Why I'm not a trinitarian

[stiggy wiggy]

We seem to be going around and around with who was Jesus standing next to. Right hand of God means a place of authority and we both agreed on that multiple times. Stephen saw the glory of God and Jesus in a position of power. That's what it means to be at God's right hand. So, what did Stephen see? Did he see a Michelangelo like portrait of the Trinity with an old man and a young man next to him and a bird hovering nearby? Of course not, and I think you would agree with that.

Yep.

Please address this and please don't skip over it again:

Obviously Jesus and the Father are not synonymous. Jesus prayed to the Father in the Garden. Are you suggesting it was a soliloquy? Are you suggesting that Jesus' last comment on earth can be interpreted as "Into My own hands I commend My Spirit?" Before that did He say in effect, "Myself, forgive them for they know not what they do?"

 

[Andreas]

Yep.

Please address this and please don't skip over it again:

Obviously Jesus and the Father are not synonymous. Jesus prayed to the Father in the Garden. Are you suggesting it was a soliloquy? Are you suggesting that Jesus' last comment on earth can be interpreted as "Into My own hands I commend My Spirit?" Before that did He say in effect, "Myself, forgive them for they know not what they do?"

I first wanted to settle what Stephen saw and as regards what he saw, there isn't anything in it that teaches or implies multiple persons in the Godhead.

Now, to your next question and it relates to why Stephen only saw one person and that was Jesus.

This gets down a basic difference between Trinitarian and Oneness doctrine. First, let's refresh that Trinitarian doctrine holds that there are three distinction and eternal persons in the Godhead and these three distinct persons have loved one another objectively from all of eternity. I say objectively because each person distinguishes Himself from the other two co-equal persons and loves the other two persons in a distinguishable manner because the Father is not the Son and so on. The relationships between the persons are in the eternal Godhead and are not due to the humanity of the Son according to Trinitarian doctrine. The Son was a real son and had relationship with the other two persons regardless of the incarnation according to Trinitarian teaching.

The Trinitarian concept is really quite radical in that it redefines "one" to mean "one in unity". Paul clearly warned the church against Trinitarianism and Arianism in Colossian 2:8-10, but people like to put their tradition above truth. Colossians 2:8 tells us that a robbery takes place. The robbery leaves its victims with a cognitive dissonance regarding the nature of God.

You said, "Are you suggesting it was a soliloquy?"

Are you trying to pigeonhole the Godhead into earthly categories/components like "persons" in direct violation of Paul's warning in Colossians 2:8 or do you fully accept that Jesus was a genuine man and that ALL the FULLNESS of the GODHEAD dwells in Him bodily (Colossians 2:9)?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

I first wanted to settle what Stephen saw and as regards what he saw, there isn't anything in it that teaches or implies multiple persons in the Godhead.

Settle? It's been settled what Stephen saw. Acts 7:55 tells us what he saw. That would be Luke telling us.

Now, to your next question and it relates to why Stephen only saw one person and that was Jesus.

This gets down a basic difference between Trinitarian and Oneness doctrine. First, let's refresh that Trinitarian doctrine holds that there are three distinction and eternal persons in the Godhead and these three distinct persons have loved one another objectively from all of eternity. I say objectively because each person distinguishes Himself from the other two co-equal persons and loves the other two persons in a distinguishable manner because the Father is not the Son and so on. The relationships between the persons are in the eternal Godhead and are not due to the humanity of the Son according to Trinitarian doctrine. The Son was a real son and had relationship with the other two persons regardless of the incarnation according to Trinitarian teaching.

The Trinitarian concept is really quite radical in that it redefines "one" to mean "one in unity". Paul clearly warned the church against Trinitarianism and Arianism in Colossian 2:8-10, but people like to put their tradition above truth. Colossians 2:8 tells us that a robbery takes place. The robbery leaves its victims with a cognitive dissonance regarding the nature of God.

You said, "Are you suggesting it was a soliloquy?"

Are you trying to pigeonhole the Godhead into earthly categories/components like "persons" in direct violation of Paul's warning in Colossians 2:8 or do you fully accept that Jesus was a genuine man and that ALL the FULLNESS of the GODHEAD dwells in Him bodily (Colossians 2:9)?

Please stop beating around the bush and answer these questions. Don't tell me what my questions are "suggesting," just answer them, please:

(1). In the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was praying, to Whom was He praying?

(2). When on the cross and pleading, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do," was He talking to Himself? If not, to Whom was He talking?

(3). When in his epistle John says "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was WITH God and the Word WAS God," how can that not imply more than one entity? Do you think saying one is with oneself makes sense?

An by the way, you can stop quoting Colossians 2:9, since without you telling me I have believed for a long time that "in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

 

[Andreas]

Settle? It's been settled what Stephen saw. Acts 7:55 tells us what he saw. That would be Luke telling us.



Please stop beating around the bush and answer these questions. Don't tell me what my questions are "suggesting," just answer them, please:

(1). In the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was praying, to Whom was He praying?

(2). When on the cross and pleading, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do," was He talking to Himself? If not, to Whom was He talking?

(3). When in his epistle John says "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was WITH God and the Word WAS God," how can that not imply more than one entity? Do you think saying one is with oneself makes sense?

An by the way, you can stop quoting Colossians 2:9, since without you telling me I have believed for a long time that "in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

Colossians 2:8-10 was the Apostles warning for those in the future who would corrupt sound doctrine and substitute empty philosophy and attempt to put God into their earthly elements and components. Trinitarians attempt to force the doctrine of God into "three persons" based on an earthly view of God by using human categories and elements to define him. The result is empty nonsense that is not in the Bible like, "eternally begotten Son".

All your questions limit God and have an ingrown assumption based on our human existence and categories. Let God be God in your doctrine.

Do you accept that Jesus became a real and genuine man? Do you accept what that really means? Have you thought about what Him being human meant? It seems if you truly did, then your questions would be answered.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Colossians 2:8-10 was the Apostles warning for those in the future who would corrupt sound doctrine and substitute empty philosophy and attempt to put God into their earthly elements and components. Trinitarians attempt to force the doctrine of God into "three persons" based on an earthly view of God by using human categories and elements to define him. The result is empty nonsense that is not in the Bible like, "eternally begotten Son".

All your questions limit God and have an ingrown assumption based on our human existence and categories. Let God be God in your doctrine.

Look, I'm getting a little tired of your ignoring my questions. I can only assume that you recognize that however you answer them, you will either refute your own "oneness" beliefs or make the gospel look foolish.

Now I'm going to answer YOUR questions and then repeat mine, expecting you to answer mine:

Do you accept that Jesus became a real and genuine man?

Yes.

Do you accept what that really means?

Yes.

Have you thought about what Him being human meant?

Yes.

Now answer MY questions, please:

(1). In the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was praying, to Whom was He praying?

(2). When on the cross and pleading, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do," was He talking to Himself? If not, to Whom was He talking?

(3). When in his epistle John says "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was WITH God and the Word WAS God," how can that not imply more than one entity? Do you think saying one is with oneself makes sense?

 

[Andreas]

Look, I'm getting a little tired of your ignoring my questions. I can only assume that you recognize that however you answer them, you will either refute your own "oneness" beliefs or make the gospel look foolish.

Now I'm going to answer YOUR questions and then repeat mine, expecting you to answer mine:



Yes.



Yes.



Yes.

Now answer MY questions, please:

(1). In the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was praying, to Whom was He praying?

(2). When on the cross and pleading, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do," was He talking to Himself? If not, to Whom was He talking?

(3). When in his epistle John says "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was WITH God and the Word WAS God," how can that not imply more than one entity? Do you think saying one is with oneself makes sense?

1. Father
2. Father
3. It says the Word/Logos was with God. It doesn't say "God the Son was with God the Father".

The terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not used in John 1:1. Be careful what you read into this verse.

For example, can you be consistent in John 1:1 for the definition of God?

Let's try it from a Trinitarian perspective...

Let's say Trinitarians mean God in John 1:1 is God the Father. How does it work? Let's insert it and see.

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was WITH God the Father and the Word WAS God the Father

You switch the definition of God in mid-sentence. No consistency.

Do you care to look at what the terms really used in the verse, mean?

Logos is defined as a word as embodying an idea, a statement, a speech. Being the expression of a thought.

John 1:1 is referring to the Father's Word. Just as your word is with you, so is God's word with Him. Your word is not another person of you.

You are basically ignoring the definition of Logos and inconsistently substituting terms that are not in John 1:1.

You have not given consideration to the simple fact that it is normal and natural to understand Logos to be with a singular rational being, not as a second one. Trinitarians force an unnatural meaning.

-----

When Jesus prays to the Father in the garden or on the cross it is because he was not only God but a genuine man. As a man he wasn't like a sock puppet man animated by the 2nd person of the Godhead. God functioned and perceived as a real man within the scope and context of his fully human existence. As a man, he had a real relationship with God as other men do.

We see in the scripture just One God and we know Him consistently as "He" and "Him" and the "I AM". Consistent.

We see John 1:1 as simply referring to God and His Logos. Consistent.

This one God became a genuine man, while also continuing to be what he always has been. It is because God existing as a genuine man prayed because that is what real men do. He prayed because He was a man.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

1. Father
2. Father

Correct. Son prayed to Father. Two separate Persons.

3. It says the Word/Logos was with God. It doesn't say "God the Son was with God the Father".

No one said it did. Enough with the straw.

The terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not used in John 1:1.

No one says they are.

Be careful what you read into this verse.

Says the guy who just read something into my quoting the verse.

For example, can you be consistent in John 1:1 for the definition of God?

I don't define God.

Let's try it from a Trinitarian perspective...

Let's say Trinitarians mean God in John 1:1 is God the Father. How does it work? Let's insert it and see.

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was WITH God the Father and the Word WAS God the Father

You switch the definition of God in mid-sentence. No consistency.

Do you care to look at what the terms really used in the verse, mean?

No really. They are not "terms" to me. They are Persons to be experienced and worshiped and praised and obeyed, not defined.

John 1:1 is referring to the Father's Word.

Correct. His very expression. He expresses Himself through His Son.

When Jesus prays to the Father in the garden or on the cross it is because he was not only God but a genuine man.

Correct. So He was praying to Someone other than Himself.

The Divine Son was praying to to the Divine Father.

 

[Rachel Redux]

The main reason that I'm not a trinitarian is because of how God expressed himself in the Old Testament in the first person singular, I, me, mine, myself, over and over again.
God's chosen people, the Israelites, understood and passed down to their children that God was one "person". (Ex 3:14, Deut 6:4) For God to be three persons/one being would mean that God, the God who loves truth (Num 23:19, Zech 8:19,1 John 5:6), misrepresented himself to his chosen people by letting them believe that He was one person and not three. If this were true, the Israelites gave false witness of God. (Isa 43:1-13) This is misleading and deceitful. God has no reason to be either.

Therefore, I read the NT with the understanding that God is an "I" just like I am an "I". One personal being. This is how Jesus' disciples would have understood God also. The doctrine of God is fundamental. Why didn't Jesus explain the trinity to his disciples so that they would give a proper witness to the truth of God? (Jer 9:23-24) Instead it took over 300 years to come to a full of expression of the doctrine of the Trinity.

@stiggy wiggy

Caroljeen, I guess I'm not a Trinitarian either for many of the reasons you stated.
But I believe you said that you don't believe Jesus pre-existed?
He claimed that he did at least twice:
John 8:58, ESV: Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
And
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

How do you see Jesus now after his resurrection? As sort of a co-regent?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Incidentally Andreas, I do not consider myself a Trinitarian. I simply believe that God is three wholly divine Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If that means you therefore need to slap a doctrinal label on me, so be it.

I came to this thread reluctantly. In another forum, the subject of the Trinity came up and a nice lady, Caroljeen, for whom I have great respect, was expressing her disbelief in the Trinity and for some reason she wanted to move the discussion over to this Oneness forum. I was unfamiliar with the concept of Oneness and now must say, based on your posts in this thread, I don't find the concept to be very persuasive.

And as long as I have you here, please take a look at I Cor 15:28:

"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

Now it seems to me that in order to maintain your "Oneness" belief you will either need to dispute the truth of that verse or deny the divinity of the Son.

 

[Andreas]

Correct. Son prayed to Father. Two separate Persons.



No one said it did. Enough with the straw.



No one says they are.



Says the guy who just read something into my quoting the verse.



I don't define God.



No really. They are not "terms" to me. They are Persons to be experienced and worshiped and praised and obeyed, not defined.



Correct. His very expression. He expresses Himself through His Son.



Correct. So He was praying to Someone other than Himself.

The Divine Son was praying to to the Divine Father.

Oneness doctrine says the Logos was with God. Trinitarians say God the Son was with God the Father. Which doctrine is adding to John 1:1?

When you assume "two separate persons" you think this is great and makes sense because 1. you ignore the meaning of Logos and 2. you assume God must be put into categories like us humans. After all if Adam talks to Eve then you have two persons. Makes sense until you accept that God is not limited like us and you are falling into the "put God into components and earthly elements" trap that Paul said in Colossians 2:8 would rob you of the truth of Christ.


Not "terms" to you. I must have struck a nerve here and will take note that this is a weak area for you. The reason I know this is the Trinitarian version of the rope-a-dope. You are so pious that "terms" is beneath your elite walk with God. Gotcha.

As far as experience, please answer: Do you have three God persons in you? y/n

Even Trinitarian scholars will usually assert that the prayers of Jesus are due to his humanity, not his divinity. If you have gods in which one person is praying to another then you are teaching a form of subordination of persons within the Godhead. This is why later Trinitarians rejected Tertullian's subordination teaching and went with the terms co-equal persons. You seem to be regressing to an earlier form of Trinitarianism.

 

[Andreas]

Caroljeen, I guess I'm not a Trinitarian either for many of the reasons you stated.
But I believe you said that you don't believe Jesus pre-existed?
He claimed that he did at least twice:
John 8:58, ESV: Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
And
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

How do you see Jesus now after his resurrection? As sort of a co-regent?

I'm sure Caroljeen will agree here, but Jesus is God and therefore has existed from eternity. What we are saying is that He didn't exist as a 2nd person. The Sonship begins with the incarnation. Hebrews 1:5, Luke 1:35

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Oneness doctrine says the Logos was with God. Trinitarians say God the Son was with God the Father. Which doctrine is adding to John 1:1?

Since I'm neither a Oneness doctrinaire nor a trinitarian, I don't really give a a damn.

When you assume "two separate persons" you think this is great and makes sense because 1. you ignore the meaning of Logos and 2. you assume God must be put into categories like us humans. After all if Adam talks to Eve then you have two persons. Makes sense until you accept that God is not limited like us and you are falling into the "put God into components and earthly elements" trap that Paul said in Colossians 2:8 would rob you of the truth of Christ.

Makes a nice speech, but I have no idea what the hell you are babbling about. I assume nothing.

Not "terms" to you. I must have struck a nerve here

Not possible. My nerves are too involved with whether or not the high rate of inflation will allow me to continue making my mortgage payment for them to be substantially impacted by your opinion about Who the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are.

and will take note that this is a weak area for you. The reason I know this is the Trinitarian version of the rope-a-dope. You are so pious that "terms" is beneath your elite walk with God. Gotcha.

Yeah, right. Whatcha "got?"

Go peddle your Oneness doctrine to someone who cares.

As far as experience, please answer: Do you have three God persons in you?

None of your business. Maybe I'm Legion.

 

[Andreas]

Incidentally Andreas, I do not consider myself a Trinitarian. I simply believe that God is three wholly divine Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If that means you therefore need to slap a doctrinal label on me, so be it.

I came to this thread reluctantly. In another forum, the subject of the Trinity came up and a nice lady, Caroljeen, for whom I have great respect, was expressing her disbelief in the Trinity and for some reason she wanted to move the discussion over to this Oneness forum. I was unfamiliar with the concept of Oneness and now must say, based on your posts in this thread, I don't find the concept to be very persuasive.

And as long as I have you here, please take a look at I Cor 15:28:

"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

Now it seems to me that in order to maintain your "Oneness" belief you will either need to dispute the truth of that verse or deny the divinity of the Son.

I rose by any other name is still a rose. Do you see Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as three persons similar to how Peter, James and John are three persons but all share human nature? Or, do you see Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as three persons, not as substantial persons but more like one man has a conscious, conscience, and subconsciousness?

 

[Andreas]

Since I'm neither a Oneness doctrinaire nor a trinitarian, I don't really give a a damn.



Makes a nice speech, but I have no idea what the hell you are babbling about. I assume nothing.



Not possible. My nerves are too involved with whether or not the high rate of inflation will allow me to continue making my mortgage payment for them to be substantially impacted by your opinion about Who the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are.



Yeah, right. Whatcha "got?"

Go peddle your Oneness doctrine to someone who cares.



None of your business. Maybe I'm Legion.

Ultimately what you believe about God affects your experience. Oneness believers teach that God is Spirit, so when a believer is filled with the Spirit of God then this one Spirit is God the Father and of course Christ since there is one God who was manifested in the flesh (ROMANS 8). The Bible tells us in JOHN 14 about the coming and infilling of the Holy Spirit and the abiding of the Father and Son in the believer. But since you hold that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not the same person, then the coming of the Holy Spirit means that Christ is not in the believer or is something completely inexplicable.

In your view the Holy Spirit is a person other than Christ, therefore Christ does not abide in the believer in any substantial way and this contradicts scripture (Romans 8, John 14). If you believe Christ does abide in the believer, then in what manner? As a second Spirit? If He abides as the Holy Spirit, then in what way can he be another person distinct from the Holy Spirit person? If you simply throw up your hands and have no idea how Christ abides in the believer as He said He would, then wouldn't it be better to see if Oneness offers an explanation?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Ultimately what you believe about God affects your experience. Oneness believers teach that God is Spirit, so when a believer is filled with the Spirit of God then this one Spirit is God the Father and of course Christ since there is one God who was manifested in the flesh (ROMANS 8). The Bible tells us in JOHN 14 about the coming and infilling of the Holy Spirit and the abiding of the Father and Son in the believer. But since you hold that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not the same person, then the coming of the Holy Spirit means that Christ is not in the believer or is something completely inexplicable.

In your view the Holy Spirit is a person other than Christ, therefore Christ does not abide in the believer in any substantial way and this contradicts scripture (Romans 8, John 14). If you believe Christ does abide in the believer, then in what manner? As a second Spirit? If He abides as the Holy Spirit, then in what way can he be another person distinct from the Holy Spirit person? If you simply throw up your hands and have no idea how Christ abides in the believer as He said He would, then wouldn't it be better to see if Oneness offers an explanation?

Thanks for the cold abstract doctrine, but I think I will continue to worship the Living Triune God. The Son has been revealing the Father to me via the Holy Spirit for years now and I anticipate He will for many years to come. I talk to both the Father and the Son and neither one seems hung up on my doctrine.

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus says:

" Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

He does not say:

"Therefore go and make Oneness believers of all nations baptizing them in the name of One."

 

[Andreas]

Thanks for the cold abstract doctrine, but I think I will continue to worship the Living Triune God. The Son has been revealing the Father to me via the Holy Spirit for years now and I anticipate He will for many years to come. I talk to both the Father and the Son and neither one seems hung up on my doctrine.

In Matthew 28:19 Jesus says:

" Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

He does not say:

"Therefore go and make Oneness believers of all nations baptizing them in the name of One."

Matthew 28:19 is a good verse for you to bring in at this time because it points directly to the Oneness of God rather than three persons.

How did the early church and apostles understand Matthew 28:19? They baptized in the name of JESUS

Those that repeat Matthew 28:19 for baptism are not doing what Christ said to do. He said to baptize in the SINGULAR NAME, not repeat the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If one diagrams this sentence it looks like the image below. Notice that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all refer back to the SINGULAR NAME.

What is the one singular name that the Apostles used to baptized in? ALWAYS the NAME OF JESUS....



Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ACTS 2:38

(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) ACTS 8:16

And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. ACTS 10:48

On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. ACTS 19:5

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. ACTS 22:16

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? ROMANS 6:3

that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47)

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 1 CORINTHIANS 1:13

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. GALATIANS 3:27

The history on baptism is pretty clear too with most references agreeing that immerse in water in the name of Jesus was the original method. For example, "Mounces complete expository dictionary of Old and New Testament Words", 2006, William Mounce page 53 says this and many other references.

A common statement of faith among Oneness believers is simply something like this: "There is one God, who has revealed Himself as Father; through His Son, in redemption; and as the Holy Spirit, by emanation. Jesus Christ is God manifested in flesh. He is both God and man. (See Deuteronomy 6:4; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 2:9; I Timothy 3:16.)"

Someone doesn't have to believe in "three persons in the Godhead" to acknowledge Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Using the "three persons" terms is not found anywhere in the Bible, and in fact was brought in much later after the NT was written.


For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him. COLOSSIANS 2:9

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Matthew 28:19 is a good verse for you to bring in at this time because it points directly to the Oneness of God rather than three persons.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

Those that repeat Matthew 28:19 for baptism are not doing what Christ said to do.

Well, let's look at what He said to do:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

2 Corinthians 13:13,

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you."

1 Peter 1:2:

" .....according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood."

Oh, and you still haven't explained 1 Cor 15:24

"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power."

Does Jesus deliver up the Kingdom to Himself?

 

[Andreas]

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"



Well, let's look at what He said to do:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

2 Corinthians 13:13,

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you."

1 Peter 1:2:

" .....according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood."

Oh, and you still haven't explained 1 Cor 15:24

"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power."

Does Jesus deliver up the Kingdom to Himself?

You didn't address why the Apostles took Matthew 28:19 as a command to baptized in the name of Jesus. Why is there not a single example in the Bible of anyone repeating Matthew 28:19? There are many examples in the Bible of baptizing but as I listed above are all done in the name of Jesus.


You ask does Jesus deliver up the Kingdom to Himself? This follows your questions asking if Jesus prayed to Himself. Your point is that they must be different "persons" or Jesus is a ventriloquist or something nonsensical. For you they must be different eternal persons and all these verses about Jesus praying and 1 Corinthians 15:24 don't make sense any other way. I get that is what you are saying and you think this is a good argument against Oneness doctrine. But it is not and I'll explain.

First of all, Oneness doctrine affirms the Bible titles and roles of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, we do not hold that God is three eternal persons because beyond making superficial sense (as you've pointed out with Jesus praying and such) it totally breaks down logically and Biblically.


The Bible is clear that God is I AM. God is called HE and HIM. God calls Himself by singular pronouns of I, ME, MY. Scripture even makes it stronger when God says "Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD (singular Hebrew name)? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me." Isaiah 45:21

You say God is not limited to one person or he, but three who's or persons and that is not Biblical and makes no sense in light of the fact that God says NONE BESIDE ME.

In answer to your question, it is vital to hold unto the strong monotheistic passages like Isaiah 45 while understanding the Father and Son relationship in light of his genuine human existence. If your honest with yourself there isn't anything in the OT that would clearly teach a Trinity, but the opposite. I can't ignore the thousands of times singular pronouns and names are used for God in the OT (Over 7,000 times).

When we come to the NT the I/You relationship between Father and Son is everywhere. Why? Because he has come in the flesh and what we read are accounts of the man Jesus Christ communicating with God.

Have you considered that Christ was not just a human shell or puppet body that was animated by God? Do you accept that he was a genuine man?

Oneness doctrine is not teaching that there is no difference between Father and Son, but that the difference is due to God's existence as an authentic man. So to all your questions the answer is simply God as a genuine man was communicating to God as men do. Though he was God, due to the limitations of his real human existence he functioned and lived as other men do other than he had no sin. It has been said often by Oneness people that everything that can be said about us, Jesus could say about himself to, except he never sinned. Did he learn? Yes. Did he grow? Yes. Did he get hungry and thirsty? Yes. Did he get tired and sleep? Yes. Did he die? Yes.

The distinction then is not between eternal God persons, but rather the difference between God existing as omnipotent Spirit and God existing as a man. Both are real and both have a clear scriptural basis.

Simultaneously then God as eternal and omnipotent Spirit continues to exist as He always has, but He also exists as a real man. The distinction then is between the invisible and visible/manifested, the transcendent and the logos, and the Spirit and the flesh. God doing many things and in many places at the same time.

That God became man was a miracle and not easy to explain, but it is not crazy or nonsensical Biblically or logically.

By asserting that God is three eternal persons the difficulty of explaining the psychology of the Son of God can be pretty much ignored, however the difficulty that is faced further up becomes insurmountable and nonsensical. God is I AM, not WE ARE.

By asserting that God is One and that the distinction between Father and Son is due to the Son's humanity the difficulty is up front and seemingly impossible until you consider that God is omnipotent and can function simultaneously in two forms of existence. That's the hard part. It's not unBiblical and it's not illogical if one accepts that God is omnipotent and omnipresent. Past that there is no difficulty because we continue to maintain very easily that God is simply One in the pure sense of the word and that calling Him I AM and HE and HIM is completely in harmony with the Bible and common sense.

Both sides face a difficult explanation because we only can relate to ourselves as limited humans in one place and time. However, the three persons doctrine leads to a nonsensical conclusion and Oneness preserves the beauty of the One God in its simplicity.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

You didn't address why the Apostles took Matthew 28:19 as a command to baptized in the name of Jesus.

More importantly YOU did not address its instruction to baptize in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

You ask does Jesus deliver up the Kingdom to Himself?

Correct. And you didn't answer.

This follows your questions asking if Jesus prayed to Himself. Your point is that they must be different "persons" or Jesus is a ventriloquist or something nonsensical. For you they must be different eternal persons and all these verses about Jesus praying and 1 Corinthians 15:24 don't make sense any other way.

Exactly. And you don't even attempt to explain it. Instead you give me all of this irrelevant stuff:

I get that is what you are saying and you think this is a good argument against Oneness doctrine. But it is not and I'll explain.

First of all, Oneness doctrine affirms the Bible titles and roles of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, we do not hold that God is three eternal persons because beyond making superficial sense (as you've pointed out with Jesus praying and such) it totally breaks down logically and Biblically.


The Bible is clear that God is I AM. God is called HE and HIM. God calls Himself by singular pronouns of I, ME, MY. Scripture even makes it stronger when God says "Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD (singular Hebrew name)? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me." Isaiah 45:21

You say God is not limited to one person or he, but three who's or persons and that is not Biblical and makes no sense in light of the fact that God says NONE BESIDE ME.

In answer to your question, it is vital to hold unto the strong monotheistic passages like Isaiah 45 while understanding the Father and Son relationship in light of his genuine human existence. If your honest with yourself there isn't anything in the OT that would clearly teach a Trinity, but the opposite. I can't ignore the thousands of times singular pronouns and names are used for God in the OT (Over 7,000 times).

When we come to the NT the I/You relationship between Father and Son is everywhere. Why? Because he has come in the flesh and what we read are accounts of the man Jesus Christ communicating with God.

Have you considered that Christ was not just a human shell or puppet body that was animated by God? Do you accept that he was a genuine man?

Oneness doctrine is not teaching that there is no difference between Father and Son, but that the difference is due to God's existence as an authentic man. So to all your questions the answer is simply God as a genuine man was communicating to God as men do. Though he was God, due to the limitations of his real human existence he functioned and lived as other men do other than he had no sin. It has been said often by Oneness people that everything that can be said about us, Jesus could say about himself to, except he never sinned. Did he learn? Yes. Did he grow? Yes. Did he get hungry and thirsty? Yes. Did he get tired and sleep? Yes. Did he die? Yes.

The distinction then is not between eternal God persons, but rather the difference between God existing as omnipotent Spirit and God existing as a man. Both are real and both have a clear scriptural basis.

Simultaneously then God as eternal and omnipotent Spirit continues to exist as He always has, but He also exists as a real man. The distinction then is between the invisible and visible/manifested, the transcendent and the logos, and the Spirit and the flesh. God doing many things and in many places at the same time.

That God became man was a miracle and not easy to explain, but it is not crazy or nonsensical Biblically or logically.

By asserting that God is three eternal persons the difficulty of explaining the psychology of the Son of God can be pretty much ignored, however the difficulty that is faced further up becomes insurmountable and nonsensical. God is I AM, not WE ARE.

By asserting that God is One and that the distinction between Father and Son is due to the Son's humanity the difficulty is up front and seemingly impossible until you consider that God is omnipotent and can function simultaneously in two forms of existence. That's the hard part. It's not unBiblical and it's not illogical if one accepts that God is omnipotent and omnipresent. Past that there is no difficulty because we continue to maintain very easily that God is simply One in the pure sense of the word and that calling Him I AM and HE and HIM is completely in harmony with the Bible and common sense.

You seem more intent on propagandizing your "Oneness Doctrine" than on sharing the good new so well summarized in John 3:16.

Rather than debunking the doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine for which I have very little use, why not answer the questions I have posed about how your doctrine would have Jesus praying to Himself in the Garden, and delivering the Kingdom up to Himself in the eschaton, as if that made any senses, as well as pleading with Himself on the cross to forgive His malefactors.[/QUOTE]

 

[Andreas]

More importantly YOU did not address its instruction to baptize in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost.



Correct. And you didn't answer.



Exactly. And you don't even attempt to explain it. Instead you give me all of this irrelevant stuff:



You seem more intent on propagandizing your "Oneness Doctrine" than on sharing the good new so well summarized in John 3:16.

Rather than debunking the doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine for which I have very little use, why not answer the questions I have posed about how your doctrine would have Jesus praying to Himself in the Garden, and delivering the Kingdom up to Himself in the eschaton, as if that made any senses, as well as pleading with Himself on the cross to forgive His malefactors.

[/QUOTE]


Either you are not really thinking about what you are writing, or you have cognitive dissonance which is the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs or attitudes.

You have "very little use" for the doctrine of the Trinity yet you write as one of its staunchest supporters here on CARM. What is the difference exactly between your belief and Trinitarian doctrine?

Also, you are ignoring my answers. Are you just looking for me to agree with you or are you actually reading my answers to your questions? Maybe it would help if you read my entire post first before taking things out of context.

When you ask is Jesus praying to Himself or delivering the Kingdom up to Himself you are setting up a question for which the answer is only accepted by you if one first accepts your flawed view of the nature of God. You think of God as three eternal persons like Peter, James and John are three persons sharing the same nature, which is pretty much polytheism. Does James talk to James and hand himself a loaf of bread or does James talk to Peter and hand Peter a loaf of bread? If James is talking to himself and handing himself a loaf of bread then we would think of James as an odd fellow.

But is the Son of God like James where he only has one nature? No, the Son is both divine and human. The Son is God manifested in the flesh, existing as a real man and praying as a man would pray to God. You are not accepting the Son is fully human and has a human mind. Until you accept the true humanity of the Son of God you are not going to understand Biblical Christology.

Is Jesus praying to Himself and delivering the kingdom to Himself? Yes, in that He is the One God. But, because he is also human it is not something nutty or creepy because God functioning in his genuine human capacity is praying as a man to God. His humanity is real and can't be dismissed as window dressing. He, who is God, took on the form of man.

In a similar way, is it accurate to say that God shed his blood on the cross? The simple answer is Yes, but God is Spirit and doesn't have blood. However, because the one who became flesh was God, then the man whom God became shed his blood for us.

Are you willing to accept the full humanity of Christ? Do you accept that He had a real human mind?


PS: you said I "did not address its instruction to baptize in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost." Are you kidding I gave you nine scriptures concerning baptism in the name of Jesus and a diagram and you completely ignore it. Please tell me why the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is not Jesus if you accept that all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily?