RDP

[houston]

It would be easier to say "I am the Father." But...

[n david]

Originally Posted by The Mrs

Hasn't this thread gone on long enough???

Yes

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rdp

Prax, while it is true that the neuter hen generally means "one" in the sense of unity, as I would imagine you know, there are numerous places in the NT where it can also means "one" in person.

Romans 12:5 So we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

The above verse will perhaps help illustrate what I am saying. Here is the exact parsing of the verse:

http://interlinearbible.org/romans/12-5.htm

As you will see, the first "one," as in "one body" is the neuter sing. "hen," while the second "one," as in "individually members 'ONE' of another" is the masc. sing. heis. And, it even contains the same plural verb (ἐσμεν/esmen) as in Jn. 10.30.

The "one" that appears in the independent clause could be taken to mean "one person" inasmuch as "one body" is never more "one person." Conversely, it could also be interpreted to mean "one in unity" due to "many members" clearly are not "one person." Here is where context will enter the picture to be the final judge.

However, the "one" that appears in the dependent clause is clearly talking about "one 'individual' person" (talk about demolishing the "multiple-divine-persons," or "Trinity".....the Masc. Sing. does it!).


Personally, due to context, I think Jesus intended one-person in Jn. 10.30 based upon the response of those standing on the spot. "You being a man are MAKING YOURSELF GOD."

There was something in the force of His usage of "one" which caused them understand His assertion as a statement of identity as not just "in unity" with the Father....But in reality "making yourself God."

28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”


He seems to be telling them, "I and the Father have the same Hand....We are 'ONE'." This is what incited the Jews extreme anger, whereas, IMO, a statement of "unity" would not have elicited their precise wording (esp. since the pious Pharisee's-Chief Priests made the same assertion all the time).

Just some random musings...........

That's why I said early that it wasn't always used that way.

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

BTW I don't believe the idea of Hen being "unity" there is contrary to the Oneness.

Also "you being a man make yourself to be God", theos is without the article. Daniel Wallace lists it as a qualitative PN

b. Qualitative Predicate Nominatives24
John 1:14
ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο

the Word became flesh

The idea is not that the Word became “the flesh,” nor “a flesh,” but simply “flesh.” That is, the Word partook of humanity. Many pre-1933 exegetes (i.e., before Colwell’s rule was published) saw a parallel between this verse and John 1:1, noting that both PNs were qualitative.
John 5:10
ἔλεγον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τῷ τεθεραπευμένῳ, σάββατόν ἐστιν

Then the Jews said to the man who had been healed, “It is Sabbath”

Although this could be translated “it is the Sabbath” or, a bit less naturally, “a Sabbath,” one must remember to argue from sense rather than from translation. The point the Pharisees were making had to with the kind of day on which this man was working-hence, a qualitative noun.
1 John 4:8
ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν

God is love

The meaning is certainly not convertible: “love is God.” The idea of a qualitative ἀγάπη is that God’s essence or nature is love, or that he has the quality of love. Thus love is an attribute, not an identification, of God.
Phil 2:13
θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν

the one working in you is God

Although it is certainly possible that θεός is definite,25 the force in this context seems to be a bit more on what God does in the believer rather than who it is that does it. In the previous verse, the apostle exhorts his audience to work out their own salvation. Lest they think they are alone in this endeavor, he hastens to remind them that the one working in them has the ability to bring about their complete sanctification.
p 265 265
Cf. also Mark 14:70; Luke 22:59; 23:6; John 3:6; 9:27, 28; 10:33; 12:36, 50; 13:35; 18:35; Acts 7:26, 33; 16:21; Rom 14:23; 1 Cor 2:14; 3:19; 2 Cor 11:22, 23; 1 John 1:5.


Wallace, D. B. (1999). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (264–265). Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software.

.....

This is what I mean

Jason Dulle
Now we will examine Jesus' use of this verse in John 10:34. The event that prompted Jesus' quotation of this verse was the Jews' response to His claim of deity. Not only did He claim deity, but He claimed to be Yahweh Himself (Deuteronomy 6:4; John 10:30-33). The Jews did not understand Jesus' statement, "I and my Father are one," to mean that Jesus was in unity with God's purpose. They understood Him to be claiming that He and God were one in essence and substance. To the Jews this was blasphemy. Blasphemy received the death penalty by stoning according to the Law of Moses. That is why they took up stones to stone Him.
Jesus knew that it was His claim to be God Himself that infuriated the Jews enough to kill Him. If Jesus only meant that his oneness with the Father was of purpose, and not of essence, this would have been the perfect time to explain to the Jews that He was not claiming to be God, but merely a demigod, or second God sent from the Lord. Instead He quoted Psalm 82:6 saying, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?".
http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/yegods.htm

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by houston

It would be easier to say "I am the Father." But...

It would also be easier to just say "I am God"...but He didn't. He did Identify Himself as God though

[Titus2woman]

Originally Posted by rdp

Don't do it WholeHearted.....She might just show up with her pastor in a dress & purse.....& you wouldn't know which is which !

I'm still good with men in dresses... strangeness on the outside does not bother me nearly as much as strangeness on the inside... And no amount of 'men's apparel' will make you a decent man rdp... no amount. You really are beyond disgusting... Does it not even register that God is watching you? You make me very glad that I am no longer a part of such a hateful religion.

And yes we do home church with some other farm couples who also live rurally. It has been a great experience... I do still sometimes miss 'big' church until I realize that it is the place where the insecure and hateful lie in wait for the unsuspecting and weak. You are a troll... in every sense of the word, the idea that you are a preacher will probably keep me away from church for at least a decade and I am sure you have that effect a lot.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Sounds a LOT like Jesus:
Joh_14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Joh 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


I could go on but apparently YOUR gospel has no soteriology...

You sir, have no clue. First I do not deny a single scripture that you posted. Do you think I am a universalist? Do you think I don't believe in repentance? Do you think I believe muslims and hindus are saved without Christ? Tear down another strawman. I affirm every scripture you posted, and say amen.

But your scriptures proved nothing to back up your customized soteriology. You quoted from John, but the main point of John's gospel is BELIEVE. Salvation is through belief in Christ, not a 3 step plan. (Or 3 steps plus thousands of standards).

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:12 (KJV)

John 3, take the whole passage into context. Jesus' explanation didn't stop in v.5 or v.8.....
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:15-18 (KJV)

36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
John 3:36 (KJV)

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24 (KJV)

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. JJohn 6:29 (KJV)

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:40 (KJV)

I could go on, but you have choosen to reject the clear and simple testimony of scripture.

In response to your soteriology comment, I'd respond that first "my gospel" has soteriology. I believe that salvation is available only to those who believe in death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12, Romans 10:9-10). That salvation is by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ (Eph 2:8-9), the reality of that faith is expressed in repentance from sin(Luke 13:3, Acts 20:21,
1 Corinthians 15:2-3) submission to water baptism (the truly repentant will want to identify with Jesus Christ)(Romans 6:3-5), and the evidence of their saving faith with will be the works that characterize the life of a Christian (James 2:16-24), namely a manifestation of the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). Though I affirm it is neither the water baptism or the works that save. The repentant sinner is justified by His faith, not works or rituals (Romans 3:21-5:2). My soteriology doesn't include tongues though so you call it no soteriology at all.

Ironically your soteriology revolves around speaking tongues, mentioned by Jesus only 1 time in the 4 gospels (Mark 16:17, a dispute passage), and mentioned in only 1 of the 21 epistles in the New Testament, and then primarily in an admoninition, not an exhortation to seek that type of manifestation. Your soteriology is based on assumption, not solid scriptural exegesis. Your soteriology is absent from history prior to the early 1900's. Your soteriology damns the majority of Christian believers who profess Christ throughout the ages. Your soteriology is exactly that....yours, and a small bubble representing far less than 1% of Christianity. I don't believe that oneness Pentecostalism is a cult, actually I have a mostly favorable opinion of OP (except for tolerance for the spiritual arrogance), but certainly there is a cult like mentality that accompanies the view that what you preach is THE ONLY saving gospel, when in fact it is not supported by the Bible or historical Christianity OF ANY STRAIN.

Now, I know you can quote scriptures to support your soteriology, but so do mormons, so do Jehovah's witnesses, so do gay theology advocates. Quoting scripture as proof text is useless when those same scriptures are not taken in context, and are divorced from the whole testimony of scripture on a particular topic.

Originally Posted by Whole Hearted

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

There is no other gospel that saves.

No one is denying Acts 2:37-38. However, those of you who try to force tongues onto the 3,000 have no scriptural merit. The scripture tells us there were two imperatives that Peter preached 1)REPENT 2)BE BAPTIZED. The scripture tells us that the proper biblical response to Peters preaching was "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Acts 2:41 (KJV)". They were added to the church, but you guys shut up the Kingdom of God against such.

The angels in heaven rejoice over a sinner who repents (Luke 15:10) but under you guys system there is little to rejoice over, for said repentant sinner is still going to burst hell wide open.

God promises to give the Holy Ghost to those who ask Him (Luke 11:13) but "pentecost" is defined by people tarrying, begging, wailing, rocking back and forth, etc. and "ALMOST" receiving the Holy Ghost. For some this almost goes on for months or even years. Some give up and some fake it. And as Borat proved, there is so little discernment in the group that someone can come in completely irreverant and sacreligious and fake the whole thing in a camp meeting and all the preachers and saints will go wild, not even realize they are being made a mockery.

Theres good things about oneness churches and saints, but the rigid extrabiblical soteirology and legalistic standards sour it for me. I've considered going back, but it is attitude like those displayed on this thread that remind me I don't want to go back into an environment where hypocricy is rampant, and unless one lines up, they are devoured and slandered by their "brothers". And as I've said before the preachers are the worst, most venomous source. The lay saints tend to be good people, who are scared into submission by constant fear tactics and a twisted view of pastoral authority.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by The Mrs

Hasn't this thread gone on long enough???

We are roasting.
Are they well done

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

You sir, have no clue. First I do not deny a sigle scripture that you posted. Do you think I am a universalist? Do you think I don't believe in repentance? Do you think I believe muslims and hindus are saved without Christ? Tear down another strawman. I affimr every scripture you posted, and say amen.

But your scriptures proved nothing to back up your customized soteriology. You quoted from John, but the main point of John's gospel is BELIEVE. Salvation is through belief in Christ, not a 3 step plan. (Or 3 steps plus thousands of standards).

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:12 (KJV)

John 3, take the whole passage into context. Jesus' explanation didn't stop in v.5 or v.8.....
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:15-18 (KJV)

36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
John 3:36 (KJV)

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24 (KJV)

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. JJohn 6:29 (KJV)

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:40 (KJV)

I could go on, but you have choosen to reject the clear and simple testimony of scripture.

In response to your soteriology comment, I'd respond that first "my gospel" has soteriology. I believe that salvation is available only to those who believe in death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12, Romans 10:9-10). That salvation is by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ (Eph 2:8-9), the reality of that faith is expressed in repentance from sin(Luke 13:3, Acts 20:21,
1 Corinthians 15:2-3) submission to water baptism (the truly repentant will want to identify with Jesus Christ)(Romans 6:3-5), and the evidence of their saving faith with will be the works that characterize the life of a Christian (James 2:16-24), namely a manifestation of the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). Though I affirm it is neither the water baptism or the works that save. The repentant sinner is justified by His faith, not works or rituals (Romans 3:21-5:2). My soteriology doesn't include tongues though so you call it no soteriology at all.

Ironically your soteriology revolves around speaking tongues, mentioned by Jesus only 1 time in the 4 gospels (Mark 16:17, a dispute passage), and mentioned in only 1 of the 21 epistles in the New Testament, and then primarily in an admoninition, not an exhortation to seek that type of manifestation. Your soteriology is based on assumption, not solid scriptural exegesis. Your soteriology is absent from history prior to the early 1900's. Your soteriology damns the majority of Christian believers who profess Christ throughout the ages. Your soteriology is exactly that....yours, and a small bubble representing far less than 1% of Christianity. I don't believe that oneness Pentecostalism is a cult, actually I have a mostly favorable opinion of OP (except for tolerance for the spiritual arrogance), but certainly there is a cult like mentality that accompanies the view that what you preach is THE ONLY saving gospel, when in fact it is not supported by the Bible or historical Christianity OF ANY STRAIN.

Now, I know you can quote scriptures to support your soteriology, but so do mormons, so do Jehovah's witnesses, so do gay theology advocates. Quoting scripture as proof text is useless when those same scriptures are not taken in context, and are divorced from the whole testimony of scripture on a particular topic.




No one is denying Acts 2:37-38. However, those of you who try to force tongues onto the 3,000 have no scriptural merit. The scripture tells us there were two imperatives that Peter preached 1)REPENT 2)BE BAPTIZED. The scripture tells us that the proper biblical response to Peters preaching was "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Acts 2:41 (KJV)". They were added to the church, but you guys shut up the Kingdom of God against such.

The angels in heaven rejoice over a sinner who repents (Luke 15:10) but under you guys system there is little to rejoice over, for said repentant sinner is still going to burst hell wide open.

God promises to give the Holy Ghost to those who ask Him (Luke 11:13) but "pentecost" is defined by people tarrying, begging, wailing, rocking back and forth, etc. and "ALMOST" receiving the Holy Ghost. For some this almost goes on for months or even years. Some give up and some fake it. And as Borat proved, there is so little discernment in the group that someone can come in completely irreverant and sacreligious and fake the whole thing in a camp meeting and all the preachers and saints will go wild, not even realize they are being made a mockery.

Theres good things about oneness churches and saints, but the rigid extrabiblical soteirology and legalistic standards sour it for me. I've considered going back, but it is attitude like those displayed on this thread that remind me I don't want to go back into an environment where hypocricy is rampant, and unless one lines up, they are devoured and slandered by their "brothers". And as I've said before the preachers are the worst, most venomous source. The lay saints tend to be good people, who are scared into submission by constant fear tactics and a twisted view of pastoral authority.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That's why I said early that it wasn't always used that way.

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

BTW I don't believe the idea of Hen being "unity" there is contrary to the Oneness.

Also "you being a man make yourself to be God", theos is without the article. Daniel Wallace lists it as a qualitative PN

b. Qualitative Predicate Nominatives24
John 1:14
ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο

the Word became flesh

The idea is not that the Word became “the flesh,” nor “a flesh,” but simply “flesh.” That is, the Word partook of humanity. Many pre-1933 exegetes (i.e., before Colwell’s rule was published) saw a parallel between this verse and John 1:1, noting that both PNs were qualitative.
John 5:10
ἔλεγον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τῷ τεθεραπευμένῳ, σάββατόν ἐστιν

Then the Jews said to the man who had been healed, “It is Sabbath”

Although this could be translated “it is the Sabbath” or, a bit less naturally, “a Sabbath,” one must remember to argue from sense rather than from translation. The point the Pharisees were making had to with the kind of day on which this man was working-hence, a qualitative noun.
1 John 4:8
ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν

God is love

The meaning is certainly not convertible: “love is God.” The idea of a qualitative ἀγάπη is that God’s essence or nature is love, or that he has the quality of love. Thus love is an attribute, not an identification, of God.
Phil 2:13
θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν

the one working in you is God

Although it is certainly possible that θεός is definite,25 the force in this context seems to be a bit more on what God does in the believer rather than who it is that does it. In the previous verse, the apostle exhorts his audience to work out their own salvation. Lest they think they are alone in this endeavor, he hastens to remind them that the one working in them has the ability to bring about their complete sanctification.
p 265 265
Cf. also Mark 14:70; Luke 22:59; 23:6; John 3:6; 9:27, 28; 10:33; 12:36, 50; 13:35; 18:35; Acts 7:26, 33; 16:21; Rom 14:23; 1 Cor 2:14; 3:19; 2 Cor 11:22, 23; 1 John 1:5.


Wallace, D. B. (1999). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (264–265). Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software.

.....

This is what I mean

Jason Dulle
Now we will examine Jesus' use of this verse in John 10:34. The event that prompted Jesus' quotation of this verse was the Jews' response to His claim of deity. Not only did He claim deity, but He claimed to be Yahweh Himself (Deuteronomy 6:4; John 10:30-33). The Jews did not understand Jesus' statement, "I and my Father are one," to mean that Jesus was in unity with God's purpose. They understood Him to be claiming that He and God were one in essence and substance. To the Jews this was blasphemy. Blasphemy received the death penalty by stoning according to the Law of Moses. That is why they took up stones to stone Him.
Jesus knew that it was His claim to be God Himself that infuriated the Jews enough to kill Him. If Jesus only meant that his oneness with the Father was of purpose, and not of essence, this would have been the perfect time to explain to the Jews that He was not claiming to be God, but merely a demigod, or second God sent from the Lord. Instead He quoted Psalm 82:6 saying, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?".
http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/yegods.htm

First, remember, Wallace has a propensity toward a qualitative tag for the anarthrous PN, as is demonstrated all through his grammar.

I personally contacted Dr. D.A. Carson about the supposed "qualitative force" of Jn. 1.1 & he explicitly told me that such a conclusion "is not driven from syntax, but other considerations." He then cited the work of Lane McGaughy, etc. to substantiate the definitive force as it relates to Jn. 1.1....& by extension to our current discussion.

Point is, an anarthrous PN can be definitive contra qualitative.....Again, context will decide which is which. Based upon the surrounding context, I view Christ's statement in Jn. 10.30 as a statement of identity.

And, I agree, I do not think the "unity" force of the neut. sing. "hen" does violence to the oneness position either.

[Scott Hutchinson]

I guess I've missed something interesting.