Oneness Pentecostals (OPs) understand Matthew 28:19 to refer to the name of Jesus Christ. Jesus said we are to be baptized in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He did not say names (plural), which we would expect grammatically if He literally wanted us to repeat “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” over the baptizee. His use of the singular “name,” as well as the context indicates He had a singular name in mind: His own = Jesus. Looking at how the apostles obeyed His command confirms this interpretation, for they always and only baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
I’m taking this as a given. What I want to focus on is how “Jesus” is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. OPs often interpret this verse to mean the name of the Father is Jesus, the name of the Son is Jesus, and the name of the Holy Spirit is Jesus. I am not persuaded this is the correct interpretation. Such an interpretation is foreign to the rest of Scripture. While Scripture identifies the name of the Son as Jesus, nowhere does it identify “Jesus” as the name of the Father and the name of the Holy Spirit. In fact, Scripture consistently uses Jesus/Son in contradistinction to Father and Holy Spirit. Jesus is used to refer to God’s human mode of existence as the Son/Messiah. Father is used to refer to God’s supracarnate existence (i.e. God’s existence beyond the incarnation). Scripture does not call the Father “Jesus” anymore than it calls Jesus “Father.” While Scripture teaches us that Jesus’ deity is the deity of the Father, it consistently distinguishes between the appellations “Father” and “Jesus” because these appellations are representative of the distinction in the uni-personal God’s modes of existence. To confuse the appellations is to confuse God’s two modes of existence: as God, as man. If we interpret Matthew 28:19 to mean the name of the Father is Jesus, however, we are doing just that: confusing the existential distinction between God’s existence as God, and His existence as man. If Scripture uses the name Jesus to refer to the Son and only the Son, we should not use it to refer to the Father and Holy Spirit as if it equally applies. While we may understand God to be one person, and recognize that Jesus’ deity is that of the Father, it does not give us license to use Biblical terms in unbiblical ways.
If you accept my reason for questioning the traditional interpretation, how do you think we should understand Jesus’ words? I have my own take on it, but I want to hold off sharing it until after I hear from you.
If you object to my reason for objecting to the traditional OP interpretation, and maintain the traditional view, what do you find problematic about my objection? Do you have any reasons you can provide me for accepting the traditional OP interpretation?
Thinking to Believe 
November 6, 2007 at 4:27 am
I think the definition of the name “Jesus” is the clue. The name Jesus means Yahweh is/has become salvation. Of course “Yahweh” (YHWH) means, in essence, I self exist. So, as I see it, the name Jesus applies to the Father and Spirit simply because it means – I self exist and I have become salvation. There is only one YHWH and His Spirit is no less of Himself than my spirit is of me. He (YHWH) began to exist as the man Jesus at the incarnation and that man’s name identifies the purpose of the incarnation and the identity of the incarnate. We know the role baptism plays in our salvation, so the context of applying the name of the Father, Son & Spirit (Jesus) to us in our baptism makes elementary sense to me. While this answer may not be exactly what you have in mind, it’s true nonetheless.
LikeLike
November 6, 2007 at 4:52 am
Perhaps I should have said elemental rather than elementary.
LikeLike
November 6, 2007 at 1:34 pm
I do subscribe to the traditional interpretation also. In Col. 2:9 “For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” In John 8:58 “before Abraham was I am.” I think there are several others that play in to the revelation of who Jesus is. His identity was the greatest parable of all.
LikeLike
November 6, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Dale,
You’re right, it’s not what I had in mind! As I began my post, I agree with the OP interpretation of this passage that Jesus meant for us to baptize in His name, rather than repeat F/S/HS. So we agree there. What I don’t see in your comments is an answer to the question I posed, namely, how is it that Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Most OPs explain this by saying that the name of the Father is Jesus, the name of the Son is Jesus (that is obvious), and the name of the Spirit is Jesus. But when I go to Scripture, I don’t find that point being made anywhere. In fact, I see quite the opposite. So how is Jesus the name of the F/S/HS, if He did not mean the Father’s name is Jesus, the Son’s name is Jesus, and the Spirit’s name is Jesus?
Jason
LikeLike
November 6, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Chuck,
I would say to you something similar to what I said to Dale. I took what you said as my starting point. My post was not a question about the identity of Jesus, the Oneness of God, or Jesus’ name baptism. Those are givens. My question is how is it that Jesus is the name of the F/S/HS? In what way? I don’t think there is a good basis for saying Jesus meant that the name of the Father is actually Jesus, and the name of the Holy Spirit is actually Jesus because Scripture never makes such a claim anywhere else. If that’s not what Jesus meant, though, what did He mean?
Jason
LikeLike
November 6, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I didn’t mean to imply that I believe the Father & Spirit’s name is Jesus. I understand fully that the name Jesus specifically applies to Jesus of Nazareth-the Son. In fact, the only name, as such, I see applied to the Father is YHWH. And this was my only point; the name Jesus defined is, in essence, YHWH has become/is salvation. While I agree that this is certainly an inference based solely on the definition of the name Jesus, it was my only offering (such as it is). Regardless of how the name Jesus is applied to the Father & Spirit, Matthew 28:19 clearly instructs us to baptize in the (singular) name Jesus. That being said, I am anxiously awaiting to hear your take on how this is so.
LikeLike
November 6, 2007 at 5:29 pm
As noted before, I believe that “in the name” means “in the authority.” So I disagree that “in the name of F/S/HS” implies a single name. I think “in the name of the king and queen” or “in the name of the king and the motherland” would be correct, rather than “in the names of…”
I think it’s cheesy to say that “in the name of the F/S/HS” is meant to convey that the F/S/HS have one name and you need to guess what it is. God wouldn’t play games with something so important.
Also, does any mother say “give a glass of water to your father, my husband, and the chief mechanic at Midas,” referring to the same person? It wouldn’t happen. You have to torture the Scripture to defend that interpretation.
However, if I accepted the premise, I would interpret the phrase to say that Jesus is the name of F/S/HS collectively, not that Jesus is the name of each individual member of the Trinity.
LikeLike
November 7, 2007 at 4:17 am
Arthur,
I agree that “in the name of” infers authority. However, the Apostles obviously understood Jesus’ words to mean something more. Of course there is an awful lot of scholarship pointing to problems with the traditional wording of Matthew 28:19 (making the issue of how the name Jesus is applied to the Father & Spirit a moot point). This is somewhat like trying to explain why I John 5:7 awkwardly applies the number three to God.
LikeLike
November 7, 2007 at 8:40 am
Jesus made the statement in Matthew 28:18, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me, therefore…” In the exact same way that Moses was commissioned to act in the power and authority of YHWH because He (YHWH) had invested that power and authority in His name – Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you (Exodus 3:14), Jesus invoked the power and authority of the Father in the use of His own name. In the exact same way that the Angel of the Lord acted in the power and authority of YHWH and led the children of the Exodus into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites because He (YHWH) had placed His name in the angel (Exodus 23:20-23), Jesus invoked the power and authority of the Father in the use of His own name at baptism; leading the children of rebellion out of Adam and into Christ. This in no way says that the Father’s proper name is Jesus but that this name has within it all power and authority of the Father & Spirit because YHWH has made this name above all other names by investing His power and authority in it. The mediation between God and man is through the man Jesus (I Timothy 2:5). The transfer of Christ’s righteousness and identity to us at baptism has the seal of authority through the name of Jesus because the Father placed His power and authority in that one name.
I can see no other means that the name of Jesus can be applied to the Father & Spirit. If there is any other manner that this is so (not that there need be), I can’t wait to hear it.
LikeLike
November 7, 2007 at 2:20 pm
I don’t believe the name Jesus is used exclusively for the Son of God. I think Romans 8:9-11 makes my point.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
1Cor 12:13…and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
We as believers in Christ are made to drink of one Spirit but in Rom 8 Paul states that the Spirit of God dwells in us and in verse 9 that we must have the Spirit of Christ to be His. In verse 10 we are told that Christ is in us (he shortens the phrase Spirit of Christ to Christ). Paul is interchanging the words, Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, and Christ as though they refer to the same one Spirit with which we as believers have in us when we were baptized by the Holy Spirit.
Verse 11 makes a huge distinction. Paul’s use of “the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you” is equivalent to his previously mentioned titles for the one and only Spirit that dwells in us. If these titles refer to the same Spirit we should be able to substitute any of those other titles its place. If we use Christ or even the Spirit of Christ verse 11 would read: But if Christ/Spirit of Christ dwell in you, Christ that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by Christ that dwelleth in you.
This wording is so awkward and confusing but it proves a point. The Spirit in us is the Spirit of God or Christ. And there is a distinction between the Spirit of Christ and the man Christ.
Lastly, I’ve read some interesting comments by a preacher/pastor recently that goes like this:
here is how I define the biblical distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:
FATHER: God transcendent- existing before and above Creation- atemporal.
SON: God Incarnate- God coming to exist as genuine man (body/soul/spirit)- the theanthropos.
HOLY SPIRIT: God immanent- active and present within Creation- temporal.
LikeLike
November 7, 2007 at 4:39 pm
On my response posted November 06, 2007 2:38pm, I misspoke when stating, “Regardless of how the name Jesus is applied to the Father & Spirit, Matthew 28:19 clearly instructs us to baptize in the (singular) name Jesus.” I do not believe this passage clearly says any such thing. It is clear that a singular name is in view, but we do an injustice to say that it explicitly states that name is Jesus. We understand that an implication could be made that Jesus referred to His name based on the grammar and context of the verse, every single example of Christian baptism recorded in scripture, the writings of the early church fathers and a large body of scholarship suggesting that the traditional wording of Matthew 28:19 is suspect.
Having said that, I apologize for the mistake and subsequently cluttering up the comment section with superfluous-ness.
Come on Jason, let’s hear it!
LikeLike
November 8, 2007 at 5:29 am
Daniel:
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
I read that as contrasting Jesus versus the Spirit, not equating them. Certainly not claiming they both are called Christ or Jesus.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Again, it describes the Spirit of the Father who raised up Jesus, and says the Father will likewise raise up Christians through his Spirit. I don’t see how that shows the name Jesus being used to refer to the Father or the Spirit.
LikeLike
November 8, 2007 at 5:58 am
Arthur,
The key is knowing how many Spirits dwell within the born-again believer. There is only one Spirit with one name, Jesus Christ. Eph 4:4, 1Cor 12:13
…how that Jesus Christ is IN you….? 2Cor 13:5
Why do you assume the Spirit of Him who raised up Jesus from the dead is the Spirit of the Father?
And do you believe we have dwelling within us the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, Christ, the Spirit of the Father and the Holy Spirit as separate or distinct Spirits?
I don’t see a contrast unless you are asserting we have more than one divine Spirit dwelling within us. To become part of the body of Christ or to be in Christ we have to be baptized by into Christ and be made to drink of one Spirit.
Jesus is not the name soley used for the Son of God.
LikeLike
November 8, 2007 at 10:14 am
Why do you assume the Spirit of Him who raised up Jesus from the dead is the Spirit of the Father?
It’s clear that the author is referring to a person, a “him.” And the “him” is clearly somebody who is not Jesus or Christ. The “him” is a person who did something to Jesus/Christ (raised him from the dead).
It also says “he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” So whomever this person referred to as “him” may be, it’s not the Holy Spirit itself/himself – the “him” is a distinct person who would refer to the Holy Spirit as “his Spirit.” So you can safely rule out Jesus or the Holy Spirit as being the “him.” That would leave God the Father.
I don’t interpret the “Spirit of God” and the “Spirit of Christ” as being separate spirits. It seems to refer to having Christ in you by having a separate person inside you, which is the Spirit.
I do see how you could read the Spirit of God = Spirit of Christ = Christ based on the wording of versus 9-10. But it seems strange to take those verses so literally, and yet ignore the one right below that clearly identifies a different “him” as raising Jesus from the dead and raising Christ from the dead.
The most logical reading would be that to “have Christ in you” metaphorically is to actually have the Spirit of God (which could also be called the Christian Spirit or the Spirit of Christ).
LikeLike
November 8, 2007 at 9:00 pm
I would agree Jason that the traditional OP explanation of Matthew 28:19 is exegetically unsound. I believe the name ‘Jesus’ is limited to the incarnation, for it refers to God’s manifestation in the flesh, and not to His transcendence (Father) or immanence (Holy Spirit). It seems to me that the reason why some feel that the name Jesus applies to Father, Son & Holy Spirit is because the name “Jesus” incorporates “Yahweh,” the name of God in the Old Testament, with the added identification as the Savior.
At any rate, I wanted to comment on Dale’s statement that “the transfer of Christ’s righteousness…to us at baptism.” It’s my understanding, as well as the teaching of Scripture, that the transfer or crediting/reckoning of Christ’s righteousness to our account (justification) occurs at initial faith, not at water baptism (Acts 13:39; Romans 3:26, 30; 5:1; Galatians 2:16, 3:8, 24). Even the Articles of Faith of the UPCI declare, under the heading of “Repentance,” “We are justified by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:1). As you already know, justification includes forgiveness of sins (the removal of our sins from our account and the placing of them on Christ’s account). (See Romans 4:6-8).
If we move justification from faith to water baptism we should be aware of the following problems this poses:
(1) It redefines or changes the nature of justification- it makes justification in the Old Testament (not just under the Old Covenant) qualitatively different than justification in the New Testament. There is never a clue in the NT that this is so. Instead, Paul offers Abraham & David as examples to the NT believer.
(2) It adds requirements to justification – if we’re not justified until water baptism, it makes Paul’s use of Abraham as our model/example of justification pointless or of no value (Romans 4:1-5, 9 – 12). Paul’s point is that Abraham’s justification was solely due to his faith, not to his circumcision (in our case today, spiritual circumcision, which is water baptism). Abraham’s circumcision was “a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised” (Romans 4:11). In other words, just as Abraham’s circumcision served as a sign/seal of the righteousness that he already possessed and/or as a testimony to the genuineness of his faith; so too, our baptism (spiritual circumcision) serves as a sign of the righteousness that we already posses and/or as a testimony to the genuineness of our faith (Mark 16:16).
(3) It fails to explain how a believer could receive the Spirit-baptism before experiencing justification (forgiveness of sins). Can God fill someone with His Holy Spirit whose sins haven’t yet been forgiven? I think we can safely say that at a minimum, a person’s sins would need to be forgiven before he could ever become a candidate for the Spirit-baptism.
LikeLike
November 9, 2007 at 3:04 am
3)Can God fill someone with His Holy Spirit whose sins have not been forgiven?
Faith and a repentant heart is all that is needed to receive the Holy Spirit not remission of sins. Otherwise what happens to the Spirit filled believer if they sin? Does the Spirit leave the sinful vessel everytime a sin is committed then come back upon confession and repentance of that sin?
LikeLike
November 9, 2007 at 9:10 am
Anonymous,
Faith and a repentant heart results in justification (forgiveness of sins), which proves my point exactly as to why it’s needed in order to receive the Holy Spirit. Again, my position (and the teaching of Scripture elsewhere) is that initial faith/repentance (I believe faith subsumes repentance) results in justification. To obtain forgiveness for sins committed after one is Spirit-filled, God simply requires us to repent and confess our sins: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (I John 1:9).
It would seem that your position is that justification (forgiveness of sins) does not occur until water baptism based upon Acts 2:38. Is that correct?
LikeLike
November 9, 2007 at 3:20 pm
I’m afraid if we continue on about justification (which is not the same as forgiveness of sins) we will totally highjack the discussion about the name of Jesus being attributed to the three manifestations of God. Go to Apostolic Friends Forum, you will find many willing to discuss all views on justification there.
LikeLike
November 10, 2007 at 10:36 am
Acts 2:38, if you take it literally as a salvation formula and if you interpret it to say that baptism is required as part of the salvation formula, requires that the baptism comes first.
The problem is that what goes on in OP churches does not conform to Acts 2:38. That is, people exhibit the exact same signs whether they have been baptized or not. And if the spirit giving them utterance is the Holy Spirit, then Acts 2:38 is a false scripture. If Acts 2:38 is true, then the spirit is not the Holy Spirit. That’s a dilemma.
LikeLike
November 10, 2007 at 4:43 pm
forevertruth,
I would not suggest to you that we “move justification from faith to water baptism”. In fact, as I view faith within the scope of a biblical context, equating faith and water baptism on this level is essentially a category error. A person can begin to have faith or they can begin to be baptized. In each case, they have initiated an action in time. But is this what the bible means when it declares that we are justified or made righteous by faith? I do not believe that this is the case; “initial faith” isn’t all that Evangelicals make it out to be. If one has a predisposition to believe that justification happens at the point in time when a person believes [commonly termed initial faith], then the force of scriptures which point to repentance and baptism as the point in time when sins are forgiven, when justification is imputed, must then be lessened or even equivocated.
You stated, in the face of me supposedly moving justification from faith to water baptism, that I have effectively changed the nature of justification. It is so very bizarre to hear that justification can be altered on the basis of what we may or may not do. Whether one begins to believe (initial faith) or begins to be baptized; in either case these are activities we engage in. Can it be that our efforts can actually have an affect on the manner or mode in which God decides to impute the status of our standing? I don’t think that is possible. God has chosen a mode and a moment where our standing before Him, according to His perspective, changes from unjust to just. The mode is on the basis of faith, the moment is when we faithfully respond to the call for faith and repent and are baptized into Jesus Christ the Righteous. This is fundamental to the message of the New Testament.
Evangelicals characterize scripture’s dictum that we are saved by faith as meaning the point in time when we are saved, rather than the manner or means we receive salvation (Mark 16:16). Like it or not, Acts 2:38 says that repentance and baptism is for the remission of sin. This is for the purpose of, not because of or since your sins are already forgiven…get baptized. Having made a commitment to viewing faith in this manner, the passages and examples you’ve referred to cannot say anything else but that initial faith is the point in time when justification occurs. Again, a category error.
Additionally, it is incongruous to place a twenty-first century evangelical view of faith into the mouth of a first century biblical author. When you, for instance, read scripture saying “believe on Jesus to be saved” your ear hears “believe or not believe on Jesus to be saved”. But what did the first century ear hear? The first century ear heard “believe on Jesus rather than Moses; believe that the cross is adequate for salvation rather than fulfilling a list of ordinances; faith rather than works…etc”. What did the first century Greek ear hear? “Believe on Jesus to be saved rather than the myriad Greek gods, believe on Jesus rather than Rome or Caesar, believe on Jesus rather than superstition, philosophy, paganism…etc”. On what basis did the first century Jew and Greek respond to the call for faith? On the basis of faith rather than on the basis of works. Did they fulfill the command to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins? Yes, they responded by faith to that command and righteousness was imputed to them. Faith in the sufficiency of the sacrifice, faith in the efficacy of the finished work of the cross, faith in Jesus. This doesn’t negate the need for repentance, the need to be born into the kingdom, the need for water baptism. Faithfully operating in faith to fulfill a command isn’t negating or altering the basis of justification in the New Testament, God decides how we’re to do it and He has decided that we are to repent and be baptized.
Sorry Jason, didn’t mean to get off topic.
LikeLike
November 11, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Dale,
The only way NT believers can stand in solidarity with Abraham–the father of all who believe-in justification, is if we are justified in the same manner as he was–at the point of faith, and not at water baptism.
The event in view in Romans 4:3 is recorded in Gen. 15:6, “Then He brought him outside and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the starts if you are able to number them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.”
It’s important to note that Abraham’s only response to God’s promise at this point was that “he believed in the Lord.” It is significant for the doctrine of justification that no other response was expected or possible at this point. Paul’s point is that the only requirement for justification is genuine faith, not obedience. Although Abraham faith’s later demonstrated itself in obedience when he offered his only son Isaac, justification occurs at the point of faith. Again, the fact that genuine faith will be demonstrated should not be taken to mean that the only faith that is valid is faith that results in obedience. Indeed, the fact that God “justifies the ungodly” demonstrates that God doesn’t wait until someone demonstrates their worthiness or obedience before He justifies them (See Romans 4:5).
If we say that justification doesn’t occur until after we have responded by faith to fulfill the command to repent and be baptized according to Acts 2:38, we:
1) negate Paul’s use of Abraham (and David) as the model for justification in the NT church.
2) change justification from being a declarative act to a process (needless to say, Scripture shows justification is a one-time act, not a process). Salvific-justification is a one time imputational act, not a process that begins when with initial faith and concludes with our obedience to fufill the command to repent and be baptized. It didn’t work that way with Abraham, and neither does it work that way with us today. Just as Abraham was justified w/o water baptism, so are NT believers justified w/o water baptism; otherwise Paul’s use of Abraham & David is pointless and of no value.
3) make justification transformational; it is not (it’s declarational). No transformation take place at justification because it’s a legal declaration only (yes, sins are legally remitted). Water baptism, on the other hand, is transformational because water baptism results in an actual change–the “body of the sins of the flesh are put off.” (See Colossians 2:11-12). Water baptism, then, is more than imputation; it’s transformational. Not so with justification.
Like it or not, Acts 2:38 must be harmonized with Romans 4, and not vice versa. When Luke wrote Acts, he was writing theological history, not theological doctrine. One must remember, Acts is descriptive, not prescriptive. The Epistles, on the other hand, are prescriptive, because they are didactic in purpose. Paul, in Romans 4, uses the examples of Abraham & David to show that justification includes the forgiveness of sins and that it occurs soley due to our faith, and not to our works or obedience. Since the clear didactic teaching of Scripture is that sins are forgiven at justification, which occurs at initial faith, then, the UPC teaching that sins are remitted at water baptism is both incongruous and indefensible. This also begs the question, if sins are forgiven at justification, which occurs at the point of faith, then in what sense does a believer still have sins that need to be remitted at water baptism?
Jason, can we possibly start a new blog on justification?
John
LikeLike
November 12, 2007 at 7:12 am
Salvation by faith alone.
Salvation by faith and works.
Salvation by faith and baptism.
Salvation by faith, baptism, and continued works.
You can lose your salvation.
You cannot lose your salvation.
Scripture very clearly supports, and very clearly rebutts, each of these positions.
LikeLike
November 12, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Hello Jason, Michael here.
I accept your reason for questioning the traditional interpretation – and I accept your support for why you believe as such. I agree that there are many scriptures that make it clear that the ‘Jesus’ is the name of the Son, yet not to be understood as the name of the Father (neither the Holy Ghost). I am thinking that one of the scriptures supporting this is: 2 John 1:3 = 1:3 Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
Pretty clear to me there – the name of the ‘Son of the Father’ is Jesus Christ – however, the name of the Father is not Jesus Christ.
How do I think we should understand Jesus words in Matthew 28?
I consider John 14:7-10, John 17:6, Hebrews 1:3, Acts 4:12 (of multiple scriptures) to bring clarity—- from my understanding, those scriptures I just listed reveal:
*to know Jesus is to know the Father. FROM NOW ON (Jesus phrased it that way), we do know Him (the Father) and (if we were alive then) do see Him (the Father), because we know and *see* Jesus…
*Jesus revealed the Father’s name…
*the Son (Jesus) is the radiance of God’s glory, or rather the expressed image of God’s person…the representation of His essence…
*Salvation is IN Jesus Christ, NO ONE else – that name is the name UNDER heaven given that we must be saved.
So my conclusion – Jason, you said: ““Jesus is used to refer to God’s human mode of existence as the Son/Messiah. Father is used to refer to God’s supracarnate existence (i.e. God’s existence beyond the incarnation).”
I think that is just it – God has determined that while He is transcending Spirit, He will be visibly seen and revealed to the world through His manifested word, His glorified human mode, referred to as the person with the chosen name ‘Jesus’ – who is the Son/Messiah. The previous name revealed in regards to God’s person/essence was YHWH. Correct? Now, the name that is ABOVE all names is Jesus Christ, which if I am not mistaken, it means ‘YHWH is salvation’ (correct?)– So it is all directly related.
When Jesus said, “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”, I believe He was revealing that there is a name by which God has decided to reconcile the world through – a name that is the manifested identifier of God’s manifested word, God’s person revealed in flesh – the name is Jesus Christ. God (Spirit) has been expressed in human mode, and therefore supplied a name for His human mode – Jesus Christ. This name does not do away with the appellations or distinctions of God’s interaction in heaven and earth, but this name is simply the name by which He has placed above all names, concerning salvation and worship (Acts 4:12, Philippians 2:10-11).
Sidenote – From what we learn in Exodus 3:14-15, God is who He is, and will be who He will be – I believe that is one indicator of His sovereignty concerning how He is addressed in regards to names, and how a name(s) is to be used to carry out His instructions, even for the process of salvation. Also, interestingly, in Revelation, we see names pertaining to God that are unknown and names that will be new (Revelation 3:12; 14:1; 19:12-13; 22:4).
LikeLike
November 12, 2007 at 3:01 pm
We certainly have gotten off topic!
I said in my original post that I would share my take on this after sufficient discussion had transpired. Now is as good of time as any.
I think my explanation is very similar to what Michael just offered.
Arthur, you said “name” means “authority,” and thus my question is misdirected. I don’t agree. First, “name” has multiple references. It is used to signify one’s person as well. That’s how I understand it here, and that’s how I think the apostles understood it. Why else would they, in obedience to Jesus’ words, baptize in the name of Jesus Christ? It’s because they understood Jesus to be referring to a single person. If all Jesus meant was in the “authority,” you’ll have a hard time explaining why the apostles did not simply repeat what Jesus said, rather than baptizing in the name of Jesus. It’s because Jesus was emphasizing the person, not the authority. And the person was singular: Jesus.
So here’s my take: Jesus was trying to demonstrate that He encapsulates the various ways in which God manifests Himself to humanity (as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
When we encounter Jesus Christ we encounter all of God. His deity is none other than that of the Father. He is the Son of God. And since the Holy Spirit is the way Scripture refers to God’s one holy spirit performing special actions, we can just as easily say that we encounter the Holy Spirit in the person of Jesus Christ.
Let me demonstrate what I mean when I say Jesus encapsulates our encounter with the Father and His Spirit. Jesus commonly spoke of His relationship with the Father as “I am in the Father, and the Father in me” (John 10:38; 14:10-11; 17:21). The deity of the Son is none other than that of Yahweh Himself, having come down in the form of a servant and in the likeness of men. This is why we find statements like “He that believes on me, believes not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that sees me sees him that sent me” (John 12:44-45), or “He that receives me receives him that sent me” (John 13:20). How is believing on Jesus tantamount to believing in the Father? Is it not possible to believe in Jesus, but not believe in the Father? Or how is it possible to have seen God when one has, in reality, only seen Jesus’ physical body? Can’t one accept Jesus without accepting the Father? According to Jesus the answer is no. Other similar statements include, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me. If you had known me, you should have known my Father also” (John 14:6-7), and, “He that hates me hates my Father also” (John 15:23). Not only is Jesus the way to the Father, but the Father can only be known through the Son. It would seem to us that the Father could be known apart from the Son, but according to Jesus it is not possible. Probably one of the best examples is found in II John 9 where John said, “Whoever transgresses, and abides not in the doctrine of Christ, has not God. He that abides in the doctrine of Christ, he has both the Father and the Son.” (See also I John 2:23-24). If you accept Christ’s person you will have the Father and the Son.
All of these Scriptures relay one common truth: knowing the Father is bound up in knowing the Son. When we have Jesus Christ, we have the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The point of this is not to demonstrate that Jesus’ name is the name of the “Father” and “Holy Spirit,” although we know that Jesus’ deity was that of the Father. What it does demonstrate is that all of the ways in which we encounter God are encapsulated and found in the person of Jesus Christ. This is why the name of Jesus is the name of Matthew 28, rather than God the Father, or Holy Spirit. In essence what Jesus was saying is, “Baptize them into my person, in my authority, for I, in myself, encapsulate the various ways in which you have come to know God’s self-manifestation.
That’s my best shot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 12, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Hello, this is Michael again.
Arthur, greetings. I have a question (Jason, please forgive me that this slightly goes on a tangent to your original post…I DID respond to your post directly on here earlier today…then after reading through the responses of others, I saw something and wanted to address it…I hope you don’t mind)…
Romans 8:11 reads –
8:11 Moreover if the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive through his Spirit who lives in you.
Arthur – concerning this passage, you mentioned:
—->”So whomever this person referred to as “him” may be, it’s not the Holy Spirit itself/himself – the “him” is a distinct person who would refer to the Holy Spirit as “his Spirit.” So you can safely rule out Jesus or the Holy Spirit as being the “him.” That would leave God the Father.<------ So, we know that the “him” referenced is the one whose Spirit raised the man Jesus from the dead. In regards to the “him” being Jesus, you say we can safely rule that option out. You mention that ‘the “him” is a distinct person who would refer to the Holy Spirit as “his Spirit.”’ Therefore, it is the Spirit of God the Father who raised the man Jesus from the dead. That is what you are saying, correct? IF the “him” were Jesus, that would mean that Jesus, or the Spirit of Jesus (the Spirit of ‘him’) raised Christ from the dead. That is an option that you say we can rule out – correct? My question would be concerning these two passages of scripture:
John 2:19-21 states:
2:19 Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.” 2:20 Then the Jewish leaders said to him, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and are you going to raise it up in three days?” 2:21 But Jesus was speaking about the temple of his body.
Jesus says that He will raise up His temple…his body. He will raise Himself from the dead.
John 10:17-18 states:
17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”
Jesus says that He lays down His life and has the power to take it again…or in other words, He has the power to raise Himself from the dead.
My question is, how do you understand those two verses in light of who raised Jesus from the dead, and in light of your understanding of Romans 8:11 when determining who the “him” is and who the “him” is not…? And who the Spirit of “him” is…? How is it that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead(as you mentioned), but yet Jesus said He would raise Himself from the dead? (an option that you ruled out – correct?) – and I assume you consider God the Father and Jesus to be two distinct persons, correct? What do you say to these things? (FYI, I do have my perspective on it, but I was curious to understand yours more thoroughly)…
LikeLike
November 12, 2007 at 3:24 pm
I agree Jason!! (to your ‘best shot’ as you referred to it :))…you also hit on a verse I had difficulty understanding, but now have a clearer outlook on it. Kudos! (btw, lol, forgive me again for the off topic post, as I was responding to someone – then after I posted it, I saw your post starting out, “We certainly have gotten off topic!” hahaha. I take responsibity on my part of that!)—but yes, I agree with your conclusion…
LikeLike
November 12, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Michael,
The Scriptures specifically state that Jesus did not raise himself from the dead, but was raised by the Father:
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead) [Gal. 1:1]
4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. [Romans 6:4]
I’ll grant you that the verses you quoted about the temple and having the power to “take it again” do, in a cryptic fashion, appear to suggest that Jesus raised himself from the dead. But surely you wouldn’t ignore repeated clear statements in Scripture in favor of cryptic metaphoric wording used elsewhere?
Arthur
LikeLike
November 13, 2007 at 8:33 am
Hello Arthur. Before I respond – [****JASON � question � I am new to YOUR blog, and I do NOT want to be out of order, or change the sway of things. I consider it a humbling privelege and edifying to be here to read and learn and share. So, with that, I realize that this may not be the proper place to have this discussion because 1) this is not my blog, lol and 2) this was not the original topic of this post —if you would rather I contact Arthur by email outside of this forum concerning this issue, I shall!! I will not be offended at all, and I will surely continue to participate in your blog, STAYING ON TOPIC, *smile*****)�just let me know.
Arthur, I do agree with you that scriptures specifically state that Jesus was raised by God the Father, as you have pointed out. However, I disagree with what you said concerning what the scriptures say about Jesus raising Himself. There are no scriptures (not that I have seen) which specifically state that Jesus did NOT raise himself from the dead. In fact, as we both have seen, John 2:19-22 and John 10:17-18 state that Jesus could and would and did raise Himself from the dead. So at first look, it appears that there is complexity � how is that God the Father is credited to raising Jesus from the dead, but yet Jesus is credited to raising Himself from the dead? (I do have my theory :-))
I also noticed something that you mentioned. It appears that the scriptures which state that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead, you categorize those passages as being specifically stated, repeated, and clearly stated. However, for the scriptures which state that Jesus raised Himself from the dead, you categorize them as specifically not being stated, cryptic in fashion, appearing to suggest, and cryptic metaphoric wording used elsewhere. Arthur � the scriptures I pointed out, the scriptures you pointed out, both groups deal with who resurrected the man Jesus from the dead. Considering that, would you then agree or disagree that the scriptures are connected and should be understood in harmony and not contradiction? How do we understand Jesus’ claim of raising Himself from the dead as well as the scriptures which say God the Father raised Jesus from the dead? There is either contradiction, or there is a link which harmonizes it all. As I mentioned before, I have my thoughts on the link (which deals with the deity raising humanity from the dead). But yes, Arthur, what are your thoughts on it?
Michael
ps. As a sidenote question- do you think that scriptures which someone interprets to be mysterious/puzzling (cryptic) should ignored?
LikeLike
November 13, 2007 at 9:17 am
Jason,
I’ve not had much time to participate lately. I did appreciate this question and it is a very good one. This is a widespread misconception in the OP movement, as you know. I wish I had $1 for every time I’ve heard (and probable said myself) “…these three are one, and Jesus is His Name!” I pretty much agree with what you’ve written in this post and your answers. God has chosen to reveal Himself finally and fully in the person of His Son, Jesus of Nazareth, whom He raised from the dead and made both Lord and Messiah (take that right out of Acts 2). And His Name, Jesus, calls upon Him through Him God gives us access to the Spirit and the Father and everything in the Kingdom .
I think this misconception has spilled over into our understanding of the OT. Almost as often as I’ve heard the mistake you’ve dully noted, I’ve also heard preachers and teachers say that the Israelites could not call on God as we do by calling on the name of Jesus, the implication being that Israel really didn’t know the name of God. Why I certainly hold that God had not yet revealed Himself as He desired and would do in the person of Jesus Christ, God DID reveal His name to Moses, and thus to Israel. The problem is one of translation, nearly all English translations cover up that name with the English, all-caps LORD. Though that is an old tradition, going back to the LXX of substituting Lord for YHWH, it does bungle some of our interpretations when that fact is forgotten. Jesus is, of course, a play on, or extension of YHWH.
LikeLike
November 13, 2007 at 11:29 am
Michael and Arthur,
Feel free to continue on in your discussion. In the near future I will be posting a thread on the topic you are touching on, that you may want to make similar comments on as well.
Jason
LikeLike
November 13, 2007 at 11:48 am
Chad,
Yes, I’ve noticed your absence. I’ve missed your contributions.
I agree with you that it is mistaken to think the OT saints did not know the name of God. As I commonly say, Jesus is the name of God only because YHWH is the name of God. Jesus is an extension of God’s revealed name, not a new name.
In regards to the interpretation of Matthew 28:19, Arthur had mentioned in one of his posts how Jesus wouldn’t play a guessing game with us. His precise words were, “I think it’s cheesy to say that ‘in the name of the F/S/HS’ is meant to convey that the F/S/HS have one name and you need to guess what it is. God wouldn’t play games with something so important.”
This is something I have thought about before as well, and wanted to get your take. In one sense I agree, but in another sense I don’t. Part of me thinks, if Jesus wanted His disciples to baptize in His name, why didn’t He just say “baptize them in my name”? One might argue that He did so in Luke 24:47, but the fact would remain that He spoke in quite cryptic language in Matthew 28:19. Why wasn’t Jesus straightforward with them? Why expect them to recognize the significance of His singular use of “name”?
On the other hand, the above question arises when we look at this from our more modern perspective. From our perspective, Jesus’ words seem so easy to misunderstand. Millions of people have read this passage and never picked up on the singular form of name. They are just obeying Jesus! Others, see the difference between what Jesus said and what the apostles did, but hey, they may not know why the apostles did so, but one thing’s for certain, they want to do what Jesus told them to do.
While we can ask why Jesus was not clear, from the perspective of the original recipients, Jesus was very clear. They immediately picked up on what Jesus meant via the words He used, and promptly obeyed Him by baptizing people in His name. They did not see Jesus as playing games with them. Why the church so quickly lost the understanding shared by the apostles regarding Jesus’ meaning, I don’t know. But they lost it. But of course, OPs think we have restored it. We realize that the apostles would not have disobeyed Jesus in this area, so what they did must be the proper interpretation of Jesus’ command. Working backwards, we recognize the singular use of “name”, and see its significance.
What do you think about those who challenge the OP interpretation on the basis that wesus would not make us play a guessing game?
Jason
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 13, 2007 at 10:24 pm
The Spirit is called Christ or Jesus Christ more times that I care to count.
The God of the OT is also referred to as Christ in 1Cor10:4, 1Peter1:11, Heb 11:26.
The Son is not the only manifestation of God that is called by the name of Jesus.
LikeLike
November 14, 2007 at 10:31 am
Michael,
To answer your question, I do not accept an implied assertion to contradict the whole of Scripture. For example, if Scripture repeatedly says that Jesus is God, but Jesus seems to imply that he is not God (Mark 10:18), I would treat the implied verse as being equal to the others. Nor would I attempt to harmonize them by saying, for example, that Jesus is God, but God is not God.
I think the idea of Jesus raising himself from the dead, and also that God the Father raised Jesus the Son from the dead, is particularly problematic for Oneness. From a Trinitarian perspective, you have both separate persons and yet they are one. So it would be possible for God the Father to raise Jesus and yet for Jesus, in the sense that he is part of God, to have “raised himself.” Thus, it is a contradiction in Scripture from a Oneness reading but logical and consistent from a Trinitarian reading.
I’m sure much ink has been spilled in addressing these issues – with each of the explanations different, contradictory and all unsatisfying – but I would simply go with the clear statements in Scripture and the way that these issues have been traditionally understood. I have heard some say that the requirement of “three witnesses” in Scripture is a way of keeping lone vague verses from overriding the whole of Scripture.
Arthur
LikeLike
November 14, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Hello Arthur,
I want to make sure I understand you correctly. You would not accept an implied assertion to contradict the whole of Scripture, and also, you would not attempt to harmonize the implied scripture because that could potentially cause error or contradiction. Correct? (i.e. scripture says Jesus is God, yet in Mark 10:18 Jesus implies He is not God, and you would not harmonize by saying therefore Jesus IS God but God is not God, when scripture is clear that God is of course God).
While I follow the logic you are sharing, nevertheless, there is a decision that we all must make to determine which stance we choose when we encounter “implied” scriptures verses clearly stated scriptures. A question I have for you is: how do you (Arthur) come to a decision? Let me make it more clear (and not implied *smile* – just a friendly joke brother): You mention that Scripture “implies” that Jesus rose Himself from the dead. Scripture clearly states that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead. You do not feel that the two concepts contradict, yet nor do you try to harmonize them. **INITIALLY** you simply choose the stance that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead, and therefore Jesus did not raise Himself. That was your **initial** stance in our discussions. My question is, why did you choose that stance and not the other? What factors assisted you in your conclusion? (**and I am emphasizing initial, because as I read your response in this post, you went on to say that “in a sense, Jesus ‘raised’ Himself” —this is very interesting to me, because 1) it seems as though your stance is changing from saying that scripture clearly states that Jesus did not raise Himself from the dead, to now, “in a sense” He did “raise” Himself – and 2) perhaps there is some harmonizing going on? We will discuss that in a moment**).
It is evident that we are thinking alike, but on different terms 🙂 Meaning, I believe that the idea of Jesus raising Himself from the dead, and also that God the Father raised Jesus the Son from the dead, is particularly problematic for Trinitarians (as you believe it is particularly problematic for Oneness).
From my understanding concerning the Oneness perspective, you have God the Father (who is Spirit), who raised Jesus the Son (flesh, man) from the dead. However, if that is the case, then why did Jesus say He would raise Himself? Because I believe that Jesus’ deity is that of the Father, the same person, not a separate person. Being the same person according to deity/Spirit would explain how Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30). The scriptures state that the Father dwelled in Jesus, and it was He (the Father) that did the works (John 14:10). So when Jesus implied and clearly stated the He would raise Himself, He was referring to His divine nature = spirit = the Father, who would raise His human body from the dead. Or more clearly put: Jesus was prophesying that according to His divine Spirit (who is no other than the Father), He was going to raise His own human life from the dead. This is important because Jesus was NOT prophesying that according to His divine Spirit (who is no other than “God the Son”), He was going to raise His own human life from the dead. —
To my understanding, the scriptures do not imply nor do they clearly state that a separate person, “God the Son”, dwelled in Jesus and did the works and raised the man Jesus from the dead: it is the Father that dwelled in the man Jesus, who did the works in the man Jesus, who raised the man Jesus from the dead – and as mentioned, according to the oneness view, the deity of Christ is “the same person of the Father” and not a separate person. The quoted phrase in the last sentence comes from an article that belongs to some dude name Jason Dulle. *chuckling – sorry, too ironic to me*…
Arthur, in regards to God the Father and Jesus, you mention this: “So it would be possible for God the Father to raise Jesus and yet for Jesus, in the sense that he is part of God, to have “raised himself.”
My 2 questions – 1) do you believe that Jesus is only “in a sense part of God” – or is Jesus clearly and fully God? I was under the impression that the trinitarian view is that Jesus is clearly and fully God. Am I in error? Q 2) In an earlier post, you said that the scriptures clearly state that Jesus did not raise Himself from the dead. I mentioned that scripture did not say that but actually imply (and to me clearly state) that Jesus raised Himself. You now mention that “in a sense” Jesus did raise Himself. Is this an indication of you harmonizing the scriptures, or is this something else that I am not aware of?
In regards to much ink being spilled in addressing these issues, and your decision concerning what you perceive as implied scriptures and clear scriptures, I surely do not fault you brother for wanting to embrace that which is clear. I think we all share that inclination. However, in regards to simply going with what has been traditionally understood as you mentioned, to me that depends. If in my mind the tradition is perceived to be error, I would choose not to continue the tradition or build upon it. Of course, I am sure that what each of us believes as foundation, as tradition, we do not consider it error, but rather accurate. So we go with and build upon that which we perceive as true. That is normal and expected.
Lastly, you mention Arthur: “I have heard some say that the requirement of “three witnesses” in Scripture is a way of keeping lone vague verses from overriding the whole of Scripture.”
That is new to me. Interesting.
Michael
ps. I want to be clear that I enjoy the discussion, in the name of Jesus Christ 🙂
LikeLike
November 14, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Michael,
I’m confused why you ask how I determine if something is clearly stated in Scripture or is vague, perhaps implying something and perhaps not.
“Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.”
This simply does not say that Jesus raised himself from the dead.
“Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”
Likewise, this simply does not say that Jesus raised himself from the dead.
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)
This clearly says that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead.
How do I determine that? By reading it.
You write: 1) it seems as though your stance is changing from saying that scripture clearly states that Jesus did not raise Himself from the dead, to now, “in a sense” He did “raise” Himself – and 2) perhaps there is some harmonizing going on?
God the Father raised God the Son from the dead. Jesus, as God, could say that “I” (God) raised myself from the dead. That would be one way of harmonizing the verses, but I don’t believe it’s necessary to do so.
You write: It is evident that we are thinking alike, but on different terms 🙂 Meaning, I believe that the idea of Jesus raising Himself from the dead, and also that God the Father raised Jesus the Son from the dead, is particularly problematic for Trinitarians (as you believe it is particularly problematic for Oneness).
Where does Scripture say that God the Son raised Jesus from the dead? I agree that would be problematic for Trinitarians.
Arthur
LikeLike
November 14, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Michael,
You ask: “1) do you believe that Jesus is only “in a sense part of God” – or is Jesus clearly and fully God? I was under the impression that the trinitarian view is that Jesus is clearly and fully God. Am I in error?”
I said “in the sense that he is part of God,” which has a different meaning than what you wrote. Perhaps an example would be helpful.
Johnny walks up to Tony on the middle of Main Street. Tony is the head of the Skulls, a local gang, and has a dozen gang members with him. Johnny brandishes a knife menacingly at Tony. In response, Tony’s pal Joey pulls out a gun and aims it at Johnny’s head. Tony says “drop the knife or I’ll kill you.” Johnny refuses, so Tony nods his head at his friend. Joey fires his gun, killing Johnny.
1) Did Tony lie when he said that he had the power to have Johnny killed?
2) Was Tony lying when he said that he would kill Johnny, yet he did not do it personally?
3) Assume that we somehow know that Tony was not lying when he said “I” will kill Johnny. Given the whole of the narrative above, is it reasonable to assume that Tony and Joey are the same person?
Another example: Joe Blow is the owner of Quickie-Haul, a 30 man local delivery service. A customer comes in and asks to have his home goods moved from his current house to his new house. Joe says, “I’ll bring them there on Monday by 10AM.” Sure enough, the goods arrive. Joe didn’t arrive personally, but sent his employee Steve Jones. Joe never intended to personally arrive on the site.
1) Did Joe lie when he said “I” will bring the goods to the customer’s house?
2) If Joe did not lie, are Joe Blow and Steve Jones just different names for the same person?
3) If Joe did not lie, what did he mean when he said “I” will bring them?
Arthur
LikeLike
November 15, 2007 at 12:03 am
Hello Arthur-
You said: “I’m confused why you ask how I determine if something is clearly stated in Scripture or is vague, perhaps implying something and perhaps not.”
Oh no – that is not what I was asking. My error if I was not clear in what I was asking. What I was asking was this: you find something in scripture that speaks on a particular subject. You feel that the scripture is vague. You then find another scripture that speaks on the same topic. You feel the latter scripture is clear. However, at face value the two passages of scripture appear to contradict each other. In this case, how do you (Arthur) determine what is truly being said between the two scriptures which speak about the same topic – without harmonizing the scriptures as you mentioned. Jesus said He would raise Himself. Yet scripture says God the Father raised Jesus. You (Arthur) choose to fully embrace the clear and repeated scriptures (as you perceive) of God the Father raising Jesus, over the cryptic ones (as you perceive) of Jesus raising Himself. But yet the Scriptures mention that Jesus would and could raise Himself. In general terms, how do you determine to choose one set of scriptures over the other, when both talk about the same subject, yet both appear to claim two different things (at face value that is)… Is that more clear now? (my question that is)…
John 2:19 reads = 2:19 Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.”
What temple was Jesus speaking about?
John 2:21 reads = 2:21 But Jesus was speaking about the temple of his body.
Jesus was speaking about the temple of his body—he was referring to His resurrection. He said that He would raise up the temple of His body in three days.
“Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”
Arthur – when Jesus says He lays His LIFE down that HE may TAKE it again, what do you think He was referring to? He was referring to the power and authority He had to die willingly and rise willingly. Once again, talk about the resurrection. Jesus laid down His life and took it again, or in other words, raised it.
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)
Yes, I agree with this verse.
Arthur you mention:
“God the Father raised God the Son from the dead. Jesus, as God, could say that “I” (God) raised myself from the dead. That would be one way of harmonizing the verses, but I don’t believe it’s necessary to do so.”
I agree that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead (or in other words, the deity of Christ, God the Father, raised the human body of Christ from the dead). I do agree that Jesus could and did say that He raised Himself from the dead.
Arthur you ask: “Where does Scripture say that God the Son raised Jesus from the dead? I agree that would be problematic for Trinitarians.”
Well, Scripture nowhere says anything about “God the Son” to begin with. But doesn’t the Trinitarian view teach that “God the Son” who is Spirit, He came in the flesh? God the Father and “God the Son” are eternally separate spirit persons, and it was “God the Son” who came in the flesh as Jesus. That is the Trinitarian view correct? My point in mentioning all of that was to reiterate that the deity of Jesus, the deity in Jesus, was God the Father, not “God the Son.” In the beginning was not God the Father and “God the Son”, but rather the Word, who was with God and was God. In regards to deity/divine Spirit, Jesus and the Father is one person, not two separate persons. In regards to deity/divine Spirit, God the Father raising the MAN Jesus from the dead is absolutely equivalent to Jesus (according to His divine Spirit, God the Father), it is absolutely equivalent to Jesus raising Himself from the dead – why? Because in both cases, the same deity/divine Spirit did the raising – God the Father (Spirit) raised His human body (Jesus) from the dead…or in other words – Jesus, according to His divine Spirit (God the Father, not “God the Son”) raised His human body from the dead. Now a question is, in the Trinitarian view, where was “God the Son” in all of this? “God the Son” who became the man Jesus…did God the Son who is Spirit continue to transcend as Spirit in spite of being incarnated? If so, where was His role (as Spirit) in the resurrection? Or where is His role in the bible at all since He is not mentioned…? As I see it, it becomes more clear that the deity God the Father and the deity of Jesus are ONE person, the same, not two. This is why we can equally say that God the Father raised the man Jesus from the dead, OR, Jesus according to his divine Spirit (God the Father) raised Himself from the dead.
Michael
LikeLike
November 15, 2007 at 12:16 am
Arthur: �1) Did Tony lie when he said that he had the power to have Johnny killed?�
Michael: No
Arthur: 2) Was Tony lying when he said that he would kill Johnny, yet he did not do it personally?
Michael: Well, Tony did not kill Johnny, he had him killed. To me there is difference.
Arthur: 3) Assume that we somehow know that Tony was not lying when he said “I” will kill Johnny. Given the whole of the narrative above, is it reasonable to assume that Tony and Joey are the same person?
Arthur, I don’t know if it is because it is 2:07am, but I have read this question over and over. I am not understanding. Forgive me. But we know that Tony and Joey are not the same person, even though Tony gave Joey the authority.
Arthur: Another example: Joe Blow is the owner of Quickie-Haul, a 30 man local delivery service. A customer comes in and asks to have his home goods moved from his current house to his new house. Joe says, “I’ll bring them there on Monday by 10AM.” Sure enough, the goods arrive. Joe didn’t arrive personally, but sent his employee Steve Jones. Joe never intended to personally arrive on the site.
1) Did Joe lie when he said “I” will bring the goods to the customer’s house?
Michael: Well, Joe did not literally bring the goods, someone else did. So if we get technical about it, yes he lied, HOWEVER, of course, I see that angle you are addressing, in regards to someone on the behalf of the subject actually carrying out the task, even though the subject claimed to do it.
2) If Joe did not lie, are Joe Blow and Steve Jones just different names for the same person?
Michael: No
3) If Joe did not lie, what did he mean when he said “I” will bring them?
Michael: If Joe did not lie, by saying “I”, he meant that someone would bring the goods on his behalf.
The main issue I have with these scenarios is similar. In this one, Joe Blow and Steve Jones are two separate people. Jesus and God the Father are not two separate people according to their divine nature; they are one according to their divine nature not because they agree, but because they are one and the same (according to their deity). But of course, this would stir us to the whole debate concerning Oneness versus Trinitarian concept overall. Our foundation is different; therefore some of our conclusions are different. Of course, that is the obvious.
LikeLike
November 15, 2007 at 8:39 pm
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three manifestations of the one God are given the above titles. God manifests himself primarily these three ways BUT there is only one name of God. Jesus. Seriously now, what name does God want to be called. Whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: Joel 2:32 and the name of the LORD/YHWH is referenced as Jesus in Romans 10:13. Paul isn’t telling us to call on the name of YHWH but on the name of Jesus. Rom 10:9 It’s the name above all names (of God as well)
If there is only one God why would He have more than one name? Paul does a great job in maintaining the distinctions in the ways in which God reveals himself to us. Do we have to wait for the second coming of the Lord for this scripture to be fullfilled?
Zec 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
LikeLike
November 16, 2007 at 8:31 am
Jason,
I’m really thinking about the question you’ve asked me. I’m really thinking it through.
I do understand the weight of the issue. It must be realized that (most of) those who baptize using the “F/S/HS” “formula” do not do so in a spirit of resistance, willful contrariness to Scripture, or mere blind ignorance, at least not the Trinitarians that I’ve known and built relationships with or read their works. They feel they are being obedient to Scripture, most of them are humbly pursuing (from all outward perceptions) the same God revealed in Scripture that I’m pursuing. And so I look and say, they ARE obeying Scripture, or intending to, we are doing the same thing! Scripture says this here, and it says this other thing over here, which is it? Is it a guessing game? Can it be solved as simply as we’ve attempted to do? And even if the OP standard harmonization is correct, is God really going to divide based on who made the right technical decision regardless of the fact that many people stood in the water BY FAITH in Jesus Christ though the precise formula used was “F/S/HS”?
I know many who see everything extremely literal, cut and dry, black and white, and once they have “the” (their own) answer, that’s it, the question is solved, get on board or get off. And I understand the nature of truth and I love truth and I want to always side with the truth. Nevertheless, for me, this is a particular weighty issue, and I wonder why others don’t feel the weight of it, or wonder if perhaps they do but no one discusses it or talks about it. Not because I feel that Scripture is contradicting itself, I don’t at all believe that, and I actually think that the standard OP answer to corresponding Mt 28:19 to the book of Acts and the rest of Scripture, with some expansion and some modification, is on the right track. But the issue for me is that what the rest of conservative Christianity hears us saying, and what we really are saying, and know we are saying, is that individuals who truly have faith in Jesus Christ, and their lives demonstrate real transformation, who confessed faith in Jesus Christ, and were publicly baptized because of their faith in Jesus Christ are NOT saved because the minister baptizing said “F/S/HS” though he intended to be obedient and thought he was being obedient to Scripture. I’ve had some look at me incredulously, knowing the change that occurred in their own lives to be very real, not able to understand how we can imagine the God revealed in Scripture and the God who saves by grace as described in the NT would do such a thing. And so I look at myself, and I do ask, not merely is this a guessing game, but does the God who makes such promises (as John 6:37, 10:28, Acts 10:43, Acts 16:31, Romans 8:31-39, 10:5-13, Galatians 3:26-29, Eph 2:8-10, 1 John 4:1-6, 5:1-12) cast out true believers who lived lives of real discipleship and sought to follow after the Lord Jesus Christ, even those persecuted and martyred, based on what certainly seems like a technicality? And yeah, I understand the verse that says not everyone who says Lord, Lord is going to enter the Kingdom, but I’m not talking about people who merely signed a card (or on the other hand were baptized in Jesus name and talked in tongues), were speaking of real life believers, not the backslidden Baptists and Methodists we use to caricature all evangelicals—it would be scary if they use our backsliders to caricature us as well as unfair! You see, we’re not talking about whether a person can be saved outside of Christ, which is a total different issue; rather we are really discussing whether all who call on the name of the Lord Jesus are truly saved!!
I will be thinking more about it and responding more since I’ve not really answered anything except to say, yes, I do think this is a very significant discussion, very weighty for us as OPs anyways.
LikeLike
November 21, 2007 at 10:30 am
Jason,
I’m still thinking about this. My last post was simply to indicate how significant I think the issue is, that is of whether this is a guessing game and whether God views baptism with the “technical” precision that we do.
Again, I do agree with you that it is incorrect to equate the name of Jesus directly with the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That is far too simplistic and the evidence doesn’t bear it as you’ve pointed out. The connection between the name of the Father and the Son, Jesus Christ is real but is more subtle as you’ve explained.
I now see clearly the problem here then with Matthew 28:19 and your understanding of the name of Jesus as outlined in this post. If Jesus name is not the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as you argue (rightly!) then what are to make of Matthew 28:19? And you don’t answer your question in your post, either, leaving it to us, though you have stepped in and explained your perspective on the issue.
Anyways, if what you’ve said is right, then Matthew 28:19 correlated with Acts cannot equate Jesus name with F/S/HS (Jesus name != name of F/S/HS) directly. So, unless I’m simply not imaginative enough, then “name of F/S/HS” must refer primarily to the authority and the personal presence of God in Christ. That interpretation would square well with Jesus’s word in vs. 18, “all authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” Of course, it follows that since Jesus has this authority then He can authorize His followers to baptize, which is what He is doing in this verse.
Implicitly, one can still see how this would point to baptism in Jesus name because the name of Jesus has that authority of God Himself. I think it makes sense that, given the biblical view of personhood and naming, that to say authority is given to a person is the same thing as saying that that authority is in the name of that person.
I think a solid case can be made that the Gospel of Matthew holds that the authority of God has been vested in Jesus, and thus His name.
One only need examine such passages as 1:18-24, 5:11, 7:21-23, 7:24-29, 11:27, 16:13-20, 16:27, 17:1-5, 18:15-20, 19:29, 21:9-11, 21:13, 21:23-27, 23:37-39.
I think this is important because we have so focused on correlating Matthew 28:19 with the rest of the NT, primarily Acts, and I don’t know that I’ve ever heard anyone explore Matthew 28:19 within it’s closest circle of context, the Gospel of Matthew itself.
So several options are available: (1) Jesus name = name of F/S/HS and Mt 28:19 refers to invoking names in baptism, so Jesus name should be invoked; (2) Jesus name is not exactly equated to F/S/HS but the name in Mt 28:19 is singuler and this must implicitly refer to invoking Jesus name in baptism; (3) Mt 28:19 doesn’t refer primarily to invoking a name, but to the personal authority for baptizing, that authority is given to Jesus, and implicitly this connects Jesus name with invoking it in baptism. There are probably other options as well…
Of course, this only magnifies the question asked above: “would Jesus make us play a guessing game?” Does one have to do all this theologizing to get baptism right, something which really is about expressing one’s faith by simple obedience?
LikeLike
November 28, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Chad,
I agree. I think you have done an excellent job in illustrating the weightiness of this issue. I also agree that too few OPs think hard about the position they hold on the issue. It’s especially easy to not feel the weight, and not think it through if we isolate ourselves to the OP community. But once we go beyond the OP community into the larger Christian community, the issue begins to press on us.
Jason
LikeLike
September 21, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Greetings! in the name of the Lord Jesus who is God most High.
Brother Dulle! I have serious problems with your blog due to the fact I am firmly committed to the belief that the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is Jesus. And to shew forth that is a scriptural belief please take note of these passages of holy scripture.
John 5:43
“I am come in my Father’s name and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name him ye will receive.”
Hebrews 1:4
“Being made so much better than the angels as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.”
And you have in the book of Acts where brother Stephen called God by name–that is Lord Jesus. And brother Paul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus being told that God is Jesus.
So, dear sir I do not accept nor do I consider your affirmation that only the Son was named Jesus when you have clear evidence in holy scripture that disproves your assessment.
May God bless you always! in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
September 21, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Greetings! in the name of the Lord Jesus who is God most High.
Also I forgot to mention the scripture in John chapter 14 verse 26 which states:
“But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my name he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your rememberance whatsoever I have said unto you.”
Let me make it know brother Dulle that I do not intend to condemn you but to reiterate what the name of the Son of God was passed down from his Father (God) which means that Jesus is the name of the Father as well as the Holy Spirit.
God bless you always! in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
September 22, 2008 at 11:31 am
Marquet,
You misunderstand those passages because you do not understand how the ancients used “name.” When Jesus said He came in His Father’s name, He meant He came in His Father’s authority, not that the Father’s name was Jesus. See my article on this here: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/names.htm
Jason
LikeLike
September 22, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Greetings! in the name of Jesus Christ who is God most High.
Thank you for your response to my post. And I hope all is well with you in the Lord Jesus and that God most High is greatly encouraging your heart to pursue his will always.
As for your affirmation that when the scripture says in John 5:43 “he has come in his Father’s name” and you interpret that to mean authority. I would have to disagree with you on that because of other passages of holy scripture taken together. Such as Matthew 28:19, Acts 9:6, Acts 7:59, and Hebrews 1:4 which plainly illustrate my affirmation that name in John 5:43 must be taken literally to mean that the Son of God received his name from his Father which is Jesus.
Other than that I will definitely read your article in order to give your perspective a fair hearing.
God bless you always! in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
September 23, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Here are my thoughts no Mat 28:19 Jesus is not the name in a personal sense of the Father and Spirit…we see that the Son was “surnamed” Jesus at his birth. However since the context of Mat 28 is not merely a personal name but authority the name Jesus is the representative name of the Father here on earth. God had many names in the OT. Many were more descriptive to describe His relation to Man. Jesus or Yeshua emphasizes salvation. So I would not say the personal name of the Father is Jesus but that name represents His authority here on earth as given to the Son. So Mat 28:19 in this way is connected to Acts 2:38
LikeLike
September 23, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Greetings! in the name of the Lord Jesus who is God most High.
Brother Jevan! I would have to disagree with you that Jesus is not the name of the Father and Holy Spirit citing John 5:43, Hebrews 1:4, and other passages of holy scripture that prove my point that the new testament name of God Almighty is Jesus and his title is Christ.
God bless you always! in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
December 7, 2008 at 9:16 am
I believe the Son inherited his name from the Father. by God being incarnated in the
the Son not only the humanity name is Jesus
but also the Fathers not unless you separate
Jesus into two Persons therefore Him being one with the Father not only Humanity name
Jesus also the deity.Jesus being the bosom of the Father the name Jesus now being revealed we can say Jesus. I don’t have a theological degree But How Jesus is God and
Human i can’t totally explain I beleive.
God came,went and never moved all at the same time or no time
LikeLike
December 7, 2008 at 9:30 am
it seems that People make a
seperation or differance between
Father and God
For if Jesus is God , he is the Father or
If he is not the Father he not God at all
LikeLike
December 7, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Agree. Jesus’ person is the person of the Father, but in a different mode of existence: human. In His human mode of existence, the divine person is called Son, or Jesus. In His continued existence transcendent to the incarnation, that same person is called “Father.”
Jason
LikeLike
March 24, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Malachi 1
11. For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.
What name is God referring to and when will this occur?
First, authority is meaningless unless the authority is identified. As Jason rightly observes, God’s authority is directly connected to the person of Christ. I mentioned on another post that Jesus’ name was deliberately given to Him prior to birth (Mt. 1:21); His name means Yahweh is (has become) salvation; it is in His name that the Gentiles trust (Mt. 12:21); His name is the only name whereby we are saved (Acts 4:12); and it is through His name we receive the remission of sins (Acts 10:43).
The quotation from the prophet Malachi is either referring to the New Testament age or it is referring to a post-church Millennial Age. There is no other option.
The latter option, to say the least, is problematic due to the fact that if there is a post-church Millennial Age, the gospel to the Gentiles would have run its course. Space prevents a full analysis of this option, but there are numerous scriptural and logical problems this view must overcome in order to float.
The former option, however, faces no such difficulties. As prophesied, Jesus’ name is great among Gentile believers, they are baptized in His name and they believe there is no other name by which they can be saved. The whole family in heaven and earth is named after Him and His name is above every name. They offer the sacrifice of praise and their prayers are sweetened with heavenly incense.
Since God declared His name would be great among the Gentiles, and since the New Testament church now fulfills every aspect of that prophecy, it appears the only name He is referring to is the name of Jesus. The only other options are Yahweh or some generic reference to His authority. Given the prominence of Jesus’ name in the New Testament (which several here have already noted), those alternatives are not reasonable.
Chad, this may sound simplistic to you, but (and I’m certain you would agree) we either derive our doctrine from the Scriptures or from our fallible intellect. Nobody raised in OP is confused about Mt. 28:19. False doctrine is what brings confusion, not the Scriptures.
As I pointed out elsewhere, if I say, “Sign these documents in the names of Jason Dulle, of Ronald Reagan and of Davy Crockett, then those names will appear on every document. If, however, I say, “Sign these documents in the name of the butcher, and of the baker and of the candlestick maker, and if the butcher, baker and candlestick maker is Jason Dulle, then Jason’s name will appear on every document. The apostles immediately understood what Jesus meant because F,S,HG are not proper names, but descriptive names (titles).
Jason argues “the name of the King and of the Queen” appears to invoke royal authority without invoking their names. He further states that though name is singular, it represents the authority of two persons in accord with the rules of grammar. But this argument merely raises the possibility of an alternate reading; it doesn’t demonstrate the OP interpretation is incorrect. “The name of the king” can invoke mere authority where everybody knows the actual name of the king, and “name of the king” can refer to the king’s proper name. Given the abundance of the Biblical record of the significance of Jesus’ name, it is obvious THE NAME is a direct reference to Jesus’ name.
To expand upon the illustration I gave, if I prepare a deed and instruct the closer to have the deed executed in the names of the grantors, it is clear I am asking for the grantors’ actual names. It is also clear there is more than one grantor because I used the plural names, not the singular. Similarly, if I’m instructed to have the names of the king and of the queen on a proclamation, then “king” and “queen” will not do. In this sense, “name” takes on the very significance OP have observed for decades. That interpretation naturally follows if Jesus meant for the church to use His name in baptism.
If the mere invocation of God’s authority is meant, then any formula will do. One could say, “I baptize you in the name of Elohim” (or, pick any title) so long as you mean God. Again, the record of both testaments is otherwise.
Trinitarians’ incredulity is irrelevant. Wisdom would dictate we recognize the work of God in their lives and remind them that they themselves profess to be “growing” in God’s grace and knowledge. If so, they wouldn’t object to your showing them “the way of God more perfectly.” If God’s Spirit will guide them into all truth, and will finish the work He began in them, their sincerity will cause them to follow where God leads them. And it won’t be away from the apostles’ doctrine, it will be toward it.
Kind regards,
Scalia
LikeLike
May 30, 2010 at 1:34 pm
http://euneirophrenia.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
November 3, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Hi,
I believe the name of the F,S,HS. is Jesus.
The Father is the written word for if we did not have the written word we would not know God as Father. When we are baptized in the name of the Father we are saying we agree with the the written word. When we are baptized in the name of the son we are believing Jesus to be the promised Messiah. And when we are baptized in the H.S. we are claiming eternal life by the gift of the Holy Spirit as promised in the written word by the prophecies of Jesus. Charles
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 7:48 am
Jason you are either incapable of reading authors and Ministers writings or you just can’t keep your trap shut and must just ramble on.
I notice you don’t defend Oneness, you look for ways to attack it.
Maybe you should buy a few books or read thee Book the Bible.
I find your posts rather loathsome, they smack of elitism and that you are smarter than the rest of us poor Oneness ignorant folk.
I have seen your psycho babble regarding are apparent two persons belief and now that Jesus is not the name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost.
You have railed against David Bernard (and why in the world the UPC would ever allow your writings to be put in print I don’t know).
You remind me of another Oneness person who went around Indiana and wrote books and yet didn’t live the life and didn’t believe what UPC taught and yet would go into their churches and take their money and then disagree with Holiness standards and that Trinitarians really had to be changed or converted.
That man died, he got exposed and threatened me and wound up dead for attacking a person holding Biblical views and not views which he thought could be all inclusive and without any Holiness.
Maybe you should look at some of the plain and rightly divided words of those before you, before you go ignorantly spouting off the mouth about what you see or don’t, for I see you simply giving ammunition to the other side for your remarks.
Try reading JASON WEATHERLY’S “CALLING ON THE NAME” or some Pioneers who show that the name of Jesus was not just the man Christ’s name, but also the name of the Father’s which he recieved that name by inheritance of came in his Father’s name, or that the name of the Holy Ghost aka Paraclete is clearly shown in 1 John 2;1 in the Greek….JESUS CHRIST THE RIGHTEOUS, for the Spirit of Christ is still Jesus, as the Father God is Jesus by Spirit nature.
Frankly if I were you I would be ashamed of caliming to be Oneness Apostolic, for I ain’t seen it.
iN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST, namely JESUS!SCMIT
AND DEFFENDING TRUTH ON CARM TRINITY MESSAGE BOARD
LikeLike
February 28, 2013 at 7:54 am
jasondulle Says:
September 22, 2008 at 11:31 am
Marquet,
You misunderstand those passages because you do not understand how the ancients used “name.” When Jesus said He came in His Father’s name, He meant He came in His Father’s authority, not that the Father’s name was Jesus. See my article on this here: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/names.htm
Jason
jason, i call you a trinitarian wolf in oneness sheep’s clothing.
THAT IS NOT WHAT IT MEANT AND YOU ARE DUPED INTO BELIEVING SUCH TRINITY CARPING.
This has been refuted over and over with scriptures…
REFUTING “AUTHORITY ONLY” lie!
I have refuted your phony balony authority only made up defense with the following
MATT 7:22 WAS NAME MEANT OR SOME MORE AUTHORITY ONLY ?
MATT 12:21 WAS IT A NAME OR ONLY HIS AUTHORITY THEY WERE TO HAVE TRUSTED?
MATT 24:5 dID MANY COME IN HIS AUTHORITY AND NOT USE HIS NAME OR A REAL NAME WAS IN WHAT AUTHORITY THEY REALLY CAME IN?
MARK 9:39 WAS IT THE NAME OF Jesus or only authority?
Mark 9:41 was that to give a drink of water in his name or authority and why do these passage say his name and noever authority?
MARK 16:17 WAS IT IN THE NAME OF JESUS these demons were cast out or no name at all?
Luke 24:47 repentance and remission of sisn was in the name, notthing said again about authority
John 3:18 did they not believe in a name or authority here as well?
John 10:3 tell me how you get around this one and why authority makes again no sense.
John 12:28 Was this to glorify authority or a name? You cannot even make sense with your nonsense.
John 14:13 was that ask in a name or only authority?, does this not mean we invoke the name of JESUS or not?
John 14:14 If ye shall ask anything in his authority or NAME?????
JOHN 14:26 WHOM THE father WILL send in his authority or a real name of JESUS!!??
John 16:24 do we ask anything in his name ever or are all these mere authority?
Acts 4:10 was it by the name of Jesus Christ of nazereth or by the authority only?
Acts 4:18 And they caommanded them not to speak in the name or authority and why?
Acts 5:28 not teach in his name or his authority meant? C,mon, you seem rather vague right now.
Acts 8:12 and the name of Jesus Christ or the auhtority only and no name was spoken?
Acts 8:16 IF AUTHORITY WHY IS NOT AUTHORITY USED IN acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48 and 19:5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????????? ????
Thus the lie of authrity only is put to rest.
Jason recant and repent of you false teachings and quit supping at the Pope’s table.
LikeLike
March 1, 2013 at 7:19 am
This is nothing more than an attempt to rewrite Oneness theology. The Oneness doctrine was built on the premise that name of the Father is Jesus based on the verse you objected. In fact, in my 20 years in the UPC this teaching was very fundamental to the Oneness theology. It is what made Oneness what it was, and it separated Oneness from the Trinity theology. And now, we read the teaching has been wrong all these years.
LikeLike
March 4, 2013 at 10:36 am
It is obvious to me on several attempts by Mr Dulle to make up doctrines and faulty at that on several subjects.
He held that Oneness hold two persons and not one, despite the clear admonition by Oneness of old and myself to say that Jesus is that person in two modes or roles or ways of expressing himself by two natures.
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 2:38 am
Saying the name “Jesus” applies to the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit can not be said to be inconsistent with the biblical revelation and teachings.
The nouns Father, Son & Holy Spirit are collective representation of categories of human & ecclesiastic being. Hence it can not be considered as an personal name of anybody.
Rather, JESUS was a personal name and included in his name is “Mighty God” (Isaiah 9.). And he has been given a name that is above every name! All powers in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth has been given to Jesus making him the ultimate. He said: In my name… (Mark 16.17)
Finally, it was only Jesus who made the statement: “In the name of the father…” Thereafter, the disciple did all they did (including baptism) in the name of Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 6:26 am
If the above opinion is true, why don’t we see this taught by the apostles themselves. Let’s not forget that the NT scriptures were written many years after Jesus’ ascension, yet they failed to reveal this OP view. I would be careful not to read something into the Scriptures that simply is not there.
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 8:26 am
Mike, the reasoning is spelled out in my replies above. Since you disagree, please engage the arguments and spell out why you think we’re mistaken.
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 9:11 am
Scalia, I read through many of the post, but the confusion is that these post are nothing but opinions, and not based on what the Scriptures literally state. None of the apostles wrote anything that would support these views. If this were the case Oneness would be able to quote doctrine right from the bible without needed to change the meanings. As I stated already, the Scriptures were written many years after Jesus’ ascension, yet we do not see any Scriptures that explicitly support the Oneness view of the identity of Jesus. Not one. The idea that Matthew 28:19 with the singular name “Jesus” somehow changes anything is the weakest argument made Oneness to
date, when in fact, this is a late 20th century interpretation. And of course there is the Granville Sharp’s Rule that Oneness have to contend with.
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 9:32 am
Mike:
Agreed.
Merely an exercise in pursuit of unimportant meaningless opinions. Actually very useless trivial dialogue, no depth, shallow by every intelligent estimate, nothing scriptural.
Possibly the same kind of babble that took place when the Nicene Creed itself was adopted as a vain attempt to unite the divided Catholic (Universal/Christian) world in 325CE.
This generation is still counting ribs to see if men have one rib less than women. LOL
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 10:22 am
Mike, you were asked to engage the arguments, and you replied with a repetition of your views. I gave the scriptural justification for my claim, so that leaves your reply without persuasive effect.
There are six rules Mr. Sharp recognized. Which one are you referring to?
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 10:50 am
Scalia, you are assuming that my first response was directed at you. My initial response was directed at the Oneness doctrine in general, and the first post made by Dulle. My second post was in response to you, but again, not directed to you in general. My point stands unanswered. The Oneness doctrine is not based on the actual reading of the Scriptures. Go back and read Jason Dulle’s original message. He attempts to correct the very doctrine the Oneness church was founded on during the 20th century. That is my point. Please pay attention.
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 11:18 am
Mike, now you’re deflecting. I took it that your initial reply was to Jason. My initial reply to you was to direct you to my previous post (which I mistakenly referred to in the plural). Thus, you have had ample opportunity both to read my previous post and to engage the arguments that I have made. You have twice replied to me without engaging any of my arguments.
You say, “My point stands unanswered.” And what “point” is that?
The Oneness doctrine is not based on the actual reading of the Scriptures.
The proper topic of this thread is how Jesus is the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and I have provided the scriptural justification in answer to that question. Consequently, your “point” has been answered in the context of this thread. One of the rules of this forum is to keep posts on topic.
Please pay attention.
Now, are we going to get a rebuttal of my scriptural argument, and are you going to identify which rule of Sharp’s Greek grammar that you appeal to, or are we going to get more empty statements?
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 11:29 am
Scalia, I’m not going to bottle feed you. Read my posts. The Oneness doctrine is not based an the actual reading of the Scriptures.
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 11:47 am
You posted two times prior to my initial reply to you (Posts 57 & 60). Since you think you’ve made an argument, here they are:
And:
How does that relate to anything I’ve written? I replied in disagreement with Jason’s post and provided the scriptural justification for the same. I have elsewhere provided extensive analysis defending the Oneness Pentecostal position. Now, I didn’t expect you to see my other linked analysis, but you’ve had ample opportunity to read what I’ve written here. After all this time, it is clear that you don’t have a cogent reply. If you did, you would engage the arguments instead of playing this silly catch-me-if-you can game you’re playing here.
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 12:43 pm
Fallible intellect breeds false doctrine from scriptural interpretation by those who whose reason is slim to none.
To reason that fallible intellect can interpret scripture to extract true doctrine is like saying: Jesus baptizes in the name of Jesus the Father, Jesus the Son and Jesus the Holy ghost.
Or to the following ridiculous extrapolation of: Jesus said we are to be baptized in the name of Jesus, Jesus, and Holy Jesus.
Here’s another Scaliaism gem. “First, authority is meaningless unless the authority is identified.”
23 Then he was back in the Temple, teaching. The high priests and leaders of the people came up and demanded, “Show us your credentials. Who authorized you to teach here?”
24-25 Jesus responded, “First let me ask you a question. You answer my question and I’ll answer yours. About the baptism of John—who authorized it: heaven or humans?”
25-27 They were on the spot and knew it. They pulled back into a huddle and whispered, “If we say ‘heaven,’ he’ll ask us why we didn’t believe him; if we say ‘humans,’ we’re up against it with the people because they all hold John up as a prophet.” They decided to concede that round to Jesus. “We don’t know,” they answered.
Jesus said, “Then neither will I answer your question.”
Does that mean then, according to the “Gem” statement noted above, that Jesus’ authority was meaningless because Jesus did not identify his authority to the religious dictates?
Better to be discreet with words than glib(fluent and voluble but insincere and shallow.) for words are powerful. Do you know how powerful the “Word” is?…..it tells you in scripture how powerful the Word is in John 1st chapter:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Now I know that Christians far and wide think that the “Word” was Jesus, but that is not what is meant by that scripture, the WORD is language and language(word) was powerful and still has that power. Language (The WORD) was essentially caricatured to mean “God manifested” ; that is, the invisible made known through the word and confirmed through DEED; i.e., action, BY WHAT HE SAID AND BY WHAT HE DID and you could take him at his word!) Generous inside and out, true from start to finish. So be very careful with the words you use.
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 12:49 pm
how many times do you to be told that I was NOT responded to your post?
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 1:01 pm
I directed you to my post and you replied (Post 62):
The fact is that I provided a scriptural argument which did “support these views.” You were either commenting on the thread’s topic or you were attempting to hijack the thread by introducing another topic.
Moreover, you brought up “Granville Sharp’s Rule” which prompted me to twice ask you which “rule” you were referring to.
At bottom, you made no argument at all, so there is no “point” of yours that has any relevance. You made empty statements that you’re not even feebly attempting to defend. You are of course free to believe anything you want, but at least understand that the potshots you’ve been taking here have no effect on thinking people.
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 1:06 pm
Since Mike has thus far refused to answer my questions about Granville Sharp, I’ll answer anyway. Mr. Sharp asserts six principles (or rules) of syntax involving the Greek article. His sixth rule is cited by some misguided Trinitarians to justify their reading of Matthew 28:19. Daniel Segraves more than adequately rebuts that notion in his Matthew 28:19 and Granville Sharp’s Sixth Rule.
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 1:44 pm
Scalia, Several years ago I read Daniel Segraves attempt to redefine the Gransville Sharp’s rules.I have read many refutations on his interpretation as well. Segraves may have his PHD in Renewal Studies and a double major in Christian Theology, but that does not make him the expert in the Greek language.
The link below should be educational for you.
digilander.libero.it/domingo7/SharpsRule.pdf
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 1:54 pm
The link doesn’t work–at least on my computer. Segraves’ post isn’t very long, and since you’re so “educated” (that is, if you really understand the arguments involved), then enlighten me as to where he goes astray. There are clear New Testament exceptions to the rule, and since there are demonstrable exceptions, no “redefinition” is occurring. Moreover, if the context demands one person, the rule cannot negate the same. Since the “context,” in this regard, is ultimately based on whether the entire Bible teaches Oneness or the Trinity, it is question-begging at best to act as if Sharp settles the issue at Mt. 28:19.
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 1:57 pm
Keep trying on the link. And to keep this short. Prove to me that bible teaches Oneness. Use the words of Jesus.
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 2:08 pm
I get a security warning. Why is it that you continue to dodge? I offer affirmative defenses and you supply non-working links. This thread isn’t about Oneness/Trinity, it is a violation of the administrator’s rules to take a thread beyond its topic, as you’ve already been told.
You have the chutzpah to ask me for additional argument when you won’t reply to the on topic argument that I’ve made? Nice attempt at another dodge, but it won’t work.
Again, there are clear exceptions to Sharp’s rule which makes any appeal to Sharp question-begging. Hence, it was ill-conceived of you to raise it in the context of this thread.
As you’ve been reminded several times, the topic of this thread is whether Jesus is the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I’ve provided a scriptural argument in defense of that view. So far, with respect to this thread’s topic, you offer crickets.
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 2:29 pm
The link works. Try this.
Click to access SharpsRule.pdf
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 2:31 pm
All you have done is make the assertion that Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You have yet to post one single verse that supports this view. Doctrine does come from the Scriptures…right? I challenge you to post one verse that support this claim.
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 2:41 pm
Abimbola Olodude, you made an unproven assertion. Saying the name Jesus refers to only to the Son, never to the Father or the Holy Spirit. Not one time in Scriptures.
Luk 1:31 And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Luk 1:33 and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
LikeLike
July 8, 2015 at 3:03 pm
All you have done is make the assertion that Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
No, I’ve provided a scriptural argument, so not only are you incapable of constructing an argument, you’re dishonest. I also provided an additional link (which does work here) which greatly expands on the above argument and is on the same topic.
As to your link, my security settings are not allowing access. However, what prevents you from making an argument? If you really understand the issues involved, you would have no problem encapsulating the issue and arguing the same.
Anyway, I’ve tried repeatedly to engage you in reasonable dialog over the topic of this thread. You have steadfastly refused in bizarre fashion. It is unlikely after all this time that you’ll change course, so there’s no point going further. We’re just wasting bandwidth.
LikeLike
January 30, 2016 at 11:42 am
The early church never baptized in the name of Jesus Christ the name Jesus is only 400-500 years old. They baptized in the name of Yehowshua. meaning Yah is salvation. YHWH (Yehweh is the Father) This will be preached to all nations and will be shown in these last days. The trinitarians had it wrong using titles. The oneness people had it wrong by using the wrong name.
LikeLike
May 9, 2016 at 11:52 am
Anyone who reads Tom’s comment posted on January 30, 2016 at 11:42 am, please go to http://www.gotquestions.org/Yeshua-Jesus.html and read it. In short it’s ok that we call Him Jesus! Now in response to the original post I will add to what Dale Garrison said on November 6, 2007 at 4:27 am…this is just something to think about…We are made in the image and likeness of God…we are a 3 part being made up of a spirit, soul and body…each part separate but are one person with one name. I think we can get a glimpse of how God operates as a 3 “part” being Himself with One Name. So you have The Father, The Word and The Holy Spirit. In the Old Testament God was called Jehovah, still a 3 part being but He is One. The Word became flesh, Jesus Christ (refer to Dale Garrison’s comment if referred to earlier on explanation of what the Name Jesus means). Just as our 3 parts have different “roles” or functions, could it be possible that The Father would be like our soul, He is like the mind. The Word (Jesus) is like our body, this is the part of God that puts things into action and God has a Sprit, The Holy Spirit, and is the part of God that is power and gives life. Although our spirit is not like His obviously, God still made us with one. I am also not limiting God to what I wrote above, it’s just a little something to think about. Now that being said, possibly the part of God that is The Father had to send the part of Himself that is The Word because the Word puts things into action. Just as when we have a thought to pick up a glass, our physical body uses the hand to pick it up. If our the part of us that is our body did not respond to our thought then our thought would not be put into action. I hope this makes sense to somebody 🙂 I may have went off a bit onto how the Oneness of God may work as well, but just thought I would share.
LikeLike
June 10, 2016 at 1:18 am
Thanks, this website is really beneficial.|
LikeLike
June 12, 2016 at 3:11 pm
Fantastic really enjoyed reading this today.
LikeLike
June 24, 2016 at 2:03 pm
The thing is not really about how much information you apply to your proof sometimes. when you read the bible revelation will have to come along. Also based on the comments people are, either unitary or trinitary. Only God knows and leave it at that. In these cases I cannot judge, because people’s faith is when the real salvation comes along. In conclusion I believe in the name of Jesus because God is Jesus in flesh. The spirit IS God, there is no other superior force but God. God is the father. The son is Jesus which is God. So if God is Jesus, than when saying in the name of Jesus, its God him self all along. Jesus, God, spirit, son is a title that’s why it says in the NAME because the real name is a mystery.
LikeLike
September 14, 2016 at 7:45 pm
I personally believe that we should baptize in the name of Jesus because why else would the bible say name and not titles.
LikeLike
September 14, 2016 at 9:32 pm
Petrina Turner:
I am not sure what you actually mean by “baptism” so this may be off the topic your comment but let’s start with the following.
You may believe that water is the measure of the baptism but I think you’d be wrong. Baptism with water was an ancient ritual used for the regeneration of the body, the renewing of the body, the cleansing of the body that lasted up to the turning point with John The Baptist, Jesus’ cousin.
Now Jesus followed that old tradition(using water) right up to the time when he began formulating his campaign to revolutionize religion. One of the significant changes of the revolution was the baptism water ritual, transforming the body cleansing with water; that is, from the outside in. Jesus transformed that baptismal ritual of the symbolic outer cleaning with the cleansing of the spirit within. He likened that transformation to “being born again” of water, the old; and, of the spirit, the new, from the inside out and not the outside in, as the ancients had developed. Water was the ritual symbol used but water is not the baptism. What is imparted to the mind is the baptism.
Baptism was changed by this inversion.
One thing you need to know is that water is not the baptism, water was the symbol for the ritual to represent the baptism of the spirit but water was not the baptism so when you talk about baptizing in the name of, you don’t need water because the baptism is of the Holy Spirit, the connector between man and the Father within man.
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” To be baptized is about your mindset, your disposition, your attitude and has nothing to do with water…simply using the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit so the baptism is actually the “Father Son and Holy Spirt.” Not water. “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus”, that word mind seems attitude. It means disposition. Let this disposition be in you that was in Christ. .
And because there was mutual inter-availability there was no margin of difference between what the Lord Jesus did as man and the Father did as God. No margin of difference except that God is invisible and the Lord Jesus in a physical visible humanity gave a physical, visible expression of an invisible self intimately identified with an invisible God so he could take God out into the open where he could be seen and that’s exactly why he made you and me.
Water was merely a symbol of the cleansing but Jesus as the truth was the cleansing of the spirit and he demonstrated the proposition by what he said and what he did and by who he was and by how he lived.
Yet Christians today still forget the evils of religion that Jesus testified of and warned us about: sacraments, sacrifices, prayer rituals, finger beading, bible thumping and hand-raising hallelujahs……….the Mosaic futility and insignificance of idle ceremonies, mummeries and observances, of no effect towards producing the social utilities which constitute the essence of virtue; such a one is the keeping of the Sabbath; “‘These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me. They worship Me in vain; And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote……”
Another ritual is baptism.
“Hence when Christ entered into the world he said sacrifices and offerings you have not desired”; in other words, the pragmatic, externals of mere religion are not satisfying to you Father. It isn’t that a man goes once a week in a piece of real estate. Or simply undergoes as a matter of tradition and form certain sacraments. Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired but instead Father you have made ready a body for me to offer you, father
LikeLike
September 14, 2016 at 9:40 pm
Yes, Petrina, you’re quite correct. I spell that out in more detail above, but it is the only rational interpretation of biblical data in that regard.
Kind regards in Christ.
LikeLike
September 27, 2016 at 11:11 am
2 John 1:9 – “Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has BOTH the Father and the Son.” (emphasis mine.). ‘Both’ does not mean ‘one’ but two. So Jesus Christ is NOT the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Again, John 16:1-15 – “I have said all these things to you to keep you from falling away. 2 They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. 3 And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me. 4 But I have said these things to you, that when their hour comes you may remember that I told them to you. “I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. 5 But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. 12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”
Was Jesus going to the Father and send Himself again? Or the Holy Spirit was going to be sent by Jesus? How, then, can the Three be the same One?
LikeLike
September 27, 2016 at 10:34 pm
George Ebejer:
Unfortunately, you sound like some other posters on this thread in so far as you don’t express your own view point but only paste what others have translated or otherwise interpreted or what the bible says textually.
This leaves you like a leaf blowing in the wind much like other posters who think that re-pasting scriptures tells anything about what the poster is trying to express….If you cannot express in your own words, then what you paste is actually quite useless.
Since there are tons of interpretations of the exact same scripture, unless you can put your understanding into your own words you may as well keep quiet because you do nobody any favours simply quoting scriptures….anybody can do that and it would be as meaningless as your own pasting.
LikeLike
September 28, 2016 at 2:30 am
Leo,
It would be helpful to your own position if you would actually refute his position rather than do exactly what you accuse him of. What does John 16:1-15 say textually? Please use the grammar to support your opinion.
LikeLike
September 28, 2016 at 5:26 am
George, your question is valid. Textually and grammatically the passage you posted does not support the view of one person. If it did, Leo would have gladly proven his point rather than attacking your question.
LikeLike
September 29, 2016 at 11:48 am
George your question is not valid because ……….where do you think Jesus is going to the Father….and where is the Father then? Jesus had already spent 3 years telling us that the Father was within him so wherever Jesus was going the Father was already within him.
The Son outwardly and the Father inwardly are one; IT’S LIKE WE CAN’T GO ANYWHERE WITHOUT EACH OTHER.
If you can’t understand this “God within” concept, you will always be at a disadvantage in not knowing the real Jesus; hence, not knowing the real Father within you……….not externally yours but internally yours.
Layman316 is a typical Christian with the belief that the Father is somewhere else than within you.
You see anything you and I can know about God we see magnificently magnified in the person of his incarnate son. As we have already reminded ourselves, said the Lord Jesus, he that has seen me has seen the father.
“Show us the father said Philip, it sufficeth us”.
Said the Lord Jesus, “have I been so long time with you hast thou been so long time with me and not known me Philip? He that has seen me has seen my father”.
We remind ourselves that for the very first time since Adam fell into sin God in heaven could look at his son and see in him a man, a real man, could see himself, perfectly reflected. The word was made flesh, said John, and we beheld his glory. The reflected glory of his father, indwelling his humanity, manifesting himself, as God, through Jesus Christ as man. John 12:45: He that has seen me has seen him that sent me. So he was the truth about God. He interpreted deity. In the physical, visible body of his humanity he gave not only a physical, visible expression of his own invisible self but an invisible self intimately identified with his invisible father who indwelt his humanity in the person of the holy spirit and whom he allowed from within his human spirit gain total access to his human soul so that the father through the holy spirit could teach his mind, so control his emotions that the father in the son would direct his will and govern his behavior. So the Lord Jesus constantly testified: John 5: 19; John 5:30; “Without my father I can do nothing”.
Don’t you believe Philip that I am in my father and my father is in me? And the words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself; the father who lives in me; he does the work; everything I do, he does; everything I say, he says; everything I am, he is. That’s why when you look at me you see him. Because you see, the Lord Jesus was not only the truth about God.
Now if ever there was a man who walked this earth who knew the truth about a man’s humanity and that relationship that must govern that man’s humanity, with God and God with him, that man was Jesus Christ. The Father just happened to be God who engineered man and who deliberately, though never himself never less than God, Jesus, the obedient son knowing the Father was within, stepped out of eternity into time and insisted of his own free volition, something he need never ever have done, being never ever less than God came into this world to behave as though he were never ever more than man. As opposed of course to man, who being never ever more than man, struts across this planet and behaves as though he were never ever less than God. That’s the essential difference. Jesus Christ never ever less than God behaved as though he were never ever more than man; man never ever more than man behaves as though he was never ever less than God.
The truth about God and the truth about man; in other words, the Lord Jesus, as our creator and the one who assumed the office of the man he made knew exactly what that relationship would be that would govern his humanity on forgiven
earth and his father, as God in heaven and deliberately submitted himself to those criteria of our humanity to the limitations that make man, man.
So here are two very simple points to establish: Jesus Christ in whom was seen the total glory of the father was the truth about God. But being the creator who made man, assuming his office, to fulfill his role was the truth about man. Now what is equally obvious is that the Lord Jesus was the truth about God because he was the truth about man because the truth about man is that man was created to be the truth about God. In case I said that too fast, let me say it again. You see, all I’m doing is making the obvious, obvious; the tragedy is that obvious by and large is so obvious it ceases to be obvious. It’s the simplicity that is in Jesus. You see we are past masters at complicating the issue and turning our Christian faith into a complicated procedure when in point of fact, it derives from a person; it’s of him, through him, to him, all things to whom alone be glory. He’s the beginning and the end; he’s the author and the finisher of our faith; he’s the source and the sustenance; he’s the root and the fatness; Christ himself. And he came into this world to be the truth about God and the truth about man and he was the truth about God because he was the truth about man, because the truth about man is that man was created to be the truth about God.
Where then can Jesus go to be with the Father who is living within him? It’s a pointless question, a meaningless question.
LikeLike
October 2, 2016 at 1:06 pm
Leo, as I suspected. Not once did you give proper John 16.
You wrote, “where do you think Jesus is going to the Father….and where is the Father then?”
Jesus’ answer to your question is found in many New Testament verses.
John 16:28 I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.”
And the disciples responded
John16:29 His disciples *said, “Lo, now You are speaking plainly and are not using a figure of speech.
30 Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God.”
Does these verse mean what they say?
LikeLike
October 3, 2016 at 12:11 pm
Yes Layman:
Going to the Father, being sent by the Father coming from the Father is metaphorical for “placing my humanity at my Father’s disposal” where he leads you to go, you go……….
If you loved me, you would be glad that I’m on my way to the Father ( on my way to the Father is to “where He leads me”, sent me, come from wherever one goes and wherever one comes from) because the Father is the goal and purpose of my life.
That seems pretty straight forward to me in my reply to John 16…
Actually this I stated in a post to Martyn on the thread of Speaking in tongues and thought I included it for you. Sorry about that.
Now the disciples may have said they understood what Jesus meant 16:29-30 but they did not understand the Father and the spirit of Jesus living within them from his Christ Clear Comment messages about the “within concept” until Jesus left them for good and did not return and when was that you might ask? Pentecost
the Christian festival celebrating the descent of the Holy Spirit (of understanding) on the disciples of Jesus after his Ascension, held on the seventh Sunday after Easter.
But even knowing that then, they still held the belief onto the supernatural hoaxes they had been taught since childhood, Myths, Magic and Miracles. Recall what they said about the feeding of the multitudes and all the people were amazed and noised abroad the miraculous feeding by Jesus as an example of that even after they had said that they understood Jesus in 29-30.
It is really difficult to tell things you don’t understand when you cherry pick one particular verse event.
The disciples did not know that Jesus knew who was going to betray him at the last supper so the disciples dod not know how Jesus knew about that event and you probable don’t either unless you read my explanation in other Posts elsewhere on this website.
So let me ask you a question…….. How did Jesus know that Judas was the betrayer beforehand?
LikeLike
October 4, 2016 at 2:15 am
Leo,
You said, “Going to the Father, being sent by the Father coming from the Father is metaphorical for “placing my humanity at my Father’s disposal” where he leads you to go, you go……….”
Your entire premise is flawed. What you posted changes the meaning of the text. There isn’t anything in these verses that support your view. In fact, the disciples stated otherwise in John 16:29-30.
29 Then Jesus’ disciples said, “Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech.
“Now you are speaking clearly and WITHOUT figures of speech.” Jesus just reminded them that He “came forth” from the Father into the world and He was leaving the world and going to the Father. There is nothing in these verse that would imply Jesus was speaking metaphorically.
(cf John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but to do the will of Him who sent Me.)
LikeLike
October 5, 2016 at 11:40 pm
Batman:
Whatever…..
Take it up with Jesus. If you don’t want to see the truth then you will not……
LikeLike
October 6, 2016 at 4:35 am
Robin…..whatever. The truth is based on what the Scriptures actually say without changing the meaning of the text. You, like many other OP, are forced to go to great lengths to explain your theology because it’s not plainly stated in the text. If Jesus said He was with the Father before the world was (Jn 17:5) I take Him at His word. Truth is what Jesus says.
LikeLike
October 6, 2016 at 9:30 am
Layman….sorry about the typo “Batman”…somehow the computer did an insertion as I typed and I didn’t notice it until after the posting….so your “Robin” response puzzled me until I remember the “Batman” typo and it made me lol out loud!
Let me give you an example of metaphorical text.
In the King James Version of Genesis, it states in Chapter 9 starting at verse 22 “………And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father…..”
23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father’s nakedness.…
So my question to you is what does “nakedness of the father” actually mean and what then, do you think Ham actually did.
I have asked many Christians this question and they either will not say or they ignore it…… How about you? Can you please tell me what you think Ham did according to the literal text?
LikeLike
October 6, 2016 at 10:09 am
Layman:
Here’s another example of metaphorical text when the “Lord your God” walks in the midst of your camp: who is the author referring to as the “Lord your God”?
13 “……..and you shall have a spade among your tools, and it shall be when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and shall turn to cover up your excrement.
“Since the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to defeat your enemies before you; therefore your camp must be holy, He must not see anything indecent among you or He will turn away from you.…”
King James renders it slightly differently but with the same inner sense:
KJV
“And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee………”
KJV:
14 For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.
“…….must not see anything indecent among you……….”
“………that he see no unclean thing in thee,………..”
Seriously God would say that to the creature of his creation?
“Lord your God” is a metaphor….for whom do you think it applies then…….?
There are lots of metaphors in the bible and figures of speech,
Metaphor a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.. One of the most commonly cited examples of a metaphor in English literature is the “All the world’s a stage” monologue from As You Like It:
All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances[…]
—William Shakespeare, As You Like It, 2/7
the King James Bible (KJB), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611.
The Life of William Shakespeare (1564–1616)
You can see the similarities in Literature style when the KJV was translated compared to the years when Shakespeare was alive?
LikeLike
October 8, 2016 at 11:07 am
Leo,
I wasn’t sure why you called me Batman, but my first thought was to call you Robin! 🙂
Your attempt to prove Jesus was speaking metaphorically in John 16, by reaching back to the book of Genesis simply does not work for this discussion.
In the New Testament, when allegorical or figurative speech is used, the writing typically will tell his audience, as Paul did in Galatians 4:24. However, Jesus did use figurative speech, as we see in John 16:21, but it was easily explained by surrounding the verses.
Now, to the topic of our discussion.
Read the words of Jesus closely, and I strongly suggest you read all verses in context.
John 16:7 But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.
Did Jesus tell them the truth?
I take the words of Jesus in the passage as the truth, and I take them literally. The bible student should pay attention to the words of Jesus and take them at face value. Also, we must always consider the context of the passage. The only way to understand the truth Jesus was speaking about is to take His words literally, not metaphorically or allegorically, unless it is stated otherwise, or implied.
Jesus did speak to His disciple in figurative language, and He told them in John 16:25 “an hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father.”
John 16:27 for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father. 28 I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world; and I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.
The word “again” in vs 28 means “back (of place), again (of time), further”
In other words, Jesus came from the Father and was going back to the Father. And, according to the response of the disciple, Jesus was not speaking metaphorically or allegorically, but speaking plainly and not using figure of speech.
Another good nugget to consider.
John16:13 “but when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose it to you . . ”
The grammar and context does not support metaphorical or figurative speech.
LikeLike
October 8, 2016 at 1:14 pm
Layman:
Going back to the Father means following his guidance; in other words, going to places where the Father leads him which at that time required him leaving the area he had frequented for 30 years and going to new lands, new countries. This is what he meant so let’s not flog a dead horse even though you will disagree because our understanding is on two different levels.
So let’s move on………….
Now, Why did you fail to answer my question regarding Genesis 9? regarding the phrase? If you do not know then say so but please don’t ignore my questions as I have answered your questions, not looking for agreement necessarily but yo explain my reasoning whether you agree or not is not the important part because the spirit of truth will eventually guide you and the reason for genesis is to prove a point but you have to go there so you can understand things from a different perspective.
So please answer my question.
LikeLike
October 12, 2016 at 1:35 pm
Leo,
I’m currently traveling and cannot respond at this time. In the mean time; could you please address my original request and provide a proper exegesis of the verses I posted? This will help the conversation to move forward.
Layman316
LikeLike
October 12, 2016 at 3:54 pm
No….Layman…
You need to respond to my questions before the conversation can move forward. I have already answered a number of your questions so you need to answer mine.
thanks
LikeLike
October 13, 2016 at 12:56 pm
Leo,
One of my first posts to you I asked that you give proper exegesis of the verses in question. Your questions will get answered as long as they are about the subject of this conversation. I refuse to allow you to take me down a rabbit hole. I should be done traveling after 10/18
LikeLike
October 14, 2016 at 9:28 am
Layman:
“Your questions will get answered as long as they are about the subject of this conversation.”
Who gets to decide that? You? Well of course, how else would you be able to control the conversation and refuse to answer questions. When you can’t accept metaphors, figures of speech or cultural doctrine in bible text, common sense and reason this only shows the rabbit hole you’re already blindly in, not based on reason or knowledge….only literal text.
Your post 105 is an excuse to avoid answering my questions because “You Do Not Know And Cannot Admit”. This is typical of believers who can’t defend illogical conclusions just because it’s in text. When Christians can’t deviate from literal text because its dogma makes no sense, they refuse to answer which is exactly why no Christians will give a proper exegesis on the following text:
“And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom, and the earth shook; and the rocks were split, and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.”
WHY? Because the graves of the dead never opened, the dead never rose from the graves and the living dead never appeared to many, IT NEVER HAPPENED! And anybody believing this actually happened just because it is in the biblical text is suffering from a form of mental illness called the supernatural syndrome; AKA, the superstition syndrome:
1.
a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2.
a system or collection of such beliefs.
3.
a custom or act based on such a belief.
4.
irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion.
5.
any blindly accepted belief or notion.
ESPECIALLY connected to religion.
One may, in some metaphorical way, try to make a sensical connection of the graves opening and the dead rising and appearing to many, and I have thought about this at some length and could provide a metaphorical notion of what the text actually may mean to explain the post crucifixion event that may have happened but metaphors are useless to text literalists.
If you can’t understand metaphorical writing; well, that’s a rabbit hole if there ever was one.
By the way if a figure of speech was written in the bible that means “down a rabbit hole” how would you describe it literally? Any idea on that? Here’s an example of one as described by Jesus: **”Do you have any idea how silly you look, writing a life story that’s wrong from start to finish, nitpicking over commas and semicolons? Now that’s a rabbit hole. You go through a wasted life based on false bible interpretation, on literal text only, as you were taught by dogma, claiming that the death of Jesus was more important than the life of Jesus. That’s a rabbit hole!
The tomb signifies the end of a beautiful life not the beginning of a beautiful life! That is so totally backwards it’s practically laughable except when you understand why Jesus noted that clerics and proselytes **”……go halfway around the world to make a convert, but once you get him you make him into a replica of yourselves, double-damned, twice as fit for hell as yourself mimicking lives that are roadblocks to God’s kingdom. You refuse to enter, and won’t let anyone else in either.
**Matt: 23
LikeLike
October 15, 2016 at 7:57 am
The topic of the thread dictates the subject of the conversation.
Perhaps you can go back to post 91 and help Leo out.
LikeLike
October 15, 2016 at 11:58 am
Layman:
Topics inevitably lead to topic tangents in any cohesive discourse but “topic” is used as a cop out for people who want to control the conversation to their slant and always pivot back to subjective myopism.
And when it comes to Jesus nigglers shout the loudest who know him the least.
LikeLike
October 15, 2016 at 12:00 pm
Just because you have a mental disorder your pivot will not stand the test of knowledge and no belief can! Only knowledge can set you free.
LikeLike
October 15, 2016 at 4:15 pm
Wow, the name calling started a lot sooner than I expected.
If you wish to continue the conversation (without the hateful name calling), please respond to post # 91.
Post # 91 – What does John 16:1-15 say textually? Please use the grammar to support your opinion.
Blessings to you SOM!
LikeLike
October 15, 2016 at 6:06 pm
Then you need to quit posting. The topic isn’t the Oneness/Trinity controversy which is what you’ve been trying to shoehorn into this thread. There are trinitarians who baptize in Jesus’ name because they see the name of Jesus as representative of the godhead irrespective of their view that Jesus is God the Son.
This is the second time that a trinitarian has tried to get a godhead discussion going here, so if you’re so concerned about staying on topic, then you should practice what you preach.
LikeLike
October 15, 2016 at 6:24 pm
I never mentioned the word Trinity or Trinitairian in any of my posts.
LikeLike
October 15, 2016 at 6:28 pm
I never mentioned the word Trinity or Trinitairian in any of my posts.
Did you also send a similar message to the Leothe great and sonofman since they also were not on topic?
LikeLike
October 15, 2016 at 6:58 pm
Layman316 wrote:
Please dispense with the word games. The word Trinity isn’t in the Bible either, but you nonetheless believe in it because of your interpretation of passages like John 16. You’re trying to get a godhead debate going and it’s dishonest of you to try to tap-dance around that.
As to Leo, you’re the one appealing to the thread’s topic, so it’s no defense for you to say, “But he did it too!”
If you don’t like off-topic posts, then post someplace else. You’ve been off-topic for a long time.
LikeLike
October 15, 2016 at 8:06 pm
Word games? You accused me of something I did not do, and somehow I’m the one playing word games? What happen to honestly?
I never mentioned the word Trinity, and I never said the word Trinity is in the Bible. The words omnipotent, omnipresent, incarnation or Oneness are not in the Bible either.
LikeLike
October 15, 2016 at 8:53 pm
Layman316 writes,
Yes, word games. You deny that you believe in the Trinity? Yes or no? Either way, you’re trying to shoehorn in a discussion of the different personhood of the Father and the Son.
If you’re a trinitarian, then you’re definitely trying to discuss the Trinity since that’s an essential component of trinitarianism. If you’re not a trinitarian (Unitarian or a Jehovah’s Witness), then you’re still off-topic. In no case are you commenting the topic of this thread. The fact that you’re still trying to tap-dance around that demonstrates your dishonesty.
Pony up, buddy. Are you a trinitarian or not and is not the separate (or distinct) personhood of the Father and Son something you’re trying to discuss here? Of course it is. Please post under a relevant topic. Your appeal to the topic undercuts your own posts.
Now, please live what you preach and post someplace else.
LikeLike
October 15, 2016 at 9:11 pm
Layman316 writes:
That was the point! The fact that you don’t mention the word Trinity does not mean you aren’t arguing in its defense. It does not mean that you aren’t trying to shoehorn in an off-topic discussion.
A word of advice: Instead of throwing yourself into off-topic discussions, why don’t you focus on honesty? It will help you be a better Christian.
LikeLike
October 16, 2016 at 8:11 am
Layman:
The other question I asked is how did Jesus know which disciple would betray him before the betrayal took place?
Well how did Jesus know that? Do you know or don’t you know? And if not, do you care to know?
It would really be interesting if you could dialogue with somebody instead of with yourself only.
LikeLike
October 17, 2016 at 6:09 am
Scaliaalito, your first post to me (#111) you automatically accuse me of something that I did not say or do. In fact, you wrote “Then you need to quit posting.The topic isn’t the Oneness/Trinity controversy which is what you’ve been trying to shoehorn into this thread.”
Fact: Not once did I mention the name “Trinity.”
Fact: Not once did I confirm or deny the “Trinity.”
I suggest that you (and sonofman) start reading from post #91.
The topic of this thread is, which I read fully before posted.
How is “Jesus” the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit.
“In fact, Scripture consistently uses Jesus/Son in contradistinction to Father and Holy Spirit. Jesus is used to refer to God’s human mode of existence as the Son/Messiah. Father is used to refer to God’s supracarnate existence (i.e. God’s existence beyond the incarnation). Scripture does not call the Father “Jesus” anymore than it calls Jesus “Father.”
The implied theology of this thread is that Jesus is the Father.
In post #89 George Eberjer wrote: Was Jesus going to the Father and send Himself again? Or the Holy Spirit was going to be sent by Jesus? How, then, can the Three be the same One?
My response and can be found in post #91 and #92
I wrote: George, your question is valid. Textually and grammatically the passage you posted does not support the view of one person.
That said:
Scaliaalito, Leo, and Sonofman,
This thread isn’t about the Trinity. If you honestly want to know what I believe then you need to be able to have an adult conversation and do so without the accusations and false statements. I seek the truth of Scriptures, and I am willing to discuss the truth, but, I will not be allowed to be taken off topic. You have already accused me of things I did not say or do, you even went as far to say that I denied the Trinity when I did not confirm or deny anything. That my friend is very dishonest behavior. Sonofman made the comment that I had a mental disorder when I asked him/her to respond to my post to Leo (91). This seems to be typical within the Oneness groups.
2 Tim. 2:23 “But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations (arguments), knowing that they produce quarrels.”
Here is my original post if you wish to continue. I suggest you read the posts before and after.
(post 91) What does John 16:1-15 say textually? Please use the grammar to support your opinion.
LikeLike
October 17, 2016 at 8:14 am
More dishonesty and tap dancing from Layman316. Are you serious?? The “implied theology” of this post?? At first I thought you were merely trying to save face. Now, there’s no doubt you’re a pathological liar.
Jason’s post is a brief analysis of Matthew 28:19 and how it relates to the traditional Oneness Pentecostal interpretation of the name of Jesus in reference to that verse.
You jump on the John 16 train and attempt repeatedly to discuss the distinct/different personhood of the Father and Son. That is not the topic of the lead post. Jason often allows non-topic discussions under his posts, so I never said anything about your side conversation with Leo/Son of Man. I only commented when you had the gall to admonish him to stay on topic. If you were an honest person, you would have simply said, “Yeah, I guess I didn’t notice that. Thanks.” Rather an being a Christian about the matter, you double down in a lame attempt to save face. That’s pathetic.
Every one of your posts has been off-topic. If Jason indulges that, then there’s no problem. That’s his prerogative as this blog’s administrator. Just please quit pontificating on who’s on or off topic, and quit lying about what you’ve done.
Incredibly, you write,
That was already addressed. The fact that you didn’t mention it does not mean you weren’t talking about it. The separate or distinct personhood of the Father and Son is a central component of the doctrine of the Trinity (or Unitarian/Arian theology) and AGAIN, that is not the topic of this thread!
Every time you post you make yourself look more pathetic. You spend more time trying to justify yourself than you do on being honest.
Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
LikeLike
October 17, 2016 at 8:54 am
Please follow alone….
Dulle said: Jesus is used to refer to God’s human mode of existence as the Son/Messiah. Father is used to refer to God’s supracarnate existence (i.e. God’s existence beyond the incarnation). Scripture does not call the Father “Jesus” anymore than it calls Jesus “Father.” While Scripture teaches us that Jesus’ deity is the deity of the Father, it consistently distinguishes between the appellations “Father” and “Jesus” because these appellations are representative of the distinction in the uni-personal God’s modes of existence.
Dulle said #51: Agree. Jesus’ person is the person of the Father, but in a different mode of existence: human. In His human mode of existence, the divine person is called Son, or Jesus. In His continued existence transcendent to the incarnation, that same person is called “Father.”
Reading through this thread, the majority of the comments are on the name Jesus, as referring to, or not referring to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. While Jason clearly stated that the Scriptures do not say the names of the Father and Spirit is Jesus, he does say that Jesus is the person of the Father…. now, pay close attention…. In the spirit of what Jason said, and the comment made by George Ebejer, and then the rude response by leothegreat (#90). This is where I come in.
Post # 91 & 92
So, put aside the distractions and answer the challenge.
To Leo: What does John 16:1-15 say textually? Please use the grammar to support your opinion.
There have been roughly 28 post since my initial post and no response has been given. A student of the Bible would have no difficultly with this passage. No more distractions, accusations or false statements about me or others, just deal with the post.
LikeLike
October 17, 2016 at 9:05 am
I’ve read the entire thread, you liar. Jason Dulle, is a Oneness Pentecostal, so it’s no surprise that he’ll express that as a matter of his belief, but there’s no honest easy you can force your off-topic posts into this thread’s lead post. You’re so desperate to justify yourself, you’ll pore over every post to try to absolve yourself of your dishonesty. It’s not working. You’re pathetic.
LikeLike
October 17, 2016 at 9:15 am
In fact, Jason himself said in Post 24 that this kind of talk about different modes of existence is off-topic. Any grade-schooler can see that. It takes a liar to deny it.
LikeLike
October 17, 2016 at 9:25 am
You are the typical OP who spend the whole time creating discord and calling people names. You need Jesus my friend.
What did Jason say in post 51?
If you are not able to answer my post, then just admit it and move on.
LikeLike
October 17, 2016 at 9:35 am
More deflection from a liar. If the label fits, wear it. All of this back and forth because you don’t have the integrity to simply admit that you flubbed it when you tried to admonish Leo for being off-topic.
Like I said, Jason himself said that this kind of talk is off-topic which is of course obvious to everybody except a lying trinitarian.
LikeLike
October 17, 2016 at 11:37 am
I will expose your hypocrisy, and at the same time show that using your logic you are every name you have called me. This is typical of a person who cannot defend their position.
You said: The word Trinity isn’t in the Bible either, but you nonetheless believe in it because of your interpretation of passages like John 16 (post 111).
OFF TOPIC. You are the one who brought of the subject of the Trinity.
You said: You deny that you believe in the Trinity? Yes or no?
This is not a question, but a statement. Had you asked, “do you. . .” that would be a question. You were trying to engage in a conversation about the Trinity. I never mentioned the Trinity, nor was I planning on talking about the Trinity. You assume that I was simply before you cannot defend your believe unless you are arguing against the Trinity. In other words, your doctrine does not stand on its own. Again, you were OFF TOPIC
All your posts to me have been OFF TOPIC.
Your name calling and rude unchristian comments only show the condition of your heart, and trust me, you will continue with them. However, it is not just you. It is a behavior bred into many Oneness believers. There are many who do not resort to these behavioral issues, like Jason Dulle. I’ve had discussion with him on different forums. He is able to engage conversation without the name calling.
If you are able to defend your belief you would have done so already.
LikeLike
October 17, 2016 at 12:44 pm
I will expose your lack of English comprehension.
In this thread, I wasn’t the one who started the “off-topic” chastisement. That was initiated by you. To highlight the subject matter you’re trying to introduce to demonstrate that you’re the one who’s uploading off-topic posts is nowhere near “hypocrisy.” You had the gall to chastise Leo for being off-topic when everything you’ve posted is off-topic. I merely admonished you to live what you preach, but you’re too big a hypocrite (yes, that accurately applies to you) to do so. Your mask has been ripped off and you feel vulnerable (because the charge is true), so you’ve got to twist yourself in pretzels in order to save your face.
And that is a baldfaced lie. A word of advice: If you don’t understand English, perhaps Google Translate will help. The word Trinity doesn’t have to be mentioned to talk about it. AGAIN, your insistence that the Father and Son are separate/distinct persons is a central component of trinitarianism (unless you’re a Unitarian), and according to Jason, that’s off-topic. If he indulges the tangent, no problem, but you shouldn’t then turn around and wag your finger at others for doing the same thing.
You talk about “unchristian comments,” but from what I read in the Bible, lying is unchristian. And trying to save face when you could have easily said, “Yeah, I know we’ve been off-topic, my bad. Sorry, Leo,” is reprehensible.
Finally,
You’re a hoot! You’re so desperate to save face, you introduce grammar into an informal conversation?? Both sentences are questions, by the way. The sentence, You deny that you believe in the Trinity, is a statement that would not require a question mark if it expresses either the opinion of the author or a restatement of the subject’s previous statement(s). Informally, the sentence, “You deny that you believe in the Trinity?” is the equivalent of, “Do you believe in the Trinity?” The same goes with, Yes or no? In both instances, the author is requesting information. A request for information is the very definition of a question. Consequently, the use of a question mark is appropriate. By way of disclaimer, I am an author with extensive training in English, and I also have friends with English degrees (my wife also teaches English). You don’t know what you’re talking about.
As to your scurrilous charge that I would have engaged you in your off-topic dialog about John 16 if I had an answer, Jason can attest that I am a vigorous debater, and he will also attest that I don’t discuss off-topic matters under his posts. I would not have commented here had you not foolishly tried to admonish Leo for what you were doing.
LikeLike
October 18, 2016 at 7:19 am
Bro. scaliaalito,
As a UPC Pastor I am embarrassed by your behavior. Layman316, scaliaalito does not represent the whole of Oneness.
The term trinity was not used by LM316. It is wrong to assume a person is a liar if that person does not think the same way you do. If LM316 mentioned the Trinity and then said he did not, that would be a lie. It is wrong to assume a person is a liar if you think that person is going to lie. From what I read, LM316 did not lie.
Layman316 – If you were responding to the original post of the thread, then you were off-topic. If you followed the progression of the off-topic posts, then you are justified to go off-topic. Post 108 Son-of-man writes, “Topics inevitably lead to topic tangents in any cohesive discourse. . . ” After reading some of the comments, many of the discussion are off-topic.
scaliaalito – Christians are able to have discussions on Biblical Scripture without inserting doctrine, specifically. The question was asked, “What does John 16:1-15 say textually? Please use the grammar to support your opinion.” This can be discussed without having an argument about Oneness vs.Trinity.
You wrote – AGAIN, your insistence that the Father and Son are separate/distinct persons is a central component of trinitarianism
Where can I find where LM316 wrote this? These are your words, not LM316’s.
Scaliaalito – “You deny that you believe in the Trinity, is a statement that would not require a question mark if it expresses either the opinion of the author or a restatement of the subject’s previous statement(s).”
I have to disagree with you. You wrote a statement. If you would had written,
You deny that you believe in the Trinity, do you? That would be a question.
This post is not a debate.
LikeLike
October 18, 2016 at 7:45 am
Notadebate,
Thanks for your opinions. but you are wrong. I just read through Layman316’s posts in honor of your rebuttal and most certainly disagree with you. He follow-up dialog with Leo clearly demonstrates that he is arguing in defense of a two-person distinction/separation between the Father and Son. There are but two theological groups who assert that. Since such a distinction is the central theme of trinitarianism, and since Layman316 was arguing in favor of it, it follows that he is either defending trinitarianism or unitarianism (he certainly isn’t a oneness believer).
Your insistence that his non-mention of the word Trinity proves his silence on that doctrine is false. As I stated repeatedly, you don’t have to be that explicit. If I talk about a married man having a sexual relationship with a woman who is not his wife, I am talking about adultery even though I don’t use that term. I’m sorry, but your argument is just silly. “Layman” lied when he tried to insist that he was on topic. He dropped that when I showed that Jason himself said that such dialog was off-topic, then he ridiculously tried to accuse me of the same. That’s patently dishonest. The Christian thing to do would be to say, “Yeah, I shouldn’t have rapped Leo’s knuckles.” That way, he could have continued his discussion with Leo. Instead, he goes into face-saving mode and has to lie to cover for himself.
You write,
LikeLike
October 18, 2016 at 7:46 am
I forgot to close my HTML tag. The last to paragraphs are my words.
LikeLike
October 18, 2016 at 10:06 am
I was rushing out the door when I replied to Notadebate. The last sentence of Post 130 should read: I wrote the last two paragraphs of Post 129.
A sentence in the second paragraph of Post 129 should read: The Christian thing to do is say…
LikeLike
November 24, 2016 at 8:15 pm
Father is first mam in bodyment of God in flesh , son is first to know gods truth of creation, man kind . Holy spirit are children of man kind male and female pure and innocent as Jesus before taking the sins of man which have always been of Gods will for usto be of his spirit
LikeLike
December 4, 2016 at 11:26 pm
When God created you, He created a soul that was designed to be indwelt with His Spirit. He created a human spirit and a body. These 3 parts are one human being. At the time of true salvation, The Holy Spirit of God comes into your soul and indwells your body. This indwelling is witnessed by the Utterance of the Spirit of God through your speaking in an unknown tongue. This is a witness to you and others around you that His Spirit is now inside of you. This is an actual event and it is the down payment of your
inheritance in His heavenly kingdom. You are sealed by this event.
When The Holy Ghost overshadowed Mary, God created a “human spirit and a body” but His Spirit was residing in this dual natured man that was fully man and fully God. The Firstfruit of the new creation.
When we are washed in His blood through baptism in His saving name of Jesus (Jehovah has become our salvation), knowing Who Jesus really is…Isaiah 9:6
The MIGHTY GOD, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, we have our sins blotted as stated in Acts 2:38.
The titles Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not His NAME but define his full work of salvation. God is A Spirit. When He indwells you it is called the Holy
Spirit. His body was necessary for the sinless blood to be shed and pay off the sins of the world on the cross. The blood must be applied as foreshadowed in the Tabernacle sacrifices as well as the application of blood over the doorposts of the children of Israel captive in Egypt the night the death angel passed over. This is baptism..being born of water.
When we have repented, and know who God really is, we are gladly baptized in that saving name of Jesus, and through His great love and mercy, His Spirit comes into our vessel and we become a new creation. This is being born of the Spirit. Born again of the water and the Spirit allows us entrance into His kingdom. Without it we cannot see the Kingdom.
God stepped down into human flesh to save us by His own blood because He was the only One that could be the sacrifice to pay the wages of sin for mankind. He alone was pure and spotless that could stay the judgements of His Own Word. He alone is the only High Priest that could offer the sinless blood in the Heavenly Tabernacle. He Alone is the Mercy Seat. Diety covered by sinless flesh…Gold over acasia wood. He Alone is the Comforter that can indwell humanity.
God manifested in the flesh. The New Creation. Humans washed from sin and indwelt by God. We are the New creation as He is.
How important is it to obey what the Word says? How important is it to not use our understanding on the human level BUT to seek to understand on the Supernatural level?
The greatest injustice done to the Word of God was to say HE is 3 distinct persons. How many times does He say He is ONE and that there is no Other.
There is no trinity. He just created Himself a body and a human Spirit…the same as you are when you are cleansed by Him and filled by Him.
This is the Revelation of Jesus Christ..the Beginning and the Ending. AMEN
LikeLike
December 5, 2016 at 1:24 am
Sorry R. Stepp:
But you have no idea what you are talking about.
LikeLike
March 20, 2017 at 7:37 pm
I believe Jesus saw his brothers fall in heaven. With Jesus love for life, Jesus agreed with his father to try the posible soles. This was why earth was created. Physical world under the presence of God. We are here to prove what God we will follow. Throw freedom of choice. Jesus the Savior. Father the Creator. The information comes from Genesis 1:2, 1:6-11, 1:20. And Genesis 7:11. And more.
Amen
LikeLike
July 4, 2017 at 10:06 am
Matthew 28:19 tells the apostles to baptize in the name of the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38 Peter tells them to be baptized in the NAME of Jesus Christ. The name is Jesus Christ. Not just Jesus, but Jesus Christ. Look at Acts 4:10 and Acts 4:12. Jesus Christ is the only name under Heaven given whereby we must be saved. It’s that simple. In Jesus’ name is not truly biblical. The name is Jesus Christ. In the name of Jesus Christ rise up and walk; Acts 3:6. Gods name is Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
July 4, 2017 at 5:25 pm
Chad Wright…you are wrong……..
What is the baptism you are talking about; the symbolic water baptism? I think you are but that’s not the kind of baptism that Jesus was talking about. Jesus was not talking about water baptism or even about the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are necessarily associated with the baptism but you are not even close to the baptism Jesus was referring to.So what was the baptism by which they were to be baptized? the very next verse tells you what the baptism that Jesus was talking about with which to baptize them verse 20 of the same chapter in Matthew: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”……
…that’s the baptism, not the symbolism you speak of or the textual syntax……the real baptism.
If you were to turn on to Mark 10:38 you will see how Jesus framed baptism not a symbolic sprinkling of water that you quoted from a snippet in verse 19 totally out of context but indeed much more than that….Mark 10:38 “You don’t know what you are asking”, Jesus said. “can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? He’s not talking about symbolism
And then you talk about using the name of Jesus Christ as opposed to using the name of Jesus. Here you are so way off base, substituting the letter of the law while neglecting the Spirit of the Law. Textual righteousness? There’s no such thing except in grammar school academia and verbatim regurgitation of dates and events. When I was in grade school the question on the history term exam was what year was the Battle of Hastings?…the year was 1066 and students got a check mark for being textual correct even though you might have no idea about the war, battle or the reason for it or the result from it because literal text was the rote of the day which is the same way they teach you the bible. I don’t buy the rote and yet that is the niggling over scriptural meaning that take precedence in the Christian mindset. Just may as well take the “e” off the end of the word Rote and end up with a three letter word…..
“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”, that is the baptism, the cup Jesus had to drink, the baptism of crucifixion was Jesus’s baptism.
LikeLike
November 4, 2017 at 6:59 am
Jesus is the name of the son, the flesh. Christ refers to the father, or the spirit that was in Jesus. Therefore His name is Jesus Christ. Without Christ, you have neither the Father or the Son. Therefore, the full name of our savior and king is Jesus Christ. Therefore that is the name we are to be baptized in for there is no other.
LikeLike
November 4, 2017 at 8:01 am
Phred:
I believe you are being too narrow about baptism. Being baptized is not necessarily the baptism we understand baptism to be…for example using water as a symbol and the name as a symbol are not what baptism is really about. Baptism refers to the career you undertake, the disposition you need and the goal to pursue.
Remember the question Jesus posed to the request that the sons of Zebedee sit at the right and left hand Matthew 20:20-22:
20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
You see, Jesus was not talking about the “symbolism” of Baptism; he was talking about the Baptism his life would be dictated by, directed by…his life, his behavior, his actions, deeds and pursuits. Jesus baptism was to testify of religion and its clergy and all the consequences that would befall him for standing up against the age-old institution as he said to his brothers in John 7:6-8
“The world has nothing against you, but it’s up in arms against me. It’s against me because I expose the evil behind its pretensions….”
AND
6 Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is always ready.
KJV:
6 Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is always ready. (the mere symbolism of baptism abounds)
But the “actual baptism” of Jesus ….”because…”
7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hatter, “because” I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.
That fire of baptism is something more profound that sprinkling water or dipping in the lake or bathtub.
IMO.
LikeLike
November 4, 2017 at 11:28 am
i am talking about Christian water baptism for the forgiveness of sins. very simple. Acts 2:38 …repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins….To be done in the full name of Jesus(son) Christ(father).
LikeLiked by 2 people
November 4, 2017 at 1:15 pm
Fred:
There is no forgiveness of sins merely from the symbolic baptism regardless of what names you invoke. That’s a religious gimmick. Forgiveness, water symbol and names mean nothing to an unrepentant heart, doesn’t do anymore for a person than the laws made for transgressors; if you don’t want to wear a seat belt because it’s the right thing to do, the law has as much effect on a driver as baptism on the pretentious. Mere theatrics will do nothing for anybody, anywhere, anytime. Learn what Jesus said: New Testament, last verse, Matthew 5: The Lord Jesus speaking: Be ye perfect……………
LikeLike
November 6, 2017 at 1:03 am
This is very weird to comment on a post from 10 years ago, but if someone responds amen lol. I have been going through with the water baptism. I was brought up in OP and believe baptism in Jesus name, however the Lord has been dealing on me with this. That the name in F/S/HS is the same as Jesus name so either one is acceptable through grace. You posed a question on where does it say Jesus name is the name of the Father and the Holy Spirit. I have three scriptures in my mind (which you probably already know) that comes up but I would love to hear your take:
I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
John 5:43 KJV
(Jesus as the Father)
“Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.”
John 10:25 KJV
(Jesus said he did it in his Father’s name and Every work that the desciples did, they did it declaring the name of Jesus)
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 14:26 KJV
(I see this as the Holy Spirit coming and acting in his behalf, therefore taking on his name to be of help to the believers)
Thats what I got. Thanks and much love!
LikeLike
December 24, 2017 at 5:04 pm
The Father is Adam, the son is Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is Michael, and these three are one man, not God. And this one man gives testimony to his God in heaven, what he did in his three major roles.
LikeLike
February 25, 2018 at 9:32 am
Brother,
In the old testament the Father’s name manifested in many forms. He is called Jehovah Rapha, El shadai etc. In John 17:11, Jesus said the Father has given him his name. So here it indicates one of the names of the Father is also Jesus.
This is my understanding.
LikeLike
February 25, 2018 at 9:43 am
False. The Father’s name is unknown per Jesus in Revelation 3:12.
LikeLike
February 25, 2018 at 12:25 pm
Jeff:
“……….He is called Jehovah, Rapha, El shade, etc………by whom?
By man.
All things named on earth and above the earth and all things named within that ever was named, was named by man:
One of the first things that man did and continues to do is record everything with a name, according to the story teller of Genesis. Every new species discovered is given a name; every new medicine created is given a name, even the One Global Ocean is given names for its various sections and geographical location: sea of China, Indian Ocean but all the bodies are of the same Global Ocean. Look at an atlas Globe. Man has always made distinctions by names. Man named the Gods and all Gods that were ever created by man was named by man.
God wouldn’t need to name herself anymore than Evolution would name itself
Gen: 2:20 He (man) gave names to all the livestock, all the birds of the sky, and all the wild animals.
It is a human characteristic to name everything even the game of “tag”. And the distinctions of “ball” games for example, base-, soft-, basket-, foot-, hand-. It’s man, not God.
LikeLike
February 25, 2018 at 4:32 pm
@Pure Hearts
Rev. 3:12 says about the Father’s name being unknown.
LikeLike
February 25, 2018 at 4:38 pm
@Bree
Hi, Bree. You write:
I have been going through with the water baptism. I was brought up in OP and believe baptism in Jesus name, however the Lord has been dealing on me with this. That the name in F/S/HS is the same as Jesus name so either one is acceptable through grace.
I strongly disagree that using either formula is acceptable. I elucidate why above, so I won't repeat myself here. If you wouldn't mind reading through my comments, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
All the best.
LikeLike
February 25, 2018 at 4:45 pm
@R. Stepp
Amen!
LikeLike
February 25, 2018 at 8:05 pm
Scalia, are you an echo?
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 26, 2018 at 6:16 am
Bree:
“…………I am come in my Father’s name,………..” That does not mean that the Jesus name was also the Father’s name. W T Fantasy is that all about?
Simply means acting as a Representative on behalf of the Originator as an Ambassador comes in the name of the Country s/he represents; for example, that does not mean that Nikki Haley’s name is really Ms USA or Ms America; or, Nikki Haley-USA / Nikki Haley-America.
That is taking extrapolation to the nth degree (nth degree=Epitome of; in this case, Ridiculous)
LikeLike
February 26, 2018 at 7:19 am
@Pure Hearts
I wish we could amend our posts. I now see that I didn’t type what I intended. What I intended to say was:
Revelation 3:12 says nothing about the Father’s name being unknown.
LikeLike
February 26, 2018 at 7:35 am
Rev 3:12:
“………..and I will write upon him my new name………..?
What then is “My New Name”.
Ever shifting the words of god are infinitely versatile. Open that book and watch them dance across the page like ninjas, each one a soldier for you and your petty pre-conceived prejudices.
LikeLike
February 26, 2018 at 8:17 am
Scalia, are you sure?
Have you ever read John 5:37?
LikeLike
February 26, 2018 at 8:57 am
Yes, I’m sure, and John 5:37 also doesn’t say that the Father’s name is unknown.
By the way, I’ve read the Bible many times, so there’s no need for you to ask me whether I’ve read this or that verse.
LikeLike
February 26, 2018 at 9:03 am
Scalia, what’s the name of the Father, in your view?
LikeLike
February 26, 2018 at 9:08 am
I answer that question in my numerous posts above, but that’s irrelevant for this tangent. You made a claim that is not supported by the verses you appeal to.
LikeLike
February 26, 2018 at 9:12 am
Are you sure that my claim isn’t supported, Scalia? Anyways, I’m assuming that since you’re apparently (or at least I’m guessing) a modalist, a Sabellian, that you believe that the name of Jesus is also the name of his Father in heaven, correct? And, assuming that is so, how does your presumptive claim that Jesus is the name of the Father stand up in the light of John 5:37?
LikeLike
February 26, 2018 at 9:28 am
Will you please quit playing games? You ask me if I’m sure. I tell you I’m sure, and you ask me again if I’m sure. You can do that with somebody else.
One more time: Neither of the verses you cite support your claim that the Father’s name is unknown.
One more time: I defend my views above. I will not repeat myself.
LikeLike
February 26, 2018 at 9:40 am
Scalia, I’m not playing games. You’re obviously very insecure. No, I’m not going to go back above and re-read this entire thread, so I’m going to move forward, making certain assumptions, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, unless you are afraid to continue.
Since you haven’t denied it, I assume you’re a believer in the heresy known as modalism or Sabellianism. This is the roughly 2nd century AD doctrine that arose claiming that the godhead is 1 person in 1 person (that much is correct) and that Jesus is that 1 person. Acts 2:38 vs the baptismal formula in Matthew 28 and many other verses are cited to support this heresy.
Jesus says in John 5:37 that humans have NEVER seen NOR heard his Father at ANY time.
Have we seen or heard Jesus, Scalia?
LikeLike
February 26, 2018 at 9:50 am
Yes, you are playing games. When somebody states that you fail to support your claim with adequate evidence, the proper response is to simply defend your claim from the evidence you cite. You don’t ask a person repeatedly if he or she is “sure.”
Revelation 3:12 DOES NOT say that the Father’s name is unknown, and John 5:37 DOES NOT say that “humans” don’t know the name of the Father. The persons Christ was speaking to did not hear His voice nor see His shape. He did not make a categorical statement applicable to all believers. You’re reading into those verses what they don’t say.
LikeLike
February 26, 2018 at 10:06 am
Jesus uses the pronoun “you” repeatedly in that general area of John 5:37. Is he not referring to, quote, “THE JEWS” found in John 5:10, 15, 16 and 18?
LikeLike
February 26, 2018 at 10:26 am
You are now referring to other verses, thus confirming that you don’t see your claim in the verses you cite.
Moreover, it is possible to not see or hear somebody and know that person’s “name.” To my knowledge, I’ve never seen nor heard you, but I know your handle is Pure Hearts International.
LikeLike
February 26, 2018 at 10:28 am
Moreover, the Lord’s use of the pronoun you in reference to the Jews does not imply He is referring to “humans” in general. That reaching beyond textual warrant.
LikeLike
February 26, 2018 at 10:31 am
Non-responsive. So we’ll continue. Jesus IS referring to, quote, “THE JEWS” in John 5:37. This is the clear trace of the pronoun YOU going back thru John 5:18, 5:16, 5:15 and 5:10. It was merely a rhetorical question, really.
The word THE is an INDEFINITE article, is it not, Scalia? And an INDEFINITE article refers to a LARGE group of people, in this case used by Jesus to refer to THE JEWS, as opposed to your “interpretation,” THESE JEWS ONLY, correct, Scalia?
LikeLike
February 26, 2018 at 10:42 am
It’s only “[n]on-responsive” if you ignore the answer. You’re appealing to other verses which is an acknowledgement that the verses you cite do not support your claim. You realize this, so you’re trying to shore up your false claim by appealing to other verses. And notice you’re restricting your “analysis” to John 5, not Revelation 3.
You made the claim that Christ used the word “you” to refer to the Jews. When I point out that He wasn’t referring to humans and certainly not all humans, you instead focus on my truthful claim that He, in the verse you cited, was addressing the Jews with whom He was conversing. Your reply is entirely irrelevant because, as I said, even ceding your point arguendo it is possible to never have seen nor heard somebody and yet know that person’s name.
Your claim that the Father’s name is unknown is nowhere supported by John 5.
LikeLike
February 26, 2018 at 2:35 pm
Nobody has ever seen nor heard the father, let alone hearing what his name was except that some human gave him a name.
Now the only cirmation that Jesus attributes to the father as confirming that Jesus was sent by the father to do the father’s work is this:
“………It’s the work the Father gave me to complete. These very tasks, as I go about completing them, confirm that the Father, in fact, sent me. The Father who sent me, confirmed me. And you missed it. You never heard his voice, you never saw his appearance…. It is the work that I do.
LikeLike
February 26, 2018 at 2:36 pm
Now the only cirmation…should read Now the only confirmation………….
LikeLike
February 26, 2018 at 2:39 pm
The only reason any poster knows or presumes to know the name of the Poster is because of the name submitted by the Poster in the poster’s post. Otherwise you would not know the poster’s name anymore than you know the Father’s name because the Father has never spoken to anybody pure and simple. The only names you know are the names desire and attributed by whom? By man the creators of names.
LikeLike
March 11, 2018 at 5:21 pm
I believe this text (Mt 28.19) to be a case of interpolation, which the Catholics have admitted, so there is no “inspired” trinitarian baptismal formula that exists. History has proven the wonderful name of “Jesus” was “invoked” at baptism, there is no set formula that must be performed, just the name that was used.
LikeLike
March 12, 2018 at 12:23 pm
@Allen
Brother Woodward, please provide your source where “Catholics have admitted” that the present reading of Mt. 28:19 is an interpolation. I’ve researched this issue and have found nothing along that line.
Thanks, in advance.
LikeLike
June 28, 2018 at 4:31 am
The author wrote: “While Scripture identifies the name of the Son as Jesus, nowhere does it identify “Jesus” as the name of the Father…”
This is untrue. The bible is filld with such scriptures and Jesus himself said many times that he revealed the Father´s name to his disciples and that he would continue to reveal and proclaim it. Simple logic follows that this name in fact is Jesus Christ. First of all because God´s name will be ONE name only according to Zechariah 14 and according to Acts 4:12. Also, Jesus must have revealed another name in secret if it is any other name than Jesus Christ and Jesus told us that “in darkness have I said nothing”. You can find tons of verses in the NT that say that the apostles suffered for God´s name and proclamed it. Just open your eyes and quit minimizing the greatness of God. btw, there is a myth saying Jesus mean “Jehova Salvation”. That is nonsense. It means Yah Salvation as in Yah Hosheah. Jehova is a name that has demonic attachment and is found nowhere in the hebrew original since it is all consonants. YHWH is the LORD´s name and this is revealed as Jesus Christ in greek in the NT. This is an absolute fact that is highlighted by the many quotes from the NT that are applied to Jesus Christ. You have no idea how great Jesus is unless you see him in the Father and in the Holy Spirit and this is where he himself sad that he was and is and will be.
The other concepts are a preperation to initiate those chosen into gnosticism because Jesus is a smaller god in gnosticism. This would be impossible if the ground would be that the Father´s name is “Yah Salvation” Jesus.
btw: people “allow” God and Jesus to share al these names like Yahwe (where is it in the original? nowhere), Jehova Jireh and so forth. But it is an absolute no-go to call Go the Father Yah Salvation? You people are blind because you fear that your church club might lie, as all those places of hypocrisy sadly do. Fact !
LikeLike
June 28, 2018 at 9:00 am
Ben:
The Gods have no names but what man has given them. Nor were any scriptures written by anyone other than man.
Man conceives and names all earthly creatures and all mythological creatures. All Gods are mythological creatures of man;s conception including their names.
Man also named woman but what’s with the “rib”?
The “rib” is an expression of man’s delusion and every generation’s children reared in biblical piety count the ribs of man and woman to see if the number of ribs are different.
The problem with bible believers is that most cannot discern metaphorical stories within the literal texts and are therefore at a disadvantage in their understanding; and unfortunately for their credibility, not only disadvantaged but delusional when they speak of biblical matters with Absolute Certainty based merely on literal text from any language they reference, Greek, Hebrew, English, German or French et al.
LikeLike
February 2, 2020 at 10:24 pm
Modalism is not the foundation of that interpretation though thus one does not have to be a modalist to accept that The Name that represents the GodHead as our Savior is the Name given to the Son who came in Father’s Name and made known that Name to us being the only name given to which we are saved.
Baptize in The Name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit,
Yehoshua/Yeshua/Iesous
The Apostles understood that Name of which represented the triune God as Savior and why they baptized in water by the Name Yehoshua/Yeshua/Iesous which means Savior/Salvation
There is no Savior but YHVH
Isaiah 43:11
Even though Yehoshua/Yeshua is a popular name amongst the Hebrew people This Name is what was made known to us by the Name of the Son in representing the Father, Father being in Him and Him in the Father.
John 5:43
I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another should come in their own name, you will receive him.
Acts 4:12
And there is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved.”
So the singular Name given to the Son as the savior of the people is the Name of the Father but also the Spirit as YHVH alone is our Savior and is our Salvation. The Triune Godhead is equally involved in our salvation and why the Name we baptize into being the only name given to call upon represents the GodHead as our Savior as we trust in the Son’s testimony
LikeLike
February 17, 2020 at 10:16 pm
@Joseph
Though there are trinitarian groups who see no conflict between the Doctrine of the Trinity (DT) and the name of Jesus representing the Godhead, and by extension calling on the name of Jesus as a baptismal formula, modalism is the necessary foundation for that practice.
The DT is inherently contradictory and is thus unqualified as a template for biblical interpretation. Since it is a self-canceling doctrine, it cannot be the foundation for anything, let alone the formula for water baptism.
The Bible cannot teach logical contradictions else its entire message is undermined by its every inversion, and since the DT is a logical contradiction, it follows that the Bible does not teach the DT in any form.
LikeLike
July 7, 2021 at 2:51 am
writes in the official Askmetatron blog
How is “Jesus” the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit? | Theo-sophical Ruminations
LikeLike
August 19, 2021 at 12:08 pm
online Dating
How is “Jesus” the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit? | Theo-sophical Ruminations
LikeLike
June 10, 2022 at 12:27 am
I get GOD is one entity with different ways and purposes he creates and used to bring us back the father omni present in all things jesus the word made flesh with the fullness of god in him he told them i must go so the holy spirit can come because his body didnt die yet and its in him the spirit moved on marry got pregnant not the father if you have seen me you have seem the father we were made in gods image spirit is breath free will mind and body just like him and his different manifestations im a father also a brother a friend but im still only me a ghost in a body with a soul now baptise in the name of god for the remission of sin and receive the holy ghost one asked what shall i do paul answered be baptized in the name of jesus to clean and remove sin were to do all things in the name of jesus it has the power why its gods name i only have one name do we think the apostles were confused the father jesus and the spirit are never separate from each other im in him hes in me the fullness was in him im not god im not omni present and in all things. But im never separate from myself made in his likness with one name
LikeLike
July 17, 2022 at 10:48 am
Hi there! I am not a Oneness Pentecostal but I believe JESUS is the Name of the Father too. Let me cite this Bible verse in John 17:11 which says, “I am no longer jn the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father protect them by YOUR NAME THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN ME. So that they may be one as We are one.” So i understand that here the name the Father gave to JESUS is JESUS and that’s His Name too. On the other hand, JESUS is the Name of the Holy Spirit too. Let me cite this Bible verse found in 1 Corinthians 15:45 which says, “So it is written: the first man Adam became a living being, the last Adam (JESUS) became a LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT. Thanks and GOD bless!
LikeLike
July 17, 2022 at 11:06 am
Hi, good day, I believe JESUS is the Name of the Father too. Ley me cite this Bible verse found in John 17:11 which says, “I am no longer in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, protect them by YOUR NAME THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN ME so that they may be one. Just as We are one.” So I believe the the Name that the Father gave to JESUS is His Name which is JESUS too. On the other hand, the Name of the HOLY SPIRIT is JESUS too. Let me cite this Bible verse found in 1Corinthians 15:45 which says, “So it is written: The first man Adam became a living being, the last Adam (JESUS) became a LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT.
LikeLike
August 7, 2022 at 11:56 am
Isaiah 9:6 (KJV)
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
LikeLike
August 21, 2022 at 6:30 am
You are dead wrong on this one. You say no where in scripture is Jesus referred to as the father. This proves to me you don’t know the Bible too well. You really need to go back and read Isaiah 9, 6…. where he’s describing the son, Jesus to be born and become a messiah and is referred to as our Eternal Father he is also referred to as the Holy Spirit and the son and many other places therefore the name of the father son and holy spirit is Jesus.
Yes as I am a father to my son I am a son to my father and I’m a brother to my brother all these are relational but my name is still my name.
LikeLike
August 21, 2022 at 6:49 am
For starters Jesus is not the name of the Father/Son/Holy Ghost. It’s a man made 400-500 year old RCC/Anglican trinity name for the Messiah. The birth name of the Messiah is Yehoshua which was the name used in Acts 2:38 and is used by the true believers today. It happens to be a Hebrew name which is for both the Jew and Gentile. Yehoshua means, ‘YaH is salvation’. Remember, the Messiah would come in the Fathers name. The trinity name Jesus being man made, has no spiritual meaning at all.
LikeLike
September 24, 2022 at 1:58 am
Jesus said that when you look at him you are looking at the one who sent him. See John 12. Jesus is the Father as well as the Son and the Holy Spirit. See also 2 Corinthians 3:17 and 18.
LikeLike
October 12, 2022 at 3:04 pm
My friend, you are incorrect.
Paul says very few men know hold the information of the true identity.
I will give you a hint.
Jesus says “I have come in my fathers name, and you do not receive me…etc..”
If we call Him by Jesus, but he came in the fathers name, then he’s saying, the fathers name is Jesus.
That would be like your dad giving you his name, and telling you to go represent him.
LikeLike
November 17, 2022 at 9:38 pm
May this help to clear things up:
Someone’s name stands for that person’s self-awareness of identity. When asked ‘Who are you?” the person will give his human name.
Likewise, the Name of God stands for God’s Self-awareness of Identity. And we are asked to do God’s will in His Name.
Meaning in God’s Self-awareness of Identity, even while still in the appearance of the sinful flesh. Because the Son is come in the appearance of the sinful flesh, without having any sin Himself, but having taken on our weak, poor sinful mortal flesh to free us from it when we realize God is our Being. Which is really God’s Self-realisation in us.
If a loving earthly father already wills for his children that they be at least as happy as he is, and not less happy, shall God our divine Father love us less, and want less than a loving earthly father for us that we be as happy as He is?
God is accomplishing making us as perfectly happy as He is by now appearing in this world as each one of us. Even though for God to experience being but human instead of Himself is the crucifixion. Until also in us He comes to Himself, His Life, and His Joy. Entirely to the eternal living inheritance He willed for us we have. For God gains nothing from it, only recuperating what He gave up by taking our human experience on Himself, undergoing being each one of us, but so that also we have and enjoy what God has and enjoys; God’s Self. For by giving Himself for and to us, He gave us His Self.
It is the infinitely Good One Who is reading this now in human appearance.
Much divine Love indeed.
LikeLike
November 17, 2022 at 10:02 pm
PS:
“Jesus” means “Saviour”, and God has saved us from the human we seem to be, by giving us Himself, meaning giving us His Self.
LikeLike
January 2, 2023 at 7:35 pm
The scripture says that Jesus inherited his name from the father. And the scripture says that he was given a name above every other name. So how could God give a name greater than his own?
LikeLike