Is the Father the Son?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

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

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

Originally Posted by mizpeh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

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

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

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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

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

Oh brother.

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

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


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

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Oh brother.

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

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


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

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

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

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

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

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

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

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

And the questions are unanswered in your dance.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for playing ....

[SDG]

Originally Posted by BoredOutOfMyMind

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

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

And the questions are unanswered in your dance.

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

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

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

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

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

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

Rich.