Oneness Pentecostalism is not Biblical.

Jason0047 said:

...because a person can just pick whatever translation fits what they want to believe...

Click to expand...

be careful you're not doing the same, this is why I don't allow one translation to rule them all but rather study each word including the original to determine the correct meaning. "Godhead" is fine, albeit archaic, you're just defining the word incorrectly. I fully accept the trinity but Godhead does not mean the trinity, the context may reveal the trinity by using the term Godhead but Godhead itself doesn't demand it. It's a word that means the divine.

Jason0047 said:

The Trinity:

The Bible teaches that there is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4) (1 Timothy 2:5) (Isaiah 45:5).

Yet, the Bible also teaches that there are distinctions within the Godhead or that there is a plural nature to God.

Here are a couple of quick points:

#1. The word Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֔ים) is both a singular and a plural noun.
#2. God refers to Himself in plural form (Genesis 1:26) (Genesis 3:22) (Genesis 11:7) (Isaiah 6:8).
#3. Plurality of God in New Testament (Matthew 28:19) (2 Corinthians 13:14) (John 14:16-20).
#4. Introductions to both the Son & Holy Spirit (Daniel 7:9,10,13,14) (John 14:16)
#5. Different persons of Godhead appear at one time (Luke 3:21-22)
#6. Distinctions of Wills (Luke 22:42).
#7. Conversations Between the Godhead (Psalm 2:1-12) (Psalm 45:6-7) (Psalm 110:1) (Matthew 11:27) (John 17:24).


The Trinity is told to us in one verse.

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

Romans 1:20 says,
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

Meaning, even nature itself declares the Godhead (or the Trinity).

Atoms = Nucleus, Protons, Electrons.
Water Molecules = Hydrogen Atom, Hydrogen Atom, Oxygen Atom.
Man Made in God's Image = Physical Body, Spirit Body, Soul.

Although the word "Trinity" is not found within the Scriptures, the word "Godhead" is used instead (Acts of the Apostles 17:29) (Romans 1:20) (Colossians 2:9).

Click to expand...

Answers to genesis 1:26 argument.

“The use of the plural, ‘let us make man’ is the Hebrew idiomatic way of expressing deliberation, as in Genesis 11:7; or it is the plural of Majesty, royal commands being conveyed in the first person plural, as in Ezra 4:18.” (Hertz, p. 5)


Evidence within the text to support God as One


. For Gen. 1:27 concludes “And God made man in His own image, in the image of God created He them”.


Were God three persons we would expect the text to say: “And God made man in THEIR own image(s), in the image(s) of God created THEY them”.


Further, even if Gen. 1:26 was suggesting plurality the most we could learn from it would be that God is more than One, nowhere does it explicitly say that God is Three Persons (while being One God).
John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth the fullness of the Godhead bodily. 1. OT references of one Lord/God Isaiah 44:6,8 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I (God the father) am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Isaiah 44:8 )

8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. Isaiah 43:11 (KJV)

11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour. NT cross reference:Luke 2:11 11For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the LORD. Conclusion: There is one savior not two Jesus also means God is our salvation.. not the son of God is our salvation but God is our salvation. If God the father is the only savior he is the savior that expresses himself (Hebrews 1:3 in flesh) . Deut 4:35.

"He showed you these things so you would know that the LORD is God and there is no other." Isaiah 43:15 King James Version (KJV)

15 I am the Lord, your Holy One(not 3), the creator of Israel, your King. Deut 4:39 So remember this and keep it firmly in mind: The LORD is God both in heaven and on earth, and there is no other. Isaiah 45:5-7 King James Version (KJV)

5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am (God the father) the Lord, and there is none else. 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things
1. How many Spirits are there? God the Father is a Spirit (John 4:24), the Lord Jesus is a Spirit (II Corinthians 3:17), and the Holy Spirit is a Spirit by definition. Yet there is one Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4).

2.Did "God the Son" surrender His omnipresence while on earth? If so, how could he still be God. 3.Did "God the Son" die? The Bible says the Son died (Romans 5:10). If so, can God die? Can part of God die. 4.If the Son is eternal and existed at creation, who was His mother at that time? We know the Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4). 5. If the Son is eternal and immutable (unchangeable), how can the reign of the Son have an ending? (I Corinthians 15:24-28. Who Jesus is is summarized here: 2 Corinthians 5:19 19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Cross John 14:13 13And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. Hebrews 1:3 3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Comment: not a separate person. Just an express image of God the father person. The invisible God made visible. :
The words, “God the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:6), or similar designations such as “God our Father” (Philippians 1:2; Ephesians 1:2), and “God and Father” (Ephesians 4:6) appear more than 30 times in the New Testament, but we never find a single example of an alleged God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit ever occurring in inspired scripture, not even once. There is a reason why God always led the apostles and prophets to write God the Father rather than God the Son or God the Holy Spirit. For our Heavenly Father is “the only true God”(John 17:3) and that there are no true God’s beside Him (“there is no God beside Me” - Isaiah 45:5). Thus the man Christ Jesus is “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15) as the image of the invisible God the Father. Cross reference: Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 1 Timothy 2:5 5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Jason0047 said:

There are not many words of God, there is only one. Oh, and I cannot fall prey to making the Word say what I want if I have a final Word of authority (like the KJV). Words in our language have specific meanings that have to fit the context. With Modern Translations, you are trying to fish for a meaning within the original languages that you really cannot always know because you did not grow up writing and speaking that language. Also, when I talk to people in the Original Languages Only Camp, many times they do not even believe what the Bible says plainly in the English. I do not believe the English conflicts with the original languages because I believe God perfectly preserved His Word for us.

Click to expand...

Since there is only one word of God, why aren't you using it? The one and only word of God and final authority is the Bishop's Bible of 1568.

-CryptoLutheran

Jason0047 said:

God chose 4 languages to perfectly preserve His Word through out time.

1. The Hebrew.
2. The Greek.
3. Latin.
4. English.

English is currently the world language, just as Greek was once the world language.

But God did not limit His perfect Word to just English. The King James is available in a few other languages.

Textus Receptus in Spanish (RVG 2010):
https://www.amazon.com/Santa-Biblia-Rústica-Valera-Spanish/dp/0758907567/
King James Francais in French:
http://www.kingjamesfrancaise.net
Koning Jacobus Vertaling in Dutch:
http://www.koningjacobusvertaling.org/info_english.php
Bibelen Guds Ord in Norwegian:
http://www.hermon.no/netbibelen/
Thai King James Bible Version:
https://newchristianbiblestudy.org/bible/thai-kjv/
Korean King James Version:
https://www.amazon.com/Korean-English-Bible-Leather-Golden/dp/B005DPPENA/

Anyways, to learn more about how God preserved His Word in 4 different languages through out time, check out this article here.

May God bless you.

Click to expand...

You're wrong. There are exactly four languages which God used to preserve His Word, but they are:

1. Hebew
2. Greek.
3. Latin.
4. Early High German.

And the language God is using right now to preserve His Word is Early High German. Which is why if you want to read God's uncorrupted Word you need the 1545 Lutherbibel.

https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Luther-Bibel-1545-LUTH1545/#booklist

"Vnd so jemand dauon thut von den worten des Buchs dieser Weissagung / So wird Gott abthun sein teil vom Buch des Lebens / vnd von der heiligen Stad / Vnd von dem / das in diesem Buch geschrieben stehet." - Die Offenbarung 22:19

-CryptoLutheran

We know that the King James is a perverse corruption of God's Word because it changes God's Word, for example:

Johannis 11:35 "Vnd Jhesu giengen die augen vber." ("And Jesus' eyes flowed over.") - 1545 Lutherbibel
John 11:35 "Jesus wept" - 1769 King James Version

Why did the translators of the KJV think it acceptable to change God's Word and lessen what is said here, "eyes flowed over" to the measly "wept".

Don't accept these modern PERVERSIONS of God's Word, accept no substitute. Only the 1545 is God's original and uncorrupted Word for the world today.

-CryptoLutheran

Jason0047 said:

The 1769 also does not have the Apocryphal books added to it.

Click to expand...

Yes it does. The 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV has the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha weren't removed from the KJV until the late 19th century.

Examples:

Here's an antique KJV from 1777, http://www.antiquebible.com/k94.html
Scroll through the images.

Here is a KJV family Bible from 1846, http://www.antiquebible.com/i66.html
Look at the Title Page and Table of Contents.

Here's another KJV family BIble from 1873, http://www.antiquebible.com/i19.html
Again, look at the Title Page and Table of Contents.

You don't accept the 1769, you only accept the 1769 revision when it is published without Apocrypha, and the KJV has only been really published without Apocrypha since the late 19th century, as even up and through most of the 19th century it was published, in both Britain and the United States, with Apocrypha.

-CryptoLutheran

Jason0047 said:

It's a great conversation starter to say to someone that they are .... "wrong."
If there is a sure fire way for someone to put up their defenses, it is starting your conversation with that one word.

Anyways, the German Bible that you provided does not even have the real 1 John 5:7 in it. For it leaves out:

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

This lets us know this German Bible is not a Textus Receptus Bible but it is taken from the other corrupt vine of manuscripts known as Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus (of which Westcott and Hort later based their corrupted Critical Text upon later in the late 1800's).

Side Note:

1 John 5:7 (KJV) is the only verse that point blank tells us about the Trinity. So yes. It is very important to have in your Bible. For if you were on an island and you had no other Bible but the KJV, you would be more likely to understand God is a Trinity instead of having one of those butchered Modern Translations. Granted, I use Modern Translations all the time, but the key difference here is that I use them to help me to update the 1600's English sometimes. However, they are not my final word of authority (unlike the KJV).

Click to expand...

The English Bible you provided doesn't have the real John 11:35 in it, because it leaves out that Jesus' eyes were overflowing.

Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were not discovered until the 19th century. Martin Luther did not have access to codices that weren't discovered until centuries after he was dead. So, I mean, that claim is obviously false.

-CryptoLutheran

Anto9us said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostalism

The ambiguity of the term "person" has been noted by both Oneness and Trinitarian proponents as a source of conflict.[16] This issue is addressed by Trinitarian scholar and Christian apologist Alister McGrath:

"The word ‘person’ has changed its meaning since the third century when it began to be used in connection with the ‘threefoldness of God’. When we talk about God as a person, we naturally think of God as being one person. But theologians such as Tertullian, writing in the third century, used the word ‘person’ with a different meaning. The word ‘person’ originally derives from the Latin word persona, meaning an actor’s face-mask—and, by extension, the role which he takes in a play. By stating that there were three persons but only one God, Tertullian was asserting that all three major roles in the great drama of human redemption are played by the one and the same God. The three great roles in this drama are all played by the same actor: God. Each of these roles may reveal God in a somewhat different way, but it is the same God in every case. So when we talk about God as one person, we mean one person in the modern sense of the word, and when we talk about God as three persons, we mean three persons in the ancient sense of the word. ... Confusing these two senses of the word ‘person’ inevitably leads to the idea that God is actually a committee."[17]

McGrath is helpful here in contrasting modern with ancient sense of persona.

Tertullian is not the earliest theologian to speak of a Trinity, but was the first to use the word in Latin (trinitas)
An earlier guy, Theophilus, wrote of a trinity concept using Father, Word and Wisdom rather than Father Son and Holy Ghost.

Click to expand...

Having read other material by McGrath, I certainly hope he does better than this in this book. Because, as presented here he has fundamentally failed to grasp the basic teaching of the Trinity and has advocated a Modalistic approach where God is presented as a singular actor playing out three roles. McGrath isn't small potatoes, which is why I'm a bit perplexed why he would obfuscate on such an important point, indeed falter significantly. His bringing of Tertullian into the conversation in this way is also strange, seeing as Tertullian was enthusiastically anti-Modalist, dedicating an entire work against it in Contra Praxeas.

-CryptoLutheran