What does the largest Oneness group say about God?

[Andreas]

What does the United Pentecostal Church say about God?

From its website:

https://upci.org/our-beliefs/

About God

"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.)"

 

[101G]

the first thing in ERROR, their statement about God,
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.)

emanations: an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.

to emanate: verb (used without object), em·a·nat·ed, em·a·nat·ing. to flow out, issue, or proceed, as from a source or origin; come forth; originate. verb (used with object), em·a·nat·ed, em·a·nat·ing. to send forth; emit.

but they also say, "Jesus Christ is God manifested in flesh", if he's God, how do he emanate? because God himself is the Source. and emanate is "FROM" the source.

for if something or someone emanate .... "FROM" a SOURCE" then it's not the SOURCE. but they say Jesus Christ is God. that want work.

 

[Caroljeen]

What does the United Pentecostal Church say about God?

From its website:

https://upci.org/our-beliefs/

About God

"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.)"

What do you think is meant by "emanation?

 

[Andreas]

What do you think is meant by "emanation?

I think we can just use the dictionary definition such as "to flow out, issue, proceed...". With the Holy Spirit in view, we perceive God's presence as poured out, flowing rivers of living water, proceeding from the Father into the believer. Oneness often teaches the Spirit of God as God in action, invisible, but yet real like the wind. Thousands of windmills turn as a witness of the force of wind though the wind itself is not seen. So to with the Holy Spirit, though invisible, is a witness of transformation and life in the believer.

Of course, Oneness people do not understand the Holy Spirit as another person of God, but the essence of God Himself being manifested through the believer. The Biblical language of "proceeding from the Father" is not to be taken in the literal sense of one person in heaven sending another person down into the believer, because we know from the teaching of Jesus that the infilling of the Holy Spirit means the Father is "in you all" (Spirit filled believers).

That the Trinitarian is unable to reconcile One Spirit in the believer with 3 persons in the believer is a mess of their own making, not the Bibles fault.

 

[101G]

"to flow out, issue, proceed..."

Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
Form: G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n.
1. a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something).

what is another word that is synonyms with "portion? answer, share, allotment, this can be found at https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/portion.html#C0-1

Now "Emanation", another word for it is, appearance, materialization, proceeding, issue, manifestation. this can be found at

What is another word for emanation? | Emanation Synonyms - WordHippo Thesaurus

Synonyms for emanation include origination, arising, proceeding, beginning, derivation, emerging, origin, arrival, inception and coming. Find more similar words at wordhippo.com!

www.wordhippo.com

as said before if the Lord Jesus is God, (which he is), then he ... God himself in flesh, (it must be explain how he emanated from his OWN SELF, as his own EQUAL, and yet be in flesh on earth.

but now one has another dilemma, the Spirit at his baptism came upon him, "God" is supposed to be in that body already at the birth of the flesh. now the oneness ... UPC must explain the Spirit at birth ...in the flesh, and now at his baptism. for is not the Holy Spirit God? yes.

101G

 

[Andreas]

Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
Form: G3444 μορφή morphe (mor-fee') n.
1. form.
2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
[perhaps from the base of G3313 (through the idea of adjustment of parts)]
KJV: form
Root(s): G3313

G3313 μέρος meros (me'-ros) n.
1. a portion (i.e. an amount allotted, a part of something).

what is another word that is synonyms with "portion? answer, share, allotment, this can be found at https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/portion.html#C0-1

Now "Emanation", another word for it is, appearance, materialization, proceeding, issue, manifestation. this can be found at

What is another word for emanation? | Emanation Synonyms - WordHippo Thesaurus

Synonyms for emanation include origination, arising, proceeding, beginning, derivation, emerging, origin, arrival, inception and coming. Find more similar words at wordhippo.com!

www.wordhippo.com

as said before if the Lord Jesus is God, (which he is), then he ... God himself in flesh, (it must be explain how he emanated from his OWN SELF, as his own EQUAL, and yet be in flesh on earth.

but now one has another dilemma, the Spirit at his baptism came upon him, "God" is supposed to be in that body already at the birth of the flesh. now the oneness ... UPC must explain the Spirit at birth ...in the flesh, and now at his baptism. for is not the Holy Spirit God? yes.

101G

You miss the distinction caused by his genuine humanity. Perhaps you also miss the fact that God is everywhere present. The Spirit as a dove coming upon him at the baptism was his anointing for his ministry which was beginning. This had nothing to do with his receiving the Spirit.

There is One God. God is Spirit. God was manifested in the flesh. Why do you add into scripture what is not there?

 

[101G]

You miss the distinction caused by his genuine humanity. Perhaps you also miss the fact that God is everywhere present. The Spirit as a dove coming upon him at the baptism was his anointing for his ministry which was beginning. This had nothing to do with his receiving the Spirit.

There is One God. God is Spirit. God was manifested in the flesh. Why do you add into scripture what is not there?

GINOLJC, to all.
ERROR, was it not the Spirit of God in that body at the birth of the flesh, yes or no? your answer please.

101G.

 

[Andreas]

GINOLJC, to all.
ERROR, was it not the Spirit of God in that body at the birth of the flesh, yes or no? your answer please.

101G.

Yes, of course. What's your point?

 

[101G]

Yes, of course. What's your point?

OK, if the Spirit was in that body, now the Holy Spirit descended (at his baptism), and is in that body to .... correct. well now, how much of the Spirit at the birth of the flesh was in that body?. remember you said, "Perhaps you also miss the fact that God is everywhere present." good, but the Spirit that was in that body at the birth of that flesh was
G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') v.
1. to make empty.
2. (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify.
[from G2756]
KJV: make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain

and as you said, the Spirit, which is only ONE Spirit was and is everywhere. so how much of the EVER PRESENT Spirit was G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') while in that flesh at birth? was it 1/3rd for the person you call the Son?, or was it all of the Spirit, (guess not because the Holy Spirit descended as a dove at his baptism). also we know that the Spirit that was in that body at the birth of the Flesh is an equal nature, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" and it was the EQUAL amount, (or all of God in that body at the birth of the flesh.) so tell us, "how much of the Spirit was in that body at birth?" A. ALL OF GOD. or B. SOME OF GOD, because the Holy Spirit descended on him at his baptism, which was later. your answer please.

101G.

 

[Andreas]

OK, if the Spirit was in that body, now the Holy Spirit descended (at his baptism), and is in that body to .... correct. well now, how much of the Spirit at the birth of the flesh was in that body?. remember you said, "Perhaps you also miss the fact that God is everywhere present." good, but the Spirit that was in that body at the birth of that flesh was
G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') v.
1. to make empty.
2. (figuratively) to abase, neutralize, falsify.
[from G2756]
KJV: make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain

and as you said, the Spirit, which is only ONE Spirit was and is everywhere. so how much of the EVER PRESENT Spirit was G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') while in that flesh at birth? was it 1/3rd for the person you call the Son?, or was it all of the Spirit, (guess not because the Holy Spirit descended as a dove at his baptism). also we know that the Spirit that was in that body at the birth of the Flesh is an equal nature, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" and it was the EQUAL amount, (or all of God in that body at the birth of the flesh.) so tell us, "how much of the Spirit was in that body at birth?" A. ALL OF GOD. or B. SOME OF GOD, because the Holy Spirit descended on him at his baptism, which was later. your answer please.

101G.

I think you're taking the kenoo concept to far. Though he was God, he made himself of no reputation. You're trying to measure the Holy Spirit like you measure oil for baking a cake. The Holy Spirit is not a physical substance. Christ had the Spirit without measure.

 

[101G]

I think you're taking the kenoo concept to far. Though he was God, he made himself of no reputation. You're trying to measure the Holy Spirit like you measure oil for baking a cake. The Holy Spirit is not a physical substance. Christ had the Spirit without measure.

no, just deductive reasoning.

101G.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

What does the United Pentecostal Church say about God?

From its website:

https://upci.org/our-beliefs/

About God

"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.)"

What's interesting about this quote is that it doesn't really say much. It doesn't distinguish itself from Trinitarianism. It simply says things in a way that one could guess that they are Sabellian, but it doesn't make that claim specifically. It denies Arianism, but not much else. For example, a Trinitarian can say "There is one God, who has revealed Himself as Father; through His Son, in redemption; and as the Holy Spirit, by emanation." meaning there is one God, who has revealed Himself as one person who is the Father, another who is the Son in redemption and a third as the Holy Spirit, by emanation. Both Trinitarians and Oneness confess "Jesus Christ is God manifested in flesh." Both profess "He is both God and man." Going to their website, that's all it says. One would think they would say something that would distinguish them as not Trinitarian, like "There is one person who is God, who has revealed Himself as Father; through His Son, in redemption; and as the Holy Spirit, by emanation."

God Bless

 

[Andreas]

What's interesting about this quote is that it doesn't really say much. It doesn't distinguish itself from Trinitarianism. It simply says things in a way that one could guess that they are Sabellian, but it doesn't make that claim specifically. It denies Arianism, but not much else. For example, a Trinitarian can say "There is one God, who has revealed Himself as Father; through His Son, in redemption; and as the Holy Spirit, by emanation." meaning there is one God, who has revealed Himself as one person who is the Father, another who is the Son in redemption and a third as the Holy Spirit, by emanation. Both Trinitarians and Oneness confess "Jesus Christ is God manifested in flesh." Both profess "He is both God and man." Going to their website, that's all it says. One would think they would say something that would distinguish them as not Trinitarian, like "There is one person who is God, who has revealed Himself as Father; through His Son, in redemption; and as the Holy Spirit, by emanation."

God Bless

They Oneness of God theology is not defined by anti-Trinitarian statements, and the purpose of this UPCI website is just to give a brief statement of faith. There are some similarities between Oneness and Trinitarianism if you look for them. Also, it becomes more complicated because Trinitarianism is not one thing, but a bandwidth of different views with one end being close to Oneness theology. There are of course, big differences. They are two diametrically different ways of thinking about the deity of Christ. Oneness holds that the one God was manifested in the flesh and his genuine humanity is the reason for the Father/Son distinction. All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily. Trinity holds that only one God person of three persons was manifested. Jesus is one person of three in the Godhead and his genuine humanity doesn't substantially differentiate between Father/Son because the differences are eternal in the Godhead. The term "persons" is a human category with lots of meaning especially in the English language and is not helpful in describing God except to relate to Trinitarians who are heavily invested in the term.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

What's interesting about this quote is that it doesn't really say much. It doesn't distinguish itself from Trinitarianism. It simply says things in a way that one could guess that they are Sabellian, but it doesn't make that claim specifically. It denies Arianism, but not much else. For example, a Trinitarian can say "There is one God, who has revealed Himself as Father; through His Son, in redemption; and as the Holy Spirit, by emanation." meaning there is one God, who has revealed Himself as one person who is the Father, another who is the Son in redemption and a third as the Holy Spirit, by emanation. Both Trinitarians and Oneness confess "Jesus Christ is God manifested in flesh." Both profess "He is both God and man." Going to their website, that's all it says. One would think they would say something that would distinguish them as not Trinitarian, like "There is one person who is God, who has revealed Himself as Father; through His Son, in redemption; and as the Holy Spirit, by emanation."

They Oneness of God theology is not defined by anti-Trinitarian statements, and the purpose of this UPCI website is just to give a brief statement of faith.

That is a fair standard to try to meet. But did UPCI say enough to stop Trinitarians from being in their church?

There are some similarities between Oneness and Trinitarianism if you look for them. Also, it becomes more complicated because Trinitarianism is not one thing, but a bandwidth of different views with one end being close to Oneness theology.

Have you looked in the mirror? I can barely fine two oneness that agree on anything accept that they deny the Trinity. It is simply not meaningful to bring up such things in discussions like this.

There are of course, big differences. They are two diametrically different ways of thinking about the deity of Christ. Oneness holds that the one God was manifested in the flesh and his genuine humanity is the reason for the Father/Son distinction. All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily. Trinity holds that only one God person of three persons was manifested. Jesus is one person of three in the Godhead and his genuine humanity doesn't substantially differentiate between Father/Son because the differences are eternal in the Godhead.

How is this relevant to anything? I see a bunch of claims without much substance in this response. The primary difference is found in whether the distinction that existed while Jesus was a man between the Father and the Son always existed or started to exist with the incarnation. Everything else is literally secondary to this question.

The term "persons" is a human category with lots of meaning especially in the English language and is not helpful in describing God except to relate to Trinitarians who are heavily invested in the term.

And? Why should anyone care if it is a human category. Your refusal to interact with said categories eliminates meaningful communication. Such statements only function to stifle conversation. After all, when one learns how powerful the Trinitarian arguments are, Oneness play this communication game to keep people submissively believing falsehood.

God Bless

 

[Andreas]

That is a fair standard to try to meet. But did UPCI say enough to stop Trinitarians from being in their church?



Have you looked in the mirror? I can barely fine two oneness that agree on anything accept that they deny the Trinity. It is simply not meaningful to bring up such things in discussions like this.



How is this relevant to anything? I see a bunch of claims without much substance in this response. The primary difference is found in whether the distinction that existed while Jesus was a man between the Father and the Son always existed or started to exist with the incarnation. Everything else is literally secondary to this question.



And? Why should anyone care if it is a human category. Your refusal to interact with said categories eliminates meaningful communication. Such statements only function to stifle conversation. After all, when one learns how powerful the Trinitarian arguments are, Oneness play this communication game to keep people submissively believing falsehood.

God Bless

The point of these topics is often to explain the differences. But, I've actually started topics that showed the similarities between Oneness and Trinity, but as far as I can see no Trinitarian has ever done the same here on CARM. Most of what Trinitarians know about Oneness is based on false hearsay and prejudice.

If you are asking is the doctrine of the Trinity held by any of our ministers or is it an accepted article of faith? No it is not. Are Trinitarians allowed to come to church? Yes. Many Trinitarians that come will grow in biblical truth and get baptized in the name of Jesus because it is self-evident from the Bible.

Everything is not secondary, because it leads to the greater truth and faith and that is the identity of Jesus. To know that the One God, Himself, took on flesh fully reveals who Jesus is. The very Logos of God the Father is revealed to us through Christ.

It also reveals the name of God as JESUS. Trinitarians often have a hard time acknowledging that Jesus is the name of God and that is a horrible result of Trinitarian doctrine.

When you look at it from 30,000 feet as a non-believer, Trinitarians worship a God for whom they are confused about his name! Like Muslims, they think Allah is actually a name. Some Trinitarian Pastor's think "God" is his name! Trinitarians are like, well, let's see, is it Yahweh or Yahoo or something like that (dirrrrrrr, let's see boss, duh).

Paul warned us in Colossians 2:8 about the Trinity and Arianism because both of these doctrines attempt to define God with a little bit of John and Plato. COLOSSIANS 2:8 AMP "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception [pseudo-intellectual babble], according to the tradition [and musings] of mere men, following the elementary principles of this world, rather than following [the truth—the teachings of] Christ."

Trinity checklist:
Philosophy - CHECK - Tertullian, Origen, redefining hypostasis
Pseudo-intellectual babble - CHECK - "Eternally begotten Son". See Athanasian Creed for full blown non-Biblical babble.
Tradition - CHECK - Creeds (Athanasian, etc.) enforced by Emperor Constantine and RCC and John Calvin that go beyond the Bible.
Elementary principles of this world - CHECK - the term "persons" referring to humans replaces the Greek Biblical "hypostasis", redefined, and turned into its plural.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

That is a fair standard to try to meet. But did UPCI say enough to stop Trinitarians from being in their church?

Have you looked in the mirror? I can barely fine two oneness that agree on anything accept that they deny the Trinity. It is simply not meaningful to bring up such things in discussions like this.

How is this relevant to anything? I see a bunch of claims without much substance in this response. The primary difference is found in whether the distinction that existed while Jesus was a man between the Father and the Son always existed or started to exist with the incarnation. Everything else is literally secondary to this question.

And? Why should anyone care if it is a human category. Your refusal to interact with said categories eliminates meaningful communication. Such statements only function to stifle conversation. After all, when one learns how powerful the Trinitarian arguments are, Oneness play this communication game to keep people submissively believing falsehood.

The point of these topics is often to explain the differences. But, I've actually started topics that showed the similarities between Oneness and Trinity, but as far as I can see no Trinitarian has ever done the same here on CARM. Most of what Trinitarians know about Oneness is based on false hearsay and prejudice.

Then you agree that the OP doesn't differentiate between Oneness and Trinitarians. You could have just said so and saved both of us a lot of time.

Everything is not secondary, because it leads to the greater truth and faith and that is the identity of Jesus. To know that the One God, Himself, took on flesh fully reveals who Jesus is. The very Logos of God the Father is revealed to us through Christ.

Not secondary as to be ignored. Secondary logically to the primary difference. You were pointing at differences that are the logical consequence to the whether or not the distinction between Father and Word is temporal or eternal. In that way, they are secondary. But, if they are logically secondary, why not interact on the primary difference that leads to these other differences.

It also reveals the name of God as JESUS. Trinitarians often have a hard time acknowledging that Jesus is the name of God and that is a horrible result of Trinitarian doctrine.

"God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations." Exodus 3:15. Why are we to think God's name is Joshua, I mean Yehoshua, I mean Yeshuʿ, I mean Ἰησοῦ, I mean Iēsūs, I mean Jesus? Oh yeah, you guys love to ignore what Scripture says and go with your gut.

When you look at it from 30,000 feet as a non-believer, Trinitarians worship a God for whom they are confused about his name! Like Muslims, they think Allah is actually a name. Some Trinitarian Pastor's think "God" is his name! Trinitarians are like, well, let's see, is it Yahweh or Yahoo or something like that (dirrrrrrr, let's see boss, duh).

It's interesting watching someone mock the name of God used literally 1000s of times in the OT for God out of abject ignorance.

Paul warned us in Colossians 2:8 about the Trinity and Arianism because both of these doctrines attempt to define God with a little bit of John and Plato. COLOSSIANS 2:8 AMP "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception [pseudo-intellectual babble], according to the tradition [and musings] of mere men, following the elementary principles of this world, rather than following [the truth—the teachings of] Christ."

When in doubt, makes accusations without any justification whatsoever. You couldn't be the ones adding your human philosophy to Scripture as to ignore what it says.

Trinity checklist:
Philosophy - CHECK - Tertullian, Origen, redefining hypostasis
Pseudo-intellectual babble - CHECK - "Eternally begotten Son". See Athanasian Creed for full blown non-Biblical babble.
Tradition - CHECK - Creeds (Athanasian, etc.) enforced by Emperor Constantine and RCC and John Calvin that go beyond the Bible.
Elementary principles of this world - CHECK - the term "persons" referring to humans replaces the Greek Biblical "hypostasis", redefined, and turned into its plural.

ROFL,
Philosophy based upon Scripture is Good.
Pseudo-intellectual babble is subjective.
Tradition-I am a Baptist. You have more Tradition than I do.
Elementary principles of this world- more subjectivism.

Nice job making yourself look irrational.

God Bless

 

[Andreas]

Then you agree that the OP doesn't differentiate between Oneness and Trinitarians. You could have just said so and saved both of us a lot of time.



Not secondary as to be ignored. Secondary logically to the primary difference. You were pointing at differences that are the logical consequence to the whether or not the distinction between Father and Word is temporal or eternal. In that way, they are secondary. But, if they are logically secondary, why not interact on the primary difference that leads to these other differences.



"God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations." Exodus 3:15. Why are we to think God's name is Joshua, I mean Yehoshua, I mean Yeshuʿ, I mean Ἰησοῦ, I mean Iēsūs, I mean Jesus? Oh yeah, you guys love to ignore what Scripture says and go with your gut.



It's interesting watching someone mock the name of God used literally 1000s of times in the OT for God out of abject ignorance.



When in doubt, makes accusations without any justification whatsoever. You couldn't be the ones adding your human philosophy to Scripture as to ignore what it says.



ROFL,
Philosophy based upon Scripture is Good.
Pseudo-intellectual babble is subjective.
Tradition-I am a Baptist. You have more Tradition than I do.
Elementary principles of this world- more subjectivism.

Nice job making yourself look irrational.

God Bless

Haven't you read Isaiah 12?

Having studied the trinity and oneness for 45 years, I believe that the greatest tragedy of so many Trinitarians, on a practical level where it counts, is the denial of the name of JESUS as God. You give a vain attempt to discuss YHWH and in doing so miss the whole point. Though it is a problem that you aren't sure how to say YHWH, but the main problem is that you think this name is somehow a superior name or "the name" for God and not the name of Jesus. God understands his name in every language. But, to not really know the significance of the name of Jesus, in whatever language you say that precious name, is a tragedy.

There is a reason why the inspired NT writers never revived the YHWH name. It is because they've been given a better covenant by the name of the Lord Jesus. YHWH has become our salvation. The name of Yeshua means YHWH our Salvation. It incorporates the OT name and adds redemption. Beyond the theological details of the Trinity, that is the real, practical tragedy of this toxic doctrine to mankind.

The Lord is the Spirit. There is one Lord. To know Jesus is to know the Father, for he came to manifest the name of the Father. Do you know him by that name?

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Then you agree that the OP doesn't differentiate between Oneness and Trinitarians. You could have just said so and saved both of us a lot of time.

Not secondary as to be ignored. Secondary logically to the primary difference. You were pointing at differences that are the logical consequence to the whether or not the distinction between Father and Word is temporal or eternal. In that way, they are secondary. But, if they are logically secondary, why not interact on the primary difference that leads to these other differences.

"God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘YHWH, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations." Exodus 3:15. Why are we to think God's name is Joshua, I mean Yehoshua, I mean Yeshuʿ, I mean Ἰησοῦ, I mean Iēsūs, I mean Jesus? Oh yeah, you guys love to ignore what Scripture says and go with your gut.

It's interesting watching someone mock the name of God used literally 1000s of times in the OT for God out of abject ignorance.

When in doubt, makes accusations without any justification whatsoever. You couldn't be the ones adding your human philosophy to Scripture as to ignore what it says.

ROFL,
Philosophy based upon Scripture is Good.
Pseudo-intellectual babble is subjective.
Tradition-I am a Baptist. You have more Tradition than I do.
Elementary principles of this world- more subjectivism.

Nice job making yourself look irrational.

Haven't you read Isaiah 12?

Yes, how is this relevant?

Having studied the trinity and oneness for 45 years, I believe that the greatest tragedy of so many Trinitarians, on a practical level where it counts, is the denial of the name of JESUS as God. You give a vain attempt to discuss YHWH and in doing so miss the whole point. Though it is a problem that you aren't sure how to say YHWH, but the main problem is that you think this name is somehow a superior name or "the name" for God and not the name of Jesus. God understands his name in every language. But, to not really know the significance of the name of Jesus, in whatever language you say that precious name, is a tragedy.

No one is denying "the name of JESUS as God." I'm denying that God's name is Jesus. I couldn't have made my position clearer, but you still misunderstand.

"the main problem is that you think this name is somehow a superior name or "the name" for God and not the name of Jesus." Hello, I'm only quoting Scripture. You know the passage that you are ignoring: Exodus 3:15.

There is a reason why the inspired NT writers never revived the YHWH name.

Yep, there is literally no way to transliterate it into Greek.

It is because they've been given a better covenant by the name of the Lord Jesus. YHWH has become our salvation. The name of Yeshua means YHWH our Salvation. It incorporates the OT name and adds redemption. Beyond the theological details of the Trinity, that is the real, practical tragedy of this toxic doctrine to mankind.
The Lord is the Spirit. There is one Lord. To know Jesus is to know the Father, for he came to manifest the name of the Father. Do you know him by that name?

This type of rhetoric would be meaningful if you had anything in Scripture recognizing the name Jesus as God's name, but you don't. You only have Jesus used to reference the man who was God, God's human name. Making your argument silly.

God Bless

 

[Andreas]

Yes, how is this relevant?



No one is denying "the name of JESUS as God." I'm denying that God's name is Jesus. I couldn't have made my position clearer, but you still misunderstand.

"the main problem is that you think this name is somehow a superior name or "the name" for God and not the name of Jesus." Hello, I'm only quoting Scripture. You know the passage that you are ignoring: Exodus 3:15.



Yep, there is literally no way to transliterate it into Greek.



This type of rhetoric would be meaningful if you had anything in Scripture recognizing the name Jesus as God's name, but you don't. You only have Jesus used to reference the man who was God, God's human name. Making your argument silly.

God Bless

Coming back to this and it is complete nonsense. You said, "no one is denying the name of JESUS as God. I'm denying that God's name is Jesus".

So, Jesus is God, but his name is not Jesus.

That's like saying you are Joe, but your name is not Joe. That only works if you have three gods with only one named Jesus.

You will say, "Trinitarians don't believe in three gods".

Fair enough, but then why do you speak as though there can be a God named Jesus but that God's name is not Jesus. That's Three Gods. One God named Jesus and two others that are not. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

Chalk it up as another reason why the doctrine of the Trinity is incoherent. Think man!

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Yes, how is this relevant?
No one is denying "the name of JESUS as God." I'm denying that God's name is Jesus. I couldn't have made my position clearer, but you still misunderstand.
"the main problem is that you think this name is somehow a superior name or "the name" for God and not the name of Jesus." Hello, I'm only quoting Scripture. You know the passage that you are ignoring: Exodus 3:15.
Yep, there is literally no way to transliterate it into Greek.
This type of rhetoric would be meaningful if you had anything in Scripture recognizing the name Jesus as God's name, but you don't. You only have Jesus used to reference the man who was God, God's human name. Making your argument silly.

Coming back to this and it is complete nonsense. You said, "no one is denying the name of JESUS as God. I'm denying that God's name is Jesus".

So, Jesus is God, but his name is not Jesus.

I didn't say that. Jesus' human name is Jesus. Jesus' divine name is YHWH. People can have more than one name.

That's like saying you are Joe, but your name is not Joe. That only works if you have three gods with only one named Jesus.

Jesus is both God and man. Such is not the same for some random guy name Joe. Therefore, this argument simply doesn't apply as to justify anything.

You will say, "Trinitarians don't believe in three gods".

Fair enough, but then why do you speak as though there can be a God named Jesus but that God's name is not Jesus. That's Three Gods. One God named Jesus and two others that are not. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

Chalk it up as another reason why the doctrine of the Trinity is incoherent. Think man!

Nope, I don't say "there can be a God named Jesus but that God's name is not Jesus". Besides, It's one God named YHWH, as Scripture literally says thousands of times. And, one of the persons who is that one God having a second, human name Jesus. There is nothing about such that can be described as incoherent. Such is just a silly comment by one desperately trying to find anything to justify his position that God's name is now Jesus even thou Scripture never says such. On the contrary, it says "every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." So, even Paul teaches that Jesus' name is YHWH, Lord.

God Bless