Oneness of God

Bekah Ferguson · Sep 8, 2003

GJG - Repost it!

Bekah Ferguson · Sep 8, 2003

I get frustrated too. I've been dealing with the same kind of 'superior' attitudes in another forum.

I try hard to be patient and just keep on sharing the Truth of God's Word.

Der Alte · Sep 8, 2003

Bekah Ferguson said:
With this belief, and particularily in non-Pentecostal denominations (denominations that deny the Baptism of the Holy Spirit), I've noticed a certain problem amongst Christians: the Holy Spirit is being perceived as the least of the three parties in the Trinity. Christians, including myself, were just not esteeming the Holy Spirit as equal to God and Jesus; most of us unknowingly.

[size=+1]This statement is a base falsehood. It implies that ALL non-Pentecostal denominations, “deny the Baptism of the Holy Spirit” I am a member of a non-Pentecostal denomination I do not deny the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, but I disagree with many Pentecostals on what it is and how it manifests.

This statement also suggests that ALL non-Pentecostals consider the Holy Spirit “least of the three parties” I do not know of any Trinitarian denomination, school, or person that teaches this. All I have ever heard or read each person of the Trinity is equal.[/size]

Bekah Ferguson said:
Take Benny Hinn, for example: (The wellknown "healer evangelist".) He believes that each "member of the Godhead" has his own body. i.e. God the Father has a body, Jesus the Son (obviously) has a body, and the Holy Spirit also has a body.

[size=+1]No YOU take Benny Hinn, he is a Pentecostal and does NOT represent mainline Christianity. If you want to use an example, try Billy Graham, or Robert Schuller,[/size]

Bekah Ferguson said:
The third (and least common) professing Trinitarian literally believes in three Gods.

[size=+1]I have never heard of this. Do you have any thing like proof or evidence? This sounds like something some “Oneness” believer made up trying to make Trinitarians look like polytheists.[/size]

Bekah Ferguson said:
**First of all, before you begin this Bible Study, I just want to mention that it is very important that you use the King James Version for studying. (Recent translations, such as the New International Version, have strayed in their accuracy to the original language of the Bible - in fact, the N.I.V's new gender neutral translation of the Bible makes me all the more wary of the first New International Version)

[size=+1]This is a baseless accusation. First, there are over 800 words in the KJV that have completely changed meaning or are no longer used. For example, what does “prevent” mean in 1Th 4:15? Does it mean to stop? What does artillery mean in 1Sa 20:40. Does it mean cannons? What is a wimple, Isa 3:22? Did they have cars in the OT, because they had tires, Isa 3:18, Eze 24:23.

I have never seen the gender neutral NIV but the NIV and other translations, such as RSV, NAS, ASV, are very accurate translations. And there are many non-Pentecostals like myself who read both Biblical languages and do not rely on any translation.[/size]

Bekah Ferguson said:
This passage of Scripture is talking about the "Word" - God (and His spoken/written Word - the Bible). It explains that "the Word" has existed since the very beginning. It also explains that "the Word" was not only with God but was God!

Let's go on a little further to John 1:14 . . . And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

Now, take a look at 1 Timothy 3:16 which says, And 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.

See also 2 Corinthians 5:19 which says, God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.

From these Scripture verses, we see that in the beginning "the Word" was with God and was God. We then see that "the Word" became flesh and dwelt among us. In other words, God became flesh and dwelt among us.

[size=+1]In the second sentence, above, a quote from the Bible, it says “the word was made flesh” in the last sentence, without any explanation it says, “ the Word" became flesh” Which is it “made” or “became”, it is not both.

And in John 1:1 it is NOT speaking about the written or spoken word. Long before John wrote, the Jews believed The Word to be God and God to be the Word. “Memra” is the Aramaic word for “Word.”

In the early church fathers' Trinitarian quotes below. Ignatius was a disciple of John, who wrote the Gospel, Revelation, and three epistles.[/size]

Jewish Encyclopedia-In the Targum:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God," but "the Memra," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra," instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=399&letter=M

God in Three Persons

The early Christians were quick to spot new heresies. In the third century, Sabellius, a Libyan priest who was staying at Rome, invented a new one. He claimed there is only one person in the Godhead, so that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one person with different "offices," rather than three persons who are one being in the Godhead, as the orthodox position holds.

Of course, people immediately recognized that Sabellius’s teaching contradicted the historic faith of the Church, and he was quickly excommunicated. His heresy became known as Sabellianism, Modalism, and Patripassianism. It was called Sabellianism after its founder, Modalism after the three modes or offices which it claimed the one person of the Trinity occupied, and Patripassianism after its implication that the person of the Father (Patri-) suffered (-passion) on the cross when Jesus died.

Because Modalism asserts that there is only one person in the Godhead, it makes nonsense of passages which show Jesus talking to his Father (e.g., John 17), or declaring he is going to be with the Father (John 14:12, 28, 16:10) One office of a person cannot go to be with another office of that person, or say that the two of them will send the Holy Spirit while they remain in heaven (John 14:16-17, 26, 15:26, 16:13–15; Acts 2:32–33).

Modalism quickly died out; it was too contrary to the ancient Christian faith to survive for long. Unfortunately, it was reintroduced in the early twentieth century in the new Pentecostal movement. In its new form, Modalism is often referred to as Jesus Only theology since it claims that Jesus is the only person in the Godhead and that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are merely names, modes, or offices of Jesus. Today the United Pentecostal Church, as well as numerous smaller groups which call themselves "apostolic churches," teach the Jesus Only doctrine. Through the Word Faith movement, it has begun to infect traditionally Trinitarian Pentecostalism. Ironically, Trinity Broadcasting Network, operated by Word Faith preacher Paul Crouch, has given a television voice to many of these Jesus Only preachers (who are, of course, militantly anti-Trinitarian).

In the quotes that follow, the Fathers’ forceful rejection of Modalism is shown not only when they condemn it by name, but also by passages in which they speak of one person of the Trinity being with another, being sent from another, or speaking to another.

The Letter of Barnabas

"And further, my brethren, if the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,’ understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men" (Letter of Barnabas 5 [A.D. 74] emphasis added).

Hermas

"The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the Father’s adviser in his creation. Therefore also he is ancient" (The Shepherd 12 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch

"Jesus Christ . . . was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. . . . Jesus Christ . . . came forth from one Father and is with and has gone to one [Father]. . . . [T]here is one God, who has manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased him that sent him" (Letter to the Magnesians 6–8 [A.D. 110] emphasis added).

Justin Martyr

"God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words: ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness.’ . . . I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed with someone numerically distinct from himself and also a rational being. . . . But this offspring who was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with him" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 62 [A.D. 155]).

http://www.catholic.com/library/God_in_Three_Persons.asp

Der Alte · Sep 8, 2003

Bekah Ferguson said:
The reason I say that this is a circular argument is because you say "Jesus IS God" and then you say "Jesus will be standing at the Right Hand of God" and then you say, "Jesus and God are One Entity", and then you say, "There will be One in Heaven", and then you say once again, "But, Jesus will be standing on the Right Side of God who is sitting on the Throne" and then you say again, "Jesus and God are One Entity".

"you say, 'Jesus will be standing at the Right Hand of God'" [size=+1]False on two counts. The BIBLE says that Jesus will be at the right hand of God, eighteen (18) times and never once states that it is symbolic. What did Stephen see just before he was martyred? I quote the Bible, "Oneness" doctrine denies the literal words of God. And in accordance with 18 verses of scripture I say that Jesus will be on the "right hand of the Father." In the BIBLE Jesus says, "I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Rev 3:21) What does "with" mean? Did Jesus know what He was talking about?

And I don't think I used the word entity. I said there is ONE (1) God, and within that one God, there are three distinct wills and three distinct selves. Jesus referred to "the Father Himself" and "the Son Himself" in the same verse. How many selves? What is a self? When Jesus spoke about "David himself," Lk 20:42, does that mean David had two natures?[/size]

Joh 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

Lu 20:42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

Bekah Ferguson · Sep 8, 2003

Der Alter . . . :sigh:

Originally Posted By: Bekah Ferguson
--------------------------------------------------------
With this belief, and particularily in non-Pentecostal denominations (denominations that deny the Baptism of the Holy Spirit), I've noticed a certain problem amongst Christians: the Holy Spirit is being perceived as the least of the three parties in the Trinity. Christians, including myself, were just not esteeming the Holy Spirit as equal to God and Jesus; most of us unknowingly.
--------------------------------------------------------
Der Alter's Response:

This statement is a base falsehood. It implies that ALL non-Pentecostal denominations, deny the Baptism of the Holy Spirit I am a member of a non-Pentecostal denomination I do not deny the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, but I disagree with many Pentecostals on what it is and how it manifests.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever you disagree with something I say, you say that my comment is "base falsehood". Why are my comments "base falsehood"? Because you disagree. If this is not a superior attitude, then I don't know what is.

Der Alter said:
-------------------------------------
This statement also suggests that ALL non-Pentecostals consider the Holy Spirit least of the three parties I do not know of any Trinitarian denomination, school, or person that teaches this. All I have ever heard or read each person of the Trinity is equal.
-------------------------------------

If I meant ALL non-Pentecostals - I would have said "ALL"! What I really said was that this problem is *more common* in non-Pentecostal Denominations. There's a big difference! You further IMPLY that because YOU have never heard of this - it must not be true.

Are you all-knowing, or something?!

------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted By: Bekah Ferguson

Take Benny Hinn, for example: (The wellknown "healer evangelist".) He believes that each "member of the Godhead" has his own body. i.e. God the Father has a body, Jesus the Son (obviously) has a body, and the Holy Spirit also has a body.
-------------------------------------------

Der Alter's response:
-------------------------------------------
No YOU take Benny Hinn, he is a Pentecostal and does NOT represent mainline Christianity. If you want to use an example, try Billy Graham, or Robert Schuller.
--------------------------------------------

I used Benny Hinn as an example to show that the Trinity Doctrine does in fact, lead some people to believe in three gods! It was a good example whether he represents mainline Christianity, or not.

-------------------------------
Originally Posted By: Bekah Ferguson

The third (and least common) professing Trinitarian literally believes in three Gods.
-------------------------------

Der Alter said:
-------------------------------
I have never heard of this. Do you have any thing like proof or evidence? This sounds like something some Oneness believer made up trying to make Trinitarians look like polytheists.
------------------------------

Um . . . the Benny Hinn example . . . did you miss that?! I don't believe that Trinitarians are polytheists - but their doctrine sure leads to that kind of misconception!

----------------------------------
Originally Posted By: Bekah Ferguson

**First of all, before you begin this Bible Study, I just want to mention that it is very important that you use the King James Version for studying. (Recent translations, such as the New International Version, have strayed in their accuracy to the original language of the Bible - in fact, the N.I.V's new gender neutral translation of the Bible makes me all the more wary of the first New International Version)
-------------------------------

Der Alter said:
----------------------------------

This is a baseless accusation. First, there are over 800 words in the KJV that have completely changed meaning or are no longer used. For example, what does prevent mean in 1Th 4:15? Does it mean to stop? What does artillery mean in 1Sa 20:40. Does it mean cannons? What is a wimple, Isa 3:22? Did they have cars in the OT, because they had tires, Isa 3:18, Eze 24:23.

I have never seen the gender neutral NIV but the NIV and other translations, such as RSV, NAS, ASV, are very accurate translations. And there are many non-Pentecostals like myself who read both Biblical languages and do not rely on any translation.
-------------------------------------------

I don't have any problem with cross referencing other Bible translations. There are some words in the KJV that are old words, just like Shakespeare, but it doesn't make the translation irrelevant by any means! If you've never heard of the NIV Gender Neutral Translation, just do a random internet search and you'll find information.

I would like to point out something extremely interesting to you, Der Alter. Remember your theme, sugarstick verse - 1 John 5:7-8?

Let's refer to that once more. Here it is from the King James Version Bible (KJV):

"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 the earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

Now let's read the EXACT SAME VERSES from the New International Version Bible (NIV):

"For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement".

My goodness! The NIV actually removed the part of the version that said "The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost".

I'm sorry, but I just don't trust such translations of the Bible! I will use them to cross-reference, but my main Bible is the KJV - it's a much older translation than the ones you listed, and I believe it is FAR MORE accurate than the NIV - that's why I use KJV for Bible Studies and that's why I bother to mention it on my website.

------------------------------
Bekah Ferguson said:

From these Scripture verses, we see that in the beginning "the Word" was with God and was God. We then see that "the Word" became flesh and dwelt among us. In other words, God became flesh and dwelt among us.
------------------------------------------

Der Alter said in response:
--------------------------------------------
In the second sentence, above, a quote from the Bible, it says the word was made flesh in the last sentence, without any explanation it says, the Word" became flesh Which is it made or became, it is not both.
------------------------------------------

"Made" and "became". Both words mean relatively the same thing. If I painted a picture, I could say, "I made this painting". Or, I could say, "This blank paper became a painting". Whatever man! You're arguing with words. It doesn't matter - the Bible says, "the Word was made flesh". I used the word "made" and "became" - both mean that God came to earth as a man.

Der Alter - I hardly care what Catholics say about the Godhead. It doesn't prove or disprove anything.

I noticed a misconception of the Oneness of God:

We don't believe that God can't be Father and Son at the same time. We don't believe that He is the Father and then morphs into the Son and then morphs into the Holy Ghost! As 1 John 5:7 says, "These three are one"! They are One and the Same.

The only separation is that Jesus was a man but he was also God. That's it, that's the only separation between Jesus the Son and God the Father.

admtaylor · Sep 9, 2003

mo.mentum said:
Ok it's about time i inserted myself into this discussion.

The idea that God is One in Three persons has been giving problems to theological studies from day 1.

This is a concept that is teetering on the bring of polytheism but is nicely polished to be monotheistic. Why would God try to make things complicated for us with a concept that people have been struggling to explain and that is mysterioulsy alluded to in 1 or 2 verses throughout the entire Bible?

If God is One in Three, why not 4 or 5 or 1000? The more the merrier?

But, If God is One in One, then you've stumbled upon a big secret. This is the fact that everything in the universe is an expression of His unity and ultimate Oneness. Everything around us is gushing forth with unity and perfection.

This is my personal input...doesnt mean this is how it is...To each our own, but our own we share

So who was Jesus to you? If God in human form (God the Son) then who was Jesus praying to and speaking to when He said Father and my Father? How do you explain this. And what about the creation account when it mentions that "26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [2] and over all the creatures that move along the ground." ?

GJG · Sep 9, 2003

To the Bekmeister,

LOL, nice last post!

Go Beks!

GJG · Sep 9, 2003

Again:To all,

Let's clear up one thing here, "WHAT" is God?

The Bible clearly states that the following is the simple description of God:

God is everywhere in creation=omnipresent.
God is all-knowing=omniscient.
God is all-powerful=omnipotent.
God is The invisible Spirit=SPIRIT.

All this can be sumed up with the following words:

God is the only self-existent, eternal one. The was (past), the is (present), the coming one (future)!.....SHEMA!

The "tetragrammaton" or YHWH has been suggested to contain these three primary tenses from the Hebrew word "to be".

If the above description of God is not heeded to, then what other description of God is there?

I feel it is vital to atleast clear up this point first, to then have a better understanding of where we are all coming from.

I would appreciate some feedback guys, then we can all be alot more clearer about future discussions.

admtaylor · Sep 9, 2003

God is everywhere in creation=omnipresent.
God is all-knowing=omniscient.
God is all-powerful=omnipotent.
God is The invisible Spirit=SPIRIT.

I agree with your first three, they are attributes of God. Your third is somewhat vague. Expound please. And why did you ignore my post? Can you not answer those questions?

Further, I think the bantering between you, Der Alter and Bekah is all together childish. You all have had a part in sophmoricnis (not a word is it? lol)

Der Alte · Sep 9, 2003

Bekah Ferguson said:
Der Alter . . .

Originally Posted By: Bekah Ferguson
--------------------------------------------------------
With this belief, and particularily in non-Pentecostal denominations (denominations that deny the Baptism of the Holy Spirit), I've noticed a certain problem amongst Christians: the Holy Spirit is being perceived as the least of the three parties in the Trinity. Christians, including myself, were just not esteeming the Holy Spirit as equal to God and Jesus; most of us unknowingly.
--------------------------------------------------------
Der Alter's Response:

This statement is a base falsehood. It implies that ALL non-Pentecostal denominations, “deny the Baptism of the Holy Spirit” I am a member of a non-Pentecostal denomination I do not deny the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, but I disagree with many Pentecostals on what it is and how it manifests.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever you disagree with something I say, you say that my comment is "base falsehood". Why are my comments "base falsehood"? Because you disagree. If this is not a superior attitude, then I don't know what is.

”Whenever you disagree with something I say, you say that my comment is "base falsehood." [size=+1]
False, false, false. Go back through that post. I only used “base falsehood” ONE time (1). That is NOT “whenever!”

So let me explain what a “base falsehood” is. If I say “Oranges are green..” That is a “base falsehood” because the statement is false and I know it is false. If I say, “Many/Most/a few oranges are green..” That would NOT be a false statement. Now your statement.[/size]

”With this belief, and particularily in non-Pentecostal denominations (denominations that deny the Baptism of the Holy Spirit), I've noticed a certain problem amongst Christians: the Holy Spirit is being perceived as the least of the three parties in the Trinity.” [size=+1]Is it a “base falsehood” because I disagree with it or because it is NOT a totally true statement? It does not have any qualifiers, it does not say, “SOME/A FEW/MANY non-Pentecostal denominations (SOME denominations also deny the Baptism of the Holy Spirit)” and it does NOT say, “problem amongst SOME Christians:” So the entire statement implies all.[/size]

DA:
This statement also suggests that ALL non-Pentecostals consider the Holy Spirit “least of the three parties” I do not know of any Trinitarian denomination, school, or person that teaches this. All I have ever heard or read each person of the Trinity is equal.

Click to expand...

Bekah: If I meant ALL non-Pentecostals - I would have said "ALL"! What I really said was that this problem is *more common* in non-Pentecostal Denominations. There's a big difference! You further IMPLY that because YOU have never heard of this - it must not be true. Are you all-knowing, or something?!

”What I really said was that this problem is *more common* in non-Pentecostal Denominations.” [size=+1]That is NOT what you said. I quoted your website exactly and here it again. Show me where it says “*more common*.” And there is BIG difference between what is posted at your website and this response.[/size]

With this belief, and particularily in non-Pentecostal denominations (denominations that deny the Baptism of the Holy Spirit), I've noticed a certain problem amongst Christians: the Holy Spirit is being perceived as the least of the three parties in the Trinity. Christians, including myself, were just not esteeming the Holy Spirit as equal to God and Jesus; most of us unknowingly.

”You further IMPLY that because YOU have never heard of this - it must not be true.” [size=+1]That’s right. I want to see evidence and proof. It is not true just because that is what your church says about Trinitarians.[/size]

Bekah Ferguson said:
Der Alter's response:
-------------------------------------------
No YOU take Benny Hinn, he is a Pentecostal and does NOT represent mainline Christianity. If you want to use an example, try Billy Graham, or Robert Schuller.
--------------------------------------------

I used Benny Hinn as an example to show that the Trinity Doctrine does in fact, lead some people to believe in three gods! It was a good example whether he represents mainline Christianity, or not.

[size=+1]And the “Oneness” churches that teach that the Father was crucified and died is a good example for ALL “Oneness”[/size]

Bekah Ferguson said:
Originally Posted By: Bekah Ferguson

The third (and least common) professing Trinitarian literally believes in three Gods.
-------------------------------
Der Alter said:
-------------------------------
I have never heard of this. Do you have any thing like proof or evidence? This sounds like something some “Oneness” believer made up trying to make Trinitarians look like polytheists.
------------------------------

Um . . . the Benny Hinn example . . . did you miss that?! I don't believe that Trinitarians are polytheists - but their doctrine sure leads to that kind of misconception!

[size=+1]Do you have anything like proof or evidence? In light of your other misleading statements I want to see evidence and even then he is only one out of thousands of ministers and is no more representative of Trinitarians that David Koresh or Jim Jones represents Christianity.

I said I have never seen the neutral gender NIV, I did NOT say I have never heard of it.[/size]

Bekah Ferguson said:
I would like to point out something extremely interesting to you, Der Alter. Remember your theme, sugarstick verse - 1 John 5:7-8?

Now let's read the EXACT SAME VERSES from the New International Version Bible (NIV):

"For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement".

My goodness! The NIV actually removed the part of the version that said "The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost".

”Remember your theme, sugarstick verse” [size=+1]Don’t complain about me being rude, etc. and then post snot nose comments like this. Go back and read my post. I don’t depend on any version.[/size]

Bekah Ferguson said:
"Made" and "became". Both words mean relatively the same thing. If I painted a picture, I could say, "I made this painting". Or, I could say, "This blank paper became a painting". Whatever man! You're arguing with words. It doesn't matter - the Bible says, "the Word was made flesh". I used the word "made" and "became" - both mean that God came to earth as a man.

[size=+1]There is a big difference between “was made” that is passive and “became,” which is active. In the Greek the word means that the subject, in this case the Word, acting upon Himself, became. Not "made" by some other entity which "was made" means.[/size]

Bekah Ferguson said:
Der Alter - I hardly care what Catholics say about the Godhead. It doesn't prove or disprove anything.

[size=+1]It was NOT what some Catholic said about anything, it was history. But I can see why you blow off, with some pathetic excuse, anything which proves you wrong.[/size]

Bekah Ferguson said:
I noticed a misconception of the Oneness of God:

We don't believe that God can't be Father and Son at the same time. We don't believe that He is the Father and then morphs into the Son and then morphs into the Holy Ghost! As 1 John 5:7 says, "These three are one"! They are One and the Same.

[size=+1]You do not represent ALL “Oneness Pentecostals” as the article said some do believe that.[/size]

”They are One and the Same.” [size=+1]Where are the words “and the same” in this verse? And while you were tap dancing around your previous answer you did not even address, John said there were three that bear record. Only sentient, cognizant, rational, beings can bear witness. Evidently you just shut your eyes. And chant “one, one, one” to avoid recognizing that John said three, three times.[/size]

Bekah Ferguson said:
Did it ever come to your mind that perhaps John was trying to clear up the misunderstanding that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were three separate individuals? (These three are one) No matter what you say, the verse just doesn't say *three persons*. It just says *three*. You've merely interpreted it to mean *three persons*. (Three that bare witness in Heaven.) Yes, the Holy Spirit bears witness, as does Jesus. Is this because 'they' are two separate persons or because they are both God? This verse could just as easily be interpeted in a Oneness standpoint, just as it is also readily interpreted to indicate Trinity. If we compare this verse to the rest of the New Testament however, we can determine the true meaning of the verse, which I believe is the clear and easy to understand, straight forward meaning: "these three are one" - just One.

”Did it ever come to your mind that perhaps John was trying to clear up the misunderstanding that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were three separate individuals? [size=+1]Then all you have to do is PROVE from scripture that John was trying to clear up a misunderstanding. I’m not interested in “maybe, perhaps, could be,” etc., which do NOT "prove" anything about the Trinity. John sais "three are three that bear record in heaven" and that is exactly what Trinitarians believe. "And these three are one." and that is exactly what Trinitarians believe. Trinitarians say nothing more that what John wrote here.[/size]

”This verse could just as easily be interpeted in a Oneness standpoint, just as it is also readily interpreted to indicate Trinity.” [size=+1]Yes, if you ignore what it says. “There are THREE that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these THREE are one.” What you cannot do from scripture is PROVE that this verse is NOT referring to the Trinity. You claim this verse does not prove persons, but it does prove three sentient, cognizant, rational beings bearing witness. Only sentient, cognizant, rational beings can be a witness. John did NOT say there is one in heaven, who is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, that bears witness. Three, Father, Word, and Holy Spirit, three witnesses, three records. And this the church has believed since the time of the apostles and I have posted my evidence from the early church. “Oneness as it is believed and practiced today can only be traced back to 1913, in a camp meeting in Arroyo Seco, California, beginning with a sermon by Evangelist R.E. McAlister.[/size]

admtaylor · Sep 9, 2003

mo.mentum said:
I don't ascribe to the view that regards Jesus as Divine. God is the Father of us all. And we are in His image from a spiritual point of view. To think that our physical appearance is in His image is short sighted. You think there's and old bearded man up there?

We were given sovereignty over the Earth because we have the potential to acquire knowledge, to understand how God created.

First of all......nooooo I don't think God is a bearded man up there. What I quoted was the Bible. I understand the deeper meaning of being created in God's image.

Secondly, if you don't feel Jesus is Divine.......I don't even know where to start........That would have to be a completely different thread. Liberal Theology is just rampant now days isn't it? :idea:

GJG · Sep 9, 2003

mo.mentum said:
God is indivisible? Yes? No? Ok fine..nevermind..

Yes indeedio!

Col 1:15
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
KJV
1 Tim 1:17
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
KJV
Heb 11:27
By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.
KJV

John 4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
KJV

Being the ONLY eternal, self-existent Spirit being, God is not made of visible, created substance; Definitely INVISIBLE!

GJG · Sep 9, 2003

admtaylor said:
I agree with your first three, they are attributes of God. Your third is somewhat vague. Expound please. And why did you ignore my post? Can you not answer those questions?

Further, I think the bantering between you, Der Alter and Bekah is all together childish. You all have had a part in sophmoricnis (not a word is it? lol)

[Edited by a Moderator]

I am not exactly too sure how to answer your questions just yet, I need to study a bit more.

Bekah Ferguson · Sep 9, 2003

GJG - you crack me up!

Bekah Ferguson · Sep 9, 2003

ANI-Y

You said:
-----------------------------
KJV: Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, Elohim sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

NRSV: Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, Elohim sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

CLV: Galatians 4:4 Now when the full time came, Elohim delegates his Son, come of a woman, come under law,

The true Elohim made the Law, and he put his Son under the Law. He made his Son born of a woman, therefore HaMashiyach was the Son of Elohim before he was born of a woman; the true Elohim sent his Son to be born of a woman.
---------------------------

I must first compliment you on a well thoughout and written post. Thank-you for all of the verses.

I would like to point out something to you though. If Jesus THE SON, already existed prior to Bethlehem, then who was his mother? It is obvious that he was born of Mary. But, if he was indeed THE SON before the actual incarnation, then who was his mother? There can't be a son without a mother.

Blessings!
-Bekah

Bekah Ferguson · Sep 9, 2003

ADMTAYLOR!

The "US" of GENESIS 1:26 and 3:22

God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:26)

"From Genesis to Revelation the presentation of God to Man is that God is one. Therefore when reading Genesis 1:26, when God uses the terminology 'us', should we draw the sweeping conclusion that 'God exists in three separate and distinct persons who are *co-eternal*'? No - of course not. That would be blatantly adding to the word of God and preaching against everything else He has said in His word. Any potentate, such as the Queen of England speaks on behalf of their kingdom or nation in the same manner. How many times have you heard a United States President use such terminology? One example is that of John Kennedy in his 1961 Inaugural Address when he said;

'...let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on Earth God's work must truly be our own.' -- John F. Kennedy

It would be Kennedy himself that would actually lead the nation, however he spoke on behalf of that nation saying, 'let us'." (Excerpt by Micheal Stevenson - www.cirlegame.com)

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man [Adam] is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. (Genesis 3:22)

"To prove that God was speaking of the heavenly hosts that surrounded Him during creation we look at a parallel usage of the term 'us' by God in Genesis 3:22. Because it was used in the same manner, it will help us to rightly understand the first usage in Genesis 1:26.

When judging the fall of man, God says that man has 'become as one of us, to know good and evil'. If the errant Trinitarian logic used to analyze Genesis 1:26 was used here, does this mean that Adam became a God? Were there now four persons in the *Trinity* of that doctrine? Of course not. Man had become as one of the heavenly host to know or to learn good and evil.

And as a matter of fact, this is exactly what Satan told Eve would happen when tempting her in Genesis 3:5. Satan said, For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:5)

Did you notice that Satan told Eve she would become as 'gods' with a small 'g'? This is of course referring to the heavenly host and not the Godhead. And this part of what Satan was saying was apparently true when looking at God's verification of this reality in Genesis 3:22. However, it is clear to see from Genesis 3:5 that the subject of the 'us' of Genesis 3:22 is the heavenly host, not the Godhead. A simple realization of good and evil does not exclusively equate one to Almighty God as the angels of heaven know these realities as well. They too had come to know good and evil in the rise of Lucifer and the fall of Satan.

A second point to understand from Genesis 3:22 is that since we believe God to be eternal from everlasting to everlasting, and all knowing as well, then God would have had to be referring to the heavenly host by the use of the term 'us' in Genesis 3:22. This is because God not only already *knew* good, He *defines* everything that is goodness. It would have to be the heavenly host that would come to learn or 'know' the revelation of good and evil. Almighty God did all along... from before the foundations of the earth." (Excerpt by Micheal Stevenson - www.cirlegame.com)

Bekah Ferguson · Sep 9, 2003

DER ALTER - I am finished discussing theology with you. It's been absolutely fruitless thus far because you are so stubborn and set in your ways. (You could easily say the same about me) Lately, we've just been fighting words and this is pointless. Whether we exchange verses or not, we always just end up fighting each others words.

I'll continue discussing theology with everyone else though.

P.S. Der Alter . . . I will take the time to respond to your question about David saying, "The Lord said to my Lord", but it will be my last post to you specifically.

jessedance · Sep 9, 2003

GJG said:
Originally Posted By: jessedance

I agree with you whole heartedly that there is only one God, [edited by a Moderator]; however, you create the same problem trinitarians have by saying Jesus is God, for that makes 2 gods. Jesus and God the father.
If you say that Jesus is the father, a UPC position, then you have an irrational position that is equal with anything trinitarians have.
Jesus is not God, Jesus is the son of God. Jesus is God's representative, an exact representation of God, not God. Remember, "God was IN CHRIST reconciling the world unto himself" not "God was christ reconciling the world unto himself.
Saying Jesus is God creates an equal number of problems with scriptures that trinitarians have. Jesus praying to God, what he prayed to himself?
jesus didnt know the hour of his return only his father did. How do you make sense of that if Jesus is god?

Excellent questions,

From the ONE SPIRIT perspective, God always continues to remain Himself! It is Jesus Himself who states that this very same ONE substance is within His body, yet still retaining the previously mentioned Divine attributes. Never is there two Gods whatsoever. Irrational as it may seem to others, the fact remains: this reasoning lines up with all other scripture:

"I and my Father are one"
"He who has seen me has seen the Father"
"The Father is in me"...etc

These are but a few which highlight the fact that the Divinity within Jesus, is God. It is Jesus who says that He is the Father, not UPC or KFC or ABC, Jesus said it, therefore it is fact.

The dual-nature of Jesus is obvious, as He is also perfect-man, just as surely as He is very God.

The "flesh" of Jesus is nothing more than a sinless body that recieved a name; Jesus. However, the Divine conception ensured that this body had within it, a unique character that can only be termed as, "dual-nature"; Divinity clothed in humanity!

Our bodies are not who we truly are, just as the computer you are operating is useless without an OS (operating system). Our "true self" is our very "soul", as flesh cannot enter into heaven, our soul can.

The body of Christ (His flesh) is not God the Father, however, the Spirit within Him is without a doubt, the One Spirit that is God the Father. It just so happens that this body was given a name: Jesus. When this body spoke, He spoke at different times from two differing natures: Divinity OR humanity.

When He asked for a drink because of thirst, He spoke as a man. When He said "He was before Abraham", He spoke as God.

His humanity: slept, thirsted, hungered, bled...died.
His Divinity: Performed the miracles; changed water to wine, raised the dead, created food...etc

He prayed to the omnipresent Spirit of God because His humanity had a need that only the Divinty could meet.

His humanity is indeed unaware of "all knowledge", however, God the Father knows all.

Yes, Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of man. The "sonship" only came into existence upon the Divine conception; God remains One God as there is no sin to seperate this newly concieved person from the Spirit within all creation. Jesus is born to show that which is invisible; The image of the invisible God.

Many things can be said about this Jesus-Christ, but first and foremost, He was to be Emmanuel: "God with us"! Amen.

jessedance · Sep 9, 2003

you said "I and my Father are one" to prove that Jesus is the father . John17:22 says "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be <A id=essa name=30488x16>one, <A id=essa name=30488x17>even <A id=essa name=30488x18>as <A id=essa name=30488x19>we <A id=essa name=30488x20>are <A id=essa name=30488x21>one: John 17:22 (KJV). /so clearly, this verse does not mean that Jesus is the father. It is highly irrational to say that we means I. "we (i.e. two or more) are one" Can you agree with this? That this verse doesnt prove that Jesus is the father?

jessedance · Sep 9, 2003

Bekah; All your proofs are interpretations of scritpures.You interpret several of the scritpures you posted to mean that Jesus is god. But that leaves you with two gods, Jesus and the father. anyway you cut it. I say that interpretations of scriptures that result in contradictions are wrong.

Oneness of God

Active Member

Active Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads