why is Oneness unorthodox/frowned upon?

[ken777]

As I have offered, "oneness" people can persecute trinitarian people; I have heard oneness people talk in a very despising way about trinitarians in general, and where I was visiting they called off communion, once.

Not only do certain oneness people say there is not a Trinity, but certain oneness people, not all, claim you must name Jesus over your immersion in water or you are not saved. So, they are not only persecuting trinitarians but they are teaching that trinitarians are not saved.

But, like I say, not all oneness people do this; I am saying there are those who do and those who do not discriminate. And not all trinitarians persecute "apostolics". I let each person represent oneself, and see if and how we share about Jesus and God's word.

God is one. Also the Bible does say,

"And there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." (1 John 5:7)

So, three can be one, according to this in the word of God. But, I offer > here being "one" is not only about number, but unity and agreement. Being one can mean being perfectly in agreement, perfectly in union, perfectly sharing and relating with one another, and of course perfectly the same in nature, which I understand is the case for our Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit. So, here, it does not mean They are one in number, only; it does call Them "three".

A man and his wife can be "one", though they are two personalities. So, being "one" is not always talking only about number.

Ok, so here I think Jesus means that He and the Father are one, by being perfectly in agreement in how They share and relate and in nature. You can't be perfectly agreed unless you have the same character, I consider

And this does not mean there are more than one "god". It is like how there is one gold and gold has more than one form, but all with the same nature. There is but one gold, and gold exists in many forms. "Like this", there is one God and He exists in the personal forms of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. So, this is not like Greek mythology in which gods can be so different in personality and character, I understand.

Jesus says, "All things that the Father has are mine," in John 16:15. I understand that our Father has divinity; so does Jesus. So, He is God, as the Son of God. A human son has the same nature as his human father, but they are two different persons, by the way. It is kind of "hard" for a son to be his own father.

And Romans 5:5 shows us that the Holy Spirit shares God's own love with us, "in our hearts". So, from this I see that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God's own love. Only God can be the Spirit of His own love, I understand. So, the Holy Spirit also is God, but spoken of as a different Person, in the Bible.

So, They are one in nature of love, but three different Persons of the same love, Their oneness including how They are perfectly one in nature and how They share and relate and work together. But there are people who have never perfectly shared and related with anybody; so this can be something they do not have the experience and nature to grasp. So, instead, they find ways to be at odds with other people; their are both trinitarians and oneness people who have relating problems and they use their self-favoring doctrine to excuse them to look down on others, instead of first loving any and all people the way Jesus has us loving. But, also, I find there are oneness and trinitarians who are not first or mainly about finding ways to be different so they can look down on others.

Each Person has specialized love purposes. These include how our Father has overall management, while Jesus has come to earth to die for us and save us and now rules all, and the Holy Spirit deals with sinners, gives birth to children of God, and cares for us and prepares us for our Groom Jesus.

You have explained your position well but I really cannot see why that is not polytheism.

I accept the authenticity of 1John5 v7&8:

And there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.​

I wonder if you can see what the contrast between v7 & v8 is actually saying - the first three ARE one; the second three AGREE as one.

.

 

[com7fy8]

You have explained your position well but I really cannot see why that is not polytheism.

I accept the authenticity of 1John5 v7&8:

And there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.​

I wonder if you can see what the contrast between v7 & v8 is actually saying - the first three ARE one; the second three AGREE as one.

.

I think I understand what you are saying.

What I consider is three being one can mean three being perfectly the same in nature as well as agreeing, as well as relating perfectly together.

And it can include being the same Being. It is "like" how gold is only one gold, but there can be more than one personal form of gold. So, you do not have poly-golds because one form of gold is a father form, another of his son, and another is some other personal form. And the gold in molten form can flow to form into many replicas of the original form of the son.

Yes, it says the three are one, but it does not specify one in number. Oneness can be of more than one Person who all are the same Eternal. Each is not a separate Supreme Being. But they do relate with one another . . . as one.

In polytheism, each god is more or less totally independent of the other, and possibly of very different natures and dispositions . . . and agendas. But "God is love" (1 John 4:8&16) > each of the Persons is the exact same love . . . one love, not three. Humans can have, like this, more than one person, of their love. Except they are not their love, but our Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit all are the same one love, but They are individuals of this love, though perfectly the same in being and relating perfectly with one another. So, I doubt you find this in mythological polytheism.

But this is not first about how we explain it, but this is our example of how to be as children of God, with one another, and how to relate. God's love in us makes us able > Romans 5:5, Ephesians 4:2, Colossians 3:15.

 

[he-man]

I accept the authenticity of 1John5 v7&8:

And there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.​

.

This is not the Middle Ages, today, everyone has a computer, if they know how to use it. Erasmus's third edition of 1522 contained one truly unfortunate innovation: The "Three Heavenly Witnesses" in 1 John 5:7-8. These were derived from the recently-written Codex 61, and (as the famous story goes) included by Erasmus "for the sake of his oath." Sadly, they have been found in almost every TR edition since. http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TR.html
The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8) The so-called Johannine Comma (also called the Comma Johanneum) is a sequence of extra words which appear in 1 John 5:7-8 in some early printed editions of the Greek New Testament.
These extra words are generally absent from the Greek manuscripts. In fact, they only appear in the text of four late medieval manuscripts. They seem to have originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts during the middle ages, which was eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts.
All scholars consider it to be spurious, and it is not included in modern critical editions of the Greek text, or in the English versions based upon them. The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).
http://bible-researcher.com/comma.html

 

[Albion]

You have explained your position well but I really cannot see why that is not polytheism.

Because Trinitarians flatly reject the possibility of there being more than one God. That the one and only god is a complex being doesn't change anything.

 

[ken777]

I think I understand what you are saying.

What I consider is three being one can mean three being perfectly the same in nature as well as agreeing, as well as relating perfectly together.

And it can include being the same Being. It is "like" how gold is only one gold, but there can be more than one personal form of gold. So, you do not have poly-golds because one form of gold is a father form, another of his son, and another is some other personal form. And the gold in molten form can flow to form into many replicas of the original form of the son.

Yes, it says the three are one, but it does not specify one in number. Oneness can be of more than one Person who all are the same Eternal. Each is not a separate Supreme Being. But they do relate with one another . . . as one.

In polytheism, each god is more or less totally independent of the other, and possibly of very different natures and dispositions . . . and agendas. But "God is love" (1 John 4:8&16) > each of the Persons is the exact same love . . . one love, not three. Humans can have, like this, more than one person, of their love. Except they are not their love, but our Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit all are the same one love, but They are individuals of this love, though perfectly the same in being and relating perfectly with one another. So, I doubt you find this in mythological polytheism.

But this is not first about how we explain it, but this is our example of how to be as children of God, with one another, and how to relate. God's love in us makes us able > Romans 5:5, Ephesians 4:2, Colossians 3:15.

I have heard analogies such as gold or water and other inanimate substances, but God is a conscious being. The only analogies that seem applicable in my view is that of one person who has different roles (such as father, son & husband) or one group (such as a family or a corporation). The latter seems too much like polytheism for me.

.

 

[he-man]

Because Trinitarians flatly reject the possibility of there being more than one God. That the one and only god is a complex being doesn't change anything.

It has already been noted that in the first three Gospels the Lord Jesus is presented respectively as Israel's King, Jehovah's Servant, and the ideal Man; and that those incidents, words, and works are selected, in each Gospel, which specially accord with such presentation.
Thus they present the Lord on the side of His perfect humanity. It is this that links them together, and is the real reason for their being what is called "Synoptic", and for the marked difference between them, taken together, and the fourth Gospel. Hence, in the Structure of the fourth Gospel (above), when compared with the other three, it will be noted that there is no Temptation in the Wilderness, and no Agony in the Garden and while the Transfiguration is recorded in the first three Gospels, no mention is made of it in John. The only incidents which John records in common with the first three Gospels are seven in number (Αρ. 10), viz.:
The Work of John the Baptist.
The last Supper.
The Anointing at Bethany.
The Passion, and
The Resurrection, and
Two Miracles: the Feeding of the 5,000 and
the Walking on the Sea.
In the other Gospels, miracles are so called, or "mighty works", but in John they are always called "signs" (see Αρ. 176)
The Companion Bible

This is not the Middle Ages, today, everyone has a computer, if they know how to use it. Erasmus's third edition of 1522 contained one truly unfortunate innovation: The "Three Heavenly Witnesses" in 1 John 5:7-8. These were derived from the recently-written Codex 61, and (as the famous story goes) included by Erasmus "for the sake of his oath." Sadly, they have been found in almost every TR edition since. http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TR.html
The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8) The so-called Johannine Comma (also called the Comma Johanneum) is a sequence of extra words which appear in 1 John 5:7-8 in some early printed editions of the Greek New Testament.
These extra words are generally absent from the Greek manuscripts. In fact, they only appear in the text of four late medieval manuscripts. They seem to have originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts during the middle ages, which was eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts.
All scholars consider it to be spurious, and it is not included in modern critical editions of the Greek text, or in the English versions based upon them. The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).
http://bible-researcher.com/comma.html

 

[Albion]

It has already been noted that in the first three Gospels the Lord Jesus is presented respectively as Israel's King, Jehovah's Servant, and the ideal Man; and that those incidents, words, and works are selected, in each Gospel, which specially accord with such presentation.

Scripture uses many, many, descriptions and terms for Christ. There is nothing proven by focusing on any one or a combination of them.

Thus they present the Lord on the side of His perfect humanity.

Very well, but this doesn't deny his perfect divinity at the same time.

 

[com7fy8]

I have heard analogies such as gold or water and other inanimate substances, but God is a conscious being.

Yes, God is conscious, I would say much more alive and conscious and feeling than we are.

And yes, in my opinion gold is inanimate So, we agree on that

But I do understand that the Bible uses both animate things and living illustrations to reveal God. We simply need to understand that the inanimate illustrations are not meant to say God is inanimate. The Bible, for one example, says the LORD is our Rock. And, "of course", a rock is not conscious but God certainly is. But the rock image brings out how nothing can move or stop or hurt God and how we are perfectly safe, with Him.

And, "of course", a solid rock can have more than one person > like Mount Rushmore, with four heads > four persons, one rock.

The only analogies that seem applicable in my view is that of one person who has different roles (such as father, son & husband)

Yes, but my one concern is how a son can't be his own father. Jesus Christ is the Son of God; so I consider that Jesus is not His own Father. So, in order for there to be our Father and the Son, there need to be two Persons. And the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God's own love (Romans 5:5) > very conscious in this love > personal, since love is personal. So, I consider that the Holy Spirit is a Person . . . of love; and "God is love." (in 1 John 4:8&16)

or one group (such as a family or a corporation). The latter seems too much like polytheism for me.

I understand that in polytheism, the different gods have very different personalities and they are not one with each other. But in the case of God, each Person is of the exact same love. But They have specialized love activities.

Now, He Man said Jesus became divine after the resurrection, when He was exalted to the throne . . . if I understand He Man correctly.

But I understand that Jesus existed and was with the Father before the earth was > John 17:5 < they shared the same glory. So, I can see how Jesus resurrected did not become divine, in some way that He was not divine before the creation of the earth. He was divine, then. But now He has His position on the throne. Difference of position does not mean a difference in character. Jesus has always been of love; but His position and circumstances have been different.

In a family you can all be of the same love, though members of the family have different roles and sorts of authority.

Also, by the way, Jesus "makes intercession for us." (in Romans 8:34). I think intercession involves prayer communication between two individuals . . . in this case, between our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus, for us. So, our Father and Jesus are not the same individual, I consider. But because They are both beings of supreme love, the intercession is perfect, able to get us more than we can hope for and try to do and get, ourselves. This is "why" we get good which is more and better than even our prayer heroes may seek and ask for us, in prayer for us

 

[ken777]

Yes, God is conscious, I would say much more alive and conscious and feeling than we are.

And yes, in my opinion gold is inanimate So, we agree on that

But I do understand that the Bible uses both animate things and living illustrations to reveal God. We simply need to understand that the inanimate illustrations are not meant to say God is inanimate. The Bible, for one example, says the LORD is our Rock. And, "of course", a rock is not conscious but God certainly is. But the rock image brings out how nothing can move or stop or hurt God and how we are perfectly safe, with Him.

And, "of course", a solid rock can have more than one person > like Mount Rushmore, with four heads > four persons, one rock.Yes, but my one concern is how a son can't be his own father. Jesus Christ is the Son of God; so I consider that Jesus is not His own Father. So, in order for there to be our Father and the Son, there need to be two Persons. And the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God's own love (Romans 5:5) > very conscious in this love > personal, since love is personal. So, I consider that the Holy Spirit is a Person . . . of love; and "God is love." (in 1 John 4:8&16)I understand that in polytheism, the different gods have very different personalities and they are not one with each other. But in the case of God, each Person is of the exact same love. But They have specialized love activities.

Now, He Man said Jesus became divine after the resurrection, when He was exalted to the throne . . . if I understand He Man correctly.

But I understand that Jesus existed and was with the Father before the earth was > John 17:5 < they shared the same glory. So, I can see how Jesus resurrected did not become divine, in some way that He was not divine before the creation of the earth. He was divine, then. But now He has His position on the throne. Difference of position does not mean a difference in character. Jesus has always been of love; but His position and circumstances have been different.

In a family you can all be of the same love, though members of the family have different roles and sorts of authority.

Also, by the way, Jesus "makes intercession for us." (in Romans 8:34). I think intercession involves prayer communication between two individuals . . . in this case, between our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus, for us. So, our Father and Jesus are not the same individual, I consider. But because They are both beings of supreme love, the intercession is perfect, able to get us more than we can hope for and try to do and get, ourselves. This is "why" we get good which is more and better than even our prayer heroes may seek and ask for us, in prayer for us

The analogy of a rock tells us about God's nature, but it tells us nothing about how He exists as a being.
Polytheism just means separate divine beings, and is demonstrated by the family analogy.
In the analogy of one person in three roles, it is true to say a man cannot be his own son ... but that is because we cannot create. The Oneness view is that God created the human body of Jesus Christ ("Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee" Heb 1:5, RSV) and the fullness of God dwelt in Him ("For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily" Col 2:9, RSV).

The pre-existence of a second person is not shown in John 17:5. Jesus is explaining the plan of God to reveal Himself in human form to become our redeemer. I think you would find it helpful to do a word study on "glory" and "glorify" in the gospel of John (especially John 17:1) because we know context is very important.

.

 

[com7fy8]

The analogy of a rock tells us about God's nature, but it tells us nothing about how He exists as a being.

Well, we do understand how God can not change. And a rock can be more or less unchanging. So, the rock image can give us some representation of God. He, of course, is "more conscious" than a rock! And God is all-loving and is good. But a rock does not have a conscience, but can be used by whoever has control of the rock.

Polytheism just means separate divine beings, and is demonstrated by the family analogy.

Well, there can be more than one meaning for the same word. If you make it that general, you can call our Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit polytheistic.

Also, I suppose someone could (I understand you wouldn't) make a thing about how Satan is called "the god of this world" > in 2 Corinthians 4:4. In Greek, I understand, "the god" here is the same wording as "o theos" which is used to represent our Heavenly Father. But I understand that Paul calling Satan "o theos" does not mean he is our Heavenly Father, nor does Paul mean there are more than one God.

And, "of course", Satan is not divine. So, believing he exists does not fit with your definition of polytheism which specifies more than one "divine" being, I think you mean. But Paul's use of "o theos" in 2 Corinthians 4:4 can help show that a same term or word can have exact opposite meanings.

The main thing about putting down polytheism is that we need to not have more than one God whom we love and honor and obey. By loving our Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit, we are not having more than one god who are in conflict with one another. So, it can not be "polytheism" like how worldly people make themselves "god" while also having various treasure pleasures as their gods, while also maybe including "God" somehow. And in trinitarianism ones are not believing that different good things come from different gods. So, it is not polytheistic like how mythological polytheism is.

And, by the way, none of the mythological deities are divine like God is. So, by your definition of polytheism, there is no polytheistic belief except the Trinity. And, by the way, I do not mean that our Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are separate deities, but They are all the same spiritual being, of true love, and this love is in the form of three different Persons of the one and same love; each is a Person and a manifestation personal, of love, since love is personal.

And so They can be perfectly one in how they are and how they relate with one another. Again, as I have offered, you can have mankind with more than one human individual; their being more than one individual does not mean there are more than one mankind.

In the analogy of one person in three roles, it is true to say a man cannot be his own son ... but that is because we cannot create. The Oneness view is that God created the human body of Jesus Christ ("Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee" Heb 1:5, RSV) and the fullness of God dwelt in Him ("For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily" Col 2:9, RSV).

God did create the body of Jesus, starting in Mary's womb. But Jesus functioned as a Person who interacted with our Father. Jesus was conscious, deeper than His body.

And now Jesus "makes intercession for us." (Romans 8:34) I understand that intercession is prayer which involves two individuals communicating, in this case our Lord and Savior Jesus communicating personally with our Heavenly Father.

The pre-existence of a second person is not shown in John 17:5. Jesus is explaining the plan of God to reveal Himself in human form to become our redeemer. I think you would find it helpful to do a word study on "glory" and "glorify" in the gospel of John (especially John 17:1) because we know context is very important.

He says He had glory with our Father "before the world was". I think that is pretty clear context, but if it contradicts what someone wants to believe, one can call on the name of "context" for authority, as if that automatically proves someone is correct. Whatever "glory" is, Jesus had it with our Father "before the world was", He says.

And more than one individual can be "one", meaning they are in unity, though they are more than one, in number. And their oneness can be in nature and how they relate perfectly with one another.

"'And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one:'" (John 17:22)

Now, I do not mean that Jesus' body existed before the earth existed.

So, about glorifying, I suppose you mean that our Father manifests Himself . . . glorifies Himself . . . through Jesus. He does.

But Jesus is a Person . . . Son is a Person, a personal being, not only a manifestation. In a family a son can be a manifestation of his father . . . "like father, like son". But the son is a different person. So, if we go by context . . . I would "think" that using the word "Son", instead of "manifestation", would be for a reason.

A baby in a mother's womb has liquid from her blood passing through the baby to be formed into all the physical parts of the baby. So, you could say the baby is the mother, since the mother's blood material is used to make the baby's body parts. However, though the baby is the mother, in a way, plus a manifestation of the mother, still the baby is also an individual person.

So, like this, I understand, Jesus is a spiritual Being, of the same spiritual being as our Father. But They interact, including how Jesus prays to our Father, and is subject to Him. So, They are one, like this, but Jesus is a Person, the Son. So, you could say He is the Father, "like" how an unborn is the mother, by having the same composition as what is in the mother's blood.

So, I consider that Jesus is our Father, in the form of Jesus, but also Jesus is the family Person who He is. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and not only His manifestation. And He is not only theoretical, of course, not only a theological subject; He is way more than anything we tell with words or explain.

"to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God." (Ephesians 3:19)

We can give Jesus the label of "God" or "manifestation of the Father", but what do we mean by what we call Him? The living meaning of God's word includes how Christ's love in us shares with us "all the fullness of God".

And do we live His example? Living His example is included in the meaning of who Jesus is >

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

So, more than getting the "label" right is if we follow this example of how Jesus loved us while so sweetly pleasing our Heavenly Father. It does say, here, that Jesus did this "to God"; so I can see how ones could argue that if He did something "to" God, He could not be God.

But then that would "prove" that Jesus is an individual and not only a manifestation So, ones can get pretty complicated, with this.

But it means He so pleased our Heavenly Father. I would offer that unless Jesus Himself is divine, He could not so please our Father. Humans can be pleased by very inferior things which are not human, but our Father is not vain, like we can be. Jesus was able to please our Father, Himself.

And in us He can share this with us, so we also are so sweetly pleasing while making the sacrifices which God has us doing.

And, yes, Jesus said whoever sees Him has seen the Father (John 14:9). And I am aware how "oneness" uses this to show that Jesus and the Father are the same individual with more than one manifestation, in case the sort of oneness you hold to includes this.

My personal opinion, now, is that neither oneness nor trinitarians have it totally correct, but each has some parts. And we get the real meaning, not from scholarly explanation of words, but only by how God has us living His love meaning of His word.

 

[he-man]

Scripture uses many, many, descriptions and terms for Christ. There is nothing proven by focusing on any one or a combination of them. Very well, but this doesn't deny his perfect divinity at the same time.

What part of NO do you not understand?
Is 43:10 You are My witness, said GOD, and servant who I have chosen: so that you may know and believe Me, to understand that I am He: before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there exist1 after Me. 11 I am GOD; and without2 me there is no saviour. 1 * Hebrew to be, exist, be present; happen, occur, take place: become, turn into 2 * Hebrew without
John 9:1 Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth.
Since the blind man cannot see, he cannot see Jesus. This is the plight of the lost today: Jesus is taught, but they cannot "see" Him. Even when the Bible is explained, they cannot understand it. [Martin G. Collins]
John 8:32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." 2Co 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. is that Spirit — is THE Spirit, namely, that Spirit spoken of in 2Co 3:6, and Christ is the Spirit and “end” of the Old Testament, who giveth life to it, whereas “the letter killeth” 1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. Why would anyone look to heaven if Christ were already here? Php 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God;
1Co 15:28 But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that He is excepted who did subject unto him all things. then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was begat Jesus, who is called Christ. G1080 bear, beget, be born.;

 

[Albion]

What part of NO do you not understand?

Cute...but not very persuasive as an argument; and the passages you go on to provide don't even address the issue. There is only one God in the usual sense; we all agree to that. The inability of some to recognize that that one being could be complex and we be told in Scripture of different facets of that God is what's lacking from discussions like this one, and always is. BTW, Jehovah's Witness theology belongs in the Christianity and World Religions forum.

 

[com7fy8]

The inability of some to recognize that that one being could be complex and we be told in Scripture of different facets of that God is what's lacking from discussions like this one, and always is.

But, Albion, the scripture which He-Man provided helped me, once, when I was into oneness >

1Co 15:28 But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that He is excepted who did subject unto him all things. then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

A Jehovah's Witness teacher was able to use this scripture to debunk me. But that did not mean he was into the right thing. Wrong people can point out how other wrong people are wrong, but they can not bring us to all that is right.

In any case, this scripture does confirm that our Father and Jesus are not the same individual.

And . . . about there being one Savior >

Paul speaks of "the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior", in Titus 1:4; and Peter speaks of "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", in 2 Peter 1:11, 2:20, and 3:18.

And He-Man has pointed out how there is "no" savior but God.

So, He-Man has provided how only God is our Savior, and Paul and Peter have confirmed how Jesus is our Lord and Savior. And the scripture provided by He-Man shows how Jesus our Lord and Savior is a different Person than our Father is.

Also, by the way, Jesus Himself says >

"'For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does, and He will show Him greater work than these, that you may marvel.'" (John 5:20)

So, the relationship of our Father with His Son Jesus is not only theoretical, but personal loving. I am not "sure" that I would so love what is only a manifestation of myself, by the way. Love is between one Person and another Person, or between God and us and one another. There is only one God who is love, but more than one Person of this love.

Their relating is personal, with family loving. Also >

"'For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.'" (John 5:22-23)

So, our Father wants us to honor Jesus "just as" we honor our Father. One person claims that Jehovah's Witnesses honor Jesus, but the person did not be exact about if they honor Jesus "just as" they honor the Father. Only, the person said they "honor" Jesus. But the person did not make it clear about if the Jehovah's Witnesses officially make a point of saying they need to honor Jesus "just as" they honor the Father.

If you honor Jesus "just as" you honor God our Father, I can see this indeed can mean you honor Jesus as God. And, "of course", if Jesus is God in the personal form of His Son . . . no problem This part of "no" I can understand

 

[Albion]

But, Albion, the scripture which He-Man provided helped me, once, when I was into oneness >

Wow.

A Jehovah's Witness teacher was able to debunk me. But that did not mean he was into the right thing. Wrong people can point out how other wrong people are wrong, but they can not bring us to all that is right.

I see. Yes, I can appreciate that, but how many people would have been able to perceive the end result as well as you did, I wonder.

In any case, this scripture does confirm

that our Father and Jesus are not the same individual.

Not the same "something." They are the same being--God. But of course, when we speak of "Jesus" as opposed to the Son or some other term, we are meaning to say that the Second Person of the Trinity did take on a genuine human nature and lived as a bona fide man, whereas the Father did not.

And . . . about there being one Savior >

Paul speaks of "the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior", in Titus 1:4; and Peter speaks of "our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ", in 2 Peter 1:11, 2:20, and 3:18.

And He-Man has pointed out how there is "no" savior but God.

That's right. Christ is that Savior and he is God, as the Scriptures indicate and he himself testified. Indeed, some people would add that ONLY God could redeem mankind. No surrogate, angel, or representative could do that.

So, He-Man has provided how only God is our Savior, and Paul and Peter have confirmed how Jesus is our Lord and Savior.

But where does that bring us...and what special insights is that supposed to give us? EVERY Christian knows, if he knows anything at all about the faith, that God is our Savior and Christ is that God.

And the scripture provided by He-Man shows how Jesus our Lord and Savior is a different Person than our Father is.

Yes--a different "persona" (Look it up), but the same being.

 

[com7fy8]

Oneness is a form of modalism, which teaches that the three parts of the Trinity are all the same being. That they progress from one to the other and are never all around at the same time. The Bible speaks against that, and even shows "pictures" that it is not true. For instance, at the time Jesus is baptized, all three are present at the same time.

Also, the Bible says Jesus "makes intercession for us", in Romans 8:34. And, also in the same chapter > the Holy Spirit "makes intercession for us" > in Romans 8:26.

So, I understand, then, that intercession is between two conscious individuals personally communicating with one another; plus, both these individuals are now interceding for us, at the same time, which means They both exist, now, which means one is not progressing to another.

But possibly the thing about progressing is not what all oneness people believe. I don't remember ever hearing that, while I was with "Jesus only" people. The Father and Son and Holy Spirit are said to be "manifestations", but I don't remember being told anything about progressing from one manifestation to the next. There might have been talk about how there was progression in how and how much each manifestation is doing things, at any time . . . a sort of dispensationalism, I suppose.

So, it depends on who told you this, i.e., what that one means by progression. Did you get this "second-hand" from someone representing oneness but who might even never have been an actual member, or did a oneness person oneself tell you this? Even if someone in oneness did, it is possible that not all oneness people have the same beliefs.

So, when I share with different people, I value letting each one speak for oneself; because in a culture of oppression ones want to try to make every one exactly alike, so they can speak for everyone, as if they were God to know; and ones oppressive in approach can want all in a group to be alike so they do not have to deal with each unique personality in trying to control the whole group.

So, I need to not have "lazy love", but be interested in each person enough to get to know that one's needs and likes and dislikes and ways, partly so I can know how to love each one the way God knows is good

This means much more attention needs to be to correction of me in my character, and not so much attention only to correcting others in their ideas!

 

[Albion]

Oneness is a form of modalism, which teaches that the three parts of the Trinity are all the same being..

You mean "are all the same persona." The three persons of the Trinity ARE the same being; there is only one God.

 

[com7fy8]

I see. Yes, I can appreciate that, but how many people would have been able to perceive the end result as well as you did, I wonder.

I offer the glory to God. I was a mess, in no condition to get myself straight. I thought I had a method which I could use, myself. I was calling different churches and asking two questions >

"What is the meaning of Jesus on the cross?"

"What do I need to do to become a Christian?"

And I intended to see how each person answered my questions and how the person related with me.

But I was not planning on the Jehovah's Witness teacher coming along in a train station, right when a lady from a Jesus church then came and talked with me. She seemed real; so I got the name of her church, but I stayed with him and got debunked, first.

Then I went to a church maybe with a similar name, which was "Jesus only", except I was already debunked but stayed there, and maybe wondering when I would see her

That turned out to be a church that closed and the pastor took maybe half the members to a not "Jesus only" church. So, not by accident, that was where I was led.

Not the same "something." They are the same being--God.

Well, if someone thinks the Holy Spirit is a "something", just a show of God but not a Personal Being of God > "God is love" (in 1 John 4:8&16); so I get, from this, how God is personal, because love is personal. But humans can have a way of not really loving anyone, but they can fall into feeling good because of how someone else charms them, and confuse this with loving the person. So, ones can fail to "get" how God is personal with us . . . though we do not experience that He is. And ones in impersonal stuff can then decide the Holy Spirit is only an impersonal force or "something".

But >

"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5)

So, by means of His Holy Spirit, God is sharing His own love with us, right "in our hearts", Paul clearly does say. This is very personal and sharing, if God is doing this "in our hearts"; and I offer that if the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God's own love . . . only God can be the Spirit of His own love. But the Holy Spirit functions as an individual, including making intercession > Romans 8:26. So, this is "why" I can see how the Holy Spirit is a Person.

Humans as person can be mainly conscious in their minds. God is conscious and of love, all through Himself. So, a human person is nowhere's close to how a Person of love is personal and conscious.

But of course, when we speak of "Jesus" as opposed to the Son or some other term, we are meaning to say that the Second Person of the Trinity did take on a genuine human nature and lived as a bona fide man, whereas the Father did not.

And I think of how it says Jesus "grew" >

"And the Child grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him." (Luke 2:40) He started as a zygote in Mary's virgin womb, I understand. But even while He was a zygote, He was Jesus.

I don't think Jesus had the human nature capable of sinning, but He did have a human body with human body experience and feelings. But, deeper, He is God incapable of evil.

And He went through things that humans do, so now He can as our High Priest feel for us and help us with the grace which made Him able to please our Father and love any and all people while going through nicer and even very hard things which we experience, here on earth > Hebrews 4:15.

That's right. Christ is that Savior and he is God, as the Scriptures indicate and he himself testified. Indeed, some people would add that ONLY God could redeem mankind. No surrogate, angel, or representative could do that.

Only God can do anything right

But where does that bring us...and what special insights is that supposed to give us? EVERY Christian knows, if he knows anything at all about the faith, that God is our Savior and Christ is that God.

And knowing who He is comes especially with how Jesus in our hearts has us becoming and loving.

"My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you," (Galatians 4:19)

Yes--a different "persona" (Look it up), but the same being.

Well, my sources say "persona" means how you become represented to other people. This could be "subjective", then, at the mercy of how someone else might "take" you.

But Jesus in us has us becoming like He is, so we can truly know Him and not only get such a "persona", but know Him by being loving like He is humble and gentle >

"with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love," (Ephesians 4:2)

So, this is the oneness which we need, not only a doctrinal idea about theological oneness, but we need to have the oneness which comes with how Jesus in us makes us more and more how He is . . . first by saving someone so the person is joined to Jesus and therefore "one spirit with Him" (1 Corinthians 6:17); in such oneness of spirit a person can become of His nature and Jesus Christ's way of pleasing our Father and loving any and all people: this comes with His character of love being shared with us in oneness with Him.

 

[Albion]

But Jesus in us has us becoming like He is, so we can truly know Him and not only get such a "persona", but know Him by being loving like He is humble and gentle >

"with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love," (Ephesians 4:2)

So, this is the oneness which we need, not only a doctrinal idea about theological oneness, but we need to have the oneness which comes with how Jesus in us makes us more and more how He is . . . first by saving someone so the person is joined to Jesus and therefore "one spirit with Him" (1 Corinthians 6:17); in such oneness of spirit a person can become of His nature and Jesus Christ's way of pleasing our Father and loving any and all people: this comes with His character of love being shared with us in oneness with Him.

I believe I get your drift now. The problem is that whenever "Oneness" is referred to on a religion forum, it immediately suggests the "Oneness theology" that you were not meaning to refer to.

 

[he-man]

Cute...but not very persuasive as an argument; and the passages you go on to provide don't even address the issue. There is only one God in the usual sense; we all agree to that. The inability of some to recognize that that one being could be complex and we be told in Scripture of different facets of that God is what's lacking from discussions like this one, and always is. BTW, Jehovah's Witness theology belongs in the Christianity and World Religions forum.

SO sad, but I am not a JW, nor do I belong to any organized religion except as a disciple of Jesus Christ!
Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

Is 43:10 You are My witness, said GOD, and servant who I have chosen: so that you may know and believe Me, to understand that I am He: before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there exist1 after Me. 11 I am GOD; and without2 me there is no saviour.
1 * Hebrew to be, exist, be present; happen, occur, take place: become, turn into 2 * Hebrew without

Is 44:6 Thus saith the Lord, the King of Israel, and the redeemer, the LORD of hosts; I am the only first, and I am the last; and besides me is no God. 8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told you from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God besides me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God; AND 1Co 3:23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.
28 But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that He is excepted who did subject unto him all things. then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all..

 

[Albion]

SO sad, but I am not a JW, nor do I belong to any organized religion except as a disciple of Jesus Christ!

Why is that? And what's the connection to the Jehovah's Witnesses, then--a former member, unofficial devotee, etc. ?