Does this person have three husbands?

[JesusIsAll]

The Father is 100% my husband. He is the first Person that is 100% my husband.
The Son is 100% my husband. He is the second Person that is 100% my husband.
The Holy Ghost is 100% my husband. He is the third Person that is 100% my husband.
I do not have three husband, I only have one husband.

I have said, I only have one husband, don’t you believe me?
I have tried to explain how I only have one husband, and you still won’t believe I only have one husband.
You think I’m being dishonest.
You just don’t understand my doctrine, of how I only have one husband.

Now if you won’t accept the idea that I have only one husband, you make me out to be a polygamist, and that is offensive to me, because I know that I am only to have one husband.
I have friends in religious circles, that will condemn you if you won’t agree that I do not have three husbands, but only one husband.
I am not committing adultery, because I have three distinct persons, that I know each as 100% my husband.
I have been through extensive training, in a effort to believe I only have one husband, and be able to convince others.
I even try to get the entire bible to agree with me, that I only have one husband.
Now have I been able to convince you that I only have one husband, or not? The Trinity?

Are there some that are having difficulty believe those that hold the above view, only have one husband?
To me, oneness is a better, more believable, bible understanding, of how God is truly only one.

[luvmyfamily]

Good post. it is simply a doctrine that is almost imossible to actually evangelize with. Ask any believer in a mono-theistic doctrine. Or just about anyone in any religion, for that matter. One God, Jesus is God, and came to save you from your sins, and He wants you for His own, please turn from your wicked ways and believe in Him. Is that the Gospel in a nutshell?

[JesusIsAll]

The trinity DOCTRINE, should you believe it?
Hello again luvmyfamily, good to see a post from you.

Another comment here:
The trinity doctrine is just that, A DOCTRINE, that was hammered out several centuries after the original apostles left the scene.
The doctrine has internal contradictions, and even says within itself that it is incomprehensible. It doesn’t make common sense, it will not compute or add up. Why should we believe or endorse the trinity, when there is a better understanding available to us humans, of how God really is one?

So I asked the simple question, does this person have one husband, or three?
Not you, but why is it difficult for trinity to answer? 1 or 3?

[luvmyfamily]

Any trinitarians out there that are willing to take a shot to answer JIA's question??

[DrunkNtheSpirit]

I dont know how they could take a shot at his post. Awesome JIA.

[Rulkiewicz]

The Father is 100% my husband. He is the first Person that is 100% my husband.
The Son is 100% my husband. He is the second Person that is 100% my husband.
The Holy Ghost is 100% my husband. He is the third Person that is 100% my husband.
I do not have three husband, I only have one husband.

I have said, I only have one husband, don’t you believe me?
I have tried to explain how I only have one husband, and you still won’t believe I only have one husband.
You think I’m being dishonest.
You just don’t understand my doctrine, of how I only have one husband.

Now if you won’t accept the idea that I have only one husband, you make me out to be a polygamist, and that is offensive to me, because I know that I am only to have one husband.
I have friends in religious circles, that will condemn you if you won’t agree that I do not have three husbands, but only one husband.
I am not committing adultery, because I have three distinct persons, that I know each as 100% my husband.
I have been through extensive training, in a effort to believe I only have one husband, and be able to convince others.
I even try to get the entire bible to agree with me, that I only have one husband.
Now have I been able to convince you that I only have one husband, or not? The Trinity?

Are there some that are having difficulty believe those that hold the above view, only have one husband?
To me, oneness is a better, more believable, bible understanding, of how God is truly only one.



Amen, good post. I would also like a Trinitarian to discuss this.

[Cassius]

Good post. it is simply a doctrine that is almost imossible to actually evangelize with. Ask any believer in a mono-theistic doctrine. Or just about anyone in any religion, for that matter. One God, Jesus is God, and came to save you from your sins, and He wants you for His own, please turn from your wicked ways and believe in Him. Is that the Gospel in a nutshell?

Actually, your affirmation is precisely what Trinitarians believe. Once again in typical Oneness fashion you are shifting the burden of proof - that Jesus is the Father. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is the One God and that He came to save mankind. What we object to is the belief that He is His own Father - something not found in scripture. In fact, over and over again Christ is spoken of within the Godhead yet distinct from the Father.

Jews and Muslims reject the Trinity yet they would as vehemently reject your assertion that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh as held by Trinitarians as well.

[Cassius]

The Father is 100% my husband. He is the first Person that is 100% my husband.
The Son is 100% my husband. He is the second Person that is 100% my husband.
The Holy Ghost is 100% my husband. He is the third Person that is 100% my husband.
I do not have three husband, I only have one husband.

I have said, I only have one husband, don’t you believe me?
I have tried to explain how I only have one husband, and you still won’t believe I only have one husband.
You think I’m being dishonest.
You just don’t understand my doctrine, of how I only have one husband.

Now if you won’t accept the idea that I have only one husband, you make me out to be a polygamist, and that is offensive to me, because I know that I am only to have one husband.
I have friends in religious circles, that will condemn you if you won’t agree that I do not have three husbands, but only one husband.
I am not committing adultery, because I have three distinct persons, that I know each as 100% my husband.
I have been through extensive training, in a effort to believe I only have one husband, and be able to convince others.
I even try to get the entire bible to agree with me, that I only have one husband.
Now have I been able to convince you that I only have one husband, or not? The Trinity?

Are there some that are having difficulty believe those that hold the above view, only have one husband?
To me, oneness is a better, more believable, bible understanding, of how God is truly only one.


I remember this post you made over on CARM. The simple answer to your question lies in your misunderstanding of anthropomorphism. Trinitarians have never used the human "person" synonymously with the Trinitarian "Person". As Augustine said, "Person" is simply a Trinitarian way of most closely expressing the Biblical truth behind the distinction between Father, Son and Holy Spirt. Never have Trinitarians used human relations as an example of the relations between the Trinitarian members.

[JesusIsAll]

It is quite similar, to CARM, yes. Humanizing God into three distinct "persons" is the main drawback of the trinity doctrine. I believe the trinity art work, shows what they envision as their "one?" God.

There is reference to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost in scripture, and any oneness that will not concede to this reference, would be open for debate. The Father is Spirit, the Holy Ghost is that same Spirit, although manifested in a different visible manifestation, and the Son of God is that same Spirit of the Father, manifested in the flesh, living a life as a human. The only one that fully meets the qualifications to be a person, is the Son of God, the Christ.

But the idea that these terms and manifestations are three co-equal, co-eternal, and co-existent persons, was added I feel, because somewhere along about the third century, some people did not understand how one eternal, invisible, Spirit of the Father, God, could be involved in being all the above at the same time, (oneness). They did not understand the mystery of the incarnation, it was not revealed to them, as even Jesus said.

In their efforts to explain that which they did not understand, they humanized God into three persons, but because they knew they were only to have one God, they instructed all their followers to never confess that they believed in three Gods, but say "they", the three they call each 100% God, were only one God. In order to pass their exams and receive a passing degree, you must agree with them, or else.

One of my concerns is, the followers did not make the lie?, but do they love the lie?, and so will have their part in the lake of fire? I would advise people to consider the words of Jesus in Luke 11 and Matthew 23, especially :
Mat 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
Mat 23:30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Mat 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

And we know the penalty imposed on those that dared to disagree with these appointed? religious leaders, the same penalty as Jesus suffered because He ruffled the feathers of those that thought the world should recognize their doctor of the law degrees, and their so called authority to demand all interpret scripture according to their private interpretation.

It is noticed that in the trinity doctrine, some additional unnamed "substance" is described as the "divine essence". I inject that this "divine essence", is really the Spirit of the Father, God. This being so, in trinity thought, none of the persons ARE this divine essence, so they are not really God, and that which IS God, "the divine essence", (God is a Spirit, according to Jesus, not three persons) this fourth "substance", that is not "divided", is for the most part, ignored.
God is a Spirit, that we may call by the English name JESUS, whether He interact with us as Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, or all these and more at the same time. Maybe I should start a new thread with this? Thanks.

[BrainWashed]

If the Son and Spirit are coequal, why is blasphemy against the Son forgivable but not against the Spirit? Luke 12:10

[JesusIsAll]

Agreed, and rephrased,
If the three of the trinity are co-equal, how is it unforgivable to blaspheme the Holy Ghost, but not the Son of God/man? And is it forgivable to blaspheme the Father, God? Doesn't seem so in the O.T.? Maybe the Holy Ghost and the Father are the same Spirit? That would explain the Fatherhood of Jesus, the Son of God, being attributed to conception of the Holy Ghost. Maybe we only have one God, and He is a Spirit, not three persons.
Maybe Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, was the Spirit of the Father living a life as a human, and of course, He could not stop being the Father, God in the heavens. It was forgivable to disbelieve the human son of God, but to say that the Spirit living a human life in the Son of God was something besides God, something unclean, was unforgivable. Thank you Deputy.

[Cassius]

If the Son and Spirit are coequal, why is blasphemy against the Son forgivable but not against the Spirit? Luke 12:10

Read Luke 12:10 carefully. It says anything spoken against the "Son of Man" will be forgiven, but not against the Spirit. Christ was fully man. That is why he has the incarnational title "Son of Man". Anything said against the man Jesus Christ would be forgiven.

[BrainWashed]

Well, Jesus said that only his father knew the day of the second coming, and not the Son *Mark 13:32*. Well what about the Spirit? Apparently the spirit doesn't know because only the Father knows. Are there things that the father knows that the spirit doesn't? If so, in what sense can the persons of the trinity be co-equal, and of the same essence?

Read Luke 12:10 carefully. It says anything spoken against the "Son of Man" will be forgiven, but not against the Spirit. Christ was fully man. That is why he has the incarnational title "Son of Man". Anything said against the man Jesus Christ would be forgiven.

[Banditt]

Well, Jesus said that only his father knew the day of the second coming, and not the Son *Mark 13:32*. Well what about the Spirit? Apparently the spirit doesn't know because only the Father knows. Are there things that the father knows that the spirit doesn't? If so, in what sense can the persons of the trinity be co-equal, and of the same essence?

because there aint no trinity.

the son also could not say who would sit on his right & on his left, but only the father prepared that. so if the father & son are the same how is it the son/father does not do this preparing but at the same time does it?

so again, if the son & holy spirit are the same 'person' in theory then how is it you blaspheme this same person with two different titles & be forgiven but at the same time not be forgiven?

makes no sense.


Read Luke 12:10 carefully. It says anything spoken against the "Son of Man" will be forgiven, but not against the Spirit. Christ was fully man. That is why he has the incarnational title "Son of Man". Anything said against the man Jesus Christ would be forgiven.

so you can say anything you want against the man Jesus (like his man blood is not required for salvation & he never was the real Messiah)...so what happened to this man? & since Jesus is the Holy Ghost incarnated...

um, that makes no sense.



anyone have anything else?:)

[Banditt]

The Father is 100% my husband. He is the first Person that is 100% my husband.
The Son is 100% my husband. He is the second Person that is 100% my husband.
The Holy Ghost is 100% my husband. He is the third Person that is 100% my husband.
I do not have three husband, I only have one husband.

I have said, I only have one husband, don’t you believe me?
I have tried to explain how I only have one husband, and you still won’t believe I only have one husband.
You think I’m being dishonest.
You just don’t understand my doctrine, of how I only have one husband.

Now if you won’t accept the idea that I have only one husband, you make me out to be a polygamist, and that is offensive to me, because I know that I am only to have one husband.
I have friends in religious circles, that will condemn you if you won’t agree that I do not have three husbands, but only one husband.
I am not committing adultery, because I have three distinct persons, that I know each as 100% my husband.
I have been through extensive training, in a effort to believe I only have one husband, and be able to convince others.
I even try to get the entire bible to agree with me, that I only have one husband.
Now have I been able to convince you that I only have one husband, or not? The Trinity?

Are there some that are having difficulty believe those that hold the above view, only have one husband?
To me, oneness is a better, more believable, bible understanding, of how God is truly only one.


interesting topic.

but why would you marry your son & your father at the same time? that sounds like two husbands. your son is your son & your father is your father. they are not the same, it is impossible for your father to be your son...let alone your husbands...then you have this uncle or brother in there as your husband. unless your son is your uncle?

but it is possible to have three husbands if you marry three people.
if you only marry the same person three times then you only have one husband.

otherwise it is not logical, to me.

[BrainWashed]

We know that, but CAS was suppose to answer that, arggh!because there aint no trinity.

the son also could not say who would sit on his right & on his left, but only the father prepared that. so if the father & son are the same how is it the son/father does not do this preparing but at the same time does it?

so again, if the son & holy spirit are the same 'person' in theory then how is it you blaspheme this same person with two different titles & be forgiven but at the same time not be forgiven?

makes no sense.




so you can say anything you want against the man Jesus (like his man blood is not required for salvation & he never was the real Messiah)...so what happened to this man? & since Jesus is the Holy Ghost incarnated...

um, that makes no sense.



anyone have anything else?:)

[Cassius]

It is quite similar, to CARM, yes. Humanizing God into three distinct "persons" is the main drawback of the trinity doctrine. I believe the trinity art work, shows what they envision as their "one?" God.

There is reference to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost in scripture, and any oneness that will not concede to this reference, would be open for debate. The Father is Spirit, the Holy Ghost is that same Spirit, although manifested in a different visible manifestation, and the Son of God is that same Spirit of the Father, manifested in the flesh, living a life as a human. The only one that fully meets the qualifications to be a person, is the Son of God, the Christ.

But the idea that these terms and manifestations are three co-equal, co-eternal, and co-existent persons, was added I feel, because somewhere along about the third century, some people did not understand how one eternal, invisible, Spirit of the Father, God, could be involved in being all the above at the same time, (oneness). They did not understand the mystery of the incarnation, it was not revealed to them, as even Jesus said.

In their efforts to explain that which they did not understand, they humanized God into three persons, but because they knew they were only to have one God, they instructed all their followers to never confess that they believed in three Gods, but say "they", the three they call each 100% God, were only one God. In order to pass their exams and receive a passing degree, you must agree with them, or else.

One of my concerns is, the followers did not make the lie?, but do they love the lie?, and so will have their part in the lake of fire? I would advise people to consider the words of Jesus in Luke 11 and Matthew 23, especially :
Mat 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
Mat 23:30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Mat 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

And we know the penalty imposed on those that dared to disagree with these appointed? religious leaders, the same penalty as Jesus suffered because He ruffled the feathers of those that thought the world should recognize their doctor of the law degrees, and their so called authority to demand all interpret scripture according to their private interpretation.

It is noticed that in the trinity doctrine, some additional unnamed "substance" is described as the "divine essence". I inject that this "divine essence", is really the Spirit of the Father, God. This being so, in trinity thought, none of the persons ARE this divine essence, so they are not really God, and that which IS God, "the divine essence", (God is a Spirit, according to Jesus, not three persons) this fourth "substance", that is not "divided", is for the most part, ignored.
God is a Spirit, that we may call by the English name JESUS, whether He interact with us as Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, or all these and more at the same time. Maybe I should start a new thread with this? Thanks.

Okay. You don't seem to be listening. Trinitarians have NEVER "humanized" the three Persons into human persons. YOU are doing that - as a strawman. Trinitarians have never used the human person synonymously with the Trinitarian "hypostasis". The "artwork" argument is the Oneness favourite bogus argument because they can't actually reference any creed or confession that states that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three "bodied" individuals. I can't help it is men of the past - artists, not theologians - decided to depict the Trinity in an inaccurate way. You will find, sir, that the artwork depicting the Trinity uses IMAGERY that does not actually reflect Trinitarian belief in reality. Just because da Vinci chose to portray John as effeminate doesn't mean he actually believed John existed thus in reality. It's an artistic device.

[Cassius]

Well, Jesus said that only his father knew the day of the second coming, and not the Son *Mark 13:32*. Well what about the Spirit? Apparently the spirit doesn't know because only the Father knows. Are there things that the father knows that the spirit doesn't? If so, in what sense can the persons of the trinity be co-equal, and of the same essence?

You answered the question yourself. The "equality" of the Persons is based on their "essence". That doesn't necessarily mean they don't have different function. Sure, the Father and the Son are one God, but that doesn't mean the Father doesn't have alternate functions from the Son.

Your question is like asking "If men and women are both fully human, then why can't men get pregnant?" There is a difference between nature and role.

[JesusIsAll]

I see, as others, that the three co_equal, co_eternal, co_existent persons doctrine, as well as the art work, is what humanizes God, tends to cause people to envision God to be three as human beings, in three locals, when God is an eternal, invisible, Spirit, that fills the heavens. And I believe there is a better way to view God, Oneness. There was no need of a three co_equal, co_eternal, co_existent persons doctrine being introduced in the first place. If there had not been the added view that God was three co_equal, co_eternal, co_existent persons introduced at all, we wouldn't be discussing this.
And it seem that the answer that some trinitarian are using, is that after all the efforts to make the scriptures indicate there are three co_equal, co_eternal, co_existent persons in the Godhead, they aren't really persons, or at least human persons after all, but three something else.

This is OK with me, because this is what oneness have been saying all this time. This is the reason oneness have disallowed the trinity doctrine, because it causes people to envision God as three persons, three Lords, three deities, three as God, or three Gods, and oneness feel there is a better way to explain the scriptures in a way that shows God IS only one, and doesn't cause this humanizing effect.

As I see it, remove any reference to "three persons", and we wouldn't need to come up with a special definition of "persons", and all could totally agree. If the doctrine would have said something like the following, we would not be having this discussion.

"Within the working of the eternal invisible Spirit that is the Father, our God, there have been several visible Spiritual manifestations, the main three are termed the Father in the heavens, the Holy Ghost/Spirit interacting with man, and in these last days, being born, and living a life as a human, the Son of God. These Spiritual and human manifestations are all workings of that same eternal, invisible, Spirit, that is our one God."

If a person truly believes in only one God, why teach the Trinity at all? ----- Peace, and thank you. JIA

[Cassius]

I see, as others, that the three co_equal, co_eternal, co_existent persons doctrine, as well as the art work, is what humanizes God, tends to cause people to envision God to be three as human beings, in three locals, when God is an eternal, invisible, Spirit, that fill the heavens. And I believe there is a better way to view God, Oneness. There was no need of a three co_equal, co_eternal, co_existent persons doctrine being introduced in the first place. If there had not been the added view introduced that God was three co_equal, co_eternal, co_existent persons introduced at all, we wouldn't be discussing this.


Actually, the only reason why we are discussing this and the only reason why the Oneness movement exists is because MEN have instead tried to rationalize the Godhead in a manner that "feels right" to them instead of letting scritpure teach what it does. The Oneness movement only exists on a false premise of unitarianism and is defended by those who wish to uphold a doctrine that is in line with their own wishful thinking instead of weighing the Bible as a whole to see what it says.

[JesusIsAll]

Sorry, but to me there is a better view that fits with all the bible than, "God is three co-equal, co-existent co-eternal persons".
I do not know what happened above, you seemed to have picked up a partial post, you may wish to edit your post above.

Thanks for your considerate and respectful discussion with me on this subject, and peace to you.

[mizpeh]

Actually, the only reason why we are discussing this and the only reason why the Oneness movement exists is because MEN have instead tried to rationalize the Godhead in a manner that "feels right" to them instead of letting scritpure teach what it does. The Oneness movement only exists on a false premise of unitarianism and is defended by those who wish to uphold a doctrine that is in line with their own wishful thinking instead of weighing the Bible as a whole to see what it says.

Cassius,

Oneness and Unitarianism are miles apart. Oneness affirms the deity of Christ.

I believe there is more rationalizing going on to prove a Trinity by far than Oneness can even attempt. One God who can say "I", "me", "myself" is easy to understand. How many years did it take for the doctrine of the Trinity to become established church "doctrine"? Each new council led to a "new and improved" Trinity by twisting and wresting scripture without clear evidence for the division of God into three persons. The Holy Spirit was an addition to the Trinity!

There is no mention of three in the greetings in the epistles. When asked what the greatest commandment was, Jesus spake "Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord" why did he not elaborate on who He was if He were in fact the second person of the trinity? When speaking of God, Jesus nevers mentions "we".

The incarnation in which God was made flesh did not reveal a Trinity but a new manifestation of God in the likeness of man called the Son of God.

[Cassius]

Cassius,

Oneness and Unitarianism are miles apart. Oneness affirms the deity of Christ.

I believe there is more rationalizing going on to prove a Trinity by far than Oneness can even attempt. One God who can say "I", "me", "myself" is easy to understand. How many years did it take for the doctrine of the Trinity to become established church "doctrine"? Each new council led to a "new and improved" Trinity by twisting and wresting scripture without clear evidence for the division of God into three persons. The Holy Spirit was an addition to the Trinity!

There is no mention of three in the greetings in the epistles. When asked what the greatest commandment was, Jesus spake "Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord" why did he not elaborate on who He was if He were in fact the second person of the trinity? When speaking of God, Jesus nevers mentions "we".

The incarnation in which God was made flesh did not reveal a Trinity but a new manifestation of God in the likeness of man called the Son of God.

Oneness is not "miles apart" from Unitarianism - it IS Unitarianism. Unitarianism is simply any theology that upholds the notion of there existing only one person in the Godhead or the existence of merely a solitary, unitary being that can be called "God". Islam and modern Judaism fall into this category. In addition, Sixteenth century unitarianism and modern Oneness theology are basically identical in the sense that both deny a true incarnation and both are unwilling to ascribe deity to the Son. Traditional Unitarians believe that the Son is simply a man and the Father is the true God. Sound familiar? Oneness believes believe that the Son is simply synonymous with "man" or "human nature" and that only the Father is truly God. In order to believe Jesus is God in Oneness theology, you must believe He is the Father/Holy Spirit. However, consider for a moment this question. What if He is neither, and He is just the Son? In that case, the Oneness Pentecostal will have little trouble simply adopting traditional Unitarianism. Hence, if the Bible is right and Christ is the Son only (as in Trinitarian theology) and not the Father, then you have just denied the deity of Christ. If however you recognize His sonship as the grounds and reason for His deity, then it is perfectly possible to believe that Jesus is the One True God in and of Himself, without having to change His identity to that of the Father.

As for your comments about the councils and creeds I really think you need to do some of your own research into the matter and not rely on Oneness propaganda to prove your point. I would like to challenge your point by asking, if the doctrine of the Trinity was not "established" until Nicea (or whenever you say it was; that's the other ironic part, anti-Trinitarians can never agree on when it was "invented") why did the anti-Trinitarian Arius complain about his bishop Alexander saying that this old orthodox man was saying "Always God, always Son" and "At the same time Father, at the same time Son", the "Son ingenerably co-exists with God" and that "The Son is from God himself"?

On the matter of history, I notice that it is common practice among anti-Trinitarians to simply assume that to "disprove" the doctrine of the Trinity is to ad hoc "prove" their own theology. But why is it that all anti-Trinitarians who all use the same terminology that you do in attacking this doctrine that according to each group is "so clearly not in Scripture" cannot agree on their own view of the Godhead? Oneness, Unitarian, Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, The Way International, Witness Lee, Watchman Nee, Christadelphians - all claim that their doctrine is clearly "in the Bible" and the Trinity is so "incredibly wrong" yet none can agree even on the basics of their theology. If Trinitarianism took three centuries to arise, then it took Oneness theology a total of TWO MILENNIA to arise because it didn't appear until 1913, and even that particular brand is not the kind that is preached today!

As for Christ never mentioning "we" when speaking of God, I suggest you do a little more reading of John. In John 13:30, Christ says that "we" are one. It doesn't say "I and the Father am one" which would be the choice of words if Jesus was the Father. No. Instead He says "we" are one. You cannot use the excuse that this was "just the man" speaking about his relationship to the "transcendent Spirit" because there is no way that a human man could claim to be on an equal "oneness" footing with God Himself. The only conclusion therefore was that Jesus was both distinguishing Himself from AND claiming equality with, the Heavenly Father. And again in John 14:23, Christ says "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." Hmmmm - There's that "we" again.

When it comes to "rationalism" - that's the Oneness legacy. Trinitarianism existed long before the advent of the so-called "Enlightenment" or the 17th century "Age of Reason". Trinitarians do not subject their theology to the god of "reason" rather they subject it to the truth of God's existence in Scripture. The Age of Reason saw many men, such as your Thomas Jefferson or the Chuch of England's Isaac Newton, abandon both the inerrancy of Scritpure as the belief in the Trinity and actually attack these two facets of the Christian faith. The Oneness Pentecostal on the other hand will always wield "reason" as both a weapon against the doctrine of the Trinity as well as a brace for propping up his/her own theology. I've conversed with some Oneness Pentecostals on the internet who say that (and this is a verbatim quote) "truth is always rational". Very sad. I guess rationalism supports eugenics and evolution, survival of the fittest and has little use for the concept of "mercy". On the other hand, love, mercy, compassion and other elements of the Christian faith are not at all rational but nevertheless contain an element of truth to say the least.

[mizpeh]

You answered the question yourself. The "equality" of the Persons is based on their "essence". That doesn't necessarily mean they don't have different function. Sure, the Father and the Son are one God, but that doesn't mean the Father doesn't have alternate functions from the Son.

Your question is like asking "If men and women are both fully human, then why can't men get pregnant?" There is a difference between nature and role.

Cassius,

How are these different functions of the Persons defined if they operate from one mind?

[Cassius]

Cassius,

How are these different functions of the Persons defined if they operate from one mind?

The different functions are based on the relationships between the Persons. The Father is begettor, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeds.

[mizpeh]

The different functions are based on the relationships between the Persons. The Father is begettor, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeds.

Can you be more clear in your explanation? How is the Son begotten? How does the Holy Spirit proceed? And how can they be coeternal?

[Cassius]

Can you be more clear in your explanation? How is the Son begotten? How does the Holy Spirit proceed? And how can they be coeternal?

Since God is eternal, any "begetting" on His part must be eternal as God is not temporal. The human experience of "begetting" is temporal because it involves temporal creatures and is a reflection of the experience of the Creator. Christ is God's Son in the sense that the Father communicates His nature to the Son (Psalm 2:7). This is the meaning behind the identity of Christ as the Son of God (John 5:18). Christ as the Son is eternally 'generated' by the Father just as a "word" is eternally generated by the speaker (John 1:1) and just as "wisdom" is eternally generated in the mind of the thinker (Proverbs 8).

The enormous rift between Trinitarians and Oneness believers involves where and how each side views the "begetting". For the Oneness believers, the "begetting" refers to the Virgin Birth and refers to the birth of the human man and the fact that it was God that caused this birth, thereby making God the "Father" at the time of the incarnation and the man the "Son". This is the view held by Oneness Pentecostals, Mormons, Muslims, and traditional Unitarians. For the Trinitarian on the other hand, the Father-Son relationship is actually eternal and existed long before the Virgin Birth (John 17:5). So this brings about the question as to what was meant when the Father spoke to the crowd at the baptism of Christ and stated "This is my Son with whom I am well pleased". Now in the Oneness view, the Father was there testifying to the fact that Christ was the man who was "birthed" by him with the use of Mary. In other words it was a testament to Christ's Virgin Birth. To the Trinitarian it is actually a reference to Christ's eternal identity as the literal Son of God - God the Son. That God actually has a Son (a "God" Son) is the essence of the meaning of the phrase "Son of God" which seems to be the message the Jews got from it (John 19:7).

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as is simply testified to in Scripture (John 14:26).

The following link may help you to better understand my position:

http://www.custance.org/old/seed/ch23s.html

[BroRutledge]

Trinitarians have NEVER "humanized" the three persons into human persons.
This is not true

I have heard many trinitarians humanize the three Persons into human persons. No matter whether they humanize or not, God is not three persons in any way shape or form.

God is not three persons, God is not three Spirits, God is not three people. There is only ONE God and that God has declared his presence in many ways, but God has never allowed another presence to to be co-equal.

God is in his Word and the Word is in God. The Word is with God, and the Word is God, but the Word is not a co-equal person. Jesus is the Word that came from the Father. The Father is In Jesus and Jesus is in the Father. When you have seen Jesus you have seen the Father, and you have not seen a seperate person equal to a first person known as God. The express image of God's person is God...not gods.

Where do I get the scripture to back up this claim? In the entire Bible from beginning to end.

There is nothing in the Bible about a three person God. I can't help it if somebody had a private interpretation hundreds of years ago and caused millions to believe the private interpretation. God's word is true, and anything outside of what is taught in the Word of God is a lie.

God bless
BroRutledge

[Cassius]

This is not true

I have heard many trinitarians humanize the three Persons into human persons. No matter whether they humanize or not, God is not three persons in any way shape or form.

God is not three persons, God is not three Spirits, God is not three people. There is only ONE God and that God has declared his presence in many ways, but God has never allowed another presence to to be co-equal.

God is in his Word and the Word is in God. The Word is with God, and the Word is God, but the Word is not a co-equal person. Jesus is the Word that came from the Father. The Father is In Jesus and Jesus is in the Father. When you have seen Jesus you have seen the Father, and you have not seen a seperate person equal to a first person known as God. The express image of God's person is God...not gods.

Where do I get the scripture to back up this claim? In the entire Bible from beginning to end.

There is nothing in the Bible about a three person God. I can't help it if somebody had a private interpretation hundreds of years ago and caused millions to believe the private interpretation. God's word is true, and anything outside of what is taught in the Word of God is a lie.

God bless
BroRutledge

Oh, it will never end! This is what Oneness Pentecostals do! They always say that they have "heard" "Trinitarians" do this and that. Of course they never specifically say who this so-called "Trinitarian" is, nor what denomination they represent, nor whether that person even claims to be a Trinitarian at all. Maybe it's just their imaginary friend. This is precisely what David Bernard does in his book when he, without telling the reader who they are, cites Jimmy Swaggart and Finis Dake as "Trinitarians" despite the fact that both of these men reject the orthodox formulation of the Trinity and emphatically reject the Nicene Creed as well as the eternal Sonship of Chirst. Will the Oneness people ever give up their strawmen arguments?????

"Brother" Rutledge, if your going to argue against the orthodox Christian belief in the Trinity then I suggest you argue against the orthodox version of it, not the version that is preached by some misguided people who do not know what they are talking about and do not speak for those of us who do know what we are talking about.

You are right in saying that Jesus is in the Father and vice versa. But what does this mean? Does this mean Jesus is the Father? Not according to the Bible. Because in John 14:20 it says that Jesus is in US and WE are in Jesus. Now does this make us humans the incarnation of Jesus? I'll let you answer that.

[Rulkiewicz]

You answered the question yourself. The "equality" of the Persons is based on their "essence". That doesn't necessarily mean they don't have different function. Sure, the Father and the Son are one God, but that doesn't mean the Father doesn't have alternate functions from the Son.

Your question is like asking "If men and women are both fully human, then why can't men get pregnant?" There is a difference between nature and role.


See bold. Then that means they're not co-equal.

[Cassius]

See bold. Then that means they're not co-equal.

See above quote. That means you don't comprehend what I said.

[mizpeh]

Hello Cassius,

Since God is eternal, any "begetting" on His part must be eternal as God is not temporal. The human experience of "begetting" is temporal because it involves temporal creatures and is a reflection of the experience of the Creator. Christ is God's Son in the sense that the Father communicates His nature to the Son (Psalm 2:7). This is the meaning behind the identity of Christ as the Son of God (John 5:18). Christ as the Son is eternally 'generated' by the Father just as a "word" is eternally generated by the speaker (John 1:1) and just as "wisdom" is eternally generated in the mind of the thinker (Proverbs 8).
The eternal nature of the Son who was made of a woman is God, not the second person of the Trinity. There was no communicating of divine nature when Christ was begotten in the likeness of men. Jesus is called the Son of God because He was conceived of the Holy Ghost and Jesus is called the Son of man because He is of the seed of David. The identity of Christ is God. 1 Timothy 3:16. The human experience of begetting, in my mind, no way resembles or reflects the experience of the Creator, except that God caused the conception of Christ in the womb of the virgin Mary.

I don't see how "word" and "wisdom" are eternally generated in the mind of the thinker. Are you saying God can never think a new thought? That all of His thoughts are eternal? Word and Wisdom are things that pertain to thought and the mind. Below is a dictionary definition of generate:

Etymology: Latin generatus, past participle of generare, from gener-, genus descent, birth -- more at KIN (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/kin)
1 : to bring into existence: as a : PROCREATE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/procreate), BEGET (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/beget)

I believe eternal and generate together might be an oxymoron.

The enormous rift between Trinitarians and Oneness believers involves where and how each side views the "begetting".

Yes, there is an enormous rift. Trinitarians believe the Son of God was begotten twice.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as is simply testified to in Scripture (John 14:26).

Why do you think "proceeding forth" would necessarily cause what comes forth to be anything other than that which it proceeds from? Using Tertullian's example of the Sun, ray,and apex, these are all extensions of the same thing not a different thing (as in person). Or more closer to a Biblical example, the fountain of living waters would generate living water, not a different type of living water other than the source.

[BroRutledge]

"Brother" Rutledge, if your going to argue against the orthodox Christian belief in the Trinity then I suggest you argue against the orthodox version of it, not the version that is preached by some misguided people who do not know what they are talking about and do not speak for those of us who do know what we are talking about.

It is all the same to me. A Big fat lie about God.

I don't plan to spend much time on frutless discussions that go in circles because of people refusing to submit to truth. Other posters here are doing a fine job, and most of them are much better expressing themselves in text than I am. No matter how they prove by the Word of God this wonderful truth, you are not comprehending them because of the light that is in them that darkness cannot comprehend.

If and when I do write anything it is a stand against the false teaching of all who even hint that there is a trinity. Orthodox false teaching and non orthodox false teaching is all the same to me. People teaching lies about God will never be allowed to take a lot of my time or energy. There are too many hungry hearts out here being converted right now in on-going conversations, and I am not going to waste very much time trying to convince people who cannot receive revelation from God.

Many ministers are coming out of trinity into truth all over the world right now and entire congregations are being converted to truth as pastors confess to them that they have missed the truth. I know of dozens of trinity pastors who have recently repented of the trinitarian lie and have been baptized in the name of Jesus. Several of them have baptized their entire congregations in the name of Jesus while others have been voted out as pastor an went away rejoicing giving up a good salary and nice home that had been provided by hundreds of misled people that he had been preaching lies to.

These people need my time and energy day and night, and debaters on GNC will not be allowed to steal it from them, because they want to be saved.

When I write something here, it is only because I have a free moment to relax, and no matter what a trinitarian writes about the fat lie, I generally ignore it and let them think of me as a foolish man with a strawman argument. Paul preached the same truth I preach and was accused by the orthodox crowd of being a heretic. Jesus was called a devil by orthodox people. What is so special about orthodox? The orthodox history does not impress me. Jesus taught the same stuff I teach, so it ok to call me anything from a devil to a heretic. No problem as long as you don't write it in a text chat on GNC.

God bless
BroRutledge

[Rulkiewicz]

See above quote. That means you don't comprehend what I said.


I comprehend it, but it still doesn't make sense.

Where is the Trinity in the book of Revelation? The first verse of the book says it all: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ"

This book, along with every other book in the Bible, reveals to us to He is; Almighty God!

There is a difference in the titles; Father, Son, Holy Spirit. You and I probably agree on that. Where we see it differently is that you view them as three different "beings" or "persons" or "centers of consciousness" consisting of the One true God, and I view them as three "titles" of the One true God.

Some Trinitarians may be Tritheists and not know it... "I pray to the Father... and then the Son... sometimes I pray to the Holy Spirit too."

However, I believe the majority of Trinitarians are in fact "Oneness" but they don't know it. I haven't read all of your posts, but I'm sure you agree that there is ONE GOD: The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, all of these three are the ONE GOD; yet they each serve their own purpose, they communicate to each other and love each other.

Not to go off topic, but just as my wife and I are one (echod), I love her, and she loves me; even though we are one, we are two different "persons" or "beings" or "centers of consciousness".

So if God the Father, loves God the Son, these are two instances of love, generated from two beings, persons, whatever, thus two God's (1+1=2). And you and I both know there is only One God.

[Cassius]

I comprehend it, but it still doesn't make sense.

Where is the Trinity in the book of Revelation? The first verse of the book says it all: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ"

This book, along with every other book in the Bible, reveals to us to He is; Almighty God!

There is a difference in the titles; Father, Son, Holy Spirit. You and I probably agree on that. Where we see it differently is that you view them as three different "beings" or "persons" or "centers of consciousness" consisting of the One true God, and I view them as three "titles" of the One true God.

Some Trinitarians may be Tritheists and not know it... "I pray to the Father... and then the Son... sometimes I pray to the Holy Spirit too."

However, I believe the majority of Trinitarians are in fact "Oneness" but they don't know it. I haven't read all of your posts, but I'm sure you agree that there is ONE GOD: The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, all of these three are the ONE GOD; yet they each serve their own purpose, they communicate to each other and love each other.

Not to go off topic, but just as my wife and I are one (echod), I love her, and she loves me; even though we are one, we are two different "persons" or "beings" or "centers of consciousness".

So if God the Father, loves God the Son, these are two instances of love, generated from two beings, persons, whatever, thus two God's (1+1=2). And you and I both know there is only One God.

It gives me an idea of where you're coming from.

I agree with you that Jesus Christ is God and that this identity is given to Him in the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:8). My issue with your theology is your adherence to the view that this makes Him the Father yet this is just a casual assumption Oneness Pentecostals make without letting the entire Bible weigh in on this issue. Proving Jesus is God does not prove that He is the Father yet in the Oneness view the two are often equated. In Trinitarian theology we believe that Jesus of the Book of Revelation is clearly taught to be God but that He is a distinct Person in the Godhead.

I'm sorry to contradict you but I do not believe that "Father", "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are titles and I would be hard pressed to find an orthodox Trinitarian who believes this as well. Those are not titles. They are in fact names because they discribe the very identity of the Persons. If the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were simply "titles" this would be to imply that they only applied to the Persons in a functional sense, that they were "assumed", and that they were temporal. This would simply be inconsistent with Trinitarian theology and there would be no argument for going against a Sabellian belief much like the one you hold. Hence, historic Trinitarian theology has always interpreted the "Father", the "Son", and the "Holy Spirit" as names because those names describe 'how' the Persons are ontologically. The ontological Trinity is the economic Trinity and vice versa. I certainly DON'T believe that the Father, the Sobn and the Holy Spirit are "beings" nor do I believe that they are three different "centers of consciousness". Those seem to be words that Oneness put in Trinitarian mouths but I've never read that in any credible source. From the Trinitarian theology I have learned the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one mind about everything and are in fact one being. They are distinct as to 'Person' which is simply a word Trinitarians use to illustrate their distinction.

When I pray, I pray to the One God. However, I personally sometimes pray to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit in distinction should I have a specific request that involves one of the Persons. For instance, I ask the Holy Spirit to guide me in making descisions, etc. I ask the Father to have mercy on my for sinning against Him. I tell the Son how much I appreciate His sacrifice. Does this make me a tritheist? Perhaps in Oneness eyes but in my opinion it does not.

You are correct in saying that some "Trinitarians" may hold to a "Oneness" style in their view of the Godhead. Many Trinitarians have modalistic tendencies. However, I highly doubt the "majority" of Trinitarians are Oneness as even David Bernard tries to teach in his book. Go to the average Trinitarian Christian and ask these questions:

1. When you think of God the Father, do you think of Jesus?

2. When you think of the Holy Spirit, do you think of Jesus?

I guarantee you that the vast majority of Trinitarians will answer "no" to the above questions. In that case, they are certainly nowhere near "Oneness" in their theology. The only "modalism" that may arise in TRinitarian circles is ironically when someone is trying to explain the Trinity! Often the analogies (different roles, different forms of water, etc.) used in Trinitarian circles are completely modalistic and therefore I don't use them. Another reason why the majority of Trinitarins cannot be "oneness" is that most are familiar with the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed and both documents clearly draw lines of distinction between the FAther, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. I would probably guess that the majority of unorthodox self-professed "Trinitarians" are not "Oneness" but are actually Arian in their understanding of the Godhead or at least subordinationist.

[Cassius]

Hello Cassius,


The eternal nature of the Son who was made of a woman is God, not the second person of the Trinity. There was no communicating of divine nature when Christ was begotten in the likeness of men. Jesus is called the Son of God because He was conceived of the Holy Ghost and Jesus is called the Son of man because He is of the seed of David. The identity of Christ is God. 1 Timothy 3:16. The human experience of begetting, in my mind, no way resembles or reflects the experience of the Creator, except that God caused the conception of Christ in the womb of the virgin Mary.

I don't see how "word" and "wisdom" are eternally generated in the mind of the thinker. Are you saying God can never think a new thought? That all of His thoughts are eternal? Word and Wisdom are things that pertain to thought and the mind. Below is a dictionary definition of generate:

Etymology: Latin generatus, past participle of generare, from gener-, genus descent, birth -- more at KIN (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/kin)
1 : to bring into existence: as a : PROCREATE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/procreate), BEGET (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/beget)

I believe eternal and generate together might be an oxymoron.



Yes, there is an enormous rift. Trinitarians believe the Son of God was begotten twice.



Why do you think "proceeding forth" would necessarily cause what comes forth to be anything other than that which it proceeds from? Using Tertullian's example of the Sun, ray,and apex, these are all extensions of the same thing not a different thing (as in person). Or more closer to a Biblical example, the fountain of living waters would generate living water, not a different type of living water other than the source.

No, Trinitarins do not believe the Son of God was begotten twice. We believe the Son of God was begotten once, and that the Son of Man was begotten once. The first is eternal. The second is temporal. There is one Son, two Sonships.

The entire problem with your rejection of Christ's eternal sonship is that you interpret things in overly realistic terms. This to me is a mystery. When Oneness Pentecostals read passages in scripture that say that God has "eyes" or a "mouth" they never interpret it literally but are reasonable enough to acknowlege that God is using human experience to communicate to man in a way that he will understand. However, when it speaks of "begetting" all of the sudden Oneness revert to "this is impossible when it comes to God because it's a human experience". Give me a break.

You gave a diffinition of the meaning of "begotten" above that actually demolished your own argument - "kin". When the Bible speaks of Christ as the "only begotten" Son of God it is saying that Christ is of the same "genus" or "generation", the same "stock", the same "race", the same "kind", the same "makeup", etc. What is God's "kind". Well, God. If the Son is of the same "stock" as God then logically He himself must be God. If you insist that the Son is "man" then this would be to teach that God is "man".

Notice that the Bible says that God sent his "only begotten Son" INTO the world (John 3:16). Obviously therefore Christ was the "only begotten Son" long before He was born of the Virgin Mary.

Oh exasperation!!! Your final question is PRECISELY WHAT I"VE BEEN TRYING TO PROVE ALL ALONG............ This is really getting frustrating because I really don't think that a thing I've said thus far has made any sense to you. So perhaps I'm not explaining things right. I do not believe the Father and the Son are "different". You are well aware that Trinitarins don't believe that! We believe they are distinct, yet of the same "generation", "stock", "kind", what have you. You ask me, "why do you believe that what proceeds for would be anything else than what it proceeds from". EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is precisely what I've been desperately trying to prove for months now to Oneness Pentecostals. That which is begotten of God is God! The Son which proceeds from the Father is God. The Father (God) begets the Son (God). Hence, God (which as you say proceeds forth) from God, is God. This is why the Nicene Creed says "begotten before all worlds, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God". The Sun's rays are extensions of the same thing. Yet are the rays the Sun? Is the Sun the rays? Or is there a distinction????????? In the same way, the FAther and the Son are both of the same being (God) just as the Sun and it's rays are both of the same substance (star) yet there is a distinction (Father/Son, Sun/Rays). AAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! I'm really hoping that you take some time to REALLY think about what I've said.

[Rulkiewicz]

It gives me an idea of where you're coming from.

I agree with you that Jesus Christ is God and that this identity is given to Him in the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:8). My issue with your theology is your adherence to the view that this makes Him the Father yet this is just a casual assumption Oneness Pentecostals make without letting the entire Bible weigh in on this issue. Proving Jesus is God does not prove that He is the Father yet in the Oneness view the two are often equated. In Trinitarian theology we believe that Jesus of the Book of Revelation is clearly taught to be God but that He is a distinct Person in the Godhead.

I'm sorry to contradict you but I do not believe that "Father", "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are titles and I would be hard pressed to find an orthodox Trinitarian who believes this as well. Those are not titles. They are in fact names because they discribe the very identity of the Persons. If the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were simply "titles" this would be to imply that they only applied to the Persons in a functional sense, that they were "assumed", and that they were temporal. This would simply be inconsistent with Trinitarian theology and there would be no argument for going against a Sabellian belief much like the one you hold. Hence, historic Trinitarian theology has always interpreted the "Father", the "Son", and the "Holy Spirit" as names because those names describe 'how' the Persons are ontologically. The ontological Trinity is the economic Trinity and vice versa. I certainly DON'T believe that the Father, the Sobn and the Holy Spirit are "beings" nor do I believe that they are three different "centers of consciousness". Those seem to be words that Oneness put in Trinitarian mouths but I've never read that in any credible source. From the Trinitarian theology I have learned the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one mind about everything and are in fact one being. They are distinct as to 'Person' which is simply a word Trinitarians use to illustrate their distinction.

When I pray, I pray to the One God. However, I personally sometimes pray to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit in distinction should I have a specific request that involves one of the Persons. For instance, I ask the Holy Spirit to guide me in making descisions, etc. I ask the Father to have mercy on my for sinning against Him. I tell the Son how much I appreciate His sacrifice. Does this make me a tritheist? Perhaps in Oneness eyes but in my opinion it does not.

You are correct in saying that some "Trinitarians" may hold to a "Oneness" style in their view of the Godhead. Many Trinitarians have modalistic tendencies. However, I highly doubt the "majority" of Trinitarians are Oneness as even David Bernard tries to teach in his book. Go to the average Trinitarian Christian and ask these questions:

1. When you think of God the Father, do you think of Jesus?

2. When you think of the Holy Spirit, do you think of Jesus?

I guarantee you that the vast majority of Trinitarians will answer "no" to the above questions. In that case, they are certainly nowhere near "Oneness" in their theology. The only "modalism" that may arise in TRinitarian circles is ironically when someone is trying to explain the Trinity! Often the analogies (different roles, different forms of water, etc.) used in Trinitarian circles are completely modalistic and therefore I don't use them. Another reason why the majority of Trinitarins cannot be "oneness" is that most are familiar with the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed and both documents clearly draw lines of distinction between the FAther, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. I would probably guess that the majority of unorthodox self-professed "Trinitarians" are not "Oneness" but are actually Arian in their understanding of the Godhead or at least subordinationist.


First and foremost, I want to thank you for this scholarly discussion!

You:
Proving Jesus is God does not prove that He is the Father yet in the Oneness view the two are often equated

Me:
But since you and I beleive that Jesus is God, and not part of God, this doesn't leave room for the Father, or the Holy Spirit.


You:
In Trinitarian theology we believe that Jesus of the Book of Revelation is clearly taught to be God but that He is a distinct Person in the Godhead

Me:
How can Jesus be in the Godhead, if the Godhead is in Jesus? (col 2:9) All of the fullness.


You:
I'm sorry to contradict you but I do not believe that "Father", "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are titles and I would be hard pressed to find an orthodox Trinitarian who believes this as well. Those are not titles. They are in fact names because they discribe the very identity of the Persons.

Me:
We wouldn't be having this discussion right now if Mat 28:19 read "baptize in the names of the...

Those are titles. They're impersonal, meaning anyone could be a father, and anyone could be a son. Peter and the Apostles knew that Jesus was God, and they knew that within His name, all power and authority are given unit. That's why the Apostles baptized and healed, etc, in the Name of Jesus, simply not copying what Jesus commanded them to do, but fulfilling it.


You:
If the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were simply "titles" this would be to imply that they only applied to the Persons in a functional sense, that they were "assumed", and that they were temporal.

Me:
What is the purpose of the Son? To save the lost! After judgement, when there will be no more new souls to save.

You:
Hence, historic Trinitarian theology has always interpreted the "Father", the "Son", and the "Holy Spirit" as names because those names describe 'how' the Persons are ontologically.

Me:
It is not possible to ontologically define God. Our finite minds cannot even begin to comprehend an infinite God. That's how I believe the Trinity began, finite men wanted to "define" our infinite God.


You:
Another reason why the majority of Trinitarins cannot be "oneness" is that most are familiar with the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed and both documents clearly draw lines of distinction between the FAther, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Me:
Why relay on men to define doctrine? The Bible does a good enough job!

[Cassius]

First and foremost, I want to thank you for this scholarly discussion!

You're welcome.

You:
Proving Jesus is God does not prove that He is the Father yet in the Oneness view the two are often equated

Me:
But since you and I beleive that Jesus is God, and not part of God, this doesn't leave room for the Father, or the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is God, but He is not the only Person in the Godhead. Remember, "Godhead" comes from the old English word "Godhood" which literally means "that which makes God, God". The NIV translates it "deity". Chirst is full "deity" and full "Godhood". He has all of the attributes that make God, God. However, the Father and the Holy Spirit also possess that same "deity" making them one and the same Being. I would never say that Jesus is "part" God because He is actually fully God. However, I am sure that there is more than 'One' Who is called "God".

You:
In Trinitarian theology we believe that Jesus of the Book of Revelation is clearly taught to be God but that He is a distinct Person in the Godhead

Me:
How can Jesus be in the Godhead, if the Godhead is in Jesus? (col 2:9) All of the fullness.

I think my above answer is sufficient for this part. The key to understanding Colossians 2:9 is reliant on an accurate understanding of what "Godhead" means in the King James. Jesus is in the Godhead. The Godhead is also in Jesus. Both are valid designations.

You:
I'm sorry to contradict you but I do not believe that "Father", "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are titles and I would be hard pressed to find an orthodox Trinitarian who believes this as well. Those are not titles. They are in fact names because they discribe the very identity of the Persons.

Me:
We wouldn't be having this discussion right now if Mat 28:19 read "baptize in the names of the...

Those are titles. They're impersonal, meaning anyone could be a father, and anyone could be a son. Peter and the Apostles knew that Jesus was God, and they knew that within His name, all power and authority are given unit. That's why the Apostles baptized and healed, etc, in the Name of Jesus, simply not copying what Jesus commanded them to do, but fulfilling it.

Says you. First of all, Romans 1:4 makes it clear that Jesus's existence as the Son of God is reflective of His intrinsic identity and deity. Second of all, baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is the fullfillment of baptism in the name of Jesus, not vice versa. The reason for this lies in the fact that "all authority" was given to Jesus Christ by the Father (Mathew 28:18). Jesus commanded that baptism was to be done in the name of His Father, Himself, and the Holy Spirit. Hence, to baptize in the name of Jesus is to follow His instructions and baptize in the names of the Trinity.

You:
If the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were simply "titles" this would be to imply that they only applied to the Persons in a functional sense, that they were "assumed", and that they were temporal.

Me:
What is the purpose of the Son? To save the lost! After judgement, when there will be no more new souls to save.

The Son saved the lost but that is not His "purpose". It would be a little bit blasphemous to make such a claim because that implies that God exists to serve man and not the other way around. The Son did come to earth to save us but that is simply an action He in His mercy and obedience to the Father peformed. It is by no means his "purpose" or reason for existence as He exists because He is God.

You:
Hence, historic Trinitarian theology has always interpreted the "Father", the "Son", and the "Holy Spirit" as names because those names describe 'how' the Persons are ontologically.

Me:
It is not possible to ontologically define God. Our finite minds cannot even begin to comprehend an infinite God. That's how I believe the Trinity began, finite men wanted to "define" our infinite God.

Based on your answer here, I would like to know why Trinitarians are constantly scolded like children for believing that God's existence is a "mystery"? Why is it Oneness Pentecostals can get away with that explanation as you just did but when we do it it is all of the sudden a crime?

You:
Another reason why the majority of Trinitarins cannot be "oneness" is that most are familiar with the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed and both documents clearly draw lines of distinction between the FAther, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Me:
Why relay on men to define doctrine? The Bible does a good enough job!

Nobody's "relying" on men to define the doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible provides the evidence for God's existence and men have simply summed up that evidence in creeds so that a Christian can understand such a doctrine without having to read all 66 books of the Biblical canon. Why do Oneness Pentecostals have colleges and doctrinal books? The same reason Trinitarians do.



1

[Rulkiewicz]

You:
Proving Jesus is God does not prove that He is the Father yet in the Oneness view the two are often equated

Me:
But since you and I beleive that Jesus is God, and not part of God, this doesn't leave room for the Father, or the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is God, but He is not the only Person in the Godhead. Remember, "Godhead" comes from the old English word "Godhood" which literally means "that which makes God, God". The NIV translates it "deity". Chirst is full "deity" and full "Godhood". He has all of the attributes that make God, God. However, the Father and the Holy Spirit also possess that same "deity" making them one and the same Being. I would never say that Jesus is "part" God because He is actually fully God. However, I am sure that there is more than 'One' Who is called "God".

I don't understand where "Godhood" comes into play, but the Greek for Godhead is theotes from qeoV - theos 2316 (http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/FRMSTRGRK23.htm#S2316); divinity (abstractly):--godhead.



You:
In Trinitarian theology we believe that Jesus of the Book of Revelation is clearly taught to be God but that He is a distinct Person in the Godhead

Me:
How can Jesus be in the Godhead, if the Godhead is in Jesus? (col 2:9) All of the fullness.

I think my above answer is sufficient for this part. The key to understanding Colossians 2:9 is reliant on an accurate understanding of what "Godhead" means in the King James. Jesus is in the Godhead. The Godhead is also in Jesus. Both are valid designations.

How is the Jesus in the Godhead, if the Godhead is in Jesus?


You:
I'm sorry to contradict you but I do not believe that "Father", "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are titles and I would be hard pressed to find an orthodox Trinitarian who believes this as well. Those are not titles. They are in fact names because they discribe the very identity of the Persons.

Me:
We wouldn't be having this discussion right now if Mat 28:19 read "baptize in the names of the...

Those are titles. They're impersonal, meaning anyone could be a father, and anyone could be a son. Peter and the Apostles knew that Jesus was God, and they knew that within His name, all power and authority are given unit. That's why the Apostles baptized and healed, etc, in the Name of Jesus, simply not copying what Jesus commanded them to do, but fulfilling it.

Says you. First of all, Romans 1:4 makes it clear that Jesus's existence as the Son of God is reflective of His intrinsic identity and deity. Second of all, baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is the fullfillment of baptism in the name of Jesus, not vice versa. The reason for this lies in the fact that "all authority" was given to Jesus Christ by the Father (Mathew 28:18). Jesus commanded that baptism was to be done in the name of His Father, Himself, and the Holy Spirit. Hence, to baptize in the name of Jesus is to follow His instructions and baptize in the names of the Trinity.

If baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is the fullfillment of baptism in the name of Jesus, why didn't the Apostles baptize using that method? So, baptizing only mentioning 1/3 of the Trinity is sufficient?

And yes, father and son are most definetly titles. If you walk in to a store and yell "Father" or "Son", you'll get multiple respones. Even though "Jesus" may have been a common name back them, you and I still know Him as God.

You:
If the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were simply "titles" this would be to imply that they only applied to the Persons in a functional sense, that they were "assumed", and that they were temporal.

Me:
What is the purpose of the Son? To save the lost! After judgement, when there will be no more new souls to save.

The Son saved the lost but that is not His "purpose". It would be a little bit blasphemous to make such a claim because that implies that God exists to serve man and not the other way around. The Son did come to earth to save us but that is simply an action He in His mercy and obedience to the Father peformed. It is by no means his "purpose" or reason for existence as He exists because He is God.

That's exactly why "Son" of God is a title. The logos, word, lamb, son, was God's plan to bridge the gap between man and Himself. You cannot kill God, that's why He robed Himself in flesh to die for you and I.

You:
Hence, historic Trinitarian theology has always interpreted the "Father", the "Son", and the "Holy Spirit" as names because those names describe 'how' the Persons are ontologically.

Me:
It is not possible to ontologically define God. Our finite minds cannot even begin to comprehend an infinite God. That's how I believe the Trinity began, finite men wanted to "define" our infinite God.

Based on your answer here, I would like to know why Trinitarians are constantly scolded like children for believing that God's existence is a "mystery"? Why is it Oneness Pentecostals can get away with that explanation as you just did but when we do it it is all of the sudden a crime?

Sorry, I really don't understand what you mean. God is not the author of confusion. I think those creeds exist because those men developed those documents to try to comprehend God. If he could be defined, he wouldn't be God.

You:
Another reason why the majority of Trinitarins cannot be "oneness" is that most are familiar with the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed and both documents clearly draw lines of distinction between the FAther, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Me:
Why relay on men to define doctrine? The Bible does a good enough job!

Nobody's "relying" on men to define the doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible provides the evidence for God's existence and men have simply summed up that evidence in creeds so that a Christian can understand such a doctrine without having to read all 66 books of the Biblical canon. Why do Oneness Pentecostals have colleges and doctrinal books? The same reason Trinitarians do.

Also, a few posts back you were talking with someone else and you were talking about a distinction. I agree, there is a distinction of the roles that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit function (Father = creator, Son = redeemer, Holy Spirit = regenerator) However, we do not identify them as distinct people/beings/persons, but rather the one true God.


The definition of the Trinity state that they are co-equal, why did the Son say the Father is greater than He? No matter which way you look at it, that is not co-equal.

[bridges]

Hey Y'all.

I was raised in Louisiana at a time when our schools were about 49th in the nation. Granted, I made the highest grade in that State on the 1975 PSAT/NMSQT, but that doesn't say as much as it would if I'd made the highest grade in some other State with better schools. Anyway, I just had the thought that sometimes, it's best to take the dumb country boy approach to things. Dumb country boys might not understand fancy terminology, but at least they don't get confused about the things they DO understand.

Fact One: the doctrine of the Trinity is a compromise of true Christian theology with ancient beliefs that demand a "threeness" of God.

Fact Two: Trinity teaching was absent from the teachings of the original Apostles, and was introduced by people who did too much thinking and not enough praying. They figured out a way to get a corner on "God".

Fact Three: if you ask the one true God, He'll be happy to tell you how many heads He has. Why talk about Him without inviting Him to participate in the conversation? It's just plain rude. We should KNOW He's listening. Call Him a Trinity and see how He likes it. Tell Him "Oh yes you ARE a Trinity. The Church Fathers say so, and you're UNorthodox if you disagree." I'll stand over here and watch....

Fact Four: I got baptized at least twice in the titles of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but when I was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, I felt the Son, was touched by the Father, and got filled not long thereafter with the Holy Ghost. The only name I was calling on was Jesus. Rule it out as inadmissable evidence because it's my personal experience; I don't care, it's a FACT to me.

Fact Five: Isaiah said the Messiah would be called the Everlasting Father (among other things). I don't think any Trinitarian has ever done a very good job refuting Isaiah 9:6 or proving that wasn't what God meant by that.

Facts Innumerable: if I get started teaching Oneness from scripture, I'll overload whatever server is hosting this website, or die of old age, or get interrupted by the Trump of God before I finish.

Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. It's real easy for a dumb country boy to count to one, and my one word prayer when there's no time to scream anything else is just "JESUS!" It ALWAYS works.

I'm satisfied that God is one.

[complete]

Hello bridges...


bridges: Sometimes I think it's good to be a dumb country boy.
Fact One: the doctrine of the Trinity is a compromise of true Christian theology with ancient beliefs that demand a "threeness" of God.Would you document the compromise and the belief that demands a threeness? Please be specific.

Fact Two: Trinity teaching was absent from the teachings of the original Apostles, and was introduced by people who did too much thinking and not enough praying. They figured out a way to get a corner on "God".The book of Acts is replete with the doctrine of the Trinity according to the apostle Paul. Would you agree he is one of the original apostles?
What exactly are you saying and who were the people who did too much thinking?

Fact Three: if you ask the one true God, He'll be happy to tell you how many heads He has. Why talk about Him without inviting Him to participate in the conversation? It's just plain rude. We should KNOW He's listening. Call Him a Trinity and see how He likes it. Tell Him "Oh yes you ARE a Trinity. The Church Fathers say so, and you're UNorthodox if you disagree." I'll stand over here and watch....This statement really does not deserve a response. Anyone who can read and understand can see your disdain.

Fact Four: I got baptized at least twice in the titles of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but when I was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, I felt the Son, was touched by the Father, and got filled not long thereafter with the Holy Ghost. The only name I was calling on was Jesus. Rule it out as inadmissable evidence because it's my personal experience; I don't care, it's a FACT to me.Why were you baptized twice, or three times?

Fact Five: Isaiah said the Messiah would be called the Everlasting Father (among other things). I don't think any Trinitarian has ever done a very good job refuting Isaiah 9:6 or proving that wasn't what God meant by that.Are you sure? How would you know? Again, please be specific.

Facts Innumerable: if I get started teaching Oneness from scripture, I'll overload whatever server is hosting this website, or die of old age, or get interrupted by the Trump of God before I finish.Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. It's real easy for a dumb country boy to count to one, and my one word prayer when there's no time to scream anything else is just "JESUS!" It ALWAYS works.It's real easy for anyone to study to be approved.
Looking forward to your reply.

[bridges]

I looked at your profile. There is nothing there to tell me anything about who I am dealing with.

I viewed your other posts. It seems you have taken a similar approach with everyone else upon whose words of truth you have sought to cast doubt.

I see your avatar, the image of a movie star on the recent poster of a Hollywood hit movie whose promos I found interesting but which I have not seen (I don't preach against movie watching or tv viewing, but I just don't have time to do it myself very often).

I don't believe that anything I have said has been couched in mystery. You, on the other hand, are hiding your identity. That, in itself, is excusable,I suppose, considering we are participants in an online forum; many people are very sketchy about their identities, in the interest of self-protection, when conversing with others online. Still, when I find someone whose profile is completely blank, yet they presume to challenge my authenticity as a source of truth and revelation, I am not greatly inclined to show myself approved to them. I could spend a great amount of time conversing online with you, ostensibly endeavoring to persuade you of the Oneness of God..., ah, how noble that would seem..., and while it is true that I have done it with others in years recently passed, it would seem to behoove me better to take what I have learned and spend my time in more productive activities. Please do not suppose that I am talking down to you. There are plenty of people on the Good News Cafe who I would expect to be more capable of praying for you, fasting for you, and tirelessly conversing with you to the end that you might see that God is still just One. I am confessing to you that I am not at my spiritual best ever, and the revelation you need is only given by the Lord, through the intercessory prayer and ministry of compassionate godly saints, not by the intellectual arguments of one such as I.

It is good to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God who died for our sins. It is good to be filled with the Holy Ghost, and to speak in other tongues, whether at the initial infilling, in prayer, in praise, or as a witness to others who understand whatever tongue we happen to be speaking at the time. It's good to be Apostolic, and I'm glad I am, and I'm glad that all of these things have happened in my life. On the Day of Judgment, I would not want to be of any other persuasion.

What we believe or do not believe will matter less on that day than what really is and what God says. All pretense will be ended then, all masks will be gone. I'm not perfect, but I am closest to perfection when I am careful to try to show myself to be who I really am. When you can come a little closer to doing that, I might be more disposed to entertain your questions.

All that being said, lest someone should suppose that an Apostolic preacher is not ABLE to answer you, and thus give the doubtful greater justification to think themselves justified in doubting, I will give some brief answers.

About the Trinity: there are many ancient "belief systems" I could cite. I could talk about Sumeria and Babylon. Trinity is not a new idea, but it is a perversion of truth. There was only ever one Creator, and His nature is truly singular, not plural in any number other than ONE. He is ONE. In Him, that is, in Christ, dwells (present tense) all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (see Colossians 2:9).

Acts replete with the Trinity? I don't find that to be true, especially since you don't even bother to quote chapter and verse. "Who are you, Lord?" Paul asked, Acts 9:5, after being put on the ground and blinded. "I am Jesus," the Lord answered. I find no Trinity here.

The people who you would call the Church Fathers, the ones who came up with the so-called Apostles' Creed, the ones who were moved to cause belief in a Trinity to be added to the list of requirements for any who would be called orthodox Christians, it is they who did too much thinking and not enough praying. The doctrine of a Trinity continues to draw support from those who would make God more complex and His nature more difficult to understand to make themselves appear more intellectual because of their own alleged greater understanding of God.

Disdain? Do not mistake my tone for disdain. It is nothing more than rejection of all that is false and harmful, like the reaction of a white blood cell confronted with a filthy potentially deadly virus. Psalm 119:104, Through thy (not through You three's, but just thy) precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.

I was baptized as many times as the denominational Churches I joined, as is the way with many denominational Churches. But then, finally, and most importantly, I was baptized in the saving name of Jesus Christ. That, to be brief, was different. Different better.

Do I understand you to be asking me if I'm sure that no Trinitarian has successfully refuted Isaiah 9:6? Yes, I am sure. Just so you'll be sure too, here's Isaiah the prophet speaking by the Holy Ghost, prophesying to us of Who Jesus would be, Is. 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Jesus is all that. If you try to say that's not specific enough, I'm just not going to answer you. In fact, it is very likely that I am just not going to post to you again anyway. I don't log on here very often, sometimes not for months, and when I do, it certainly would seem to be something of a waste of my time to persist in speaking with someone who is here on an Apostolic forum yet continuing to argue (and so vaguely at that) in favor of the existence of a Trinity.

I hope you are not a finished work. I'm certainly not. May God show Himself and His true nature to you, in Jesus' name, AMEN!

Hello bridges...


Would you document the compromise and the belief that demands a threeness? Please be specific.

The book of Acts is replete with the doctrine of the Trinity according to the apostle Paul. Would you agree he is one of the original apostles?
What exactly are you saying and who were the people who did too much thinking?

This statement really does not deserve a response. Anyone who can read and understand can see your disdain.

Why were you baptized twice, or three times?

Are you sure? How would you know? Again, please be specific.

It's real easy for anyone to study to be approved.
Looking forward to your reply.

[complete]

Hello bridges,

...and attempt at answering factual positions you obviously hold. My questions concerned your facts. Please remember, you stated these facts and I'm just trying to ascertain how you came to these conclusions. What my profile, avatar or identity have to do with you being able to answer for your facts have me at a loss. At any rate, a few observations:

Still, when I find someone whose profile is completely blank, yet they presume to challenge my authenticity as a source of truth and revelation, I am not greatly inclined to show myself approved to them.I'm asking you to support your facts. I can tell you I'm an authentic source of truth. Do you believe me? See how that works.

I could spend a great amount of time conversing online with you, ostensibly endeavoring to persuade you of the Oneness of God...,I believe God is one...(see Duet 6 or Mark 12)

What we believe or do not believe will matter less on that day than what really is and what God says. All pretense will be ended then, all masks will be gone. I'm not perfect, but I am closest to perfection when I am careful to try to show myself to be who I really am. When you can come a little closer to doing that, I might be more disposed to entertain your questions.What we believe will be the deciding factor. It is one reason I'm trying to get you to answer my questions about your facts.

About the Trinity: there are many ancient "belief systems" I could cite. I could talk about Sumeria and Babylon. Trinity is not a new idea, but it is a perversion of truth.Please do cite these systems you continue to speak of. That's the question I'm posing.

Acts replete with the Trinity? I don't find that to be true, especially since you don't even bother to quote chapter and verse.I apologize for this gaff. It is Luke, not Paul, who does a masterful job of showing us the Trinity in the entire book of Acts. I find no Trinity here. That is why my title in answer to your post was "study to be approved"


Do I understand you to be asking me if I'm sure that no Trinitarian has successfully refuted Isaiah 9:6? Yes, I am sure. Please, once again, cite your sources of the Trinitarians you believe your sure about that have not successfully refuted Is 9. This is my second request.

Jesus is all that. If you try to say that's not specific enough, I'm just not going to answer you. In fact, it is very likely that I am just not going to post to you again anyway.That's fine but you still have not cited any source. All you have done is quote Is 9. I can tell you that you are mistaken and you'll have to take my word for it because I know your wrong and I'm right. Would you accept that as an answer? Are you beginning to see?

I don't log on here very often, sometimes not for months, and when I do, it certainly would seem to be something of a waste of my time to persist in speaking with someone who is here on an Apostolic forum yet continuing to argue (and so vaguely at that) in favor of the existence of a Trinity.Sorry you believe you waste time here. Why did you post your facts? Did you think you would not be challenged to provide proof of your facts?

Thank you.

[Cassius]

Good post. it is simply a doctrine that is almost imossible to actually evangelize with. Ask any believer in a mono-theistic doctrine. Or just about anyone in any religion, for that matter. One God, Jesus is God, and came to save you from your sins, and He wants you for His own, please turn from your wicked ways and believe in Him. Is that the Gospel in a nutshell?

This is such an incredibly faulty argument one who actually comes into contact with people with other religions is justified in laughing out loud. If you think that your 'Oneness' religion is any more appealing to people of other "monotheistic" religions than Trinitarianism than you're obviously not getting out enough. Muslims and Jews scoff at the idea of a God-man as much as they do the belief in one God in three Persons. The Oneness Pentecostal religions is no more appealing to people of other religions than that of Trinitarianism - then again, mankind is always at enmity with truth, hence the rejection of Trinitarianism by the rest of the world is no mystery to me.

[Cassius]

The trinity DOCTRINE, should you believe it?
Hello again luvmyfamily, good to see a post from you.

Another comment here:
The trinity doctrine is just that, A DOCTRINE, that was hammered out several centuries after the original apostles left the scene.
The doctrine has internal contradictions, and even says within itself that it is incomprehensible. It doesn’t make common sense, it will not compute or add up. Why should we believe or endorse the trinity, when there is a better understanding available to us humans, of how God really is one?

So I asked the simple question, does this person have one husband, or three?
Not you, but why is it difficult for trinity to answer? 1 or 3?


Here lies another hypocritical argument on the part of Oneness Pentecostals regarding the Trinitarian belief in the 'incomprehensible' nature of God. Is this so bizarre? Are you capable of understanding the Almighty? Let's see if you have the arrogance of saying "yes" to that question.

What is more, Oneness Pentecostals, including David Bernard in his very own book will readily admit that they cannot understand how Jesus Christ could be fully God and fully man, and how God could actually come down to earth and take on flesh and blood. Yet this is not so outrageous to them. Talk about a double standard.

[bridges]

The bottom line for me is that Trinitarian believers are led to leave the name of Jesus Christ (or 耶稣基督, or Jesucristo, or Иисус Христос, or 예수 그리스도, or Yahshua ha-Messiah, or however His name is expressed in your language) out of their baptism.

When the crowds of convicted betrayers and murderers asked Peter, "what do we do now?" he replied with Acts 2:38. And it is not just Acts 2:38, we have to consider Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, and Acts 19:5, not to mention Acts 9:18. Of all the instances in the book of Acts wherein anyone baptized anyone, there was never any mention of doing it in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Apostles knew what the name was, and they used it as a matter of course. If there had never been any interference into this powerful practice of the original Church, interference by hateful demons who would block us from salvation, interference from greedy men who sought to monopolize Christianity for the purpose of elevating themselves to rulership positions (and I declare that those two forms of interference worked hand in hand), there would never have been any confusion regarding the words that should be used in baptism.

I feel no need to use any other documentation than the Word of God to support my facts; all the other junk is available to anyone who owns a computer with internet access. However, since you have persisted in ridiculing me for my lack of footnotes and attempting to refute the truth, and since another trinitarian poster, Cassius, has come to your aid, and since I have now logged on and noticed same, I will copy and paste some things from online sources. I mentioned ancient Sumeria as having one of the belief systems with which the "Church Fathers" (God help us, if only they'd been childless fathers) sought to compromise by giving God more heads, so let's start there....

After the mountain of heaven and earth,
An caused the Anunnaki to be born,
After heaven had been moved away from the earth,
After earth had been separated from heaven,
After the name of man had been fixed;
After An had carried off heaven,
After Enlil had carried off earth,
The lord, that which is appropriate verily he caused to appear,
The lord whose decisions are unalterable,
Enlil, who brings up the seed of the land from the earth,
Took care to move away heaven from earth,
Took care to move away earth from heaven.

So from this, we can piece together the Sumerian myth of Creation: First was the primeval Sea (Nammu). The primeval sea begot the "cosmic mountain". This mountain consisted of heaven and earth united. Gods were perceived anthropomorphically, so the cosmic mountain consisted of the god An (heaven) and the goddess Ki (earth). Their union begot the god Enlil. Enlil, the air-god separated heaven from earth. An carried off heaven, while Enlil carried off his mother, the earth. Ki was now to be called Ninmah, Nintu, Ninhursag, etc. In other words, "mother goddess". Their mating resulted in the birth of the gods, the organization of the universe and the creation of man. The Sumerian account is, when compared to Babylonian and some other accounts, rather simple and straight forward: In the beginning there was a primeval sea (Nammu) with a united "cosmic" mountain. The mountain comprised heaven (An) and earth (Ki). The union of heaven and earth then caused the air (Enlil) to come into being, which in turn separated heaven and earth.

I suppose that after this post, you will ask me to explain exactly how this shows that the inception (or inSERtion) of the trinity represents a compromise with more ancient belief systems (and actually, if you think about it, there ARE no "belief systems" more ancient or basic than belief in the One True God Yahweh). But, I suppose, your ability to "play dumb" knows no bounds (and I hope I don't get thrown off the GNC for my bluntness in saying so, but I don't know how else to put it), therefore I will just continue....

Let's look at the Babylonian account of the Creator:

When the skies above were not yet named
Nor earth below pronounced by name,
Apsu, the first one, their begetter,
And maker Tiamat, who bore them all,
Had mixed their waters together,
But had not formed pastures, nor discovered reed-beds;
When yet no gods were manifest,
Nor names pronounced, nor destinies decreed,
Then gods were born within them. (Dalley 233)

My God was never "born", except as the Man Christ Jesus. Their Gods were born of a union of earth and heaven.Apsu, the male "begetter," is the sweet waters, while Tiamat, the female "maker," is the bitter, salt waters. Sweet and salt water mingle together at the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, site of the origins of Mesopotamian civilization.It's not that people didn't remember or know about the One True God, it's that they wanted pretty stories with some begetting involved. But I won't GO there.... They KNEW about God, the ancient alphabet of Mandarin Chinese is based on things God did back at the time of Creation (look it up, you're not paying me any tuition, and I get tired of trying to educate unappreciative mockers).

Let's look at the Ahura Mazda myth. There are so many "belief systems" that involve multi-headed Gods....Although Ahura Mazda is accepted to be the conceptual equivalent of a proto-Indo-Iranian divinity, the details are a matter of speculation and debate. Scholarly consensus identifies a connection to the prototypical vouruna and mitra, but whether Ahura Mazda is one of these two, or both together, or even a superior of the two has not been conclusively established.

From the reign of Cyrus the Great down to Darius III, it was apparently customary for an empty chariot drawn by white horses to accompany the Persian army. According to Herodotus, who first described the practice, this chariot was sacred to "Zeus" who was presumably believed to position himself at the head of the army. (Ahura Mazda was frequently named Zeus by the Greeks; Aristotle refers to Zeus-Oromasdes being opposed by Hades-Aremainius).
The earliest reference to the use of an image to accompany devotion to Ahura Mazda is from "the 39th year of the reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon" (c. 365 BCE) in which a Satrap of Lydia raised a statue (according to the Greek commentator) to "Zeus" the Lawgiver.

The worship of Ahura Mazda with accompanying images is known to have occurred during the Arsacidn era (250 BCE–226 CE), but by the beginning of the Sassanid period (226–651), the custom appears to have fallen out of favor. A few images from Sassanid times that depict "Ohrmazd", reveal a male figure wearing a high crown.

Somehow, man gets the idea that One invisible God can't be everything and do everything all by Himself, even though He existed before Creation, Time, and anyone else was around. So, to them, God needs parts, or persons, or more gods with Him. Trinitarianism was a compromise with this tendency of men, and it was conceived in the mind of a scripture-twisting devil for the express purpose of removing the name of Jesus Christ from the baptism process. If you just want material to look at to make you feel smart, click here (http://reluctant-messenger.com/2-babylons50.htm). As I mentioned, I get very tired of trying to educate unappreciative mockers who aren't paying me tuition fees. It is my honest opinion that you WANT to waste my time, and it was really nasty of you to suggest that I was trying to say that my time spent on GNC is wasted. Even when I'm posting to YOU mockers, someone else who believes truth will read and be strengthened. It is only wasted on YOU.

May God bless y'all with the revelation of the Mighty God in Christ, in Jesus' name, AMEN.

[bridges]

It is all the same to me. A Big fat lie about God.

I don't plan to spend much time on frutless discussions that go in circles because of people refusing to submit to truth. Other posters here are doing a fine job, and most of them are much better expressing themselves in text than I am. No matter how they prove by the Word of God this wonderful truth, you are not comprehending them because of the light that is in them that darkness cannot comprehend.

If and when I do write anything it is a stand against the false teaching of all who even hint that there is a trinity. Orthodox false teaching and non orthodox false teaching is all the same to me. People teaching lies about God will never be allowed to take a lot of my time or energy. There are too many hungry hearts out here being converted right now in on-going conversations, and I am not going to waste very much time trying to convince people who cannot receive revelation from God.

Many ministers are coming out of trinity into truth all over the world right now and entire congregations are being converted to truth as pastors confess to them that they have missed the truth. I know of dozens of trinity pastors who have recently repented of the trinitarian lie and have been baptized in the name of Jesus. Several of them have baptized their entire congregations in the name of Jesus while others have been voted out as pastor an went away rejoicing giving up a good salary and nice home that had been provided by hundreds of misled people that he had been preaching lies to.

These people need my time and energy day and night, and debaters on GNC will not be allowed to steal it from them, because they want to be saved.

When I write something here, it is only because I have a free moment to relax, and no matter what a trinitarian writes about the fat lie, I generally ignore it and let them think of me as a foolish man with a strawman argument. Paul preached the same truth I preach and was accused by the orthodox crowd of being a heretic. Jesus was called a devil by orthodox people. What is so special about orthodox? The orthodox history does not impress me. Jesus taught the same stuff I teach, so it ok to call me anything from a devil to a heretic. No problem as long as you don't write it in a text chat on GNC.

God bless
BroRutledge

Glory to God, I LOVE what you have said here, Brother Rutledge. My sentiments exactly. The world isn't large enough to contain all the arguments that would have to be written to convince a single trinitarian of the truth about Jesus Christ. Books and books have already been written. I intend to write at least one myself, but it will be the Spirit in what is written that wins souls to truth, and the best I can do is point people's attention back to the things that have already been written in the Bible. Some don't see it, some CAN'T yet see it, some WON'T see it, some HAVE seen it and now deny it for gain's sake, but ALL will be held responsible for how they have treated the name of Jesus Christ, and what His holy name was worth, personally, TO THEM.

God bless you. Thanks for putting up with me on the GNC.

[bridges]

The bottom line for me is that Trinitarian believers are led to leave the name of Jesus Christ (or 耶稣基督, or Jesucristo, or Иисус Христос, or 예수 그리스도, or Yahshua ha-Messiah, or however His name is expressed in your language) out of their baptism.

When the crowds of convicted betrayers and murderers asked Peter, "what do we do now?" he replied with Acts 2:38. And it is not just Acts 2:38, we have to consider Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, and Acts 19:5, not to mention Acts 9:18. Of all the instances in the book of Acts wherein anyone baptized anyone, there was never any mention of doing it in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Apostles knew what the name was, and they used it as a matter of course. If there had never been any interference into this powerful practice of the original Church, interference by hateful demons who would block us from salvation, interference from greedy men who sought to monopolize Christianity for the purpose of elevating themselves to rulership positions (and I declare that those two forms of interference worked hand in hand), there would never have been any confusion regarding the words that should be used in baptism.

I feel no need to use any other documentation than the Word of God to support my facts; all the other junk is available to anyone who owns a computer with internet access. However, since you have persisted in ridiculing me for my lack of footnotes and attempting to refute the truth, and since another trinitarian poster, Cassius, has come to your aid, and since I have now logged on and noticed same, I will copy and paste some things from online sources. I mentioned ancient Sumeria as having one of the belief systems with which the "Church Fathers" (God help us, if only they'd been childless fathers) sought to compromise by giving God more heads, so let's start there....

After the mountain of heaven and earth,
An caused the Anunnaki to be born,
After heaven had been moved away from the earth,
After earth had been separated from heaven,
After the name of man had been fixed;
After An had carried off heaven,
After Enlil had carried off earth,
The lord, that which is appropriate verily he caused to appear,
The lord whose decisions are unalterable,
Enlil, who brings up the seed of the land from the earth,
Took care to move away heaven from earth,
Took care to move away earth from heaven.

So from this, we can piece together the Sumerian myth of Creation: First was the primeval Sea (Nammu). The primeval sea begot the "cosmic mountain". This mountain consisted of heaven and earth united. Gods were perceived anthropomorphically, so the cosmic mountain consisted of the god An (heaven) and the goddess Ki (earth). Their union begot the god Enlil. Enlil, the air-god separated heaven from earth. An carried off heaven, while Enlil carried off his mother, the earth. Ki was now to be called Ninmah, Nintu, Ninhursag, etc. In other words, "mother goddess". Their mating resulted in the birth of the gods, the organization of the universe and the creation of man. The Sumerian account is, when compared to Babylonian and some other accounts, rather simple and straight forward: In the beginning there was a primeval sea (Nammu) with a united "cosmic" mountain. The mountain comprised heaven (An) and earth (Ki). The union of heaven and earth then caused the air (Enlil) to come into being, which in turn separated heaven and earth.

I suppose that after this post, you will ask me to explain exactly how this shows that the inception (or inSERtion) of the trinity represents a compromise with more ancient belief systems (and actually, if you think about it, there ARE no "belief systems" more ancient or basic than belief in the One True God Yahweh). But, I suppose, your ability to "play dumb" knows no bounds (and I hope I don't get thrown off the GNC for my bluntness in saying so, but I don't know how else to put it), therefore I will just continue....

Let's look at the Babylonian account of the Creator:

When the skies above were not yet named
Nor earth below pronounced by name,
Apsu, the first one, their begetter,
And maker Tiamat, who bore them all,
Had mixed their waters together,
But had not formed pastures, nor discovered reed-beds;
When yet no gods were manifest,
Nor names pronounced, nor destinies decreed,
Then gods were born within them. (Dalley 233)

My God was never "born", except as the Man Christ Jesus. Their Gods were born of a union of earth and heaven.Apsu, the male "begetter," is the sweet waters, while Tiamat, the female "maker," is the bitter, salt waters. Sweet and salt water mingle together at the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, site of the origins of Mesopotamian civilization.It's not that people didn't remember or know about the One True God, it's that they wanted pretty stories with some begetting involved. But I won't GO there.... They KNEW about God, the ancient alphabet of Mandarin Chinese is based on things God did back at the time of Creation (look it up, you're not paying me any tuition, and I get tired of trying to educate unappreciative mockers).

Let's look at the Ahura Mazda myth. There are so many "belief systems" that involve multi-headed Gods....Although Ahura Mazda is accepted to be the conceptual equivalent of a proto-Indo-Iranian divinity, the details are a matter of speculation and debate. Scholarly consensus identifies a connection to the prototypical vouruna and mitra, but whether Ahura Mazda is one of these two, or both together, or even a superior of the two has not been conclusively established.

From the reign of Cyrus the Great down to Darius III, it was apparently customary for an empty chariot drawn by white horses to accompany the Persian army. According to Herodotus, who first described the practice, this chariot was sacred to "Zeus" who was presumably believed to position himself at the head of the army. (Ahura Mazda was frequently named Zeus by the Greeks; Aristotle refers to Zeus-Oromasdes being opposed by Hades-Aremainius).
The earliest reference to the use of an image to accompany devotion to Ahura Mazda is from "the 39th year of the reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon" (c. 365 BCE) in which a Satrap of Lydia raised a statue (according to the Greek commentator) to "Zeus" the Lawgiver.

The worship of Ahura Mazda with accompanying images is known to have occurred during the Arsacidn era (250 BCE–226 CE), but by the beginning of the Sassanid period (226–651), the custom appears to have fallen out of favor. A few images from Sassanid times that depict "Ohrmazd", reveal a male figure wearing a high crown.

Somehow, man gets the idea that One invisible God can't be everything and do everything all by Himself, even though He existed before Creation, Time, and anyone else was around. So, to them, God needs parts, or persons, or more gods with Him. Trinitarianism was a compromise with this tendency of men, and it was conceived in the mind of a scripture-twisting devil for the express purpose of removing the name of Jesus Christ from the baptism process. If you just want material to look at to make you feel smart, click here (http://reluctant-messenger.com/2-babylons50.htm). As I mentioned, I get very tired of trying to educate unappreciative mockers who aren't paying me tuition fees. It is my honest opinion that you WANT to waste my time, and it was really nasty of you to suggest that I was trying to say that my time spent on GNC is wasted. Even when I'm posting to YOU mockers, someone else who believes truth will read and be strengthened. It is only wasted on YOU.

May God bless y'all with the revelation of the Mighty God in Christ, in Jesus' name, AMEN.

Wow. Praise the Lord! I guess I really AM a One God Apostolic Tongue-talkin' Holy-rollin' born again believer in the ressurrectin' and liberatin' power of Jesus' name!

Wasn't really doubtin' it was so....

[BroRutledge]

Everybody on this thread is invited to continue the Trinity-Oneness discussions on the new Site that we have just built. We also invite you to stay with the GNC and work with us in our new format.

Our new site is http://www.godchatcafe.com

On this new site everybody can have full liberty of expression with no fear of admins banning you or even reprimanding you regardless of how strong you post. Trinitarians have full liberty to teach your doctrines over there as well as oneness and all other beliefs. Anybody can post anything they believe on the new site and even debate and get rough with the person that does not agree if that is your style of posting.

On the new site I will be joining in on many of these discussions, and I have some very strong views that I wish to express, so that will be the place where I will take my liberty also.

God bless
BroRutledge