominated by near universal trinitarianism and Scholasticism, so his language must be understood in that light. That said, I disagree with some of his ideas, and others I would word differently. There may even be some internal inconsistencies (eg, in earlier parts he speaks of the divine Persons (plural) but in later parts he affirms there is only ONE Person of God).

But overall I have found his book to be the most thought provoking and over all accurate depiction of Scriptural Christology presented in "theological terms". A good second runner up (possibly more accessible to the reader) is James Dunn's Christology in the Making but that is actually a Biblical theology not a Systematic theology, so it's more of a ground laying treatise than a summary presentation.

Thank you very much for posting the link to Servetus's book!Yes, I think that is the only full book online (one PDF text is mangled by sacred namers inserting faux names.)

Here is an HTML version of the Servetus part by some Unitarians

Errors of the Trinity
http://godglorified.com/errors_of_the_trinity.htm

Some of the pages, same text, are also online here:

The Two Treatises of Servetus on the Trinity: On the Errors of the Trinity, Seven Books, MDXXXI, Dialogues on the Trinity, Two Books, On the Righteousness of Christ's Kingdom, Four Chapters, MDXXXII
Wipf and Stock (2013)
https://books.google.com/books?id=WtFNAwAAQBAJ

There is a bit of analysis here:

Servetus, Swedenborg and the Nature of God (2005)
by Andrew Malcolm Thomas Dibb
https://books.google.com/books?id=_wdOqoatAJcC&pg=PA67

Here are some islamists trying to puzzle it out:
https://www.bismikaallahuma.org/christianity/on-the-errors-of-the-trinity/

The Servetus crew does not seem to know of the Archive.org book.
https://miguelservet.org/servetus/red_books.htm

Some history in a John Calvin bio.
https://books.google.com/books?id=NTwDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA251

7-page AFF thread in 2008-2015:

On The Errors of the Trinity by Michael Servetus
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=14098

John Calvin vs. Michael Servetus - 2009
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=26095

One in the Greek - 2019, this thread
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?p=157049

Here is an interesting Latin page in another book:

Christianismi restitutio. Totius ecclesiae apostolicae est ad sua limina ...
by Michael Servetus
https://books.google.com/books?id=72tWAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA25

There is an English translation in 2007

The restoration of Christianity: an English translation of Christianismi restitutio, 1553 - Christopher A. Hoffman, Marian Hillar

It is only available in sketchy mode, so it would have to be found in a library.

2008 blog discussion, Apostolic

Michael Servetus: Heretic or Hero?
https://oldlandmark.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/michael-servetus-heretic-or-hero/

In addition to the Wilbur translation of Errors, he uses

Bainton, Roland H., trans. Concerning Heretics, an anonymous work attributed to Sebastian Castellio. New York: Octagon Books, Inc., 1965.

Walker, Williston. John Calvin: the Organiser of Reformed Protestantism 1509-1564. New York: Shocken Books, 1906.

Wilbur, Earl Morse. A History of Unitarianism Socianism and its Antecedents. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1947.

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

Heavenly Witnesses in two spots in Errors
https://archive.org/details/M.ServetusTwoTreatisesOfServetusOnTheTrinity196915 31-1532/page/n35

Starting at the bottom of p. 35, later maybe p. 40

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

Drummond bio.

The life of Michael Servetus: the Spanish physician, who, for the alleged crime of heresy, was entrapped, imprisoned, and burned by John Calvin the reformer, in the city of Geneva, October 27, 1553 (1848)
William Hamilton Drummond
https://books.google.com/books?id=CyQEAAAAQAAJ

[rdp]

*Do yourselves a favor and watch this brief clip of Trinitarian academics making fun and laughing about Servetus’s murder. Make 100% certain that you watch until the clip ends (it’s not at all long) to see them laughing at a recent conference (e.g., Piper, et al.). Prepare to be infuriated.

*Clip: https://apostolicacademics.com/2015/04/27/the-true-face-of-calvinism/

[Esaias]

*Do yourselves a favor and watch this brief clip of Trinitarian academics making fun and laughing about Servetus’s murder. Make 100% certain that you watch until the clip ends (it’s not at all long) to see them laughing at a recent conference (e.g., Piper, et al.). Prepare to be infuriated.

*Clip: https://apostolicacademics.com/2015/04/27/the-true-face-of-calvinism/


What's infuriating is the dishonesty and attempting to sugar coat things. At least many catholics are honest about history and unapologetic for their belief in papal temporal authority. In that, they are far better than the average run of the milquetoast Protestant.

[Scott Pitta]

Bloodshed in the name of God is not a laughing matter.

[Praxeas]

Help needed.

Can someone tell me if there is any difference in Greek between these words "one" in Greek from our English Bibles?

Mark 12:29

29And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

1 Tim. 2:5

5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

John 10:30

I and my Father are one.

1 John 5:7-8

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Appreciate the help!:highfive
There are 3 genders,
Masculine is Heis
Feminine is MIA
Neuter is Hen.

Hen is most often the word when a unity is the idea
Heis is most often the word when a numerical One is the idea.
Mia? I haven't really looked into it much.

Heis is used in the Shema. Hen is used in John 10:30

[Michael The Disciple]

There are 3 genders,
Masculine is Heis
Feminine is MIA
Neuter is Hen.

Hen is most often the word when a unity is the idea
Heis is most often the word when a numerical One is the idea.
Mia? I haven't really looked into it much.

Heis is used in the Shema. Hen is used in John 10:30

So heis is used in both cases in 1 Tim. 2:5?

[Costeon]

So heis is used in both cases in 1 Tim. 2:5?

Yes.

Please see post 3 in this thread.

[Scott Pitta]

Translators translate both hen and heis as "one". Are there examples of these theological ideas translated differently in English ??

I do not see a difference between eis and hen. They are different forms of the same word.

[Costeon]

I do not see a difference between eis and hen. They are different forms of the same word.

Yes, but the writers of the NT used hen in some circumstances and heis in others. The latter seems easy: heis is used with a singular masculine noun. The former is easy in some circumstance: with a singular neuter noun. The question is, Why did writers choose to use the neuter hen in some contexts involving a compound subject, as in John 10:30?

[Esaias]

Yes, but the writers of the NT used hen in some circumstances and heis in others. The latter seems easy: heis is used with a singular masculine noun. The former is easy in some circumstance: with a singular neuter noun. The question is, Why did writers choose to use the neuter hen in some contexts involving a compound subject, as in John 10:30?

Before theological reasons can be assigned to the different usages of "one" the grammar has to be worked out thoroughly. In other words, I'm pretty sure the reason for heis, mia, hen usages is grammatical and regulated by ordinary Greek language rules, and has little or nothing to do with metaphysics.

[Steven Avery]

I'm pretty sure the reason for heis, mia, hen usages is grammatical and regulated by ordinary Greek language rules, and has little or nothing to do with metaphysics.Probably true to a large degree.

If somebody truly fluent in Greek has commentary on the gender issue, it could be interesting. Most NT grammatical seminarians today are far from fluent, ergo irrelevant.

[Steven Avery]

John 10:30 (AV)
I and my Father are one.

1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.

John 17:11
And now I am no more in the world,
but these are in the world, and I come to thee.
Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 17:20-23
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

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

And I raised the question of how the early church writers look at the oneness of John 10:30.

The early writers will generally be more helpful than bumbling modern grammarians parsing away.

The references can be looked up:

Facebook - Patristics for Protestants
https://www.facebook.com/groups/884609654958164/permalink/2399714380114343/

Darren Talley
John 17:11, 20, and 22 might give you your answer. :-)

Origen -
"From all which I am of opinion, so far as I can see, that this order of the human race has been appointed in order that in the future world, or in ages to come, when there shall be the new heavens and new earth, spoken of by Isaiah, it may be restored to that unity promised by the Lord Jesus in His prayer to God the Father on behalf of His disciples: "I do not pray for these alone, but for all who shall believe on Me through their word: that they all. may be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us;" and again, when He says: "That they may be one, even as We are one; I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one."
(de Principiis, Book 1, ch 6)

Jacob O'Flanagan
Of the Trinitarian writings that I recall, especially the anti-Arian ones, they understand the oneness passages to be referring to the unity in Deity/ substance. Theologically, if they do not have unity of essence, then that brings out issues of either making God two (really it would end up being three) rather than one, or keeping God one and making the Son and the Holy Spirit less than "true God".

-Origen "Against Celsus" Bk. 8 Ch. 12
-Hippolytus "Against Noetus" (he claimed that the Son was the same person as the Father and uses 'power' instead of 'essense') Ch. 7
-Novatian "Treatise Concerning the Trinity" Ch. 13, 15, 27
-Gregory Thaumaturgis "Homily on the Baptism of Jesus" Conclusion
-Alexander of Alexandria "First Epistle on the Arian Heresy" Ch. 9
-Alexander of Alexandria "Second Epistle on the Arian Heresy" Ch. 3
-Dionysius of Rome "Against the Sabbelians" Ch. 3

The conversation is continuing, and I added a bit more on Cyprian and Didymus.

There are a couple of good spots to check, the ACCS book, also a place online.

John 1-10
edited by Joel C. Elowsky
Partial p. 359-360
https://books.google.com/books?id=rW1ldBkoDY4C&pg=PT397

We see Augustine x4 and Hippolytus, Cyprian, Tertullian, Cyril of Alexandria and Hilary are in the two visible pages.

Is there a paper that reviews the early church writers (ECW) on this fundamental and fascinating doctrinal question.

[Scott Pitta]

I just looked in my BAGD lexicon. Heis, hen and mia all have the same meaning.

Translators translate it "one".

Any examples from major translations where heis is translated as something else ??

[Costeon]

From Servetus's On the Errors of the Trinity regarding the meaning of one in John 10.30: "Yet I think that the words make simpler sense, for Christ is speaking, and he said, are; because, being God and man, he said, one in the neuter, as Tertullian says, and he did not say, one in the masculine. For the meaning of one in the masculine singular seems to be as if it denoted the singleness of one and the same being. But one in the neuter has not reference to singleness, but to oneness of mind, and harmony, so that the two might be credited with one power. And this is what the earlier writers rightly called ousia, because there is one authority given by the Father to the Son. . . . Greece never knew of hen being taken for one nature (I.33).

[rdp]

*I appreciate the content of this thread. Again, I sincerely hope this doesn’t appear self-promoting in any way, but I have written extensively on the Trinitarian’s view of John 10.30 regarding the neuter “hen.” Indeed, this particular adjective in both the neuter and masculine have been a major point of interest in my research in the LXX & NT.

*If interested, here are the articles wherein I take the time to delineate the differences between the masculine & neuter predicative adjective rendered “one:” https://apostolicacademics.com/?s=Neuter&submit=Search

*My experience has been that the masculine singular “heis” is an insurmountable tag for the Trinitarian position in Mark 12.29, et al.

*Good points by everyone in this thread IMO.

[rdp]

I just looked in my BAGD lexicon. Heis, hen and mia all have the same meaning.

Translators translate it "one".

Any examples from major translations where heis is translated as something else ??

*It is the difference in genders that constitute the distinction in meaning. And, yes, there are translations that adopt varying renderings of this particular adjective. For ex., the Amplified Bible translates Galatians 3.20 as “but God is only one person” based upon the masculine tag of the adjective. Cf., also the NEB in Galatians 3.28 wherein it also renders the masculine as “one person.” There are other examples as well from the LXX (e.g., Ezekiel 33.24, et al.).

[Scott Pitta]

Gal. 3:20 ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν. Frances Siewert added a little something extra that Paul did not write. We generally call that a paraphrase.

Gal. 3:28 ⸀πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Equally simple Greek sentence construction. "For you are all one in Christ Jesus". There are no linguistic markers to indicate "one" in this sentence must be translated differently that the normal use.

That is why out of the many well done translations in English, only a pair of examples can be found to prove your point.

If distinctions in genders demands specific translations, why are they not translated that way in the English translations ?? What scholarly reference is there that documents the importance in gender when translating heis ??

[rdp]

Gal. 3:20 ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν. Frances Siewert added a little something extra that Paul did not write. We generally call that a paraphrase.

Gal. 3:28 ⸀πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Equally simple Greek sentence construction. "For you are all one in Christ Jesus". There are no linguistic markers to indicate "one" in this sentence must be translated differently that the normal use.

That is why out of the many well done translations in English, only a pair of examples can be found to prove your point.

If distinctions in genders demands specific translations, why are they not translated that way in the English translations ?? What scholarly reference is there that documents the importance in gender when translating heis ??

*You can’t be serious. I thought you had at least Greek I under your belt? How many “scholarly references” would you like me to copy? Cf. Robertson, Wuest, Thayer, etc. ad nauseum.

*This is well attested in the link I provided above, as well as the debates I referenced earlier in this thread (not at my laptop right now). The masculine singular denotes one person and never communicates more than one person in the GNT (for about the 5th time now).

*Ohhhh, never mind...:banghead.

[Scott Pitta]

Wuerst is devotional and not academic. I have never seen his name or literature in the scholarly literature. Thayer is hopelessly outdated. Vincent fall into the same category. Outdated commentaries are equally unimpressive. These are names I have never seen in the scholarly literature typified at SBL and NTS.

I did read the article on the link. But I do not see any translation data, but lots of theology.

There was no data showing why heis should be translated in any other way than "one". Nor do the major translators show variation in how heis is translated.

Yes, 2 years of college level Koine Greek plus 30 years of translating are under my belt.

My focus is on translation, not theology.

For what it is worth, LXX Greek grammar is not exactly the same as Koine Greek grammar. I am not trained in LXX Greek.

[Scott Pitta]

Detailed citation from Robertsons grammar and from BAGD are what I am looking for. Is this topic covered in professional journals like SBL or NT or NTS ??

[Steven Avery]

For ex., the Amplified Bible translates Galatians 3.20 as “but God is only one person” based upon the masculine tag of the adjective. Cf., also the NEB in Galatians 3.28 wherein it also renders the masculine as “one person.” However, we do not want to use poor translations as doctrinal arguments.

In this case, Scott's points are generally accurate, putting aside his reliance on questionable modern and quasi-modern sources.

Roger, I have not looked through yet your back-and-forth with Dalcour.

The following from Scott was correct:

Gal. 3:20 ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν. Frances Siewert added a little something extra that Paul did not write. We generally call that a paraphrase.

Gal. 3:28 ⸀πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Equally simple Greek sentence construction. "For you are all one in Christ Jesus". There are no linguistic markers to indicate "one" in this sentence must be translated differently that the normal use.

[Scott Pitta]

If the grammatical rule is heis is to be translated a certain way depending on gender, which translation consistently translates it that way in every occurrence in the text ?

If there is a clear cut grammatical rule for gender in heis, it would be found in every Koine Greek grammar, including any Koine literature. But I cannot find such a rule in any Koine grammar.

I just reread the BAGD article for heis. I do not see anything about a gender rule translation. Is it there and I do not see it ??

Am I missing something ??

If heis should be translated differently depending on the gender, why is that rule ignored by nearly every English translation ??

[Scott Pitta]

Thanks, Steve.

Yes, I'm still working on the Harry Morse project. Early written material still continues to come in.

But Greek translation issues are still my first love :)

[Costeon]

If the grammatical rule is heis is to be translated a certain way depending on gender, which translation consistently translates it that way in every occurrence in the text ?

If there is a clear cut grammatical rule for gender in heis, it would be found in every Koine Greek grammar, including any Koine literature. But I cannot find such a rule in any Koine grammar.

I just reread the BAGD article for heis. I do not see anything about a gender rule translation. Is it there and I do not see it ??

Am I missing something ??

If heis should be translated differently depending on the gender, why is that rule ignored by nearly every English translation ??

I could have missed it, but I don't think anyone has said the issue is how to literally translate the word, but how to understand the translation. As you have noted, the literal translation should be "one." The question is what does "one" mean, just as in English "one" has more than one meaning. Are we of one mind on this point? :-)

I too made a first pass through BDAG (as best I could). It seems we need to focus on the sections of the article that involve one in reference to more than one person/thing, so sections 1.a and 1.b, especially the latter, which is where BDAG places John 10.30. So do you see any patterns regarding how the genders are used in these scenarios?

[Scott Pitta]

I cannot see any merit to the idea that gender inflection of heis has any theological value.

If it did, we would read the rule in the Koine grammar books.

Yes, one may assign theological variation to the word "one" but we cannot attribute said differences to the syntax in which heis is found.

[Costeon]

I cannot see any merit to the idea that gender inflection of heis has any theological value.

If it did, we would read the rule in the Koine grammar books.

Yes, one may assign theological variation to the word "one" but we cannot attribute said differences to the syntax in which heis is found.

So are you basically saying John's choice of using the neuter was haphazard--John just happened to put it in the neuter, but maybe if he had written the following day, he might have just put it in the masculine?

[Scott Pitta]

Syntax and sentence construction and style determine gender determination.

[Steven Avery]

Syntax and sentence construction and style determine gender determination. Behind syntax and sentence construction, there can be elements of interpretative nuance and style, handled cautiously.

The same interpretative dichotomy exists with the masculine one with the pure bible heavenly witnesses. The masculine there is impelled by the two masculine nouns (and one neuter.).

[Esaias]

Grammar is grammar and applies to the Bible and Pindar's poems and The Iliad.

Theology is derived from the text, not vice versa. At least, that's how *I* try to roll.

[Costeon]

Syntax and sentence construction and style determine gender determination.

Does "I and the Father are heis" mean the same thing as "I and the Father are hen"?

[Scott Pitta]

Well, they are not chickens :)

They are one. Even if "one" is spelled 3 different ways in Koine Greek.

Variation in spelling does not mean variation in meaning.

[Steven Avery]

If the grammar is sound, it is very questionable to mind-read the Gospel writer ... "he did this because he was thinking of a person, or thing, or whatever". Grammar rarely works on subtle mental machinations. And I think Scott and I fully agree on that aspect. Scott as a translator, me as a common sense type of guy.

And I really do not care what these "New Testament Greek" experts think about choosing neuter or masculine in cases where both may be acceptable grammatically. Prove it.

The ones I would want to hear from are fluent Greek speakers, who may also be familiar with classical and koine Greek.

Ironically, Steven Anderson did a fairly good job recently demonstrating the truth that the differences between modern Greek and koine Greek have been vastly overstated. He went to Cyprus and handed young Greek speakers the Greek New Testament (TR). They were very comfortable with the text, they were not struggling over subtleties.

Dump the New Testament Greek grammarians.

Laugh at the Granville Sharp Rule for Fools, the classic example of seminarian style incompetence, silly nonsense inspired by doctrinal bias. (Even if many oneness folks may be included among the blunderama crew.) Foolish Christians pushed that mostly because they were concerned about the attacks on "God was manifest in the flesh" and the heavenly witnesses. Thus, they hoped to change the pure Bible and come up with new "Jesus is God" verses in a type of tit-for-tat Bible verse exchange.

Nonsense. The Bible should inform our doctrine, we do not change the Bible to match our doctrine.

To be fair, occasionally a New Testament scholar will point out that the Grammatical Emperor has no wardrobe. Stanley Porter eviscerating the Daniel Wallace nonsense is a good example.

Notice all the dual addressing verses in the Bible. Virtually non-existent today, whatever the Christology.

Also very interesting is what happens when the 1881 Westcott-Hort recension text has bald, grating solecisms. 1 Timothy 3:16 and the earthly witnesses without the heavenly are two examples. The grammarians jump through hoops to try to justify the errant text. One of the funniest ones is claiming that 1 Timothy 3:16 is placing in the middle of a hymn. Often, critical text apologetics is simply a cheap con.

For commentaries, you generally will get a much higher quality analysis in the 1600s and 1700s. (John Owen, Matthew Henry, John Gill, et al.)

[Esaias]

Does "I and the Father are heis" mean the same thing as "I and the Father are hen"?

Wouldn't one be grammatically correct and the other be incorrect? Like saying "I and the Father are one" vs "I and the Father is one"?

[rdp]

Wuerst is devotional and not academic. I have never seen his name or literature in the scholarly literature. Thayer is hopelessly outdated. Vincent fall into the same category. Outdated commentaries are equally unimpressive. These are names I have never seen in the scholarly literature typified at SBL and NTS.

I did read the article on the link. But I do not see any translation data, but lots of theology.

There was no data showing why heis should be translated in any other way than "one". Nor do the major translators show variation in how heis is translated.

Yes, 2 years of college level Koine Greek plus 30 years of translating are under my belt.

My focus is on translation, not theology.

For what it is worth, LXX Greek grammar is not exactly the same as Koine Greek grammar. I am not trained in LXX Greek.

*Apparently your “two years of Greek” is quite outdated. It’s simply first year Greek to learn that masculine denotes personhood when applied to a personal being. Thayer is very outdated & I virtually never appeal to him, however, many of his grammatical points remain unchallenged by the papyri findings of Grenfell & Hunt (Oxyrhincus, Egypt, ca. 1890’s). Robertson (cf. his Word Pictures at John 10.30), Wallace, etc. ad nauseum all afford that the masculine singular denotes a single person...and yet they were/are Trinitarians due their theological commitments.

*Still not at my laptop, but all anyone has to do is conduct a study of how the neuter singular “hen” is used versus how the masculine singular “heis” is used. In fact, I specifically referenced Romans 12.5 earlier - where Paul uses the neuter “hen” when referencing “many,” but then, in the very next clause, switches to the masculine “heis” when describing one individual. And, I could literally sit here until midnight marshaling quote after quote after quote that speaks to this end. Honestly, this is simply elementary Greek.

*If you supposedly major is “translation” then you, of all people, should know that if every mood, tense, voice, adjective, gender, syntactical nuance, etc. were elongated out into translation, you wouldn’t merely have one book to carry around...you’d have volumes of books. This is why it’s incumbent upon the minister to take the time to learn the original languages of the Bible. Sounds like you need to go back to the drawing board after what I have seen you post on this forum. You just have taken Greek a very long time ago is all I can figure.

*Carry on.

[rdp]

However, we do not want to use poor translations as doctrinal arguments.

In this case, Scott's points are generally accurate, putting aside his reliance on questionable modern and quasi-modern sources.

Roger, I have not looked through yet your back-and-forth with Dalcour.

The following from Scott was correct:

*K Steve—if you say so :thumbsup.

[rdp]

I could have missed it, but I don't think anyone has said the issue is how to literally translate the word, but how to understand the translation. As you have noted, the literal translation should be "one." The question is what does "one" mean, just as in English "one" has more than one meaning. Are we of one mind on this point? :-)

I too made a first pass through BDAG (as best I could). It seems we need to focus on the sections of the article that involve one in reference to more than one person/thing, so sections 1.a and 1.b, especially the latter, which is where BDAG places John 10.30. So do you see any patterns regarding how the genders are used in these scenarios?

*Exactly. Though I hate to agree w. you on something (;)), these are exactly the points I have been trying to make (though not so well from my iPad).

*If gender was a moot issue as it seems Scott is saying, then the Trinitarian apologists would not be making a major issue over it at John 10.30.

[rdp]

Does "I and the Father are heis" mean the same thing as "I and the Father are hen"?

*Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner :)!

*Exactly the point that needs to be pondered.

*I simply cannot believe that folks claiming to have an emphasis in Greek grammar & translation are *seriously* arguing that there’s no difference between the masculine and neuter. This would be howled out of a classroom in serious academia. I’m tempted to think Scott is just chain-yanking...but I don’t think he is.

*AFF strikes once again.

[Esaias]

*Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner :)!

*Exactly the point that needs to be pondered.

*I simply cannot believe that folks claiming to have an emphasis in Greek grammar & translation are *seriously* arguing that there’s no difference between the masculine and neuter. This would be howled out of a classroom in serious academia. I’m tempted to think Scott is just chain-yanking...but I don’t think he is.

*AFF strikes once again.

Is gender of the adjective controlled by the gender of noun it modifies? Or by something else? Same as with pronoun?

In the I and my Father are one statement, is one an adjective, pronoun/noun, or something else? (In Greek, I mean.)

If "Lydia is one ____", does one take the gender of Lydia? Or of the _____? Or would it be masculine, to denote personhood?

Just trying help the non Greek students here ask a few of the right basic questions.

[diakonos]

Good questions

[rdp]

Is gender of the adjective controlled by the gender of noun it modifies? Or by something else? Same as with pronoun?

In the I and my Father are one statement, is one an adjective, pronoun/noun, or something else? (In Greek, I mean.)

If "Lydia is one ____", does one take the gender of Lydia? Or of the _____? Or would it be masculine, to denote personhood?

Just trying help the non Greek students here ask a few of the right basic questions.

*In John 10.30 “one” (neut. hen) is a pronominal adjective functioning predicatively of a compound subject—“I and the Father.” Robertson, Wallace, etc. affirm that if one person were being described by Christ the masculine singular “heis” would have been employed. This is where it’s lights out for Trinitarianism inasmuch as Jesus *DID* employ the masculine singular “heis” is explicating “the most important commandment” in Mark 12.29. Indeed, as pointed out numerous times in this thread (and in the links provided), the masculine singular heis is employed ca. 100x’s in the GNT—and in no instance does it describe more than one person (neither contextually nor grammatically).

*Generally the adjective matches in case, gender and number to the head noun it modifies. As all things Greek (& Hebrew), there are exceptions to this general rule governed by varying contexts, genres (e.g., poetic, hymns), etc.

*Perhaps this interlinear breakdown of Romans 12.5 will better illustrate what I’m attempting to convey: https://biblehub.com/text/romans/12-5.htm

*Note the switch from the neuter “hen” (when describing “many”) to the masculine “heis” when describing an “individual.”

*Regardless, the neuter does not pose a problem for Oneness advocates in John 10.30 (contrary to the claims of Trinitarian academics) as noted in the articles linked earlier. Good questions Bro. God bless.

[Michael The Disciple]

*In John 10.30 “one” (neut. hen) is a pronominal adjective functioning predicatively of a compound subject—“I and the Father.” Robertson, Wallace, etc. affirm that if one person were being described by Christ the masculine singular “heis” would have been employed.

*Note the switch from the neuter “hen” (when describing “many”) to the masculine “heis” when describing an “individual.”

*Regardless, the neuter does not pose a problem for Oneness advocates in John 10.30 (contrary to the claims of Trinitarian academics) as noted in the articles linked earlier. Good questions Bro. God bless.

Im far from Greek and dont remember much English at 66. How can we say that "hen" poses no problem for Oneness in John 10:30 if it agrees with "many" rather than an individual?

I understand John 10:30 in reference to John 10:24.

Then came the Jews round about him and said unto him, how long doest thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ tell us plainly.

If indeed the Jews then were using the Hebrew text of Isaiah 9:6 the text would define Christ as the Son who would be called "Everlasting Father".

A few verses later Jesus says "I and my Father are one".

So Jesus who was the Son saying "I and my Father are one" was now telling them PLAINLY he was the Christ. If he were NOT the Everlasting Father he would not have been Christ period.

So whoever the Christ was as the Son he would have to ALSO be the Father.

"I and my Father are one".

It seems the Pharisees understood the meaning and instead of accepting the answer tried to kill him because he a man was making himself God.

Now IF this understanding of John 10-24 through verse 30 is correct wouldnt "I and my Father are one" mean I and my Father are (the same) one?

I do greatly appreciate the comments on Mark 12:29. Indeed that is the most important consideration.

[Steven Avery]

... all anyone has to do is conduct a study of how the neuter singular “hen” is used versus how the masculine singular “heis” is used. In fact, I specifically referenced Romans 12.5 earlier - where Paul uses the neuter “hen” when referencing “many,” but then, in the very next clause, switches to the masculine “heis” when describing one individual. Romans 12:5-6
So we, being many, are one body in Christ,
and every one members one of another.

In Romans 12:5 It looks to me that "one body" is neuter gender for a simple reason, the Greek noun for body is neuter.

12:5 οὕτως οἱ πολλοὶ ἓν σῶμά ἐσμεν ἐν Χριστῷ ὁ δὲ καθ εἷς ἀλλήλων μέλη

The masculine πολλοί looks to be connected with the "members one of another". Often it helps to simply understand English parsing, and use the Authorized Version, which is very faithful in bringing the Greek to English. (In general, the AV is the pure Bible to use.)

I'm happy to be corrected, however this looks exactly like Scott says, the grammar is impelled simply by the construction. And NT Greek piddle scholars, who are not fluent and not capable even of conversing in Greek, read into the text all sorts of faux doctrinal meanings.

This one example should be enough to discard 100 such formulations, whether Trinitarian, Oneness or other.

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

Roger's explanation is here:
https://apostolicacademics.com/2017/02/28/against-dalcour-ii/

*Note that when discussing “many” Paul uses the neuter singular hen (the initial “one” above). Conversely, when explicating “individuals” Paul switches to the masculine singular heis (the final “one” in the last clause). To reiterate, the neuter singular hen is used when referring to separate human beings (apparently this is the same way Trinitarians view the Godhead!), while the masculine singular heis demands one-single-person. This well displays the differences in the two adjectives as it relates to grammatical gender.

And I think you are in way over your head.

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

Granted, you were responding to similar NETBible nonsense:

*See here also the NET translator notes: The phrase ἕν ἐσμεν ({en esmen) is a significant assertion with trinitarian implications. ἕν is neuter, not masculine, so the assertion is not that Jesus and the Father are one person, but one “thing.”

Oy-vey iz mir.

Junque everywhere. I would not be surprised if Edward Dalcour has his own doctrinal absurdities here. To be fair, though, let's see if I can find his section.

Ok, here is Roger quoting Dalcour:
https://apostolicacademics.com/2017/07/19/exegetical-surrejoinder-%CF%80%CF%81%E1%BD%B8%CF%82-edward-dalcour-iii/
Dalcour's page
https://christiandefense.org/oneness/the-footloose-theology-a-refutation-of-oneness-unitarian-roger-perkins-on-john-1030/

(Dalcour): The masculine eiJV is similar to the English “one.” Here we have again, Perkins assume unitarianism into the term. “One” what? Yes, most of the time, “one person,”—when man is in view. However, not “every time” as Perkins would like it to mean. The fact is, if there is even one place where eiJV is used to signify more than one person, Perkins entire premise implodes. This is true with the multitude of plural verbs, nouns, adjectives, and prepositions applied to the “one” God, which is a thorn in the flesh to Oneness advocates—showing again that Oneness unitarianism is not consistent with biblical view of God. For example, note Gal. 3:28:

This looks also to be gibberish.

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

[rdp]

Romans 12:5-6
So we, being many, are one body in Christ,
and every one members one of another.


In Romans 12:5 It looks to me that "one body" is neuter gender because the noun body is neuter.

12:5 οὕτως οἱ πολλοὶ ἓν σῶμά ἐσμεν ἐν Χριστῷ ὁ δὲ καθ᾽ εἷς ἀλλήλων μέλη

The masculine πολλοί looks to be connected with the "members one of another". Often it helps to simply understand English parsing, and use the Authorized Version, which is very faithful in bringing the Greek to English. (In general, the AV is the pure Bible to use.)

I'm happy to be corrected, however this looks exactly like Scott says, the grammar is impelled simply by the construction, and NT Greek piddle scholars read into the text all sorts of faux doctrinal meanings.

This one example should be enough to discard 100 such formulations, whether Trinitarian, Oneness or other.

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

Roger's explanation is here:
https://apostolicacademics.com/2017/02/28/against-dalcour-ii/

*Note that when discussing “many” Paul uses the neuter singular hen (the initial “one” above). Conversely, when explicating “individuals” Paul switches to the masculine singular heis (the final “one” in the last clause). To reiterate, the neuter singular hen is used when referring to separate human beings (apparently this is the same way Trinitarians view the Godhead!), while the masculine singular heis demands one-single-person. This well displays the differences in the two adjectives as it relates to grammatical gender.

And I think you are in way over your head.

Granted, you were responding to similar NETBible nonsense:

*See here also the NET translator notes: The phrase ἕν ἐσμεν ({en esmen) is a significant assertion with trinitarian implications. ἕν is neuter, not masculine, so the assertion is not that Jesus and the Father are one person, but one “thing.”

Oy-vey iz mir.

Junque everywhere. (I did not look for a Dalcour quote, the NETBible stuff and Roger's es suficiente.) I would not be surprised if Edward Dalcour has his own doctrinal absurdities here. To be fair, though, let's see if I can find his section.

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

*K Steven—If you say so. Honestly, I don’t even take you seriously w. all of your outlandish claims about supposed “NT Greek piddle scholars,” “corrupt versions,” “pure Bible (KJV) translation,” “fraudulent Sinaiticus,” etc. You’re simply not to be taken seriously. Incidentally, you wouldn’t happen to also be one of those who were going to storm Area 51 to see them-thar’ aliens were ye :heeheehee?

*You—nor Scott apparently—have the slightest clue what you’re talking about regarding the masc. vss. neuter tags.

*My articles and debates referenced earlier cover these details at length—replete w. lexical quotes for those (rare few) who are sincerely searching.

*Oh, BTW, I recently saw where you stated that you suggested to me to cross examine White regarding his “3 separate centers of consciousness” and that I apparently took your advice. Say what? I had been making that point in public polemics long before our brief phone conversation. You had nothing whatsoever to do w. that point.

*Had enough AFF fun for a while—gotta’ prep for Sunday’s lesson from the ESV :happydance.

[rdp]

*Here’s one of approx. 15 grammars I could marshal that speak to the usage w. numerous examples of how this masculine sing. adjective is used. All I did was quickly open my Logos software, go to Mark 12.29, and Viola!, about 12 or so grammars popped up. Perhaps next week I can put them all together into one file and post them here. If y’all will take the time to review the examples as listed in this quote below you’ll quickly see that the masculine singular is the normative tag employed by the NT writers when describing a sole person.


(A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Volume 3: Syntax):

εἷς:

Another post-class. substitute for τις is the numeral εἷς, as also in the Ptol. papyri, in the sense of aliquis or quidam, with analogies in modern languages (one, ein, un). In Luke it does not seem to be a Semitism; he always follows εἷς with a gen. (e.g. 15:15 ἑνὶ τῶν πολιτῶν; same phrase in Hyperides Lycophr. 13 (iv/b.c.), which makes it conform closely to Greek usage: pap. Mayser II 2, 86 ἀποστείλας τῶν οἰκοδόμων ἕνα. In Mk also in three places (5:22 14:10. 66) we have gen.; whereas in Mt 9:18 26:69 there is no gen. after εἷς or μία. Mt (e.g. εἷς γραμματεύς 8:19) thus comes closer to Semitic than do Mk or Lk, and is probably influenced by Heb. אֶחַד or Aram. חַד. In 21:19 he has συκῆν μίαν, where Mk 11:13 has no μίαν (except SKM for harm.). Mt 18:24 19:16 Mk 10:17 have εἷς for τις, where Lk has τις. Εἷς is more likely to reflect Semitic influence on the rare occasions when it is in post-position Mt 9:18 ἄρχων εἷς SbB lat syrpe. h1 (S*c C* DWΘ fam1 700 copt om εἷς), Jn 6:9 παιδάριον ἕν ΑΓ, LXX Da 7:8 ἄλλο ἓν κέρας ἀνε̄φύη, 1 Esd 4:18 γυναῖκα μίαν, but even here we have papyrus precedent (PSI IV 571, 15 ἄλλον ἕνα a further one παρατρέφω, 252 b.c.). The use with τις is class.: Lk 22:50 εἷς τις, Mk 14:47 (SA om τις), Jn 11:49 (Schwyzer II 215 b. 1).

[Steven Avery]

*Oh, BTW, I recently saw where you stated that you suggested to me to cross examine White regarding his “3 separate centers of consciousness” and that I apparently took your advice. Say what? I had been making that point in public polemics long before our brief phone conversation. You had nothing whatsoever to do w. that point. :) We had an ongoing conversation back then, it was quite interesting and you definitely thanked me for giving your that plan of attack.

Your debate in Australia was October, 2011. We were talking a month or two or four ahead of the debate, you were a little nervous, or concerned, at the time about how it would go, and you specifically asked me for some assistance. (I'm not sure if our connection came out of Paltalk, or perhaps the Good News Cafe, or some other places.) To be fair, the only point that I remember really giving you was "three distinct eternal centers of consciousnesses". (I am not big on debates.) James White had never taken that position, it was from Hank Hanegraaff on the Bible Answer Man, although he may have omitted the implied "eternal". And I had raised the point in the Q&A in White's earlier debate with Robert Sabin, July 2008 in Patchogue, Long Island. And White really stumbled trying to find an answer. (Steve Ritchie had a debate in that area a few years later with a local pastor, which was a bit hum-drum.) You did, quite properly, make the eternal distinct consciousnesses point a major feature of your inquiry to James White, and I remember seeing it in your post-debate reviews. (Possibly you reviewed the Sabin debate, some copies of it have had the Q&A.)

So I challenge you to find anywhere before about June, 2011, where you had been making that point in public polemics. If you find it, I will happily acknowledge and apologize.

Otherwise, I will say your memory is conveniently sketchy.

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

Here was my comment on a blog post-debate, in the text Roger had written to James White:

John 1:1 According to the Oneness Position
Oct 26, 2011
http://manuelculwell.blogspot.com/2011/10/open-response-to-james-white-from-roger.html

Roger Perkins:

If you begin your usual postings on YouTube, I’ll simply clip you stating to the world that you worship a God who exists as “Three-Divine-Individuals, each with their own center of consciousness.”

... coming from someone who unashamedly told the world you have no problem acknowledging you worship a God who exists as “three-divine-individuals, each with their own separate center of consciousness.”

And I commented:

Thank you Manuel and Roger. I have not listened yet to the debate yet, look forward to doing so.

And I remain surprised that James White was willing to go out on the "three distinct eternal consciousnesses" type of limb .. especially since White studiously avoided this (tiptoes) in the Q & A of the Long Island debate some years back.

And I am hoping to get you the text of that debate, through Kenneth who has a tape somewhere. Maybe it is on the White site too, or elsewhere.

Textual issues with James White are a bit funny. e.g. James White defends the modern version corruption of 1 Timothy 3:16 (because it is in the modern versions contra the AV) yet says he prefers (evidentially, citing Burgon !) the pure reading "God was manifest in the flesh".

Consistency, the jewel.

There is lots of good material on the John 1:18 question from a poster from Athens on the b-greek forum, Scott Jones and the superb Michael Marlowe article.

And I am considering re-opening up the Pure Bible Forum to invite over cordial and respectful ongoing discussion in a web-forum environment. And of course you are welcome onto Messianic_Apologetic where we can discuss in a cordial, moderated but fair, environment.

In touch with Kenneth, on Facebook, he is not too far from me, I will ask him if he has that tape, or it might be online.

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

And I realize you may be a little upset because Scott and I, from two totally different, almost opposite, perspectives, can effectively tear your grammatical nonsense to shreds. And that has been a major part of your writings. Granted, Scott may attempt a more irenic approach to the issues.

Even the b-greek or CARM Greek forums could help you out, even with their own limitations. It seems like you limit your discussions very carefully.

In my post above, I would say the worst grammar position came from NETBible, because they give a pretense of being grammarians in league with Daniel Wallace.

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

No involvement with Area 51 activism.

On the other hand, I do tend to think the moon landing was CGI-(Kubrick-possibly)-NASA recorded. For locales, there are a few spots that have been discussed, including an area in Iceland. Although a studio in Area 51 is definitely possible.

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

Here was an earlier rodeo with Roger in April, 2018

AFF
The End of the book of Mark?
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=52169

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

Steven

[Steven Avery]

*Here’s one of approx. 15 grammars I could marshal that speak to the usage w. numerous examples of how this masculine sing. adjective is used. The masculine singular will be used when the number one is in a phrase where the grammar is masculine, based on the connected nouns and verbs (substantives and participles.)

This is the foundational aspect, that is much simpler than the various arcane theorizing.

Any adjective can be given a list of usages.

======

There may be some phrases where the grammar is ambiguous, allowing either neuter or masculine. Those would be rare, and I would ask a fluent Greek speaker to comment, not piddle Greek New Testament 'scholars' who can not carry on a Greek conversation. And I usually work with native Greeks on these types of questions, often with a Bible background.

=====

There are cases where an antecedent of a relative pronoun is ambiguous (e.g. 1 John 5:20) and this can lead to interesting alternate grammatical-interpretative theories.

=====

As I pointed out, even if the 'one' is clearly masculine, you can have the alternate theories of essence or unity of consent, in English or Greek. Here is a beautiful verse example:

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

========

*You—nor Scott apparently—have the slightest clue what you’re talking about regarding the masc. vss. neuter tags. Often I tussle with Scott, however in this conversation he is light-years ahead of your stuff and quite helpful.

========

btw, after discussing "three eternal consciousnesses" with Roger, I was aware that he was stuck with a corruption version perspective. Pick and choose. That means that most of the salient Bible verses, like John 1:18 and 1 Timothy 3:16 and Acts 20:28 and the heavenly witnesses and Philippians 2:6-7 and Acts 8:37 are loosey-goosey. Various competing texts, followed by competing translations.

Without a pure Bible as the plumb-line of faith, doctrinal discussions generally go nowhere.

=========

Steven

[Evang.Benincasa]

Im far from Greek and dont remember much English at 66. How can we say that "hen" poses no problem for Oneness in John 10:30 if it agrees with "many" rather than an individual?

I understand John 10:30 in reference to John 10:24.

Then came the Jews round about him and said unto him, how long doest thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ tell us plainly.

If indeed the Jews then were using the Hebrew text of Isaiah 9:6 the text would define Christ as the Son who would be called "Everlasting Father".

A few verses later Jesus says "I and my Father are one".

So Jesus who was the Son saying "I and my Father are one" was now telling them PLAINLY he was the Christ. If he were NOT the Everlasting Father he would not have been Christ period.

So whoever the Christ was as the Son he would have to ALSO be the Father.

"I and my Father are one".

It seems the Pharisees understood the meaning and instead of accepting the answer tried to kill him because he a man was making himself God.

Now IF this understanding of John 10-24 through verse 30 is correct wouldnt "I and my Father are one" mean I and my Father are (the same) one?

I do greatly appreciate the comments on Mark 12:29. Indeed that is the most important consideration.

I and the Father are one in the same.

The Judeans understood what Jesus’ usage of one meant.

John 10:33

[Scott Pitta]

I will review the data again on my next day off. I will see how eis is translated into English. Perhaps author literary style comes into play. Not sure. But I will find out and post it here.

Apparently everyone reads better Greek than I do. That is fantastic. How does everyone translate eis into English ???

[diakonos]

Because of :couch

[Scott Pitta]

Steve Avery and I do not always agree, but I have profound respect for him and I am careful to consider his views.

[Steven Avery]

All I did was quickly open my Logos software, go to Mark 12.29, and Viola!, about 12 or so grammars popped up. There is no gender issue in Mark 12:29. One is masculine, heis, simply because it is modifying the masculine kyrios, Lord.

Mark 12:29 (AV)
And Jesus answered him,
The first of all the commandments is,
Hear, O Israel;
The Lord our God is one Lord:

Any additional theorizing about why the masculine heis is used is worthless. Any theorizing that a neuter one carries a meaning of a different type of one is a joke.

By context, you can interpret the full meaning. You can speculate that one of anything can have component parts (one chair with four legs) if you like.

One Lord can have seven spirits, 100 titles, 3 or 5 persons, or 12 drummers a-drumming.

[rdp]

So I challenge you to find anywhere before about June, 2011, where you had been making that point in public polemics. If you find it, I will happily acknowledge and apologize.

Otherwise, I will say your memory is conveniently sketchy.

And I realize you may be a little upset because Scott and I, from two totally different, almost opposite, perspectives, can effectively tear your grammatical nonsense to shreds.

*LOL—Steven, you’re a hoot and a legend in your own mind. All anyone has to do is reference my debates w. Matt Slick & Bruce Reeves (which are readily available online for all the world to see) to see that it is you who has the sketchy memory. For the 2nd time now, I have been making that point before I ever heard of you...but keep whistling Dixie in the graveyard to keep your courage up.

*Ummm, would love to see where you & Scott have “torn my arguments to shreds”:___________? Mere denial does not equal evidence...and never will no matter how many times you stomp your foot and demand it so. You have not once interacted w. the quotes, replete w. examples from the GNT, clearly demonstrating that the masculine singular adjective when functioning predicatively and/or pronominally (as in Gal. 3.20, Mark 12.29, etc., etc.) denotes one-single-person.

*But, tell you what, since I’m a fair man I’ll give ya’ a few more (since you apparently don’t possess the exegetical skills to understand the quotes above). Ready?

(Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology; Dr. Heiser):

Singular: Refers to one person or thing. In grammar, the feature of a word that informs whether one (singular) or more (plural) persons or things are referred to or performing an action.

Spiros Zodhiates, Heb. & Gk. study Bible, pg. 1686, #1520, Heis; ‘1st card. Numeral—Numerically 1—1 person’

Thayer’s—pg. 186—‘a cardinal num., one, singular, alone’
Translates Masc. Sing. heis--Gal. 3:28---‘one Person’ [so does—NEB].

Robertson—WP; vol. 5, pp. 186, 278--heis, masc. sing.--‘1 Pers.’/BAGD

Further illust. heis—LXX transl. Heb. echad—Ezek. 33:24—heis TANAKH/RSV/NLT/TAB/NIV—‘Abraham was only one man’

Kenneth Wuest’s Word Studies—Gk. NT, vol. 1, pp. 106-107: ”Heis is masculine…and therefore refers to a person…God is one individual.”

(Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testam) εἷς, μία, ἕν gen. ἑνός, μιᾶς, ἑνός one; a, an, single; only one; εἷς τις = τις a certain one, someone, one; εἷς τὸν ἕνα one another #1Th 5:11; καθʼ ἕνα one by one #1Co 14:31.

(CWSB Dictionary) 1520. εἷς heís; fem. mía, neut. hén; gen. masc. henós, fem. miás (G3391), neut. henós. One, the first cardinal numeral.
(I) Without the subst. (Luke 18:19, "No one is good except one, God" [a.t.]; 1 Cor. 9:24; Gal. 3:20). In Matt. 25:15, "to one he gave five talents, to the one two, to the other one [omitting the subst. talent repeated]" (a.t.). With a subst. (Matt. 5:41, "one mile" [a.t.]; 6:27, "one cubit"; Mark 10:8, the two into one flesh; John 11:50; Acts 17:26; 1 Cor. 10:8. With a neg., equivalent to not one, none (Matt. 5:18, "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass"; Rom. 3:12, "not so much as one" [a.t.], not even one, quoted from Ps. 14:3; 53:4; Sept.: Judg. 4:16 [cf. Ex. 9:7]). The expression oudé (G3761), nor, followed by heís in the masc. or in the neut. oudé hén, not one, not even one, more emphatic than oudeís (G3762), not even one. See Matt. 27:14; John 1:3; Acts 4:32; Rom. 3:10; 1 Cor. 6:5. With the art. ho heís, masc., and tó hén, neut., the one (Matt. 25:18, 24; 1 Cor. 10:17). In Matt. 5:19, "one of these least commandments"; Mark 6:15, "one of the prophets"; Luke 5:3; John 12:2. Also with ek (G1537), of, followed by the gen. (Matt. 18:12, "one of them"; Mark 9:17; Acts 11:28; Rev. 5:5).

(II) Used distributively:
(A) Heís / heís, one / one, i.e., one / the other (Matt. 20:21; 24:41; 27:38; John 20:12), fem. mía / mía. Also with the art. ho heís / ho heís, the one / the other (Matt. 24:40). In 1 Thess. 5:11, heís tón héna, one another. In 1 Cor. 4:6, heís hupér (G5228), above, toú henós, the one above the other. In Matt. 17:4, mían / mían / mían, one tent for each of the three, Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. See Mark 4:8; Luke 9:33; Sept.: Lev. 12:8; 1 Sam. 10:3; 13:17, 18; 2 Chr. 3:17. With the art. ho heís / ho héteros, the one / the other (Matt. 6:24; Luke 7:41; Acts 23:6). In Rev. 17:10, ho heís / ho állos (G0243), other, the one / the other.
(B) Heís hékastos (G1538), each one, every one (Acts 2:6; 20:31; Col. 4:6). Followed by the gen. partitively (Luke 4:40; Acts 2:3; Eph. 4:7). In Rev. 21:21, aná (G0303), on, upon, heís hékastos means each one of the gates. See aná (303, II).

(III) Emphatic, one, i.e.:
(A) Even one, one single, only one (Matt. 5:36; 21:24; Mark 8:14; 10:21; 12:6; John 7:21; 1 Cor. 10:17; 2 Pet. 3:8). The expression apó (G0575), from, miás in Luke 14:18 means with one accord or voice. In the sense of only, alone (Mark 2:7; James 4:12). In John 20:7, "in only one place" (a.t.).
(B) One and the same (Rom. 3:30; 1 Cor. 3:8; Gal. 3:28; Phil. 2:2; Heb. 2:11; Rev. 17:13; Sept.: Gen. 41:25, 26). Fully written, hén kaí tó autó (1 Cor. 11:5; 12:11).

(IV) Indefinitely meaning one, someone, someone, the same as tis (G5100), someone (Matt. 19:16). With the subst. (Matt. 8:19, "a . . . scribe"; Mark 12:42, "a . . . widow"; John 6:9; Rom. 9:10). Followed by the gen. partitive, one of many (Luke 5:3; 20:1; Sept.: Gen. 22:2; 27:45; 42:16). Heís tis, a certain one (Mark 14:51, "a certain young man," followed by the gen. [see Mark 14:47]). Followed by ek (G1537), of, from (Luke 22:50; John 11:49). In this use, heís sometimes has the force of our indef. art. "a" or "an" as in Matt. 21:19, "a fig tree"; James 4:13, "a year"; Rev. 8:13; 9:13; Sept.: Ezra 4:8; Dan. 2:31; 8:3.

(V) As an ordinal, the first, mostly spoken of the first day of the week as in Matt. 28:1 where the noun hēméra (G2250), day, is understood. See Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2. In the Sept. used for the first of the month (Gen. 1:5; 8:13; Ex. 40:2, 17). In Rev. 9:12, the "one" means the first.
Deriv.: héndeka (G1733), eleven; henótēs (G1775), oneness, unity.
Concordance

(Exegetical Dictionary of the GNT): Εἷς appears a total of 337 times in the NT, and does not have special frequency in any particular text.

2. A relatively great significance is given in the NT and later Christian literature to the numeral εἷς for two reasons:

a) In koine Greek the use of εἷς is extended so that it increasingly takes the place, e.g., of the indefinite pron. τίς ("anyone, someone"). Also significant is the influence of Semitic usage (see BDF §247; BAGD s.v. 3, 4).

b) Theologically significant for ancient religion, philosophy, and politics is the influence of the distinction between the one and the many. Early Christianity shares fully in the common ancient preference of oneness and the negative evaluation of multiplicity in its various manifestations.

3. This theological manner of thinking is reflected especially in NT formulaic language.

a) Early Christianity consciously adopts from Judaism (Deut 6:4; cf. TDOT I, 193-201; Billerbeck II, 28-30) the monotheistic formula εἷς ὁ θεός, "God is one." This formula is also widely distributed in Hellenistic literature (see Lit.). According to Mark 12:29, 32 Jesus explicitly approves the Jewish monotheistic formula (cf., however, the parallels Matt 22:37; Luke 10:26). In Jewish Christianity also the formula is cited (Jas 2:19; Pseudo-Clementine Epistle of Peter 2:1 [= ch. 1]; Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 13:15). Among the Evangelists (Mark 2:7; 10:18 par.; 12:29, 32; Matt 23:9; John 8:41), in Paul's letters (Rom 3:30; 1 Cor 8:4, 6; 1 Thess 1:9; 1 Cor 12:2; Gal 4:8), and in the deutero-Pauline letters (Eph 4:6; 1 Tim 2:5) the formula is likewise recognized. The characteristic Christian development is also apparent in these texts in the expansion of the formula and the incorporation of christology and soteriology.
b) The expansion of the formula includes esp. incorporation of christology. "One Lord Jesus Christ" is placed alongside "one God" (1 Cor 8:6 and the v.l.; 1 Tim 2:5; Matt 23:8-10). The monotheistic formula is treated variously so that the unique place of Jesus Christ analogous to the uniqueness of God can be affirmed (Jas 4:12; Matt 23:8-10).

Reference can be made to the unique sacrifice of Christ (2 Cor 5:14; John 11:50; 1 Tim 2:5f.; Heb 2:11; 10:12, 14; cf. Mark 12:6) in order to give the basis for the exalted place of Christ. Furthermore, the Adam-Christ typology can be included (Rom 5:12-19; 1 Tim 2:5; cf. Acts 17:26, 31). With the aid of the monotheistic formula the Gospel of John develops the idea of the unity of God and Christ (John 10:30; 17:11, 21, 22, 23).

c) Soteriology follows as a consequence of christology (1 Cor 8:6). Thus the redemption itself in its varied form is understood as originating in unity. In Paul's theology the redeemed are incorporated into the "one body of Christ" (ἕν σῶμα), the Church (Rom 12:4f.; 1 Cor 6:16f.; 10:17; 12:12, 13, 14; Gal 3:16, 28). The deutero-Pauline letters develop this teaching about the Church, giving new expansions to the formula (Col 3:14f.; Eph 2:14-22; 4:3-6). The "one Spirit" corresponds to the "one body" (Eph 4:3f.; cf. 2:18; 1 Cor 6:17; 12:9, 11; Phil 1:27). Special formulas like "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph 4:4) and already in Paul "one bread, one body" (1 Cor 10:17) indicate the functions of such formulas: they tell how the unity of the Church originated and is to be preserved in the midst of struggle with heresy and division. This tendency is already present in Paul: one God (Gal 3:20), one Christ (v. 16), one apostle (1:1; cf. 1 Tim 2:5-7), one gospel (Gal 1:6f.), one Church (3:26-28; 5:6; 6:15), and one fruit of the Spirit (5:22f.).

(BDAG): εἷς, μία, ἕν, gen. ἑνός, μιᾶς, ἑνός a numerical term, ‘one’ (Hom.+)
1 a single person or thing, with focus on quantitative aspect, one.

(LXX Lexicon) Gn 1,5.9; 2,11.21.24 one 2 Chr 9,13; first Gn 1,5; one, the same Gn 1,9; one, a, an (used as indefinite art.) Gn 21,15 εἷς ἓκαστος each one 4 Mc 4,26; οὐ μιἀν οὐδὲ δυὀ not once nor twice 2 Kgs 6,10; εἷς … εἷς … the one … the other … Neh 4,11; τῆς μιᾶς σαββάτων of the first day of the week Ps 23 (24),1, see also σαββάτ

(NIDNTTE) εἷς G1651 (heis), one; ἑνότης G1942 (henotēs), unity (Note here the lexicographers’ distinction between “Heis” equaling simply “one” in contrast to “Hen(ontes) equaling “unity”....which is exactly what I’ve been telling y’all all along.)

(NIDNTTE): NT1 Usage: The numeral εἷς occurs often in the NT in its simple quantitative sense of a single person or thing, as distinct from none, some, and many, as well as other numbers (e.g., Matt 5:41 [opp. δύο G1545, “two”]; John 9:25 [ἓν οἶδα, “one thing I know”]). Sometimes it occurs in emphatic contexts with the connotation “even one” or “not even one” (e.g., Matt 5:18; Jas 2:10). When the term is used in opp. (explicitly or implicitly) to “more than one,” the sense extends naturally to “only one” and thus becomes a partial synonym of μόνος G3668, “alone” (cf. Mark 2:7 with its par. Luke 5:21).

**This should suffice for now. My apologies for the sloppy-abbreviated wording. This is simply copied from some of my notes (have a lot more on this adjective) to jog my memory. Kinda’ like short-hand.

*Finally, in the debate w. White, he made the comment that I often make reference to the three-minded “God” of Trinitarianism in my debates. Guess what that means? Exactly what I’ve already told you...I have been making that point since my first debate back in 2008 w. Matt Slick of CARM. YOU’RE the one w. the “sketchy memory.”

[rdp]

There is no gender issue in Mark 12:29. One is masculine, heis, simply because it is modifying the masculine kyrios, Lord.

Mark 12:29 (AV)
And Jesus answered him,
The first of all the commandments is,
Hear, O Israel;
The Lord our God is one Lord:

Any additional theorizing about why the masculine heis is used is worthless. Any theorizing that a neuter one carries a meaning of a different type of one is a joke.

By context, you can interpret the full meaning. You can speculate that one of anything can have component parts (one chair with four legs) if you like.

One Lord can have seven spirits, 100 titles, 3 or 5 persons, or 12 drummers a-drumming.

*LOL—K Steven, if you say so. Ummm, the “context” & grammar is precisely why the adjective demands “one person.” In fact, White, Dalcour, etc. all have pointed out that the masculine singular “is a valid argument based upon the gender” (White’s words). Wallace, Wuest, Robertson, Thayer, etc. ad nauseum (professional linguists who have actually worked w. ancient MSS) all affirm that the masculine denotes presonhod.

*This thread is a classic example of why I don’t waste a whole lot of time on here. It’s like trying to explain to a child why he cannot have candy right before dinner. No matter how much evidence is presented you’ll always dig in your heels, plug your ears, and stubbornly plod along (just as you do w. your absurd “KJVO” :heeheehee).

[rdp]

*Steven—let me be clear here: I like your points relative to, for example, the reading “God was manifest in the flesh” in I Tim. 3.16. I also think you (& Michael Marlowe) make some good arguments for “only-begotten Son” in John 1.18. At the time we talked on the phone approx. 8.5 years ago now, I was just beginning to dabble in text-criticism and original language research. At that time I felt you maybe could aid in my understanding of the MS traditions. I recall generally liking your demeanor on the phone.

*However, I’m not even the same person I was back then relative to original language research and text-criticism. Still a very long way to go for sure, but I have also come a very long way in the past 8 years in these particular disciplines. Currently wrapping up Hebrew 1, taking Greek 2, taken a course in textual criticism, etc., etc. Not a Greek scholar for sure, but have learned a lot in recent years.

*I write this just to let you know that there are areas that I think you contribute much to textual discussion. We simply (strongly) disagree on text criticism matters. Church tomorrow, then spending time w. wife for Labor Day so may be several days before I can respond. God bless.

[rdp]

*Perhaps this YouTube clip from my friend Jason Weatherly will better illumine what I’ve been saying. Bro. Weatherly and I have both independently and in conjunction w. one another conducted a lot of research into the force of this masculine singular adjective as used in Mark 12.29, Galatians 3.20, etc. See his excellent presentation below.

*Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9KNkPjSZwo

[rdp]

*In light of our discussion concerning grammatical & natural gender, I keep thinking about this paper by Dr. Daniel Wallace regarding the grammatical problems concerning the supposed “distinct personality” of the Holy Spirit:

https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2003a_05_Wallace_HolySpirit.pdf


*Prepare to be stunned at the concessions Wallace makes. I am currently marking and making notations on his paper. I recently sent this paper to Bro. Bernard and he was absolutely stunned at what he read (so also Bro. Ensey, et al.).

*Here’s just a snippet of Wallace’s remarks (there’s many like this in his paper):

(Wallace): Further, when we look at Acts we notice that water baptism is ap- parently never done in the "name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"; it is done in Jesus' name alone (cf. Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16). What is to account for this? Either the Trinitarian formula in the Great Commission (Matt 28:19) was a later accretion added either by the evangelist or, possibly, by some ancient scribe;89 or, more likely, there was a lack of understanding on the part of the apostles when Jesus gave the commission. That baptism was apparently not done in the Father's name either suggests that the apostolic band was wholly con- sumed with Christ or that the Trinitarian formula made little sense to them. In other words, their initial understanding of the relation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may well have been rather fuzzy.

(Wallace): In sum, I have sought to demonstrate in this paper that the gram- matical basis for the Holy Spirit's personality is lacking in the NT, yet this is frequently, if not usually, the first line of defense of that doctrine by many evangelical writers. But if grammar cannot legitimately be used to support the Spirit's personality, then perhaps we need to reexamine the rest of our basis for this theological commitment. I am not denying the doctrine of the Trinity, of course, but I am arguing that we need to ground our beliefs on a more solid foundation.


**Wallace’s last footnote in this paper reads:

In general, I would agree with Alister McGrath (Christian Theology: An Introduc- tion [2d ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1997], 294) on how to construct the Trinitarian doctrine: "The doctrine of the Trinity can be regarded as the outcome of a process of sustained and critical reflection on the pattern of divine activity revealed in Scripture, and continued in Christian experience. This is not to say that Scripture contains a doctrine of the Trinity; rather, Scripture bears witness to a God who demands to be understood in a Trinitarian manner." If this is so, then we must engage in careful thinking about what the apostles consciously embraced about God, as well as what they were groping to understand and express.

**Simply unbelievable. If the Apostles that Jesus hand-selected to “make disciples of all nations” were “fuzzy” about God’s very identity in connection w. Matthew 28.19—then how on earth can we trust ANYTHING they wrote in the NT??

[rdp]

*Dr. A.T. Robertson in John 10.30:

One (en). Neuter, not masculine (ei). Not one person (cf. ei in Galatians 3:28 ), but one essence or nature. By the plural sumu (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by unum Arius. So Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. The Pharisees had accused Jesus of making himself equal with God as his own special Father ( John 5:18 ). Jesus then admitted and proved this claim ( John 5:19-30 ). Now he states it tersely in this great saying repeated later ( John 17:11, 21 John 21 ). Note en used in 1 Corinthians 3:3 of the oneness in work of the planter and the waterer and in Jo 17:11 Jo 17:23 of the hoped for unity of Christ's disciples. This crisp statement is the climax of Christ's claims concerning the relation between the Father and himself (the Son). They stir the Pharisees to uncontrollable anger.

**This and many other similar examples and quotations are in the articles I linked earlier. Robertson’s point (many other exegetes make this point as well...to their own demise) is that if the masculine singular would have been used then “one person” would be in view. Then kiss Trinitarianism goodbye inasmuch as Jesus *DID* use the masculine singular pronominal/predicative adjective when expounding upon “the most important (biblical) commandment!” As already mentioned several times, the masculine singular “heis” is used approximately 100 times in the GNT—and never does it contextually nor grammatically describe more than “one person”....and, again, this does not even take into consideration the LXX usages (but, cf., e.g., Ezekiel 33.24).

*Okay, really gotta’ run this time ;). God bless to all.

[Steven Avery]

All anyone has to do is reference my debates w. Matt Slick & Bruce Reeves (which are readily available online for all the world to see)
I did find the debate with Matt Slick on water baptism on sale for $20.
http://mattslick.com/2008/11/22/is-baptism-necessary-salvation/

Here is the Matt Slick Trinity debate, $20:
https://biz238.com/product/the-oneness-of-god-vs-the-trintiy-debate-roger-perkins-vs-matt-slick-dvd/

Lacking any url or mp3 file available, simply quote yourself from your copy, with the minute mark.

Wait, here is the 2011 Reeves debate, online, your part is many hours.
https://www.w65stchurchofchrist.com/debate-page/reeves--perkins-debate/

Do you have any time markers where you talk about three distinct eternal consciousnesses?

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

One addition from the current search.

I remember the smile we had when you managed to get this unusual debate affirmation topic for James White.

"Proposed: Did the Son, as a self-conscious divine Person distinct from the Father and Holy Spirit, exist prior to His incarnation as Jesus of Nazareth?"
https://appliedapologetics.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/the-trinity-debate-james-white-v-roger-perkins/

This topic, following my lead, was very helpful to you, since it put the burden of proof on James White in a way that is rare for Trinity-Oneness debates. Not just three persons, but each one self-conscious and close to the eternity aspect.

By contrast, the earlier 2011 Bruce Reeves affirmation was far more simple:
“The scriptures teach that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead, i.e., the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” - Affirm: Bruce Reeves - Deny: Roger Perkins

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

Steven

[Steven Avery]

*Perhaps this YouTube clip from my friend Jason Weatherly will better illumine what I’ve been saying. Bro. Weatherly and I have both independently and in conjunction w. one another conducted a lot of research into the force of this masculine singular adjective as used in Mark 12.29, Galatians 3.20, etc.
Earlier I explained above why Mark 12:29 is the masculine one.

There is no gender issue in Mark 12:29. One is masculine, heis, simply because it is modifying the masculine kyrios, Lord....

Galatians 3:20 is the same ultra-simple grammar.

Galatians 3:20
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
ὁ δὲ μεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν

Mediator and God are masculine, so quite obviously the two 'ones' will be masculine.

It is simply embarrassing if a oneness proponent tries to read anything more into the masculine one. You simply have the number one, used in a phrase with masculine grammer.

[Steven Avery]

*In light of our discussion concerning grammatical & natural gender, I keep thinking about this paper by Dr. Daniel Wallace regarding the grammatical problems concerning the supposed “distinct personality” of the Holy Spirit: It looks like you are quoting John Milton from CARM here, without attribution. I would be ultra-cautious in using any of his material.

The paper from Daniel Wallace has good points, and inconsistencies. It is worth some study (I think I have some material on purebibleforum) although the stronger paper is by Andy Naselli and Phil Gons.

“Prooftexting the Personality of the Holy Spirit: An Analysis of the Masculine Demonstrative Pronouns in John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:13–14."
http://andynaselli.com/wp-content/uploads/2011_prooftexting.pdf

They also have some good blog posts.

[Steven Avery]

*Dr. A.T. Robertson in John 10.30:

One (en). Neuter, not masculine (ei). Not one person (cf. ei in Galatians 3:28 ), but one essence or nature. By the plural sumu (separate persons) Sabellius is refuted, by unum Arius. So Bengel rightly argues, though Jesus is not referring, of course, to either Sabellius or Arius. ....
You may not be aware that sumus (not sumu) and unum are from the Latin text.

Here is a good spot for this section, search Sabellius and it will take you right to John 10:30

Word Pictures in the New Testament
http://grace-ebooks.com/library/A.%20T.%20Robertson/Word%20Pictures%20In%20The%20New%20Testament/Word%20Pictures%20In%20The%20New%20Testament%20Vol %205%20John%20and%20Hebrews.pdf

**This and many other similar examples and quotations are in the articles I linked earlier. Robertson’s point (many other exegetes make this point as well...to their own demise) is that if the masculine singular would have been used then “one person” would be in view. Then kiss Trinitarianism goodbye inasmuch as Jesus *DID* use the masculine singular pronominal/predicative adjective when expounding upon “the most important (biblical) commandment!” As already mentioned several times, the masculine singular “heis” is used approximately 100 times in the GNT—and never does it contextually nor grammatically describe more than “one person”....and, again, this does not even take into consideration the LXX usages (but, cf., e.g., Ezekiel 33.24). This is all "error begets error".

See, e.g. the next post.

The grammarians are often a mess, and you are then not properly representing their mess.

You do not seem to understand the very basic issue, masculine substantives and participles will impel masculine adjectives and pronouns within their connected phrases. Whether the noun is a person, a thing, a divine being, an animal or a whatever.

[Steven Avery]

..... Ummm, the “context” & grammar is precisely why the adjective demands “one person.” In fact, White, Dalcour, etc. all have pointed out that the masculine singular “is a valid argument based upon the gender” (White’s words). Wallace, Wuest, Robertson, Thayer, etc. ad nauseum (professional linguists who have actually worked w. ancient MSS) all affirm that the masculine denotes presonhod. In the verses I have looked at here, Mark 12:29 and Galatians 3:20, there is absolutely NOTHING that demands "one person".

The word is one, the masculine is simply because of the grammar. "Person" is simply eisegesis, adding a word into the text that is simply not there. Sometimes the masculine noun involved is a person, sometimes it is not, and the adjective one is simply matching the masculine grammar.

White's words are worthless without the specific context. As for the other four gentlemen, again the specific quotes that you claim apply are needed, with context.

Basically, without the quotes in context, what you say above is gibberish.

[Scott Pitta]

Lots of data.

Yes, "one" in Greek is heis. It is spelled 3 different ways.

3 spellings but no subtle changes to how it is translated. No matter how you spell it, heis is one.

That is the answer to the original post.

[rdp]

Earlier I explained above why Mark 12:29 is the masculine one.



Galatians 3:20 is the same ultra-simple grammar.

Galatians 3:20
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
ὁ δὲ μεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν

Mediator and God are masculine, so quite obviously the two 'ones' will be masculine.

It is simply embarrassing if a oneness proponent tries to read anything more into the masculine one. You simply have the number one, used in a phrase with masculine grammer.

*Contra your claim above, what is embarrassing is when Oneness people like yourself claim that the masculine singular does NOT denote “one person.” I seriously hope you don’t proffer that kind of outright false info. under the banner of Oneness.


It looks like you are quoting John Milton from CARM here, without attribution. I would be ultra-cautious in using any of his material.

The paper from Daniel Wallace has good points, and inconsistencies. It is worth some study (I think I have some material on purebibleforum) although the stronger paper is by Andy Naselli and Phil Gons.

“Prooftexting the Personality of the Holy Spirit: An Analysis of the Masculine Demonstrative Pronouns in John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:13–14."
http://andynaselli.com/wp-content/uploads/2011_prooftexting.pdf

They also have some good blog posts.

*Wrong once again Steven. I have had this paper by Wallace for quite some time and only just tonight stumbled upon Milton’s thread on CARM. Milton doesn’t have a single thing to do w. my reference and quotations from Wallace’s paper (I have no idea who he is anyway). So, you’re once again wrong. Appreciate the character assassination attempt though:thumbsup.

[rdp]

You may not be aware that sumus (not sumu) and unum are from the Latin text.

Here is a good spot for this section, search Sabellius and it will take you right to John 10:30

Word Pictures in the New Testament
http://grace-ebooks.com/library/A.%20T.%20Robertson/Word%20Pictures%20In%20The%20New%20Testament/Word%20Pictures%20In%20The%20New%20Testament%20Vol %205%20John%20and%20Hebrews.pdf

This is all "error begets error".

See, e.g. the next post.

The grammarians are often a mess, and you are then not properly representing their mess.

You do not seem to understand the very basic issue, masculine substantives and participles will impel masculine adjectives and pronouns within their connected phrases. Whether the noun is a person, a thing, a divine being, an animal or a whatever.

*LOL—K Steven, if you say so. You are the one who has no clue what you’re talking about regarding the genders, as quotation after quotation after quotation above validates. BTW, since you make these erroneous types of claims alllll the time, if I were a betting man I would venture to say that you’ve never taken formal university-level Greek...right or wrong:_________? Virtually anytime someone makes the types of stubborn and erroneous claim you do they are “self taught”....meaning they have absolutely no clue what they’re talking about.

*As one scholar who read your terribly misinformed info. on here once told me, “He is simply not to be taken seriously.” I couldn’t agree more.

[rdp]

In the verses I have looked at here, Mark 12:29 and Galatians 3:20, there is absolutely NOTHING that demands "one person".

The word is one, the masculine is simply because of the grammar. "Person" is simply eisegesis, adding a word into the text that is simply not there. Sometimes the masculine noun involved is a person, sometimes it is not, and the adjective one is simply matching the masculine grammar.

White's words are worthless without the specific context. As for the other four gentlemen, again the specific quotes that you claim apply are needed, with context.

Basically, without the quotes in context, what you say above is gibberish.

*Said the man who claims that Codex Sinaiticus is a “forgery.” ROTFLMHO! You’re a lot of fun Steven.

*The quotes are well sufficient for the serious student of Scripture. And, there is much more on my blog and in the many debates online.

*Got to get some sleep before church tomorrow. Been fun as usual w. you Steven:heeheehee!

[Steven Avery]

*Wrong once again Steven. I have had this paper by Wallace for quite some time and only just tonight stumbled upon Milton’s thread on CARM. Milton doesn’t have a single thing to do w. my reference and quotations from Wallace’s paper (I have no idea who he is anyway). So, you’re once again wrong. You quoted Milton in your post, without attribution, or url.

I simply pointed this out, and also gave a warning that you should be cautious with his stuff.

If his words are irrelevant to you, then don’t quote him to the forum.

As for the Wallace paper, it has some good points, and some errors.

[Steven Avery]

*Said the man who claims that Codex Sinaiticus is a “forgery.” To be clear, i never call Sinaiticus a forgery.

The ms. was clearly created c. 1840. Simonides claimed it was meant as a replica edition for the czar, with a dedication on the front. Clearly, by the Uspensky examination in 1845 there was no such dedication.

======

There is a very interesting textual project available for anyone strong in reading Greek and able to understand a bit of scribal-textual stuff. This involves the 1821 Zosimas Moscow Bible, which Simonides clearly said was a source for Codex Simoneides/Sinaiticus. So far, the Simonides claim looks correct.

[rdp]

You quoted Milton in your post, without attribution, or url.

I simply pointed this out, and also gave a warning that you should be cautious with his stuff.

If his words are irrelevant to you, then don’t quote him to the forum.

As for the Wallace paper, it has some good points, and some errors.

*Steven—Let’s try this once a again for you: I did not “quote” Milton. Everything I posted was directly from Wallace’s paper itself. For the second time now, I have absolutely zero idea who “Milton” is and only saw his thread on CARM A-F-T-E-R I copied the link to Wallace’s PDF. In fact, Bro. Ensey just sent out his monthly blog and referenced Wallace’s quote that I sent to him and Bro. Bernard about a month ago.

*Did you understand me that time:heeheehee?

[rdp]

To be clear, i never call Sinaiticus a forgery.

The ms. was clearly created c. 1840. Simonides claimed it was meant as a replica edition for the czar, with a dedication on the front. Clearly, by the Uspensky examination in 1845 there was no such dedication.

======

There is a very interesting textual project available for anyone strong in reading Greek and able to understand a bit of scribal-textual stuff. This involves the 1821 Zosimas Moscow Bible, which Simonides clearly said was a source for Codex Simoneides/Sinaiticus. So far, the Simonides claim looks correct.

*I rest my case :thumbsup. I do hope you were also just picking when you made the claims about NASA supposedly staging false space programs. However, that does seem soooo Avery-esque If you were being serious.

*Tell you what, I have wasted wayyyy too much time on here once again. So, I’ll just let you have the last word again inasmuch as I have been dealing w. you for several years on & off, and you’re ALWAYS the same. You make mistake after mistake after mistake regarding text criticisms, Greek grammar, Exegesis, etc....then flatly and stubbornly reuse to amend your errors when well shown otherwise.

*Oh, BTW, you had absolutely not one single thing to do w. my thesis statement w. White. I’ve already explained our contact above. Indeed, you had absolutely no effect whatsoever in my debate w. White. So, you can continue to make these false claims if you wish, but they’re just that—false claims. I don’t think you do it intentionally, but you very clearly don’t remember the details like you think you do.

*So, go ahead and save face again by feigning your high ground of victory. I could care less. Hope this thread has helped MTD some. Blessings.

[Steven Avery]

*Steven—Let’s try this once a again for you: I did not “quote” Milton. Everything I posted was directly from Wallace’s paper itself. For the second time now, I have absolutely zero idea who “Milton” is and only saw his thread on CARM A-F-T-E-R I copied the link to Wallace’s PDF. I This is not from Wallace's paper.

*In light of our discussion concerning grammatical & natural gender, I keep thinking about this paper by Dr. Daniel Wallace regarding the grammatical problems concerning the supposed “distinct personality” of the Holy Spirit: Whose discussion about grammatical and natural gender? |

Who keeps thinking about the paper?

That is how John Milton writes, and he is very weak on grammatical and natural gender, while using the terms frequently.

If someone else writes the same way, then you should identify where this quote comes from. A search shows zero hits for "natural gender" and "Roger Perkins", so I really doubt that is you.

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

I am also curious who is the author of the last paragraph about "fuzzy".

**Simply unbelievable. If the Apostles that Jesus hand-selected to “make disciples of all nations” were “fuzzy” about God’s very identity in connection w. Matthew 28.19—then how on earth can we trust ANYTHING they wrote in the NT?? Is this you? Where is it first written?

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

[Steven Avery]

*Perhaps this YouTube clip from my friend Jason Weatherly will better illumine what I’ve been saying. Bro. Weatherly and I have both independently and in conjunction w. one another conducted a lot of research into the force of this masculine singular adjective as used in Mark 12.29, Galatians 3.20, etc. See his excellent presentation below.

*Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9KNkPjSZwo
This is scholastically junk right at the beginning.

Look at the main quote he uses at the one minute mark.

"Thayer, a cardinal numeral, one" where it takes the place of a predicate heis refers to ONE PERSON

Where is this Thayer quote where he uses the phrase "refers to one person"? Jason is trying to pull words out of here:
https://biblehub.com/greek/1520.htm

... and where it takes the place of a predicate, Galatians 3:20 (cf. Winer's Grammar, 593 (551)), Galatians 3:28 (ye that adhere to Christ make one person, just as the Lord himself); συνάγειν εἰς ἐν, to gather together into one, John 11:52; ποιεῖν τά ἀμφότερα ἐν, Ephesians 2:14; with the article, ὁ εἰς, the one, whom I have named, Romans 5:15, 19.

After that, it is hard to justify spending more time on the video.

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

Galatians 3:20
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one,
but God is one.

At the 3:10-3:50 mark he uses the Amplified Bible to try to say that Galatians 3:20 should be translated as "yet God is [only] one person." - A total disaster.

Here is the decrepit Amplified translation online:

Galatians 3:20 Amplified Bible (AMP)
20 Now the mediator or go-between [in a transaction] is not [needed] for just one party; whereas God is only one [and was the only One giving the promise to Abraham, but the Law was a contract between two, God and Israel; its validity depended on both].
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+3%3A20&version=AMP Their earlier edition had the gibberish stuff that is definitely NOT a real translation, it is like a wandering interpretative black hole, an eisegetical commentary-paraphrase.

Now a go-between (intermediary) has to do with and implies more than one party [there can be no mediator with just one person]. Yet God is [only] one Person [and He was the sole party in giving that promise to Abraham. But the Law was a contract between two, God and Israel; its validity was dependent on both].

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

To be fair, some of the later stuff is reasonable. like quoting Karl Rahner (1904-1984) and Karl Barth (1886-1968) and Millard Erickson (b. 1932).

Here is Rahner warning of "three distinct consciousnesses".

The Trinity - Karl Rahner (2001 edition)
https://books.google.com/books?id=HjXG4FEr_J0C&pg=PA43

There is also a oneness style quote from W. A. Criswell (1909-2002).

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

Steven

[Steven Avery]

I do hope you were also just picking when you made the claims about NASA supposedly staging false space programs. Yes, I doubt that there was real technology in the 1960s to pull off a flight to the moon, along with that funny landing module. The anomalies are rather huge. This is virtually a mainstream position today, among those who have looked at the various sides. It was funny when the MSM panicked when a couple of basketball players, including Steph Curry, expressed their doubts.

I'm also very concerned about the maiming of a generation of children through the Pharma-$$$-Vax-Pushers, which has been discussed on this forum. That has much greater consequences.

And I also see the JFK assassination as a coup.
And why did Building 7 collapse in a virtual free-fall, since it was not 'hit' by anything.

Today, if you are not a "conspiracy theorist" you have a mental acuity deficiency.

This is what mind control looks like
https://www.facebook.com/steven.avery.7568/posts/2552720941430755

If all this made me more sensitive to the Sinaiticus chicanery of Tischendorf, that is fine by me. However, that is all based on powerful physical evidences, and the historical imperative.

*Oh, BTW, you had absolutely not one single thing to do w. my thesis statement w. White. Your memory is sketchy, as I pointed out before. For me, it is super-clear. I appreciated how you took the suggestion to emphasize "three distinct eternal conciousnesses."

And I really did not expect James White to be willing to go that route, after his halting response in the Robert Sabin debate Q&A. Most Trinitarian apologists will look for a softer position to defend.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

*Steven—let me be clear here: I like your points relative to, for example, the reading “God was manifest in the flesh” in I Tim. 3.16. I also think you (& Michael Marlowe) make some good arguments for “only-begotten Son” in John 1.18. At the time we talked on the phone approx. 8.5 years ago now, I was just beginning to dabble in text-criticism and original language research. At that time I felt you maybe could aid in my understanding of the MS traditions. I recall generally liking your demeanor on the phone.

...

*I write this just to let you know that there are areas that I think you contribute much to textual discussion.
Thanks.

[Costeon]

Well, they are not chickens :)

They are one. Even if "one" is spelled 3 different ways in Koine Greek.

Variation in spelling does not mean variation in meaning.

I don't think you have accounted for why John consciously used the neuter instead of the masculine. As you are well aware, the gender of heis, mia, hen in a particular text is governed by the gender of the word it modifies. If the word is feminine (natural gender or grammatical gender) then mia will be used, etc.

In the example of 10.30, we may have a unique example where there is a compound subject with the predicate "one." In many of the examples that have appeared in this thread, it is easy to account for the gender of one because it is obviously modifying a single word with an obvious gender. In 10.30, there are two subjects involved, and both are masculine. Following the other examples in this thread, we would expect heis to be used since it is referring to masculine subjects, but heis is not used. John chose to use the neuter. Why? Did he make and error and use the incorrect gender, or did he purposefully use the neuter?

Again, the translation is "one" regardless of the gender of the word, but since John apparently does not follow the usual rules, which seem to call for the masculine heis, the question, then, is about what the translation means.

So, in this verse, what does "one" mean? In what sense are Jesus and the Father one?

[Costeon]

I found another example of a compound subject with one as the predicate: "Now he who plants and he who waters are one . . ." (1 Cor 3.8).

The compound subject consists of two masculine participles, and they are said to be hen. I would have expected it to be "heis," because, again, masculine subjects would normally be modified by the masculine form of one, heis. So is there significance to one being in the neuter?

Here, "one" seems to mean that they are one in purpose or are working together toward the same goal.

BDAG says to compare this usage with John 10.30 and John 17.11, 21-23.

[Steven Avery]

Good questions, Costeon.

There is an interesting paper on John 10:30 grammar in the early church writers. However, it tends to focus on the discussions which were in Latin, and it is written up by a scholar with a specific non-oneness point-of-view.

The Interpretation of John 10:30 in the Third Century: Anti-Monarchian Polemics and the Rise of Grammatical Reading Techniques (2012)
Mark DelCogliano
https://www.academia.edu/1859907/The_Interpretation_of_John_10_30_in_the_Third_Cent ury_Anti-Monarchian_Polemics_and_the_Rise_of_Grammatical_Re ading_Techniques

Costeon, you have properly focused the issue on John 10:30 and related verses. I have some inquiries into truly fluent Greek speakers, who are also Bible believers.

One thing that comes up in various verses. Neuter grammar is a type of general catchall, and can easily apply to conceptual antecedents and compound subjects. It means a lot more as a solecism when a masculine is used with neuter nouns (the corruption version of the earthly witnesses alone) while the inverse can be far less compelling grammatically. This was beautifully written up by Eugenius Bulgaris of Cherson (1718-1806) when he showed the solecism in the Greek manuscripts that were missing the heavenly witnesses.

That said, the John 10:30 case deserves a fair and true examination. Is the neuter really significant in interpretation and commentary? (Allowing that it should not change the translation one iota.)

[Evang.Benincasa]

Good questions, Costeon.

There is an interesting paper on John 10:30 grammar in the early church writers. However, it tends to focus on the discussions which were in Latin, and it is written up by a scholar with a specific non-oneness point-of-view.

The Interpretation of John 10:30 in the Third Century: Anti-Monarchian Polemics and the Rise of Grammatical Reading Techniques (2012)
Mark DelCogliano
https://www.academia.edu/1859907/The_Interpretation_of_John_10_30_in_the_Third_Cent ury_Anti-Monarchian_Polemics_and_the_Rise_of_Grammatical_Re ading_Techniques

Costeon, you have properly focused the issue on John 10:30 and related verses. I have some inquiries into truly fluent Greek speakers, who are also Bible believers.

One thing that comes up in various verses. Neuter grammar is a type of general catchall, and can easily apply to conceptual antecedents and compound subjects. It means a lot more as a solecism when a masculine is used with neuter nouns (the corruption version of the earthly witnesses alone) while the inverse can be far less compelling grammatically.

That said, the John 10:30 case deserves a fair and true examination. Is the neuter really significant in interpretation?

The context of the subject which starts from John 10:28-29 then ends up in John 10:33. Jesus says that His hand is the Father's hand, then follows by stating that He and the Father are one. The Judeans hearing His whole speech deduce that He is saying that He is indeed God the Father. This can be clearly understood by everyone with a KJV, and Μηδέν Ελληνικός κατανόηση. :heeheehee

[Michael The Disciple]

I don't think you have accounted for why John consciously used the neuter instead of the masculine. As you are well aware, the gender of heis, mia, hen in a particular text is governed by the gender of the word it modifies. If the word is feminine (natural gender or grammatical gender) then mia will be used, etc.

In the example of 10.30, we may have a unique example where there is a compound subject with the predicate "one." In many of the examples that have appeared in this thread, it is easy to account for the gender of one because it is obviously modifying a single word with an obvious gender. In 10.30, there are two subjects involved, and both are masculine. Following the other examples in this thread, we would expect heis to be used since it is referring to masculine subjects, but heis is not used. John chose to use the neuter. Why? Did he make and error and use the incorrect gender, or did he purposefully use the neuter?

Again, the translation is "one" regardless of the gender of the word, but since John apparently does not follow the usual rules, which seem to call for the masculine heis, the question, then, is about what the translation means.

So, in this verse, what does "one" mean? In what sense are Jesus and the Father one?

Isaiah 9:6?

Unto us a child is born unto us a SON is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called Wonderful Counseler, The Mighty God, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, The Prince of peace.

The Son IS the EVERLASTING FATHER?

The one Christ is BOTH?

[Michael The Disciple]

The context of the subject which starts from John 10:28-29 then ends up in John 10:33. Jesus says that His hand is the Father's hand, then follows by stating that He and the Father are one. The Judeans hearing His whole speech deduce that He is saying that He is indeed God the Father. This can be clearly understood by everyone with a KJV, and Μηδέν Ελληνικός κατανόηση. :heeheehee

Agreed but I would start the context at verse 24.

If you are the Christ tell us plainly.

[Steven Avery]

And I think one of the problems is that Christians obsess over “person” and “persons” and bring that obsession to grammar analysis, spinning their wheels off the ground.

From that faux perspective John 10:30 can be seen at persons, simply because it shows with the neuter connection and relationship, (or unity of purpose) rather than absolute identity.

If you declare absolute identity as your cause, then explain the dozens of dual-addressing verses.

Studying the Granville Sharp Rule for Fools I learned about the persons obsession.

[rdp]

This is not from Wallace's paper.

Whose discussion about grammatical and natural gender? |

Who keeps thinking about the paper?

That is how John Milton writes, and he is very weak on grammatical and natural gender, while using the terms frequently.

If someone else writes the same way, then you should identify where this quote comes from. A search shows zero hits for "natural gender" and "Roger Perkins", so I really doubt that is you.

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

I am also curious who is the author of the last paragraph about "fuzzy".

Is this you? Where is it first written?

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

*Dude, you have SERIOUS issues. For the 3rd time now, I did not copy a single thing from Milton. Good grief, I don’t know a single thing about him other than that he posts on CARM sometimes I guess (?).

*The only one weak on genders are those who ignorantly deny the volumes of grammars plainly stating that when the masculine singular applies to a personal being “one person” is in view. Typical “KJVO”—all mixed up and thoroughly set.

*You’re an absolute waste of my time Avery. Run along now okay :thumbsup.

[rdp]

This is scholastically junk right at the beginning.

Look at the main quote he uses at the one minute mark.



Where is this Thayer quote where he uses the phrase "refers to one person"? Jason is trying to pull words out of here:
https://biblehub.com/greek/1520.htm



After that, it is hard to justify spending more time on the video.

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

Galatians 3:20
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one,
but God is one.

At the 3:10-3:50 mark he uses the Amplified Bible to try to say that Galatians 3:20 should be translated as "yet God is [only] one person." - A total disaster.

Here is the decrepit Amplified translation online:

Their earlier edition had the gibberish stuff that is definitely NOT a real translation, it is like a wandering interpretative black hole, an eisegetical commentary-paraphrase.



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

To be fair, some of the later stuff is reasonable. like quoting Karl Rahner (1904-1984) and Karl Barth (1886-1968) and Millard Erickson (b. 1932).

Here is Rahner warning of "three distinct consciousnesses".

The Trinity - Karl Rahner (2001 edition)
https://books.google.com/books?id=HjXG4FEr_J0C&pg=PA43

There is also a oneness style quote from W. A. Criswell (1909-2002).

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

Steven

Yes, I doubt that there was real technology in the 1960s to pull off a flight to the moon, along with that funny landing module. The anomalies are rather huge. This is virtually a mainstream position today, among those who have looked at the various sides. It was funny when the MSM panicked when a couple of basketball players, including Steph Curry, expressed their doubts.

I'm also very concerned about the maiming of a generation of children through the Pharma-$$$-Vax-Pushers, which has been discussed on this forum. That has much greater consequences.

And I also see the JFK assassination as a coup.
And why did Building 7 collapse in a virtual free-fall, since it was not 'hit' by anything.

Today, if you are not a "conspiracy theorist" you have a mental acuity deficiency.

This is what mind control looks like
https://www.facebook.com/steven.avery.7568/posts/2552720941430755

If all this made me more sensitive to the Sinaiticus chicanery of Tischendorf, that is fine by me. However, that is all based on powerful physical evidences, and the historical imperative.

Your memory is sketchy, as I pointed out before. For me, it is super-clear. I appreciated how you took the suggestion to emphasize "three distinct eternal conciousnesses."

And I really did not expect James White to be willing to go that route, after his halting response in the Robert Sabin debate Q&A. Most Trinitarian apologists will look for a softer position to defend.

Steven

*LOLOL! You’re an absolute hoot Avery! You genuinely could not be more off-base if you tried. I did not “take your suggestion” about anything in that debate. I called you regarding I Timothy 3.16 & John 1.18....period. But I have already told you this several times now. I seriously doubt you can be genuine in all of these outlandish assertions. No wonder you’re a KJVO....you’re all the same. Believe what you will—I’ll stick w. the facts:thumbsup.

[rdp]

The context of the subject which starts from John 10:28-29 then ends up in John 10:33. Jesus says that His hand is the Father's hand, then follows by stating that He and the Father are one. The Judeans hearing His whole speech deduce that He is saying that He is indeed God the Father. This can be clearly understood by everyone with a KJV, and Μηδέν Ελληνικός κατανόηση. :heeheehee

:yourock :thumbsup

[Scott Pitta]

Michael the Disciple should change his name to Michael the Patient.

In the Greek, one means one. The Greek is the same as English. That is why they translated it that way.

Whatever John meant will not be determined by referring to the Greek.

[Costeon]

Michael the Disciple should change his name to Michael the Patient.

In the Greek, one means one. The Greek is the same as English. That is why they translated it that way.

Whatever John meant will not be determined by referring to the Greek.

So are you ultimately saying you don't know what Jesus meant when he said he and his Father are one? That's of course fine; there's a lot I am not sure about, but if you do think you understand it, could you just state how referring to something besides the Greek reveals the meaning of it?

[Scott Pitta]

My focus on this question is on the translation of heis.

The theology I leave to others.

[Costeon]

The context of the subject which starts from John 10:28-29 then ends up in John 10:33. Jesus says that His hand is the Father's hand, then follows by stating that He and the Father are one. The Judeans hearing His whole speech deduce that He is saying that He is indeed God the Father. This can be clearly understood by everyone with a KJV, and Μηδέν Ελληνικός κατανόηση. :heeheehee

Agreed but I would start the context at verse 24.

If you are the Christ tell us plainly.

The context is the entire shepherd discourse. Leading up to the verse in question, v. 30, Jesus had persistently distinguished himself from the Father:
He speaks of the Father knowing him and of him knowing the Father (v. 15).
The Father loves him because he lays down his life for the sheep (v. 17).
The Father has given him the authority to lay down his life and take it up again (v. 18).

Not surprisingly there “was a division again among the Jews because of these sayings” (v. 19).

Later at the Feast of Dedication, “the Jews” surround him again demanding to know if he is the Messiah. Jesus told them he had already told them—through the works he did “in my Father’s name” (v. 25).

Nevertheless, Jesus said they didn’t believe any way because they were not “of my sheep” (v. 26).

In contrast to these non-sheep, Jesus’s sheep hear his voice and follow him (v. 27) and he gives them eternal life and none can snatch them out of his hand” (v. 28). Why can none snatch them out of his hand? Because “my Father” gave “them to me” and “He is greater than all” and none can “snatch them out of my Father’s hand (v. 29).

He is revealing that they were unified in the work of salvation, not that they were identified, as if he was saying, “Ignore how I’ve described my Father and I interacting and loving and knowing each other and him giving me authority—I’m actually the Father.”

After v. 30, he continues right along in distinguishing himself from the Father.
“Many good works I have shown you from My Father (v. 32).

The Father had “sanctified and sent [me] into the world” (v. 36).

The conclusion of it all is he claims to be the Son of God (v. 36), not simply “the Father.” The Father is in him, and he is in the Father (v. 38), to be sure, but that does not mean a simple identity. The most basic confession about Jesus is that he is the Son of God, the one God indwelling and revealing himself through this man.

They do not try to stone him because they thought he was claiming that he was the Father. They wanted to stone him because he was making all these extravagant claims about his relationship with his Father and the authority the Father had given him. By calling himself the Son of God he was saying he had an equality with the Father—which itself was blasphemous to the Jews. This same kind of situation had already happened back in ch. 5, when he was making similar claims about why he was working on the sabbath (he was just doing what he saw his Father doing, 5.19). They wanted to kill him because not only was he breaking the sabbath, but he “also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God” (v 18).

In the same passage in ch. 5, just note how he fundamentally distinguishes himself from the Father: “the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. 22 For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son,23 that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.”

Why should they honor him? Because he was simply the Father? No, because he was the Son.

It seems impossible that Jews would hear him say these kinds of things and similar things like in ch. 10 and then conclude, “Wait, he’s saying he is the Father!” They understood loud and clear that he was claiming that God was uniquely his Father and in that relationship he had an equality with the Father as the Son.

A major problem with Oneness Christologies is that proponents of them always downplay how Jesus describes his relationship with the Father and how he distinguishes himself from the Father and end up just conflating the Father and Son—they’re one person. Jesus is the Son of God, a man in whom the Father dwelled and united himself to in an indissoluble oneness. Jesus is not simply the Father.

[Costeon]

Good questions, Costeon.

There is an interesting paper on John 10:30 grammar in the early church writers. However, it tends to focus on the discussions which were in Latin, and it is written up by a scholar with a specific non-oneness point-of-view.

The Interpretation of John 10:30 in the Third Century: Anti-Monarchian Polemics and the Rise of Grammatical Reading Techniques (2012)
Mark DelCogliano
https://www.academia.edu/1859907/The_Interpretation_of_John_10_30_in_the_Third_Cent ury_Anti-Monarchian_Polemics_and_the_Rise_of_Grammatical_Re ading_Techniques

Costeon, you have properly focused the issue on John 10:30 and related verses. I have some inquiries into truly fluent Greek speakers, who are also Bible believers.

One thing that comes up in various verses. Neuter grammar is a type of general catchall, and can easily apply to conceptual antecedents and compound subjects. It means a lot more as a solecism when a masculine is used with neuter nouns (the corruption version of the earthly witnesses alone) while the inverse can be far less compelling grammatically. This was beautifully written up by Eugenius Bulgaris of Cherson (1718-1806) when he showed the solecism in the Greek manuscripts that were missing the heavenly witnesses.

That said, the John 10:30 case deserves a fair and true examination. Is the neuter really significant in interpretation and commentary? (Allowing that it should not change the translation one iota.)

Thanks for the article!

Maybe it's just a quirk of Greek grammar that when there is a compound subject with one in the predicate, the neuter is used regardless of the gender of the subjects. :-) I would be interested in learning what the fluent Greek speakers have to say about all this.

[Esaias]

*Dude, you have SERIOUS issues. For the 3rd time now, I did not copy a single thing from Milton. Good grief, I don’t know a single thing about him other than that he posts on CARM sometimes I guess (?).

*The only one weak on genders are those who ignorantly deny the volumes of grammars plainly stating that when the masculine singular applies to a personal being “one person” is in view. Typical “KJVO”—all mixed up and thoroughly set.

*You’re an absolute waste of my time Avery. Run along now okay :thumbsup.



Is there ever an instance in Greek where the neuter or feminine singular "one" applies to one person or instance?

As for "one" applying to a personal being indicating one person, how could it be otherwise except in the minds of trinitarians who demand the existence of a personal being that is more than one person? Isn't that an oxymoron?

[Esaias]

A major problem with Oneness Christologies is that proponents of them always downplay how Jesus describes his relationship with the Father and how he distinguishes himself from the Father and end up just conflating the Father and Son—they’re one person. Jesus is the Son of God, a man in whom the Father dwelled and united himself to in an indissoluble oneness. Jesus is not simply the Father.

I think the problem lies with your understanding of "Oneness Christologies" rather than the Christologies themselves.

[Steven Avery]

The only one weak on genders are those who ignorantly deny the volumes of grammars plainly stating that when the masculine singular applies to a personal being “one person” is in view.Like in the Weatherley video that could not even properly quote Thayer?

This thread can serve as a warning — similar to the posts that warned about oneness attacks on Matthew 28:19 - watch out for shoddy scholarship that claims to be oneness apologetics. That is so dumb that it claims that the masculine one of Mark 12:29 means a special type of one. Follow these fools and you can expect to be confused and embarrassed.

Plus, if grammar is talking of one person, it is talking of one person. Wow. That does not tell you much about ontology. Nor does it relate to the many times that masculine grammar does not relate to a person. Or is simply impelled by standard grammatical connections.

[Michael The Disciple]

He is revealing that they were unified in the work of salvation, not that they were identified, as if he was saying, “Ignore how I’ve described my Father and I interacting and loving and knowing each other and him giving me authority—I’m actually the Father.”

After v. 30, he continues right along in distinguishing himself from the Father.
“Many good works I have shown you from My Father (v. 32).

I would be the last "Oneness" who would deny the distinction between Jesus and his Father. Its true in the great majority of his walk on Earth he refers to their relationship.

Oneness teachers have always maintained this but still seem to be a bit weak about it. The man Jesus had a real relationship with his (Holy Spirit) Father. IMO he is still in it today. He still as a man has a Father.

AND YET.......Isaiah 9:6 stands as the most clear of any scripture that the Son of God or CHRIST is the ETERNAL FATHER.

To me thats what Christology is about. Understanding Christ is BOTH the Father and the Son. Any other Christology is antichrist.

One thing that is not discussed usually is the fact that Jesus being GOD the father.....manifest in the flesh is a HIDDEN TRUTH.

1 Tim. 3:16

16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Im sure you know the Greek for "mystery" means a hidden truth.

The great majority of Jesus teaching and fellowship with others he is speaking as a man.

In contrast he speaks of his deity very rarely. He was keeping the TRUTH HIDDEN.

What better way of hiding it than making the distinction the GREATER PART of his teaching?

I am not saying Christ was deceiving anyone. All his words and actions were true. Its just that he did not tell ALL he knew until the time was right.

They do not try to stone him because they thought he was claiming that he was the Father. They wanted to stone him because he was making all these extravagant claims about his relationship with his Father and the authority the Father had given him. By calling himself the Son of God he was saying he had an equality with the Father—which itself was blasphemous to the Jews. This same kind of situation had already happened back in ch. 5, when he was making similar claims about why he was working on the sabbath (he was just doing what he saw his Father doing, 5.19). They wanted to kill him because not only was he breaking the sabbath, but he “also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God” (v 18).

By claiming to be THE son of God he would have been claiming to be THE CHRIST-MESSIAH.

They knew the ramifications of that. By claiming to be one he was automatically the other. Thats why they tried to kill him.

They asked in verse 24 "if you are Christ tell us plainly".

He actually did in verse 30 just a few words later.

Just saying he was the son of God, without this understanding would have been no big deal to the Pharisees. They thought ALL JEWS were sons of God.

Jesus is not simply the Father.

Agreed. But he IS the Father amen?

The truth is HIDDEN from the multitudes. Not many will see it.

Jesus actually rejoiced in that.

Luke 10:21-22

21In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. 22All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

[Steven Avery]

I think the problem lies with your understanding of "Oneness Christologies" rather than the Christologies themselves.And I have heard the same concern as Costeon’s from people in oneness ministry, visiting speakers who in effect obliterate the Sonship. I hope to talk to one at a picnic tomorrow.

[rdp]

Like in the Weatherley video that could not even properly quote Thayer?

This thread can serve as a warning — similar to the posts that warned about oneness attacks on Matthew 28:19 - watch out for shoddy scholarship that claims to be oneness apologetics. That is so dumb that it claims that the masculine one of Mark 12:29 means a special type of one. Follow these fools and you can expect to be embarrassed.

Plus, if grammar is talking of one person, it is talking of one person. Wow. That does not tell you much about ontology. Nor does it relate to the many times that masculine grammar does not relate to a person.

*Well we finally agree! This thread can indeed serve as a warning to those like yourself who deny passage after passage after passage, and grammatical quote after quote stating that the masculine singular “heis” means “one person” and is so littered all throughout the GNT that one would have to be willfully blind to miss it.

*But what else would I expect from someone “self taught” :heeheehee? You’ve very obviously never had formal training in university Greek (same as with your “textual criticism” claims). You’re a classic example of Oneness ignorance that we hope and pray doesn’t make it out to the real world of academia-proper.

*You misunderstand Bro. Weatherly regarding Thayer (to be fully expected). Here’s the relevant quote (I really don’t know why on earth I’m wasting my time doing this):

γ. absol.: Mt. 23:8–10; Heb. 2:11; 11:12; and where it takes the place of a predicate, Gal. 3:20 [cf. W. 593 (551)], 28 (ye that adhere to Christ make one person, just as the Lord himself);

*Here Thayer demonstrates that when Heis takes the place of a predicate, as in his selected examples of Galatians 3.20 & 3.28, the absolute force includes the translation “one person,” which was Bro. Weatherly’s overarching emphasis relative to the masculine singular tag of this adjective.

*You would do well to wipe the froth from your mouth and slow down and listen to people. Might help if you would actually take the time to take Greek-proper instead of putting your ignorance on such full display for everyone to see (unbeknownst to you it’s quite embarrassing). Oh, BTW, you ARE aware that your “fluent” Greek speakers of today are not speaking biblical, Koine’ Greek aren’t you? LOL. I declare Avery, you put your foot in your mouth every time you try to wax scholarly:highfive.

**As it relates to this thread, the distinction between God and His Son is an ontological distinction. The Father is God transcendent of the space-time continuum. The Son is this self-same God descendent as a Man for the sake of redeeming a lost humanity. It’s that simple and yet profound at the same time.

*Shalom!

[rdp]

I think the problem lies with your understanding of "Oneness Christologies" rather than the Christologies themselves.

*Exactly what I was thinking as I read the same post.

[rdp]

Is there ever an instance in Greek where the neuter or feminine singular "one" applies to one person or instance?

As for "one" applying to a personal being indicating one person, how could it be otherwise except in the minds of trinitarians who demand the existence of a personal being that is more than one person? Isn't that an oxymoron?

*Some time back I came across a few passages where the neuter “hen” (“one” as in John 10.30) actually did refer back to single individuals. I will have to try to locate it in my software. I’m pretty sure I highlighted it and made notes.

*Regarding your last paragraph above, as you likely know Trinitarians attempt to make a superficial delineation between “being” and “person.” Of course, this is nothing more than their own fabrication in order to force feed Trinitarianism into God’s Word. Indeed, every human “being” I have ever met is equally a “person” ;)!

[Costeon]

I think the problem lies with your understanding of "Oneness Christologies" rather than the Christologies themselves.

I'm sure. Thank you for clarifying it for me. :-)

[Costeon]

*

**As it relates to this thread, the distinction between God and His Son is an ontological distinction. The Father is God transcendent of the space-time continuum. The Son is this self-same God descendent as a Man for the sake of redeeming a lost humanity. It’s that simple and yet profound at the same time.

*Shalom!


In your opinion, what is the best way to explain that the Son--"this self-same God descendent as a Man"--declares that the Father is his God? In other words, how can God descendent have God transcendent as his God?

I'm not trying to mess with you; I am very interested in different ways of understanding the person of Christ. I just reread Bernard's Oneness of God and found it, overall, disappointing. He doesn't really deal with the texts in Revelation where Jesus talks about his God or the places in the epistles that talk about the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And, then, on one page he'll describe Jesus in good ol' Chalcedon terms (he's one person with two natures, divine and human) and then turn around on the next page and describe Jesus in terms Chalcedon sought to eliminate (God dwelling in a man).

I just don't understand how someone can say Jesus has a "dual nature" when on every page of the Gospels, especially John, these "natures" are interacting like a Father and Son in true relationship. The dual nature of Christ doctrine, as it has been historically conceived and codified in creeds, works more easily with Trinitarianism, because Trinitarians don’t have to explain how the human nature could be in a personal relationship with the divine as we see the Son and Father in relationship in the Gospels. They just have to say that the Son of God assumed an impersonal human nature, and this being of two-natures was in relationship with the Father and Spirit. And though this does not eliminate the fundamental problems of Trinitarianism, it at least avoids the awkwardness of trying to explain, for example, that Jesus’s prayers do not mean he was in some sense praying to himself. No matter how we try to finesse it, we can’t escape the conclusion that Jesus somehow prayed to himself. If he is one person of two natures, and one nature (the Son) prayed to the other nature (the Father), then he prayed to himself--if Jesus is simply both of them.

[Scott Pitta]

Forcing heis (any way you want to spell it) to mean "one person" for theological reasons is absurd.

It simply means "one" much like uno.

[Esaias]

And I have heard the same concern as Costeon’s from people in oneness ministry, visiting speakers who in effect obliterate the Sonship. I hope to talk to one at a picnic tomorrow.

I think what happens is this: Most oneness pentecostal evangelism and apologetics is directed at trinitarians (or at least has been in the past). As a result, the emphasis in preaching is on the absolute Deity of Christ as the Father contra the trinitarian "god the son". The result is what may be perceived as an overemphasis on Jesus as God with limited or zero emphasis or mention of Jesus as Son of God. This trickles down to the unlearned as a mistaken near-Apollinarian view of Jesus as simply God-in-a-physical-body (like Tony Stark inside his Ironman suit). This shows up in repeated "robed in flesh" type statements delivered without clarification.

What we need, in my opinion, is more extensive teaching on the concept of the Logos becoming flesh (human), making the man Jesus the human expression of the Person of God. Thus, Jesus is both a genuine human being, but yet also God Himself. God existing as a human being. I have found taking this approach actually provides for better receptivity among even Jehovah's Witnesses. They get mighty confused when they are told Jesus is God yet there is no trinity. :)

[rdp]

In your opinion, what is the best way to explain that the Son--"this self-same God descendent as a Man"--declares that the Father is his God? In other words, how can God descendent have God transcendent as his God?

I'm not trying to mess with you; I am very interested in different ways of understanding the person of Christ. I just reread Bernard's Oneness of God and found it, overall, disappointing. He doesn't really deal with the texts in Revelation where Jesus talks about his God or the places in the epistles that talk about the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And, then, on one page he'll describe Jesus in good ol' Chalcedon terms (he's one person with two natures, divine and human) and then turn around on the next page and describe Jesus in terms Chalcedon sought to eliminate (God dwelling in a man).

I just don't understand how someone can say Jesus has a "dual nature" when on every page of the Gospels, especially John, these "natures" are interacting like a Father and Son in true relationship. The dual nature of Christ doctrine, as it has been historically conceived and codified in creeds, works more easily with Trinitarianism, because Trinitarians don’t have to explain how the human nature could be in a personal relationship with the divine as we see the Son and Father in relationship in the Gospels. They just have to say that the Son of God assumed an impersonal human nature, and this being of two-natures was in relationship with the Father and Spirit. And though this does not eliminate the fundamental problems of Trinitarianism, it at least avoids the awkwardness of trying to explain, for example, that Jesus’s prayers do not mean he was in some sense praying to himself. No matter how we try to finesse it, we can’t escape the conclusion that Jesus somehow prayed to himself. If he is one person of two natures, and one nature (the Son) prayed to the other nature (the Father), then he prayed to himself--if Jesus is simply both of them.

*Unless I am just being completely hoodwinked by you, I don’t think you’re just messing w. me :). This very subject is one that I have wrestled w. in the privacy of my conscience for well over 20 years now by way of grammar, exegesis, theology, logic, etc. ad nauseum. This is certainly not to say that I have it all down because I can assure I don’t—but below are my brief thoughts for consideration.

*First, the scriptures unequivocally and explicitly state over and over that Jesus is the one God of the Scriptures (e.g., Titus 2.13, Colossians 2.9-10, I Timothy 3.16 [note: I’m aware of the textual variant here and would argue for Theos based upon the writings of Ignatius, Alexandrinus, Dean Burgon’s mammoth work on this variant, etc.], John 1.1-14, Isaiah 9.6, Isaiah 35, etc.).

*Second, these same Scriptures equally teach that Jesus is the Son of God “according to the flesh” (e.g., Luke 1.35, Romans 1, I Timothy 2.4-5). Indeed, as you well know, John 1.14 makes it plain that Jesus is God “tabernacled among us.” Or, as the NET study note points out (this is an unbelievable statement coming from Trinitarians):

(NET Bible Notes - Full Notes): The Greek word translated took up residence (σκηνόω, skenoo) alludes to the OT tabernacle, where the Shekinah, the visible glory of God's presence, resided. The author is suggesting that this glory can now be seen in Jesus (note the following verse). The verb used here may imply that the Shekinah glory that once was found in the tabernacle has taken up residence in the person of Jesus. Cf. also John 2:19-21. The Word became flesh. This verse constitutes the most concise statement of the incarnation in the New Testament. John 1:1 makes it clear that the Logos was fully God, but 1:14 makes it clear that he was also fully human.

*For me, the charge from Trinitarians that we (Oneness Pentecostals) effectually believe Jesus “prayed to Himself” poses no problem whatsoever inasmuch as they (Trinitarians) unwittingly teach that God, as a Trinity, prays to Himself - since they have “God the Son” praying to God the Father. Hence, they have God praying to God which causes all sorts of problems for their “ontologically coequality” dogma. This does not even consider how they often appeal to Genesis 1.26 to assert that the Trinity is speaking using plural pronouns—which then means that God is “speaking to Himself”...the very thing they scorn us with concerning the prayers of Christ.

*Since Jesus is both God and Man simultaneously, without conflating His divinity and His humanity (as in the ancient heresy known as Uticianism), He spoke and acted as who He was, and is now—God enfleshed. He assumed the role of a servant although He was “in the form of God.” That is, He relinquished His divine prerogatives as very God incarnate - instead opting to assume the posture of a servant. This, of course, involves all of the normative human functionalities such as hunger, sleep, prayer, growing in wisdom, etc....yet without sin.

*So, there’s a sense in which Christ is - and is not - the Father. Quite obviously, His humanity was not divine, and His divinity was not human. Each ontological entity remained in its own distinctive category and functioned accordingly. I think Isaiah 9.6 encapsulates this distinction well. The One who would be known as “Son” and would be “born” is equally Mighty God and Eternal Father (note: these are anarthrous noun and the KJV mistranslates these adjectival phrases as articular). What did these appellations mean to the Hebrews who both wrote and read this? It certainly didn’t communicate a second of three divine, coequal, coeternal, persons (I realize you’re not claiming that)!

*Very abbreviated description, but just shooting from the hip here. My blog goes into much more detail. While I respect Elder Bernard’s scholarship (we actually dialogue at length periodically about these topics), I do think he needs to update some of the lingo in those books. I have a copy of his Ph.D. dissertation on this topic and it’s fabulous so far. It’s apparent he has evolved in his Oneness paradigms throughout the years (as we all should).

*His dissertation is entitled “The Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ” and is available through PPH. Okay, gotta’ get some sleep soon :). God bless.

[rdp]

Forcing heis (any way you want to spell it) to mean "one person" for theological reasons is absurd.

It simply means "one" much like uno.

*Oh my lands, you cannot still be serious (?). What is “absurd” is denying that the masculine singular adjective when relating to personal beings does *NOT* denote “one person.”

*No “forcing” necessary, it’s the natural “force” of this masculine adjective, as demonstrated allll over the GNT & LXX.

*Typical AFF.

[Michael The Disciple]

James 2:10

10For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Is "one" here "hen"?

[rdp]

James 2:10

10For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Is "one" here "hen"?

(Analytical Greek New Testament; UBS-5):

ὅστις γὰρ ὅλον τὸν νόμον τηρήσῃ, πταίσῃ δὲ ἐν ἑνί, γέγονεν πάντων ἔνοχος.

*Pronominal Adjective, Cardinal, Dative, Neuter, Singular ἑνί (hen[i]).

*Once again demonstrating my point relative to the neuter and non-personal beings.

[Michael The Disciple]

Costeon

And though this does not eliminate the fundamental problems of Trinitarianism, it at least avoids the awkwardness of trying to explain, for example, that Jesus’s prayers do not mean he was in some sense praying to himself.

To me a great weakness in the modern Oneness Church is that they run from the great truth that "in some sense" Jesus was praying to himself.

Lets go through this.

Peter:

Acts 3:13

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

Here we see that Jesus has a God. Peter said so. He says Jesus God and therefore his FATHER is the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.

So clear. Anyone should be able to see this.

Next step. Can we identify the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob? If so we can know beyond all doubt who IS the Father of Jesus.

Moses meets the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.

Exodus 3:13-15

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

Now we know for sure who is the Father of Jesus. We know the same thing Peter knew.

The Father of Jesus Christ is I AM.

Peter said the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob is the FATHER OF JESUS CHRIST. Acts 3:13

Next step. Who is Jesus?

John 8:57-58

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

When Jesus said he was I AM was he talking about a different I AM than the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob?

A thousand times......no.

Jesus claimed to be the very one Peter said was THE FATHER OF JESUS!

How many I AM'S are there?

What does the word "I" tell us?

Now if Jesus is his Father does that not agree with "I and my Father are one"? John 10:30

Does it not agree with:

For unto us a child is born unto us a SON is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called....EVERLASTING FATHER?

The Son and Father are one?

So why should we run from this truth? Why should we not embrace it? Let the Trins either accept it or reject it but at least give them a chance to know the truth.

Let us not be ashamed of what is so plain in scripture.

[Michael The Disciple]

(Analytical Greek New Testament; UBS-5):

ὅστις γὰρ ὅλον τὸν νόμον τηρήσῃ, πταίσῃ δὲ ἐν ἑνί, γέγονεν πάντων ἔνοχος.

*Pronominal Adjective, Cardinal, Dative, Neuter, Singular ἑνί (hen[i]).

*Once again demonstrating my point relative to the neuter and non-personal beings.


So would one be wrong in understanding John 10:30 "I and my Father are one" to simply mean a singular one? If indeed one in this verse is also "hen".

[rdp]

So would one be wrong in understanding John 10:30 "I and my Father are one" to simply mean an absolute one? If indeed one in this verse is also "hen".

*IMO, the reason that a compound subject poses absolutely no problems for a Oneness paradigm is found in the response of the on-site, first-hand, eyewitnesses who identified this compound subject:

V. 33: “....you, being a MAN, make yourself GOD.”

*His initial audience understood His assertion of “one” to be one of absolute identity as the “God-Man.” This is exactly what Oneness Pentecostals teach. Jesus is the one OT YHWH (God) as a Man for the redemption of mankind.

*As you have aptly observed, we need not modify biblical doctrine to accommodate Trinitarian straw man attacks against us. As I have stated many times publicly, what is biblically an ontological distinction between God and His Son—Trinitarians attempt to turn into “coequal, coeternal, divine persons, each w. their own distinct centers of divine consciousnesses”...the very definition of Tritheism (no matter how much they may scream “Monotheism”).

*Okay, others will have to take it from here. In BIG trouble w. the wife :girlfriend. I’m always a sucker for these discussions inasmuch as I learn more from them. God bless.

[Steven Avery]

Forcing heis (any way you want to spell it) to mean "one person" for theological reasons is absurd. It simply means "one" much like uno. Exactly!

And any lay or professional grammarians, or translators, whether Trinity or Oneness or Other, who play this game, are Absurdists. And can be either laughed at, or marked, depending on mood and need.

The same, btw, can be said about the Hebrew echad, the counting number one. And various theories that it is a special type of one.

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

Here is an example of the arrogance and insulting manner of those pushing this ignorance, emphasis added:

This thread can indeed serve as a warning to those like yourself who deny passage after passage after passage, and grammatical quote after quote stating that the masculine singular “heis” means “one person” and is so littered all throughout the GNT that one would have to be willfully blind to miss it.

Thanks for giving such a perfect example of translational ignorance and logic incompetence leading to a totally false claim!

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

Here was the ignorant response of Roger Perkins, trying to dance around, trying to add qualifications, to avoid the simple truth given by Scott above:

*Oh my lands, you cannot still be serious (?). What is “absurd” is denying that the masculine singular adjective when relating to personal beings does *NOT* denote “one person.”

*No “forcing” necessary, it’s the natural “force” of this masculine adjective, as demonstrated allll over the GNT & LXX.

*Typical AFF.


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

Remember, the only real "scholarship" quote we were given that says that heis is "one person" was from Joseph Henry Thayer (1828-1901), given by Jason Weatherly in a video. And Jason had to drastically doctor the quote, it was actually phony.

Richard Perkins pushed the video, and never had the integrity to even acknowledge the quote blunder, which is right at the one minute mark. Integrity first!

*You misunderstand Bro. Weatherly regarding Thayer Weatherly was simply wrong, and quite incomprehensible.

The supposed quote from Theayer Jason used, put on the screen, was doctored, it was not in the text. This is shoddy, bogus non-scholarship.

And it was not even implied in the text.

This is scholastically junk right at the beginning.

Look at the main quote he uses at the one minute mark.

"Thayer, a cardinal numeral, one" where it takes the place of a predicate heis refers to ONE PERSON

Where is this Thayer quote where he uses the phrase "refers to one person"? Jason is trying to pull words out of here:
https://biblehub.com/greek/1520.htm

... and where it takes the place of a predicate, Galatians 3:20 (cf. Winer's Grammar, 593 (551)), Galatians 3:28 (ye that adhere to Christ make one person, just as the Lord himself); συνάγειν εἰς ἐν, to gather together into one, John 11:52; ποιεῖν τά ἀμφότερα ἐν, Ephesians 2:14; with the article, ὁ εἰς, the one, whom I have named, Romans 5:15, 19. You now add more ignorance in your attempt to cover for Jason:

the absolute force includes the translation “one person,” which was Bro. Weatherly’s overarching emphasis relative to the masculine singular tag of this adjective. As Scott tried to point out to you, "one person" is never a legitimate translation. At best, it is very weak commentary, following the faux Trintitarian mode of "persons" insertion.

None of these verses translate as "one person".
For example:

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female:
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

We are not "one person" in Christ Jesus.

In Jason's video, there was also the additional blunder of trying to use the earlier Amplified Version edition paraphrase gibbersish of Galatians 3:20 as if it was real translation.

Galatians 3:20
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

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

Yes, I know my words are strong above. It is needed. Roger Perkins, Jason Weatherly and perhaps others (Ensley was mentioned by Roger, likely Eddie Ensley, but I have not seen his material) are a dark stain on oneness apologetics with these phony arguments trying to read in "one person" as the text of the New Testament.

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

Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

One thing that is not discussed usually is the fact that Jesus being GOD the father.....manifest in the flesh is a HIDDEN TRUTH.

1 Tim. 3:16

16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Im sure you know the Greek for "mystery" means a hidden truth. Just an aside that this truth of "God was manifest in the flesh" is only for those settled on the Received Text as their pure Bible. This means especially the Authorized Version (or the Geneva, Young's or the NKJV, and the occasional Byzantine/Greek Majority Text.)

Those who mix in corruption versions (Westcott-Hort recension) or the Latin Vulgate or Aramaic primacists using the Peshitta, simply do not have this truth. Even though it is in 99%+ of our Greek manuscripts and the W-H corruption texts are a solecism.

If you are using the ESV, NIV, NAS, etc. as if they are actually Bibles, you simply can not proclaim this truth as a teaching of the word of God.

Steven

[Michael The Disciple]

As I have stated many times publicly, what is biblically an ontological distinction between God and His Son—Trinitarians attempt to turn into “coequal, coeternal, divine persons, each w. their own distinct centers of divine consciousnesses”...the very definition of Tritheism (no matter how much they may scream “Monotheism”).

Every time the Trins I war with bring up the prayers and baptism of Jesus I bring them back to this.

Their version makes one God person praying to another God person, eliminating monotheism and believing that a person who is God needs to pray about anything.

That one of the God persons needed to be baptized in water and that the other two God persons who were on hand likewise eliminates the idea of monotheism.

[Steven Avery]

I think what happens is this: .. Yes, but that simply spells out the problem, not much different than Costeon's concern.

[Steven Avery]

Size and bold emphasis added:

...passage after passage after passage, and grammatical quote after quote stating that the masculine singular “heis” means “one person” Simple question.

After this totally bogus assertion, and Roger doubling down on his blunder:

.... why would anyone dialog on grammatical issues with Roger Perkins?

And I understand that the chances of Roger's coming back to sound exposition is small. He has made this blunder his cause célèbre.

One irony is that he is using the faux Trinitarian obsession with person/persons. And then using that to make a totally absurd claim in the grammatical world.

Steven

[Evang.Benincasa]

Every time the Trins I war with bring up the prayers and baptism of Jesus I bring them back to this.

Their version makes one God person praying to another God person, eliminating monotheism and believing that a person who is God needs to pray about anything.

That one of the God persons needed to be baptized in water and that the other two God persons who were on hand likewise eliminates the idea of monotheism.

Mike, all the Yahwists and Sacred Namers all are Concordance and Lexigraph Ninjas. They “Scott Pitta” as a good example know as much as you. If we have learned anything about religion we have this as our take away. Men speak with authority and seem to know what they are talking about. But unless you are having a discussion with Miltos Taccas, you can bet your Ecclesiastical peyots your opponent’s first language is English. Furthermore they read the Bible in English. Elizabethan English, and don’t really understand that. So, while I commend scholarly studies in ancient languages, in debates they beg the question. Can one find truth in their own language or must they look for another?

[Michael The Disciple]

Mike, all the Yahwists and Sacred Namers all are Concordance and Lexigraph Ninjas. They “Scott Pitta” as a good example know as much as you. If we have learned anything about religion we have this as our take away. Men speak with authority and seem to know what they are talking about. But unless you are having a discussion with Miltos Taccas, you can bet your Ecclesiastical peyots your opponent’s first language is English. Furthermore they read the Bible in English. Elizabethan English, and don’t really understand that. So, while I commend scholarly studies in ancient languages, in debates they beg the question. Can one find truth in their own language or must they look for another?

I rarely ever meet a "YAHIST" or a "sacred namer". The ones I have ran across over the years have leaned toward Twinity or Arian.

In years past you didnt hear much about Oneness becoming Trins. It was always the other way around. For a number of years everyone who went through my entire presentation of Oneness accepted it.

Things have really changed. I have ran into a number of Oneness who now mock it. For years I had no real interest in what other languages said. I still have very little.

Nonetheless it got more and more where you cannot do a study without someone trying to throw Greek into the mix or Hebrew for that matter. It seems people are very impressed by that and are quick to accept whatever the person says. I have seen it to often.

In my own teaching or contending sessions I have a very small perimeter of these words that are nonetheless effective to some. A Greek fellow contacted me a few years ago and told me he accepted Oneness after hearing me teach on Mark 12:29 that one actually meant one. He had been a Trin basically because everyone else was.

I do use the Concordance or Interlinear some, generally I think the KJV translators probably knew the Greek as good as most today. There are very few places in it where I think translation makes a difference. It seems to me the larger battle is over text sources.

[Costeon]

I think what happens is this: Most oneness pentecostal evangelism and apologetics is directed at trinitarians (or at least has been in the past). As a result, the emphasis in preaching is on the absolute Deity of Christ as the Father contra the trinitarian "god the son". The result is what may be perceived as an overemphasis on Jesus as God with limited or zero emphasis or mention of Jesus as Son of God. This trickles down to the unlearned as a mistaken near-Apollinarian view of Jesus as simply God-in-a-physical-body (like Tony Stark inside his Ironman suit). This shows up in repeated "robed in flesh" type statements delivered without clarification.


Yes, but that simply spells out the problem, not much different than Costeon's concern.

I agree, Steven. I do think Esaias is exactly right here. It does seem to me that all the Oneness books on Christology I have read are overreactions to Trinitarianism and therefore are distortions. I have often wondered what a Oneness Christology might look like that simply ignored Trinitarianism. Would we have, for example, ever described Jesus as having a dual nature if Chalcedon wasn't looming in the background?

Earlier Esaias felt it was best just to suggest that I simply didn't understand the various ways I've heard Oneness Christology explained, but now he has correctly noted that "most oneness pentecostal evangelism and apologetics is directed at trinitarians " and ends up overemphasizing things and thus downplaying other things. So, perhaps I have actually understood what I've read and heard.

For example, to explain the self-awareness of a dual-natured being like Jesus and how he acted and spoke, Bernard says that sometimes Jesus spoke or acted from his divine self-consciousness and sometimes from his human self-consciousness. Or, "as a man" he said or did this, but "as God" he said or did this. Nothing in the Gospels suggests this is how Jesus experienced reality or what his self-awareness was like.

Jesus describes it as a man being in relationship with the Father. He always seems to have acted and spoken from the perspective of being the Son of God in relationship with the Father.
He was sent to do the Father's will.
The Father has given all things into his hands.
He can do nothing but what he sees the Father do.
The Father has given him authority.
He can do nothing on his own but he judges as he hears from God.
He spoke as the Father taught him.
He had heard and seen the Father.
The Father is greater than the Son.
He calls the Father and himself "we" and likens them to two witnesses.
He calls the Father his God.
And on and on.

I have yet to read a book on Oneness, and I've read most of the ones available through the Pentecostal Publishing House, that actually takes all this into account without downplaying it. The emphasis is always that he is the Father, but never on what the NT emphasizes: he is the Son. "Who do men say that I am?" "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

I have yet, for example, to hear anyone pray to the Father and speak of Jesus in the third person as the early church felt comfortable doing (Acts 4).
24 So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: “Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the mouth of Your servant David have said:

‘Why did the nations rage,
And the people plot vain things?
26 The kings of the earth took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the Lord and against His Christ.’

27 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. 29 Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.” If I got up and prayed about the Father's holy servant Jesus, there would be problems.

In Psalm 2 from which the early believers quote, it goes onto say
“Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”

4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
6 “Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”

In Scripture, Jesus describes him and the Father as "We/Us", the Father talks about "my king", early believers speak of Jesus in the third person to the Father and quote from a passage where the Father and Son are "they/their." I have never heard Oneness people speak this way or read anything that takes all this into account

I have yet to read a Oneness Christology that sounds like the Gospels in describing Jesus. Oneness Christology seems to have always been reactionary to Trinitarianism and therefore seems unbalanced.

[Esaias]

Yes, but that simply spells out the problem, not much different than Costeon's concern.

I *did* include a proposed solution, though. lol

[Scott Pitta]

Due to being in the middle of a painting project, my bookshelves have been moved and my books are in a pile. Not sure where my hardbound Greek concordance is.

So I am using an online reference. Not something I ever do. Not sure if it is accurate.

Heis in John's literature came up.

Rev. 5:5 one
Rev. 7:13 one
Rev. 17:1 one
Rev. 17:10 one
Rev. 18:21 *not translated*
Rev. 21:9 one
Rev. 21:21 each

Notice heis is not translated "one person" not at least in Revelation.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Due to being in the middle of a painting project, my bookshelves have been moved and my books are in a pile. Not sure where my hardbound Greek concordance is.

So I am using an online reference. Not something I ever do. Not sure if it is accurate.

Heis in John's literature came up.

Rev. 5:5 one
Rev. 7:13 one
Rev. 17:1 one
Rev. 17:10 one
Rev. 18:21 *not translated*
Rev. 21:9 one
Rev. 21:21 each

Notice heis is not translated "one person" not at least in Revelation.

I once had a preacher tell me he couldn’t discuss a subject because his notes were in his shed. Another one told me he didn’t have his personal Bible. It’s like this, either you know the information or not. Painting your bookshelf and being instant in season and out of season shouldn’t be a conflict.

Good grief

[Scott Pitta]

heis in Gospel of John

Jn. 1:40 one
Jn. 6:8 *not translated*
Jn. 6:70 one
Jn. 7:50 one
Jn. 8:9
Jn. 10:16 one
Jn. 11:49 one
Jn. 11:50 one
Jn. 12:2 *not translated*
Jn. 12:4 one
Jn. 13:21 one
Jn. 13:23 one
Jn. 18:22 one
Jn. 18:26 one
Jn. 19:34 one
Jn. 20:24 one

[Evang.Benincasa]

I rarely ever meet a "YAHIST" or a "sacred namer". The ones I have ran across over the years have leaned toward Twinity or Arian.

All the ones I know are One God. But more than Theology is linguistics as that pet peeve.


In years past you didnt hear much about Oneness becoming Trins. It was always the other way around. For a number of years everyone who went through my entire presentation of Oneness accepted it.

You are talking about lay people, not harden Trinitarian scholars or Trinitarian college trained ministers. Like when you hear about ex-Mormons converting, or ex-Catholics they are usually the rank and file. Not Michael Dimond, or Scott Hahn. It's rare to get 40 wives of Osama Bin Laden to convert fresh out of the cave. Mostly conversions are from your normal people who (while they may attend a Three god church) they aren't Greek scholars.


Things have really changed. I have ran into a number of Oneness who now mock it. For years I had no real interest in what other languages said. I still have very little.

I have ran into ex-Oneness, pretty much I have run into ex- everything. People are people and get in and out of things for all sorts of reasons. Nothing new.


Nonetheless it got more and more where you cannot do a study without someone trying to throw Greek into the mix or Hebrew for that matter. It seems people are very impressed by that and are quick to accept whatever the person says. I have seen it to often.

Like I previously posted, people who sperw Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or Wakandian aren't scholars. Look at our own Scott Pitta, he can't get the job done because of a can of paint, sticky shelves, and a pile of dusty termite eaten books. You speak English? You were born hearing English, you came into Church most likely with a KJV, or a Good News Bible. All English, all understandable.


In my own teaching or contending sessions I have a very small perimeter of these words that are nonetheless effective to some. A Greek fellow contacted me a few years ago and told me he accepted Oneness after hearing me teach on Mark 12:29 that one actually meant one. He had been a Trin basically because everyone else was.

I do use the Concordance or Interlinear some, generally I think the KJV translators probably knew the Greek as good as most today. There are very few places in it where I think translation makes a difference. It seems to me the larger battle is over text sources.

Mike, I am in a place, where Spanish, French, and other languages are spoken. I make them all read from their own language Bibles. While it may be interesting to go into the Greek, the Spanish, and French have no need for that. Because in their language it says the exact same thing. But it is context of the chapters, and also the wholeness of the entire Bible. Noty just twisting over one word in Greek, which neither one has a clue to its etymology.

If you are dealing with sincere truth seekers, all they need is their birth language. Seriously.

[Scott Pitta]

hen in John's literature

I Jn. 5:8 agreement
Rev. 4:8 each
Rev. 15:7 one

[Scott Pitta]

hen in Gospel of John

Jn. 1:3 *not translated*
Jn. 3:27 oude hen "only"
Jn. 6:22 one
Jn. 7:21 one
Jn. 9:25 one
Jn. 10:30 one
Jn. 11:52 one
Jn. 17:11 one
Jn. 17:21 one
Jn. 17:22 one
Jn. 17:23 unity
Jn. 21:25 one

[Scott Pitta]

Which translation translates heis or hen "one person" ??

[rdp]

Exactly!

And any lay or professional grammarians, or translators, whether Trinity or Oneness or Other, who play this game, are Absurdists. And can be either laughed at, or marked, depending on mood and need.

The same, btw, can be said about the Hebrew echad, the counting number one. And various theories that it is a special type of one.

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

Here is an example of the arrogance and insulting manner of those pushing this ignorance, emphasis added:



Thanks for giving such a perfect example of translational ignorance and logic incompetence leading to a totally false claim!

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

Here was the ignorant response of Roger Perkins, trying to dance around, trying to add qualifications, to avoid the simple truth given by Scott above:



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

Remember, the only real "scholarship" quote we were given that says that heis is "one person" was from Joseph Henry Thayer (1828-1901), given by Jason Weatherly in a video. And Jason had to drastically doctor the quote, it was actually phony.

Richard Perkins pushed the video, and never had the integrity to even acknowledge the quote blunder, which is right at the one minute mark. Integrity first!

Weatherly was simply wrong, and quite incomprehensible.

The supposed quote from Theayer Jason used, put on the screen, was doctored, it was not in the text. This is shoddy, bogus non-scholarship.

And it was not even implied in the text.

You now add more ignorance in your attempt to cover for Jason:

As Scott tried to point out to you, "one person" is never a legitimate translation. At best, it is very weak commentary, following the faux Trintitarian mode of "persons" insertion.

None of these verses translate as "one person".
For example:

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female:
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

We are not "one person" in Christ Jesus.

In Jason's video, there was also the additional blunder of trying to use the earlier Amplified Version edition paraphrase gibbersish of Galatians 3:20 as if it was real translation.

Galatians 3:20
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

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

Yes, I know my words are strong above. It is needed. Roger Perkins, Jason Weatherly and perhaps others (Ensley was mentioned by Roger, likely Eddie Ensley, but I have not seen his material) are a dark stain on oneness apologetics with these phony arguments trying to read in "one person" as the text of the New Testament.

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

Steven Avery

*Avery—you very clearly have some major issues, which is precisely why NO ONE that I know has ever even heard of you. The one man that I told about you and he read some of your gibberish on here said, quite simply, “He is not to be taken seriously in academics-proper” (my thoughts exactly). Although, I will add once again that I do think some of your work on I Timothy 3.16 and John 1.18 is commendable (but even much of that is simply borrowed from other writers such as Burgon, et al.).

*Let’s recap for those that are serious lest you & Scott mislead them. Earlier I posted numerous references from various grammarians stating that the masculine singular cardinal numeral “heis,” esp. when functioning predicatively and/or pronominally, denotes “one person.” All anyone has to do is scroll back up to see Robertson, Wuest, Zodhiates, BDAG, Thayer, Amplified Bible, NEB (oh, and I do have MUCH more if you need them)etc.—all of whom either outright state and/or translate this masculine adjective as “one person.” Regarding Thayer’s translation of “heis” in Galatians 3.28 as “one person,” I already explained this to you since you do not know how to read a Greek lexicon (nor even the Greek alphabet for that matter :heeheehee). I even posted page numbers and numerous biblical examples from the Greek NT and the LXX.

*Typical Steven Avery, you deny these grammars and translations due to your gross ignorance of Greek grammar and textual criticism - all the while stating grossly distorted and erroneous claims about the same. You have never taken formal Greek or Hebrew, reject anything that doesn’t fit your cult-think-conspiracy gibberish...and then attempt to chide professional linguists, translators and those who HAVE had university Greek and Hebrew. This is like a shade tree mechanic attempting to “teach” NASA how to build a rocket ship :highfive. In all sincerely, you would be absolutely howled out of a classroom in a university setting (they probably would not even let you in now that I think about it).

*The funniest part of all of this is your claim about NASA “staging” the moon landing :spit! I only mention this because hopefully this will alert those who are reading your gibberish how unbelievably out of whack you are...and you actually SERIOUS about all this stuff. Please do us all a favor and don’t mention to people that you’re Oneness. It’s precisely this kind of stupidity that causes people to reject our message.

*So, do us all a favor and just run along so we can have meaningful and serious discussion w.out all of your silly-childish claims. Let me guess, you also believe the Name of Jesus is actually “Yeshua”...right :heeheehee?

[rdp]

Just an aside that this truth of "God was manifest in the flesh" is only for those settled on the Received Text as their pure Bible. This means especially the Authorized Version (or the Geneva, Young's or the NKJV, and the occasional Byzantine/Greek Majority Text.)

Those who mix in corruption versions (Westcott-Hort recension) or the Latin Vulgate or Aramaic primacists using the Peshitta, simply do not have this truth. Even though it is in 99%+ of our Greek manuscripts and the W-H corruption texts are a solecism.

If you are using the ESV, NIV, NAS, etc. as if they are actually Bibles, you simply can not proclaim this truth as a teaching of the word of God.

Steven

*Read it and weep folks! If ignorance is bliss some people must live in a perpetual utopia:happydance. The newer translations are actually STRONGER on the divinity of Jesus than the inferior KJV and Textus-Receptus. This statement could not be more wrong if he tried...honestly. The polar opposite it true. (Ask him how many courses he’s had in textual criticism—probably about the same amount as his “Greek” and “Hebrew” :heeheehee!)

[rdp]

Size and bold emphasis added:

Simple question.

After this totally bogus assertion, and Roger doubling down on his blunder:

.... why would anyone dialog on grammatical issues with Roger Perkins?

And I understand that the chances of Roger's coming back to sound exposition is small. He has made this blunder his cause célèbre.

One irony is that he is using the faux Trinitarian obsession with person/persons. And then using that to make a totally absurd claim in the grammatical world.

Steven

*There’s nothing to “double down” on other than grammatical facts—that you know absolutely nothing about. Tell us Avery, how many actual hours of university Greek and textual criticism do you have under your belt:__________?

*Waiting patiently :happydance.

[rdp]

I agree, Steven. I do think Esaias is exactly right here. It does seem to me that all the Oneness books on Christology I have read are overreactions to Trinitarianism and therefore are distortions. I have often wondered what a Oneness Christology might look like that simply ignored Trinitarianism. Would we have, for example, ever described Jesus as having a dual nature if Chalcedon wasn't looming in the background?

Earlier Esaias felt it was best just to suggest that I simply didn't understand the various ways I've heard Oneness Christology explained, but now he has correctly noted that "most oneness pentecostal evangelism and apologetics is directed at trinitarians " and ends up overemphasizing things and thus downplaying other things. So, perhaps I have actually understood what I've read and heard.

For example, to explain the self-awareness of a dual-natured being like Jesus and how he acted and spoke, Bernard says that sometimes Jesus spoke or acted from his divine self-consciousness and sometimes from his human self-consciousness. Or, "as a man" he said or did this, but "as God" he said or did this. Nothing in the Gospels suggests this is how Jesus experienced reality or what his self-awareness was like.

Jesus describes it as a man being in relationship with the Father. He always seems to have acted and spoken from the perspective of being the Son of God in relationship with the Father.
He was sent to do the Father's will.
The Father has given all things into his hands.
He can do nothing but what he sees the Father do.
The Father has given him authority.
He can do nothing on his own but he judges as he hears from God.
He spoke as the Father taught him.
He had heard and seen the Father.
The Father is greater than the Son.
He calls the Father and himself "we" and likens them to two witnesses.
He calls the Father his God.
And on and on.

I have yet to read a book on Oneness, and I've read most of the ones available through the Pentecostal Publishing House, that actually takes all this into account without downplaying it. The emphasis is always that he is the Father, but never on what the NT emphasizes: he is the Son. "Who do men say that I am?" "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

I have yet, for example, to hear anyone pray to the Father and speak of Jesus in the third person as the early church felt comfortable doing (Acts 4).
24 So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: “Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the mouth of Your servant David have said:

‘Why did the nations rage,
And the people plot vain things?
26 The kings of the earth took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the Lord and against His Christ.’

27 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. 29 Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.” If I got up and prayed about the Father's holy servant Jesus, there would be problems.

In Psalm 2 from which the early believers quote, it goes onto say
“Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”

4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
6 “Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”

In Scripture, Jesus describes him and the Father as "We/Us", the Father talks about "my king", early believers speak of Jesus in the third person to the Father and quote from a passage where the Father and Son are "they/their." I have never heard Oneness people speak this way or read anything that takes all this into account

I have yet to read a Oneness Christology that sounds like the Gospels in describing Jesus. Oneness Christology seems to have always been reactionary to Trinitarianism and therefore seems unbalanced.

*Almost daily I thank God the work of His Son. I often pray like this inasmuch as it’s simply biblical language as you duly note. But, I also understand the biblical-ontological distinctions going on when I use such language. Just sayin’.

[Michael The Disciple]

rdp said to Steve

*So, do us all a favor and just run along so we can have meaningful and serious discussion w.out all of your silly-childish claims. Let me guess, you also believe the Name of Jesus is actually “Yeshua”...right ?

What is the Hebrew name for Jesus?

[rdp]

Due to being in the middle of a painting project, my bookshelves have been moved and my books are in a pile. Not sure where my hardbound Greek concordance is.

So I am using an online reference. Not something I ever do. Not sure if it is accurate.

Heis in John's literature came up.

Rev. 5:5 one
Rev. 7:13 one
Rev. 17:1 one
Rev. 17:10 one
Rev. 18:21 *not translated*
Rev. 21:9 one
Rev. 21:21 each

Notice heis is not translated "one person" not at least in Revelation.

heis in Gospel of John

Jn. 1:40 one
Jn. 6:8 *not translated*
Jn. 6:70 one
Jn. 7:50 one
Jn. 8:9
Jn. 10:16 one
Jn. 11:49 one
Jn. 11:50 one
Jn. 12:2 *not translated*
Jn. 12:4 one
Jn. 13:21 one
Jn. 13:23 one
Jn. 18:22 one
Jn. 18:26 one
Jn. 19:34 one
Jn. 20:24 one

*Shall I repost the translations that DO render “heis” as “one person?” Cf., e.g., NEB, Amplified Bible, Thayer, etc., etc. Now what Scott? I have already explained to you that every nuance, gender, mood, tense, etc. cannot all be translated inasmuch as we would have multiple books and not just one book called “The Bible.” I am honestly surprised at your claims on this thread. If I were a betting man I would wager that you took your Greek classes a very long time ago...although, these truisms were accurate back then also. Very odd...but you plainly don’t know the Greek you purport to know.

[rdp]

Which translation translates heis or hen "one person" ??

*Ummm, Scott, for the third time now, that would be The Amplified Bible, NEB, Thayer (who WAS a translator), ASV, ERV, etc. Let me guess, all of these professional linguists just happened to pull this out of their hat with NOTHING in the Greek text informing their independent conclusions...right? Not to mention the numerous lexical quotes and biblical examples already provided in the thread. Quit being so silly Scott, you’re smarter than that (or so I thought).

[rdp]

What is the Hebrew name for Jesus?

*”Yehoshua” - which later contracted to the shorter form “Yeshua.” Very similar to OT Joshua.

*On another note, might just be easier to dialogue about these types of matter via email (just too many unnecessary [& mind boggling] “distractions” in here). I have tons of word-documents I can send you, replete w. lexical and grammatical quotations if interested. Can PM me (might take me a few days to respond since I don’t usually check in on here...for obvious reasons). Pretty much done w. this thread. Just the normative experience on AFF.

*God bless.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Costeon
I agree, Steven. I do think Esaias is exactly right here. It does seem to me that all the Oneness books on Christology I have read are overreactions to Trinitarianism and therefore are distortions. I have often wondered what a Oneness Christology might look like that simply ignored Trinitarianism. Would we have, for example, ever described Jesus as having a dual nature if Chalcedon wasn't looming in the background?

Earlier Esaias felt it was best just to suggest that I simply didn't understand the various ways I've heard Oneness Christology explained, but now he has correctly noted that "most oneness pentecostal evangelism and apologetics is directed at trinitarians " and ends up overemphasizing things and thus downplaying other things. So, perhaps I have actually understood what I've read and heard.

For example, to explain the self-awareness of a dual-natured being like Jesus and how he acted and spoke, Bernard says that sometimes Jesus spoke or acted from his divine self-consciousness and sometimes from his human self-consciousness. Or, "as a man" he said or did this, but "as God" he said or did this. Nothing in the Gospels suggests this is how Jesus experienced reality or what his self-awareness was like.

Jesus describes it as a man being in relationship with the Father. He always seems to have acted and spoken from the perspective of being the Son of God in relationship with the Father.
He was sent to do the Father's will.
The Father has given all things into his hands.
He can do nothing but what he sees the Father do.
The Father has given him authority.
He can do nothing on his own but he judges as he hears from God.
He spoke as the Father taught him.
He had heard and seen the Father.
The Father is greater than the Son.
He calls the Father and himself "we" and likens them to two witnesses.
He calls the Father his God.
And on and on.

I have yet to read a book on Oneness, and I've read most of the ones available through the Pentecostal Publishing House, that actually takes all this into account without downplaying it. The emphasis is always that he is the Father, but never on what the NT emphasizes: he is the Son. "Who do men say that I am?" "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

I have yet, for example, to hear anyone pray to the Father and speak of Jesus in the third person as the early church felt comfortable doing (Acts 4).
24 So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: “Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the mouth of Your servant David have said:

‘Why did the nations rage,
And the people plot vain things?
26 The kings of the earth took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the Lord and against His Christ.’

27 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. 29 Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.” If I got up and prayed about the Father's holy servant Jesus, there would be problems.

In Psalm 2 from which the early believers quote, it goes onto say
“Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”

4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
6 “Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”

In Scripture, Jesus describes him and the Father as "We/Us", the Father talks about "my king", early believers speak of Jesus in the third person to the Father and quote from a passage where the Father and Son are "they/their." I have never heard Oneness people speak this way or read anything that takes all this into account

I have yet to read a Oneness Christology that sounds like the Gospels in describing Jesus. Oneness Christology seems to have always been reactionary to Trinitarianism and therefore seems unbalanced.

1. I was saying you have been misunderstanding Oneness Christologies, then pointed out (in my post to brother Avery) the likely reason why people misunderstand them - because of presentation, in a large measure.

2. Brother Bernard's theology in his works (that I have read) don't really get as indepth as he perhaps could have. They also suffer from the common "as man He did X, as God He did Y" which I think is both an oversimplification and in fact misleading to a certain extent.

3. I usually pray "Father, ... in the name of Jesus" or some such. I also pray "Jesus, ..." I have sought to pray as Biblically as possible as long as I've been a Christian (over a quarter of a century now!) yet I'm as "Oneness" as it gets. Most of the brethren I've known over the years pray similarly.

4. I acknowledge there are few oneness pentecostal books on theology or doctrine worth reading. But then again, I think the same about trinitarian works, except there's exponentially more volume on the trinitarian side. :)

5. Rather than trying to figure out Bernard or Sabin or whoever, I worry about figuring out the Bible. And it begins very simply, like this:

The Bible gives certain parameters - there is one God, God is One, He is Spirit. He was manifested in flesh, the Word which was God became flesh, this is the Son of God Jesus Christ. Jesus is a man, Jesus is our God. The parameters are One God, Jesus is a man, Jesus is God. So Jesus is that One God existing as a human being, a man.

We can speculate about the metaphysics, and as long as we don't cross any of the Bible's parameters (contradicting it's plain statements) we'll prolly be fine. We get into trouble when our speculations lead to conclusions or results that contradict the Bible's statements. That's when we have to revise our thinking and bring it back in line with Scripture.

We also need to keep in mind this is the great mystery of the faith, as Paul called it, so any explanations we offer are bound to contain error or be misunderstood unless we just stick with the Bible's declarations. It's a great mystery, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a super complex theological philosophical conundrum, as trinitarians would like to believe about their position.

[Scott Pitta]

I actually had to look up the New English Bible. That is a new one for me. Thayer is outdated and the Amplified Bible is a paraphrase.

So neither the committee that produced the KJV or the NIV ever translated hen or heis as "one person". Imagine that.

To spare everyone the mindless rhetoric, of which I am sometimes guilty, I will only say in passing that the majority of English translations do not render heis or hen as "one person".

There are over 50 English translations of the NT. Of that group, a handful translations translate hies or hen as "one person". The Amplified Bible does it once. Not sure how often it is translated that way in the NEB. I could not find the phrase "one person" in the ASV. I did not find a searchable ESV.

Heis, no matter which spelling, means "one" not only in John's literature, but in all the literature of the NT.

I sometimes suspect posters spend more time reading the rules than they do actually translating. Yes, I still grab the analytical lexicon when I get stuck, but I still prefer to read or try to read my Greek NT just for fun. I much prefer translating that debating the rules.

[rdp]

I actually had to look up the New English Bible. That is a new one for me. Thayer is outdated and the Amplified Bible is a paraphrase.

So neither the committee that produced the KJV or the NIV ever translated hen or heis as "one person". Imagine that.

*Ummm, okay, Scott, if you say so. So now you’ll only accept the KJV & NIV (BTW, your assertion above is flatly false, the NIV does render heis as “one man” in the link below) :heeheehee??? You can’t be serious. I could sit here until tomorrow night posting example after example after example in both the LXX & NT demonstrating that heis is consistently used - and even switched to (e.g., Romans 12.5) - when referencing single individuals/persons....but, since this is AFF, it would prove to be an absolute waste of time...as it always is.

*Here, maybe this one last example will help you see that the masculine singular heis demands “one person” when referring to personal beings (really have no clue why I’m doing this for the umpteenth time):

https://biblehub.com/ezekiel/33-24.htm

*Yep, you guessed it, another example of heis “translated” as “one man/person.” BTW, your repeated appeal to the choices of translators blows up in your face when we post numerous translations that *DO* consistently render heis as “one person” (and I have explained the reasons for this 3 times now). What do you do when we demonstrate this? You go into Avery-mode and demand that the KJV use this rendering before you will accept it—thus betraying your bias masquerading as “exegesis.” Maybe you & Avery should give us all an “accurate translation”—I’m sure Avery will demand the “inspired” Elizabethan language if the 1600’s though :happydance.

*Carry on Scott—back to the real world for me.

[Scott Pitta]

Romans 12:5 ἓν σῶμά ἐσμεν ἐν Χριστῷ

We are one body in Christ.

Hen is translated "one" in this verse.

hen soma is translated "one body" as a phrase.

Romans 12:5(NIV) does not translated hen as "one body".

[Scott Pitta]

I used the NIV and the KJV as examples of committees, distanced by time, that come to the same conclusion. It would have been just as easy to use many other translations.

I personally do not have a favorite translation. But I do have a personal preference for papri 45.

My point in providing the raw data was to demonstrate how heis/hen is translated in 2 commonly used committee translations.

I much prefer raw data over rhetoric.

[rdp]

Romans 12:5 ἓν σῶμά ἐσμεν ἐν Χριστῷ

We are one body in Christ.

Hen is translated "one" in this verse.

hen soma is translated "one body" as a phrase.

Romans 12:5(NIV) does not translated hen as "one body".

*Scott, can you honestly not see how the NT uses the neuter hen when describing “many,” but then, in the very next clause uses the masculine singular “heis” when describing “individual” believers? I honestly don’t know how else to explain this to you at this point. Here, maybe this commentary will help you see what I’m attempting to show you.

**Galatians 3.28:

(JFB): One—Greek, "one man"; masculine, not neuter, namely "one new man" in Christ (Eph 2:15).

*Did you not read the quotes by Robertson at John 10.30? You can also see Ravi Zacharias and tons of other exegetes who affirm the force of the masculine. This is simply elementary Greek and I’m honestly stunned that y’all continue to reject all of these grammars and linguists (my conscience would NEVER let me do that).

**Okay, y’all can honestly just have the last word. It’s blatantly apparent I’ve once again wasted my time on AFF. My blog is replete w. quotation after quotation after quotation regarding the force of the masculine singular (3-3) adjective for the sincere seeker. My signature line has been validated yet for the umpteenth time.

*God bless anyway.

[Evang.Benincasa]

What is the Hebrew name for Jesus?

Evidently Ἰησοῦς since your NEW TESTAMENT records His name that way.
This is what blows my mind, you start threads searching for answers concerning Greek definition of words. Yet, obviously believe that the New Testament was oringinally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Therefore really putting you into a tail spin. What is His name in Hebrew? What is my name in Hebrew? Do you understand? Do you understand that we have zero manuscripts of the New Testament books having His name in Hebrew or Aramaic? Furthermore the New Testament writers didn’t give a hoot about recording God as YAH, or YHVH?
His name is recorded as Ἰησοῦς, not Yahshua, Yeshua, Yehoshua, Yahvahoshua, or the many word jumbles the Yahwists, Sacred Namers, and Hebrewphiles come up with. You speak Hebrew Mike? Do you do any day to day business in Hebrew? Do you kick it with your bros spouting Hebrew? No, you as I speak English. Therefore we call Him JESUS! For 2,000 years Christendom in all its flavor referred to Him as Ἰησοῦς/Jesus. But only in a blip of time we have Hebrewphiles wanting to call Him a name He may of NEVER been called by His mother. Think about that. Honestly think about a family who fled to Alexandria Egypt where the whole Judean community spoke Greek, and all had Hebrew names transliterated into Greek. Phillip isn’t a Hebrew name, it’s Greek. Nicodemus isn’t a Hebrew name, it doesn’t even mean anything in Hebrew, because it is Greek. These people were Hellenized through their many years under occupation of the nations. Mainly Greek speakers. What’s His name in Hebrew? Mike, when you find the parchment in Hebrew let us know. Until then His name is only Jesus.

[Evang.Benincasa]

*Scott, can you honestly not see how the NT uses the neuter hen when describing “many,” but then, in the very next clause uses the masculine singular “heis” when describing “individual” believers? I honestly don’t know how else to explain this to you at this point. Here, maybe this commentary will help you see what I’m attempting to show you.

**Galatians 3.28:

(JFB): One—Greek, "one man"; masculine, not neuter, namely "one new man" in Christ (Eph 2:15).

*Did you not read the quotes by Robertson at John 10.30? You can also see Ravi Zacharias and tons of other exegetes who affirm the force of the masculine. This is simply elementary Greek and I’m honestly stunned that y’all continue to reject all of these grammars and linguists (my conscience would NEVER let me do that).

**Okay, y’all can honestly just have the last word. It’s blatantly apparent I’ve once again wasted my time on AFF. My blog is replete w. quotation after quotation after quotation regarding the force of the masculine singular (3-3) adjective for the sincere seeker. My signature line has been validated yet for the umpteenth time.

*God bless anyway.


What’s the address to your blog elder?

[Scott Pitta]

Gal. 3:28 πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Pretty easy Greek to read and translate. No lexical aides or computer programs were needed to translate that phrase.

Gal.3:28 does not translate heis as "one body".

[Scott Pitta]

The vast majority of English translations translate Jn. 10:30 as "one" not "one body".

It appears there is a disconnect between what you think is in the quotes and what they actually mean.

For example, you quote the BAGD but there is no mention of heis being translated "one body" in the heis article in BAGD.

How much translating do you do ?? Can you translate English into Greek ?

After all the analysis is done, translator committees translate heis and hen as "one" and never translate it as "one body". The proof is in the translation, not getting lost in the grammars.

Why do you not quote any current Koine grammars ??

[Evang.Benincasa]

The vast majority of English translations translate Jn. 10:30 as "one" not "one body".

It appears there is a disconnect between what you think is in the quotes and what they actually mean.

For example, you quote the BAGD but there is no mention of heis being translated "one body" in the heis article in BAGD.

How much translating do you do ?? Can you translate English into Greek ?

After all the analysis is done, translator committees translate heis and hen as "one" and never translate it as "one body". The proof is in the translation, not getting lost in the grammars.

Why do you not quote any current Koine grammars ??

Explain “current” grammers?

Scott, don’t drink the water. :heeheehee

[Steven Avery]

*The funniest part of all of this is your claim about NASA “staging” the moon landing. In the 1960s there was an assassination coup in the USA. It was a pivotal time. John F. Kennedy had claimed we would get to the moon, and it was a big part of the cold war "space race".

This was pretty much a logistic impossibility to pull off those flights, even putting aside the radiation-health issues. The extremes of temperature, photography and TV and time-delay issues, their flimsy suits and modules, etc. The lack of real computing power, and much, much more. In an environment where a small miss (e.g. the lunar module trying to reconnect) would mean failure and death. Even today, you can see a video of astronauts saying we have not gotten out of low earth orbit.

So, the evidence is quite strong that the moon landings were simply done by video.

And I make an effort to read both sides. The non-landing is not a matter of faith, it is simply my evaluation of the evidences.

Similarly, I would warn all to be very cautious about vaccinations. Young and elderly. An evaluation of the evidences. Study.

Let me guess, you also believe the Name of Jesus is actually “Yeshua”...right :heeheehee? Pretty much everything you write is wrong.

The only times I would use Yeshua would be worshipping in a Hebrew context, e.g. in Israel. Some songs by the group Lamb are pretty.

The pure Bible makes it very clear that his name is JESUS.

======

Steven

[Scott Pitta]

If I had a question about grammar, I would consult a Koine grammar, not a lexicon. Ray Summers wrote the one we used in college.

I do not look at Koine grammars with a suspicious theological eye. One must learn the rules of translation somewhere.

Koine Greek is best learned in a college classroom under the guidance of a professor.

[Evang.Benincasa]

If I had a question about grammar, I would consult a Koine grammar, not a lexicon. Ray Summers wrote the one we used in college.

I do not look at Koine grammars with a suspicious theological eye. One must learn the rules of translation somewhere.

Koine Greek is best learned in a college classroom under the guidance of a professor.

When did you go to college?

[Steven Avery]

Heis, no matter which spelling, means "one" not only in John's literature, but in all the literature of the NT.

The vast majority of English translations translate Jn. 10:30 as "one" not "one body". One of the Amplified edition manglings puts an interpretation in parenthesis.

"I and the Father are One [in essence and nature].”

Is there anyone who puts "one body"?
Is this actually given by Roger? (I may have to review.)

We may be including "one body" and "one person" as a team of errors.

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

TIt appears there is a disconnect between what you think is in the quotes and what they actually mean.

For example, you quote the BAGD but there is no mention of heis being translated "one body" in the heis article in BAGD. Yes, you are focusing on a real scholarship problem.

It would be nice if Roger Perkins would go over his supposed evidences one by one, carefully.

His problem with evidences is remarkably similar to FlamingZword trying to give evidences against Matthew 28:19. Throw a lot of stuff against the wall and pretend that something sticks.

Another problem is the Trinitarian-style fixation on trying to read person or persons where there is nothing in the text to support that addition.

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

Steven

[Scott Pitta]

I agree about the quotes. I do not doubt his sincerity, but I question his analysis.

It is easier to cut and paste than it is to understand syntax.

I graduated from Christian Life College back in 1986. MaryLou Myrick was my Greek professor.

[Steven Avery]

Here is yet another example of Roger's incompetence in this discussion, and why all Christian believers should be warned about his grammar and translational errors.

Romans 12:5 (AV)
So we, being many, are one body in Christ,
and every one members one of another.

... example after example in both the LXX & NT demonstrating that heis is consistently used - and even switched to (e.g., Romans 12.5) - when referencing single individuals/persons....

Romans 12:5 ἓν σῶμά ἐσμεν ἐν Χριστῷ
We are one body in Christ.
Hen is translated "one" in this verse.
hen soma is translated "one body" as a phrase. When the Bible wants to say "one body" you have a separate word for body.

One remains one.

Thus the warning about the charlatan nature of the grammar-translational writing of Roger Perkins.
Is he sincere? Likely so.
Is that really relevant when he is confusing and deceiving the brethren.

[Steven Avery]

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

Mark 12:29
And Jesus answered him,
The first of all the commandments is,
Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Here is Jacob Melinda making the exact same type of error:

JOHN 10:30 EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS: from the Blog of “Apostolic Academics”
https://onthedefenseofthegodhead.wordpress.com/2017/03/07/john-1030-exegetical-analysis-from-the-blog-of-apostoli-academics/

*Though this has been pointed out to Trinitarians ad-nauseum, the masculine singular (3-3) adjective heis, translated “one” (εἷς), is indeed applied to God from the very lips of Jesus in Mark 12.29 as “the most important commandment.” If, as Dalcour asserts here, the masculine singular heis demands a single person (and it certainly does) the entire Trinitarian position is collapsed according to Christ Himself! That is, Jesus’ view of the Godhead was most definitely not that of a “Triune divinity”—and His view of both God and Scripture should equally be our view.

It is a mistake to try to compare Mark 12:29 and John 10:30 on this point.

It is a mistake to try to use the masculine grammar of Mark 12:29 as the basis of any grammatical argument. However you interpret Mark 12:29 the one is going to be masculine. Mark 12:29 is masculine simply by the rules of grammar, as described earlier, it is in a masculine phrase.

Please understand: it is not a writer's grammatical choice (should I use masculine or neuter?) to demonstrate an interpretative point.

Also note:

If, as Dalcour asserts here, the masculine singular heis demands a single person (and it certainly does) Actually, nothing is demanded about person or persons, they are not in view in John 10:30, you have to change the text to claim that John 10:30 is about person or persons.

The oneness writers seem to like to try to work with the confusions of trinitarian writers, and then up the ante ... error begets error.

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

On John 10:30, I'm still in discussion with native Greek Bible believers. Unlike Mark 12:29, there actually is some nuance in John 10:30.

If the oneness is absolute identity, then the one likely would be masculine, if the subject is masculine. Perhaps something like
"Jehovah and the Father are one"
"rdp and Richard Perkins are one"

In absolute identity, there is the sense of one and the same.

If the oneness is consent and agreement, the grammar would likely be neuter. The masculine would give the wrong sense.

So far, it seems to me, there is a middle ground, as well, a oneness of relation and connectedness. My sense is that this would be neuter as well, but I would defer to an analysis, especially by a fluent Greek speaker. Most discussions are simply in the wrong ballpark.

=======

We see something very similar to this in the analysis of the Granville Sharp Rule for Fools. Why is the article omitted? Often, to show relation and connectedness, not absolute identity, and nothing about "persons." John Calvin explains this well in a short discussion of Ephesians 5:5.

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

Steven

[Michael The Disciple]

The only times I would use Yeshua would be worshipping in a Hebrew context, e.g. in Israel. Some songs by the group Lamb are pretty.

The pure Bible makes it very clear that his name is JESUS.

Why minimize the name Yeshua? There is nothing wrong with using the Hebrew name.

[Michael The Disciple]

Steven said:

Actually, nothing is demanded about person or persons, they are not in view in John 10:30, you have to change the text to claim that John 10:30 is about person or persons.

Persons are not in view?

I and my Father are one. John 10:30

Jesus said "I" and my "Father".

Seems like persons from here.

[Michael The Disciple]

*”Yehoshua” - which later contracted to the shorter form “Yeshua.” Very similar to OT Joshua.

*On another note, might just be easier to dialogue about these types of matter via email (just too many unnecessary [& mind boggling] “distractions” in here). I have tons of word-documents I can send you, replete w. lexical and grammatical quotations if interested. Can PM me (might take me a few days to respond since I don’t usually check in on here...for obvious reasons). Pretty much done w. this thread. Just the normative experience on AFF.

*God bless.

Thanks for responding. No need to go farther. I have been calling the Lord "Yeshua" for many years. Just wanted to get your opinion.

[Steven Avery]

Steven said:
Persons are not in view?
I and my Father are one. John 10:30
Jesus said "I" and my "Father".
Seems like persons from here.Is God the Father a person?

According to trins, he is one of three persons. In a sense, once you apply “Persons” to ontology, you are singing their song.

However, the actual Bible text says nothing about “persons”, context is king.
The text itself can have various interps.

[Steven Avery]

Why minimize the name Yeshua? There is nothing wrong with using the Hebrew name.My pure Bible reads Jesus. My language is English.

And I did indicate an acceptability in a Hebrew context for Yeshua.

Not, however, the dark-side yahweh or the crony of connivance yahshua, yahuah, yahushua, etc. Counterfeits, at best.

[Costeon]

1. I was saying you have been misunderstanding Oneness Christologies, then pointed out (in my post to brother Avery) the likely reason why people misunderstand them - because of presentation, in a large measure.

2. Brother Bernard's theology in his works (that I have read) don't really get as indepth as he perhaps could have. They also suffer from the common "as man He did X, as God He did Y" which I think is both an oversimplification and in fact misleading to a certain extent.

3. I usually pray "Father, ... in the name of Jesus" or some such. I also pray "Jesus, ..." I have sought to pray as Biblically as possible as long as I've been a Christian (over a quarter of a century now!) yet I'm as "Oneness" as it gets. Most of the brethren I've known over the years pray similarly.

4. I acknowledge there are few oneness pentecostal books on theology or doctrine worth reading. But then again, I think the same about trinitarian works, except there's exponentially more volume on the trinitarian side. :)

5. Rather than trying to figure out Bernard or Sabin or whoever, I worry about figuring out the Bible. And it begins very simply, like this:

The Bible gives certain parameters - there is one God, God is One, He is Spirit. He was manifested in flesh, the Word which was God became flesh, this is the Son of God Jesus Christ. Jesus is a man, Jesus is our God. The parameters are One God, Jesus is a man, Jesus is God. So Jesus is that One God existing as a human being, a man.

We can speculate about the metaphysics, and as long as we don't cross any of the Bible's parameters (contradicting it's plain statements) we'll prolly be fine. We get into trouble when our speculations lead to conclusions or results that contradict the Bible's statements. That's when we have to revise our thinking and bring it back in line with Scripture.

We also need to keep in mind this is the great mystery of the faith, as Paul called it, so any explanations we offer are bound to contain error or be misunderstood unless we just stick with the Bible's declarations. It's a great mystery, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a super complex theological philosophical conundrum, as trinitarians would like to believe about their position.

Well said, Esaias. I really appreciate what you've written and like the parameters that you've laid out to guide discussions of Christology.

[Michael The Disciple]

Is God the Father a person?

According to trins, he is one of three persons. In a sense, once you apply “Persons” to ontology, you are singing their song.

However, the actual Bible text says nothing about “persons”, context is king.
The text itself can have various interps.

So when Jesus said "I" is HE not a person?

Just because a Trin admits God is a person wont stop me from believing he is. Not to many Trins think I am singing their song.

Anyway you had said in John 10:30 that PERSON or persons were not in view.

If so why is it a cornerstone of Oneness theology?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Why minimize the name Yeshua? There is nothing wrong with using the Hebrew name.

Because you speak English. You don’t speak Hebrew.
You do it for a totally different reason.
Do English speakers use Jesus’ Chinese name? His Wakandian Name?
Good grief, you want truth blah blah, but then you go spouting off in YAH, and Yahshua.

[Steven Avery]

So when Jesus said "I" is HE not a person? Jesus walked the earth as a person.

(In fact, strict trinitarian doctrine says he was not a human person.)

Anyway you had said in John 10:30 that PERSON or persons were not in view. The actual words of the text do no impel any interpretation regarding persons. From the oneness view, one being might be better, but would be exceedingly awkward.

If so why is it a cornerstone of Oneness theology?Is it?
You think it is really saying .. the Father and I are one person?

We can allow that as an interpretation, but the text says no such thing.

Read the text.
Stay close to the scripture text.

[Michael The Disciple]

Because you speak English. You don’t speak Hebrew.

Is it therefore sin? To call Yeshua by his Hebrew name? After all he was never called Jesus till centuries later.

And as I always say Jesus is the greatest name in the English language.

Do English speakers use Jesus’ Chinese name? His Wakandian Name?
Good grief, you want truth blah blah, but then you go spouting off in YAH, and Yahshua.

If English speakers used his name in Chinese...is that a sin?

Spouting off in YAH?

Are you sure you want to go there?

[Michael The Disciple]

Jesus walked the earth as a person.

(In fact, strict trinitarian doctrine says he was not a human person.)

The actual words of the text do no impel any interpretation regarding persons. From the oneness view, one being might be better, but would be exceedingly awkward.

Is it?
You think it is really saying .. the Father and I are one person?

We can allow that as an interpretation, but the text says no such thing.

Read the text.
Stay close to the scripture text.

Steve,

There is probably no Oneness Pentecostal theology book or teacher who does NOT use John 10:30.

[Scott Pitta]

The statement made by Jesus Christ in John 10:30 is very interesting. But Neither John nor Jesus said anything about a body in that verse.

[Steven Avery]

After all he was never called Jesus till centuries later.Really?

What was Jesus called by the Greeks in Galilee?

“Galilee of the Gentiles”

[Steven Avery]

There is probably no Oneness Pentecostal theology book or teacher who does NOT use John 10:30.The same can be said if you substitute “Trinitarian”.

Did you see the paper that discussed the usages by the ECW (early church writers)?

[Michael The Disciple]

Really?

What was Jesus called by the Greeks in Galilee?

“Galilee of the Gentiles”

You must be kidding. You sat in the Messianic room in Paltalk for YEARS. You always used "Yeshua".

The Greeks never heard of the name Jesus.

Iesous or Iesou was used by Greeks.

Jesus was later. But you once knew this.

[Michael The Disciple]

The same can be said if you substitute “Trinitarian”.

Did you see the paper that discussed the usages by the ECW (early church writers)?

And rightly so. Anyone reading the context knows its a proclamation that he is God. Oneness believes there is one Trins believe in more than one.

No I never saw that paper.

[Steven Avery]

You must be kidding. You sat in the Messianic room in Paltalk for YEARS. You always used "Yeshua".
The Greeks never heard of the name Jesus.
Iesous or Iesou was used by Greeks.
Jesus was later. But you once knew this.Iesous == Jesus

You really are bound on this stuff.

For years I used yahweh. Today I know it is a devil name.

For years the sacred namers tried to instill Jesus fear.

That dissolved 100% when I realized that God had preserved his pure word in the Authorized Version.

A big problem with Messianics is Jesus-fear. One fellowship virtually had Jesus police to monitor your vocal prayers.

Today is a new day in Jesus.

[rdp]

What’s the address to your blog elder?

*Link below Elder. Hopefully something of use. God bless.

https://apostolicacademics.com/

[Michael The Disciple]

[QUOTE=Steven Avery;1571336]Iesous == Jesus

You really are bound on this stuff.

For years I used yahweh. Today I know it is a devil name.

For years the sacred namers tried to instill Jesus fear.

That dissolved 100% when I realized that God had preserved his pure word in the Authorized Version.



A big problem with Messianics is Jesus-fear. One fellowship virtually had Jesus police to monitor your vocal prayers.

Today is a new day in Jesus.

I am BOUND on this "stuff"?

If I were BOUND on this "stuff" I would not be calling Yeshua/Jesus by the name "Jesus" on this Forum. You could probably go back over my last thousand posts here and 90% of the time I am using the English name. I have not started even one thread here to promote "Yeshua" the Hebrew name.

The Majority Text family is my favorite Bible.

KJV and the NKJV are the only two in that family that I know of that we can actually buy. The WEB once had a New Testament. I dont know if it is still available.

You say Yahweh is a devil name.

I hope you would not say the same about YAH. Psalms 68:4

If Iesous=Jesus

Yeshua=Jesus

or.......Jesus=Yeshua.

One can certainly say the Lords name in his own tongue and be fine. I see no point tho in drawing back from using Yeshua especially since it was then and still is now (in Hebrew) his name.

[rdp]

The vast majority of English translations translate Jn. 10:30 as "one" not "one body".

It appears there is a disconnect between what you think is in the quotes and what they actually mean.

For example, you quote the BAGD but there is no mention of heis being translated "one body" in the heis article in BAGD.

How much translating do you do ?? Can you translate English into Greek ?

After all the analysis is done, translator committees translate heis and hen as "one" and never translate it as "one body". The proof is in the translation, not getting lost in the grammars.

Why do you not quote any current Koine grammars ??

*First, I did not “quote” BAGD—I “quoted” the 3rd edition BDAG (do you even understand the diff.?). What is the very first definition of “heis” provided by BDAG Scott? Hmmm, let’s see....where is that...Oh, joy! I found it:

(BDAG): εἷς, μία, ἕν, gen. ἑνός, μιᾶς, ἑνός a numerical term, ‘one’ (Hom.+): 1 a SINGLE PERSON or thing, with focus on quantitative aspect, one.

*Do you understand how to read a lexicon and what definition they usually place first Scott? Hint: it’s the one of primacy.

*Ohhh never mind Scott. Got grown up things to do :heeheehee!