Thinking to Believe

January 9, 2018

267 Responses to “A Oneness Creed”

1. A. J. Miller Says:

   
   January 9, 2018 at 11:08 pm

   I actually love this Jason. It is well fleshed out and thoughtful in its use of meter (even though this isn’t poetry, creeds often have syntax that are reminiscent of poetic meter). My only question on this: may you elaborate on your choice of “divine in identity and human in function?” It sounds a bit like monophysitism, is this what you were articulating?

   LikeLike
2. Scalia Says:

   
   January 9, 2018 at 11:11 pm

   Good synopsis.

   LikeLike
3. kimberly Says:

   
   January 10, 2018 at 6:07 am

   God has never been human. The phrase “god incarnate” is thoroughly pagan and not found anywhere in the Bible. The two perspectives on Jesus are that he was Messiah born (flesh) but revealed at his baptism as being the Son sent (from eternity). And it was at that baptism that he himself was given the memories and knowledge of who he had been in eternity. These returned memories drove him into isolation for over a month where he had to come to acceptance of where and who he was, and why, and most importantly, who he had been. An uncreated, eternal being who had ever existed. It was an extremely traumatic time for Jesus (that most religionists completely overlook) but when he came back, it was from then on that he began to call himself “Son of God”. Until that event, he always called himself “Son of Man”, waiting for that baptismal revelation. Consequently, Jesus did not pre-exist as the man born but pre-existed as the Son sent and was EVER the Son of God prior to his birth in which that Son obediently gave up eternity for a short short time to be born that man. It was only at baptism that he was brought to the full realization of who he previously was and that identity was EVER the Son and NEVER “God”. The mistake made in not recognizing this simple fact is the presumption that prior to the creation, God existed alone and in the midst of infinite void and nothingness. Such is hardly the case. Prior to the creation, a far greater reality existed in which God was EVER God, the Son was EVER the Son (captain of the Host of the Lord) and there existed an innumerable uncreated Host of beings EVER existing in a Kingdom that EVER existed. That reality supercedes the creation in the infinite past, the present and on into eternity long after the creation, which will eventually dissipate like smoke from an extinguished candle. In contrast, the common religionist’s perspective, is that God existed prior to the creation in the midst of a void of nothingness. Philosophical logic then dictates that such a god brought the creation into being due to the madness of sensory deprivation and that humanity was thus born out of such insanity. Bringing the trinity into the scenario just means such a god’s insanity takes the form of a multiple personality disorder. The lie of such a perspective is clear.

   LikeLike
4. Jesuspeake Says:

   
   January 10, 2018 at 9:09 am

   A. J. Miller

   OMG “………..well fleshed out and thoughtful……….” ?
   Remarkable in its likeness to the Nicene Creed of 325CE

   And Kimberly. You end sentence…”The lie of such a perspective is clear….” pretty much sums up everything you wrote in Post 3.

   Some common sense, generally long and boring especially for those with ADD.

   The Real Jesus. He articulated the Common Sense Creed

   I WAS WITH HIM:

   Jesus’ legacy is one of attitude and disposition, graceful and genuine in compassion and kindness, always ready to forgive those willing to receive it; a man so full of common sense and sound judgment that he had the wisdom to turn insight into foresight and recognizing the Father potential within everyman, not the supernatural gods created by charlatans, magicians, Peter Popoffs and snake oil salesmen selling miracle water in ketchup packages.

   No, Jesus was a real man credited with supernatural powers because of his common sense ideas to tackle any problem. Jesus gave the presence of his peace to the world by his life, not through his death; the clergy has it all backward by claiming Jesus gave the world life through his death, uh uh. Couldn’t be farther from the truth.

   Jesus gave life to the world through his life not his death but supernaturalism caters to the residual reptilian ritualistic brain of humans and as long as you have clergy devoted to living off of the avails of prostituting falsehoods, myths and miracles for the financial security they solicit from those willing to give it to them, that’s religion for you, catering to Bingo the Money God for their own selfish egos.

   The Dogma of the Church has always been to perpetuate fear, hell, accursed, not of God, take leave of him, I seldom quote scriptures outside of Jesus but even in John most of the references are terms like God that Jesus never or hardly ever mentioned, as notable in the other three Gospels; the language in John therefore is suspect because of that; Jesus almost always talked about the Father who lives within you as described in Luke 17:21

   The Catholic Church, upholds the power seats exclusively for men just as the Scribes and Pharisees did. Patriarchs of the Christian Gulf Club!
And a mighty gulf it is. And you the Christian will want to fight me every step of the way with the dogma of fear and death and judgment.

   Nonsense quotes are the telltale signs of church dogma like the Church of Scientology uses all the time against converted member apostates, always in denial but ready to sock it to those who turn away, with their fear tactics as though the righteousness of Good will get them in the end.

   John 5: 43: 41 “I do not receive honor from men. 42 But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. 43 I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. 44 How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only Father; the One within you?


   Remember Jesus never had the New Testament Bible, not because he didn’t like it, he just never had it. The only bible Jesus ever had in his hand was the Old Testament scriptures but when Jesus read and explained the scriptures, EVERYONE was on the edge of his seat wondering what A-MAZING thing he’d say next because he taught them as one having authority, not like the Scribes and Pharisees or preachers on YouTube.

   When the preachers got up to speak everyone curled up and went for a quiet doze until the benediction was over, waking up preferably, just after the Offering. Jesus and I and the Father are one, and that is one of the simplest things to understand, and it is easy to him who has understanding. Has nothing to do with ego, has nothing to do with blasphemy, has nothing to do with thumping chairs it has only to do with your understanding that Jesus knew he was a microcosm of the whole human race by simply looking inside and seeing the father there.


   Most of the quotes I use are directly from Jesus, not verbatim because verbatim quotes like the “nakedness of the father” that leads most Christians to believe that Ham had a homosexual encounter with his Dad; that’s the kind of nonsense verbatim and literal translations get Christians into and why you have to come up with words of “much speculation about the meaning”; you are without knowledge on the matter but just can’t bring yourself to say, you don’t know!


   And most Christians get annoyed when I teach them simple meanings; it reminds me of John 6:58 The words that I speak, This is the Bread from heaven. Your ancestors ate bread and later died. Whoever eats this Bread will live always.”
59 He said these things while teaching in the meeting place in Capernaum.
Too Tough to Swallow
60 Many among his disciples heard this and said, “This is tough teaching, too tough to swallow.”


   Jesus sensed that his disciples were having a hard time with this and said, “Does this throw you completely?
 Every word I’ve spoken to you is a Spirit-word, and so it is life-making. But some of you are resisting, refusing to have any part in this.” (Jesus knew from the start that some weren’t going to risk themselves with him. He knew also who would deny him.) He went on to say, “This is why I told you earlier that no one is capable of coming to me on his own.

   You get to me only as a gift from the Father.” 66-67 After this a lot of his disciples left. They no longer wanted to be associated with him. They turned around and walked with him no more! Then Jesus gave the others their chance: “Do you also want to leave?”

   And please don’t give me the Pharisaical/Scribe induced lamentation that I am insulting and unedifying those who congregate here; that is exactly what they said about Jesus when he interpreted scripture perfectly, debunking the supernatural and Church Dogma; and sure, it was insulting and unedifying but Jesus did not want the blind and downtrodden to remain blind and downtrodden because of lack of knowledge and understanding. He wasn’t talking about their belief, they had plenty of belief, they just didn’t have knowledge and understanding because only knowledge can set you free, belief never can, which was and is still today, the nonsense clergy uses to deceive them by.

   Read it for yourself and try to understand what Jesus meant.

   I have been contemplating and meditating on Jesus and his life, on religion and the clergy, on the religious and the secular, since I was 12 years old. I read the gospels instead of listening to the priestly sermons.

   I know many people have long since adopted the notion of Jesus as God but I have been more inclined to know Jesus the man and hardly anyone I communicate with knows anything about Jesus the person; when he was a kid playing in the streets with his village pals, falling down scraping his knees and elbows and run crying, clinging to his mother’s skirt; when he spoke and questioned profound things of philosophy with the elders when he was 12; plying his trade as a carpenter going to the neighbor’s house to fix the window when it jammed; being alone postulating the great proverbs and reading the stories of previous great men, understanding what some went through, what some died for, what others lived for.

   I and Jesus are one!
   I was with him when he went into the desert and pondered what he should do with his passion for truth, his common sense for understanding and the reality of nature and what was this thing about supernaturalism? I was with him when he contemplated the clergy and how they deceived the masses at every turn, at every opportunity they deceived for material gain regardless of the poor they hurt, despite the downtrodden when none of them mattered to the “religious church”, apart from tithing; when the fitting and usual practice was to use sleight of hand, trickery and magic to deceive and confuse and deny the truth to everyone, preventing them from knowing the truth about the Kingdom, understanding the Kingdom and going to the Kingdom and refusing to go in themselves for deceit cannot enter the Kingdom of Good;

   I was with Jesus when he thought
   “how easy it would have been, to use the same ploys of deceit to devour the property of widows, and for a pretense make a long and lengthy show of prayer words and excuses to rationalize greed’s insatiable appetite; greed that knows no hole too deep to stay out of; to encourage the poor to give all they could afford and patiently wait for a supernatural miracle from on high to reward them for giving their all to the clergy; but no, he would never use his talents to do as the clergy did”.

   These were some of the thoughts of Jesus we read about that are called the Temptations that the Devil led Jesus into the wilderness to tempt him. Alas a bunch of rubbish isn’t it? Jesus being led by the devil to be tempted?

   “Sure you can take these stones and with a little magic and sleight of hand you too can cunningly devise “a sleight of hand switch” to loaves of bread and feed the hungry and sure everyone would grovel at your feet and they would all give you their wealth for a touch of your garment for a piece of the supernatural power you have surely been given that might rub off on them by the great supernatural god of men.

   Yes the ego was flying high when the realization came to one so powerfully more brilliant than the average villager; in fact, you are so brilliant and as smart as the wealthy members of the Jewish Council for all their deceit that you could see right through them and they would welcome your intelligence. OMG you could throw yourself down the cliff and survive with your physical prowess and strength…… but no! “

   Jesus was a man of common sense and he would work on behalf of and for the common man, the man who was poor, the downtrodden, he would not be part of the deceptive clergy taking people for a ride all their lives under falsehoods and lies about the rewards and treasures in heaven, in the afterlife which Jesus knew no such afterlife existed.

   BUT he did know and accept that the Kingdom of God, the real god he called Father did exist but existed not externally but indeed existed internally, within you, in a place where all men could enter into spiritually but one that flesh and blood could not go and partake of, if only, if only, the masses knew.

   Then would they see that heaven is not a place you go to but a place that you bring here to earth from within and so he coined the famous Lord’s Prayer, Father who art in heaven, (within), hallowed and holy and revered is your name for you are the true God that exists; your Kingdom come, and we ask that thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

   And a typical example of the will in heaven coming to earth was the invention of the simple and beautifully healthful thing called the bandaid, from heaven to earth, where it can be seen and used and enjoyed to the benefit of others, to benefit everybody.

   If the religious based their understanding on knowledge instead of belief, they would not be praying, chanting, finger beading, bowing, hen-pecking and praising the supernatural gods of men; they would reflect on the inner self witness, the righteous conscience Jesus always referred to: the Father, not Zeus or Gods by any name; then, would we civilize as a human race at one ment (at-one-ment atonment) with each other instead of factions fractured by divisive religions, myths, miracles, magic and mayhem.

   I disagree that any act Jesus did was supernatural. Jesus was a common sense person. The events that happened are explainable and I can easily explain most but remember that the masses were brainwashed by the clergy to expect that everything not easily understood was an act of supernaturalism, Jesus debunked this supernaturalism and debunked the supernatural gods of men.
   “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.”

   Jesus is merely acknowledging that the internal brain is where resides the essence of a man, not that which comes by observation which the religionists always believed. The Kingdom consists of a fantastic organ called the brain with phenomenal functions; it is a bundle of experiences, sensory perceptions, trials and errors, learned behaviors and meticulous observations all housed in a fantastic brain that essentially functions as the guiding spirit within from all of the above and if there ever was a personal god, it is this brain function in conjunction with memory that is the true Father and the true Kingdom of Heaven and indeed the only God and therefore by extension, we too, are Gods.


   Now, before that concept of people being Gods throws you for a loop consider how Jesus responded to this when questioned by the Clergy, again being infuriated by Jesus’ common sense, perfect interpretation of scripture and different understanding about the human condition: Jesus asked the clergy why they wanted to stone him: John 10:33 “The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’?(psalm 82:6) 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.” 39 Therefore they sought again to seize Him, but He escaped out of their hand.”

   I too am here to open eyes, as Jesus himself said before me. When he picked up the Old Testament, the only bible Jesus ever had. When
   he picked up the Bible scroll and read from it, as was the custom of the people to be able to communicate to the congregation, scripture of their choice and to comment on what was read. Do you recall what he read and what his comment was and what the reaction of the people was?

   I submit that the suspension of the Laws of Nature, the Laws of Physics, the Laws of the universe, are not suspended to accommodate clergy’s claims that supernatural events happen regardless of whether the Pope says so or not in order to canonize Catholic Saints.

   ALL THINKING MEN ARE ATHEISTS.
   When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a normal and wholesome life. – Sigmund Freud

   An atheist is a man with no invisible means of support! – John Buchan.

   Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies. Thomas Jefferson

   I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature. Thomas Jefferson

   Christianity, Islam and Judaism are the most perverted systems that ever shone on man. Jefferson

   In religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism, we find that, which has been reverenced as God, not ‘godlike’ but pitiable, absurd, harmful, not merely an error but a crime against life.

   As to what Jesus contributed? Jesus denigrated the Mosaic Law of Revenge, eye for and eye and so on which peeved the clergy because he testified to their incredible religious insanity. Instead of the principles and laws of revenge, Jesus taught them the principles of love, forgiveness, charity and compassion for all mankind especially the poor and the downtrodden whom the Scribes and Pharisees abhored, deplored and detested. They rejected Jesus for befriending tax collectors and sinners, the lame and disabled, calling Jesus a gluttonous drunk.

   Furthermore, Jesus brought hope to the poor and exposed the evil of Church Dogma. Please don’t ever think Jesus was anything more than an ordinary man with extraordinary common sense who put himself in harms way to show that the masses were not worthless: they deserved to have their wounds bandaged, the disabled deserved to be helped, the hungry fed, the homeless clothed; giving them hope, things that the clergy hitherto had nothing but loathing for. What Jesus read at the synagogue from the old testament scroll started his mission as follows:

   According to custom, Jesus went to the synagogue on the Sabbath and stood up to read the scriptures from the book of the prophet Isaiah that was handed to him. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind (blinded by clergy and religious insanity) to set at liberty those who are oppressed; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

   He closed the book and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. He said, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
   He went further and denounced the clergy’s supernaturalism with two examples regarding the famine and a cleansed leper after which: all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath and rose up and thrust him out of the city; and they led Him to the brow of the hill

   ………to throw him down head first over the cliff but he gave them the slip and was on his way.
   That was the beginning of the mission to help the poor and bring back the only God there is, the “Father” within you that is the spirit guide and light inside every human being, not the supernatural, magical hocus pocus gods, created by the clergy for pence and power. His mission was to open the eyes of the people to the reality that Truth was the authority and not the Authority (the clergy) was truth. END!

   From that day forth, the Jews plotted to silence Jesus because he testified to the evil of their ways and for the next three years Jesus dodged and darted about mingling with the oppressed masses, helping them, feeding them (by natural means, I hasten to add not by picking bread and fish out of thin air) fulfilling the Law and showing them what compassion and forgiveness and love of the Law was supposed to be like; in the meanwhile, dodging the religious wingnuts who sought to imprison him, throw him over cliffs, stone him, whip him, beat him, mock him and crucify him.

   Jesus said to the regular people: “The (religious)world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.”
   Many comments I receive say exactly the same things to me today, as they said about Jesus 2000 years ago. lol.

   No different than religious wingnuts do today to atheists and gays alike, especially in Muslim countries, Supernatural god myth followers do it with words, online. Most religious regurgitating minions, proxies and proselytes think that Jesus was a Christian. So lolable. If Jesus was around today he would tell the clergy to pack their robes and vacate the seats they purport to sanctify and never take the name of Jesus in vain again for their own aggrandizement!

   Jesus was a secularist I’m afraid, you just don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to Jesus. You try to link the absurdity of the supernatural to Jesus but that just don’t cut it. Jesus had too much common sense to believe in magic, miracles, mythology, unlike the Christian world that claims they follow Jesus and Jesus followed the clergy; again, I hasten to add, in case you never read Jesus’s eight fold indictment of the clergy in Matt 23. You should read it again for the first time with open minds, not just open eyes. Jesus laughs at religious insanity calamity!

   When people say they would like to study scriptural passages I quote, what they really mean is that they would like to read it again to refresh their mind and figure out how to refute everything I say about Jesus. That’s all. You see, when I talk about Jesus or the bible I can put it in my own words without having to resort to tricky semantics and trickle down clerical deceptions to try and obfuscate the obvious and that’s and that’s how you should know and understand the Bible, and you’ll know and understand Jesus and why most do not, cannot and never will as long as until they delink Jesus from supernaturalism.

   You will know the mind of Jesus; Jesus and you will be one. If you link Jesus with supernaturalism, you are the one who does not know the mind of Jesus, and how could you when all you can do is link and think the supernatural, that never existed, to Jesus. Jesus did not believe, endorse or accept the supernatural. What do you think it takes for you to decide to get out of bed in the morning, the Spirit, what makes you walk to the bathroom, drive to work, go to church? Body, Soul and Spirit equals Mind, Emotion and Will. Simple.

   BODY / MIND….SOUL / EMOTION….SPIRIT / WILL.
   That my friend is the essence of the human experience, don’t make it complicated. There’s nothing supernatural about the spirit or the soul or the mind except “Let this mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who let Good Common Sense, the Divine Logic within you, DO IT.

   LikeLike
5. Jeffrey C. Long Says:

   
   January 10, 2018 at 12:04 pm

   Good start at development of a real creed. Let true Bible believers vet it and offer input–while ignoring meaningless and insincere atheist critique.

   LikeLiked by 1 person
6. RONALD MYRICK Says:

   
   January 10, 2018 at 12:37 pm

   Although I agree in general with Oneness theology and most of the time enjoy Jason’s thoughts, this Creed is in some parts quite incomprehensible. Particularly in the following phrases:
   “Both one in essence and one in person;
   Who for us became one of us, and yet remained God;
   One person in two natures, both divine and human;
   The eternal God who became temporal man.”
   1. The use of the term “person” when describing the Infinite God initiates a multitude of problems, not the least of which is the relationship between the human person Jesus Christ and his Father, Yahweh. Jason’s use of “person” in reference to God and then immediately in reference to Christ is senseless.
   2. “Person” may be reasonably used commonly in reference to finite creatures, both earthly and heavenly. It cannot reasonably be used in reference to the One Infinite Spirit who is God. Yahweh operates in his endless existence as if he is an infinite number of “persons” with an infinite number of “centers of consciousnes” ( a standard definition related to “person”). Yet He is One, as the Scripture says clearly. Yahweh is in a class of existence absolutely unique to himself alone, different from all created and finite beings.
   3. Yahweh “became one of us” only in the sense that he manifested himself in human form, in the human person Jesus Christ. He certainly “remained God” as the Inifinite Spirit, his eternally primary mode of existence. This Spirit is distinctly different from any finite, mortal person, including Jesus.
   4. Jason’s second reference to “person” claims that God was “One person in two natures.” The problem with this is that it logically denies the genuine and distinct humanity of Jesus Christ. This is parallel to the Trinitarian error that involves the denial of the full humanity of Christ to preserve the “person of Godthe Son dwelling in the human body of Christ.” This is a grave error in Christology.

   LikeLike
7. Jesuspeake Says:

   
   January 10, 2018 at 1:16 pm

   Jeffrey C. Long

   You are really saying that the entire chapter of Matthew 23 should be ignored “……as meaningless and insincere atheist critique…..” The chapter, consisting of 39 verses, is devoted precisely to the insanity of institutionalized supernaturalism of religion, documented as having been stated by Jesus.

   I submit you are bored with the common sense wisdom of Jesus with a preference for supernatural insanity that religion offers its blind and downtrodden followers like the tail of dog-ma to the point that the tail begins to wag the dog. And boy, are you in thrall then………. tsk tsk tsk.

   Such a beautiful proselyte they love having in the congregation…no doubts, no questions, just blind belief of downtrodden victims that Jesus lived and campaigned for, praying earnestly to save you from, to get you out of the dormant condition of impoverished stagnation erroneously lulled there by the repetitive nonsense of ancient charlatan magicians and hocus pocus wannabe messengers for the caricature concepts of their own devise.

   Think for one moment if you take the “I” out of Faith and insert the “E” instead of the “H”…this is what you really are sealing your own FATE.

   And here’s a question for you.

   Think of this way: “You don’t imagine that the Father takes any pleasure in having a heaven filled with men and women redeemed in the blood of Jesus Christ who will be as useless in heaven as they were on earth? Stacked in bundles of 10, dusted with DDT once a week by a bunch of angels, do you imagine that’s what heaven’s going to be like? Heaven is going to be populated with men, women, boys and girls, who’ve been restored to their redeemed and now true, common sense humanity. Do you imagine that Jesus wants a bunch of people in heaven who will be as useless in heaven as they were on earth?

   Because in the day that the Lord Jesus comes to light in your brain says John in his 1st epistle 3rd chapter first 2 verses: beloved what manner of love the father has bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God; we never ever deserved it, we were guilty men, members of a fallen race, nasty caricatures, telling by what we do and say and are, nothing but lies about our maker and yet in his infinite mercy reached a hand from heaven in the person of Jesus ….to be pierced as proof of his baptism, with nails upon a cross that he might receive us back to himself, acquitted and forgiven that we might be restored to our true humanity and become by adoption members of his family. Beloved what manner of love the father has bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God and he goes on in that 2nd verse of the 3rd chapter of his 1st epistle to say:

   “We do not yet know exactly what we will be but this at least we do know that when we see him, we’ll see him as he is and we’ll be like him, we’ll be like him.”

   I pray for your mind to be opened to the common sense of Jesus who campaigned under very challenging circumstances and vilified for doing and undertook a crucifixion to prove his love was stronger than their hateful sins of oppression against the masses and it continues yet unto this day and age but with signs of diminishing on the horizon on the way to reaching the inevitable critical mass when the leaven of heaven has filtered through the entirety of humanity like the “yeast in the woman’s flour” parable. Jesus was that minimum fissile material that spawned a revolution and you still don’t get it after two thousand years of obfuscation by institutionalized religion and its tails wagging the dog. Reverse the DOGMA and get to AMGOD.

   LikeLike
8. Scalia Says:

   
   January 10, 2018 at 1:28 pm

   Kimberly, please learn how to use paragraphs. Running all your sentences together, especially in this format, is difficult at best to read.

   LikeLike
9. Jesuspeake Says:

   
   January 10, 2018 at 1:36 pm

   A CRITIQUE BY JESUS:

   Matthew Chapter 23

   Religious Fashion Shows
   23 1-3 Now Jesus turned to address his disciples, along with the crowd that had gathered with them. “The religion scholars and Pharisees are competent teachers in God’s Law. You won’t go wrong in following their teachings on Moses. But be careful about following them. They talk a good line, but they don’t live it. They don’t take it into their hearts and live it out in their behavior. It’s all spit-and-polish veneer.

   4-7 “Instead of giving you God’s Law as food and drink by which you can banquet on God, they package it in bundles of rules, loading you down like pack animals. They seem to take pleasure in watching you stagger under these loads, and wouldn’t think of lifting a finger to help. Their lives are perpetual fashion shows, embroidered prayer shawls one day and flowery prayers the next. They love to sit at the head table at church dinners, basking in the most prominent positions, preening in the radiance of public flattery, receiving honorary degrees, and getting called ‘Doctor’ and ‘Reverend.’

   8-10 “Don’t let people do that to you, put you on a pedestal like that. You all have a single Teacher, and you are all classmates. Don’t set people up as experts over your life, letting them tell you what to do. Save that authority for God; let him tell you what to do. No one else should carry the title of ‘Father’; you have only one Father, and he’s in heaven. And don’t let people maneuver you into taking charge of them. There is only one Life-Leader for you and them—Christ.

   11-12 “Do you want to stand out? Then step down. Be a servant. If you puff yourself up, you’ll get the wind knocked out of you. But if you’re content to simply be yourself, your life will count for plenty.

   Frauds!
   13 “I’ve had it with you! You’re hopeless, you religion scholars, you Pharisees! Frauds! Your lives are roadblocks to God’s kingdom. You refuse to enter, and won’t let anyone else in either.

   15 “You’re hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees! Frauds! You go halfway around the world to make a convert, but once you get him you make him into a replica of yourselves, double-damned.

   16-22 “You’re hopeless! What arrogant stupidity! You say, ‘If someone makes a promise with his fingers crossed, that’s nothing; but if he swears with his hand on the Bible, that’s serious.’ What ignorance! Does the leather on the Bible carry more weight than the skin on your hands? And what about this piece of trivia: ‘If you shake hands on a promise, that’s nothing; but if you raise your hand that God is your witness, that’s serious’? What ridiculous hairsplitting! What difference does it make whether you shake hands or raise hands? A promise is a promise. What difference does it make if you make your promise inside or outside a house of worship? A promise is a promise. God is present, watching and holding you to account regardless.

   23-24 “You’re hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees! Frauds! You keep meticulous account books, tithing on every nickel and dime you get, but on the meat of God’s Law, things like fairness and compassion and commitment—the absolute basics!—you carelessly take it or leave it. Careful bookkeeping is commendable, but the basics are required. 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?

   25-26 “You’re hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees! Frauds! You burnish the surface of your cups and bowls so they sparkle in the sun, while the insides are maggoty with your greed and gluttony. Stupid Pharisee! Scour the insides, and then the gleaming surface will mean something.

   27-28 “You’re hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees! Frauds! You’re like manicured grave plots, grass clipped and the flowers bright, but six feet down it’s all rotting bones and worm-eaten flesh. People look at you and think you’re saints, but beneath the skin you’re total frauds.

   29-32 “You’re hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees! Frauds! You build granite tombs for your prophets and marble monuments for your saints. And you say that if you had lived in the days of your ancestors, no blood would have been on your hands. You protest too much! You’re cut from the same cloth as those murderers, and daily add to the death count.

   33-34 “Snakes! Reptilian sneaks! Do you think you can worm your way out of this? Never have to pay the piper? It’s on account of people like you that I send prophets and wise guides and scholars generation after generation—and generation after generation you treat them like dirt, greeting them with lynch mobs, hounding them with abuse.

   35-36 “You can’t squirm out of this: Every drop of righteous blood ever spilled on this earth, beginning with the blood of that good man Abel right down to the blood of Zechariah, Barachiah’s son, whom you murdered at his prayers, is on your head. All this, I’m telling you, is coming down on you, on your generation.

   37-39 “Jerusalem! Jerusalem! Murderer of prophets! Killer of the ones who brought you God’s news! How often I’ve ached to embrace your children, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you wouldn’t let me. And now you’re so desolate, nothing but a ghost town. What is there left to say? Only this: I’m out of here soon. The next time you see me you’ll say, ‘Oh, God has blessed him! He’s come, bringing God’s rule!’”

   LikeLike
10. Scalia Says:

    
    January 10, 2018 at 1:40 pm

    Ronald, good thoughts, but please recall that creeds are normally very truncated statements of faith. Sometimes they are written with enough wiggle-room to allow those holding various views to at least unite under a common banner.

    You object to the use of person, but your objection doesn’t appear to be anchored in anything other than your disagreement over its applicability to God. God is a living, rational being.

    Whatever terminology we use will have to be defined as revealed by the Scriptures and natural theology. I certainly agree that God is absolutely unique, but I also think that person, with qualification, is the best creedal term we have. Surely anybody with a basic understanding of theology knows the difference between a divine person and a human one. If person is inadequate, what do you suggest Jason use in its place?

    LikeLiked by 1 person
11. Jesuspeake Says:

    
    January 10, 2018 at 1:51 pm

    Scalia:

    It’s good and welcomed dialogue to read your reasonable points of view.

    LikeLike
12. Jeffrey C. Long Says:

    
    January 10, 2018 at 4:38 pm

    Reverse the DOGMA and get to AMGOD. Let me see, now, is it witches, or is it the satanists who are preoccupied with finding hidden meaning
    spelling reversals?

    LikeLike
13. Jesuspeake Says:

    
    January 10, 2018 at 7:22 pm

    No Jeffrey:

    It’s actually all supernaturalists, who look for hidden meanings, not the least of which are Christians.

    It is why Christians have always been preoccupied with the hidden meaning of the Number 666, Name of the beast and Mark of the beast on the right hand or forehead; they don’t understand the bible; they don’t understand idioms, common expressions, metaphors, as Jesus said they don’t even understand the parables. They don’t understand why one can’t buy or sell without the name, number or mark. Your knowledge is void and your belief rampant.

    There’s nothing hidden in AmGod; it’s merely a play on the alpha characters that I used personally to make a point.

    You look for ways to disparage sensible commentary you don’t agree with; it’s why you have to grab at supernatural straws to explain miracles which on their face defies physics yet you cling to supernaturalism to explain what your own common sense points out is not possible but you will not even recognize what your own knowledge source and brain, communicates.

    So you talk about the miracle where fish and bread appear out of thin air and presto the water turns into wine and the graves opened at the crucifixion and the dead rose and appeared to many.

    And you bewilder your kids with Santa nonsense because it’s so much fun to fool them. You lie to them as children when their minds are like putty and you mold them according to the stupidity of ancient past magicians and religious miracles of flying horses and flying reindeer and argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    Two billion Christians are like that, two billion Muslims believe in flying horses and witchcraft and the religious police arrest, imprison and sentence to death those who practice witchcraft; they execute eunuchs because of the gender identity of gays that they don’t understand nor do they want to because it is written in the book isn’t it.

    The Salem witch trials resulted in the executions of twenty people, fourteen of them women, and all but one by hanging. Five others (including two infant children) died in prison. The episode is one of Colonial America’s most notorious cases of mass hysteria. It has been used in political rhetoric and popular literature as a vivid cautionary tale about the dangers of isolationism, religious extremism, false accusations, and lapses in due process.This because the people were seeking to build a pure, Bible-based society.

    And you have the nerve to disparage satanists and witches which the bible itself says do not suffer a witch to live and kill homosexuals (men of course) if a man lies with a man as with a woman. Christians and believers of all faiths all delve into the cauldron of supernaturalism and depending on which cult is yours, you all shout obscenities at the others unbelief. Just as you did in your last post. Grow up please.

    LikeLiked by 1 person
14. Len Chandler Says:

    
    January 10, 2018 at 9:30 pm

    Anyone believing in three seperate centres of consciousness are the loudest critics of Monotheism.

    LikeLike
15. Brian Says:

    
    January 11, 2018 at 11:43 am

    Jason — have you ever written anything on the what you believe the Logos of John Chapter 1 to have been before the incarnation? Was the Logos merely an eternal plan? If so, how do you answer people like James White, who says that the Greek literally says, the logos “had a face to face” relationship (see – Lógos ēn pròs tòn Theón) with the Father?

    Thank you in advance for your response and God bless.

    LikeLike
16. kimberly Says:

    
    January 11, 2018 at 4:24 pm

    The “Logos” in John 1:1 is not what is commonly taught. John defines what he means by “Logos” quite clearly in 1 John 2:7 — Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the LOGOS which ye have heard from the beginning.

    Consequently, what John is talking about in John 1:1 is this…….In the beginning (of Israel…NOT the creation) was the Word (OLD COMMANDMENT), and the Word (OLD COMMANDMENT) was with(ABOUT) God, and the Word (OLD COMMANDMENT) was God (SPEAKING FROM THE MOUNTAIN).

    Nehemiah 9:13 Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:

    The commandments given to Israel at their beginning from Mt Sinai by God Himself was the Logos and inherently in those commandments was the promise of salvation. Those promises were made flesh in the flesh of Jesus and it was the FLESH that “dwelt among us” in John 1:14, and John is basing his entire witness of Messiah on the promises inherent in what was given to Israel directly from God. Jesus was NOT the “Logos”. Jesus was the “LIGHT” and John clearly states he is witnessing the “LIGHT” and NOT the “Logos” (John 1:7). This is clearly paralleled in 1 John 1:1 and NOT Gen 1:1.

    LikeLike
17. Frank Adamick Says:

    
    January 11, 2018 at 4:29 pm

    The Trinity in Red Letters (A Reply to Yusha Evans) – Acts17Apologetics
    Published on Jan 4, 2018 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEputG3uUho
    Muslim speaker Yusha Evans says that if the doctrine of the Trinity can be shown from the red letters of the Bible (i.e., the words of Jesus), Muslims would have a problem.

    In this video, Anthony Rogers replies to Yusha’s claim by showing that Jesus indeed taught that God is a Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

    LikeLiked by 1 person
18. Jesuspeake Says:

    
    January 11, 2018 at 5:30 pm

    Kimberly:

    God never spoke to anybody and nobody ever had a meeting with God face to face. If you think that happened, you don’t get it.

    In those days when someone referred to God speaking or God listening or God anything they were saying what they themselves thought was righteous and then attributed to God claiming it was God speaking through them, the prophets. That was the culture of religion. The messenger claimed he was talking on behalf of God and therefore it was God himself speaking.

    It’s like the Secretary of State of a country. S/he travels to foreign Governments and what s/he said on behalf of the President; it is as if the President himself is speaking to them or listening to them.

    The are representatives..like somebody who has “committee” of a person or has power of attorney for somebody. That’s all.

    So when Moses goes up the mountain to mediate he reflects in his spirit the way her perceives God to reflect. then he comes down claiming God said…then proceeds to give the people the laws etc etc.

    When the prophets wanted to hear the word of God they went to the High Priest in the same way as in the Catholic Church. They refer to the Pope as Christ on earth and go up the hierarchy of the system: priests, bishops, arch bishops and cardinal…finally… to the Pope who speaks for God and therefore in that speaking becomes ‘Infallible” because he is speaking the words of God. simple that is the religious culture. In the old days the ancients were prophets, in mythology the ultimate entity was the Oracle. Nobody ever saw or spoke or heard anything from anywhere but from their own brain and spirit ion the same way that a Judge deliberates and through his honor delivers his justice as he deems just by virtue of the honorable spirit he is esteemed to have, in that capacity.

    Throughout the centuries of Rome’s existence, the popes have regularly claimed to be divine. As the supposed successor of Peter, the Pope claims infallibility, the position of God on Earth, and ability to judge and excommunicate angels.

    Cardinal Sarto, who became Pope Pius X, said this:

    “The Pope represents Jesus Christ Himself…!

    This belief has so assimilated into society’s thinking that it is believed by many beyond Catholic circles.

    According to TIME, Pope John Paul II’s assassination attempt prompted a young Jewish man to say, “shooting the Pope—It’s like shooting God.”ii

    Remember hearing about the Schools of the Sons of the Prophets?

    SONS OF PROPHETS (בְּנֵֽי־הַנְּבִיאִ֥ים). Members of a prophetic order or guild.

    This Heb. term occurs eleven times, all during the period of Elijah and especially Elisha, and only in the books of 1 and 2 Kings. The term is a technical one referring to the members of a prophetic order or guild, and has no reference to physical descent from a prophet.

    These were those to whom Kings and Princes and Rulers sought out to hear the word of God, through them” not God himself but “through the prophets, the messengers” assuming the role of God! And everybody accepted the way it was……

    LikeLike
19. Jesuspeake Says:

    
    January 11, 2018 at 5:37 pm

    Frank:

    Tell us what Jesus taught the Trinity, nobody wants to march to somebody’s drum in a link to chase and hear what someone else says about it. You persist in your quest to bring others into this conversation without offering anything your self except what other ay.

    Do you have a voice? Use it.

    LikeLike
20. Ron Myrick Says:

    
    January 11, 2018 at 10:49 pm

    Response to Scalia.

    Thank you for your compliment. Creeds are certainly to be truncated, very condensed, expressions of complex theologies. But as such they must very carefully be composed of accurate vocabulary.

    You said, “God is a living, rational being.” I agree and think that terminology is sufficient. It is also more accurate because “being” is a term of broad application and so is commonly used with modifiers, like human being, heavenly being, and divine being.

    You also said that, “person, with qualification, is the best creedal term we have.” I disagree.

    I object to the term of “person” because it is primarily a term for finite human beings (see any English dictionary); it is Biblically unsupported; and it is associated with the confused ideas of the traditional Trinity.

    Even many Trinitarian scholars, when supporting monotheism, say that God is “one divine being.” Of course I support that and can confidently say that Scripture supports such a concept.

    The same scholars often will say that there must be a unique definition for “person” when referring to God and another when referring to humans. This quickly becomes equivocation ( a shifting definition) and leads to confusion. I think we are better off, and on more biblical grounds if we avoid the term altogether.

    Additionally, in relation to Christology, it is important that we acknowledge that Jesus was a fully human person. Jason’s Creed leaves no room for Jesus the Son of God to be a distinctly human person. His theology reads as if Jesus was only appearing to be human but was really only the “divine person of God” dwelling in a fleshly body. This, as I said earlier, is very much like the Trinitarian concept of “God the Son in a body.” Both ideas logically deny the full humanity of Jesus.

    Christ was much more than a body in which God lived. The great “mystery” of the incarnation is that God was “manifest in the flesh,” (1Timothy 3:16, Colossians 2:2, 4:3): meaning the invisible God actually became a man, born of a woman (John 1:14, Galatians 4:4, Hebrews 2:17, 1John 4:2). He was not just a body with human nature, but a genuine human being. One who is “not a distinct human person” is not really human at all.

    All interaction and communication between the man Jesus and God his father becomes superficial and logically incomprehensible if we label the two of them as “one divine person.” The Bible clearly identifies the Father, Yahweh, as the one and only God, who is in a category of being totally unique to himself alone, and who is never called a “person” in the Scripture.

    LikeLike
21. Scalia Says:

    
    January 12, 2018 at 12:28 am

    You said, “God is a living, rational being.” I agree and think that terminology is sufficient. It is also more accurate because “being” is a term of broad application and so is commonly used with modifiers, like human being, heavenly being, and divine being.

    Ron, I’m sincerely trying to understand your argument. You accept the term being even though there’s a world of difference between “modifiers” like human, heavenly, divine, and such like; yet, you reject person because, in your view, it is “primarily” a term for finite human beings. You then direct me to any English dictionary. However, primary definitions do not undermine secondary ones. Again, there isn’t any serious theologian who confuses human persons with a divine person. The confusion rests in the ignorant, not the educated. Your objection is based in your preference for primary definitions and is supported by appealing to those ignorant of any additional definition. To me, that’s not at all a sound, logical approach.

    The following English definition should be sufficient:

    Person
    5. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.

    Hence, the use of person is indistinct from being. The fact that trinitarians play fast and loose with being (insisting that God can be one being yet three persons) is all the reason one needs to reject the objection to person, for trinitarians play the same game with that term. However, if you affirm a belief that God is one being, trinitarians will readily agree, but if you affirm a belief in one divine person, they’ll automatically object. Thus, the affirmation that God is one person is a far stronger statement which helps to establish such a creed as exclusively oneness.

    With respect to Christology, your view skirts very closely to making Christ two persons. You would probably object and insist that your view affirms that Christ is one person and one divine being, but I consider that a distinction without substance. If you are arguing that there are two different centers of consciousness within Christ (one divine and the other human) then you end up with two beings (or two persons). That appears to default to dynamic monarchianism or modfied arianism. Regardless where you are in that regard, though Jason’s statement isn’t clear enough for you, it is nonetheless ambiguous enough to encompass the various strains of theology in the oneness camp. In that light, I think Jason’s creed more than passes muster.

    LikeLiked by 1 person
22. kimberly Says:

    
    January 12, 2018 at 5:45 am

    Apparently, you don’t know the Bible. God indeed spoke to His people from Mt. Sinai and it frightened the sh*t out of them.

    18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. 19 And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. 22 And the Lord said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.

    In those days, not even Moses saw God’s face or he would have died. Yet, he saw God’s back. But, it is quite clear that the people of Israel heard God’s voice directly from Mt. Sinai.

    As to the rest of your post, the Pope as successor to Peter is a presumption based upon a false premise and the single passage of Matt 16:18. And, that premise is that Jesus started a “church” through Peter. However, Matt 16:18 is not that Jesus began an “eternal” church but that he would return and assemble the elect (those very very few with whom God dealt with directly or through Jesus….almost all these people are recorded in the Bible by name) and it would be those few elect who would no longer be susceptible to death. It would NOT be the “church” or “assembly” itself that could not “die”. When Jesus said “I will build MY (not Peter’s) church, he was prophesying of his eventual return and of the first resurrection as a first-fruits to the main salvation event much further in the future than his return. Jesus has YET to return and build “His” church. So, all these church organizations that have come about, including the Catholic church are fakes and the Pope is a fake. This too was prophesied in one significant passage……..

    Luke 21:8 And he(Jesus) said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for MANY shall come “in my name” (IE/ as “brothers”/”brethren”/”Christians”….millions of them), saying, I (Jesus) am the Christ (fact); and the time draweth near (for me to return…false): go ye NOT therefore after them.

    Such a rebuttal to my post is based on presumptive mis-information, supposition, mis-translation and blind adherence to traditional religion. It is small wonder that so many don’t trust what is taught in our church organizations when so much of what is taught is inherently false.

    LikeLike
23. Naz Says:

    
    January 12, 2018 at 5:53 am

    Ron, I like your thought process on this topic. It rings true for me and I agree with what you are saying.

    The Oneness theology is good but breaks down when it comes to Jesus’ relationship to the Father, which is a real relationship. While nobody fully understands this 100%, I think we need to acknowledge the distinct person-hood of Jesus Christ and stop pretending that Jesus is praying to Himself in some mysterious flesh/spirit interaction. This does not take away from the concept of One God although it may offend the Oneness camp.

    Naz

    LikeLiked by 1 person
24. Scalia Says:

    
    January 12, 2018 at 8:15 am

    I think we need to acknowledge the distinct person-hood of Jesus Christ and stop pretending that Jesus is praying to Himself in some mysterious flesh/spirit interaction.

    Interesting thought process. In your view, it’s okay to toss a “mysterious flesh/spirit interaction” but it’s not okay to toss a mysterious unity of divine persons? Is this some sort of theological Baskin Robbins where we simply pick which mystery we’re comfortable with?

    Even if we accept arguendo that Christ was “play acting” while on Earth, there is no logical contradiction therein. However, trinitarianism, in all its forms, is logically contradictory. One cannot rationally affirm the full deity of three persons while professing monotheism. That is an automatic contradictio en terminis.

    It is far better to accept a mysterious but non-contradictory scenario than to accept a full-blown logical inversion.

    LikeLike
25. Jesuspeake Says:

    
    January 12, 2018 at 9:21 am

    Kimberly:

    You are such a literalist.

    Who was playing the trumpets, do you think, I just explained to you about the Prophets, Holy Men and Messengers referring to God Speaking and his face…..Moses saw his back. They and the bible book writers take on the role of God and when the messenger of God speaks it is said that God spoke to the people and the people heard the voice of god speaking.

    Come on.

    Get sensible please.

    That’s the problem with believers, you grab onto the bone of nonsensical belief, absent metaphorical and common expressions like pit bull and just can’t let your common take that bone away. You are in the tyranny of religious insanity and and exactly what Jesus meant when he quotes Isaiah 6, In Matthew 13:13 onward:

    Matthew Chapter 13

    The disciples came up and asked, “Why do you tell stories?”

    He replied, “You’ve been given insight into God’s kingdom. You know how it works. Not everybody has this gift, this insight; it hasn’t been given to them. Whenever someone has a ready heart for this, the insights and understandings flow freely. But if there is no readiness, any trace of receptivity soon disappears. That’s why I tell stories: to create readiness, to nudge the people toward receptive insight. In their present state they can stare till doomsday and not see it, listen till they’re blue in the face and not get it. I don’t want Isaiah’s forecast repeated all over again:

    Your ears are open but you don’t hear a thing.
    Your eyes are awake but you don’t see a thing.
    The people are blockheads!
    They stick their fingers in their ears
    so they won’t have to listen;
    They screw their eyes shut
    so they won’t have to look,
    so they won’t have to deal with me face-to-face
    and let me heal them.

    And then Kimberly this part is not yet for you because you are stick in Nehemiah the Ancient and discount completely Jesus the Revolutionist who came to take you and all the other believers away from your blinders and those who got it of them he said:

    “But you have God-blessed eyes—eyes that see! And God-blessed ears—ears that hear! A lot of people, prophets and humble believers among them, would have given anything to see what you are seeing, to hear what you are hearing, but never had the chance.”

    I am giving you that chance today to understand Jesus words for a change in your direction one of understanding, because as surely as the night follows the day their is no understanding in belief, belief understands nothing that’s why it is belief.

    And Jesus goes on to say in the third chapter of John at verse 11 onward:

    John 3 verse 11:

    Listen carefully. I’m speaking sober truth to you. I speak only of what I know by experience; I give witness only to what I have seen with my own eyes. There is nothing secondhand here, no hearsay. Yet instead of facing the evidence and accepting it, you procrastinate with questions. If I tell you things that are plain as the hand before your face and you don’t believe me, what use is there in telling you of things you can’t see, the things of God?

    “No one has ever gone up into the presence of God except the One who came down from that Presence, the Son of Man. In the same way that Moses lifted the serpent in the desert so people could have something to see and then believe as a reminder that there are countless demons in the human walking among us that will garner every bit of nonsensical beliefs their imagination can fathom to try and keep you in thrall to the tyranny of religious supernaturalism that just does not happen in our time and did not happen in Jesus’s time nor did it happen in Moses’s time.

    AND THE PLANETS SATURN, MARS OR NEPTUNE WERE NEVER, EVER GODS! NOR DID but the Oracles spoke as they were Gods and the generations followed them defending their craziness exactly like you are doing in this world of modernity.

    WTF…What The Fantastic…chance lying at your doorstep of you mindset, knocking on your forehead to get in for goodness sake.

    LikeLike
26. kimberly Says:

    
    January 12, 2018 at 9:30 am

    Yes……….the only “proof” that has been presented for Trinitarianism has ever been a presumptive overlay of multi-theism/modalism on certain biblical passages. I present the following as an example:

    Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

    First, the words “he saith” is inserted into the text
    Second, this is a reference to a Psalm song (Psa 45:6)
    Third, this is a praise insert TO God (ever God) ABOUT the Son as the “SCEPTRE” (Num 24:17)
    Fourth, the praise insert isn’t “unto the Son” but v9 is TO the Son
    Fifth, the very next verse clearly states that the Son HAS A GOD and thus cannot BE “god”.

    Thou (Son) hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, EVEN THY GOD, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows (all the uncreated Host of Heaven EXCEPT God).

    The except is clearly obvious in the following verse:

    1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son ALSO HIMSELF be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

    LikeLike
27. kimberly Says:

    
    January 12, 2018 at 9:45 am

    the phrase “God with us” does NOT mean “god among us”. It means “God is not against us”. The concept of a “god-man” is of pagan origin. It is not in the scriptures of the Bible. God is an absolute singularity in every way, throughout the Bible. Never a multiplicity. Even the supposed idea that mankind was created in the “image of God” is false. The correct translation of the following passage has long been overlooked.

    Genesis 1:27 So God (singular….EL-o-hym being used as “God of gods”) created man in his (man’s) own image, in the image of godS (plural…NOT singular and being used as “gods”) created he (God) him; male and female created he them (plural).

    nor is the devil the “god of this world”

    2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the godS (plural in meaning) of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who (which) IS the image of God (singular in meaning), should shine unto them.

    the “light of the glorious gospel of Christ” is the “image of God” (singular). It is the entire phrase. The phrase is not descriptive of the “person” of Jesus.

    LikeLike
28. kimberly Says:

    
    January 12, 2018 at 9:55 am

    ah yes…another common mis-use of the Bible is to take the specificity of certain passages and apply it generically to one’s own agenda. Most commonly this approach is used to attack another (person/religion/organization). Jesus used parables so the people would NOT understand what he was saying. Not to “clarify”.

    LikeLike
29. Frank Adamick Says:

    
    January 12, 2018 at 1:31 pm

    Who God Is According To Jesus – Steven Bancarz
    Published on Jul 25, 2017 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBMOTc16PSw
    In this video, we look at who God is according to the words of Jesus Christ. We see from His revelation during His earthly ministry that the Father is the personal, transcendent, monotheistic deity of the Old Testament.
    ““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
    2:1
    Why are the nations in an uproar
    And the peoples devising a vain thing?
    2
    The kings of the earth take their stand
    And the rulers take counsel together
    Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
    3
    “Let us tear their fetters apart
    And cast away their cords from us!”
    4
    He who sits in the heavens laughs,
    The Lord scoffs at them.
    5
    Then He will speak to them in His anger
    And terrify them in His fury, saying,
    6
    “But as for Me, I have installed My King
    Upon Zion, My holy mountain.”
    7
    “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
    He said to Me, ‘You are My Son,
    Today I have begotten You.
    8
    ‘Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance,
    And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.
    9
    ‘You shall break them with a rod of iron,
    You shall shatter them like earthenware.’”
    10
    Now therefore, O kings, show discernment;
    Take warning, O judges of the earth.
    11
    Worship the LORD with reverence
    And rejoice with trembling.
    12
    Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way,
    For His wrath may soon be kindled.
    How blessed are all who take refuge in Him! (Psalm 2:1-12)

    Who are the Persons of Psalm 2? Who narrates Psalm 2? Who searches all things, even the depths of God? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 2:11b)
    “““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
    17:1 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,
    2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.
    3 This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
    4 I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do.
    5 Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
    6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.
    7 Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You;
    8 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.
    9 I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;
    10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.
    11 I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are.
    12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.
    13 But now I come to You; and these things I speak in the world so that they may have My joy made full in themselves.
    14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
    15 I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.
    16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
    17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.
    18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
    19 For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.
    20 “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;
    21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
    22 The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;
    23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.
    24 Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
    25 “O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me;
    26 and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.” (John 17:1-26)

    How is “one” used in John 17? Can a sole Person engage in “You loved Me”? How is “before the foundation of the world” defined in John 17?
    “““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
    1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,
    2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
    3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
    4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.
    5 For to which of the angels did He ever say,
    “YOU ARE MY SON,
    TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”?
    And again,
    “I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM
    AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”?
    6 And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
    “AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.”
    7 And of the angels He says,
    “WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS,
    AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE.”
    8 But of the Son He says,
    “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
    AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
    9
    “YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS;
    THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU
    WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.”
    10 And,
    “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH,
    AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
    11
    THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN;
    AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT,
    12
    AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP;
    LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED.
    BUT YOU ARE THE SAME,
    AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.”
    13 But to which of the angels has He ever said,
    “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
    UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES
    A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”?
    14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation? (Hebrews 1:1-14)

    Who is “the firstborn into the world”? When is He brought? Why is He worshipped? Which Son receives an everlasting throne? Who “LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS”? Who remains? Who stays the same? Whose YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END?: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. (Hebrews 13:8)
    “““““““““““““““““““““““`
    20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
    21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
    22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
    23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming,
    24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
    25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
    26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
    27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
    28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 20-28)
    ““““““““““““““““`
    Pray for the end, “so that God may be all in all.”

    Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. (Mat 6:10)

    LikeLike
30. Ron Myrick Says:

    
    January 13, 2018 at 12:53 am

    Scalia, thanks for your thoughtful reply.

    I’m interested in “primary definitions” today because I am a proponent of Apostolic hermeneutics, and am acutely aware that the NT was written in Koine Greek for the common people of the Church-at-large. You may call them “ignorant” but I call them the “Beloved sheep of my Lord Jesus.” I admit that my theology, understanding, and teaching is for the Church and not for the highly educated.

    I cannot agree that “person is indistinct from being” when it clearly is distinct in our everyday use of the terms. For example, I have used the illustration, “He treats his dog as if she is a person” to demonstrate that we use the term in normal language to mean a finite human being, and nothing more.

    When “person” is applied to Almighty God by Oneness, Trinitarian, Unitarian, Socinian, Arian, or any other theologies, it just does not fit the Biblical definition. Our infinite, eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing God is qualitatively reduced in the understanding of those using the term. Yet this is sadly common among all those claiming to be scholars of the Word of God.

    To quote a favorite author, David Bernard:
    “Speaking of God as a person does not do justice to Him. The word person connotes a human being with a human personality—an individual with body, soul, and spirit. Thus, we limit our conception of God if we describe him as a person. For this reason, this book has never said that there is one person in the Godhead or God is one person. The most we have said is that Jesus Christ is one person, because Jesus was God manifested in flesh as a human person.”

    I agree that my “view skirts very closely to making Christ two persons.” You observe this because I insist that we recognize Jesus as a distinct “human person” and, in your thinking, you insist that we recognize Yahweh God as a “divine person.” Hence “two persons” operating in tandem in Christ, one divine and one human. If that were so , then the theology would be labelled historically “Nestorian.”

    Jason Dulle, another favorite author, has discussed Nestorianism as being common among Oneness believers (especially in the excellent article, “Reifying Natures = Two Persons,” which I don’t fully agree with but which gets me thinking deeply).

    I have recognized that and consequently teach that Yahweh is the absolutely unique immortal divine being, invisible Spirit, divine essence or substance (hupostasis in Greek).

    But God is best not labelled as a “person.” Rather, Jesus was and is a distinct person, who was and is still today fully human and also in relation to God, is ” His Son,… the radiance of his glory, the very image of his substance…” Hebrews 1:3.

    LikeLike
31. kimberly Says:

    
    January 13, 2018 at 8:30 am

    You say “the Father is the personal, transcendent, monotheistic deity of the Old Testament” meaning “the Father is God”. That is not precisely correct according to the quotes you’ve made from the Bible. Instead, Jesus stated God *that absolutely singular in every way” is the Father of whom he referred. To say that the “Father is God” infers that others are possibly God. This inverse quoting of the scriptures is often used by Trinitarians as “proof” of their doctrine. But, when Jesus states “God is the Father”, there is no option to state that God is anything but an absolute singularity as Jesus says to be THE ONLY TRUE GOD.

    John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus, the Christ whom thou (the only true God) hast sent.

    Isaiah 63:16 Doubtless thou art our FATHER, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O Lord, art our FATHER, our redeemer; thy name (namesake….SON) is from everlasting.

    Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born (Son of Man), unto us a son is given (Son of God from everlasting): and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name (namesake….given to the firstborn Son) shall be called (ie/he shall be called the SON of)

    Son of Wonderful,
    Son of Counsellor,
    Son of The mighty God,
    Son of The everlasting FATHER,
    Son of The Prince (Sovereign) of Peace

    LikeLike
32. kimberly Says:

    
    January 13, 2018 at 8:45 am

    I have two issues with this post……….the first is that the Bible was not written in order to run a “church”. It was written as a record of the witness performed by the Apostles and Paul that Jesus was Messiah and the Son of God. The letters to the “people” at that time were to encourage them in the face of their impending death at the hands of the Romans. In particular, this is most apparent in the letters to Timothy. Who presided over the last of the people supporting the Apostles and Paul in fulfilling their great commission of witnessing to the world. That witness was completed 100% in every way. It was NOT transferred to the “church” or to any subsequent church “organization” or church “apostle” such as the Pope or any other similar religious leader who began their own organization.

    Second, Jesus is no longer “fully human”. He sits at the right hand of God as the first Son born of the SPIRIT and is now fully spirit.

    1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, NOT of corruptible seed (flesh), but of incorruptible, by the word(logos….promise of salvation inherent within the old commandment) of God, which (who) liveth and abideth for ever.

    John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit IS SPIRIT.

    LikeLike
33. Jesuspeake Says:

    
    January 13, 2018 at 9:27 am

    The Father Jesus referred to is “…..within you….” is within everyone as per Psalms 84

    My sheep recognize my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them real and eternal life. They are protected from the Destroyer for good. No one can steal them from out of my hand. The Father who put them under my care is so much greater than the Destroyer and Thief. No one could ever get them away from him. I and the Father are one heart and mind.”

    Again the Jews picked up rocks to throw at him. Jesus said, “I have made a present to you from the Father of a great many good actions. For which of these acts do you stone me?”

    The Jews said, “We’re not stoning you for anything good you did, but for what you said—this blasphemy of calling yourself God.”

    Jesus said, “I’m only quoting your inspired Scriptures, where God said, ‘I tell you—you are gods.’ If God called your ancestors ‘gods’—and Scripture doesn’t lie—why do you yell, ‘Blasphemer! Blasphemer!’ at the unique One the Father consecrated and sent into the world, just because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I don’t do the things my Father does, well and good; don’t believe me. But if I am doing them, put aside for a moment what you hear me say about myself and just take the evidence of the actions that are right before your eyes. Then perhaps things will come together for you, and you’ll see that not only are we doing the same thing, we are the same—Father and Son. He is in me; I am in him.”

    They tried yet again to arrest him, but he slipped through their fingers

    Specifically. Psalms 82: KJV

    Psalm 82. Psalm 82 (Greek numbering: Psalm 81) is the 82nd psalm in the biblical Book of Psalms, subtitled “A Psalm of Asaph”.

    Please note that this is Asaph speaking, writing or singing, not God, but Asaph, speaking on behalf of God as previously noted in Post # 18. So Jesus is speaking about Asaph speaking about God as is if he were God.

    LikeLike
34. Frank Adamick Says:

    
    January 13, 2018 at 10:09 am

    Ron, your point has merit. A more effective alternative could be “entity”?
    (existence; being.
    “entity and nonentity”
    synonyms: existence, being; life, living, animation; substance, essence, reality, actuality
    “the distinction between entity and nonentity”)

    3:1 Now Moses was pasturing the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian; and he led the flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.
    2 The angel of the LORD (YHWH) appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.
    3 So Moses said, “I must turn aside now and see this marvelous sight, why the bush is not burned up.”
    4 When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.”
    5 Then He said, “Do not come near here; remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.”
    6 He said also, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.
    7 The LORD said, “I have surely seen the affliction of My people who are in Egypt, and have given heed to their cry because of their taskmasters, for I am aware of their sufferings.
    8 So I have come down to deliver them from the power of the Egyptians, and to bring them up from that land to a good and spacious land, to a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Amorite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite.
    9 Now, behold, the cry of the sons of Israel has come to Me; furthermore, I have seen the oppression with which the Egyptians are oppressing them.
    10 Therefore, come now, and I will send you to Pharaoh, so that you may bring My people, the sons of Israel, out of Egypt.”
    11 But Moses said to God, “Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh, and that I should bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt?”
    12 And He said, “Certainly I will be with you, and this shall be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God at this mountain.”
    13 Then Moses said to God, “Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’ Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?”
    14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
    15 God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.
    16 Go and gather the elders of Israel together and say to them, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, has appeared to me, saying, “I am indeed concerned about you and what has been done to you in Egypt.
    17 So I said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt to the land of the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Amorite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, to a land flowing with milk and honey.”’ (Exodus 3:1-17)

    LikeLike
35. Scalia Says:

    
    January 13, 2018 at 11:52 am

    @Ron Myrick

    Thanks for the respectful dialog. You write:

    I’m interested in “primary definitions” today because I am a proponent of Apostolic hermeneutics, and am acutely aware that the NT was written in Koine Greek for the common people of the Church-at-large. You may call them “ignorant” but I call them the “Beloved sheep of my Lord Jesus.”

    This may be one of the sticking points. I do not use the term ignorant as an epithet. I am strictly using it with respect to knowledge. Surely you are not endorsing ignorance over education. We should love the ignorant, but if we really love them, we’ll educate them. We shouldn’t leave them in the dark.

    You proceed:

    I cannot agree that “person is indistinct from being” when it clearly is distinct in our everyday use of the terms. For example, I have used the illustration, “He treats his dog as if she is a person” to demonstrate that we use the term in normal language to mean a finite human being, and nothing more.

    Yet I assume you use secondary definitions with respect to other subjects, no? For example, if you and I are at a fellowship meeting, and afterwards I say, “Bro. Myrick, would you like some root beer?” and you reply, “Brother, I don’t drink alcoholic beverages,” would I change my vocabulary to perpetuate your ignorance? I would rather politely inform you that though beer is primarily defined as an alcoholic beverage, it also has a secondary definition that applies to non-alcoholic beverages, depending on the context. Would that upset you or would you thank me for the information?

    The same can be said of your illustration. The context clearly shows that you’re using person in its primary manner. Context is critical in every language if we’re to understand what is being said. Thus, I don’t think your critique touches my argument that person, with qualification, is perfectly acceptable.

    When “person” is applied to Almighty God by Oneness, Trinitarian, Unitarian, Socinian, Arian, or any other theologies, it just does not fit the Biblical definition.

    Respectfully, you’re repeating yourself with different words without touching my argument. The term person most definitely fits the biblical definition because, as I stated, it is defined as a self-conscious, rational being. Since God is a self-conscious, rational being, the word person more than adequately encapsulates that. Your insistence that it be otherwise is substantively indistinct from insisting that root beer is an alcoholic beverage after I’ve informed you that it is not. Brother Bernard, and I do regard him highly, makes the same error. How can a term that has a clear philosophical definition be confusing? When I know how a person is using a term, and I insist that said person means something else, the problem rests with me, not that person.

    I agree that my “view skirts very closely to making Christ two persons.” You observe this because I insist that we recognize Jesus as a distinct “human person” and, in your thinking, you insist that we recognize Yahweh God as a “divine person.” Hence “two persons” operating in tandem in Christ, one divine and one human.

    That isn’t quite what I wrote. Here it is again:

    If you are arguing that there are two different centers of consciousness within Christ (one divine and the other human) then you end up with two beings (or two persons).

    So, regardless what you call it, you appear to assert that in Christ are two self-conscious rational beings (persons, what have you). Regardless, this thread isn’t about that teaching’s efficacy. I merely bring it up to illustrate that Jason’s creed is ambiguous enough to allow the various modalistic streams to unite under one banner.

    LikeLike
36. Frank Adamick Says:

    
    January 13, 2018 at 5:36 pm

    “Christ Consciousness” Debunked By Jesus – Steven Bancarz
    Published on Aug 19, 2016 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjvGYwU6Y6I
    In this video we will look at how the idea of Christ Consciousness is not only a false philosophy, it was warned of specifically by Jesus as a sign of the end times. Don’t be deceived by this!

    Thanks to the book “False Christ Coming” by Warren B. Smith for providing some of the research for this video!

    LikeLike
37. Mr.N J Chetia Says:

    
    January 13, 2018 at 11:47 pm

    Frank Adamick

    I have seen the video link which you have so meticulously provided.Overly motivated material such as this deserves a reply.

    There appears merit to support the dichotomy between Jesus the man and Christ the spirituality.It is thus recorded that the preachings of Jesus is as a result of a cognitive effect which occurred to him alone, should that be called meditation but what does present science has to say. Anatomically behind the skull at its central point lies the pineal gland which is a critical hormonal gland of the body which regulates the sleep/wake cycles of the body and stimulates the production of many other essential hormones and glands essential to physiological and psychological and cognitive functions.The hormone melatonin is produced by the pineal gland under the influence of natural light. Melatonin modifies the feel-good hormone serotonin

    Serotonin and melatonin have spiritual links to human consciousness as each is needed and is involved in how the brain executes higher orders of the consciousness.This is why in Hindu and buddhist literature we see the third eye as being the body mind of higher consciousness of the spiritual center in man

    Neuroscience also informs us of this reality. Brain scans done with PET imaging equipment shows that when a person meditates there is a lot of activity triggered in the medial prefrontal cortex which lies in the same area (between the eyes) as the “third eye” of occult eastern literature.Brain research informs us that people who actually physically meditate may actually evolve their brain structures with neural changes that promote higher consciousness.The median prefrontal cortex is activated the more a person is reflecting on themselves.It may be that over time science will validate many of these spiritual truths to be based in scientific and medical fact. Only further advances in neuroscience,neuropsychology and human biology shall tell.
    Reproduced verbatim for the benefit of the readers.They may follow on the link http://energeticsinstitute.com.au/spiritual-concept-of-third-eye/

    Jesus shared with others by preaching and by his ministry his experiences good and bad.There is a sharing effect where the one involved enhances his own feeling positive and negative feeling by sharing with others The act of shareing rewards our brains pleasure center in a location of the brain called nucleus.Further reading in the link https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_sharing_effect

    A study on the same subject with reference to facebook could be read on the link https://blog.bufferapp.com/psychology-of-facebook

    But to obviate all contention by foreclosure by forewarning could be described as salesmanship (salesman are selfish for good reasons) or scientifically.

    Scientists have found that activation of the areas of the brain called dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) triggers self control using a weak magnetic field to disable DLPFC, they found that disabling the right DLPFC made the subjects lose their ability to keep their selfish impulses under control.The DLPFC is also the last part of the brain to fully develop and it is not fully developed in young people which could explain their notorious selfish behaviour.further reading in the link
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1530715/Scientists-discover-brain-trigger-for-selfish-behaviour.html

    So it could be premature to dismiss summarily the results of others about spirituality without proof but bolstered against the dictatorship of faith alone

    LikeLike
38. kimberly Says:

    
    January 14, 2018 at 8:27 am

    Psa 84 is nothing as you describe……it is neither generic no human-centrist. It is about trusting in God. NOT about God “in you”.

    And, in reference to the Jew’s accusation. You would trust the accusations of a ravenous murdering mob of fanatical Jews when they were in fact looking for any reason to kill him? I think not.

    LikeLike
39. kimberly Says:

    
    January 14, 2018 at 8:40 am

    You’re missing the point by attempting to define God as a “person”, “entity”, etc. God is absolutely singular in every way and as such, the very word of transliteration speaks it as “El-o-hym” and “THE-o-s”, which biblical authors infer means “God of gods”. A title of absolutely unique singularity rather than any kind of plurality.

    Psalm 136:2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.

    LikeLike
40. Jesuspeake Says:

    
    January 14, 2018 at 8:50 am

    Kimberly:

    “The Father Jesus referred to as “…..within you….” is within everyone as per Psalms 84”

    That was an uncorrected error, my fault..the reference should have noted Psalms 82, throughout the commentary, not Psalm 84. My mistake.

    Jesuspeake Proverb:
    “When you are wrong be quick to apologize; when you are right be quick to forgive.”

    Thank you

    LikeLike
41. Jesuspeake Says:

    
    January 14, 2018 at 9:45 am

    I am not a proponent of a singular God or plural Gods as this has become, in my opinion, mere human definitions of God or God(s) in Man’s image(s); that is, Man conceived and devised the term(s) God(s) and gave God(s) all the attributes that man believed God(s) should have.(Perhaps everything a man has but seldom displays).

    In my estimation this definition must necessarily fall short of anything God(s) is or was or will be. To me this parsing of words and hair splitting is the norm among niggling proponents of any definition; hence, every definition.

    Nevertheless, it sufficeth for me to use the Cosmic Definition Garden from which and into which, all comes and goes, as yet unknown but not unknowable. This is why I have a knowledge base system not a belief based system; for surely, the very definition of belief is “unknown” (justified true belief is not knowledge, justified true belief may be the guiding light egging us on to seek knowledge but “belief” itself, so as to call “belief”, knowledge cannot be the end result) whereas the term “unknowable” cannot possibly enter a believer’s vocabulary because it admits to a vanishing point, in which case that vanishing point implies a time when belief supplanted, renders belief meaningless. When it becomes meaningless how then can it possibly be absolute certainty beforehand? Even knowledge needs to be deliberatively defined once attained. Salk vaccine by trial and error for example. New meds coming on the market, same way; North Korea’s ballistic missile program.

    We do know however that any argument can be made using the scriptures even for myself. There’s nothing you can’t read into it or take from it. So whatever attitude that you harbor toward your fellow man, for instance, will find justification in scripture because, like the sands of the desert, fixed and immutable, yet, ever shifting the words of scripture are infinitely versatile. Open that book and watch them dance across the page like ninjas, each one a soldier for prejudices, implants, doctrine, dogma.

    But as to Kimberly’s argument for a singularity, as a singularity I offer some counter arguments, not that I support any argument as already stated but I the reading is interesting, at the very least the logic, reason and rational (don’t want to be redundant here) the why and the how arguments and counter arguments are disposed of so easily.

    Genesis 1:1 refers to God as a plural Being

    By one person

    Within the pages of Scripture we find it clearly stated that there is indeed, only one God. This is a fundamental belief of Judaism and Christianity. However, there are indications in the very first verse of Genesis that God is a plural Being.

    “In the beginning God, created the heavens and the earth” Genesis 1:1

    The word used for God in Genesis 1:1 is “Elohim,” which is a form of the word “El.” In the context of Genesis 1:1, there can certainly be no doubt as to who is doing the creating. In the Hebrew language the “im” ending imputes plurality. Therefore, “Elohim” is the plural from of the word “El.”

    It is interesting to note that each usage of this word throughout the Bible is grammatically incorrect. It is a plural noun used with singular verbs. According to Genesis 1:1, the Creator of the Universe, Elohim, exists as a plural being.

    If this were not so then the word “El” or perhaps Yahweh would have been used. However, the Holy Spirit chose to use the word “Elohim,” the plural form of the name of God in the very first place where the name of God is proclaimed.

    “Let Us Make Man in Our Image”

    “And God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'” Genesis 1:26, (Jewish Publication Society version, 1917)

    The plurality of God is also discovered in the creation of man. According to this fascinating verse, man was created by God in his own image. However, there is something provocative and unexpected in this verse. Prior to the creation of man we find a conversation between God (Elohim) and an unidentified being (“let Us make man in Our image”). Who is this person with whom God is speaking?

    This person, or intelligent being, has some attributes that we can glean from the text. First, the personage is able to speak with God “on His turf”, that is, in the realm of timeless eternity.

    Secondly, this being apparently has the same kind of creative ability as God (“Let US make”). This describes a cooperative effort between Elohim and the person with whom He is speaking.

    Finally, the likeness or image of this being is comparable to God’s (“In Our image, after Our likeness”).

    When confronted with this passage, modern rabbis often claim that God is speaking to the angels. However, this explanation fails to recognize a number of problems.

    First, there is no indication in the Bible that angels can create life. Secondly, nowhere is it indicated that angels are made in the image of God. Finally, there is no indication that mankind was made in the image of angels either!

    We may conclude that the person with whom Elohim is conversing lives in the eternal realm, has His creative power and exists in the image or likeness of God. No angel, no man, no created being in heaven or on earth could possibly fit these criteria.

    The plurality of God is also seen in Genesis 3:22. After Adam and Eve sinned in the garden of Eden we find a fascinating conversation:

    “The LORD God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of US, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever'” Genesis 3:22 (NKJ).

    “Man has become like one of US.” To whom is the LORD talking?

    Again in Genesis 11:7, God is discussing His solution to the whole earth having one language at the time of the Tower of Babel:

    “Come, let US go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” Genesis 11:7 (NKJ).

    The fact that the LORD (Yahweh) refers to Himself in these passages as “Us,” is indeed a fascinating hint to the plurality of God.2

    The “Creators” of the Universe?
    The plurality of the Creator seen in Genesis 1:1 has been dismissed by some as simply a description of God’s plural majesty. However, the plurality of the Creator is also seen in a number of very provocative verses.

    In Ecclesiates 12:1 we read:

    “Remember also thy Creators in the days of thy youth, While that the evil days come not, Nor the years have arrived, that thou sayest, ‘I have no pleasure in them.'” (Young’s Literal Translation, 1898)

    The word Creators is a plural form of the word “bara,” which means to create out of nothing.3,4

    The notion of plural Creator is also seen in Isaiah 54:5, where the prophet states:

    “For thy Maker is thy husband, Jehovah of Hosts is His name, And thy Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, ‘God of all the earth,’ He is called.'” (Young’s Literal Translation, 1898)

    In this verse the word “Maker” is the plural form of the word “asa,” which means to form or make.

    These verses present a remarkable paradox. The Bible clearly teaches that there is but one God and one Creator. Yet this one God is a plurality of more than one personage, each of which has the attributes of God and performs the works of God.

    Surprisingly, the solution to this paradox may be found in one of the strongest monotheistic passages in the entire Bible, Deuteronomy 6:4:

    “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one LORD!” Deuteronomy 6:4 (KJV)

    In this verse we are told that God is One. However, when we examine the word “echad,” translated “one,” we discover an interesting meaning. This word, “echad,” comes from a Hebrew root which means “to unify” or “to collect together,” a “united one.”

    We can get a better feel for it’s usage by examining a couple of additional verses. After the creation of man we find the establishment of the marriage relationship:

    “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one (echad) flesh” Genesis 2:24, (Jewish Publication Society version, 1917)

    Regarding the people of the earth after the flood we read:

    “And the LORD said: They are one (echad) people, and they have all one language.” Genesis 11:6, (Jewish Publication Society version, 1917)

    In each of these verses we see the idea of separate persons viewed as a unified “one.” The man and woman become “one flesh.” The people of the earth become unified together as “one people.” This unification in these verses obviously does not mean that they physically unite into a single being. The individuals still retain their personal identity and distinct personage. The word “one” here implies a “compound unity.”

    It is in this sense that we can understand the “One of God” in Deuteronomy 6:4 – He is clearly One God, yet He manifests Himself in more than on distinct personage – something totally compatible with the Christian concept of the Trinity.

    The word “yachiyd” (pronounced “yaw-kheed”) is used to indicate “one and only one.” This word is frequently translated into the English word “only.” However, it literally means “only one” or “solitary one.” It is a word which suggests an indivisible one as opposed to the compound unity implied by the word “echad.”

    If God was an indivisible unity, as opposed to the compound unity implied by “echad,” then surely the Holy Spirit would have inspired Moses to use the word “Yachiyd.”

    The problem was recognized by the great Maimonides, a twelfth-century Hebrew Sage. Maimonides, a Jewish rabbi who denies the messiahship and deity of Jesus, recognized that the word “echad” in Deuteronomy 6:4 implies a compound unity – a plurality of personages in Yahweh. Consequently, Maimonides stated the Moses used the wrong word when he wrote the book of Deuteronomy!.5

    Finally, we see a hint of the Trinity, the three in One, in a number of provocative verses which declare the holiness of God. In Isaiah 6:1-3 we read:

    “In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one cried to another and said: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory!'” Isaiah 6:1-3 (NKJ)

    In Revelation, chapter four, John is given a view of the four living creatures around the throne of God;

    “And the four living creatures, each having six wings, were full of eyes around and within. And they do not rest day or night, saying: ‘Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!'” Revelation 4:8 (NKJ)

    Why “Holy, holy, holy?” This is just another hint of the plurality of God and the three in one seen throughout the Scripture.

    LikeLike
42. kimberly Says:

    
    January 14, 2018 at 12:41 pm

    that makes a little more sense in the context of your post (Psa 82) BUT it does not mean “god within you”. God is a God OF gods and mankind was born in the image of godS (plural and little “g”). Once again, this is an excellent example of a simple misquote leading to an entirely erroneous doctrine.

    Genesis 1:27 So God (OF gods) created man in his (man’s…NOT God’s) own image, in the image of godS (plural elohym) created he (God) him (godS); male and female created he (God) them (plural).

    ie/Mankind was uniquely created as an image of godS (plural) and NOT as “God” (singular). And, what are “gods”? They are the uncreated, immortal, spirit Host of heaven and ALL are subjects of the one absolutely singular God OF gods. Consequently, mankind was created to be subject unto God. NOT to “become God” in any way.

    LikeLike
43. kimberly Says:

    
    January 14, 2018 at 12:55 pm

    I believe that I answered part of this in my past post. However, I’ll continue here by addressing why the scripture in Genesis says “let US”. The same applies as with Gen 1:1 by the pluralistic use of “Elohym” to denote absolute singularity and in each case when it is used for “God”, it conveys be precedent and by context absolute singularity with the intent for it to be interpreted by the biblical author as “God of gods”, which is a title of absolute singularity among an innumerable Host of uncreated immortal subjects. It is for this reason God is also described as King in an everlasting Kingdom. The mistaken conclusion by you and others is that prior to the creation, God “existed” in the center of an infinite black void. Such has never been the case. God has ever existed as King in a Kingdom that has ever existed, populated by innumerable Host who themselves have ever existed. No beginning. The concept of a beginning and death was inconceivable until the creation. It was a work of art rather than the work of an insane being driven mad by an eternity of sensory deprivation. And, to throw the trinity in such a scenario only makes it worse….the creation was the result of an insane being with a multiple personality disorder. So, “let US” isn’t implying multiple “Gods” (this is multi-theism rather than trinitarianism but use as “proof” of the latter for some reason I cannot fathom). It is implying God speaking to his subjects who obediently participated in that creation.

    4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and ALL THE SONS OF GOD shouted for joy?

    LikeLike
44. Jesuspeake Says:

    
    January 14, 2018 at 3:29 pm

    Like I said the words like Ninjas sweep across the pages like good soldiers to support any cause you deem necessary to support beliefs.

    In the context of Ps 82 the Psalm Ninjas of I said ye are Gods unto whom the word of God came is consistent with Jesus revelation

    Luke 17….. 20 And he was asked of the Pharisees, when the realm of God cometh. And he answered to them, and said, The realm of God cometh not with espying,
    21 neither they shall say, Lo! here, or lo[!] there; for lo! the realm of God is within you.
    22 And he said to his disciples, Days shall come, when ye shall desire to see one day of man’s Son, and ye shall not see.
    23 And they shall say to you, Lo! here, and lo! there. Do not ye go, neither follow;
    24 for as lightning shining from under heaven shineth into those things [shineth on those things] that be under heaven, so shall man’s Son be in his day.

    Now note here that the heaven used in the above scriptural quotes mean two different heavens, the one within you where the Kingdom resides and you know who resides in that Kingdom; and now, after Jesus revealed the heaven he was talking about, “within you” where that unobservable kingdom resides is different than the “under the sky” heaven from where the lightning flashes from the Eastern heaven and lights unto the Western heaven.

    I hope this clearly illustrates to you what Jesus meant, by both yet “different” heavens, according to my ninja soldiers.

    LikeLike
45. kimberly Says:

    
    January 14, 2018 at 3:55 pm

    Once again, your response has been based on presupposition overlaid on the text. The Word of God (ie/Logos) came to the people of Israel at their beginning. To presume that John 1:1 is a parallel to Gen 1:1 is erroneous.
    This is congruent with the phrase “within you” meaning that the Kingdom of God came to “you” with the “you” being directed at the Jews. To take the specificity of such a passage and attempt to apply it generically is to provide clear evidence that one has a personal (or organizational) agenda in doing so. The phrase “within you” is concrete in its meaning rather than abstractly generic.

    And, if one studies the concept of “heaven”, there are three heavens, the “first” heaven is that in which the earth dwells (Rev. 21:1). The “second” heaven is of course the universe or the sky. And, the “third” heaven is where God dwells (2 Cor. 12:2) with all his subjects. Obviously, the thief on the cross did not face God but he clearly saw and heard things that were completely outside the creation. And, it is just as clear that this was possibly a vision as Paul describes meeting the man (2 Corinthians 12:4). Which, can only mean that the thief on the cross was among those who came out of the graves when Jesus was resurrected (Matt 27:53).

    How that he (clearly the thief on the cross) was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

    There is a lot more to the Bible than anyone realizes if one really wants to research it with an open mind. And, a lot of it is in direct opposition to religious orthodoxy.

    LikeLike
46. Jesuspeake Says:

    
    January 14, 2018 at 5:20 pm

    You should stop quoting Paul; he was rendered paranoid and delusional for the evil he performed in killing those he persecuted and and not only agreed agreed with their persecution but authorized murder.

    Furthermore, anybody who thinks the graves opened, the dead rose and returned to their loved ones is beyond belief on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Hurry to a church and find a collection plate.

    LikeLike
47. kimberly Says:

    
    January 15, 2018 at 6:01 am

    Those dead were raised to witness the resurrection. It was a temporary resurrection and they eventually died. There are precedents in the old testament of such happenings as well.

    2 Kings 13:21 And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.

    And, to whom has the authority to take my money? Haven’t you ever read Heb 7 in which the commandment to take tithes of the people was disannulled? Those who take our money for religious purposes are thieves and robbers who lie about the Bible. They are false churches in which their only power is their ability to deceive and the greater the deceit the more money they get. Money is their only power. There is no spirit of holiness in them.

    LikeLike
48. kimberly Says:

    
    January 15, 2018 at 6:05 am

    the brain is an electrical device. the fact that magnetic and electrical fields can be used to affect it has nothing to do with spirituality.

    LikeLike
49. Jesuspeake Says:

    
    January 15, 2018 at 6:25 am

    I won’t ask for the definition of spirituality. But does the spirit leave and therefore the brain stops firing or does the firing stop and the spirit stops or simply leaves and goes onto some cyberspace place. Of course you know these things.

    A dead man touches the bones of Elisha and walked out alive. Sure Kimberly and who witnessed that event since the men who were burying the man ran away and escaped the band of invaders they feared?

    Don’t you find it strange that those ludicrous claims only happened in the ancient scrolls.

    Let’s just grant that there is an omniscient god who occasionally authors books. And he’s going to give us a book, the most useful book. He’s a loving god, compassionate, and he’s going to give us a guide to life. He’s got a scribe and the scribe’s going to write it down. What’s going to be in that? I mean just think of how good a book would be if it were authored by an omniscient deity.

    There is not a single line in the bible or the koran that could not have been authored by a 1st century person. There are pages and pages about how to sacrifice animals, and keep slaves about who to kill and why. There’s nothing about electricity, there’s nothing about DNA, there’s nothing about infectious disease, about the principles of infectious disease.

    There’s nothing particularly useful and there’s a lot of iron age barbarism in there and superstition. This is not a candidate book. I mean I can go into any Barnes & Noble blindfolded and pull a book off a shelf which is going to have more relevance, more wisdom for the 21st century than the bible or the koran. I mean it’s really not an exaggeration. sharris

    LikeLike
50. RONALD MYRICK Says:

    
    January 15, 2018 at 12:32 pm

    Response to Scalia.

    I don’t intend to “assert that in Christ are two self-conscious rational beings (persons, what have you)” only because I don’t accept the reckoning of Yahweh God in a category that parallels human self-consciousness, or human personhood. As I said earlier, God is in a category of transcendent existence, infinite and almighty, that is totally unique to him and in most ways completely different than human.

    That is why God is portrayed in the Scripture as speaking both through the Messiah and to the Messiah. That is how Jesus is both “Yahweh the Savior” and the “Servant of Yahweh.” The dual nature of Christ should be understood as him existing both as a form or manifestation of the one invisible divine being, Yahweh, and as a genuine human being.

    Let me return to the Creed itself in our discussion and demonstrate my objections by offering an alternative to the first half about God. Jason wrote:
    “I believe in one God, eternal and almighty,
    creator of heaven and earth;
    Both one in essence and one in person;
    Who for us became one of us, and yet remained God;
    One person in two natures, both divine and human;
    The eternal God who became temporal man.”

    I object particularly to the two phrases containing the term “person” because, as I said earlier, they add confusion instead of simplifying and clarifying, as good teaching and an accurate creed should do. I would suggest the first half of the creed read as follows, and believe Oneness theology is best described this way:

    “I believe in one God, eternal and almighty,
    creator of heaven and earth;
    He is Yahweh, the one and only divine being, infinite, omnipresent Spirit.
    He is indivisible and unquantifiable.
    Who for us manifest himself as human,
    in his Son, Jesus the Messiah, and yet remained God;
    The eternal invisible God who also
    became visible as a genuine human being.

    LikeLiked by 1 person
51. Jesuspeake Says:

    
    January 15, 2018 at 12:45 pm

    Back to roots anybody

    The Apostle’s Creed creed, dating back to about a.d. 400, traditionally ascribed to Christ’s apostles had widespread acceptance in the Christian church.

    The Catholic Cree; aka the Nicene Creed and other variants:

    I believe in God, the Father almighty,
    creator of heaven and earth.
    I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord,
    who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
    born of the Virgin Mary,
    suffered under Pontius Pilate,
    was crucified, died, and was buried;
    he descended into hell.
    On the third day he rose again;
    and ascended into heaven,
    and sits at the right hand of the Father,
    and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

    Good luck with that one

    LikeLike
52. Scalia Says:

    
    January 15, 2018 at 9:35 pm

    @Ronald Myrick

    Brother Myrick, my apologies in advance, but your latest post is a head-scratcher. Apart from your first reply, you fail to engage my arguments and are simply restating your position again and again. The only sense I can make of that is you either want the satisfaction of having the last word, or you think that repetition will somehow strengthen your argument. If the former, simply say so, and I’ll be happy to let you have the last word. If the latter, no amount of repetition can shore up a bad argument, especially when you don’t bother to engage your interlocutor’s counter arguments.

    You write:

    I don’t intend to “assert that in Christ are two self-conscious rational beings (persons, what have you)” only because I don’t accept the reckoning of Yahweh God in a category that parallels human self-consciousness, or human personhood. As I said earlier, God is in a category of transcendent existence, infinite and almighty, that is totally unique to him and in most ways completely different than human.

    You also earlier acknowledged that God is a conscious, rational being, so it is perfectly accurate to say that your view appears to embrace the position “that in Christ are two self-conscious rational beings.” Nobody says that a human person “parallels human self-consciousness.” However you choose to describe it, your doctrine asserts that Christ is two beings. It’s almost bizarre that you’re attempting to skirt that. If I believed as you, I wouldn’t have a problem acknowledging that. All persons of good will understand that you define “being” differently with respect to humans and deity–especially since you call God a “being” in your creed! You also call Christ a “human being” in your creed, so that makes your objection extra bizarre. With respect to Jason’s creed, there is nothing therein that directly undermines your belief. Given that, I see no point of contention.

    You continue:

    I object particularly to the two phrases containing the term “person” because, as I said earlier, they add confusion instead of simplifying and clarifying, as good teaching and an accurate creed should do.

    This is an example of a solution in search of a problem. It doesn’t add any kind of confusion whatsoever for the reasons you refuse to engage. One of my friends is a devout Lutheran; however, he knows very little about the Bible. That notwithstanding, he’s not confused by the word person. He, like many, many other people, knows the difference between a divine person and a human one.

    There cannot be confusion on that point because, as stated, the term person also means a conscious, rational being. Consequently, such a term is perfectly biblical.

    You earlier wrote:

    The same scholars often will say that there must be a unique definition for “person” when referring to God and another when referring to humans. This quickly becomes equivocation ( a shifting definition) and leads to confusion.

    This has nothing to do with equivocation because both definitions are legitimate and no attempt is made to deceive the hearer. In logic, a person commits equivocation when s/he intentionally or unintentionally uses different meanings of the same word to draw a false conclusion. For example, if I say, “Since only man is rational and no woman is a man, therefore, no woman is rational,” I’m redefining man to draw a false assertion about women. Nothing of the kind is done with respect to the personhood of God.

    Since you’re into repeating yourself, I guess you won’t mind some more from me, especially since you refuse to engage it: Secondary definitions are just as valid as primary ones. In fact secondary definitions become primary ones if the context clearly warrants it. Should I perpetuate your ignorance that “root beer” is alcoholic by changing my terminology, or should I rather help you to understand that beer, in that sense, has nothing to do with alcohol?

    Your creed:

    “I believe in one God, eternal and almighty,
    creator of heaven and earth;
    He is Yahweh, the one and only divine being, infinite, omnipresent Spirit.
    He is indivisible and unquantifiable…

    And most trinitarians (especially Roman Catholics) and even Jehovah’s Witnesses (with qualification), will not hesitate to say “amen” to that. There is nothing in your statement that is uniquely Apostolic or oneness. However, the instant you say that God is one person, every trinitarian will balk. Ironically enough, it is your creed that lends confusion as to what you believe. Brother Jason’s creed is much more uniquely oneness which makes it far superior to your generic one.

    Who for us manifest himself as human,
    in his Son, Jesus the Messiah, and yet remained God;
    The eternal invisible God who also
    became visible as a genuine human being.

    And trinitarians can get on board with that one too. There is nothing therein that a trinitarian couldn’t wiggle to fit h/er theology. Even arians assert that God revealed Himself via His son. They quote, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” with that in mind.

    Jason Dulle writes:

    In the past I offered a general Christian creed written from a Oneness perspective. Here is another creed I wrote specifically articulating Oneness theology…

    Jason crafted a creed that would specifically articulate oneness theology. Your alternate does nothing of the kind. Your creed deceives trinitarians into thinking that you believe like they do. Of course, I’m not accusing you of being deliberately dishonest, but if “confusion” is what you oppose, shouldn’t you avoid making the world think you believe like they do when in reality you don’t? Your creed keeps your beliefs under the radar; Jason’s is set on a hill that cannot be hid.

    LikeLike
53. Scalia Says:

    
    January 15, 2018 at 9:42 pm

    The sentence in my third paragraph of Post 52 which reads…

    Nobody says that a human person “parallels human self-consciousness.”

    …should read:

    Nobody says that a divine person “parallels human self-consciousness.”

    LikeLike
54. kimberly Says:

    
    January 16, 2018 at 10:40 am

    The fact that you can’t distinguish between the Bible and the Koran speaks volumes. I’ll help you out with the meaning of “spirituality”. Its based on the word “spirit” and is the word often used in the biblical translation instead of the more accurate word “breath”. Thus, “holy ghost” isn’t about an ontological entity but means “holy breath” and from the original language was meant to explain a “breath of holiness” or “breath of HIS holiness”. Consequently, when you read “holy ghost”, you nearly always see it in conjunction with speaking, preaching, prophesying, or some other mode of communication whereby “HIS holiness” is conveyed. So, some given this ability/gift as men were able to speak authoritatively, even to the point of raising the dead.

    LikeLike
55. kimberly Says:

    
    January 16, 2018 at 10:43 am

    that was a statement of modalism and not found anywhere in the scriptures.

    LikeLike
56. Jesuspeake Says:

    
    January 16, 2018 at 11:37 am

    “…….speak authoritatively, even to the point of raising the dead…….” this speaks volumes about tons of belief, lack of knowledge and denial of the spirit that operates on one’s common sense for one’s welfare.

    Nobody ever raised the dead; for all your word / term parsing, you have no ability to master simple distinctions between raising someone from the dead or the dead being raised, not from the dead, but from “the place of the dead”.

    Jonah raised for the belly of Sheol..place of Sheol; not even the belly of a whale but the belly of the ocean, the tide, whirlpool, eddies, currents. Lazarus and the man who touched the bones in the tomb as you previously noted wrongly, even Jesus himself was raised from the place of the dead…these were people were all entrapped in a dire situation that could have led to deadly consequences, to be sure.

    So please use the common sense of the spirit; you idea never happens outside of religious insanity.

    LikeLike
57. kimberly Says:

    
    January 16, 2018 at 11:54 am

    The biblical perspective is clear……………God is an absolute singularity in every way.

    can there be more than one King?

    2 Kings 19:15 …………O Lord God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone

    Jeremiah 10:10 But the Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king:

    Nehemiah 9:6 Thou, even thou, art Lord alone……..

    Psalm 86:10 ……thou art God alone.

    Isa 37:16 …………O Lord God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone

    Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all……..

    1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God………..

    LikeLike
58. kimberly Says:

    
    January 16, 2018 at 12:30 pm

    The concept of “hell” in the bible is nothing more than the grave. Your interpretation breaks down with Lazarus. His body had already begun to stink. He wasn’t still alive and trapped in a cave or something like Jonah in the fish or whatever it was.

    My trust in the scriptures is based on reality rather than some abstract belief in religiosity. I’ve found it to be an accurate and precise record of events otherwise forgotten or hidden after compensating for ancient customs (ie/Patriarchy, etc) and translation from the original language.

    LikeLike
59. Jesuspeake Says:

    
    January 16, 2018 at 5:09 pm

    Kimberly you’re like Trump. You think quoting Jeremiah and Nehemiah etc all saying the same or similar things makes it true; that couldn’t be further from the truth; by saying the same inaccurate things over and over and over, doesn’t end up being true except to a believer of the supernatural or in these days “typical Trumpism”.

    Lazarus body did not begin to stink; that’s your belief based on what? based on what would have been if a person was actually dead and so it was assumed that he would be stinking based on presumptive belief that he was actually dead. Read the scripture again:

    The sister of the dead man, Martha, said, “Master, by this time there’s a stench. He’s been dead four days!”

    Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days. This is the expected opinion for one who assumed Lazarus was dead. Based on expected outcome if one is actually dead; that’s natural but not for someone who is still alive.

    That’s why Jesus said Lazarus was only sleeping; Jesus knew of Lazarus’ condition

    Lazarus suffered from a disease called Narcolepsy, Cataplexy. This time though it lasted longer than usual and there was no apparent respiration, the muscles were paralyzed and the pulse was undetectable.

    Remember Jesus’s first reaction: “These things said Jesus: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.” Which was a typical reaction because Jesus knew Lazarus had this rare sleep disorder.

    And when Jesus realized that they had actually entombed Lazarus that’s when Jesus realized the frightful experience Lazarus was undergoing and that prompted Jesus to weep too when he saw Mary weeping.

    If you only read scriptures with skewed eyes your brain will become skewed too.

    Watch the History Channel Documentary This documentary depicts the scenario not unlike that of Lazarus and which had an identical initial outcome:

    LikeLike
60. Charlie Says:

    
    January 16, 2018 at 5:30 pm

    Sorry, it sounds like someone making their own god out word arrangements from the past. Not quite exnihilo but fairly close. It is kind of a reformation of a reformation of a reformation. The question is does one speak for God or for himself?

    LikeLike
61. Jesuspeake Says:

    
    January 16, 2018 at 7:04 pm

    One speaks for himself and attributes it to the presumptive God. Much like the Secretary of Sate who speaks for himself but attributes it to the President.

    If you believe it, that supports the tradition enough for the society at large to follow the tradition. As for the first four Commandments all are religious decrees the society follows “on pain of death”!

    Says Me on behalf of He,,,and it’s always been that way with the Messenger.

    LikeLike
62. kimberly Says:

    
    January 17, 2018 at 5:40 am

    Lazarus suffering from Narcolepsy is hardly biblical. Rejecting the biblical record does NOT negate it. And, while we’re on the subject, there is the parable about Lazarus and the beggar. Most religionists think Jesus is “proving” some form of consciousness of the dead. That is hardly the case. What Jesus was describing are the two resurrection events to come. When Lazarus looks up from “hell”, it simply means he has been resurrected to judgment and looks up from the grave from which he rose. What he sees is the beggar in the “bosom of Abraham”. This beggar depicts the first resurrection and the gulf between the two men is NOT “heaven” vs “hell” but a gulf of time between the return of Jesus, which is the first resurrection of the “elect” few and the second resurrection of the “rest of the dead”. The latter occurs far later then the first. So, there is no consciousness of the dead, there is no Dante’s hell other than a singular event to come in which the evil will be burned up and obliterated rather than continue burning in torment. As for President Trump, I find him truthful, refreshing and above reproach. What he has done to help this country in a single year is more than 0-bama did in 8 years to hurt it. But you are right from one perspective and that is that the dead are dead dead dead and will be until they are resurrected.

    LikeLike
63. Jesuspeake Says:

    
    January 17, 2018 at 3:29 pm

    Kimberly, with all due respect,

    I submit you would not recognize Jesus if you tripped over me.

    LikeLike
64. kimberly Says:

    
    January 18, 2018 at 6:38 am

    Personal attacks are the ignorant man’s repartee. None of us would recognize Jesus. He never looked like the classical picture….a Caucasian hippy. But we would know him by what he could do. And one of the most interesting miracles that he did was the instantaneous transport of an entire ship. I’m always amazed that this is so often overlooked. The guy could instantly heal, or kill, control the weather, walk on water, transport things, transmute matter, read minds, foresee the future and so much more.

    John 6:21 Then they willingly received him into the ship: and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.

    LikeLike
65. A Commentary on Jason Dulle’s “A Oneness Creed” – The Oneness Exchange Says:

    
    January 18, 2018 at 7:53 am

    […] at Jason Dulle’s blog, he has written a second Oneness “creed” to begin the new year with. By a creed he simply means […]

    LikeLike
66. Jesuspeake Says:

    
    January 18, 2018 at 9:46 am

    What’s the difference between walking on water and walking on water? Any?

    So they took him on board. In no time they reached land—the exact spot they were headed to. They were rowing the boat with oars, they were not beamed to the shoreline.

    This is not a personal attack; it is not your fault that the indoctrination of the ancients has befallen the weak of mind. It was designed that way so the children once moulded when their young minds are like putty would not deviate from the fantasy as adults in order to pass the hoaxes to the next generation thus ensuring the financial security and power to the clerics who cannot work for a living in normal jobs but live off the avails of prostituting fantasy falsehoods for the gullible and yes the humble and meek who are willing to believe what the deceitful force them to swallow the absurd and the bizarre, the ludicrous and the nonsensical to firm up their base with the mortar of deceit. That’s what Jesus talked about in his indictment of the clergy in Matthew 23, the entire chapter.

    As a matter of fact it was people like yourself to whom Jesus addressed the opening of his campaign to release you from the bondage of foolishness.

    Read it again; Jesus was here to revolutionize the follies of religion design for pence and power and this is how he started his campaign:

    16-21 He came to Nazareth where he had been reared. As he always did on the Sabbath, he went to the meeting place. When he stood up to read, he was handed the scroll of the prophet Isaiah. Unrolling the scroll, he found the place where it was written,

    God’s Spirit is on me;
    he’s chosen me to preach the Message of good news to the poor,
    Sent me to announce pardon to prisoners and
    recovery of sight to the blind,
    To set the burdened and battered free,
    to announce, “This is God’s year to act!”
    He rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the assistant, and sat down. Every eye in the place was on him, intent. Then he started in, “You’ve just heard Scripture make history. It came true just now in this place.”

    22 All who were there, watching and listening, were surprised at how well he spoke. But they also said, “Isn’t this Joseph’s son, the one we’ve known since he was a youngster?”

    Who were the blind, the prisoners to be pardoned (forgiveness of sin did he teach), who were the downtrodden, the blind, the burdened, the battered; it was the religious congregation that he was talking about harnessed by the tyranny of religious insanity perpetuated by the clergy.

    NOW just for a moment glean over the opening salvo Jesus criticized the Preachers, the Priests, the Pastors and the Popes, in a nutshell in those days, the CLERGY Matt 23:

    1-3 Now Jesus turned to address his disciples, along with the crowd that had gathered with them. “The religion scholars and Pharisees are competent teachers in God’s Law. (Justice Mercy Equity, Love Forgiveness, Do unto others) You won’t go wrong in following their teachings on Moses. But be careful about following them. They talk a good line, but they don’t live it. They don’t take it into their hearts and live it out in their behavior. It’s all spit-and-polish veneer.

    4-7 “Instead of giving you God’s Law as food and drink by which you can banquet on God, they package it in bundles of rules, loading you down like pack animals. They seem to take pleasure in watching you stagger under these loads, and wouldn’t think of lifting a finger to help. Their lives are perpetual fashion shows, embroidered prayer shawls one day and flowery prayers the next. They love to sit at the head table at church dinners, basking in the most prominent positions, preening in the radiance of public flattery, receiving honorary degrees, and getting called ‘Doctor’ and ‘Reverend.’

    8-10 “Don’t let people do that to you, put you on a pedestal like that. You all have a single Teacher, and you are all classmates. Don’t set people up as experts over your life, letting them tell you what to do. Save that authority for God; let him tell you what to do. And don’t let people maneuver you into taking charge of them. There is only one Life-Leader for you and them—Christ.

    11-12 “Do you want to stand out? Then step down. Be a servant. If you puff yourself up, you’ll get the wind knocked out of you. But if you’re content to simply be yourself, your life will count for plenty.

    Frauds!
    13 “I’ve had it with you! You’re hopeless, you religion scholars, you Pharisees! Frauds! Your lives are roadblocks to God’s kingdom. You refuse to enter, and won’t let anyone else in either.

    LikeLike
67. LeoTheGreater Says:

    
    January 18, 2018 at 10:25 am

    You know, whenever the Lord Jesus preached, people were astonished; he was an astonishing preacher. Did you ever notice that, as you turned to the record given of his life on earth in the gospels? For instance in the last 2 verses of the 7th chapter of Matthew’s gospel, Matthew chapter 7 verse 28, And it came to pass when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine. The astonishing doctrines of Jesus Christ.

    Now remember, the Lord Jesus never preached from the New Testament, not because he didn’t like it, he just didn’t have it. Surprising how many Christians of long standing haven’t fully grasped the fact that the only bible the Lord Jesus ever had in his hand was the Old Testament. The only bible that the apostles used as they evangelized the then known world in one generation, Old Testament. The only bible the early church possessed, Old Testament. Let anybody undermine your confidence in the Old Testament scriptures and you’ve robbed the Lord Jesus and the early church of the only bible they ever possessed.

    So it was the Old Testament the Lord Jesus took in his hand and yet the amazing thing is this: though this was that book from which the others were accustomed to preaching, when they listened to the Lord Jesus they were astonished,. For it says in the last verse in that chapter that he taught them as one having authority. Not as the Scribes; in other words, when the Lord Jesus got up, he spoke as though he said what he meant and meant what he said and had the right to say it. Nothing apologetic; he didn’t throw out a few suggestions. He didn’t say “I suppose”, “Maybe”, “I think”. His was a proclamation, not like the Scribe.

    When the professional preachers got up they nestled in the corner of their pew and went for a quiet doze hoping they’d wake up just before the benediction and preferably after the offering. But when the Lord Jesus,; when he got up, everybody was on the edge of their seat wondering what A M A Z I N G thing he’d say next. He was an astonishing preacher.

    If you were to turn on to the 13TH chapter of the same gospel, in the 54th verse of that 13th chapter of Matthew: “When the Lord Jesus was come into his own country he taught them in their synagogue insomuch that they were astonished and they said whence hath this man this man this wisdom, whence hath this man these mighty words and you recognize what they meant by “this man”.

    You see he was altogether too ordinary, as some of us have reminded ourselves, they’d known him as a little baby, nursed in his mother’s arms, that seen him clinging to her skirt, they’d seen him romping in the streets with his village pals, he was the one who as an apprentice at the bench was learning his trade, he was the man who came and fixed the window when it jammed, “this man”. And they tried to rationalize. You see, it would have been so much easier if he of had sort of a genius for a father or a mother, if he’d been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, everything that money could buy, he’d come back from this university and the other having gathered every kind of academic distinction and degree but he was too ordinary, “this man”.

    Is not this the carpenter’s son, is not his mother called Mary and his brethren James and Joses and Simon and Judas and his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath “this man” all these things?

    Now why were they astonished? You might quite sincerely say, “Well they were astonished because they did not know that he was God”. But I think you’d be wrong. They were not astonished because they did not know that he was God; they were astonished because they did not know that he was……man. Not man as they were, not man as you and I are….but man as he is God, created man to be. Real man.

    That’s what made him astonishing. You see, you and I can derive an immense amount of comfort from the fact that when the Lord Jesus came into this world he didn’t come into this world to behave as God; though God he was(don’t believe ? believe my works, my words).

    He came into this world as man; he was born, conceived of the holy spirit and fashioned in the borrowed womb of that virgin girl in the city called Bethlehem, the house and city of David. It behooving him in all points to be like unto his brethren, he assumed our flesh and blood; he was born a human being.

    And he came to be the truth. Not just to preach the truth, not just to proclaim or explain the truth; he said, “I am the truth”, I preach. Remember that, John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth and the life”. In other words, I’m the truth about the way, the truth how to become a Christian. Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself, the hallmarks of my savior. Says the Lord Jesus, if you’re lost, if you’re groping in the dark; if you’re still trying to find your way home, if you feel dirty, if you want to be clean, if you know you’re lost and a sinful person and you want to be saved, you want to be redeemed, if you want to know forgiveness, said the Lord Jesus, “Come to me, I am the way” how to become a Christian but I’m not only the way to become a Christian, I am the Life.

    If having become a Christian and you want to know how to live the Christian life, well, said the Lord Jesus, very simple: “Come to me; I am the life”. I’m the truth not only as to how to become a Christian, I’m the truth how to be the Christian you have become. Because having given myself for you to be the way on the grounds of redemption whereby you can be reconciled to a holy God, be accepted in the beloved and know that your sins are forgiven, acquitted.

    Having given myself for you in redemption, I rose again from the place of the dead to give myself to you in spiritual regeneration to re-invade your humanity in the person of my other self, the other Comforter, the Holy Ghost to credit you with my divine presence so that by virtue of who I am, God, living where I do, in your heart as a redeemed sinner I can impart to you all divine dynamic of my indwelling and give you what it takes.

    Now that’s the gospel, not the gospel plus, not the Lookist Edition. The fact that the Lord Jesus rose again from the place of the dead, ascended to be with his father, glorified at his right hand, to invade the humanity of every forgiven sinner, and share his life with them on earth and communicate that life through them to their fellow man, this isn’t for the fanatical, this is normality, this is a man being restored to his true humanity.

    Jesus never went around boasting about how he could instantly heal, or kill, control the weather, walk on water, transport things, transmute matter, read minds, foresee the future.

    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. 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.

    Now my term God, by the Anselm definition means the life-force source powers that exist beyond which a greater cannot be thought. For there is hardly anything greater than the greatest that can be thought; that is impossible by any stretch of the imagination. That would be the bucket you are standing in too heavy for you to lift by its handle because you’re standing inside it.

    LikeLike
68. Ron Myrick Says:

    
    January 18, 2018 at 10:54 am

    Brother Scalia,

    I’m sorry to have very little time today to add more to our discussion, but I will soon. I apologize for appearing to you as if I “want the last word” or seeming to you to fail to engage you with more constructive arguments. I am in no hurry to end this discussion, and, honestly, I highly value your thoughts. I believe, as I’m sure you do, that “iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another” Proverbs 27:17.

    I’m surprised that you would think that what I have said is bizarre. You appear to be educated, but are you not aware that while all Apostolic saints would say that they believe in the Oneness of God, there is disagreement concerning this issue of labelling Yahweh “one person”, and the directly related issues of the nature of the Son’s humanity and the precise relationship between the Father and the Son? I will shortly go back to several thoughts about why I think that labelling Yahweh as a “person” is neither biblical nor helpful in any apologetic sense (exposing Trinitarians).

    But I am left curious about what you think in regard to Christology. How do you understand the nature of Christ, his deity and his humanity?

    How, for example, would you explain the following verses of Scripture in light of your contention that God is “one divine person” and Jesus Christ is certainly fully deity?

    1. This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ. John 17:3 WEB
    2. …yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him. 1Corinthians 8:6 WEB
    3. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus… 1 Timothy 2:5 WEB

    LikeLike
69. Scalia Says:

    
    January 18, 2018 at 12:05 pm

    @Ron Myrick

    Bro. Myrick, thanks for your follow-up. Before addressing the substance of your comments (with the understanding that you’ll be posting aftwards in more detail), I’d like to address a side issue first.

    You write:

    But I am left curious about what you think in regard to Christology. How do you understand the nature of Christ, his deity and his humanity?

    Respectfully, this thread isn’t about Christology. According to Bro. Jason’s rules, we’re to limit our comments to the topic of each thread. I realize that Jason doesn’t enforce that rule, but given that I help to moderate a political blog, I strive to avoid straying from the subject of the lead post. Christology should be raised as it relates to the workability of Jason’s creed. You will note that I raised your beliefs in relation to said creed and to illustrate why your objection to the word person doesn’t appear convincing.

    I’m not trying to avoid the subject. I used to post here far more often than I do nowadays. Jason’s indulgence of trolls doesn’t sit well with me, so I’ve decided to mostly post elsewhere. You will note that on this thread, Kimberly hasn’t typed one on-topic post (she’s only interested in pushing her unrelated beliefs) and most of Leo’s has been similarly askew. This troll stuff has been characteristic of this site for some time. Consequently, I limit my comments to major biblical issues like the Godhead, salvation, and holiness standards. Since Jason doesn’t often raise those topics, my participation amounts to an occasional peek.

    LikeLike
70. Scalia Says:

    
    January 18, 2018 at 12:26 pm

    @Ron Myrick

    Brother Myrick, you write:

    I apologize for appearing to you as if I “want the last word” or seeming to you to fail to engage you with more constructive arguments. I am in no hurry to end this discussion…

    Accepted. After several posts of mere repetition, I was getting a little miffed. I look forward to your elaboration.

    I’m surprised that you would think that what I have said is bizarre. You appear to be educated, but are you not aware that while all Apostolic saints would say that they believe in the Oneness of God, there is disagreement concerning this issue of labelling Yahweh “one person”, and the directly related issues of the nature of the Son’s humanity and the precise relationship between the Father and the Son?

    I had previously mentioned being familiar with Bro. Bernard’s views on the word person, so I assure you I am certainly aware that there is disagreement among Apostolics over that word. What I find “bizarre” is your apparent denial that Christ is two beings when your own creed refers to God as a being and Christ as a being. Taking you at your word, you either believe that Christ is one being or two. If the former, then He is one being with two natures (what Jason & I believe). If the latter, He must be two beings. You clearly appear to reject the former, so the second option is yours by default.

    I also find bizarre your repeated insistence that we should accept the primary definition of person when secondary definitions are part of every language, especially since secondary meanings become primary ones once the context is understood. You are hesitant to call Christ two beings because God is transcendent, but in using that term to describe both Christ and God, you implicitly embrace different definitions for that term. You thus further undermine your objection to the word person. For if we are able to distinguish the distinct meanings of being, then we are equally able to distinguish the distinct meanings of person. In no manner have you provided a logically compelling reason to avoid said term.

    The word person has a long-established philosophical definition. It is a self-conscious, rational being. Since you’ve previously stated your agreement that God is a self-conscious, rational being, there is no way you can rationally state that person is unbiblical unless you commit yourself to the view that our terminology should be explicitly restricted to biblical terminology. I hope that’s not your position because it is automatically self-refuting.

    LikeLike
71. Naz Says:

    
    January 18, 2018 at 12:54 pm

    Ron and Scalia, I don’t want to intrude too much on your dialogue as I could never keep up with the comments.

    However, has it been considered that God, after the incarnation, has 2 modes (not the right word) of existence ? Is it possible God can exist separately as the Father and the Son and yet be One ?

    Whatever the case, we must confess that Jesus Christ is an autonomous “person” and is not schizo. His prayers to the Father must be explained in a rational way. Frankly I think it’s beyond our understanding although it’s fun to talk about.

    The problem however which arises with this is that I have seen how in some circles this causes a division in other teachings such as baptism for example. It’s a shame that’s the case and you would think at some point we would all graduate from doctrinal legalism.

    Cheers !

    Naz

    LikeLike
72. Scalia Says:

    
    January 18, 2018 at 1:06 pm

    Sorry Naz, but as I told Ron, comments such as these are off-topic. We are discussing Jason’s creed. The oneness doctrine, per se, is not a topic of discussion. It is only raised in relation to the creed. Is Jason’s creed a good synopsis of the oneness doctrine? If not, why not? That’s the gist of where this thread’s comments should go.

    LikeLike
73. Georgy Says:

    
    January 19, 2018 at 7:15 am

    Abraham did not have any creeds nor did he have any scriptures to read from about God for that matter. But it was Abraham who was called the father of the faithful, not Moses who first introduced the scriptures. Wrap your heads around that.

    LikeLike
74. LeoTheGreater Says:

    
    January 19, 2018 at 8:43 am

    Scalia:

    Please……..

    The reason you don’t post on this site so often anymore is because Kimberly and Leo are off topic. Give me a proverbial break!

    The reason you don’t post is because most posters here don’t give a whiff about your academia addiction. Nit picking over terms like person and oneness is a nigglers exercise. Who cares whether it is one, two or more. It’s a play on semantics..

    The fact is, It is what it is, regardless of your academia. You can’t turn around what is true no matter how much you try to convince anybody.

    Ron and Scalia you are both wrong. Or I could just as well say: Scalia and Ron you are both right…so What? What you are talking about , with all your comments about being on topic, is trite, useless and meaningless. And we do not follow you.

    Freedom from religion, from other peoples unprovable beliefs is our basic human right, at least I think it is. And some very determined people would like to take that right away from us and if we don’t do anything about that they’re going to be allowed to succeed.

    Maybe you think the way to deal with this is to engage it in polite debate and to make all your little points and counter points and show us all what a clever dick you are and that would be great fun for you. And the good news is you don’t even have to worry about someone like me damaging your cause because you haven’t got a cause. What you’ve got is a hobby.

    If God existed and if I had any reason to ask him for anything, I think I’d probably ask him to save me from the curse of polite and deferential nigglers.

    Religion is out of control right now precisely because too many people have been too diplomatic for too long. If we’d had the cojones to do some straight talking years ago when we should have and put this insulting nonsense in it’s rightful place, with astrology and palmistry we wouldn’t even been talking about this now. We’d be doing something more useful with our time; what a waste of an enlightenment.

    So my position is pretty clear, believe whatever you want but if you want me to believe it, then provide evidence or expect mockery and ridicule. Do not expect polite debate. I am not trying to convert anyone to anything. I don’t give a damn what anyone believes as long as I don’t have to keep hearing about it. And by the way that would include condescending nigglers, just for future reference.

    LikeLike
75. kimberly Says:

    
    January 19, 2018 at 9:06 am

    Why don’t we stop beating around the bush? You’re an atheist based on lack of what you deem evidence yet you’ll probably be the first to speculate “aliens are out there” based on the same lack of evidence perspective. Rejection of the biblical record does not make it inaccurate. The Bible is not mythological but has been proven again and again to be an accurate record. Ironically, in spite of all perceived observations to the negative, I’m sure you’re one to believe aliens exist. Philosophical logic dictates existence over non-existence when evidence is unavailable. Yet, the atheist view is to use such logic in that contradictory manner. Atheism is not logical. It is a personal belief and as such a belief, is irrelevant.

    LikeLike
76. LeoTheGreater Says:

    
    January 19, 2018 at 9:15 am

    Philosophical logic dictates existence over non-existence when evidence is unavailable.

    I believe, without evidence other than what we have on earth, that life exists all over the universe. Because the source of the powers beyond which a greater cannot be thought is all over the universe and not just about human being especially when we are naked.

    ACCEPTANCE of the biblical record does not make it ACCURATE.

    The Bible is based on mythology and has not been proven again and again to be an accurate record.

    How many people have you seen walk on water, poof fish and bread from thin air, turn water to wine; well that happens everyday that’s how we get wine by turning water into a fermentation froth.

    How many people do we raise from the dead; how many dead arise out of the cemetery and return to their loved ones and who would they return to if all their loved one have themselves died.

    If my belief is irrelevant because it is a belief, how much more so is your own ludicrous beliefs based on supernatural religious insanity?

    You are so lolable. But I digress and am off topic; are you on topic?

    LikeLike
77. Scalia Says:

    
    January 19, 2018 at 9:35 am

    @Georgy

    You write:

    Abraham did not have any creeds nor did he have any scriptures to read from about God for that matter. But it was Abraham who was called the father of the faithful, not Moses who first introduced the scriptures. Wrap your heads around that.

    Abraham didn’t have thousands of monotheistic denominations holding varying views of doctrine to deal with either. A creed is simply a declaration of faith for those who are interested, and you, Georgy, are most certainly interested if you are a believer of any kind.

    When you assemble with believers to worship God (assuming you do), do you care what they believe, or is any belief acceptable with you? If the former, then you certainly need some sort of formal or informal statement from them in order to determine whether they are compatible with your beliefs. And if the latter, then what Abraham did or didn’t do is irrelevant, isn’t it? Any belief works, so fellowship with the Canaanites and other idolaters is acceptable, right?

    LikeLike
78. kimberly Says:

    
    January 19, 2018 at 11:21 am

    Back to the subject…………

    “I believe in one God, eternal and almighty,
    creator of heaven and earth;
    Both one in essence and one in person;”

    This agrees with Deu 6:4 — Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:

    “Who for us became one of us, and yet remained God;
    One person in two natures, both divine and human;
    The eternal God who became temporal man.”

    This conflicts with Deu 6:4 and is of pagan origin. Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:

    This Christian myth centers on a godman, a God shaped like a man, walking, talking, eating, but still having magic God powers. And not just a God in human form, but a subordinate God, son of the great universal God, miraculously conceived in a mortal woman, living for a while on Earth rather than in Heaven, helping people. You can’t get more Pagan than that. Osiris was a godman. So was Attis. So were Dionysus, Mithras, Apollonius of Tyana, and others. Just like the Christian myth, but older.

    The rest of it delves into half-truth………..

    I believe in Jesus Christ, ……..yes, Jesus was the Christ

    God incarnate; ……..no, God has never been and never will be

    Son of God and son of Adam; ……..yes, but this is patriarchal speak and not familial speak

    Who took on our nature to take away our sin; …….no, the Christ paid for sin…didn’t take it away. the judgment still waits for all

    Divine by identity and human by function, ……..no, Jesus, prior to his birth was the pre-existent Son and was EVER that Son and NEVER diety

    he rescued us as one of us, dying in our stead; ………..no, we all die.

    Raised from death to die no more, ………….yes, he was the firstborn from the grave (hell)

    In whom we confidently wait for the same, amen. …………….no….The only few who will be resurrected directly to immortality are those raised from the grave at his return and it will be those VERY few elect with whom God dealt with in the past who are included. People like Enoch, Moses, Abraham, Ruth, the Apostles, Paul, etc. All recorded in the pages of the Bible. WE on the other hand will be raised to judgment as the “rest of the dead”.

    LikeLike
79. Scalia Says:

    
    January 19, 2018 at 12:13 pm

    Kimberly, it will be up to Jason to be the final arbiter of the relevance of your Post 78, but I do not consider it to be on topic. In my opinion, Jason is not inviting a debate on the Godhead; he specifically states his intention of crafting a oneness creed. Either his creed accurately describes the oneness doctrine or it does not. The words he uses are either appropriate or inappropriate. That has nothing to do with the viability of said doctrine.

    Were I a trinitarian or an atheist, I could offer my opinion on whether said creed is a good synopsis of oneness. It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs on its viability. I would not take it as an invitation to contest the doctrine itself. In fact, I could go to a trinitarian site and do the same with their creed. I wouldn’t think to contest the Trinity under a similar post.

    LikeLike
80. Naz Says:

    
    January 19, 2018 at 2:33 pm

    Scalia, your insistence on being traffic cop to comments “off topic” pretty much sums up where the Oneness Pentecostals doctrine leads to.

    Naz

    LikeLike
81. kimberly Says:

    
    January 19, 2018 at 3:05 pm

    I simply made observations as to the creed’s validity. Being a strict adherent to monotheism, my post was not only on topic but shows exactly where the creed deviates from biblical text, context and perspective. Unification in any form is not a singularity. That simple fact is the elephant in the room. And, asking if such a creed were “worded well” is like saying “how can we best perpetuate this lie?”. A biblical creed would include not only “one God” but “God is one” which together can only be an absolute singularity.

    LikeLike
82. scaliaalito Says:

    
    January 19, 2018 at 4:09 pm

    Scalia, your insistence on being traffic cop to comments “off topic” pretty much sums up where the Oneness Pentecostals doctrine leads to.

    I’m merely explaining what I’m doing. I won’t post off-topic comments, and I won’t reply to them either. Whatever you do is up to you, but since you included me in your question, I replied accordingly.

    You will note that I did not reply to Leo. I don’t read his posts except when I participate, and even then I only skim them to see if he’s on topic. He’s been way off target here, so I hardly know what he’s been talking about.

    With respect to Kimberly, she thought she was “[b]ack to the subject,” but she clearly was not.

    The only traffic cop here is Jason, and as I said, he doesn’t enforce his rules. If you think for one second I’m afraid to debate this issue, start up on another thread, and I’ll be happy to discuss it. Just pick a relevant thread so that our comments are on topic, let me know where you’re at, and I’ll be there.

    LikeLike
83. scaliaalito Says:

    
    January 19, 2018 at 4:30 pm

    Kimberly writes,

    And, asking if such a creed were “worded well” is like saying “how can we best perpetuate this lie?”. [sic]

    First, the person asking about that creed doesn’t know it’s a lie, and since most certainly believes what he writes, he is not at all asking how to perpetuate a lie.

    I firmly believe that you’re propagating false doctrine, but if you posted something exactly as Jason but added what you believe about God, I would simply comment on whether your creed works with what I know you believe. I don’t have to believe in your creed to comment on its workability, and I wouldn’t try to force a conversation on that topic.

    Second, even if Jason knows it’s a “lie,” he wasn’t asking our opinion on that. As stated above, I help moderate a political blog. I know what on and off-topic comments are. I strongly doubt Jason would agree that your comments conform with this site’s rules. You’re merely zealous to prove that Jesus isn’t God, so you’ll use any pretext to shoehorn that into a discussion. Since Jason apparently allows you to do that, have at it. I merely explained to Ron why I won’t delve into irrelevant dialog and used you and Leo as examples of what I won’t do.

    LikeLike
84. Ron Myrick Says:

    
    January 19, 2018 at 11:23 pm

    Naz,

    In response to your comment #71:

    I disagree with Scalia. I think your question is definitely on-topic. If Jason’s creed is to be a synopsis of Oneness doctrine, then we can certainly consider some of the basic ideas of Oneness. Otherwise we are limited to some semantics and are not discussing the substance. Jason’s creed attempts to define the nature of God and the nature of Christ in a nutshell. So of course we can talk briefly about these same subjects in considering the validity of the creed.

    You said,
    “However, has it been considered that God, after the incarnation, has 2 modes (not the right word) of existence ? Is it possible God can exist separately as the Father and the Son and yet be One ?” … His prayers to the Father must be explained in a rational way. Frankly I think it’s beyond our understanding although it’s fun to talk about.”

    Yes, it is very fun… but I don’t think it’s beyond our understanding. We just need to think as the Bible directs us to think and we can get it.

    “Two modes of existence,… so that God can exist separately as Father and Son?” The simple answer is, Yes, of course, with qualifications. Jason Dulle and others have used the language “modes of existence” to describe the activity of God, Yahweh, manifesting himself in flesh, as a human being, also called the Incarnation. The “two modes” are obvious throughout the NT writings as we observe the Father and the Son. We even see them interacting, as you mentioned. But we must not see these “modes” as the same in kind. They are two “modes” but they are vastly different.

    The Father’s primary mode is spirit (John 4:24) and we must never forget that He is all-powerful and infinitely complex, so he is not limited to any number of “modes of existence.” He can perform anything without any effort and he can appear to be anything at any time.

    As I said earlier, Yahweh operates in his endless existence as if he is, from our human perspective, an infinite number of “persons” with an infinite number of “centers of consciousness” (a standard definition related to “person, being, entity,” etc.). Yet He is One, as the Scripture says clearly. Yahweh is in a class of existence absolutely unique to himself alone, immeasurably different from all created and finite beings.

    Yahweh “became one of us” only in the sense that he manifested himself, chose to reveal himself in human form, in the human person Jesus Christ. Yahweh is at the same time distinctly different from any finite, mortal person, including Jesus, his Son. So Jesus could have a “relationship” with God who naturally was his actual father. But sometimes he would speak as Yahweh, because he also was “Immanuel, God with us,” and “God was in Christ” (Matt. 1:23, 2 Cor. 5:19) As many Oneness teachers have said, the very life of Christ was the life of God, his Father. A prime example:

    Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you such a long time, and do you not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How do you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works’ sake. John 14:9-11 WEB

    But when one reads the narratives of his life it is evident that Jesus was usually not “trying to convince people he was God.” That was not his mission. Similarly, many have claimed, “If Jesus were God, he certainly could do whatever he wanted by himself, so why does he pray and act in submission to God?” This further exposes misunderstanding of the nature and ministry of Christ. He was not just “God in a body.”

    As the truly human Son of God his behavior was intended to be exemplary for all of us who would follow in his footsteps as servants of God. Jesus clearly said,
    “But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matthew 20:26-28 ESV

    P.S. Please don’t judge all Oneness proponents by Scalia’s lack of cooperation!

    LikeLike
85. Naz Says:

    
    January 20, 2018 at 6:30 am

    Ron, I spent over 10 years in the oneness Pentecostals church and I am well acquainted with the core beliefs of this movement of which the oneness doctrine is a part. My “traffic cop” comment was a reference to the legalism that is rapant in this movement. The degree of this legalism varies of course from congregation to congregation but it’s universal nonetheless to some degree. Am I making a judgment call ? Yes I am, I’m making a judgment call on the movement itself not on the adherents to that movement. It’s not a salvation issue but a behavioural issue of which legalism is the fruit.

    The only antidote to this is an infusion of the gospel of grace.

    Cheers!

    Naz

    LikeLike
86. LeoTheGreater Says:

    
    January 20, 2018 at 9:17 am

    A creed to describe a caricature concept made in the image of man is like writing a poem about Sasquatch.

    Anybody can write anything they want about it and nobody knows what it means to the author; well, except endemic academicians who rely on scholarly norms. But we know from Jesus what he said about scholarly folks:

    “I’ve had it with you! You’re hopeless, you religion scholars, you Pharisees! Frauds! Your lives are roadblocks to God’s kingdom. You refuse to enter, and won’t let anyone else in either.
    “You’re hopeless! What arrogant stupidity! You can talk nonsense all day long as long as you are on topic but when a little common sense seeps in you go off on a tangential tailspin. Common sense interferes with your nonsensical drivel.

    LikeLike
87. LeoTheGreater Says:

    
    January 20, 2018 at 9:30 am

    OMG we have a Trumpian in out midst; talking among us, issuing a bundle of rules to better manage you, weighing you down to their level of control. Beware.

    LikeLike
88. LeoTheGreater Says:

    
    January 20, 2018 at 10:18 am

    Post 72:
    “The oneness doctrine, per se, is not a topic of discussion.”

    Post 79: “Either his creed accurately describes the oneness doctrine or it does not.”

    Well, which is it?

    Jason says: “I wrote specifically articulating Oneness theology:”

    And yet Scalia makes the rules and says “”The oneness doctrine, per se, is not a topic of discussion.”

    That’s like saying you can talk about the teaching but the student’s understanding is off topic.

    Anything, I suppose, can be on or off topic if you are a niggler.

    Doctrine: This is derived from the Latin word doctrina, which means “teaching.” In our context, it would refer to “teaching about God” or “teaching derived from God.”

    Theology: This is a compound of two Greek terms: theos, which means “God,” and logos, which means “word.” The suffix -logy, however, came to mean “study of,” and so “theology” could be understood to mean “the study of God.”

    LikeLike
89. scaliaalito Says:

    
    January 20, 2018 at 11:30 am

    @Naz

    You write:

    My “traffic cop” comment was a reference to the legalism that is rapant [sic] in this movement. The degree of this legalism varies of course from congregation to congregation but it’s universal nonetheless to some degree.

    First, my apologies for misunderstanding your traffic cop comment.

    Second, many websites have rules requiring on-topic comments. It has nothing to do with “legalism” unless you define that term in such a manner that includes all rules (which itself is a rule and is self-refuting). You and others consistently take conversations far, far afield from the topic post. On our blog, we allow limited tangential dialog, and we very often declare open threads where anything may be discussed, but the stuff you engage in here is ridiculous.

    Again, I am merely explaining why I won’t comply with your request. Jason apparently couldn’t care less, so post to your heart’s content. I simply won’t participate. If you really want to discuss the issue, you’ll have no problem posting on a relevant thread. You know good and well I’ll reply because I’ve often done it in the past.

    LikeLike
90. scaliaalito Says:

    
    January 20, 2018 at 11:44 am

    @Naz

    One more thing. This thread was 68 posts long before I said anything about irrelevant comments. In my post (no. 69), I replied to Ron’s question. He asked:

    But I am left curious about what you think in regard to Christology. How do you understand the nature of Christ, his deity and his humanity?

    What I think in regard to Christology is irrelevant. It is enough to know what the various strains of thought are in Oneness Pentecostalism and to discuss how to craft a creed that encompasses as many views as possible while being uniquely oneness. I simply reminded Ron what the rules are, referred to others who broke that rule, and informed him that I would not be participating in a discussion along that line. That would have been the end of it had nobody commented further.

    LikeLike
91. Scalia Says:

    
    January 20, 2018 at 12:15 pm

    @Ron Myrick

    Hello again, Bro. Ron. You write:

    If Jason’s creed is to be a synopsis of Oneness doctrine, then we can certainly consider some of the basic ideas of Oneness. Otherwise we are limited to some semantics and are not discussing the substance.

    There is a clear difference between considering “some of the basic ideas of Oneness” (which is what we’ve been doing) in order to determine a creed’s accuracy and creating a discussion about defending our personal views of those ideas. You asked my view on Christology and to comment on three scriptural passages in explication of my view. That’s not what Bro. Jason is asking us to do. He may allow that, but I respectfully think that’s off-topic.

    LikeLike
92. Ron Myrick Says:

    
    January 21, 2018 at 11:14 am

    Brother Scalia,

    I thank you for engaging me in this discussion. I find it very interesting, although I am equally puzzled as you are about our contrasting lines of reasoning. Let me return to the semantics involved here, since you, quite understandably, want to stay focused on the words of Jason’s suggested creed, and perhaps my suggested alternative.

    I’ll just back up through some of your comments. I apologize if I appear to repeat myself, but I honestly will only do so because I think you did not earlier understand what I said.

    You said in post #10:
    “I certainly agree that God is absolutely unique, but I also think that person, with qualification, is the best creedal term we have. Surely anybody with a basic understanding of theology knows the difference between a divine person and a human one.”

    1) “Person, with qualification” is not what Jason’s creed contains. It is without qualification in both of its occurrences. Jason’s creed reads:
    ” Both one in essence and one in person; Who for us became one of us, and yet remained God; One person in two natures, both divine and human…
    Without qualification, the term will naturally be understood in its primary meaning, that of a human being, or at least a finite being, which makes the creed misrepresentative of the most basic Biblical definition of God.

    Since there is only one God, Yahweh alone, who alone defines “deity,” and who in his infinite majesty is immeasurably different than humans, the very label “divine person” applied to God is a bit of an oxymoron. The only “divine person” is the man, Jesus Christ, who by his mysterious dual nature is both God and man.

    The problem is compounded by Jason’s second reference to God as, “One person in two natures, both divine and human…” This sounds like the commonly referenced “Dual nature of Christ”, but now it’s a “dual nature of God.” To me this appears to furthermore reduce the concept of the infinite nature of God Almighty to “two natures.” Without qualification it may sound to some as if you are saying God is now “half divine and half human.” It sounds like a very anthropocentric portrayal of God (putting mankind in the center of his existence), and obviously unbiblical.

    2) You also said above that, “Surely anybody with a basic understanding of theology knows the difference between a divine person and a human one.” I find this peculiar since the common understanding in our culture for “divine person” is:
    “Any of the three hypostases or modes of being in the Trinity, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

    This is the definition found under 14.Theology on the same site, Dictionary.com that you earlier referenced. While I’m obviously not in agreement with this standard definition, I am not going to behave as if it does not exist and agree to a theological construction that makes major use of the same term in a way that defies convention. That is no way to communicate intelligently. I have more to say about this ahead as it relates to my suggested creed and your comments about refuting the Trinity with this “One Person” theory.

    In fact, I’ll go ahead and list the entire definition for “Person” from the same site, which is comprehensive, to clarify what I am arguing:
    Person: noun
    1.a human being, whether an adult or child: The table seats four persons.
    2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
    3. an individual human being who likes or prefers something specified (used in combination):I’ve never been a cat person.
    4.Sociology. an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
    5.Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.
    6.the actual self or individual personality of a human being:
    You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.
    7.the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn:
    He had no money on his person.
    8.the body in its external aspect:
    an attractive person to look at.
    9.a character, part, or role, as in a play or story.
    10.an individual of distinction or importance.
    11.a person not entitled to social recognition or respect.
    12.Law. a human being (natural person) or a group of human beings, a corporation, a partnership, an estate, or other legal entity (artificial person or juristic person) recognized by law as having rights and duties.
    13.Grammar. a category found in many languages that is used to distinguish between the speaker of an utterance and those to or about whom he or she is speaking.
    14.Theology. any of the three hypostases or modes of being in the Trinity, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

    3) Just because you ( and Jason, et al) can find some possibly inclusive language for God under “5. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being,” it hardly looks like a good choice to be “the best creedal term we have.” It is far less than a “secondary definition” as you have claimed. It’s an obscure definition. The overwhelming sense of the term is obviously “finite human being” and, I repeat myself, it does not illustrate the Biblical definition of our infinite God, but distorts it.

    I reluctantly repeat again: You have stated that “person is indistinct from being” when it clearly is distinct in our everyday use of the terms. For example, I have used the illustration, “He treats his dog as if she is a person” to demonstrate that we use the term in normal language to mean a finite human being, and nothing more.

    I guess you need me to illustrate the contrasting term: Saying “He treats his dog as if she is a being” is not equivalent, as you claimed. If you said that no one would be able to understand you. But if you said “…as if she is a human being” you would be understood. As I said earlier, “Being” is a superior designation for God because it is more inclusive, has a more broad definition and is normally used with modifying terms.

    If you said “…as if she is a human person,” people would think you are being redundant, unnecessarily repeating yourself because “human” and “person” are virtually equivalent. We don’t normally use them together except when we might be contrasting them with another term like “divine person.”

    Similarly, your illustration of “root beer” illustrates my point here perhaps better than yours earlier. People don’t normally think “root beer” is alcoholic, unless you drop the modifying term, “root.” If you told the youth group that you were going to bring some “beer” that you brewed at home to the next meeting, they would not be wrong to be shocked. If you reacted by chiding them with, “Of course, I meant root beer!,” you would be the one at fault for not speaking plainly. You have been tossing around the terms “person” and “being” rather indiscriminately without qualifying terms and I see it as very confused.

    One last point: A very important further consequence of Jason’s use of “person” is that he is consequently burdened with the need to deny that Christ is a “person” in the normal sense of a “human being.” His creed reads: “God… Both one in essence and one in person…”
    He has been forced to claim: “Christ has both a divine and human nature, but His human nature is not a distinct human person. There is only one person in Christ, God, and that one person merely incorporated a human nature/existence into his one divine person.” (from “Is God a Person?”, see Best of TR).

    I think this is totally incorrect. God “incorporated a human nature/existence into his one divine person?” Does this not sound like a reverse to the incarnation of God in Christ? Was God manifested to our world in Jesus the man, or was “a human incorporated into God’s divine person?”

    Christ is not fully human in this model and the distinction between the man Christ Jesus and God his Father is fundamentally superficial. One who is “not a distinct human person” is not a human at all. This, as I said earlier, appears parallel to the Trinitarian misconception that Christ was nothing more than “God the Son in a body.” In a similar effort to support the deity of Christ, the humanity is reduced to fleshly shell.

    We must recognize that Biblically speaking, the “human nature” of Christ absolutely is a “distinct human person.” The incarnation was miraculous and the very life and identity of Jesus is certainly one with his Father. The relationship between Jesus and his God and Father is uniquely supernatural. But Christ was and is today in his glorified state, a real human being.

    We must follow carefully what the Scripture says about the prophesies of a genuine man who was to be the offspring of Abraham and David as Messiah and Eternal King. Then we must accept the clear record of the conception, birth, actual human development, genuine temptation, suffering and death, actual bodily resurrection and glorification, and the exaltation of the human being, Jesus of Nazareth.

    At the same time, we must follow Scripture and acknowledge that he was and is the divine Son of God because in the single person of Christ are two distinct natures: divine and human. He is the true “manifestation” of the invisible Almighty God, a permanent theophany of Yahweh, “Immanuel, God with us.”

    I have much more to say. I will attempt to discuss the etymology of “person” in the next entry (its origin and history), and why we should not apply the term to God. That’s all for now, folks! God bless you all with his love and grace and a growing knowledge of him!

    LikeLike
93. Jesuspeake Says:

    
    January 21, 2018 at 2:44 pm

    CONCEPTS ARE NOT PERSONS:

    1. As we know quite well, the world we live in is full of difficult and confused people.

    2. The people most confused are those who believe that paranormal, supernatural concepts are actually persons.

    3. Those who believe that concepts are actual persons are the academics and the first to jump into the fray.

    4. The reason is that academics love quarreling over things that are impossible to resolve so that neither the proponent, nor the opponent will win or lose.

    5. So their primary reason for debating is to use clever uses of words, reason that seems to have depth in some conversations that actually involve knowledge.

    6. Debating over belief based systems however is never about knowledge but the “reasoning” believers use, similarly express their points of view that knowledge based people use, but for which there is resolution.

    7. So while academia often mimics reasoning knowledge based debaters, belief debates can never be resolved because you cannot resolve a debate when you don’t know what you are talking.

    8. Belief based points of view are void of a knowledge foundation from which to rise to a resolution.

    9. It sounds pleasant to the ear listening to their flowery language of context and syntax and words you never hear very often and often don’t know what they mean when they are used but the superficial nature of belief debates crown only emperors with no clothes.

    10. Trying therefore to turn a supernatural concept (god) into a person (Jesus) is an irreconcilable impossibility. The best you can hope for is to define a human being’s attitude and behavior metaphorically; it is as though he were; or, his compassion for others is like a manifestation of virtue we give divine concepts.

    And here; why it doesn’t work no matter how much academia you dress it up with.

    THE GOOD BOOK

    CHAPTER 1:

    [1] MAN created God in his own image and gave Him the Perfect Attributes of Deity.

    [2] THESE are those attributes which Man must aspire to but the likes of which Man has determined is impossible to achieve

    [3] MAN sets the highest standards for his God and then pre-ordains those standards to be unreachable by Man thus insuring

    [4] THE justification for Man as he goes about his business of being just the opposite of the attributes he has given to his God
    [5] BEING stupid, unforgiving, greedy, a liar, a cheat, a stealer, a killer, a deceiver and a most hateful and

    [6] MURDEROUS character of which even among his own kind many cannot believe

    [7] HE IS capable of the worse acts of atrocity on his fellow man, the environment and the life forms which support him

    [8] PRAYING to a myth is as useless as tits on a bull.

    [9] PRAYER works only when one prays to some one, a person, who can answer prayer: when you have a toothache you pray to dentist to relieve your pain

    [10] YOU pray to the judge to give you justice, to your family or the bank for a loan; you call 911 for help

    [11] THOSE are prayers that have effect, prayers to a reality capable of answering them, not a myth

    [12] THOUSANDS of gods have been created since time recorded and they are all relegated to the failed gods of mythology and

    [13] LUMPING the failed gods into the one true God, Allah, Jehovah, Yaweh is worse than merely useless

    [14] AS mankind fights and kills in the name of their pet myth and cannot get on with living for a cause rather than dying for it

    [15] EVERY society has it’s religious, mythical symbols and entities

    [16] MANY wasted talents have been snuffed out by false religious fanatacism and teachings and

    [17] HAVE deceived many throughout the centuries, continuing unto this very day; that’s what’s wrong with mankind

    [18] GET prayer out of society along with witchcraft, voodooism and rain dances

    [19] SANTA and SATAN are alternate spellings of each other but do not exist outside the mind.

    [20] THEY merely satisfy an emotional crutch, a thumb sucker for adults

    [21] THERE is no god but that which was created by man

    [22] WE DID NOT understand why it rained, so we created a Rain God. When we came to understand meteorology, the Rain God was sacrificed on the alter of science

    [23] WE HAVE murdered our Gods in the name of progress. Now we have but one left, and when we are a stronger. WE will kill her too.

    [25] Higher powers? Sure! stardust, gravity and electricity, magnetism, big matter, small matter, dark matter, no matter, god does not exist but in the minds of men put there by magicians and clergy.

    LikeLike
94. Scalia Says:

    
    January 22, 2018 at 12:15 am

    Hello, Bro. Myrick. Thank you for your latest post. It is exactly the kind of reply I was looking for. It is more in line with the kinds of discussions I am involved in, and I appreciate the fact that you’ve endeavored to articulate your views in a cogent manner.

    Your lines of argumentation are similar to the ones we analyzed in Bible school many moons ago. Before replying to the substance of your remarks, I will say that in my youth, arguments such as yours had a lot of appeal to me, so rest assured that I am quite sympathetic to your point of view. I say that not to patronize; I simply want to make it clear that I’m not arguing from an adversarial posture.

    You write:

    “Person, with qualification” is not what Jason’s creed contains. It is without qualification in both of its occurrences. Jason’s creed reads:
    ” [sic] Both one in essence and one in person; Who for us became one of us, and yet remained God; One person in two natures, both divine and human…
    Without qualification, the term will naturally be understood in its primary meaning, that of a human being, or at least a finite being, which makes the creed misrepresentative of the most basic Biblical definition of God.

    What I say “with qualification,” I don’t necessarily mean that the term has to be defined within a creed. I intend that to mean that if there is confusion on that point, a simple explanation should suffice. That said, I sincerely think that your assertions demonstrate an issue with your opinion, and if I’m correct in that assessment, they remain solutions in search of a problem. I say that because I don’t know anybody who is confused on that point. Perhaps somebody who doesn’t have a clue about things spiritual might be thrown by the word person, but such persons aren’t normally interested in creedal pronouncements. Certainly believers understand what a divine person is, so I’m still scratching my head over the fuss. The context determines the definition, so in that regard Jason’s creed isn’t confusing at all. You insist that he doesn’t qualify his terminology, but by virtue of his wording it is clear what he means. The term One person in two natures shouldn’t confuse any believer because said term can be interpreted several ways. More on this below.

    Since there is only one God, Yahweh alone, who alone defines “deity,” and who in his infinite majesty is immeasurably different than humans, the very label “divine person” applied to God is a bit of an oxymoron. The only “divine person” is the man, Jesus Christ, who by his mysterious dual nature is both God and man.

    You assert this without linguistic support. You later insist that the definition of person as a self-conscious or rational being is “obscure,” but it is not at all obscure to people who study doctrine, and it isn’t obscure by virtue of how Bro. Jason uses it.

    You also said above that, “Surely anybody with a basic understanding of theology knows the difference between a divine person and a human one.” I find this peculiar since the common understanding in our culture for “divine person” is:
    “Any of the three hypostases or modes of being in the Trinity, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” This is the definition found under 14.Theology on the same site, Dictionary.com that you earlier referenced.

    That depends on the subject. Trinitarians certainly consider a divine person to be a member of the Trinity. That goes without saying, but they all consider a divine person to be omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. I’ve never met a trinitarian (or a oneness believer, for that matter) who genuinely thinks that “divine person” is anything other than the omnipotent God. So, when one writes that there is one divine person in the Godhead, no trinitarian would think that oneness believers reject the doctrine that “God…in his infinite majesty is immeasureably different than humans.” I’ve never met a person who has an “overwhelming sense” that a divine person is a finite entity. Unless you can show appreciable data that believers are confused to that degree, you’re simply making a bald assetion.

    Similarly, your illustration of “root beer” illustrates my point here perhaps better than yours earlier. People don’t normally think “root beer” is alcoholic, unless you drop the modifying term, “root.”

    Of course people don’t normally think that, and people don’t normally consider a divine person to be a finite entity either. I simply used that example for anybody who does not know that root beer is non-alcoholic. Since there are very few persons (at best) who think that a divine person is a finite entity, there are equally few persons who think that root beer is alcoholic. Perhaps such persons are immigrants or visitors to our country who are learning English. They are simply ignorant of our terminology. We should not change our terminology to perpetuate their ignorance. We should rather tell them that such a modifier changes the standard definition of said term. The same goes with “divine person.” So, rather than making your point, you actually offer further evidence against it.

    You have been tossing around the terms “person” and “being” rather indiscriminately without qualifying terms and I see it as very confused.

    Tossing around?? I’ve shown that person and being are understood by context. In a theological context, human person refers to a human being; divine person does not. Human being refers to a human person; divine being does not. Both terms require context, so your appeal to one over the other is the real confusion. Who really thinks that the statement, “God is one person,” reduces God to a finite being? If one knows what the term “God” means, then one cannot rationally misinterpret person in that sentence. If God is an infinite, omnipotent being, then one is turning language on its head to insist that person here refers to a finite human being.

    It’s an obscure definition. The overwhelming sense of the term is obviously “finite human being” and, I repeat myself, it does not illustrate the Biblical definition of our infinite God, but distorts it.

    You keep throwing this out (tossing around?) as if it is persuasive. Again, if a person knows what “God” means, then “person” automatically takes on the well understood, philosophical definition of a self-conscious, rational being. For the very few people who are ignorant of that, I’ll give them a root beer. 🙂

    Now, back to Bro. Jason’s creed:

    I believe in one God, eternal and almighty,
    creator of heaven and earth;
    Both one in essence and one in person;
    Who for us became one of us, and yet remained God;
    One person in two natures, both divine and human;
    The eternal God who became temporal man…

    Here, the “eternal and almighty” God is “one in person.” How can an eternal and almighty God be finite, and how does the word person negate that definition? The obvious answer is it doesn’t.

    One person in two natures, both divine and human…

    You object at length because you think this is inconsistent with your Christological views. I don’t see that at all. That sentence can be interpreted, as stated above, many ways and can, consequently, fit several oneness positions.

    For example, you can argue that the one person of God took on a human nature and define “nature” as “a complete human being,” including a distinct center of consciousness. You can also argue that it asserts that the one divine person took human form and spoke as a man to accomplish man’s redemption without any distinct human center of consciousness. There are also several variations of those positions, but I hope you get the idea. The point is that different oneness groups can assent to Jason’s creed wheras your creed will also get the nod of trinitarians. No trinitarian would embrace Jason’s creed. So, even if Jason needs to rework his creed, yours fails to qualify as something distinctly oneness (what Jason attempted to craft and is the subject of this thread).

    I won’t attempt to contest your views of Christology because…well, you know. I’ve already explained why. I can only say that your objections, at best, don’t warrant changing what Jason wrote.

    LikeLike
95. Scalia Says:

    
    January 22, 2018 at 10:19 am

    The last sentence to Post 94 should be amended to read:

    I can only say that your objections, at best, don’t warrant changing what Jason wrote with respect to the word person.

    LikeLike
96. Scalia Says:

    
    January 22, 2018 at 12:19 pm

    Brother Myrick, one more thing, for now, please. You write:

    Just because you ( and Jason, et al) can find some possibly inclusive language for God under “5. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being,” it hardly looks like a good choice to be “the best creedal term we have.” It is far less than a “secondary definition” as you have claimed.

    It is clear from this remark that we have differing views of “secondary” with respect to definitions. The fact that an alternate definition is listed lower than other alternate definitions does not change its status a secondary. If a word has multiple alternate meanings, something will have to placed second, another third, etc. I use secondary in the sense that it is not a primary definition.

    Context determines meaning and again, secondary definitions become primary ones once the context is understood. Consequently, your claim that the word person expresses an unbiblical concept of God is demonstrably false.

    LikeLike
97. Theosophical Ruminator Says:

    
    January 24, 2018 at 12:53 pm

    A. J. Miller,

    Sure. By “divine by identity” I mean that Jesus’ personal identity was none other than God Himself. He was God incarnate. By “human by function” I mean that Jesus, though the divine person, functioned like an ordinary human being. God didn’t just put on a flesh costume and continue to function like God, but became a genuine human being, and functioned like a human being, including a human consciousness.

    Monophysites, in contrast, downplay Jesus’ humanity. It is essentially swallowed up by the divine so that Jesus is reduced to God pretending to be a man. I fully affirm the human nature in both substance and in function.

    LikeLike
98. Theosophical Ruminator Says:

    
    January 24, 2018 at 1:04 pm

    Hi Ronald. Let me respond to your comments.

    1-2. You can read my defense for the applicable of the term “person” for God at http://onenesspentecostal.com/Godisaperson.htm. But this is not something that I would die on a hill for. In my use of the term I am referring to the conscious, thinking part of God. Call that what you will. When you read my creed, substitute “Spirit” or “mind” for person if you like. The same point remains.

    3. Yes, of course he remained God. That’s why that line you quote goes on to say, “and yet remained God.” In the incarnation, God did not transumate into a human being, but personally came to exist as a genuine human being all the while remaining divine. One person (God) in two natures.

    4. I fail to see how affirming that God is “one person in two natures” denies the genuine and distinct humanity of Jesus. To say Jesus has the human nature is to affirm that He is fully human. What I would deny is that Jesus is two persons in one body – or to put it another way, that He has two minds in one body: one divine mind belonging to the divine person/nature and one human mind belonging to the human person/nature. And I deny that for good reason: it’s a Nestorian heresy! Jesus is none other than the person/mind/Spirit of God Himself who came to personally exist as a human being by taking on human nature. Via the human nature, the divine person/mind/Spirit functioned as any human being would function.

    As for the Trinitarian error you speak of, I think it’s a straw man. I’ve studied Trinitarian theology from Trinitarians both past and present and none of them deny the full humanity of Jesus (except perhaps the Monophysites of old, but even they only denied the full humanity of Jesus on the functional level, while affirming it on the ontological level).

    Feel free to respond to my comments, but just note that I probably will not be able to respond to your response for lack of time. Sorry.

    LikeLike
99. Theosophical Ruminator Says:

    
    January 24, 2018 at 1:14 pm

    Hi Brian,

    I haven’t published anything on Jn 1:1 per se, but I do have some unpublished thoughts on it. Very briefly, no, I don’t buy the “eternal plan in the mind of God” explanation. Plans don’t become flesh. Clearly Jesus wasn’t a plan. He was God Himself. So why speak of Jesus as being “the Word”? Because John is harkening back to Genesis 1, trying to show that Jesus is the very creative word of God that we saw in Genesis 1, now enfleshed. Was God’s word in Genesis 1 a distinct person in the godhead? No, it was a way of referring to God’s creative will in action. Just like when I say “My word is as good as gold” no one thinks I am referring to another person within me, but understands me to be referring to an aspect of my person/character. So it is with God. Speaking of God’s word is just to refer to God’s expressed creative will. John’s point is that the same God who expressed His creative will in Genesis 1 is the same God who incarnated in Jesus.

    LikeLike
100. Theosophical Ruminator Says:

     
     January 24, 2018 at 1:14 pm

     Naz,

     I agree with your rejection of the “Jesus praying to Himself” explanation, but such is not required in Oneness theology. My explanation of Jesus’ prayers is a prime example.

     LikeLike
101. kimberly Says:

     
     January 24, 2018 at 6:20 pm

     John 1:1 is not a parallel to Gen 1:1. John clearly defines “Logos” or “Word” in 1 John 2:7 as the “old commandment”. Consequently, John 1:1 isn’t about the beginning of creation but the beginning of the old commandment and that beginning was the beginning of the Israelites, the people of God at Sinai. John is merely placing his entire witness of Jesus being CHRIST and NOT “god” on the promises inherent within the old commandment of salvation (ie/in what was stated in the Torah). When John mentions God he ALWAYS means God the Father and the God OF Jesus. Consequently, John 1:1 reads quite clearly the same as 1 John 1:1 — In the beginning (of ISRAEL) was the Word (OLD COMMANDMENT), and the Word was with (ABOUT) God (EVER the Father), and the Word (OLD COMMANDMENT) was God (WHO SPOKE IT).

     The old commandment and its promise of salvation was given to God’s people at THEIR beginning and it was given from Mt. Sinai by God HIMSELF.
     then in v14, it was the FLESH that “dwelt among them”. NOT the “Logos”.
     And, John clearly states he is witness of the LIGHT and not of the “Word”.

     Entire religions have built their doctrine on this thoroughly misunderstood passage.

     Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called (ie/and his SURNAME is….or by Patriarchy…he is the SON of)The Word (Logos) of God.

     Jesus’ “name” is as the firstborn Son from the grave. His “name” is “God’s Son” or in modern vernacular, “Godson”. That is Jesus’ FULL name. Jesus Godson as the Christ. NOT the pagan “godman”.

     LikeLike
102. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     January 25, 2018 at 7:41 am

     Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1:26-28)

     What Does it Mean to be the Image of God? – InspiringPhilosophy
     Published on Dec 1, 2017 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q49G4tihX3Y
     In this video, we look at the ancient near eastern context to understand what it means to be called the image of God.

     LikeLike
103. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     January 25, 2018 at 7:45 am

     The most challenging journey of all – the search for Wisdom & Truth:
     I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment: That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures. (Proverbs 8:20-21)

     Vincent van Gogh and the Gospel (David Wood) – Acts17Apologetics
     Published on Aug 27, 2016 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5yjhVX8sic

     http://www.acts17.net
     On December 23, 1888, Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh cut off his own ear with a razor and delivered the ear to a girl named Rachel at a local brothel. Many have assumed that van Gogh’s ear was some sort of twisted present for a prostitute he loved. However, recent research has shown that Rachel wasn’t a prostitute. She was a farmer’s daughter who had been mauled by a rabid dog. This new information about Rachel affects our understanding of van Gogh’s tragic episode.

     In this video, I discuss van Gogh and the Gospel.

     LikeLike
104. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     January 25, 2018 at 11:04 am

     POST 102
     WHAT WAS REALLY SAID:

     Then Man said, “Let Us make God in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let Him give us rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

     Man created God in His own image, in the image of Man He created him; male and female created they Him. Man blessed him; and Man, of his blessed image said unto Man, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

     LikeLike
105. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     January 25, 2018 at 11:06 am

     The search for Wisdom & Truth:

     Be persistent in that search for one day, you may just find it.

     LikeLike
106. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     January 25, 2018 at 11:20 am

     More to the Point of Genesis:

     THE GOOD BOOK

     CHAPTER 1:

     [1] MAN created God in his own image and gave Him the Perfect Attributes of Deity.

     [2] THESE are those attributes which Man must aspire to but the likes of which Man has determined is impossible to achieve

     [3] MAN sets the highest standards for his God and then pre-ordains those standards to be unreachable by Man thus insuring

     [4] THE justification for Man as he goes about his business of being just the opposite of the attributes he has given to his God

     [5] BEING stupid, unforgiving, greedy, a liar, a cheat, a stealer, a killer, a deceiver and a most hateful and

     [6] MURDEROUS character of which even among his own kind many cannot believe

     [7] HE IS capable of the worse acts of atrocity on his fellow man, the environment and the life forms which support him.

     Now here is the question for you Christians.

     Which version of Genesis do you actually see operating aro9und the world today Genesis Verson or the Good Book Version.

     I submit the latter is the true version; and that, is supported by every religious institution worldwide …………….I rest my case.

     LikeLike
107. Naz Says:

     
     January 25, 2018 at 3:18 pm

     Jason, thanks for your response in post #100.

     Can you direct me to your explanation of Jesus’ prayers ? Is it a different article ?

     Cheers !

     Naz

     LikeLike
108. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     January 25, 2018 at 4:03 pm

     Anybody who needs an explanation of Jesus’s prayers should read the Gospels; if you still need an explanation; you’re probably looking for an argument in which case Jesus would tell you to abandon religion like he did and stop listening to others.

     There’s nothing mystifying about the prayers of Jesus. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

     LikeLike
109. kimberly Says:

     
     January 26, 2018 at 6:35 am

     The basis of your premise is wrong. Therefore, your premise is wrong. God created mankind in his (Man’s…not God’s) own unique image. God created mankind in the image of godS (plural). The mistranslation of this single passage and word is subtle but significant.

     Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own (man’s unique) image, in the image of godS (PLURAL….not singular) created he him; male and female created he THEM.

     2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the godS (plural….MEN) of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who IS the image of God (singular), should shine unto them.

     LikeLike
110. RONALD MYRICK Says:

     
     January 26, 2018 at 2:23 pm

     Scalia,
     You said,
     …”so rest assured that I am quite sympathetic to your point of view. I say that not to patronize; I simply want to make it clear that I’m not arguing from an adversarial posture.”
     Thanks, and I appreciate this a great deal. I have always interpreted your comments as irenic. I have wanted to discuss this with someone for some time. I have questioned Jason about this point in the past.
     When I was in Bible college decades ago, we never discussed these differences in Oneness theology. The teaching was focused on exposing errant Trinitarian ideas only and the “One Divine Person” concept was glossed over. I’m confident that I believe very closely to what you and Jason do, and these are minor differences.

     LikeLike
111. RONALD MYRICK Says:

     
     January 26, 2018 at 2:40 pm

     Scalia and Jason (Theosophical Ruminator)

     Some brief comments about the etymology, historical origin and history, of “person” in relation to the doctrines of God.”

     A picture is worth a thousand words!” Google “trinity” and “images” and one will find an abundance of illustrations of the Trinity as “three human persons.” (I attempted in vain to post a picture here). Polytheism has been abundantly exhibited historically in the medieval European art work of the Catholic churches.

     Many Trinitarian scholars are very cautious about polytheism, and warn that the term “three persons” in their doctrine does not describe “three people” even though that is exactly the literal meaning and the immediate impression most people naturally get when hearing the words. They say the three are not separate beings, and the persons should never be illustrated as human-like or compared to a committee or a family.

     The New Bible Dictionary, a standard reference book for over fifty years, states for example:
     “They [the persons] are three modes or forms in which the divine essence exists. ‘Person’ is, however, an imperfect expression of the truth inasmuch as the term denotes to us a separate rational and moral individual. But in the being of God there are not three individuals, but only three personal self-distinctions within the one divine essence.”

     This is the conservative orthodox doctrine, but it is often misunderstood and taught with various conflicting definitions and confusing illustrations. Several Trinitarian scholars have called for a very guarded use of the term “person.”

     Just one example of many available, R.C. Sproul has said:
     “The church father Tertullian, who had a background not only in theology but in law, introduced the Latin term persona in an attempt to express the Logos Christology of the early years of the church era… It could refer to the dramatic stage presentations of the period. Sometimes actors had multiple roles in a play. Whenever an actor changed his role during the play, he would put on a different mask and assume a different persona… Each role was a persona and collectively they were personae. So the early church came to see God as one being with three personae: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

     But this can be very difficult. The fact is that the very term “person” was devised for the theological discussions of the Godhead in the early years of Christianity, and it has since changed meaning dramatically. It is quite unreasonable to tell Christians to think of a word used so abundantly today in everyday English language in a distinctly different way for theology.

     This is compounded when some Trinitarians ignore such caution and teach a “Social Trinity” using the conventional understanding. The doctrine of the “Social or relational Trinity” has been around a long and demonstrates the depth of confusion about the term “person.”

     It is stated often as the following:
     “The inner life of the Holy Trinity offers a model understanding marital relationships. The Nicene Creed, coupled with the “in” language of the New Testament to describe the intimate relations between the three Persons of the Trinity (John 14:1; 17:21 et al.), is what some Church Fathers have described as “perichoresis”–meaning “to co-inhere, inhabit, inter-dwell, or to live within.” In other words, each Person of the Trinity eternally dwells within the other two in a perfect unity-in-distinction. The mystery of God’s own Trinitarian character is extended to human existence and reflected in the Genesis account where God says, “Let us make humans in our image, in our likeness …. Male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:26–7). Thus, the sexual intimacy that Adam and Eve experience as they become “one flesh” can be said to reflect the eternal union-in-distinction between the Father, Son and Spirit and their mutual indwelling.”

     In addition to the “marriage model,” there is a parallel popular model of the “family.” In recent times even Protestant reference works have portrayed the Trinity as a “family unit.” For example, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary contains an article on the Trinity with these comments:
     “The most distinctive characteristic of the persons of the triune family is their selfless love for one another. Each esteems and defers to the other in a way that makes the original family of the trinity a model for the Christian family of believers in the church…The key to unlocking the mystery of the trinity is to observe how the persons of the triune family give themselves to one another in selfless love. They are always at one another’s disposal… This family is the original pattern from which God creates all the families of earth with their unity and diversity. The family of mankind, after losing its intimate relationship with the divine family at the Fall, is restored to fellowship by God’s action. ”

     Of course, this coherently describes three gods, not the classic Trinity. Members of a “family” do not share “one essence of being,” but are each completely independent individuals, and such a trinity is by definition three divine beings, tritheism. Nevertheless, Evangelical Trinitarians, even very popular authors like Wayne Grudem and William Lane Craig can be found supporting the misconception.

     As I mentioned earlier (and Scalia did not understand that I was speaking of Trinitarians and not any Oneness teachers’ use of the term), the two different uses of “person,” one common and the other theological, quickly becomes equivocation ( a shifting definition) and leads to confusion. Equivocation is also seen in the Trinitarian references to God as both “he” and “they.”

     Professor R. C. Sproul, modern theologian:
     “The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one in essence and three in person, so He is one in one sense and three in another sense, and that does not violate the categories of rational thought or the law of non-contradiction. Nevertheless, people continue to charge that the Trinity is irrational. Why do people so consistently make this accusation?”

     It is irrational because rules of language are violated when Trinitarians call the one essence, “He,” not “it,” when it is neuter (just as Sproul does above). They treat it like one divine personality and they claim he is not essentially three but one, when claiming monotheism. Then they switch and talk about three persons, referring to God as “they,” as if each one was so distinct as to be a separate god. They even talk about their three persons being like a family, like three people having an idealistic loving relationship: just like three gods. Rational thought does not follow this shifting concept claiming a monotheistic God. This is irrational equivocation.

     Again, Scalia said that, “person, with qualification, is the best creedal term we have.” I disagree.

     I think we are clearly better off, and on more biblical grounds if we avoid the term altogether in reference to God the Father. We all use extra-biblical language when explaining the doctrines of Scripture, but some words should be avoided, and this may be one of the most important ones.

     Theosophical Ruminator (Jason) said: “You can read my defense for the applicable of the term “person” for God at http://onenesspentecostal.com/Godisaperson.htm. But this is not something that I would die on a hill for. In my use of the term I am referring to the conscious, thinking part of God. Call that what you will. When you read my creed, substitute “Spirit” or “mind” for person if you like…

     I can agree to this section of his creed if instead of ” Both one in essence and one in person…”
     it read, ” Both one in essence and one in mind, one in Spirit..”

     LikeLike
112. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     January 26, 2018 at 11:01 pm

     TR Jason, Ronald & Scalia,

     I’ve had no exposure to Oneness Pentecostal Theology other than what’s gone on in the course of this thread.

     How would the following passage be understood within Oneness Theology framework?
     I ask concerning this specific Scripture because TR Jason references Jesus’ hypostatic union in post 98.

     2:1 Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ (Messiah), if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit (of Truth/Ruach HaKodesh), if any affection and compassion,
     2 make my joy complete by being of the same mind (intellect), maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one (single particular) purpose.
     3 Do nothing from (according to) selfishness (contentiousness) or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;
     4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.
     5 Have this attitude in (among) yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus (Messiah Yahshua),
     6 who, although He existed in the form of God (as only [unique] begotten Son of God), did not regard equality (in essence, not rank) with God (the Father/the only [exclusive] true Elohim) a thing to be grasped (i.e. utilized or asserted),
     7 but emptied Himself (i.e. laid aside His privileges), taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men (who are made in the image and likeness of God [Godhead]).
     8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on (Literally of) a cross.
     9 For this reason also, God (the Father/the only [exclusive] true Elohim) highly exalted Him (Servant of YHWH/Messiah), and bestowed on Him (Yahshua of Nazareth) the name which is above every name (I AM/YHWH),
     10 so that at the name (I AM/YHWH) of Jesus (Yahshua of Nazareth) EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
     11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ (Yahshua the Messiah) is Lord (Adonai), to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:1-11 NASB)
     “““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
     Where Did Jesus Say, “I Am God, Worship Me”? (David Wood)
     Acts17Apologetics | Published on Nov 3, 2016
     
     Muslims around the world are being trained to ask Christians, “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am God, worship me,’ in those exact words?” However, if Muslims are suggesting that Jesus could only claim to be God by uttering a specific sentence, we may reply by asking, “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am only a prophet, don’t worship me,’ in those exact words?” The unreasonable demand for a particular statement, if applied consistently, would thus force Muslims to reject their own view!

     Fortunately, we have a simple way to examine what Jesus said about himself. According to both the Bible and the Qur’an, there are certain claims that only God can truly make. For instance, God alone can correctly state that he created the universe. Of course, a mere human being can pronounce the words, “I created the universe,” but the statement would be false coming from anyone other than God.

     Hence, if Jesus said things that can only truly be said by God, we must conclude that Jesus claimed to be God. Interestingly, Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree on many of the claims that cannot be properly made by (or about) mere human beings. In this video, we consider several examples of such claims.

     LikeLike
113. kimberly Says:

     
     January 27, 2018 at 4:30 pm

     Sproul recently died. What you have described in each scenario (and he as well) is that of modalism or polytheism (depending on the passage quoted). And with each biblical misquote, it is either of the two “ism’s” that are presumptively overlaid upon the passage to “prove” Trinitarianism prior to interpreting the context. If one says a passage describes the Trinity based on multiple “persons”, it is polytheism and not Trinitarianism. If one says a passage describes the Trinity based on “personas”, it is modalism and not Trinitarianism. In each case of “proving” the Trinity by biblical passages, the passage as presumptively interpreted is in direct contradiction to innumerable other passages that clearly and unambiguously state the absolute singularity of God. This is an obvious logical flaw with the doctrine of the Trinity.

     LikeLike
114. Scalia Says:

     
     January 28, 2018 at 4:07 pm

     @Ronald Myrick

     Praise the Lord, Brother Myrick.

     Well, I read Post 111 twice but cannot find an argument anywhere. You analyzed the history of the theological use of the word person and showed how trinitarians try to make it and other terms work with the doctrine of the Trinity, but there’s nothing tying that to a compelling reason why we should abandon the word person in favor of being.

     The fact is that trinitarians can’t make sense out of the Trinity no matter what terminilogy they use. Whether they use the term being or person, three distinct, fully divine persons cannot rationally be understood to be one God, unless the distinction is notional. None of that counts against the understanding that a divine person is incorporeal. Trinitarian lay persons and every oneness believer I know understand that said term represents God. I think you’re conflating arguments because their terminology is confusing when they try to articulate the Trinity, but that’s separate from what the terms themselves mean.

     One can argue that person takes on a different meaning within the rubrick of a particular version of the Trinity. For example, the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) does not equate person with a separate, individual being. It rather asserts supreme intelligence that cannot be applied univocally between God and creation. Each divine person has an intelligence that is unified beyond the comprehension of man into one divine being. Of course, that teaching hits a logical brick wall, but that’s not the point. The point is that whether one subscribes to DDS or social trinitarianism (ST), a divine person cannot be finite and/or corporeal. The only confusion is when somebody attemps to explain the Trinity. There is no confusion over the word person.

     Trinitarians not only mangle person in a trinitarian context, as you note, they also mangle being, but that in itself did not cause you to abandon it when crafting your creed. In fact, you still haven’t addressed my objection that your creed is not distinctly oneness for the very reason that trinitarians can assent to it. Thus, if your intent is to craft a distinctly oneness creed, not only does that effort fail, it creates confusion of another sort (as previously explained).

     You wrote:

     As I mentioned earlier (and Scalia did not understand that I was speaking of Trinitarians and not any Oneness teachers’ use of the term), the two different uses of “person,” one common and the other theological, quickly becomes equivocation ( a shifting definition) and leads to confusion.

     I replied to your equivocation observation in Post 52. Where did I say that I thought you were referring to oneness teachers? Here’s my reply:

     This has nothing to do with equivocation because both definitions are legitimate and no attempt is made to deceive the hearer. In logic, a person commits equivocation when s/he intentionally or unintentionally uses different meanings of the same word to draw a false conclusion. For example, if I say, “Since only man is rational and no woman is a man, therefore, no woman is rational,” I’m redefining “man” to draw a false assertion about women. Nothing of the kind is done with respect to the personhood of God.

     I knew you were referring to trinitarian scholars, and my reply asserts that person nonetheless has a clearly distinct meaning depending on context.

     Again, unless you can show where those interested confuse divine person with a corporeal, finite being, you’re simply making unsubstantiated claims.

     You write:

     Again, Scalia said that, “person, with qualification, is the best creedal term we have.” I disagree.

     I think we are clearly better off, and on more biblical grounds if we avoid the term altogether in reference to God the Father.

     Yes, I understand your position, but I still don’t see a compelling argument. You haven’t shown where the rank and file think that a divine person is finite; you haven’t shown why person is confusing when qualified by the term God; and you haven’t crafted an alternate statement that is distinctly oneness, especially given the fact that ALL trinitarians would object to Bro. Jason’s creed. A divine person is not a human person—plain and simple.

     LikeLike
115. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     January 28, 2018 at 6:46 pm

     Scalia, you wrote, “A divine person is not a human person—plain and simple.”
     Do you find that in The Bible?

     LikeLike
116. Jesuspeake Says:

     
     January 28, 2018 at 8:00 pm

     Laughable positions.

     Since Jesus was born of GOD a Divine person, He is GOD, a Divine person. Jesus did not have a human father so He could not be a human person.

     Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit and of His Blessed Mother Mary.

     Mary gave birth to a Divine person and is rightfully called ‘Theotokos’, the Mother of GOD.
     Council of Ephesus 431 A.D.

     LikeLike
117. kimberly Says:

     
     January 29, 2018 at 7:36 am

     Actually, Jesus did have a physical human father. The miracle was that he was conceived without sex to bypass old testament law concerning the sex act and uncleanness. Not that sex was bad but there were certain restrictions to it regarding clean/unclean. The miracle was NOT that Mary’s husband’s seed (look up the word “sperma”) was not used. It was or Jesus would not have been of the line of David. The conception took place using Joseph’s (Mary’s husband’s) sperm. Just not in the normal way. Jesus was NOT the “Son of God” in the familial sense. He was Son of God from the Patriarchal sense and “Son of David” from the familial sense. The difference is significant and must be recognized to obtain proper scriptural interpretation rather than coming to the false (and pagan) conclusion he was some kind of “godman” hybrid..

     Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed (SPERMA) of David according to the flesh;

     if one thinks Mary was impregnated by God then Mary (as a married woman) was either raped or God committed adultery. If one thinks Mary was not married, then Jesus was a bastard child.

     LikeLike
118. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     January 29, 2018 at 8:45 am

     Always verify your sources.: Can We Trust the Apostle Paul? (Answering Islam Part 19) – Acts17Apologetics | Published on Jan 28, 2018
     
     Islam affirms the reliability of Jesus and the Gospel. When we read the Gospel, however, we find Jesus proclaiming that he is the divine Son of God who would die on the cross for sins and rise from the dead. This forces our Muslim friends to claim that the Gospel has been corrupted, and they typically blame the Apostle Paul for corrupting it. But what if we examine the evidence and learn that Paul was a careful and trustworthy first-century authority on the life and message of Jesus? Let’s find out.

     LikeLike
119. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     January 29, 2018 at 8:51 am

     Are you visually impaired? The Berean: Job 42: 1-6
     http://www.theberean.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Home.showBerean/BereanID/1252/bblver/NKJV/Job-42-1-6.htm
     “This is the conclusion, the climax, of his long and detailed story. Now Job can see God. From the context, properly seeing God involves getting the self out of the way! As long as self was in his line of sight, Job judged God by his own perspective. Remember, we see what we want to see, what we are educated to see. So Job saw his own wisdom, his own works, and they blocked his view of God in His greatness. The carnal mind is trained to do this.”…
     — John W. Ritenbaugh

     LikeLike
120. Jesuspeake Says:

     
     January 29, 2018 at 9:02 am

     No person ever born on this planet was conceived and born without sexual union. artificial insemination notwithstanding.

     The seed is only used in a normal way albeit there are some closely related species cross breeding. Source design evolved that way and you might try to figure out how by studying then flatworm:

     “In flatworms, you can cut out a single piece from any part of the worm, and somehow, magically, it turns itself into a worm,” said molecular biologist Jochen Rink, who led one of the studies. The question is, “Why can some animals regenerate while others can’t?” said Rink, of the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics in Dresden, Germany.

     Mary was pregnant before she and Joseph came together in sexual union and the reason Joseph wanted to “put her away” by guess who? no other than Gabriel who went to visit Joseph in the middle of the night to discourage Joseph from divorcing Mary, so Joseph’s seed was out of the question,

     However if you understood biblespeake, and you don’t, you would understand that marriage is not a religious blessing or by religious authority although it has always beed portrayed that way by the church because religion after all wants to control everything including who to love, when to love, how to love and where to love. But the spirit of love finds its own way and time and course, not the clergy.

     The union of a man and a woman in sexual cleaving is the, “in the beginning” marriage basis that notes a man leaves his mother and cleaves unto his wife “and the two become one flesh’ (in sexual union), that’s the real marriage of a man and a woman. Not some church showy ceremony that’s man’s idea of marriage.

     Nobody ever born that was born , was born without a sexual encounter and that includes your metaphorical parents Adam and Eve. How could Adam have left his mother and cleave unto his wife Eve if Adam never had a mother?

     but if you actually read the event in the bible you will see that only one person is mention as being with Mary during that period when the Love, aka the Holy Spirit, overtook Mary at the time of consensual seduction at the time of the event and that was Gabriel, the father of Jesus.

     You will also note that the same Gabriel who visited Mary with the announcement about Elizabeth’s pregnancy was also the same Gabriel that was with Elizabeth when she became pregnant with her child John the Baptist and by extrapolation John and Jesus could easily have been brothers by the same father rather than cousins by different fathers and different but related woman.

     If you think sexual relations did not happen outside marriage before, during and after the bonding you’d be a puritanical prude with an absence of common sense and not clever enough to know that believers have an under-abundance of common sense to begin with already.

     LikeLike
121. Scalia Says:

     
     January 29, 2018 at 12:26 pm

     @Frank Adamick

     You’ve obviously not read all the posts in this thread. Based on Jason’s failure to enforce his rules, you may post anything you wish, but my comments are strictly on topic. Consequently, since your questions to me are off-topic, I will not be replying to them.

     Moreover, given the fact that you regularly fail to interact with others who attempt to engage you in dialog, including yours truly, I am in no mood to feed your curiosity. That notwithstanding, if you have an on-topic question, I’ll be happy to reply. Turning the other cheek, you know.

     LikeLike
122. Scalia Says:

     
     January 29, 2018 at 12:35 pm

     Frank Adamick writes:

     Scalia, you wrote, “A divine person is not a human person—plain and simple.” Do you find that in The Bible?

     **Facepalm** 🤦‍♂️

     LikeLike
123. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     January 29, 2018 at 10:09 pm

     Scalia, I do recall long ago you offered me your unsolicited assessment of a frequent poster to this blog (in fact, you mentioned him again earlier in this thread) along with an admonition to avoid responding to trolls. I see since that post you haven’t changed your approach. I detest censorship against anyone and that includes me. I don’t believe in clairvoyants either.Thought police who masquerade as toy moderators trying to shut people down need not apply. I’m not curious so don’t attempt to “feed” me anything. But I do think when someone makes a pronouncement they ought to provide its basis in fact with valid sources of reference. You wrote, “The fact is that trinitarians can’t make sense out of the Trinity no matter what terminilogy they use.” I’m not asking any questions only making an astute observation.: The Bible teaches that God is Triune. You might try and expand your thinking and your research.

     What is the Trinity? – InspiringPhilosophy | Published on Jun 14, 2013
     
     Many skeptics misunderstand what the doctrine of the Trinity is. In this video I want to explain the doctrine and help skeptics understand what the Trinity is.

     Paz do SENHOR.

     LikeLike
124. kimberly Says:

     
     January 30, 2018 at 6:22 am

     Such a post speaks volumes……….The statement “the Bible teaches the Trinity” is made. Then the “proof” is a video rather than the Bible! Presumptions of polytheism and modalism are hardly proof of anything.

     To “prove” the Trinity, one needs to quote from the Trinitarian Bible Version (TBV):

     John 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the living God.

     Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is God.

     Acts 9:20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is God.

     1 John 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is God?

     LikeLike
125. Scalia Says:

     
     January 30, 2018 at 7:58 am

     @Frank Adamick

     You write:

     Scalia, I do recall long ago you offered me your unsolicited assessment of a frequent poster to this blog (in fact, you mentioned him again earlier in this thread) along with an admonition to avoid responding to trolls.

     My comment wasn’t limited to me. It was directed primarily to your lack of interaction with others. I simply included myself because if my advice were unsolicited, a polite person would have simply stated that. Time and again people have sought to interact with you. You react two ways: Ignore their questions/counter arguments or post a barrage of scriptures and videos without engaging what the other poster said. You therefore have no moral ground to ask anybody questions. Talk about cheek!

     I detest censorship against anyone and that includes me.

     So, it’s okay to talk about anything on somebody else’s board? Jason starts a thread on, say, the cosmological argument and guys like you can jump in and talk about who’s going to win the Super Bowl, Kate Middleton’s clothes, and the best restaurants in Dallas? I’m not saying you’ve raised those topics, but it appears you wouldn’t mind others doing so since you “detest censorship,” right? That might be the way you run your blog, but when you’re on somebody else’s, you’re a guest and as a guest, you should abide by that person’s wishes. If you see a sign on somebody’s door, “Please remove your shoes,” would you ignore it because you “detest” controlling people? Whether or not Jason enforces his rule, he nonetheless has posted it. It’s not your blog! Run yours as you wish, but as long as you post here, you’re a guest. Abide by your host’s rules—that’s common decency.

     I’m not curious so don’t attempt to “feed” me anything. But I do think when someone makes a pronouncement they ought to provide its basis in fact with valid sources of reference.

     If you’re not curious, then you shouldn’t ask questions. You stated that you’re not familiar with Oneness Pentecostalism and wanted to know both our take on a scriptural passage and how I would scripturally defend a statement I made. You either don’t know the meaning of “curious” or you’re being dishonest. If the former, I suggest you look it up. If the latter, you’ve got a major problem.

     This discussion is about crafting a distinctly oneness creed, and that’s what the vast majority of my comments have been about. It is not about defending our theology or to debate the Trinity. I am probably older than you are and have read scholoarly defenses of the Trinity from Aquinas forward. I most certainly know what I’m talking about and have articulated that elsewhere on these boards. This is not the thread to do that, you troll.

     What Jason allows you to do is up to him, but unless you have something on topic to add, leave me out of your posts—please.

     LikeLike
126. RONALD MYRICK Says:

     
     January 30, 2018 at 10:05 am

     Frank Adamick

     Regarding your question in post 112 about Philippians 2, I will just offer a very brief answer.

     This has historically been a very controversial passage with many different interpretations considered. The following synopsis, which I would propose is the common Oneness view, has been shared by several Trinitarians as well.

     The humiliation of Christ described in Philippians 2: 6-8 does not mean Christ emptied Himself of attributes of deity such as omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence, for then Christ would be merely a demigod. The Spirit of God retained all attributes of deity while He manifested all of His character in the form of a true man, Jesus of Nazareth.

     This passage only refers to the limitations Christ imposed on Himself relative to His human life. In His life and ministry Christ voluntarily surrendered glory, dignity, and divine prerogatives. He was in his very nature God (the Greek literally reads in verse 6, “existing in a form of God”, not referring to some eternal state but simply his human life being a manifestation of Yahweh). But He willingly lived as a servant of God and man (“taking a form of a servant,” verse 7).

     The person who was the union of deity and humanity was equal to God and proceeded from God, but lived humbly and was obedient unto death.

     If you are truly interested in getting more details of Oneness theology, I would recommend David Bernard’s book, The Oneness View of Jesus Christ.

     LikeLike
127. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     January 31, 2018 at 10:20 am

     Thank you for responding, Ronald. Would you please clarify: you wrote, “The Spirit of God retained all attributes of deity while He manifested all of His character in the form of a true man, Jesus of Nazareth.” Does this mean the Oneness view doesn’t perceive the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) and the Son of God as distinct individuals? I thank you also for the book recommendation.

     LikeLike
128. Naz Says:

     
     February 1, 2018 at 6:12 am

     Frank, I don’t mean to interfere in your discourse but I would like to comment briefly on this.

     The Oneness understanding is that the Spirit of God is not a separate individual or entity but the One true God Himself, i.e. the Father. That is, God is a Spirit, He is the Holy Spirit. The term Father is relational with reference to the creation and the Son of God Jesus Christ. The Father and the Holy Spirit is the same entity, just 2 ways to describe Him.

     While I don’t fully agree with the Trinity doctrine and how it’s phrased, I also don’t fully agree with the Oneness doctrine also. In the end it may just be semantics so I don’t think we need to argue about it to the point of division.

     I have found that where in the past I believed in strictly One (1) and rejected the notion of Three (3), I now find I am more inclined to the concept of Two (2), the Father and the Son. How we describe this and understand it is really an exercise in linguistics. However, regardless of who you are there is not a Trinitarian or Oneness person that would reject either the Father or the Son. That should be enough to unify us all.

     Naz

     LikeLike
129. SonofMan Says:

     
     February 1, 2018 at 8:08 am

     There is only the Source

     Jesus called the Source Father.

     Jesus reflected the virtues of the Source and therefore is called the Son of the Source because of that reflection but Jesus was not the source. the son is a metaphorical expression.

     All there is available of the Source is a conduit called spirit and by that spirit all there is of the Source is available to the recipient who is available to all there is of the Source. The Source and the Source reflection are one.

     In other words all there is available of Good is available to the Recipient who makes him/her/self available to all there is of Good.

     So the Spirit is through whom a man makes himself available to the Source and through whom the Source shares deity with a man.
     Mutual inter-availability and if you want a definition of being filled with the holy spirit, that is it!

     The Source Father

     The Conduit Spirit

     The Recipient Son
     ———————————————–
     Mind, Emotion and Will

     Body, Soul and Spirit
     ————————————————
     Mind/Body, Emotion/Soul, Will/Spirit.

     LikeLike
130. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 1, 2018 at 8:57 am

     Thanks very much, Naz, for your participation by sharing your knowledge of the subject. I find it informative and most useful in beginning to learn about the aspects of Oneness Theology. I don’t hold that view of the Spirit of God. I am more in keeping with the understanding of someone such as John MacArthur or Chuck Missler.. At the suggestion of Ronald Myrick I was able to locate and view a presentation by David Bernard on Oneness Christology [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaAGXnCftGM&t=2818s ]. Bernard does emphasize the extreme significance of Jesus being the Great I AM while fully possessing human beingness. I agree with Bernard here. But I do differ with certain particulars. This opens myriad complex issues that as best I can anticipate won’t be fully comprehended until we reach the Eternal State with Him. Meanwhile we live our lives as brothers and sisters in the body of Christ/Messiah. I (and I’m speaking only for myself now) know God as unity in plurality, Father, Son and Holy Spirit: three Divine coequal (having the same importance) individual members eternally existing in perfect harmony within the unified (one) Godhead.

     As He told us: “These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33) Amen to that.

     LikeLike
131. Scalia Says:

     
     February 1, 2018 at 4:49 pm

     @Naz

     You write:

     Can you direct me to your explanation of Jesus’ prayers ? Is it a different article ?

     Sincer you’re merely asking for a link, you might find these pieces written by Jason helpful:

     Jesus’ Prayers

     A Oneness View of Jesus’ Prayers

     Jesus’ Prayers: It Doesn’t Take Two Persons to Tango

     LikeLike
132. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 3, 2018 at 2:14 pm

     WHO is Jesus? WHY did He dwell among us?
     The Messiah Revealed: The following study will be a comparison between the concept of Messiah as outlined in the Hebrew Scriptures and that of the Christian New Testament documents. The purpose of this exposition will be to expound upon the Jewish teaching on Messiah in contrast with that of Christianity. The Hebrew Bible gives a clear outline as to who, what, where and how the Messiah will appear. For this reason, we begin with an examination of the Hebrew Scriptures in order to see if whether the Tanakh supports the fact that the Messiah of God is both divine and human, one Person having two natures. We will also examine the Hebrew Bible for the evidence that the Messiah would not only reign as king, but also die a substitutionary death on behalf of sinners, making atonement for sin. As this is being done, we will see if Jesus fits the outline of Messiah presented to us in the Hebrew Bible.
     http://jesusplusnothing.com/messiah/messiah.htm

     LikeLike
133. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 3, 2018 at 2:18 pm

     WHO is Jesus? WHY did He dwell among us?
     The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim

     Click to access The%20Life%20and%20Times%20of%20Jesus%20the%20Messiah.pdf

     LikeLike
134. kimberly Says:

     
     February 3, 2018 at 3:42 pm

     That’s easy……………….IF one properly interprets the scripture as being thoroughly patriarchal based on a “son” being firstborn and being the one who receives the patriarchal (ie/tribal) “surname”…………..

     Isaiah 9:6 — For unto us a child is born (Son of Man), unto us a son is given (Son of God): and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called (ie/this is patriarchal speak….meaning..”and he shall be the SON of”):

     SON OF Wonderful,
     SON OF Counselor,
     SON OF The mighty God,
     SON OF The everlasting Father,
     SON OF The Prince (Sovereign) of Peace.

     AND:

     John 1:14 And the Word (Logos….”old commandment” as defined in 1 John 2:7) was made flesh, and [THE FLESH….NOT “the Word”] dwelt among us, (and we beheld his [the FLESH’s] glory, the glory as of the only begotten [SON] of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

     AND

     1 Timothy 3:16 — And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness (works of God): God (EVER the Father) was manifest:

     IN THE FLESH justified in the Spirit,
     IN THE FLESH seen of angels,
     IN THE FLESH preached unto the Gentiles,
     IN THE FLESH believed on in the world,
     IN THE FLESH received up into glory.

     AND

     John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name (Patriarchal surname……NOT familial surname……God’s Son or Son of God or in modern vernacular “Godson”).

     LikeLike
135. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 4, 2018 at 12:38 am

     firstborn = preeminent = surpassing all others
     Son of Man = Divine designation re:Psalm 145:13; Daniel 4:1-3, 7:13-14, 26-27; 2 Pe 1:11.
     The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the Blessed One?” And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.” (Mark 14:60-62)

     AND:

     Word/Word of God/Instruction/Torah/Law of God/Law of Moses/Pentateuch = Messiah = God the Son.
     Surely I am more stupid than any man,
     And I do not have the understanding of a man.
     Neither have I learned wisdom,
     Nor do I have the knowledge of the Holy One.
     Who has ascended into heaven and descended?
     Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
     Who has wrapped the waters in His garment?
     Who has established all the ends of the earth?
     What is His name or His son’s name?
     Surely you know!
     Every word of God is tested;
     He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
     Do not add to His words
     Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar. (Proverbs 30:2-6)
     But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:34-40)

     AND

     See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ/Messiah. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God (the Father), who raised Him from the dead. (Colossians 2:8-12)

     AND

     Then he said to me, “Write, ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.’” And he said to me, “These are true words of God.” Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He (Messiah) who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the winepress of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty (El Shaddai). And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” (Revelation 19:9-16)
     Jesus: The Final Judge – Acts17Apologetics
     Published on Jul 1, 2013 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNzX-ymG3f0

     http://www.answeringmuslims.com
     Muslims [among others] often ask where Jesus claimed to be God. According to both the Bible and the Qur’an, God is the final judge of all people. Yet in Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus claims to be the final judge of all people. Since Jesus makes a claim that only God can truly make, Jesus clearly claimed to be God.

     LikeLike
136. kimberly Says:

     
     February 4, 2018 at 6:33 am

     Rev 19:16 is no different than Isa 9:6 in which Jesus’ NAME or patriarchal surname is “King of kings and Lord of lords”. The FACT of the matter is that this equates to Jesus being the SON of God (the only true King of kings and Lord of lords). NOT to Jesus being God. Such ignorance of the patriarchal custom of a naming (usually but not always of the firstborn son) to receive and carry on the birthright has led to all manner of false doctrine. Including the idea that Jesus was “god in the flesh”, which is of pagan origin. Muslims are no better than Christians in mis-interpreting such passages because they presume that Jesus was the Son of God from a familial perspective, which is incorrect and has led them to falsely reject Jesus. No, Jesus was born the Christ as prophesied but was REVEALED to be (not born) at his baptism the Son who was SENT from eternity to that birth. Putting it succinctly, Jesus was a man from birth but prior to that birth a Son from eternity. EVER that blessed Son but NEVER God. David knew.

     Psalm 116:13 I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name (SON) of the Lord.

     Psalm 79:9 Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of thy name (SON): and deliver us, and purge away our sins, for thy name’s (SON’S) sake.

     Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name (SON) under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

     LikeLike
137. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 4, 2018 at 12:00 pm

     [Compare and Contrast to the Gospel of John]: “Pentecostal Oneness Doctrine Debunked” Preached By Pastor Steven L. Anderson
     sanderson1611 | Streamed live on Jun 21, 2017
     

     http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/pa… Preached At Faithful Word Baptist Church, Tempe, Arizona, Wednesday Night

     LikeLiked by 1 person
138. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 4, 2018 at 12:06 pm

     [The Bible teaches that God is Triune.]: “The Trinity In Scripture” Preached By Pastor Steven L. Anderson
     sanderson1611 | Streamed live on Jun 25, 2017
     

     http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/pa… Preached At Faithful Word Baptist Church, Tempe, Arizona, Sunday Morning

     LikeLike
139. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 4, 2018 at 12:13 pm

     [in his name = by his authority]
     “Oneness, Modalist, Heretics” Preached By Pastor Steven L. Anderson
     sanderson1611 | Streamed live on Jun 25, 2017
     

     http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/pa… Preached At Faithful Word, Baptist Church, Sunday Night

     LikeLike
140. kimberly Says:

     
     February 4, 2018 at 4:09 pm

     A King is a King is a King is a King. There is NEVER more than a singular King. The one thing the Bible NEVER teaches is some kind of unification.

     1 Timothy 6:15

     Which in his (Jesus’) times (return) he (Jesus) shall shew, who is the blessed and ONLY Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords (both statements of absolute singularity); 16 Who (the Potentate) ONLY hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom NO MAN HATH SEEN NOR CAN SEE: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

     1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him (Jesus), then shall the Son ALSO HIMSELF be subject unto him (God) that put all things under him (Jesus), that God (EVER the Father) may be all in all.

     LikeLike
141. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     February 4, 2018 at 6:53 pm

     Religious jargon……

     Oh yawn……

     LikeLike
142. kimberly Says:

     
     February 5, 2018 at 5:58 am

     The Bible is anything but “religious” when properly interpreted based on Patriarchy, ancient customs and the reality of the world around us. Religions are “religious”. Is science wrong to speculate the origin of the Universe was based on a singularity? I have never heard of any scientist (myself included) speculating about a big “Tribang”. Sometimes, the scientific community, nature and just plain common sense correlate.

     LikeLike
143. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     February 5, 2018 at 10:07 am

     Scientists are stuck like the rest of humanity in the acceptance of beginnings and ends and only come to grips with the “Always” scenario when they speak of the God aspect of man’s inventive imagination.

     You have to remember that scientists can only go back to Universe residue from novas and supernovas and background radiation but given the theory of black holes and their ability to suck everything into itself with no escape; I submit most of the residual matter, energy, radiation and the like has long been sucked into oblivion so how can the scientists following the pattern of human perception of beginnings, blooms, lifespans, witherings and ends, can’t find the sucked up residue so they conclude erroneously that there must have been a singularity or else there would be other residual clues to the “Always” scenario. It’s no more complicated than that!

     Therefore if anything exists forever than everything exists for ever, everything merely uses in and out of transitions but humans apparently don’t live long enough to observe the universe in flux for a trillion years; I mean a Nova may be nothing more that a previous human North Korea civilization reaching its crescendo nuking planets or stars out of existence. I mean a little more than a few thousand years ago we didn’t have pens and pencils and typewriters or computers and operated with the high tech of the ancient a hammer a chisel(eventually) and a slab of rock or a cave wall.

     You have to remember that the Bible is not a candidate book: Let’s just grant that there is an omniscient god who occasionally authors books. And he’s going to give us a book, the most useful book. He’s a loving god, compassionate, and he’s going to give us a guide to life. He’s got a scribe and the scribe’s going to write it down. What’s going to be in that? I mean just think of how good a book would be if it were authored by an omniscient deity.

     There is not a single line in the bible that could not have been authored by a 1st century person. There are pages and pages about how to sacrifice animals, and keep slaves, about who to kill and why. There’s nothing about electricity, there’s nothing about DNA, there’s nothing about infectious disease, about the principles of infectious disease.

     There’s nothing particularly useful and there’s a lot of iron age barbarism in there and superstition. This is not a candidate book. I mean I can go into any Barnes & Noble blindfolded and pull a book off a shelf which is going to have more relevance, more wisdom for the 21st century than the bible. I mean it’s really not an exaggeration.

     Every one of our specific sciences has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of scripture, from cosmology, to psychology, to economics. We know more about ourselves than anyone writing the bible did and that is a distinctly inconvenient fact for anyone wanting to believe that this book was dictated by the creator of the universe. Think BIG. sharris

     LikeLike
144. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     February 5, 2018 at 10:25 am

     Now here is an example of the kind of reason that appeals to me; I don’t know why it doesn’t appeal to everybody but the “everybody” wants to content themselves and their academia prowess to niggle over how many persons in God and are there really human gods, persons and triunes and goodly humans, angels and demons dancing on heads of pins and all over what? A Caricature Concept Created by man’s speculative imagination because of lack of knowledge.

     Then they counter with their reasoning: saying that Belief is knowledge if it is true, justified belief…..but that’s like saying that true justified “non-knowledge”, is knowledge. It’s like saying “my opinion is knowledge because it’s my way of thinking and therefore, true and justified and therefore my opinion is knowledge.

     Another way of saying the same thing is: “true justified ignorance is knowledge”

     You can’t get much sillier that that can you.

     Here is a writing intellectually appealing:

     A central claim of religion is about the virgin birth and also a claim about biology. The claim and Jesus rose from the dead and that he will return to earth is a claim about history, it’s a claim about the human survival of death; it’s apparently a claim about human flight without the aid of technology.

     Jews, Christians and Muslims, while they disagree on many things all agree on the day of judgment, every person who ever lived will be physically resurrected. Just which scientific laws does this violate?
     One is tempted to say all of them.

     If the basic claims of religion are true, science is so blind that science is underlying reality. And the laws of nature are so susceptible to supernatural modifications as to render the whole enterprise of science ridiculous. If on the other hand the basic claims of religion are false, most of the people on this planet are profoundly confused about the nature of reality and beset by quite irrational hopes and fears. And many people are simply wasting their lives and spreading delusions, often with tragic results. It seems to me no thinking person can be indifferent between the two sides of this dichotomy.

     So I want to suggest to you that whatever is true about our circumstance, ethically and spiritually, can be discovered now and can be talked about in language compatible with our growing scientific understanding of the world and of the human mind. Whatever discoveries are there to be made about how to maximize human well being can be talked about in language that is not an affront to all we’ve come to know in the last few thousand years.

     And to subscribe to one of the iron age religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam is to make the tacit claim that, that is impossible. That there is in fact no way to understand our circumstance using the tools of our modern understanding of the world. That some measure of superstition is necessary, some measure of mythology, that we have to lie just this much.

     The point is we can place our confidence only in human conversation and the question is; do you want to place it in the 21st century conversation where we have all of the world’s literature and learning available to us; or, do you want to place it in a 1st century or a 7th century conversation as preserved in one of our holy books?

     LikeLike
145. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     February 5, 2018 at 10:50 am

     Well, as we’ve begun to see, one of the problems with arguing in defence of God is that the evidence in your favor is either terrible or non existent. What we’ve heard from the other side and from the middle is that science is so complicated and counter intuitive and obviously incomplete that this leaves room for the God of Abraham. Now that’s basically the argument. Scientists don’t understand everything; we don’t understand how the first complex molecule self assembled; indeed we don’t. Scientists are the first to admit when they don’t know. The arrogance is very much on the side of those who would put their iron age faith in the place of genuine scientific ignorance.

     Now the other side has been playing “hide the ball” with the articles of faith. Okay, let’s be very clear about this. And we’ll speak about Christianity specifically just for ease. Christianity is based on the notion that the Gospel account of the miracles of Jesus is true. This is what you have to reject to reject Christianity; you don’t have to prove the universe to be absent of God, in the same way that you don’t have to go find that Poseidon or Zeus or any of the thousands of other dead Gods are absent from the universe. But Christianity, it is a textual claim about the veracity of the bible.

     Consider what this amounts to. Bible scholars agree that the first Gospels were written decades after the life of Jesus, decades, and of course we don’t have the original manuscripts; we have copies of copies of copies of ancient Greek manuscripts which have thousands, literally thousands, of discrepancies between them, many of which show signs of later interpolations, which is to say that people added passages that then became part of the canon. There are whole books of the canon, like the “Book of Revelation” which for hundreds of years were not included because they were deemed false gospel. There are other whole books like the “Shepherd of Hermas” which you probably haven’t heard of but for centuries it was considered part of the canon and then was later jettisoned as false gospel. Generations of Christians lived and died being guided by gospel that is now deemed both incomplete and mistaken. Think about that.

     So this process, this all too human process, of cobbling together this supposed authoritative word of God is a very precarious basis to assert the claims of Christianity. But the truth is even if we had multiple, contemporaneous claims of the miracles of Jesus this would not be good enough because miracle stories abound even in the 21st century.

     The deviltries of the South India Guru, Sathya Sai Baba, ascribe all of the miracles of Jesus to himself; he reads minds; he foretells the future; he heals; he raises the dead; born of a virgin. Sathya Sai Baba is not a fringe speaker. You may not have heard of him but they had a birthday party for him a few years ago and a million people showed up. There are vast numbers of people who think he’s a living God.

     So Christianity is predicated on the claim that miracle stories, exactly of the kind that today surround the person like Sathya Sai Baba become especially credible when you place them in the pre scientific religious context of the 1st century Roman Empire, decades after their supposed occurrence as attested to by copies of copies of copies of ancient Greek and largely discredited manuscripts.

     We have Sathya Sai Baba’s miracle stories attested to by thousands upon thousands of living eye witnesses and they don’t even merit an hour on cable television. And yet you put a few miracle stories in an ancient book and half the people on earth think it a legitimate project to organize their lives around.

     Does anyone else see a problem with that?
     sharris

     ———————————————————END PART TWO

     LikeLike
146. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     February 5, 2018 at 10:51 am

     I want to return to this core issue, which is belief, because without belief religion evaporates; without belief science evaporates. We’re talking about claims and their evidence. We’re talking about what you think is true about the nature of the universe. Presumably you don’t believe in Zeus, if someone stood here and said Zeus was the greatest scientist, you would not have applauded.

     Let’s talk honestly about what we think is true. The truth is that religion as we speak of it, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, is based on the claim that God dictates certain books. He doesn’t code software, he doesn’t produce films, he doesn’t score symphonies, he’s an author. This claim has achieved credibility because these books are deemed so profound they could not possibly have been written by human authors. Please consider for a moment how differently we treat scientific claims, text and discoveries:

     Isaac Newton went into isolation for 18 months starting in the year 1665. When he came out of his solitude he had invented the calculus, he had discovered the laws of motion and universal gravitation, he had single handedly created the field of optics. No one thinks this was anything other than a man’s labor. And it took two hundred years of continuous ingenuity for some of the smartest people who ever lived to substantially improve upon Newton’s work.

     How difficult would it be to improve the bible? Anyone in this room could improve this supposedly inerrant text scientifically, historically, ethically, spiritually, in moments! If God loves us and wanted to guide us with a book of morality, it’s very strange to have given us a book that supports slavery, that demands that we murder people for imaginary crimes like witchcraft.

     The true basis for hope in our world is open ended conversation and religion has shattered our world into competing moral communities. What we have to convince ourselves of is that love and curiosity are enough for us and intellectual honesty is the guardian of that.

     And the message of Jesus for anyone who is intellectually honest enough to receive it, is exactly that!

     ———————————————END PART THREE

     LikeLike
147. kimberly Says:

     
     February 5, 2018 at 10:52 am

     The weak link in such logic is that belief is relevant to the point of superseding fact. Belief isn’t relevant and certainly doesn’t supersede factual data. And, a less obvious weak link is that fact or even facts do not necessarily extrapolate to Truth.

     LikeLike
148. kimberly Says:

     
     February 5, 2018 at 11:07 am

     Again…there is a weak link in that logic. It fails to take into account that Infinity is paradoxical in that if one were to live forever, the infinity paradox dictates that one has always lived. Philosophically, no ending means no beginning. Intuitively, this appears impossible, highlighting the limitations of our comprehension of God and infinity. And not just God but God reigning in a Kingdom populated by an innumerable Host of beings in a far more permanent existence than the creation. The creation had a beginning and will eventually dissipate like smoke from a candle but the existence in which God reigns has always existed and always will. Even science recognizes the beginning and the end of the Universe. But science rejects God and innumerable uncreated Host existing in Eternity based on the creation. It might seem intuitively accurate but intuition fails to account for the paradox of infinity. Reliance on the finite to disprove the existence of the infinite is that weak link.

     LikeLike
149. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     February 5, 2018 at 11:39 am

     Beginnings and ends are like the crops in the garden. The crops from seeds sprout, grow, bloom, are harvested but the garden remains. The earthly life forces, elements,minerals,nutrients, light energy of sun work in unison and the life forces prevail. We are not the Garden but we are of the Garden part of the Source but we are not the Source, that we know.

     What we don’t know, one school believes we can know and pursues the quest to know; the other school believes but does not pursue the quest to know. One school grows, progresses, gains knowledge that is helpful beneficial and promotes the cause of humanity in life, at peace and a clean healthy environment and the preservation thereof.

     The other school pursues belief without knowledge and lacks substances yet pesters humanity to divide itself into factional fractures and penalizes by death those not willing to give up the pursuit of knowledge and acquiesce to the demands of the paranormal superstitious mind skewed by supernatural beliefs made up to reflect a mind willing to remain in ignorance without substance of mind and in brutish force demand that others follow the ego of self righteous believers.

     Only one of these schools is Good.

     LikeLike
150. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 5, 2018 at 4:58 pm

     A Biblical Case Against Oneness Doctrine (or Modalism)
     Trinity Apologetics | Published on Jan 7, 2015
     
     Four different refutations of the Oneness doctrine from Scripture:
     1.) The eternal Father-Son relationship (John 17:5, 1:1)
     2.) More than one divine person in the same context (John 1:18, 1Cor. 8:6, Heb. 1:8)
     3.) The Son, as the Son, being the Creator of all things (Heb 1:2, 10-12, 1Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:15-17)
     4.) The Son divine and active before His incarnation (Php. 2:5-8)

     Oneness doctrine is simply unbiblical. The Trinity is the only valid doctrine of the Godhead. We don’t have to water down God just to make Him easier to understand or explain. One divine person manifesting himself in different roles or offices when he chooses? That’s just rationalizing God so he wraps neatly around our minds. Modalism is way too easy to understand (because it’s man-made).

     LikeLike
151. kimberly Says:

     
     February 6, 2018 at 10:14 am

     Not one of those carefully selected passages quoted have the phrase “I am god” or “Jesus Christ is God” or “God the Son”. When properly interpreted, they say exactly the opposite of the trinity doctrine.

     Four different refutations of the Oneness doctrine from Scripture:
     1.) The eternal Father-Son relationship (John 17:5, 1:1)

     ………this is an attempt to “prove” the trinity by overlay of the text with polytheism.

     5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I (as the SON…not as “god”) had with thee before the world was.

     2.) More than one divine person in the same context (John 1:18, 1Cor. 8:6, Heb. 1:8)
     …………..this is an attempt to “prove” the trinity by obvious mis-interpretation of the translational language when in fact these passages describe the clear distinction of God the Father from Jesus, the Son of God.

     18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he (the SON…not “god”) hath declared him (God….NOT “declared himself”).

     6 But to us there is but ONE God, the Father, of whom are all things (Col 1:17), and we in him (God); and (ALSO) one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him (Jesus)………….IN God BY the Christ.

     8 But unto the Son (remove “he saith”..it was an addition), Thy throne, O God (FATHER…NOT Son), is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness (the SON is the SCEPTRE) is the sceptre of thy kingdom. (this is a praise insert to the SONG to God…NOT to the Son) 9 Thou (SON) hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even THY God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows (fellow SONS….NOT “fellow gods”).

     3.) The Son, as the Son, being the Creator of all things (Heb 1:2, 10-12, 1Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:15-17)

     …………………this is an attempt to “prove” the trinity by overlaying the test with modalism.

     2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom (NOT “as whom”) also he (God….NOT “his Son”) made the worlds;

     12 But this man (Jesus), after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God (NOT as “god” but as the SON);

     12 Giving thanks unto the Father (NOT the Son), which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who (God) hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his (God’s) dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his (God’s….NOT the Son) blood (bloodline….ie/SON), even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who (SON) is the IMAGE of the invisible God (NOT “is god”), the firstborn (from the grave) of every creature: 16 For by him (God….NOT Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him (God….NOT Jesus), and for him (God…NOT Jesus): 17 And he (God….NOT Jesus) is before (above) all things, and by him (God…NOT Jesus) all things consist (1 Cor 8:6).

     4.) The Son divine and active before His incarnation (Php. 2:5-8)

     …………………..this is an attempt to make the passage say what it doesn’t while completely ignoring what Jesus says AFTER his ascension……..ie/”MY GOD” (Rev. 3:12). Not “I am god”.

     5 Let this mind be in YOU, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery (taking FROM God….thought it ”ok”) to be equal with God (to be the SON of God by stating God was his Father…NOT his “fellow god”…John 5:18): 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name (SON of God…NOT “god”): 10 That at the name (sonship) of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (NOT “god”), TO the glory of God the Father (NOT “as god”).

     LikeLike
152. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 6, 2018 at 6:45 pm

     Why Is Jesus Called “The Son of God”? (Answering Islam Part 20)
     Acts17Apologetics | Published on Feb 6, 2018
     
     When Christians call Jesus “the Son of God,” Muslim apologists are quick to point out that other people are called “sons of God” in the Bible. However, the Muslim response fails to recognize the unique way in which the phrase “Son of God” is applied to Jesus.

     This is the twentieth video of our “Answering Islam” series, where David Wood answers the question: “Why is Jesus called ‘the Son of God’?”

     LikeLike
153. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     February 7, 2018 at 11:11 am

     The answer is simple why Jesus was called the son of god: because he exemplified the virtuous attributes that humans have decreed to be attributes of Deity.

     The reflection of those virtuous attributes therefore becomes a metaphorical classification of people who demonstrate by their behavior, those attributes. One who may also be called “Saintly”, “Christ-like”, holy, godly, pious, religious, devout, spiritual, righteous, good, moral, innocent, sinless, guiltless, irreproachable, spotless, uncorrupted, pure, angelic

     “Son of God” and “Son of Man” are metaphorically synonymous and were used interchangeably by Jesus talking not only about himself but also about Sons of Man in future-come such as, “For the Son of Man ‘in his day’ will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other.” and ““When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth ?” He didn’t say the son of man in “my” day or when the son of man comes will “I” find…….”

     Religions that are incapable of distinguishing the difference between “living for a cause” and “dying for a cause” are too often swept up in the death cult that denies the Sanctity of Life to others. This demonstrates the wrath of man which the ego-maniacal attributes to the wrath of God, in order to justify abhorrent behavior of their own devise to obfuscate the demonic irony which is the epitome of Ignoramus Rex.

     LikeLike
154. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 12, 2018 at 8:30 am

     Re: post # 112.
     Did Jesus [Our Kinsman Redeemer] leave heaven when He came to earth?
     Trinity Apologetics | Published on Jan 22, 2018
     
     “I think many Christians assume that He did. However, it’s important to believe He remained in heaven with all the divine attributes of God. It’s impossible for the unchanging, infinite, eternal Being of God to be touched, diminished or radically altered. Jesus cannot forfeit His divine nature/attributes. Jesus was, is and always will be God Almighty with every divine-omni attribute of Jehovah (Col. 2:9). To deny this affects the gospel because Christ must be an infinite Person in the flesh in order to pay an infinite price like hell in just a matter of hours.

     Simply put, if He left heaven during the days of His flesh this would mean He lost His omnipresence and therefore part of His Godhood. But of course, the Messiah wasn’t in heaven according to His humanity until after the ascension and His human nature was exalted and glorified by God (John 17:5, Phil. 2:9-11).”

     LikeLike
155. Jesuspeake Says:

     
     February 12, 2018 at 9:59 am

     Heaven is not a place anybody goes to or comes from; so no, Jesus did not leave heaven to come to earth.

     The Kingdom is within you said Jesus not just in me but in every human born. Flesh and blood cannot enter heaven and vice versa.

     Look at me said Jesus to his disciples after he escaped from the place of the dead, touch me feel me, a spirit does not have muscle and flesh and bone as you see me. Don’t be scared, you are not looking at a ghost.

     Well that was pretty astounding to the disciples who had believed Jesus was dead when he was entombed.

     Christians need to get over the paranormal, supernatural, superstitious nonsensical hype that ancient man invented to explain what they did not know. This was a remnant from mythology that creeped into the religion as it evolved which had no word, I suspect, for metaphors. And so they took everything as literal and continues that noises unto this very day preaching things that impossible and country to all the laws of physics, common sense notwithstanding.

     And the cheapest argument to keep the nonsense going is the worn out, hackneyed, excuse.

     “For God Nothing is Impossible”. What utter nonsense.

     We could say the same thing about Superman but of course we had to invent the evil that could overcome Superman because Superman could compete as a caricature character against the created caricature Gods of ancient man, religion would not accept that….so modern man had to invent “Kryptonite” to ensure Superman was someone less than the ancient God of the Desert. And every Marvel Super person had to have it’s own devil that could overcome them. Well even God has his nemesis. Satan, Devil, Lucifer, Demon. But God can defeat them all, or he wouldn’t be God!

     Yet everything is explainable, and we can easily understand. Just by looking over the last couple hundred years from the discovery and “capture” of electricity by Benjamin Franklin, from the telephone tethered to and transmitted by wires ………to the cell phone, when transmission signals, even television and telephone, are transmitted through the invisible means they call “On Air”.

     Automobile, airplane, rocket ships, modern medicine and get this even today the merchants selling outmoded wares, repackage fat saturated bacon that was a leading cause of heart attacks and plaque buildup in the blood stream and they sell the same poisonous food re-labelled as Old Fashion Bacon,. and what does the government say about it…..well, they should know better but if they want to pollute their bodies with heart attack plaque after all the medical advances warning against such foods…more sugar, more salt, well let them do it to express their freedom of choice.

     It is difficult to pump knowledge into a believer’s brain; it’s like a wooden log battering ram against iron-steel doors.

     Butter is better in batter but battering rams are better never buttered say that twice and you’ll see the futile exercise,

     but exercise we must, as Jesus said and wise men before him. I tell them stories and I speak in metaphoric parables and to you it is given to understand the Kingdom of which I speak…..

     “…………..but “‘they indeed see but not perceive, and indeed hear but not understand, they read words of knowledge and are nauseated, lest they should come to me and see, and hear, and read, accept that they are the downtrodden of whom I speak, the blind, the prisoner I came to set free; and then, with open eyes and heart receive forgiveness,’” with common sense.

     Forsake the messages of the Pharisees from 2,018 years ago pound into the heads of your ancestors. Yet they walk among us still, unto this very day and time and age and generation and you their proselyte children propelled to follow their foot steps unknowingly fooled, unwittingly hooked, ignorantly proceeding in the way of disaster, the way of the ancients of the egos they flout and the misguides they erroneously perpetuate.

     LikeLike
156. Jesuspeake Says:

     
     February 12, 2018 at 10:03 am

     “You infer” is personal imagination. I do not imply. To imply is to opinionate and I do not opinionate without a disclaimer. I revelate and give knowledge hidden from the foundation of the world. To revelate is to originate: leaders never follow and followers never lead. If there has ever been an idea that renders life utterly meaningless it is religion.. gltg

     LikeLike
157. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 12, 2018 at 12:48 pm

     Does 1Cor 8:6 disprove the Trinity? – Trinity Apologetics
     Published on Apr 26, 2011 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1AlKXLOdlQ
     “Advocates of Oneness, Unitarian, and Jehovah Witness doctrine frequently use 1Corinthians 8:6 against Trinitarians in attempts to refute their doctrine. But is their use of this verse founded? Does 1Corinthians 8:6 really give Trinitarian doctrine a lot of problems as Non-Trinitarians seem to make out?

     This verse is one of the favorite verses used by professing Christians, and even Muslims in attempt to undermine the deity of Jesus or to take away His glory as an eternal, divine person distinct from the Father.

     But as we see in my presentation, 1Corinthians 8:6, has no problem with the doctrine of the Trinity, in fact I would strongly argue that this verse is a great evidence in support of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Theos (God) and Kurios (Lord) are both titles of deity and both the Father and Jesus are Yahweh and the creator of all things as 1Corinthians 8:6 says. Only Yahweh created all things by Himself, with no one to help Him (read Isaiah 44:24). Yahweh is all powerful, why would He need any help?

     Dr. James White defines the Trinity thus:

     “Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

     We are Trinitarians not because of some formulations or councils. We are Trinitarians because we believe the Bible consistently teaches the doctrine of the Trinity and the Bible forces all professing Christians to believe in the Trinity.

     Jesus is the eternal Son of God. He was not a plan, a thought, or a spoken word as Oneness advocates would make Him out to be. The Son of God is not an angel, nor merely the temporary human nature of God in the flesh, nor a lesser god nor just a man. He was in communion with the Father from all eternity (John 1:1-2), He is 100% God (Col 2:9), equal with His Father (John 5:18, Php 2:5-7), uncreated (Col 1:17), eternal (Heb 13:8), and He is the creator of all things: God created all things through His Son (Heb 1:2, Col 1:15-16, John 1:3). It was the eternal Son, Jesus Christ, who became flesh not the Father (1John 4:2). Jesus is Yahweh God (Compare John 12:36-41 with Isaiah 6:1-10; Hebrews 1:10-12 with Psalm 102:25-27; Philippians 2:9-11 with Isaiah 45:23).”

     LikeLike
158. Jesuspeake Says:

     
     February 12, 2018 at 1:14 pm

     I defined the Trinity in the only way it makes sense; that definition cannot be disproved. That Trinity exists by reasonable definition.

     It is the weird way of interpreting the supernatural and the physical and trying to fuse, a physical entity, a metaphorical entity and an omnipotent entity into one and the same is impossible. The Supernatural and Superstition exists only in Hollywood, Religion and the mind where lives also the Theory Godmother Cinderella, Tinker Belle and Dracula.

     LikeLike
159. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 12, 2018 at 9:53 pm

     Was the early church mostly oneness? – Trinity Apologetics
     Published on Apr 17, 2016 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9G33ANJ3UI
     “It is often claimed by Oneness Pentecostals that the early church before 325 A.D. was mostly oneness / Sabellian / Modalistic and that the Trinity was ‘invented’ a long time later. Is this claim founded on the historic facts or made up to support their agenda?

     Facts to consider:

     -15 different early church writers before 325 A.D. precisely used the word ‘Trinity’ with favor and no one rejected or condemned the term.
     -24 early church writers before 325 A.D. taught that the Son of God preexisted His birth/incarnation.

     Note: Evidence leads us to conclude that Oneness Pentecostalism, including their view of baptism and the Godhead, was invented in the early 20th century and didn’t exist before then. There was no Oneness Pentecostal in the early church. There were ‘oneness’ or Sabellian defenders but not those who held the same doctrines as the UPCI etc. Sabellius himself probably held to successive Modalism rather than simultaneous Modalism. This is inconsistent with typical Oneness Pentecostalism.”

     LikeLike
160. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 12, 2018 at 9:59 pm

     Jewish Trinitarians? – Trinity Apologetics | Published on Jul 15, 2016
     
     Jewish Trinitarian, Dr. Michael Brown, discusses some of the Trinitarian leanings found in Jewish sources that go well with the tri-unity concept of YHWH found in holy Scripture, all the while emphasizing the oneness of God.

     Unfortunately some Trinitarian scholars don’t emphasize the oneness of God as much as they should but here Dr. Brown does a great job.

     Moreover, many anti-Trinitarians forget the fact that there are Messianic Jews today who affirm the Trinity along with the Shema (Deu. 6:4). We Trinitarians affirm the oneness of God (Isa. 46:9, 44:24, 1Cor. 8:6) and also the threeness of God (Mt. 28:19, John 14:16, 26, 15:26, 16:13-15, Eph. 4:4-6, 1Pe. 1:2). We are biblical Trinitarian Monotheists.

     LikeLike
161. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 15, 2018 at 3:29 pm

     3:1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the Apostle and High Priest of our confession;
     2 He was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was in all His house.
     3 For He has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, by just so much as the builder of the house has more honor than the house.
     4 For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.
     5 Now Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken later;
     6 but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house–whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end.
     7 Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says,
     “TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,
     8
     DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME,
     AS IN THE DAY OF TRIAL IN THE WILDERNESS,
     9
     WHERE YOUR FATHERS TRIED Me BY TESTING Me,
     AND SAW MY WORKS FOR FORTY YEARS.
     10
     “THEREFORE I WAS ANGRY WITH THIS GENERATION,
     AND SAID, ‘THEY ALWAYS GO ASTRAY IN THEIR HEART,
     AND THEY DID NOT KNOW MY WAYS’;
     11
     AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH,
     ‘THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.’”
     12 Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God.
     13 But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called “Today,” so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
     14 For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end,
     15 while it is said,
     “TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,
     DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS, AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME.”
     16 For who provoked Him when they had heard? Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt led by Moses?
     17 And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?
     18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient?
     19 So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.
     (Hebrews 3:1-19)
     ““““““““““““
     Why the Trinity is NOT polytheism but ONE God
     Trinity Apologetics | Published on Aug 20, 2014
     
     For these reasons and more, non-Trinitarians should at least give us the respect of acknowledging that we believe in absolutely one God, [YHWH/ I AM (Exodus 3:14-15)] Jehovah the God of Israel. [He (Exodus 3:2-6) said also, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” (Exodus 3:6a)]

     Polytheism is always a multiplicity of radically separated deities who are imperfect, finite and separate in nature and will. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is NOTHING like this.

     LikeLike
162. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 15, 2018 at 3:40 pm

     https://www.gotquestions.org/only-begotten-son.html
     What does it mean that Jesus is God’s only begotten son?

     The phrase “only begotten Son” occurs in John 3:16, which reads in the King James Version as, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” The phrase “only begotten” translates the Greek word monogenes. This word is variously translated into English as “only,” “one and only,” and “only begotten.”

     It’s this last phrase (“only begotten” used in the KJV, NASB and the NKJV) that causes problems. False teachers have latched onto this phrase to try to prove their false teaching that Jesus Christ isn’t God; i.e., that Jesus isn’t equal in essence to God as the Second Person of the Trinity. They see the word “begotten” and say that Jesus is a created being because only someone who had a beginning in time can be “begotten.” What this fails to note is that “begotten” is an English translation of a Greek word. As such, we have to look at the original meaning of the Greek word, not transfer English meanings into the text.

     So what does monogenes mean? According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD, 3rd Edition), monogenes has two primary definitions. The first definition is “pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship.” This is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham’s “only begotten son” (KJV). Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. Therefore, it is the uniqueness of Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use of monogenes in that context.

     The second definition is “pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind.” This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16 (see also John 1:14, 18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9). John was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses monogenes to highlight Jesus as uniquely God’s Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God’s sons and daughters by adoption (Ephesians 1:5). Jesus is God’s “one and only” Son.

     The bottom line is that terms such as “Father” and “Son,” descriptive of God and Jesus, are human terms that help us understand the relationship between the different Persons of the Trinity. If you can understand the relationship between a human father and a human son, then you can understand, in part, the relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity. The analogy breaks down if you try to take it too far and teach, as some pseudo-Christian cults (such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses), that Jesus was literally “begotten” as in “produced” or “created” by God the Father.

     Recommended Resource: Jesus: The Greatest Life of All by Charles Swindoll

     LikeLike
163. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 16, 2018 at 8:07 am

     Evidence for Holy Trinity from the Holy Scriptures From Dr Nabeel Qureshi’s Debate – Fredy Solace | Published on May 22, 2016
     
     Dr. Qureshi a new comer to Christ Explains the doctrine of Holy Trinity from the Holy Bible….

     LikeLike
164. kimberly Says:

     
     February 16, 2018 at 1:23 pm

     The “begetting” of the “only begotten Son” was long before the creation and continued throughout the old testament leading up to the birth of Jesus as Messiah, revealed at his baptism to be that Son from Eternity. John 17:5

     And now, O FATHER, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was (SON).

     There are innumerable passages in the scriptures that include the Father/Son relationship between God and His Christ.

     LikeLike
165. kimberly Says:

     
     February 16, 2018 at 1:41 pm

     Show us “proof” of the Trinity without any attempt to overlay a passage with polytheism OR modalism and I’ll show you a passage that rejects any attempt to use such techniques and proves beyond any doubt that God is a singular and unique Being in every way…………..”all in all” is a statement of absolute singularity…NOT unity.

     1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son ALSO HIMSELF be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

     Revelation 11:15

     And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord (God the Father), and of HIS Christ; and he (God the Father….NOT “they”) shall reign for ever and ever.

     LikeLike
166. Charlie Says:

     
     February 17, 2018 at 4:38 pm

     I’m pretty sure with a computer you can numerate the number of passages in the scriptures that you refer to of the Father-Son relationship. They are not innumerable as you say.

     What you should point out though is the fact that you do not really believe that they are a father and a son because there is no mother. At least not according orthodox Christian theologians/philosophers, which is what most of the people discussing this topic here probably are. The trinity is the invention of theologians and philosophers looking for a happy medium to satisfy the narrative of the Bible. Nouns and pronouns of the male gender do not apply because the same scholarly types say God is genderless. So it’s hypocritical to continue referring to them as a father and son based on the underpinnings of mainstream Christian theology.

     Jesus Christ is the son of God the father and an eternal mother before the earth was created otherwise he would not be a son. He is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh of a mortal mother, Mary, and his same Eternal Father. Maybe you’re familiar with the passage in Genesis that says man was created in the image of God male and female. Not in the image and likeness of a genderless god, which orthodox theologians twist to give some metaphorical meaning of image to the incomprehensible deity they created out of misguided readings of the scriptures they had. This is why they had to create a creed, because they didn’t know what the Scriptures really teach.

     LikeLiked by 1 person
167. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     February 17, 2018 at 7:07 pm

     Charlie:

     So true and so poignant to the debate at hand about the patriarchal nonsense of the Ancients…………………

     LikeLike
168. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     February 17, 2018 at 7:13 pm

     Here is the truth……Mother….Father…. Children

     LikeLike
169. Bob Mason Says:

     
     February 18, 2018 at 12:34 pm

     Hypothetically, there may indeed be innumerable prophetic references to Jesus in the Old Testament, if one is interpreting scripture from a present day hermeneutics point of view rather than a narrower textual criticism, exegesis one. Another variable is the quality of the scholarship of the translation of the ancient texts. As an example, there was an earlier discussion here about the proper reading of John 1:1 and how that should be extrapolated back into Old Testament scripture. With a computer and a search engine, one can determine that the issue is not as definitive as some here would have the rest of us believe:

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1

     I was trained in the methods of science, where truth is always tentative, never absolute and subject to change as new data becomes available. I am thus comfortable knowing that the justified true beliefs that I hold today might be wrong tomorrow. I also can’t read ancient Greek and Hebrew, let alone interpret such texts in the context of the times in which they were written, so I accept that there are likely to be variable interpretations in textual criticism, even amongst the most qualified of scholars. It’s when the discussion moves from exegesis to less than scholarly hermeneutics that I have significant doubts about the validity of the argument. I don’t object to people using hermeneutics to find meaning in their lives, I just wish they would refrain from implying that the rest of us are idiots for not accepting their interpretations of scripture as absolute truth when they are anything but.

     LikeLike
170. kimberly Says:

     
     February 18, 2018 at 1:34 pm

     I too was trained in the scientific method which is better explained as belief is irrelevant, facts are conditional and Truth is absolute in spite of one’s limited facility to comprehend and/or define it.

     LikeLike
171. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     February 18, 2018 at 1:37 pm

     Ever hear of the name Christopher?

     It is related to the names “Christ” meaning “Anointed” and Christop meaning “follower of Christ” or “little Christ” (all from Greek.)

     When a woman names her son Christopher; what is she saying? that her baby is “her Christ” and anoints him as such with the name: the “Christ of Her”
     “Christ-O-Pher”.

     It was frequently the most popular male first name in the United Kingdom, having been in the top twenty in England and Wales from the 1940s until 1995, although it has since dropped out of the top 100. Still in the 60’s in the USA List. In 2017 Christopher was # 67, Christian was # 54.

     LikeLike
172. kimberly Says:

     
     February 18, 2018 at 1:47 pm

     And therein lies the lie……….The Father/Son relationship of the Bible is NOT familial. It is patriarchal. The difference is significant in interpretational studies. A patriarchal “naming” passes the surname and thus patriarchal authority to the firstborn Son. However, “firstborn Son” does not mean an automatic “naming” based on a familial relationship. It is the name that makes the Son. Not the inverse.

     Psalm 79:9 Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of thy NAME (ie/SON): and deliver us, and purge away our sins, for thy name’s sake (namesake….SON).

     Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other NAME (ie/Son) under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

     LikeLike
173. kimberly Says:

     
     February 18, 2018 at 1:56 pm

     NOT begotten from Mary…but, begotten from the GRAVE. Jesus was born a man and only revealed to be the Son of God at his baptism. He was NOT born the Son of God. He was the Son of God sent to be born a man. And thus, he was EVER that pre-existent Son.

     Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten OF THE DEAD

     Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born (Son of MAN), unto us a son is given (Son of GOD): and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his NAME shall be called (Patriarchal speak for “and he shall be the Son of”):

     Son of Wonderful,
     Son of Counsellor,
     Son of The mighty God,
     Son of The everlasting Father,
     Son of The Prince (Sovereign) of Peace.

     LikeLike
174. kimberly Says:

     
     February 18, 2018 at 2:10 pm

     A woman naming her kid “Christopher” isn’t biblical patriarchy. It is the passing of the SURname that involves patriarchy. All children are named (first name) but only one receives the patriarchal “naming”. Regardless of how many children are born. And, it might not even be the firstborn (read about Jacob and Esau). This is not practice today due to the lack of any tribal relationship or extended families.

     LikeLike
175. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 20, 2018 at 1:05 am

     Kimberly, according to the Bible (Scripture) what is God’s name? For example, I am a male human being. My name is Frank Adamick. A male human being is what I am (my nature). Frank Adamick is the sum total of who I am (my person/self). So God is what He is. God identifies His essence. But Who is He? How is He called? What is His name? His name identifies His distinct, unique, supreme, Divine Personhood, i.e., volition/attributes/reputation/authority.

     LikeLike
176. kimberly Says:

     
     February 20, 2018 at 6:03 am

     Moses asked that very question and the answer was “I (not “we”) am what I am” and I can just imagine this being accompanied by a bit of a shrug of God’s shoulders as if to say “why would you even ask such a question”. The answer to Moses was obviously to convey that God, being absolutely and uniquely singular in every way needs no such designation because God (generically addressed as “the LORD”) has no predecessor. Jacob also asked the same question and the answer was again “why would you even ask such a question?” (Gen 32:24-29). But, God changed Jacob’s name to Israel.

     Agur the son of Jakeh prophesied of the Son of God and pondered this same issue, asking of not only God’s name but God’s Son’s name (which was not known as we know although he was fully aware that God was to sent His Son)…………..Prov 30:4 – Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?

     That being said, when Paul asked “who are you Lord?” (Acts 9:5), the answer was “I am Jesus”. The only one who knows God’s name and revealed it to be “Father” because he (Jesus) was revealed to be the Son of God (meaning Jesus’ “name” is “God’s Son” or in modern vernacular “Godson” and NOT “god the son”). Thus, Jesus, as a man, made it plain that God is the Patriarchal Father and Originator of ALL names (ie/SURnames) clearly showing God to be the Patriarch of all the tribes of man.

     LikeLike
177. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     February 20, 2018 at 9:11 am

     Everything and everybody who has a name has that name because it was given by somebody else. Man names what he creates and names what he has not created. Language is of man.

     Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

     And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

     Your name is “the sum total of who I am (my person/self)”. No it is not!
     In the beginning was the “Word” and the “Word” was with God and the “Word” was God; in other words, “language” was God. Language is the essence of a man; that is, from language we know wherein lies the treasure of the heart the essence off a man, the mindset, the Mark on the forehead, so to speak.

     Who gave man the name “Adam” The writer of Genesis.

     Man named the Gods. The name Adam: Adán is the Spanish form of this name. Adam is also a surname in many countries, although it is not as common in English as its derivative Adams (sometimes spelled Addams). In other languages there are similar surnames derived from Adam, such as Adamo, Adamov, Adamowicz, Adams; we refer to a woman as Madam.

     God never spoke to any man despite what Moses may have said. Religious men speak and attribute that speech as the speak of God but God never talked to anybody but religiously induced man speaks to a phantom and calls it speaking to God as though their is a personal Theity lurking somewhere in the external. Sorry, not so.

     Isn’t it nice to have a computer to talk to you?

     LikeLike
178. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 21, 2018 at 2:43 pm

     Thank you, kimberly, for sharing your perspective. According to the Biblical account it was the Angel (Messenger) of the LORD (YHWH) who appeared in the burning bush to Moses (Exodus 3:2a). This account then goes on to relate, … God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!”… (Exodus 3:4). He said also, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” (Exodus 3:6a) Specific to your opening observation the Biblical account states the following: God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” God, furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This [I AM] is My name forever, and this [I AM] is My memorial-name to all generations. (Exodus 3:14-15) So then, Who appeared that fateful day to speak with Moses? Was it the Angel of the LORD? Was it God [(Ho Theos) Our Father who art in heaven (Matthew 6:9)]? Was it YHWH? Was it I AM? Was it The LORD? Was it The Lord [(Romans 10:9) Kurios]? From my perspective this one account proves insufficient to determine absolute singularity with respect to God. Indeed it supports unity in plurality; i.e., Tri-unity. I know God being Triune.
     ““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
     TRINITY in the OLD TESTAMENT
     Paul Humber | Published on Dec 1, 2016
     
     THE TRINITY is in the OLD TESTAMENT! Imagine going to the Old Testament to prove the doctrine of the TRINITY! This video give 14 sound reasons for believing in the TRINITY from the Old Testament.

     LikeLike
179. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     February 21, 2018 at 8:20 pm

     Who spoke to Moses from the burning bush?

     It was the elders………. who wanted to condition Moses to the supernatural way of belief so that he, Moses, might take heed to use the same magical, ploys to entice Pharaoh and to persuade the masses that a caricature concept they called the God of such and such, was a living entity….That’s all.

     Nothing to see here.

     It was an exercise is indoctrination prepping the proselyte for coming events.

     And succeed they did.

     LikeLike
180. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 21, 2018 at 9:26 pm

     Whenever Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent; and the LORD (YHWH) would speak with Moses.
     Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend. (Exodus 33:9, 11a)

     The LORD said to Moses, “I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight and I have known you by name.” Then Moses said, “I pray You, show me Your glory!” And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” (Exodus 33:17-20)

     So he cut out two stone tablets like the former ones, and Moses rose up early in the morning and went up to Mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and he took two stone tablets in his hand. The LORD descended in the cloud and stood there with him [Moses] as he called upon the name of the LORD. Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God [El Shaddai/God Almighty (Exodus 6:1-7) NASB], compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.” Moses made haste to bow low toward the earth and worship. He said, “If now I have found favor in Your sight, O Lord [Adonai/Kurios], I pray, let the Lord go along in our midst, even though the people are so obstinate, and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us as Your own possession.” Then God [Ho Theos] said, “Behold, I am going to make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform miracles which have not been produced in all the earth nor among any of the nations; and all the people among whom you live will see the working of the LORD, for it is a fearful thing that I am going to perform with you.” (Exodus 34:4-10)

     Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ (Yahshua Messiah), and brother of James, To those who are the called, beloved in God the Father (Ho Theos), and kept for Jesus Christ: May mercy and peace and love be multiplied to you. Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord (Kurios) [Two early mss read Jesus], after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. (Jude 1:1-2, 5) NASB

     [A conundrum? Certainly, not.]
     ““““““““““““““““““““““
     Jesus Christ and the Old Testament: Holy Trinity- Michael S. Heiser
     HaibaneXIII | Published on Jan 2, 2014
     
     A look into the Trinity.

     LikeLike
181. kimberly Says:

     
     February 22, 2018 at 6:27 am

     I presume the point of this post was to provide evidence that Jesus was not pre-existent? Well, Jesus the man wasn’t but he was revealed to be the Son of God (not God) at his baptism and it was the Son of God that was pre-existent, having ever existed as the Son of God (not as “God”). What did this Son do before being born a man? That’s fairly easy to find in the scriptures……

     Joshua 5:14 And he said, Nay; but as CAPTAIN of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant?

     NOTE: if this were an angel, Joshua would not have been permitted to worship this Person as Captain of the host of the Lord (not as “God”). And, so we see in a glimpse that the Son of God, before he was born a man, was over all the host of God in a kingdom that not only preceded the creation but had ever existed, populated by a host who themselves had ever existed and were immortal, being uncreated. He was God’s “right hand man”, God’s “right arm” and this is show many times in the Old Testament if one just looks for God’s “hand” or God’s “arm”. But, how does this correlate with the resurrected Jesus?

     Hebrews 2:10 For it became him (God), for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the CAPTAIN of their salvation (Jesus) perfect through sufferings.

     So, the Son of God in the Person of Jesus once again sits at the right hand of God in heaven as he once did with even greater power and authority extending to humanity as well as all the eternal Host of Heaven.

     LikeLike
182. kimberly Says:

     
     February 22, 2018 at 6:40 am

     hmmmmm……It would appear the crux of your argument lies with John 8:58 but that is an easy scripture to interpret because it has 50 verses leading up to it and in those verses, Jesus is speaking of God the Father, the One who spoke to Moses. Yet, Trinitarians constantly point to this one verse and based on a simple mis-placement of a comma in the translation, use it to “prove” the trinity!

     John 8:58 (original translation from KJV) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am (presumed Jesus by Trinitarians).

     vs

     John 8:58 (corrected comma placement based on the FIFTY preceding verses)………..Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham, was I am (God the Father).

     The comma should come after “Abraham”. NOT after “was”. Jesus was not speaking of himself as “God” but of God the Father as God and he was telling them that God trumps Abraham in authority. NOT that he was “god” in some way.

     John 8:27 They understood not that he spake to them OF THE FATHER.

     LikeLike
183. Bob Mason Says:

     
     February 23, 2018 at 4:49 am

     Kimberly, I’m confused. I can’t find a single translation for John 8:58 out of dozens that place the comma after Abraham. My first thought was that only Ted Geisel would come up with such a grammatical rendering, but maybe I’ve missed something. Please, enlighten us, whose textural criticism scholarship is the basis for your interpretation?

     LikeLiked by 1 person
184. kimberly Says:

     
     February 23, 2018 at 6:40 pm

     No, you haven’t missed anything. All the translations use the same punctuation just as in Luke 23:43. And, yes, commentaries will express John 8:58 as “proof” of Jesus’ pre-existent divinity in obvious contradiction to the past 57 verses. However, this is in error since Jesus is clearly speaking of God the Father rather than himself as God and he is quoting Isa 43 which is where you will find the correct punctuation and the identification of who “I am” is. Luke 23:43 is another more well-known punctuation controversy. Of course, the ravenous, murderous mob of Jews were looking for any excuse to kill him and thought they’d found it.

     Isaiah 43:13 Yea, before the day was I (God) am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?

     LikeLike
185. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 25, 2018 at 9:30 pm

     kimberly, re: your exegesis of John 8:58.

     The following constitutes this verse’s context.

     “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
     So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born (Literally: came into being), I am (Ego eimi).” (John 8:56-58, NASB)

     In v. [56] Jesus, Who is speaking, clearly references Himself with (“My day”). He maintains Himself as reference through v. [58] (“I say” | “I am”).
     “““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
     What is the meaning of I Am Who I Am?

     It is one of the most famous verses in the Torah. Hayah means “existed” in Hebrew; ‘ehyeh is the first person singular imperfect form and is usually translated in English Bibles as “I am” or “I will be” (or “I shall be”), for example, at Exodus 3:14. ‘ehyeh ‘ăšer ‘ehyeh literally translates as “I Am Who I Am.”
     ““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
     Jesus also said, “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that [Most authorities associate this with Exodus 3:14, I AM WHO I AM] I am He, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24, NASB)

     LikeLike
186. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 25, 2018 at 10:05 pm

     7 Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says,
     “TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,
     8
     DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME,
     AS IN THE DAY OF TRIAL IN THE WILDERNESS,
     9
     WHERE YOUR FATHERS TRIED Me BY TESTING Me,
     AND SAW MY WORKS FOR FORTY YEARS.
     10
     “THEREFORE I WAS ANGRY WITH THIS GENERATION,
     AND SAID, ‘THEY ALWAYS GO ASTRAY IN THEIR HEART,
     AND THEY DID NOT KNOW MY WAYS’;
     11
     AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH,
     ‘THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.’”
     12 Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. (Hebrews 3:7-12)

     The Holy Spirit is a person, not a force
     Trinity Apologetics | Published on Aug 14, 2011
     
     A person always has the following attributes:

     1. Emotions
     2. Intellect
     3. Will
     4. Self-awareness

     Therefore, if we can use the Bible to prove the Holy Spirit definitely has all 4, then the Holy Spirit is a person by definition. And of course, we can and I have shown how in this video.

     The verses I used for the 4 attributes are as follows:

     Emotions – [30] Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. (Ephesians 4:30, NASB)

     Intellect – [13] which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. (1Corinthians 2:13, NASB)

     Will – [11] But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. (1Corinthians 12:11, NASB)

     Self-awareness – [2] While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” (Acts 13:2, NASB)

     The Holy Spirit has very personal actions or is treated as a person in the following verses:

     [28] Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. (Acts 20:28, NASB)

     [32] And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.” (Acts 5:32, NASB)

     [5] and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. (Romans 5:5, NASB)

     [26] In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; [27] and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (Romans 8:26-27, NASB)

     [26] “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, (John 15:26, NASB)

     [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 to you what is to come. [14] He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. (John 16:13-14, NASB)

     [29] How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? (Hebrew 10:29, NASB)

     [30] Now I urge you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God for me, (Romans 15:30, NASB)

     [14] The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. (2Cor 13:14, NASB)

     The Holy Spirit testifies, loves, teaches, grieves, helps, hears, speaks, can be insulted, has fellowship, has grace, appoints leaders in the church, glorifies, is a witness, intercedes, guides, commands, discloses, and refers to Himself as “I” and “Me”. All descriptions which would make no sense if the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force, but would make perfect sense if He is a person.
     “““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
     “But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the [Gr Paracletos, one called alongside to help; or Comforter, Advocate, Intercessor] Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.”
     (John 16:7-11, NASB)

     “Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.” (Mark 3:28-30, NASB)

     LikeLike
187. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     February 26, 2018 at 6:26 am

     1. Emotions = Soul
     2. Intellect = Body
     3. Will = Spirit
     4. Self = Body

     Body——Soul——Spirit
     Mind—-Emotion—-Will

     Body Mind
     Soul Emotion
     Spirit Will

     LikeLike
188. kimberly Says:

     
     February 26, 2018 at 7:40 am

     A concoction of misunderstood, abstract and/or mistranslated passages is hardly “proof”. In fact, the verses quotes clearly show otherwise…..the “holy ghost” is not a person, not a power but a voice by which men are given the ability to speak of God’s Holiness”. ie/the translations should read “ghost of Holiness” with emphasis on Holiness rather than on “ghost”. An ever better interpretation is “breath of HIS Holiness” with “His” being an absolutely singular God.

     Eph 4:30 – grieve not the “voice of God”. Ie/don’t corrupt the truth (v29). Doesn’t say “grieve not “god the holy spirit”. Not “proof” of personhood.

     1 Cor 13:2 – “voice of His holiness teacheth”. Ie/what God spoke in the old commandment teaches. But God hath revealed them unto us BY His “voice” (v10) rather than “AS” another person”. Also says “words teach” in the very same verse. Not “proof” of personhood.

     1 Cor 12:11 – “He will” ie/the speaker’s will…NOT the “spirit’s will”. Not “proof” of personhood.

     Acts 13:2 – “holy ghost said” equates to the “voice of holiness said”. This was spoken by a prophet among the group…v1. Ie/proof the “holy ghost” was a voice. Not a person.

     Acts 20:28 – Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost (voice of God’s Holiness) hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he (God) hath purchased with his own blood (bloodline….ie/SON). Not “proof” of personhood other than God and Jesus.

     Acts 5:32 – And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost (Voice of Holiness), whom God hath given to them that obey him. Ie/God gave a voice to those who obeyed him.

     Rom 5:5 – And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the “voice of Holiness” which is given unto us (to speak with a single voice…ie/communion).

     Rom 8:26 – Likewise the “Voice” also helpeth our infirmities (shortcomings): for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the “Voice” itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Ie/These men were given the ability to speak and not of themselves but of God.

     John 15:26 – But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the “Voice” of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he (the speaker to whom the voice is given…NOT the “voice”) shall testify of me:

     John 16:13 – Howbeit when he, the “Voice” of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he (the speaker…NOT the voice) will shew you things to come. Ie/Jesus is speaking of giving his people a voice FROM God. Not “as god”.

     Heb 10:29 – Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the “Voice” of grace? Ie/what this shows is that there are multiple “spirits” rather than a “spirit person”….”voice of Holiness”, “voice of truth”, “voice of grace”. All depending upon what the subject is.

     Rom 15:30 – Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, and for the love of the “voice”, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me. Ie/in this case, “love of the spirit” conveys dedication to preaching the gospel. NOT “love FROM a spirit person”.

     2 Cor 13:14 – The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion (sharing) of the “voice of Holiness”, be with you all. Amen. Ie/Paul is saying they shared the “voice”, but were given the “grace” and the “love”. Jesus was a person, God was a person but the “voice” was a communion.

     LikeLike
189. kimberly Says:

     
     February 26, 2018 at 7:58 am

     I suggest you read ALL the previous passages in John 8. Jesus is clearly talking to the Jews about God, ever the Father and never himself. Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Messiah. He experienced it when God asked him to sacrifice his only son.

     Gen 22:14 – And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.

     LikeLike
190. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 26, 2018 at 3:58 pm

     32 Since the beginning of time it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind.
     33 If this man were not from God, He could do nothing.”
     34 They answered him, “You were born entirely in sins, and are you teaching us?” So they put him out.
     35 Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”
     36 He answered, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?”
     37 Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you.”
     38 And he said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped Him.
     39 And Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.”
     40 Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, “We are not blind too, are we?”
     41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains. (John 9:32-41)

     Muslims ask how Is Jesus God’s Son? How could God being one have a Son? Explained – The Endless Love of Jesus Ministries
     Published on Jul 4, 2017 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XcBdz85Pk0
     The Bible never records Jesus saying the precise words, “I am God.” That does not mean, however, that He did not proclaim that He is God. Take for example Jesus’ words in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” We need only to look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement to know He was claiming to be God. They tried to stone Him for this very reason: “You, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). The Jews understood exactly what Jesus was claiming—deity. When Jesus declared, “I and the Father are one,” He was saying that He and the Father are of one nature and essence. John 8:58 is another example. Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth … before Abraham was born, I am!” Jews who heard this statement responded by taking up stones to kill Him for blasphemy, as the Mosaic Law commanded (Leviticus 24:16).

     John reiterates the concept of Jesus’ deity: “The Word [Jesus] was God” and “the Word became flesh” (John 1:1, 14). These verses clearly indicate that Jesus is God in the flesh. Acts 20:28 tells us, “Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” Who bought the church with His own blood? Jesus Christ. And this same verse declares that God purchased His church with His own blood. Therefore, Jesus is God!

     Thomas the disciple declared concerning Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Jesus does not correct him. Titus 2:13 encourages us to wait for the coming of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ (see also 2 Peter 1:1). In Hebrews 1:8, the Father declares of Jesus, “But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.’” The Father refers to Jesus as “O God,” indicating that Jesus is indeed God.

     In Revelation, an angel instructed the apostle John to only worship God (Revelation 19:10). Several times in Scripture Jesus receives worship (Matthew 2:11; 14:33; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38). He never rebukes people for worshiping Him. If Jesus were not God, He would have told people to not worship Him, just as the angel in Revelation did. There are many other passages of Scripture that argue for Jesus’ deity.

     The most important reason that Jesus has to be God is that, if He is not God, His death would not have been sufficient to pay the penalty for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). A created being, which Jesus would be if He were not God, could not pay the infinite penalty required for sin against an infinite God. Only God could pay such an infinite penalty. Only God could take on the sins of the world (2 Corinthians 5:21), die, and be resurrected, proving His victory over sin and death.

     The resurrection of Jesus is an established fact of history, and this is the strongest evidence for Jesus’ divinity.

     In this reference to Daniel’s vision, Jesus is identifying Himself as the Son of Man, a person who was given “dominion, glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and men of every language might serve Him.” The Son of Man has a dominion that is everlasting and will not pass away. One immediately wonders what kind of person has a dominion that is everlasting. What kind of a person is given a kingdom and will have all men serve Him? The High Priest, who immediately recognized Jesus’ claim to divinity, tore his robe and declared Jesus guilty of blasphemy.

     Jesus’ use of the title “Son of Man” has surprisingly strong apologetic value. A skeptic of Christ’s deity cannot easily dismiss this particular self-designation of Jesus. That Christ referred to Himself in this manner enjoys multiple attestations, as it is found in all of the Gospel sources. The phrase “Son of Man” is used of Jesus only a few times outside of the Gospels themselves (Acts 7:56; Revelation 1:13; 14:14). Given its scarce usage by the early apostolic church, it is unlikely that this title would have been read back into the lips of Jesus if, in fact, He had not used this particular self-designation. And yet, if it is established that Jesus really did use this title of Himself, it becomes apparent that Jesus considered Himself to have everlasting power and a unique authority beyond that of a mere human being.

     Sometimes, it was Jesus’ actions that revealed His identity. Jesus’ healing of the paralytic in Mark 2 was done to demonstrate His authority and ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:3-12). In the minds of His Jewish audience, such abilities were reserved for God alone. Jesus also receives worship several times in the Gospels (Matthew 2:11; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; 20:28). Never did Jesus reject such adoration. Rather, He regarded their worship as well placed. Elsewhere, Jesus taught that the Son of Man will ultimately judge humanity (Matthew 25:31-46) and taught that our eternal destinies depend on our response to Him (Mark 8:34-38). Such behavior is further indication of Jesus’ divine self-understanding.

     LikeLike
191. kimberly Says:

     
     February 27, 2018 at 6:21 am

     As with mythology, when one looks into the detail of each “proof” texts associated with Jesus being “God”, one finds mistranslation, presupposition, conjecture, abstraction preceded by an overlay of polytheism and/or modalism and quite a few other anomalous interpretations. What one does NOT read in the entire Bible is the plain statement “I am God”, “he was God”, “he is God”, “Jesus is/was God”.

     John 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is God.

     Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is God.

     Acts 9:20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is God.

     1 John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

     1 John 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is God?

     LikeLike
192. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 27, 2018 at 10:02 am

     Jesus IS Jehovah… PERIOD!
     Trinity Apologetics | Published on Feb 19, 2012
     
     “If you don’t believe Jesus is Almighty God, you have a false Christ. Therefore repent and trust in the true Lord. Here I used John 12:41 to GUARANTEE that Jesus IS Jehovah, PERIOD! This is the only exegetical, logical and biblical conclusion when we compare John 12:37-41 to Isaiah 6:1-10. Even more so when we look into the Greek.”

     LikeLike
193. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     February 27, 2018 at 10:23 am

     Why was Zeus the most important god?
     Zeus, the presiding deity of the universe, ruler of the skies and the earth, was regarded by the Greeks as the god of all natural phenomena on the sky; the personification of the laws of nature; the ruler of the state; and finally, the father of gods and men. PERIOD

     And if you don’t believe that be on alert for the next thunderbolt!

     LikeLike
194. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     February 27, 2018 at 10:26 am

     The Romans, as they grew and conquered other lands, adopted those things from other cultures that they liked. They even adopted other peoples’ gods. When the Romans met the Greeks and heard all the stories about the Greek gods, they adopted all the Greek gods. They changed the names of the gods to make them Roman and changed some of the stories to make the gods act more like Romans. Soon they even were able to act like these had been Roman gods all along.

     How is your God any different? S/HE is not. PERIOD

     LikeLike
195. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     February 27, 2018 at 10:29 am

     You are only a few nuts and bolts distant from the Myths from whence all the Gods were born, changed, morphed, evolved.

     Even the Gods are subject to Evolution.

     In future come that generation will laugh at you just as you smirk at the Ancients whose gods you took, changed and made your own, just like the Romans.

     LikeLike
196. kimberly Says:

     
     February 27, 2018 at 11:02 am

     another false and contrived phrase that isn’t anywhere in the scriptures. The phrase “Jesus is almighty God” is found nowhere. Don’t you realize that the word “almighty” is a statement of absolute singularity attributed only to God?

     1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son ALSO HIMSELF be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all (a statement of absolute singularity just as “almighty” is).

     LikeLike
197. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 27, 2018 at 6:26 pm

     No Man Shall See My Face and Live
     sanderson1611 | Published on Feb 26, 2018
     
     License
     Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)

     LikeLike
198. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 27, 2018 at 6:32 pm

     What Day Was Jesus Begotten?
     sanderson1611 | Published on Feb 26, 2018
     
     License
     Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)

     LikeLike
199. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     February 27, 2018 at 6:38 pm

     Trinity Moment #6 – The Term “Persons” is Biblical (Hebrews 1:1-3)
     sanderson1611 | Published on Feb 25, 2018
     
     License
     Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)

     LikeLike
200. SonofMan Says:

     
     February 27, 2018 at 8:24 pm

     Jesus was begotten the day that Gabriel went to visit her and told Mary that her cousin Elizabeth was pregnant.

     You heard the story but didn’t quite “get it”, did you?

     In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, Gabriel made bis way to the Galilean village of Nazareth to a virgin engaged to be married to a man descended from David. His name was Joseph, and the virgin’s name, Mary. Upon entering, Gabriel greeted her:

     Good morning! You’re beautiful with God’s beauty. Beautiful inside and out!
     God be with you.

     She was thoroughly shaken, wondering what was behind a greeting like that. But Gabriel assured her, “Mary, you have nothing to fear. God has a surprise for you: You will become pregnant and give birth to a son and call his name Jesus.

     He will be great, be called ‘Son of the Highest.’ The Lord God will give him
     the throne of his father David; He will rule Jacob’s house forever—no end, ever, to his kingdom.”

     Mary said to Gabriel, “But how? I’ve never slept with a man.”

     Gabriel answered,

     The Holy Spirit of Love will come upon you, the power of the Highest will hover over you; therefore, the child you bring to birth, will be called Holy, Son of God.

     “And did you know that your cousin Elizabeth also conceived a son, old as she is? Everyone called her barren, and here she is six months pregnant! Nothing, you see, is impossible with God.”

     And Mary said,

     “Yes, I see it all now: I’m the Lord’s maid, ready to serve. Take me, Have me; Let it be with me just as you say.

     Later, Gabriel left Mary. She was blessed and blissful. Mary, so pure and impressionable was in love at first sight of the handsome idol Gabriel by the wonderful words he spoke to her.

     Before they came to the marriage bed, Joseph discovered she was pregnant. (It was by the Holy Spirit, but he didn’t know that.) Joseph, chagrined but noble, determined to take care of things quietly so Mary would not be disgraced.

     Before they came to the marriage bed, Joseph discovered Mary was pregnant. (It was by the Spirit of Love, but he didn’t know that.) While he was trying to figure a way out, he had a visitor. Gabriel spoke in the dim of the evening: “Joseph, son of David, don’t hesitate to get married. Mary’s pregnancy is Spirit-conceived. The spirit of Holy Spirit has made her pregnant. She will bring a son to birth, and when she does, you, Joseph, will name him Jesus—‘God saves’—because he will save his people from their sins.”

     This would bring the prophet’s embryonic sermon to full term:

     Watch for this—a virgin will get pregnant and bear a son; hey will name him Immanuel (Hebrew for “God is with us”). Isaiah 7:14

     When Joseph awoke in the morning, he did exactly what Gabriel commanded: He married Mary. But he did not consummate the marriage until she had the baby. He named the baby Jesus.

     LikeLike
201. Bob Mason Says:

     
     February 28, 2018 at 4:46 am

     And what exactly would be your response if your 13 year old daughter came to you and said the angel Gabriel made her pregnant? Would you be stupid enough to believe her? Or would you suspect that high school kid named Joe, who had been hanging around the house while you and your wife were still at work, had something to do with it? The Gabriel story is nonsense, written into Christian dogma by the author of Luke, who probably couldn’t stand the thought that someone as pure as Jesus, Oneness or otherwise, could be the product of sexual passion.

     LikeLike
202. kimberly Says:

     
     February 28, 2018 at 6:35 am

     The virgin conception comes from the old testament. And, you hit on the crux of a false Christian doctrine. If Jesus were conceived by some spiritual entity then he would have been a hydrid of some type. This concept of hybridization as a “godman” comes from paganism. Not the Bible. If Mary was impregnated by that same spiritual entity then Jesus would have been born under one of two circumstances…..born as a bastard (based on those who think Mary wasn’t yet married) or born out of adultery (based on those who think Mary was married). Nothing of the kind is described in the Bible. Jesus was conceived by the “overshadowing of the holy ghost (breath of holiness)” meaning that it was time for Messiah as prophesied in the old commandment text and as spoken by God from the Mountain to His people at THEIR beginning (which is the meaning of John 1:1). However, that conception was within the marriage vow to Joseph and it was Joseph’s seed (sperma in the Greek) that was used to in the impregnation. Not some “spiritual being having intercourse with Mary). Consequently, the only miracle was the way Mary conceived. Jesus was conceived in the marriage vow and by her husband Joseph, born of the lineage of David just as prophesied. This was only possible through Joseph even though without sex. NOT through Mary. Conception was made prior to sex because it bypassed the clean/unclean laws of the old commandment meaning Jesus was conceived in absolute purity (the sex act in the OT was followed by a period of uncleanness). Without the virgin conception, Jesus as Messiah would have been tainted from the get go.

     LikeLike
203. kimberly Says:

     
     February 28, 2018 at 6:44 am

     Overlaying Heb 1 with a presumption of modalism is hardly “proof”. What we see is a quote from an old testament song and a praise inserted prior to addressing the Son TO God FOR a “Sceptre of Righteousness” which is that Son. So, we see the Son as a Sceptre, NOT as “God”.

     But unto the Son, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom (praise inserted TO God for the Sceptre, which is the Son).

     and then, the passage continues in which the Son (that Sceptre of Righteousness) is addressed……………….

     9 Thou (Son) hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, EVEN THY GOD (the Son has a God…NOT “is God”), hath anointed thee (Son) with the oil of gladness above thy fellows (fellow Sons).

     LikeLike
204. kimberly Says:

     
     February 28, 2018 at 6:51 am

     The day Jesus was begotten was when he was resurrected by God from the grave. This was on Saturday evening, smack dab in the middle of the feast of unleavened bread. It made it a double Sabbath and was of such significance to the resurrection that it would never have been ignored. The feast of unleavened bread depicted removal of sin.

     Matt 26:2 sets the chronology, which was spoken on a Sunday. Therefore, the Passover was on a Tuesday night. Jesus was taken that night and crucified the next day, which was a Wednesday evening. Then, count 3 days/3 nights. Wed night, Thur day, Thur night, Frid day, Frid night, Sat day.

     2 Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

     LikeLike
205. kimberly Says:

     
     February 28, 2018 at 7:00 am

     No man can look at the sun and not go blind. Then extrapolate that to an uncountable number of suns. Extrapolate again to looking at the sum total of all suns in a single entity. One still wouldn’t have conceived God because the universe is a soap bubble by comparison since He made it. And yet Christianity claims to not only speak for God but to have a “personal” relationship with Him. They are liars and thieves with their only power being in the ability to con money from unsuspecting sheep.

     LikeLike
206. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     February 28, 2018 at 1:16 pm

     Where exactly in the bible does it state Mary was 13 yrs old?

     Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

     LikeLike
207. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     February 28, 2018 at 1:21 pm

     Where exactly in the bible does it state Mary was 13 yrs old

     LikeLike
208. Bob Mason Says:

     
     February 28, 2018 at 2:56 pm

     My apologies. Usually I write a draft of my comments and let them ferment for a day or two before posting. I didn’t do that in this case, responding too quickly with my Gabriel comments. Had I followed my usual practice, I would have pointed out the blatantly obvious attempt by the author of Luke to tie Jesus to the Messiah prediction in Isaiah as a means to justify the validity of the, at the time, fledgling Christian church to the well establish Jewish community. However, my views on the absurdity of virgin birth, the writings of ascetic monks and prophets and my question of how you would respond to your 13 year old daughter still stand. As for the age of Mary, I was merely drawing an analogy to a pregnant, young, unmarried woman. If it makes you feel better, make her 18 or 25 years old; the analogy is still valid.

     LikeLike
209. kimberly Says:

     
     March 1, 2018 at 6:10 am

     Mary was married and had a husband. The fact of her virginity was within the marriage vow. And, it was her husband’s seed (sperma) which was used in the conception albeit without the sex act. That was the miracle. Not sex with an unmarried woman by a spirit entity.

     Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph HER HUSBAND, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away (divorce her) privily.

     Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary THY WIFE: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost (breath/voice of Holiness….OT prophesies about salvation).

     LikeLike
210. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     March 1, 2018 at 9:17 am

     kimberly, go back one more verse.:

     18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
     19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.
     20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
     21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
     22 Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
     23 “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which translated means, “GOD WITH US.”
     24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
     25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. (Matthew 1:18-25 NASB)
     ““““““““““““““““““““““
     “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)

     LikeLike
211. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     March 1, 2018 at 9:38 am

     Understanding a Classic Biblical METAPHOR:

     A Weird Way To Prove That Jesus is God
     Trinity Apologetics | Published on Oct 3, 2016
     
     John calls the person of the Son ‘the Logos’ (John 1:1-2, 14; Rev. 19:13, 1 John 1:1). But why did he choose this title?

     There are several reasons. One of which is the fact that the Jewish Targums (ancient paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures in Aramaic) commonly replaced the Divine Name of God (YHWH) or God Himself with ‘the Word of the Lord’ (e.g. Gen. 19:24, Num. 21:6, Isa. 44:24, Ex. 3:14-15) and even do the same with some ‘I AM’ statements of YHWH (e.g. Deu. 32:39) and likely identifies the Angel of the LORD as the Memra (Gen. 16:7ff). The Targum also describes the Word of the Lord as the very agent of creation.

     You can check the Targum here: http://targum.info/targumic-texts/pen…

     In other words, IF John had the Targum in mind with his Logos theology of Jesus, then we would have to conclude that he believed the Logos (of John 1:1) was personally the God of Israel rather than some type of impersonal, abstract thing like Socinians and Modalists believe, since the Word of the Lord is commonly YHWH Himself in the Targum, the One who brought everything into existence. He applies this to the SON!

     “…there is solid evidence indicating that the targumic usage of the Memra (“Word”) was the background for John’s Logos theology.” – Dr. Edward Dalcour, p.33, (footnote)

     “The ancient Targums identify the speaker in Deuteronomy 32:39 as the Word of God, which is the very title John gives to Jesus in the prologue to his gospel (John 1:1, 14; cf. 1 John 1:1–3, Rev. 19:13). In other words, according to the ancient Jews who paraphrased this passage in Aramaic, the one who originally said “I Am” in the Old Testament is the Divine Word, even as the one who said “I Am” in John’s gospel is the Divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.” – Anthony Rogers

     LikeLike
212. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     March 1, 2018 at 9:49 am

     39
     ‘See now that I, I am He,
     And there is no god besides Me;
     It is I who put to death and give life.
     I have wounded and it is I who heal,
     And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.
     40
     ‘Indeed, I lift up My hand to heaven,
     And say, as I live forever,
     41
     If I sharpen My flashing sword,
     And My hand takes hold on justice,
     I will render vengeance on My adversaries,
     And I will repay those who hate Me.
     42
     ‘I will make My arrows drunk with blood,
     And My sword will devour flesh,
     With the blood of the slain and the captives,
     From the long-haired leaders of the enemy.’
     43
     “Rejoice, O nations, with His people;
     For He will avenge the blood of His servants,
     And will render vengeance on His adversaries,
     And will atone for His land and His people.” (Deuteronomy 32:39-43)

     Steven Lawson: Beginning with Moses: Christ in All the Scriptures
     Ligonier Ministries | Published on Mar 2, 2016
     
     The Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God. Although it consists of a collection of sixty-six writings by multiple authors spanning hundreds of years, it is one book with one message of salvation. From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible reveals how God saves sinners through His one and only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. In this session, Dr. Steven Lawson expounds upon how the promise of redemption given throughout the Old Testament is fulfilled in Christ.

     LikeLike
213. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     March 1, 2018 at 6:47 pm

     Proving Jesus Is God | Pt. 1 The Basic 7
     Theophilus Most Excellent | Published on Jul 15, 2016
     
     Proving Jesus Is God | Pt. 1 The Basic 7

     In this video series I will attempt to show that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is God. Here in part one I go over the most basic passages found in the New Testament that speak of Jesus being God. These seven passages all directly apply the Greek word for God, i.e. theos, to Jesus. In order of their appearance, the seven passages are:

     John 1:1
     John 1:18
     John 20:28
     Romans 9:5
     Titus 2:13
     Hebrews 1:8-9
     2 Peter 1:1

     I go over each passage, briefly discussing the various content. Some of the passages require more explanation than others to flesh out the original intent of the author….

     I hope the video edifies and builds up the Church of Christ. If you liked the material, feel free to subscribe to my channel for similar material in the future. I love all of you very much and I hope you’re blessed in the Lord.

     Godspeed,
     Theophilus

     LikeLike
214. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     March 1, 2018 at 6:53 pm

     Proving Jesus Is God | Pt. 2 The Old Testament 2
     Theophilus Most Excellent | Published on Jul 22, 2016
     
     Proving Jesus Is God | Pt. 2 The Old Testament 2

     In this video series I will attempt to show that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is God. Here in part two I discuss two places in the Old Testament where Jesus is spoken of as being God. These two passages directly apply to Jesus. In order of their appearance, the two passages are:

     Isaiah 7:14
     Isaiah 9:6-7

     I discuss how the New Testament writers, like the Apostle Matthew, look back upon the prophecy in Isaiah 7 and interpret it to be Jesus due to His virgin birth as well as His divine status. I also go over a few common arguments leveled against these two passages and show how they are easily refuted. I also briefly discuss the Hebrew behind the word virgin in Isaiah 7:14, showing why it is a correct rendering of the term ‘almah. I end by showing that all the Old Testament passages discussed are found in the Isaiah Scroll, a complete manuscript of the book of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, and dating around 100 to 300 years before the time of Christ….

     I hope the video edifies and builds up the Church of Christ. If you liked the material, feel free to subscribe to my channel for similar material in the future. I love all of you very much and I hope you’re blessed in the Lord.

     Godspeed,
     Theophilus

     LikeLike
215. SonofMan Says:

     
     March 1, 2018 at 6:59 pm

     Kimberly your virgin birth by a miracle of Joseph’s seed is as absurd as the virgin birth in the first place. If you believe that anybody ever was conceived without sexual intercourse (artificial insemination not withstanding) you are suffering from a form of mental illness.

     LikeLike
216. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     March 1, 2018 at 6:59 pm

     Proving Jesus Is God | Pt. 3 Indirect Passages
     Theophilus Most Excellent | Published on Feb 25, 2017
     
     Proving Jesus Is God | Pt. 3 Indirect Passages

     In this, the third part of Proving Jesus Is God, I cover a wide variety of passages that indirectly prove that Jesus is God. I begin by showing many verses from the Gospels, then a few from the writings of the Apostle Paul, then some from the other New Testament epistles and finish strong in in the book of Revelation with one of the clearest attestations of Christ’s full deity in all Scripture….

     I have put together a lot of good material for the believing Christian, esp. the newborn Christian, categorizing it all the best I could. There is quite a lot of good material available, ranging from apologetics, which is reasons for faith and answers to difficulties regarding faith, to Biblical teaching, to in-depth examinations of various other worldviews, as well as videos exposing satanic teachings/teachers, occultism, New World Order/Illuminati type things and many many others.

     I hope the video edifies and builds up the Church of Christ. If you liked the material, feel free to subscribe to my channel for similar material in the future. I love all of you very much and I hope you’re blessed in the Lord.

     Godspeed,
     Theophilus

     LikeLike
217. SonofMan Says:

     
     March 1, 2018 at 7:17 pm

     Bob:

     Do you suppose that Gabriel, which is also mentioned in Matthew not just in Luke, though not by name, Matthew also says that this was fulfilling the Isaiah prophecy………

     Do you imagine then that Gabriel knocked on the door and said. Hi Mary, I’m the angel Gabriel?

     This encounter is a classic case of seduction. Who walked around claiming to be an angel? That’s church dogma, not the story itself.

     And let me also point out the fact: who was hanging around Elizabeth’s place when Zacharias was told that Elizabeth was pregnant? If you said Gabriel you’d be right not some kid from school named Joe.

     Gabriel was Elvis Presley without a guitar and the girls swooned over him as your girls are prone to do in those early teen years, it’s their design!

     Of course there is no such thing as virgin births but a virgin reference was merely any young unmarried gal….all unmarried gals were virgins and a virgin birth was simply the virgin’s first born child…a Virgin was like a Princess and the first born child changes the Princess into a Mother and into a Queen; that’s the analogy I am talking about. Of course there was sexual passion; most sex is passionate; it is the barren womb that is never satisfied.

     Four things that never say enough: Proverbs 3015-16
     There are three things that are never satisfied, yea, four things say not, It is enough:

     16 The grave; and the barren womb; the earth that is not filled with water; and the fire that saith not, It is enough.

     The barren womb begins at puberty and wants to be swept of her feet; it’s the way of the design.

     LikeLike
218. SonofMan Says:

     
     March 1, 2018 at 8:36 pm

     Sweet FA

     back to his old tricks trying have anyone gullible enough to go chasing his video links; definitely the sign of a delusion.

     LikeLike
219. kimberly Says:

     
     March 2, 2018 at 6:40 am

     The key word in such a post is “indirect”. Meaning circumstantial, and in consideration of the source, is based on abstractness, mis-translations, conjecture, presumption, supposition and an overlay of paganistic polytheism or modalism to make it appear legitimate. I find it frankly amazing that anyone could base their entire religious philosophy on what simply isn’t there and when “direct” evidence contradicts that philosophy in every way.

     LikeLike
220. kimberly Says:

     
     March 2, 2018 at 6:47 am

     If you’re calling me crazy, I take that as a compliment. You mention artificial insemination and fail to mention cloning, mitosis and parthenogenesis. A word of advice………..scoffing in unbelief is the worst form of science.

     LikeLike
221. kimberly Says:

     
     March 2, 2018 at 6:58 am

     What you fail to see is that John clearly defined his use of “logos” and it WAS NOT Jesus.

     1 John 2:7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the LOGOS which ye have heard from the beginning.

     John is describing his witness based on the promises inherent within the old commandment, which was spoken by God Himself from Mt. Sinai at the time of ISRAEL’s beginning. John 1:1 does not parallel Gen 1:1. John was a witness of the light of understanding that Jesus was Messiah in the flesh and it was the FLESH that walked among men. NOT the “word”.

     LikeLike
222. kimberly Says:

     
     March 2, 2018 at 7:06 am

     You mistake the modern connotation of being engaged to the ancient betrothal. That is your mistake.

     http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3229-betrothal
     The root (“to betroth”), from which the Talmudic abstract (“betrothal”) is derived, must be taken in this sense; i.e., to contract an actual though incomplete marriage. In two of the passages in which it occurs the betrothed woman is directly designated as “wife” (II Sam. iii. 14, “my wife whom I have betrothed” (“erasti”), and Deut. xxii. 24, where the betrothed is designated as “the wife of his neighbor”). In strict accordance with this sense rabbinical law declares that the betrothal is equivalent to an actual marriage and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce.

     LikeLike
223. SonofMan Says:

     
     March 2, 2018 at 7:27 am

     “Crazy” broadly defines human colloquialism; a form of mental illness is more appropriate.

     In the bible, you’ll find pages and pages about how to sacrifice animals, and keep slaves about who to kill and why. There’s nothing about electricity, there’s nothing about DNA, there’s nothing about infectious disease, about the principles of infectious disease. Nor is there anything about cloning, mitosis and parthenogenesis. Scoffing based on belief defeats common sense even more than believing in so called miracles of the bible or going to heaven on flying horses.

     Why even Moses throwing down a staff that turned into a snake was nothing more than a magic trick and a heck of a lot short of a miracle which the Lord (a prophet, priest, minister or preacher) told Moses to do when Pharaoh asked for a miracle.

     Pharaoh not only scoffed at Moses and Aaron but kicked them out of the palace after his own magicians did the same “miracle” with the snake trick.

     You are duped in more ways than one by trying to use scientific terms to confirm “miracles” that never happened. Forget the ideas of demented patriarchs from the past who used magic and trickery for brownie points.

     To those who think religion deserves some kind of respect for its Ego-maniacal, vain imaginations, I say to you that the demise of your ghost system is at hand. Allah, God, Yahweh have no existence; nor will She ever existence outside the minds of control freaks. The closest ANYONE will ever get to the CONCEPT of allah, god or jehovah, heaven is through a mother and her children, not through loaves of bread and fishes.

     I believe that religious belief itself is a form of mental illness which has outstayed its welcome on this planet and should now be relegated back to the realm of tarot cards and crystal balls where it belongs.

     LikeLike
224. SonofMan Says:

     
     March 2, 2018 at 7:52 am

     John was a witness of the light that Jesus had insightful understanding as the Messiah who described evolution as the Father and that that essence of evolution, the Father, was necessarily within you.

     That revolution of religion was the knowledge of the evolution of humanity but portrayed as a personal mythological God to be worshiped, according to messenger wannabes who presented themselves as the personification of the God myth so they could live off the avails of prostituting evolution through ritualistic religious ceremonies to impress the masses they controlled by denying them education and therefore knowledge.

     Darwin was a modern educator that took evolution out of the religious domain to show the religious sham for what it had always been since the Ancient Oracles of mythology in the year dot.

     This makes perfect sense to the mind that has not been indoctrinated and predisposed to accept the supernatural of religion and hollywood as viable options for the non-knowledge group called “believers”. Lives guided by common sense and righteousness of reality far out performs lives guided by supernatural and superstition belief.

     LikeLike
225. kimberly Says:

     
     March 2, 2018 at 10:38 am

     You hit on a valid fact. Religion postulates an evolutionary progression to immortality by religious means regardless of what the Bible says. Science postulates an evolutionary progression as well to the same end. Neither takes into account the natural and logical progression to chaos rather than perfection.

     LikeLike
226. kimberly Says:

     
     March 2, 2018 at 10:51 am

     “there’s nothing about infectious disease, about the principles of infectious disease”

     Apparently you’ve never read the instructions in the Bible about where and how to take a shit. Its there.

     …………….Thou shalt have a place also outside the camp whither thou shalt go forth abroad. 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.

     LikeLike
227. SonofMan Says:

     
     March 2, 2018 at 12:23 pm

     That’s not talking about prevention of disease; it’s talking about people not walking in the unclean thing. Especially the Lord; AKA, the messengers, priests, prophets, holy men, preachers; in general the clergy who claim they were the messengers and therefore; “Since the LORD your God; (AKA, the Cleric) walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to defeat your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy; and He must not see anything indecent among you or He will turn away from you.”

     Nothing to do with disease but good try Kimberly……………lol 🙂 : )

     LikeLike
228. kimberly Says:

     
     March 3, 2018 at 5:56 am

     I beg to differ. That was the reason given to ignorant former slaves (blacks weren’t the only former slave race like they want us to believe…Caucasians share in that). Would you want to visit a place otherwise handled? The very fact that such detail had to be given is that thousands of people would have simply dumped anywhere. Think “Woodstock”. And, consider why the plague came to Europe. The phrase “raining cats and dogs” wasn’t metaphorical but comes from the fact that when it rained heavily, dead pets thrown into the street were washed downhill through the city. Night soil containers were dumped into the street in the same manner. Sickness ran rampant during the dark ages because of this simple disregard for hygiene. To you and me, this is obvious but without such a command, the same would have happened then.

     LikeLike
229. SonofMan Says:

     
     March 3, 2018 at 8:22 am

     Kimberly, if you didn’t “beg to differ”; it wouldn’t be you!

     Of course we people put forth our educated guesses to spin a reason for such things, especially believers because believers are believers because believers DO NOT KNOW; excrement was not a source of the Plaque. As to the reason, the bible simply says that the Lord walked in their midst and that was the reason for the digging and covering but if you think about it. We should be very clear that this instruction was because of a military conquest, not a missionary enterprise. Thousands of soldiers would have left an easily identifiable trail for the enemy; that’s an educated guess too.

     September 8, 2016 Yersinia pestis bacterium identified from DNA in teeth from skeletons found at Crossrail Site, London showing the human remains were victims of the Great Plague of London in 1665-1666.

     January 15, 2018: While rats(with infected fleas) have long been blamed for spreading the fatal disease throughout Europe, researchers at the University of Oslo in Norway and the University of Ferrara in Italy now believe humans and their parasites were the biggest carriers.

     DNA evidence indicates Y. pests infected humans 5,000 years ago in Bronze Age Eurasia, but genetic changes that made it highly virulent did not occur until 3,000 years ago. The Y. pestis bacterium has a relatively large number of non-functioning genes and three “ungainly” plasmids suggesting a recent creation of less than 20,000 years old.

     Three main strains are recognised: Antiqua, which caused a plague pandemic in the 6th century; Medievalis, which caused the Black Death and subsequent epidemics during the second pandemic wave; and Orientalis, which is responsible for the current plague outbreaks.

     Plague causes a blockage in the proventriculus of the flea by forming a biofilm.The biofilm formation is induced by the ingestion of blood. The presence of a biofilm seems likely to be required for stable infection of the flea.It has been suggested that a bacteriophage – Ypφ – may have been responsible for increasing the virulence of this organism.

     LikeLike
230. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     March 3, 2018 at 12:05 pm

     S o M, re: post 218.

     You don’t know the deal with that? – One man’s meat is another man’s poison.

     BTW according to your mindset the scientific researchers are only guessing (be it educated or otherwise) also:
     …”researchers at the University of Oslo in Norway and the University of Ferrara in Italy now BELIEVE (emphasis added) humans and their parasites were the biggest carriers.”
     Mere speculators who concoct more supposition to add to the barrel. Where does one find the truth? I wonder.

     LikeLike
231. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     March 3, 2018 at 12:15 pm

     Powerful (but overlooked) evidence for the Trinity!
     Trinity Apologetics | Published on Dec 19, 2017
     
     Was Jesus a Trinitarian? Did He ever claim to be Jehovah? How many of us already knew He applied Deut. 32:39 about Jehovah to BOTH Himself and the Father in John 10:28-30? Even if you look at the Greek version of the verse we see so many parallels and key terms between the two passages which was clearly done deliberately by John.

     Note the following:

     Jehovah: “I give life … And there is no one who can deliver from My hand.”

     Jesus: “I give eternal life … and no one will snatch them out of My hand”

     Jesus said (John 10:28): …kai ouch harpasei tis auta ek tēs (‘and no one will snatch them from the…’)

     Jehovah said (Deu. 32:39): …kai ouk estin hos eskeleitai ek tōn (‘and there is none who will deliver from the…’)

     Both phrases start with kai (and), ouch (ουχ) and ouk (ουκ) are related as negatives (no one / none), ek (from / out of) is mentioned in both verses and tēs and tōn are definite articles. Both ‘snatch’ and ‘deliver’ are synonymous terms derived from aihreomai (Strong’s G138) and are in the EXACT same form/tense: future, indicative, 3rd person singular. This cannot be a coincidence.

     Note, this video is actually a re-upload from a video I did a year ago (one of my favorites) but I edited it to include the very important Greek parallel information. I was hoping it would reach more and more people because it’s such a powerful biblical case. How can we deny that Jesus claimed Deity in this passage while being personally distinct from the Father? The Jews themselves understood Him as claiming to be God (v.33) and most likely recognized the language from Deut. 32:39, a very well-known verse to devout Jews.
     ““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
     And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. (1 John 5:20)

     LikeLike
232. kimberly Says:

     
     March 3, 2018 at 1:54 pm

     first you say it was God not wanting to step in sh*t and now you say it was a military action. Common sense says otherwise.

     LikeLike
233. kimberly Says:

     
     March 3, 2018 at 2:06 pm

     Seriously, you’re trying to use 1 John 5:30 to “prove” the trinity?

     20 And we know that the Son OF God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know “him that is true” (God and NOT Jesus), and we are in “him that is true” (God and NOT Jesus), even in HIS (God’s) SON Jesus Christ. This (God and NOT Jesus) is the true God, and eternal life.

     John 3:33 He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God (not Jesus) is true.

     John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee (Father) the ONLY true God, and Jesus the Christ whom thou (the only true God) hast sent.

     LikeLike
234. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     March 3, 2018 at 7:40 pm

     kimberly, in answer to your question in post # 233; kindly take note regarding 1 John 5:20:

     The Messiah Yahshua, the Son of God, has come to reveal, declare and most assuredly make the Father known. The Body of Messiah knows this is the one true living Triune God who is the Source of everlasting life, i.e. Father, Son and Holy Eternal Spirit of Truth.

     17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.
     18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
     19 For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.
     20 “I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;
     21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
     22 The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;
     23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.
     24 Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
     25 “O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me;
     26 and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”
     (John 17:17-26 NASB)

     LikeLike
235. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     March 3, 2018 at 7:50 pm

     Do Oneness Pentecostals deny the Deity of Christ and Monotheism?
     Trinity Apologetics | Published on Mar 23, 2015
     
     If I were to claim that Oneness Pentecostals are polytheists because they believe in two deities, one supreme, eternal deity, the Father, and a second human, deity, the Son, that would be a straw man argument. Same principle applies to accusing the Trinity of being polytheism. Trinitarians and Modalists agree that the one God of the Bible is the only true God, the God of Israel. Muslims can still accuse Oneness Pentecostals of polytheism.

     Also, if Oneness Pentecostals teach that the Son is merely a manifestation of the Father, a temporary role of God, a created human being, who wasn’t there at creation, how can they claim to believe Jesus is truly God? By teaching He’s the Father? But no Bible verse supports that He’s actually God the Father in His Deity. Therefore, all we’re left with is a created being.
     ““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
     32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord GOD. “Therefore, repent and live.” (Ezekiel 18:32)

     LikeLike
236. SonofMan Says:

     
     March 3, 2018 at 8:33 pm

     The Trinity is the religious man’s way to try and make sense out of nonsense.

     See Leo’s GOOD BOOK Chapter 2

     CHAPTER TWO:

     WHAT YOU CALL GOD IS ACTUALLY ANOTHER NAME FOR “EVOLUTION”. GOD IS THE ULTIMATE EVOLUTIONIST AND EVOLUTION THE ULTIMATE CREATOR.

     The Greatest Discovery of Jesus Christ.

     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 Evolution the Creator of mankind and the Creator with him, that man was Jesus Christ. He just happened to see himself as the end-product of Evolution that engineered man and who deliberately, though never himself less than man 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 the crown jewel of evolution 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 the Creator. That’s the essential difference. Jesus Christ never ever less than a Crown Jewel of Evolution 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 the Crown.

     The truth about Evolution as the Creator and the truth about man as the created; in other words, the Lord Jesus, as the created and the one who assumed the office of man that Evolution created, knew exactly what that relationship should be, that would govern his humanity on earth and his Father, Evolution as the Creator 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 Evolution was the truth about the Creator. But being the created by the Creator who made man, assuming his office, to fulfill his role, he was the truth about man. Now what is equally obvious is that the Lord Jesus was the truth about Evolution because he was the truth about man because the truth about man is that man was created to be the truth about Evolution. 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 the 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 Christian faith into a complicated procedure ritualistic quibbling, when in point of fact, it derives from a person; it’s of him, through him, to him, all things to whom alone belongs the glory of revealing the truth about humanity to humans. 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 Evolution and by being the truth about Evolution he was the truth about man because the truth about man is that man was created to be the truth about Evolution.

     And the behavior manifested by Jesus was the way, the life and the truth that all men were created for, using the gift of life to express righteousness through love, and that crowning jewel of Evolution was Humanity itself. Evolution the Creator and Humanity the Created.

     Now what is also obvious is that man created the Gods in the image of man to personify evolution. The Gods then are the ultimate Evolutionists whether one God or many Gods. They are caricature concepts of the image of man. Find any God, and who does God looks like, a man and sometimes a woman. We have outgrown the Gods but not the Oracles who still proclaim them thereby giving the proclaimers some sense of worth higher than humanity, but they are only “high” on themselves, where eagles fly, egos reign.

     LikeLike
237. SonofMan Says:

     
     March 3, 2018 at 9:38 pm

     “…..first you say it was God not wanting to step in sh*t and now you say it was a military action. Common sense says otherwise.”

     You didn’t understand the entirety of the passage in Deuteronomy…..

     Read it again, for the first time:

     “…..After you relieve yourself, dig a hole with the stick and cover your excrement. God, your God, strolls through your camp;………” Keep your camp holy; don’t permit anything indecent or offensive in God’s eyes.

     And the other line is the reason why the Lord. not the Lord but the messengers of the Lord and the Military by this obvious line that he was talking about the camp of the soldiers…why?

     “………… he’s present to deliver you and give you victory over your enemies………..”

     That’s common sense.

     here’s the whole passage so don’t cherry pick:

     Debt 23:
     9-11 When you are camped out, at war with your enemies, be careful to keep yourself from anything ritually defiling………….

     12-14 Mark out an area outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourselves.

     Along with your weapons have a stick with you.After you relieve yourself, dig a hole with the stick and cover your excrement. God, your God, strolls through your camp;

     “………..he’s present to deliver you and give you victory over your enemies. Keep your camp holy; don’t permit anything indecent or offensive in God’s eyes.”

     So you see “war with your enemies” sounds like common sensate me to assume the writer means “the soldiers in the camp were at war with ….. enemies………….”

     LikeLike
238. SonofMan Says:

     
     March 3, 2018 at 9:53 pm

     Post 230:

     “You say that I am a king,” Jesus answered. “But this is the reason I was born and have come into the world, TO TESTIFY TO THE TRUTH. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to My voice.”

     38“What is truth?” Pilate asked.

     LikeLike
239. Bob Mason Says:

     
     March 4, 2018 at 4:56 am

     Ah yes, what is truth? Good question. In 70AD, the Christian church would have still been in its infancy. Without the support of the state, the Roman governors of the time, the church would have needed allies to spread their doctrine. Who better than the Greek speaking Jewish merchant class? They were the wealthier, more mobile, better educated leaders of their community (does Saul of Tarsus ring a bell?). Slipping in a few versus into ones sacred texts linking Jesus to the Hebrew tradition of the Isaiah prophesy of the Messiah made perfect sense. You could thus garner the support of the Jewish community and have a potential source of influential converts to Christianity. Christians have been interpreting Hebrew Old Testament texts ever since to help justify the divinity of Jesus. The exact nature of that divinity was the point of Jason’s original posting.

     By the time Emperor Justinian converted to Christianity, there were several different Christian doctrines, each with their own sacred texts and interpretations of the divinity of Jesus. When Justinian tired of their constant bickering on the subject, he ordered the various church leaders to work out their differences at the Council of Nicaea. Trinitarianism thus became the doctrine of the Christian church. Augustine provided the philosophical context for the Trinity and Jerome selected the texts to support that doctrine, excluding those that didn’t, in the form of the Vulgate Bible. However, without an Emperor to dictate world order, things reverted to the norm. For example, Unitarians formed their own church in the mid-1500s and a group of Pentecostals established the Oneness Pentecostal church movement in 1914. Thus, the bickering about the nature of the divinity of Jesus from 1700 years ago continues today, some of which can be seen nearly every day on this website. And that is just one reason why I no longer consider scriptural truth to be absolute.

     Bible literalists consider scripture to be absolute truth, the absolute word of God. But scriptural truth isn’t absolute, it’s interpretative. Each church denomination, each congregation, each individual picks and chooses the Bible verses and makes nuanced arguments about their meaning and validity in order to justify their personal beliefs. That doesn’t even come close to representing absolute truth. It’s giving precedent to stories of miracles to justify ones convictions rather than relying on a knowledge base of justified true beliefs consistent with modern day knowledge and experience. Secular knowledge isn’t absolute either, but at least it’s a closer representation of reality than the writings and proclamations of the literalists.

     LikeLike
240. Bob Mason Says:

     
     March 4, 2018 at 5:44 am

     Oops, did it again. Spoke too soon. Constantine was emperor when the Nicene Creed was written. Justinian ruled in the east when Bubonic plague ravaged what was left of the Roman empire.

     LikeLike
241. kimberly Says:

     
     March 4, 2018 at 6:16 am

     It was predicted that this is exactly what would happen……….

     Luke 21:8 And he (Jesus) said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for MANY shall come in my name (ie/surname…as “brothers” or as “brethren” or as “Christians”), saying, I (Jesus) am Christ (true); and the time draweth near (false): go ye NOT therefore after them.

     belief is irrelevant, facts do not equate to Truth and Truth may only be acknowledged as to its existence regardless of belief and no matter how many factoids one has.

     LikeLike
242. kimberly Says:

     
     March 4, 2018 at 6:39 am

     I think you’re missing the point. Hygiene was an inherent part of the statutes. Whether in a temporary camp when going to war or in the midst of the congregation of the main camp. Research “unclean until the even” in the KJV and you’ll see immediately that it clearly relates to hygiene after contacting disease.

     This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall

     LikeLike
243. kimberly Says:

     
     March 4, 2018 at 6:46 am

     Frank, clearly you’ve overlaid the passage you quoted with polytheism. The clear and obvious meaning of the passage is “one mind” and “one voice”.

     Romans 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

     And you appear to think that Jesus only claimed to have a God while he was “in the flesh”. However, that too is in error.

     Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of MY God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of MY God, and the name of the city of MY God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from MY God: and I will write upon him my new name (begotten from the grave…..Son of God).

     LikeLike
244. SonofMan Says:

     
     March 4, 2018 at 7:08 am

     You already missed the point and spinning from the plague to leprosy and scall by disregarding the warring soldier aspect.

     Admitting it would serve your credibility best.

     LikeLike
245. Bob Mason Says:

     
     March 4, 2018 at 1:29 pm

     Facts, those evidenced based bits of information recognized by most everyone as truthful, form the basis of a sound, consistent argument. Without them, your assertions are only good for entertainment value in the form of mockery.

     LikeLike
246. Scalia Says:

     
     March 4, 2018 at 2:56 pm

     @Bob Mason

     You write:

     The exact nature of that divinity was the point of Jason’s original posting.

     Not quite. Jason’s “point” is a simple one: Crafting a creed that is uniquely oneness. Does his creed accomplish that? Could it have been worded better? As argued above, is the word person an appropriate descriptor for God? Does it (the creed) or should it accommodate the various strains of oneness theology?

     Jason is not inviting a debate on whether oneness (monarchianism, modalism, etc.) is true.

     LikeLike
247. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     March 4, 2018 at 9:04 pm

     No, kimberly, you misunderstand the Scripture presented and my position.

     The term “one” can and does signify distinct, unity, unified, unison, etc., for example:
     “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! (Deuteronomy 6:4)
     See post # 160.

     God of The Bible is Truth & Eternal.:
     Into Your hand I commit my spirit;
     You have ransomed me, O LORD, God of truth. (Psalm 31:5)
     When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:28)

     God acts according to His own Sovereign Will.:
     3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
     4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit.
     5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.
     6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.
     7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
     8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;
     9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
     10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.
     11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.
     12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.
     13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
     14 For the body is not one member, but many. (1 Corinthians 12:3-14 NASB)

     LikeLike
248. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     March 4, 2018 at 9:09 pm

     Messianic Prophecies
     https://bible.org/article/messianic-prophecies
     From the above article:
     Introduction
     One of the authenticating proofs for the inspiration of the Bible, which at the same time authenticate the claims of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the only Savior of the world, are the many fulfilled prophecies which find their fulfillment in the person and life of Christ, Jesus of Nazareth. We have in the Holy Scripture, an array of prophecies which extend over hundreds of years and yet find their complete fulfillment in the short thirty-year life span of one person, Jesus of Nazareth, many being fulfilled in one day. These prophecies truly accomplish the purposes of the Gospel writers as they carefully pointed to the person, words, and works of Christ….

     LikeLike
249. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     March 4, 2018 at 9:14 pm

     A Brief History of Oneness Pentecostalism
     Trinity Apologetics | Published on May 22, 2016
     
     Is Oneness Pentecostalism historic and apostolic Christianity or a recent invention from the 20th century excommunicated by the Assemblies of God? Dr. Dalcour and Dr. Beisner give us some insight into this.

     Moreover, were the early Sabellians charismatic who followed the modern Oneness Pentecostal baptismal formula for salvation? Is there any evidence for this?

     LikeLike
250. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     March 4, 2018 at 9:20 pm

     Do Oneness Pentecostals and Trinitarians worship the same God?
     Trinity Apologetics | Published on Apr 3, 2016
     
     Is a tri-personal God and a uni-personal God ever the exact same God? Does it honor the Son (John 5:23) to regard Him as a created, human manifestation of the Father, not equal with God (see John 5:18, Php. 2:6)? Do Oneness Pentecostals confess the Son (1 John 2:23)?

     LikeLike
251. Bob Mason Says:

     
     March 5, 2018 at 4:09 am

     Scalia: Point taken. I admit I got caught up in the debate between Frank and Kimberly. However, given the diversity of backgrounds of those who visit this website, do you really think only Oneness believers would have something to say in the subject?

     LikeLike
252. kimberly Says:

     
     March 5, 2018 at 6:54 am

     Regarding Trinitarianism vs oneness Pentecostalism.

     Both are based on the same premise and that is that prior to the Creation, God existed alone and isolated in the midst of an infinite black void for all past eternity. That premise is wrong. Consequently, Trinitarianism and Pentecostalism are both wrong in their conclusions.

     In contrast, the biblical inference is that prior to the creation, God ever existed as King of an infinitely vast kingdom, which ever existed, populated by innumerable Host who themselves ever existed. To us, an incomprehensible reality since we know of nothing other than a beginning and an ending which prior to the Creation was as inconceivable as no beginning and no ending.

     To think that only God previously existed in absolute sensory deprivation in the midst of some infinite black void for all past eternity leading up to the Creation is to conclude that the Creation was the result of a being driven mad from such absolute nothingness. And, if Trinitarianism is thrown into the mix, such madness includes a multiple personality disorder.

     And, the correct premise explains precisely who Jesus was. He was the Son who was sent (not born). A Son who had EVER been that Son and NEVER God. But, who ever existed. Not as God but as Captain of an innumerable uncreated, immortal Host of subjects in a Kingdom having ever existed, with a King who the Bible consistently perceives as an absolute singularity. We can then see that God sent his “right-hand man” to save us. And, the value of such a sacrifice for humanity’s sin was in Jesus’ prior eternal life as Son. Not as God. A value so great as to make the sacrifice of one immortal Person for a mere 3 days and 3 nights enough to dissuade the obliteration of billions of temporally mortal beings.

     So, the argument of Trinitarianism vs Pentecostalism is moot.

     LikeLike
253. kimberly Says:

     
     March 5, 2018 at 6:58 am

     “one” does not signify unity…..it signifies singularity.

     LikeLike
254. kimberly Says:

     
     March 5, 2018 at 7:10 am

     “facts” are only truthful within specific parameters such as the time stated and/or the location given.

     Truth on the other hand is absolutely singular regardless of time or location and is universally and infinitely existent.

     Consequently, stated fact does not necessarily point one in the direction of Truth because of logically inherent limitations.

     Belief is only relevant in that there can be an acknowledgement that Truth, albeit unknown and possibly unknowable, exists. This equates to faith and such faith is even held by so-called atheists because no atheist would dare admit that Truth does not exist. Consequently, atheism is one of the most illogical stances to make of all religious views.

     LikeLike
255. Scalia Says:

     
     March 5, 2018 at 8:21 am

     @Bob Mason

     Hi, Bob. Given that this thread is over 250 posts (filled with mostly irrelevant comments), one wouldn’t expect a person to read every one of them. I initially tried to quickly scan every post, but Leo, Kim & Frank (this site’s trolls) are only interested in pushing their agendas, so I now ignore them. However, I do read your comments, and that’s why I replied.

     Earlier in this thread, I mentioned that if a trinitarian had posted a creed, I could comment on its accuracy even though I’m not a trinitarian. Consequently, non-oneness believers can certainly comment on Jason’s post. It’s just that I don’t see him asking for a debate on whether modalism/trinitarianism/arianism are true.

     All the best.

     LikeLike
256. Bob Mason Says:

     
     March 5, 2018 at 9:27 am

     Scalia, it’s taking longer and longer for the comments to load, mostly likely because of Frank’s videos, I think. In Jason’s 2009 post, he asked “What do you believe?”.

     Regards

     LikeLiked by 1 person
257. Scalia Says:

     
     March 5, 2018 at 9:43 am

     Bob: Good one!

     LikeLike
258. SonofMan Says:

     
     March 5, 2018 at 10:10 am

     Bob, the 2009 Post comment was so well aimed, I’m surprised that ScaliaAlito commented on the clever irony that more likely than not went right over the troll slayer’s head 🙂 🙂 so lolable.

     Reminds me of a graphic witticism I saw this morning on Trump’s idea of arming teachers.

     A regular Glock for the school teachers;
     A Glock with a Silencer for the Librarians.

     LikeLike
259. Scalia Says:

     
     March 5, 2018 at 11:08 am

     I caught it, Leo. I thought it was funny. Unlike you, Bob has a sense of humor, and I can take a poke—unlike you.

     LikeLike
260. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     March 5, 2018 at 2:18 pm

     16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?”
     17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
     (Romans 10:16-17)

     LikeLike
261. Bob Mason Says:

     
     March 6, 2018 at 4:51 am

     SoM and Scalia: You guys think too highly of me. I wasn’t making a joke. I was merely pointing out that in Jason’s 2009 post of his personal Oneness creed (link at the top on the page) he invited comments by asking what his readers believed. If that same open invitation holds today, then anyone, Christian or otherwise, should be able to express their views on Oneness doctrine.

     LikeLike
262. Scalia Says:

     
     March 6, 2018 at 8:29 am

     @Bob

     Thanks for the clarification. The link you refer to is definitely an open invitation to discuss everything in Jason’s creed. In fact, I’ve recently posted there several times. That’s as near an open thread as Jason’s ever posted, and that’s the place to debate one’s views on the Godhead, not here.

     LikeLike
263. SonofMan Says:

     
     March 6, 2018 at 9:37 am

     Bob:

     I didn’t think it was a joke; I thought you placed that comment because it invited posters to express their beliefs and one could reasonably extrapolate to current threads. Nigglers of course never give an inch; it’s why they’re called nigglers because they’re uncompromising in their dogmatic, self righteousness attitude. And the response? “………and that’s the place to debate one’s views on the Godhead, not here.”

     It is obvious to me now that I was right when I stated ” the clever irony more likely than not went right over the troll slayer’s head. His comeback after you saying it was not a joke he thought was “funny”, was simply to defend his position: that he decides what the parameters should be and so quick to criticize everybody outside; well, except you Bob because he wants and needs at least one supporter to side with him and thought he could wiggle over to you.

     There’s a scripture that jumped in my mind as I write; I’m not quite sure why, maybe there’s a connection that I just can’t quite put my finger on at the moment, maybe a stuffed shirt psychic or somebody with a broom stuck up their Kyber Pass could niggle over this scriptural intrusion but I pass it on nevertheless.

     Jesus was speaking to the scholars pressing him to give them a sign, a staff & snake miracle.

     Matt 12:38
     38 Later a few religion scholars and Pharisees got on him. “Teacher, we want to see your credentials. Give us some hard evidence that God is in this. How about a miracle?”

     39-40 Jesus said, “You’re looking for proof, but you’re looking for the wrong kind. All you want is something to titillate your curiosity, satisfy your lust for miracles. The only proof you’re going to get is what looks like the absence of proof: Jonah-evidence. Like Jonah, three days and nights in the fish’s belly, the Son of Man will be gone three days and nights in a deep grave.

     41-42 “On Judgment Day, the Ninevites will stand up and give evidence that will condemn this generation, because when Jonah preached to them they changed their lives. A far greater preacher than Jonah is here, and you squabble about ‘proofs.’ On Judgment Day, the Queen of Sheba will come forward and bring evidence that will condemn this generation, because she traveled from a far corner of the earth to listen to wise Solomon. Wisdom far greater than Solomon’s is right in front of you, and you quibble over ‘evidence.’

     43-45 “When a defiling evil spirit is expelled from someone, it drifts along through the desert looking for an oasis, some unsuspecting soul it can bedevil. When it doesn’t find anyone, it says, ‘I’ll go back to my old haunt.’ On return it finds the person spotlessly clean, but vacant. It then runs out and rounds up seven other spirits more evil than itself and they all move in, whooping it up. That person ends up far worse off than if he’d never gotten cleaned up in the first place.

     “That’s what this generation is like: You may think you have cleaned out the junk from your lives and gotten ready for God, but you weren’t hospitable to my kingdom message, and now all the devils are moving back in.”

     As Naz would say,

     “Cheers”……………if you can receive it, that is.

     LikeLike
264. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     March 6, 2018 at 9:49 am

     Well There.

     LikeLike
265. Scalia Says:

     
     March 6, 2018 at 10:05 am

     @Bob

     Well, after looking at it again, Jason did not ask readers, “What do you believe?” He stated, “What do I believe?” He then produced a creed that answers that question.The comments under that thread are, therefore, unrestricted, so long as they relate to what Jason believes. The topic is the sum of his beliefs, so everything related to that is fair game.

     This thread is specifically the crafting of a oneness creed, not where to bury feces, the history of oneness or why the virgin birth is a myth.Trolls can construe any text to justify their behavior, and they do so with abandon.

     LikeLike
266. LeoTheGreater Says:

     
     March 6, 2018 at 11:37 am

     Christians have a biblical duty to evangelise and spread the faith. This was once backed up with harsh punishment for heathens and apostates, but thankfully those days are over. (Except in Islamic countries) Spreading the good word remains a worthy way for the faithful to spend their time, though. If Christianity is allowed to convert the heathens, I think it only fair that the heathens are given a chance to fight their corner.

     This need not be a bad thing for the Church. Having seen, chatted to, and even socialised with several evangelists, I believe faith is stronger for being challenged. If believers don’t hear contradictory views, they have little reason to truly consider what they hold dear. Mature faith is all the better for this challenge.

     If that leads some to read opinions which differ to your own, why worry? Why protest against anti-religion? Christianity has almost everything going its way – culture and art for the last two millennia have been subject to its influence. It is in the home, it permeates society, and it recruits young. You can try to keep the flock faithful by silencing critics – or, failing that, petitioning the faithful to boycott their works or decry what they write. Alternatively, you can hone your own arguments, rally your evangelists, and spread the good word: and let your rivals do the same.

     Scalia, with all due respect, Jason’s statement as a question “What do I believe?”; this should be regarded is a reasonable invitation for posters to state what “they believe” as well. This is not a thread, nor is any, merely for aggrandizing the owner of the site. Jason needs, no “must” hear other sides to empower his own position.

     Even you do enough of your own postings that are “off topic”, even if only to tell others that they are off topic, call them trolls and niggle much of the time doing so off topic by talking abut being off topic. If you are on topic, well and good for you.

     You write what you want; I submit you let others write as the spirit leads them.

     Only Donald Trump, the next ex-President, has no compunction about blaspheming other spirits like the arrogant blowhard he is because he doesn’t have the empathy to care about anybody but himself.

     LikeLike
267. Frank Adamick Says:

     
     March 6, 2018 at 8:06 pm

     Re: posts 243. & 253.

     [Yahshua Messiah is The Authority having Jurisdiction.: But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. (Matthew 12:6)
     8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
     9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
     10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; (Colossians 2:8-10)
     18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
     19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
     20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)]

     Jesus Wasn’t A Trinitarian? (Mark 12:28-34)
     Trinity Apologetics | Published on Oct 24, 2016
     
     Did Jesus agree with a friendly unitarian Jew on the existence of God in Mark 12:28ff? Is the Shema alone the greatest commandment and in fact teaches a unipersonal, unitarian YHWH?

     Or was this Jew outside the kingdom of God and needed to be born again? Were they simply agreeing on Monotheism and loving God and neighbor properly as taught in the Law?

     It’s interesting to note that even Shabir Ally sees 1 Corinthians 8:6 as an expansion of Deuteronomy 6:4. ‘God’ and ‘one Lord’ appear in both and in the very same forms (from the Shema’s LXX version – ALL are nominative, masculine singulars). One God and one Lord are synonymous titles of Deity that are only appropriate for the one Lord God of Israel. The title “one Lord” would have brought every devout Jew’s mind to the Shema. Therefore the Father and Jesus ARE that one Divine Being of Deu. 6:4.

     LikeLike