Oneness of God

Shamash Of Yeshua said:

Greetings OldShepherd,

I haven't forgotten you You are a very wise person and I have said that in another thread.

Can you tell me about a coin that Constitine had made in 335C.E. that is shown on this link:
http://www.michaelrood.com/news_sp36.htm

In the three hundred and thirty-fifth year of the Common Era, the Emperor Constantine struck this coin for the purpose of honoring himself and his god. He put his own image on the obverse side of the coin and a depiction of his god on the reverse. His god is portrayed by the image of a man with a halo of the sun upon his head and “the whole world in his hands”. Constantine celebrated the birthday of his god on December 25th.

Who is this god of Constantine? He is the same god to which he prayed after his victories in battle. Constantine bowed eastward to face the rising sun, and paid homage to the one he sought for the wisdom to rule his diverse empire. The superscription on the coin surrounding the image of his god reads:
Soli Invic To Comite (“committed to the invincible sun”—Sol Invictus Mithra)
Sol Invictus Mithra was the Persian version of the Babylonian sun god, Tammuz (Ezekial 8). When Rome defeated Persia, the Roman legions adopted the worship of Mithra and began decorating their battle standards with the Mithraic cross.

Click to expand...

Please answer this for I want to know as well.

Tag

Click to expand...

I’m not sure what I should answer. There is no historical information at this site. Anybody can post a picture of a coin at their website and say anything they want. But that does not make it true. I posted information written by the Christian historian, Eusebius, who lived at the time and knew Constantine. There was another historian who lived at that time, Lactantius, who was the tutor of Constantine’s son. I did not see any historical information at all at your website.

How do we know this is a Constantinian coin or when it was minted? I did not see any historical information that Constantine celebrated anything on December 25.

Who is the God of Constantine? According to Eusebius, a Christian historian, who lived at the time of Constantine, see my previous post. The God that Constantine worshipped was the God of the Christian’s and the Jews before them. I did not see any historical information that Constantine bowed in any direction for any purpose.

”Soli Invic To Comite (“committed to the invincible sun”—Sol Invictus Mithra)” Look at the picture, the name “Mithra” does not appear on the coin, it was inserted by the person who made this website.

There is no historical evidence that Mithra and Tammuz were associated in any way.

”When Rome defeated Persia, the Roman legions adopted the worship of Mithra and began decorating their battle standards with the Mithraic cross.” Both these statements are incorrect and not supported by any evidence.

The cult of Mithra did not arrive in Rome itself until about 100 years after Christianity. Therefore Christianity could not have copied anything, including the cross, from them. Eusebius clearly explains how the Christian, NOT Mithraic or any othe kind of, cross came to be the emblem used by Constantine.

The Mithra cult left no written records. The only written information about the cult are mentions made of them in the writings of the early church fathers. The only information that the Mithra cult left was carvings and statuary in their worship grottoes. There is no historical information of a cross of any kind associated with Mithra.

The Mithra cult was in decline before Constantine and there is no evidence that he was associated with it in any way. In fact written decrees by Constantine condemned all non-Christian religions. Here are a few quotes from Encyclopedia Britannica about Mithras.

• 
  Mithraism was first transmitted to the Roman world during the 1st century B.C. by the Cilician pirates captured by Pompey. It attained no importance, however, for nearly two centuries.
  
  The beginning of the downfall of Mithraism dates from A.D. 275, when Dacia was lost to the empire, and the invasions of the northern peoples resulted in. the destruction of temples along a great stretch of frontier, the natural stronghold of the cult. The aggression of Christianity also was now more effective. The emperors, however, favoured the cult, which was the army’s favourite until Constantine destroyed its hopes, The reign. of Julian and the usurpation of Eugenius renewed the hopes of its devotees, but the victory of Theodosius (394) may be considered the end of its existence.
  
  The Mithras legend has been lost, and can be reconstructed only from the scenes on the above described relief.

If you will see here are coins listed on a College site:

http://www.ripon.edu/academics/art/clark/coin16.html

The first three say the back part is a "Sun God" as well as the fifth one. So tell me if The Great Constitine wasn't a Sun Woshipper then why did he have his coins with the Sun God on the Back? Look at the dating of the coins. When was the Nicene Creed put together again? Wasn't it put together one year after these coins with the Sun God were first coined in 325C.E.

Here is another education site: http://www.people.memphis.edu/~tjbuggey/romeae2.html

Count down to the 15th and 16th coins. You notice the first one is to "Jupiter holding Victory on globe with eagle with wreath" and the 16th coin in the list back has "Sol standing, facing left, holding globe. Legend is SOL INVICTO COMITI"
Can you explain these away?

May the peace that transcends all understanding be with you,

Tag

Shamash Of Yeshua said:

If you will see here are coins listed on a College site:

http://www.ripon.edu/academics/art/clark/coin16.html

The first three say the back part is a "Sun God" as well as the fifth one. So tell me if The Great Constitine wasn't a Sun Woshipper then why did he have his coins with the Sun God on the Back? Look at the dating of the coins. When was the Nicene Creed put together again? Wasn't it put together one year after these coins with the Sun God were first coined in 325C.E.

Here is another education site: http://www.people.memphis.edu/~tjbuggey/romeae2.html

Count down to the 15th and 16th coins. You notice the first one is to "Jupiter holding Victory on globe with eagle with wreath" and the 16th coin in the list back has "Sol standing, facing left, holding globe. Legend is SOL INVICTO COMITI"
Can you explain these away?

May the peace that transcends all understanding be with you,

Tag

Click to expand...

Have you addressed my post? Have you answered anything I posted? I have nothing to explain away, the fact that modern scholars call a figure standing with rays extending from the head a "sun god" does NOT make it the "sun god." Does the name "sun god" appear anywhere on the coins, I didn't see it?

"So tell me if The Great Constitine wasn't a Sun Woshipper then why did he have his coins with the Sun God on the Back?" No conclusive evidence that the figure is in fact the "sun god' and just the mere fact that some coins may have had such a figure on them does NOT prove that Constantine was a "sun worshipper" There is a picture of a globe on one coin, does that make Constantine an earth worshipper? According to what you seem to be saying then Constantine also worshipped, "Jupiter, Victory, a globe, an eagle and a wreath" because they all appear on one coin.

Perhaps instead of searching for little bits and pieces of something to back up what you already believe, it might be possible for you to systematically read some accredited histories about Constantine and/or the Nicaean council. I linked to Eusebius' complete history of Constantine. You have said nothing about the history of Eusebius or the Encyclopedia Britannica, I posted. You haven't even tried to explain them away. An 8 or 9 word comment in a coin catalog is NOT history.

The historians of Constantine's day said overwhelmingly that he was a Christian. Was he a perfect Christian? I highly doubt it but neither are you or I, so we don't have any right to point fingers at him based on the little bit of information you posted. Especially in light of what a known, recognized Christian historian wrote about him.

Here is a website which offers antique American coins for sale. Look at the "Liberty" coins, they sure do look an awful lot like the supposed "sun god" on the coins at the sites you posted.

http://www.davidhall.com/eshop/listings.chtml?cf_id=496751922995940

Oh BTW here is another coin from the site you linked. It was sruck about 337 AD, the title says "Constantine with the hand of God reaching down." Click the image to enlarge.

The Internet is packed with websites that either call Trinitarians HERETICS or Oneness Pentecostals HERETICS!

[size=+1][Edited by a moderator][/size]

What right does anyone have to say that Oneness Pentecostals or Oneness Apostolics are false prophets and that their ministries and denominations are CULTS?

It's these same "Christians" who fiercly warn Trinitarians to view wellknown musicians and spiritual leaders such as <i>Phillips, Craig, and Dean</i>, and <i>T.D. Jakes</i> as heretics because they are <i>Oneness</i> Christians!

ON THE SAME TOKEN, Oneness Pentecostals are guilty of the same accusations! Telling Trinitarians that they are heathenistic and ****** to eternity in Hell! Both sides are guilty of the same thing - pride, judgement, and self-righteousness.

The fact is, both Trinitarians AND Oneness Pentecostals believe that JESUS IS GOD AND THAT GOD IS ONE! We are brothers and sisters in Christ! We have no right to judge one another's Salvation statis!

Yes, there are differences in doctrine concerning the Nature and Essence of God, but we, as BORN-AGAIN BELIEVERS, believing that Jesus is God and gave His life on Calvary, are sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father and therefore, we are indeed fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and fellow heirs to His Kingdom!

Why are we treating one another with such evil slander and separation? You cannot accuse someone of heresy or eternal damnation if they don't deny the Deity of Christ! Stop looking so hard for false prophets and start embracing your brothers and sisters.

We should be working together to spread the Gospel around the world instead of wasting all our time and energy accusing one another of being heretics simply because of variances in how we understand the Godhead. The point is whether or not one understands that Jesus IS God.

It's okay to discuss theological differences! Just treat one another with respect and don't be so quick to judge one another! Only God knows the heart of an individual and whether or not an individual is saved!

*In case you are wondering, I am a Oneness Pentecostal but I do come from a Trinitarian background. I've been on both sides. I understand the standpoint of each side and I know that both sides are true Christians! Doctrinal differences? Yes. Exclusive Salvation to only one side? Not a chance!

Amen to that Bekah!

Has anyone heard of a ONENESS believer changing their convictions and turning to (or back to) TRINITARIANISM?

usadingo said:

For all the oneness folk out there, here's my list of questions.

1. Why is Jesus is referred to as the Son?
-How can you have a Son without a Father?

2. Why did Jesus prayed to the Father?
-Wouldn't he being praying to Himself in the oneness view? If so, why?

3. Isaiah calls the Messiah "Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." How can Jesus be the "Everlasting Father"?
-God and Jesus both called the Mighty God? In the Old Testament? And Jesus is everlasting too?

4. Jesus said that He would send the Comforter (John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7), but He also said that "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you" (John 14:17)
-Wouldn't that mean that Jesus is the Comforter? How is that? Jesus would send the Comforter, who comes from the Father, whom the Father will also send, but Jesus will come and comfort us? Does this sound like it's the SAME PERSON to anyone else?

Just a few questions I'm wondering about...

Click to expand...

Good questions dude

Coming from a trinitarian upbringing, these were at one point the same questions on my mind.

I have since attended a Bible School to help get some much needed answers.

First I found out just what God is: The invisible, eternal, Spirit that inhabits all of creation (He is actually greater than creation aswell).

This same ONE SPIRIT is the Spirit of God (Holy Ghost), the Holy Ghost being that SPIRIT operating within Spirit-filled believers.

Keeping this in mind, we see that everyone is actually walking within salvation; as the Spirit of God is everywhere! The only thing that seperates us from this Spirit, is sin.....oops I better get to answering your questions I will attempt to keep things simple.

-Son without a father?

At the Divine conception of Christ, the Holy Ghost, Spirit of God (God), became a father. This unique "Son" would indeed be "God with us". Jesus-Christ's uniqeness caused Him to be both "fully-man and very-God", as He was born with a "dual-nature" or "dual-self". The "greater-Spirit" within His humanity was essentially WHO He was/is: "Divinity clothed in humanity"! Jesus Himself makes mention of "I am in my Father and He in me", "I and my Father are one", "He who has seen me has seen the Father"...etc.

Therefore, the Divine conception resulted in a unique "Son", so that the Father was indeed within the "Son" that He sired. A sinless and perfect vessel for God to reveal His plan of salvation. Thus, a "personal name", has now been taken by God Himself. The "One name under heaven given among men, which we must be saved by". All other supposed 'names' of God, are merely "titles" to the ONE God who has only ONE "personal name". The titles are "what" God is, the name Jesus is "who" God is.

-why pray to Himself?

This was simply the "humanity" of Jesus having a need, that only "His Divinity" could meet. The "Spirit of God" within Him, still possessed all the Divine attributes: omnipotence, omniscience, omnpresence...etc. Note: The "dual-nature" of Jesus is not unique to "oneness" believers.

-God /Jesus the same?

Whenever there is God-like references to Jesus, it is the "Spirit within Him" that the Bible is refering to. His "Divinity" is indeed the "invisible, omnipresent, Spirit"; God. Thus, Jesus is the "image of God.

-Comforter?

It is interesting that Jesus tells the listeners that His Father will send the "Comforter", than in following chapters He says that He Himself will send the Comforter (Holy Ghost). He is simply saying that the "omnipresent Spirit of God" (the same Spirit within Him), will indwell born-again believers, after He is taken into heaven.


Obviously there is much scriptural evidence to line up this reasoning, and there may be other readers that may help to explain things a bit better

If you require scripture I will post them, and if you would like a more indepth explanation I will do so if you ask.

Hi all,

Just to add to my previous post:

After attending both trinitarian and oneness bible schools, I discovered that the teachings in the trinitarian school were very shallow compared to the other Bible School. It was very interesting to see the differences in both reasonings

GJG said:

Hi all,

Just to add to my previous post:

After attending both trinitarian and oneness bible schools, I discovered that the teachings in the trinitarian school were very shallow compared to the other Bible School. It was very interesting to see the differences in both reasonings

Click to expand...

Sorry but I highly doubt this. If Trinitarian schools are so shallow then Oneness scholars should dominate Christianity. Who are those leading Oneness scholars? Where are the leading books, studies, language resources by Oneness scholars?

To answer you earlier post, yes I have a close relative who came out of oneness, after several years, to a belief in the Trinity. It is strange how it happened he was in a Christian book store looking for more oneness information to try to disprove my Trinity arguments to him when he picked up a certain book. He glanced through the book a few times that day and returned a few days later to buy it.

GJG said:

Thus, a "personal name", has now been taken by God Himself. The "One name under heaven given among men, which we must be saved by". All other supposed 'names' of God, are merely "titles" to the ONE God who has only ONE "personal name". The titles are "what" God is, the name Jesus is "who" God is.

Click to expand...

God does NOT say that His name is merely a title. And I do believe that we are part of &#8220;all generations&#8221;Somehow the &#8220;Oneness&#8221; of God was separate and distinct enough to qualify as two witnesses under the law.

THE BIBLE CLEARLY SAYS THAT JESUS IS THE *SON* OF GOD!
What Does This Mean?!

There is a definite distinction between God the Father and Jesus the Son

In the New Testament, Jesus never said, "I am God the Father", nor will you ever find the phrase, "God the Son".

What Jesus did say was: "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" , "He who hath seen me hath seen the Father", and "I and the Father are one" (John 10 & 14).

Jesus Christ is referred to as the Son of God approx. 40 times in the New Testament but is only referred to specifically as God about half a dozen times or so. Why is this? Is it because Jesus Christ is indeed a separate Person or a separate Being from God the Father?

Just because more verses say Jesus is the Son of God compared to those verses which say Jesus is the God, does that mean that we should only focus on the multitude set of verses rather than the smaller handful of verses? Should we view the verses that say Jesus is THE GOD as invalid since the greater precentage of verses say that Jesus is the SON OF GOD?

A friend of mine, (a professing Christian) told me that since the New Testament only makes a couple of references to homosexuality being sin; it's pretty much a non-issue. He said that if God really wanted us to believe that He considers homosexuality to be an abomination, then He would have devoted way more verses to the topic.

So tell me, if only one verse in the Bible said that murder is wrong, would that mean that murder is pretty much a non-issue? "If God wanted us to get the point that murder is wrong, He would have devoted way more verses to the topic". I hope my point is clear here!If the Bible only said that Jesus is God one time, then we still need to reverence that declaration as infallible Truth!

At this point, you may be thinking that I am being hypocritical. "You say it's wrong to ignore the smaller passages of Scripture and only pay attention to the big passages, but here, you seem to be doing the opposite: favouring the smaller passages over the larger passages."

What I'm trying to explain is that we need to take all Scripture together as a whole! The Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God and that Jesus IS God. Is this a contradiction? Does this mean that Jesus is a separate Person or Being from God?

When Jesus and the disciples taught, they used words and terms that the people would understand and relate to. As author David K. Bernard says: "The title of Son refers to God's incarnation. The man Christ was literally conceived by the Spirit of God and was therefore the son of God (Matthew 1:18-20; Luke 1:35)."

That is why Jesus was referred to as the "Son of God" and even referred to himself as the Son of God. This was not because he was a separate Person from God but because he [Jesus] had been physically born of a woman and conceived by the Holy Spirit (God's Spirit). And, since he [his body] was conceived of the Holy Spirit and not by a man, he was literally the "Son of God" though he was in fact, God incarnate.

In knowing and understanding that Jesus the Son was God in the flesh, be careful not to overlook the incredible and eternally important example found in this Divine Sonship:

Jesus Christ THE SON set us the perfect example of what our relationship with God OUR HEAVENLY FATHER should be. He taught us what it means to completely surrender our wills to the Will of God (the Garden of Gethsamene and sweat drops of blood - "Nevertheless, not my will but Thine be done." Luke 22:42). He taught us by His example of Sonship, what it means to "take up our cross daily" (Mark 8:34). By His Sonship, Jesus Christ taught us how to pray, "Our Father, which art in Heaven, hallowed by Thy Name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done" (Matthew 6:9-13).

Without the relationship of Jesus the Son with God the Father, we would have no clue what it means to be Christ-like! Is this relationship between Son and Father that of two separate personages or beings? Or rather, is this beautiful relationship that of the man Jesus Christ with His Heavenly Father, the Spirit dwelling within him?

In Matthew 24:35-36 Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away . . . But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

As writer Matthew J. Slick said, "If Jesus is God in the flesh, then shouldn't He know what the day and hour of His return would be? After all, God knows all things. Therefore, if Jesus doesn't know all things, then He cannot be God.

This objection is most often raised by the Jehovah's Witnesses but is also echoed by the Christadelphians. It is a good question.

Jesus was both God and man. He had two natures. He was divine and human at the same time. In Hebrews 2:9, it says that Jesus was ". . . made for a little while lower than the angels". Also in Phillipians 2:5-8, it says that Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men". Col. 2:9 further says, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."

Jesus was both God and man at the same time. As a man, Jesus cooperated with the limitations of being a man. That is why we have verses like Luke 2:52 that says, "Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." Therefore, at this point in his ministry he could say He did not know the day nor hour of His return. It is not a denial of His being God, but a confirmation of Him being man.

Also, the logic that Jesus could not be God because He did not know all things works both ways. If we could find a scripture where Jesus does know all things, then that would prove that He was God, wouldn't it?

He [Jesus] said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Tend My sheep" (John 21:17).

Jesus did not correct Peter and say, "Hold on Peter, I do not know all things." He let Peter continue on with his statement that Jesus knew all things. Therefore, it must be true. But, if we have a verse that says that Jesus did not know all things and another that says he did know all things, then isn't that a contradiction? No. It is not. Before Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection He said the Father alone knew the day and hour of His return. It wasn't until after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection that omniscience is attributed to Jesus. As I said before, Jesus was cooperating with the limitations of being a man and completed His ministry on this earth. He was then glorified in His resurrection."

"For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son" (John 3:16), "God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16), and "Jesus said unto them, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58)

Der Alter said:

Sorry but I highly doubt this. If Trinitarian schools are so shallow then Oneness scholars should dominate Christianity. Who are those leading Oneness scholars? Where are the leading books, studies, language resources by Oneness scholars?

To answer you earlier post, yes I have a close relative who came out of oneness, after several years, to a belief in the Trinity. It is strange how it happened he was in a Christian book store looking for more oneness information to try to disprove my Trinity arguments to him when he picked up a certain book. He glanced through the book a few times that day and returned a few days later to buy it.



God does NOT say that His name is merely a title. And I do believe that we are part of “all generations”

Exodus 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD [&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;] God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

John 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.​

Somehow the “Oneness” of God was separate and distinct enough to qualify as two witnesses under the law.

Click to expand...

Thx 4 ur reply

Maybe I should say that "my own experience" lead me to believe what I said. Perhaps the teachings at that particular trini-school were not up to scratch with other ones maybe?

If you are really seriously interested in searching out oneness teachings, scholars, books, studies, etc...the internet is a good place to start.

Also, looking at which particular denomination 'dominates Christianity' is an unsound way to discover the truth. Every other denomination can be said to 'dominate Christianity' by sheer ammount of numbers along with their own bunch of 'leading scholars'


Regarding your friend:

A well studied oneness believer, especially after a few years, would be more than able to disprove any trinitarian arguments using the Bible alone, rather than searching in a book store. Therefore, I suspect your friend was unsure of the overall oneness teachings as a whole.

Name of God:

Being of uncreated substance, by definition, means the total lack of that which can recieve a true name. Only created substance is able to be given a "proper name". Do you know of anything in creation which does not have a name? How do you give a "proper name" to something that is outside of our own space-time reality, the eternal Spirit?

God said that His name was "jealous", yet we know that this is only a title to 'what' He is. This same word 'name' is used several times in referance to the uncreated God. These can only be titles to 'what' the unceated God is.

However, there is indeed a "name" that is above "ALL" names. This particular name is also a "PERSONAL NAME". Jesus Himself tells us that His Father is greater than He, so that if you are correct in your reasoning, than the name you claim is the 'name of God' must be the "name above ALL names"; alas it is not!

This name above all names is obviously JESUS, as this was the only opportunity for the uncreated God to take to Himself a true "PERSONAL NAME, when He dwelt within "the perfect vessel": JESUS!

I await with interest your reply

GJG = You make tons of great points! (You are also very well-versed!) Keep up the excellent work in sharing the Truth about the Oneness of God!

GJG said:

Thx 4 ur reply

If you are really seriously interested in searching out oneness teachings, scholars, books, studies, etc...the internet is a good place to start.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I have read and refuted a lot of Bernard, Stafford, and Buzzard, and what is posted at several "Oneness" sites.

GJG said:

Also, looking at which particular denomination 'dominates Christianity' is an unsound way to discover the truth. Every other denomination can be said to 'dominate Christianity' by sheer ammount of numbers along with their own bunch of 'leading scholars'

Click to expand...

I recall Jesus telling Peter that "Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell, shall not prevail against it." Should not there be a record of that church in every age and generation? Let me rephrase the question where are the leading "Oneness" scholars? Where are their studies of scriptures? Where are the books, lessons, etc. which disprove the teachings of the historic church, since "Oneness" as it is currently practiced can only be traced back to 1913.

For example, I have seen posted here that Constantine was a pagan and responsible for the Trinity. When the actual history, written by historians who lived at the time, shows beyond question that Constantine was a Christian but not a Trinitarian. He was an Arian, the same as a Jehovah Witness, and the Eastern church was Arian for 40 years after his death.

Also I have seen claims that the Trinity came into the church in the 4th or 5th century. When writings of the early church show the word Trinity was actually used in 170 AD and Trinitarian views were written about by the students of John the Apostle in the late first and early 2nd century. And by the way, the only early church writers who were "Oneness" also held views that were unquestionably heretical.

GJG said:

Regarding your friend:

Click to expand...

Read my post again, I said close family member.

GJG said:

A well studied oneness believer, especially after a few years, would be more than able to disprove any trinitarian arguments using the Bible alone, rather than searching in a book store. Therefore, I suspect your friend was unsure of the overall oneness teachings as a whole.

Click to expand...

Ah, making judgements about something you know nothing about. The discussion was about whether the early church had been oneness as he and all other "Oneness" believers claim. The answer is no, the only people/groups, in the early church, who actually held "Oneness" views also held other clearly heretical views. Such as, "The Father was crucified and died."

GJG said:

Name of God:

Being of uncreated substance, by definition, means the total lack of that which can recieve a true name. Only created substance is able to be given a "proper name".

Click to expand...

Back this up with scripture, please. God said His name was &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492; more than once. And that NAME is used of Him 5521 times in the Bible. And as I said God said that was His name for ever and was to be a memorial to all generations. Now who do I believe, the Bible or you, saying that is NOT a name and that God does not or cannot have a name?

GJG said:

How do you give a "proper name" to something that is outside of our own space-time reality, the eternal Spirit?

Click to expand...

I did not give God that name. Read the Bible, that is what He said His name was, more than once.

GJG said:

God said that His name was "jealous", yet we know that this is only a title to 'what' He is. This same word 'name' is used several times in referance to the uncreated God. These can only be titles to 'what' the unceated God is.

Click to expand...

Back this up with scripture. Is there a way that this can be interpreted which does not contradict scripture as your assumption does? Think about it, there is.

GJG said:

However, there is indeed a "name" that is above "ALL" names. This particular name is also a "PERSONAL NAME". Jesus Himself tells us that His Father is greater than He, so that if you are correct in your reasoning, than the name you claim is the 'name of God' must be the "name above ALL names"; alas it is not!

Click to expand...

Alas you know nothing about the Hebrew name of Jesus which is &#1497;&#1513;&#1493;&#1506;/"Yeshua" which means "&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492; will save." So Jesus does have a name that is above every name. His name includes the name of the father, &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;

GJG said:

This name above all names is obviously JESUS, as this was the only opportunity for the uncreated God to take to Himself a true "PERSONAL NAME, when He dwelt within "the perfect vessel": JESUS!
I await with interest your reply.

Click to expand...

Actually Jesus is the English transliteration, of the Greek transliteration, of the Messiah's Hebrew name, &#1497;&#1513;&#1493;&#1506;/"Yeshua. and as I said before God said His name was &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492; and it appears 5521 times in scripture.

Der Alter said:

Thank you. I have read and refuted a lot of Bernard, Stafford, and Buzzard, and what is posted at several "Oneness" sites.



I recall Jesus telling Peter that "Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell, shall not prevail against it." Should not there be a record of that church in every age and generation? Let me rephrase the question where are the leading "Oneness" scholars? Where are their studies of scriptures? Where are the books, lessons, etc. which disprove the teachings of the historic church, since "Oneness" as it is currently practiced can only be traced back to 1913.

For example, I have seen posted here that Constantine was a pagan and responsible for the Trinity. When the actual history, written by historians who lived at the time, shows beyond question that Constantine was a Christian but not a Trinitarian. He was an Arian, the same as a Jehovah Witness, and the Eastern church was Arian for 40 years after his death.

Also I have seen claims that the Trinity came into the church in the 4th or 5th century. When writings of the early church show the word Trinity was actually used in 170 AD and Trinitarian views were written about by the students of John the Apostle in the late first and early 2nd century. And by the way, the only early church writers who were "Oneness" also held views that were unquestionably heretical.



Read my post again, I said close family member.



Ah, making judgements about something you know nothing about. The discussion was about whether the early church had been oneness as he and all other "Oneness" believers claim. The answer is no, the only people/groups, in the early church, who actually held "Oneness" views also held other clearly heretical views. Such as, "The Father was crucified and died."



Back this up with scripture, please. God said His name was &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492; more than once. And that NAME is used of Him 5521 times in the Bible. And as I said God said that was His name for ever and was to be a memorial to all generations. Now who do I believe, the Bible or you, saying that is NOT a name and that God does not or cannot have a name?



I did not give God that name. Read the Bible, that is what He said His name was, more than once.



Back this up with scripture. Is there a way that this can be interpreted which does not contradict scripture as your assumption does? Think about it, there is.



Alas you know nothing about the Hebrew name of Jesus which is &#1497;&#1513;&#1493;&#1506;/"Yeshua" which means "&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492; will save." So Jesus does have a name that is above every name. His name includes the name of the father, &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;



Actually Jesus is the English transliteration, of the Greek transliteration, of the Messiah's Hebrew name, &#1497;&#1513;&#1493;&#1506;/"Yeshua. and as I said before God said His name was &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492; and it appears 5521 times in scripture.

Click to expand...

Thx again 4 a speedy reply

Oneness Scholars:

I actually haven't heard of the three names you mentioned, so I am not sure what their particular views are. However, if they hold to the same teachings that I myself also hold, then I must congratulate you on achieving something which I myself have been unable to do no matter how hard I tried. You see my friend, I was born into, raised up in, and attended several trinitarian schools over the years. I have tried to look at the oneness doctrine from every possible angle, to see if there is any crack whatsoever in the foundational teachings. From my own personal experience I can truthfuly say that I have failed miserably at each and every attempt. I can only put it down to this:

Of all the many different doctrinal teachings that I have come to know, the oneness of the living God seems to be the only doctrine that lines up with and completely harmonizes ALL scripture, whether it be OT or NT; the evidence is infallible! (don't even get me started on the many contradictions within the trinity reasoning)

I knew that that there was indeed ONE God, I just needed guidance to show "WHAT" God is, in order to then know "WHO" God is.

Early Church:

The practice of the early Church was indeed that of a "one God,one faith, one baptism" believing body. If you study the experience of Saul's (Paul's) ministry from the very beginning, you will discover the mystery that was revealed to both Paul and the early Church:

The Godliness of Christ was confirmed when Saul asked the question of the awesome manifestation of God, on the way to Damascus; "Who are you Lord?" The obvious answer: "I am Jesus". This was a man that previously hated everything to do with Jesus, especially those that were Christians. However, Saul was sure of this one thing; The first and most important commandment of all, is to believe in the ONE true living God! He not only kept to this original belief, he also gained the knowledge of "WHO" this one God is. This knowledge is the very same message that this man, the greatest evengelist of all, never ceased to preach throughout his ministry.

Constantine:

I never met the guy, so I am assuming that history itself will speak enough, for all to discover what his true beliefs were.

John the Apostle:

Now this guy I know much about! For it is in the book of John that the writer himself, makes it clear for all readers to understand, that the one God of the OT is the very same unchanging Spirit that has become manifest in the flesh of Jesus. This book was actually written due to the uprising of false doctrines that were beginning to pervade the early church. This is indeed the book to study in order to learn of the oneness of God!

Friend:

Oops! Sorry bout that

Early Church oneness:

As I mentioned earlier, the mystery of the Godliness of the man-Christ was something that early believers were keen to know. At the same time, many wrong-worded overzealous statements were sure to spring up, such as: "The Father was crucified and died" as God cannot die, the flesh of Jesus can. However, there is still a truth to; the Spirit that is in Jesus, is the very same substance that sired His perfect flesh. Very much like, there are trinitarians that also make overzealous statements regarding their own beliefs. Inaccurate as they may be be, there is still an, essential percieved truth, behind the innocent statements. This does not detract from the fact that early church practices, are in total agreement with all oneness teachings.

God's name:

Indeed you must trust in and obey what is in scripture, rather than reasonings of the imagination! Your reasoning is this: Due to the ammount of usage, and one particular scripture, this name must be "the name" of Almighty God. Jesus Himself also tells you and I that His Father (God) is greater than Himself (higher authority). This would undoubtedly lead to just one conclusion: Any name that is above "ALL" names, must be by definition, the true "ONE NAME" of God! Alas my friend, your reasoning is contrary to scriptural evidence:

Phil 2:9-11
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
NIV

Acts 4:12
12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
NIV

Keeping the above scriptures in mind, along with scriptural evidence that you yourself put forward, there springs up an obvious question:

Is there a new Biblical name of God? The answers as always, are in the Bible:

Rev 2:17
17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a NEW NAME written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
KJV
Rev 3:12
12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my NEW NAME.
KJV


He gave the name:

As I pointed out previously, God also gave His name as being "jealous", yet, you do not acknowledge this as the name of God. And this is indeed 'from the Bible' which I am reading. Do you agree that God is "uncreated substance"? If so, then explain to me how "uncreated substance" is equal to "created substance" regarding "receiving a proper name", then please show me what is the "personal name" of God and how He recieved it.

Back up with scripture:

I have in the above, used scripture to point to the evidence of the "personal name" of God. Could you inturn use scripture to show what are all the titles of God.

I know nothing:

Indeed you are 100% correct! I am nothing more than an open hearted believer, searching for the truth.

I agree whole heartedly with your last two chapters, as this is what I have been trying to say to you all the way through:

THE NAME OF THE SON AND THE FATHER ARE ONE AND THE SAME NAME; A NEW "PERSONAL NAME" NOW BELONGS TO GOD!

Look 4ward 2 ur reply

DER ALTER = I apologize for quoting Matthew Slick like that - I didn't realize he was quoting someone else in order to refute the Oneness Doctrine. I just found that website and thought it to be a great quote and still do. I'll find out who really said that and leave Matt's name out of it. Thank-you for bringing this to my attention! I honestly did not mean to misquote someone like that!!!

GJG said:

Thx again 4 a speedy reply

Oneness Scholars:
I actually haven't heard of the three names you mentioned, so I am not sure what their particular views are.

Click to expand...

[size=+1]Three of the most well known &#8220;Oneness&#8221; scholars teaching today.[/size]

gjg said:

(don't even get me started on the many contradictions within the trinity reasoning)

Click to expand...

[size=+1]Oh please do show some of these so-called contradictions. I have been a Christian for more than three decades and I do not know of one single contradiction. And please refer to mainline denominations, their official statements of belief, etc, I&#8217;m not interested in what some little out of the way Church of David Koresh, etc. says.[/size]

gjg said:

The practice of the early Church was indeed that of a "one God,one faith, one baptism" believing body. If you study the experience of Saul's (Paul's) ministry from the very beginning, you will discover the mystery that was revealed to both Paul and the early Church:

Click to expand...

[size=+1]I was speaking of the early church following the time of the apostles which should have been clear from my reference to the disciples of John and which you acknowledge in a paragraph below. [/size]

GJG said:

Constantine:

I never met the guy, so I am assuming that history itself will speak enough, for all to discover what his true beliefs were.

Click to expand...

[size=+1]Good then we won&#8217;t have to be concerned about any false notions about him and the Trinity will we? [/size]

GJG said:

John the Apostle:

This book was actually written due to the uprising of false doctrines that were beginning to pervade the early church. This is indeed the book to study in order to learn of the oneness of God!

Click to expand...

[size=+1]You can support from scripture that John was written during a time of uprising of false doctrine?[/size]

GJG said:

Early Church oneness:
As I mentioned earlier, the mystery of the Godliness of the man-Christ was something that early believers were keen to know. At the same time, many wrong-worded overzealous statements were sure to spring up, such as: "The Father was crucified and died" as God cannot die, the flesh of Jesus can.

Click to expand...

[size=+1]Actually it was more than a few overzealous statements. As I said the ONLY people within the early church who taught &#8220;Oneness&#8221; held other heretical views, as the one mentioned.[/size]

GJG said:

God's name:
Indeed you must trust in and obey what is in scripture, rather than reasonings of the imagination!

Click to expand...

[size=+1]Are you accusing me of &#8220;reasoning from my imagination?&#8221; If not what is the purpose of this statement?[/size]

GJG said:

Your reasoning is this: Due to the ammount of usage, and one particular scripture, this name must be "the name" of Almighty God.

Click to expand...

[size=+1]If you are going to quote me or make reference to what I said at least have the integrity to get it right. As I said the first time, it is more than one scripture. Here is the scripture I quoted and a few more. And perhaps you could explain why &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;, in Isa 51:15, refers to Himself, in the second person? &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492; says &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492; is HIS name, NOT my name.[/size]

GJG said:

Jesus Himself also tells you and I that His Father (God) is greater than Himself (higher authority). This would undoubtedly lead to just one conclusion: Any name that is above "ALL" names, must be by definition, the true "ONE NAME" of God! Alas my friend, your reasoning is contrary to scriptural evidence:

Click to expand...

[size=+1]Please show me in scripture where it says &#8220;greater authority?" And no my reasoning is NOT contrary to scripture, I do NOT contradict scripture, you do!&#8221;

That is correct the one name that is above all names is the ONE NAME of God and that name is &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;, God&#8217;s name forever and to all generations. Your reasoning contradicts scripture, Exod 3:15 and the others I listed, as well as more I did not list.[/size]

GJG said:

Phil 2:9-11
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
NIV

Click to expand...

[size=+1]The name of Jesus, &#1497;&#1513;&#1493;&#1506;/Yeshua in Hebrew, has within it the name of the Father, which is the name that is above every name.[/size]

GJG said:

Acts 4:12
12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
NIV

Click to expand...

&#8221;there is no other name under heaven given to men&#8221; [size=+1]This is absolutely true, &#1497;&#1513;&#1493;&#1506;/Yeshua is the name that was given UNDER heaven, AMONG men. &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;, is the name of the Father IN heaven.[/size]

GJG said:

Keeping the above scriptures in mind, along with scriptural evidence that you yourself put forward, there springs up an obvious question:
Is there a new Biblical name of God? The answers as always, are in the Bible:

Rev 2:17
17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a NEW NAME written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
KJV
Rev 3:12
12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my NEW NAME.
KJV

Click to expand...

[size=+1]You are obviously misinterpreting the scripture to make them agree with your doctrine. The NEW NAME in Rev 3:12, is the same NEW NAME given to those who overcome in 2:17. God says it is &#8220;my new name&#8221; because it is the new name God gave them.

Rev. 2:17 does NOT say they will receive two new names, but A NEW NAME. Otherwise you contradict scripture, Exodus 3:15, &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492; is my name forever and a memorial to all generations. What part of FOREVER and ALL GENERATIONS, do you not understand?[/size]

GJG said:

As I pointed out previously, God also gave His name as being "jealous", yet, you do not acknowledge this as the name of God. And this is indeed 'from the Bible' which I am reading.

Click to expand...

[size=+1]I answered it, I said it could be reconciled. God&#8217;s covenant name is &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492; which He said was His name several times in the OT. God said my name is jealous only one time. In the Greek Septuagint, translated 250 BC, it says, &#8220;my name is a jealous name&#8221; Even if the correct translation is &#8220;my name is jealous&#8221; God&#8217;s covenant name is &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492; in addition to His covenant name He has the name &#8220;Jealous." And that does not contradict scripture as your &#8220;oneness&#8221; teaching does.[/size]

GJG said:

Do you agree that God is "uncreated substance"? If so, then explain to me how "uncreated substance" is equal to "created substance" regarding "receiving a proper name", then please show me what is the "personal name" of God and how He recieved it.

Click to expand...

[size=+1]Irrelevant I have not been discussing &#8220;uncreated substance&#8221; if you want to discuss that then quote some scriptures which address it. I have no idea when God received His personal name. OBTW is the term &#8220;personal name&#8221; found is scripture? God said my name is &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492; and that is good enough for me. Evidently it is not good enough for you, you seem to want to use unbiblical terms like &#8220;personal name.&#8221;[/size]

GJG said:

Back up with scripture:
I have in the above, used scripture to point to the evidence of the "personal name" of God. Could you inturn use scripture to show what are all the titles of God.

Click to expand...

[size=+1]I have correctly interpreted the scriptures you misquoted so that they harmonize instead of contradicting other scriptures. I have NOT been talking about God&#8217;s titles if you are interested, then you look them up in your own Bible.[/size]

GJG said:

I know nothing:

Click to expand...

[size=+1]Hold on there partner. Do NOT misquote me or misrepresent what I said. That is only part of one sentence, What I actually said was, &#8220;You know nothing about the Hebrew language.&#8221;[/size]

GJG said:

THE NAME OF THE SON AND THE FATHER ARE ONE AND THE SAME NAME; A NEW "PERSONAL NAME" NOW BELONGS TO GOD!

Click to expand...

[size=+1]As I have clearly demonstrated correctly citing the scriptures you posted, God&#8217;s name is NOT Jesus or even &#1497;&#1513;&#1493;&#1506;/Yeshua. God told us in Exodus, and several other scriptures, what His name is and will be forever and to all generations. Consider this scripture. God put everything under the feet of Jesus, everything that is EXCEPT God, Himself. So Jesus cannot have a name that is above the name of God! But God&#8217;s name &#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;, which is above every name, is in the name of Jesus, in Hebrew, &#1497;&#1513;&#1493;&#1506;.[/size]
[size=+1]And since you want to bring up posts that have not been addressed. You did not respond to this in my previous post.[/size][size=+1]Somehow the &#8220;Oneness&#8221; of God was separate and distinct enough to qualify as two witnesses under the law.[/size]

In John 14:10, Jesus says: "I speak not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."

The words He spoke were not the mere words of a man but rather, the words of God! Jesus Christ was a man but the Spirit within him was God the Father (the Holy Spirit)!

John 14:10, " . . . the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me."

He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. (John 14:24)

Two separate persons? Or a divine man? The words which Jesus spoke were not the words of just a man, but rather, the words of a living God dwelling within a man's body! GOD IN THE FLESH!

To Der alter,

Thx again 4 ur reply

I must apologize for any overzealous statements I may have said, as I tend to just get stuck into replying without really taking the time to carefully word things: sorry bout that again.

Another fault I have is that I also whip up answers without thinking about consequences: again I apologize.

You do indeed put across some interesting points, however, when all is said and done, I am simply a person who has been on both sides of the fence and now believe in that which Jesus Himself said is the first and most important commandment of all:

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

Regarding Contradictions:

The basic problem is that trinitarianism is a non- scriptural doctrine that contradicts a number of biblical teachings and many specific verses of scripture. Also, the most obvious internal contradiction is how there can be three persons of God in any meaningful sense and yet there be only one God.
Here is compiled a number of other contradictions and problems associated with trinitarianism. Note: This list is not exhaustive but it does give an idea of how much the doctrine deviates from the Bible.

• Did Jesus have two fathers? The father is the father of the son (1John1:3), yet the child born of Mary was conceived of the Holy Ghost Matt1:18,20; Luke1:35. Which one is the true father? Some Trinitarians claim that the Holy Ghost was merely the father’s agent in conception-a process they compare to artificial insemination!
• How many spirits are there? God the father is a Spirit John4:24, the Lord Jesus is a Spirit 2Cor3:17 and the Holy Spirit is Spirit by definition. Yet there is one Spirit 1Cor12:13; Eph4:4
• If Father and Son are co-equal persons, why did Jesus pray to the Father? Matt11:25. Can God pray to God?
• Similarly, how can the Son not know as much as the Father? Matt24:36; Mark13:32.
• Similarly, how can the Son not have any power except what the Father gives Him? John5:19,30; 6:38.
• Similarly, what about other verses from scripture indicating the inequality of the Son and the Father? John8:42; 14:28; 1Cor11:3.
• Did ‘God the Son’ die? The Bible shows that the Son died Rom5:10. If so, can God die? Can part of God die?
• How can there be an eternal Son when the Son was clearly ‘begotten’, indicating an obvious beginning John3:16; Heb1:5-6.
• If the Son is eternal and existed at creation, who was His mother during that time? The Son was made of a woman Gal4:4.
• Did ‘God the Son’ surrender His omnipresence while on earth? If so, how could He still be God?
• If the Son is eternal and immutable (unchanging), how can the reign of the Son have a ending? 1Cor15:24-28.
• Whom do we worship and to whom do we pray? Jesus said to worship the Father John4:21-24, yet Stephen prayed to Jesus Acts7:59-60.
• Can there be more than three persons in the Godhead? Obviously the OT does not teach three, but emphasizes the simple fact that there is only one.
• Are there three Spirits in a Christian’s heart? Father, Jesus, and the Spirit all dwell within a Christian John14:17,23; Rom8:9; Eph3:14-17. Yet there is only one Spirit 1Cor12:13; Eph4:4.
• There is only one throne in heaven Rev4:2. Who sits upon it? Jesus does Rev1:8,18; 4:8. Where do the Father and the Holy Spirit sit?
• If Jesus is seated on the throne, how can He sit on the right hand of God? Mark16:19. Does He sit or stand on the right hand of God? Acts7:55. Or is He in the Fathers bosom? John1:18.
• How is Jesus part of the Godhead, when clearly the Godhead is in Jesus? Col2:9.
• Given Matt 28:19, why did the apostles consistently baptize both Jews and Gentiles using only the name of Jesus, even to the extent of rebaptism?Acts2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; 1Cor1:13.
• Who raised Jesus from the dead? Did the Father Eph1:20, or Jesus John2:19-21, or the Spirit? Rom8:11.
• If the Son and Holy Ghost are co-equal persons in the Godhead, then why is blasphemy of the Holy Ghost unforgivable but blasphemy of the Son is not? Luke12:10.
• If the Holy Ghost is a co-equal member of the trinity, why does the Bible always show the Him being sent from the Father or from Jesus? John14:26; 15:26.
• If they are co-equal, why does the Holy Ghost not know what the Father knows regarding the return of Christ Mark13:32.
• If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, is the Spirit also a son of the Father? If not, why not?
• If the Spirit proceeds from the Son, is the Spirit the grandson of the Father? If not, why not?......................and so on…………….and so on!

I believe that trinitarinism is not a biblical doctrine and that it plainly contradicts the Bible in many ways. Scripture does not teach a trinity of persons. Trinity doctrine uses terminology not used in scripture. It teaches and emphasizes plurality in the Godhead while the Bible emphasizes the fact that God is one and only one. It detracts from the fullness of Jesus Christ’s Deity. It contradicts many specific verses of scripture. It is not logical. It cannot be explained rationally, not even by those who advocate it.

Please feel free to correct me

BTW,

To all those that refer to Hebrew, I must remind you that the writers of this beautiful language adhere to the "ONE GOD" stance in a big way!