Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus?

The slain lamb was before all things.

Not, the 2nd person’s Spirit was before all things.

Incarnationists teach a disembodied God doctrine.

Per the op, they teach God was not inside Christ, but inside Himself.
 
Did what again? All I did was show your inability to read Scripture for what it says.

No, both the KJV and the ESV say the same thing. You are just so bad at reading KJ English that you deceive yourself into believing otherwise.

Again:
"whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." This is a dependent clause.
The Subject
"whose names"
The Verb "are not written"
Prepositional phrase #1 "in the book of life of the Lamb slain."
Prepositional phrase #2 "from the foundation of the world."
What does the first prepositional phrase modify? The verb "are not written".
What does the second prepositional phrase modify? You say "slain". I say the verb "are not written".

Think about it for a second. Which makes more sense? Is this additional prepositional phrase saying something more about the topic under discussion: names being and not being written in the book of life? Or, is this prepositional phrase introducing a radically different topic that gives no explanatory insight into what is being discussed in Revelation 13:8?
You did it again.

You cannot use the KJV at all without "fixing it" with a modern version.

I didn't fix the KJV with the ESV. I simply showed the KJV teaches what the ESV teaches: names are not written in the book from the foundation of the world. It says the same thing in Revelation 17:8 "whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world".

Every time you disagree with a verse in the KJV you google every version you can until you can find a compatible verse to your biased ideas.
The KJV clearly irks you.

Really, because for some reason you don't care what the actual grammar of the KJV says:

Again: "whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." This is a dependent clause.
The Subject "whose names"
The Verb "are not written"
Prepositional phrase #1 "in the book of life of the Lamb slain."
Prepositional phrase #2 "from the foundation of the world."
What does the first prepositional phrase modify? The verb "are not written".
What does the second prepositional phrase modify? You say "slain". I say the verb "are not written".
Question, if the KJV irks me so much, why am I the only one in the conversation digging into the actual grammar the KJV?

You like verses that say exactly the opposite with modern versions.
This clearly means you and the modern translator are both in agreement that it is impossible for God to transcend time, to the point of changing the verse completely.

You do realize that there is no logical connection between me preferring modern Translations because people like you can't understand the KJV and the claim I think "it is impossible for God to transcend time". Honestly, how is pointing out what a prepositional phrase is modifying "changing the verse completely."? Are you really that ignorant?

This....
...of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Becomes this...
...Everyone on earth whose name was not written from the world’s foundation ...
Busted.

How is putting words in my mouth busting anything? It appears more like a desperate attempt to save face.

The slain lamb was before all things.

According to your reading of Revelation 13:8

Not, the 2nd person’s Spirit was before all things.

Really? God didn't exist before all things? The 2nd person’s Spirit is the same Spirit as the 1st person’s Spirit and the 3nd person’s Spirit.

Incarnationists teach a disembodied God doctrine.

You think God was embodied in eternity past?

Per the op, they teach God was not inside Christ, but inside Himself.

As per your ignorance of Trinitarianism.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
If "#1-4 are all true statements", then no further commentary is necessary. Everything else you said is nothing but your human philosophy subtracting from the clear testimony of Scripture.



Correct, but that's all that can be done when communicating with human language: throw out a word that's close and admit it is not perfect. Scripture uses personal pronouns to distinguish between the Father, Son and Spirit. So in English, we call them persons while still recognizing #1-4. How can we be legitimately faulted for calling them persons when they are distinguished using personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc.? No matter what you call this eternal, relational distinction, it always better to recognize the Truth presented in Scripture as opposed to ignoring it like Oneness do.



Note, you didn't interact with a single verse we use to justify the Trinity. You simply complained about Trinitarianism. Clearly, our justifications for the Trinity are Biblical given you left them unchallenged. While, you just have a bunch of human reasoning issues comprehending what we are saying.


God Bless

The use of the term "persons" has been controversial since Tertullian introduced it in the 3rd century. It is a problem because its definition is not consistent even among Trinitarians. Trinitarian writers often put a caveat in their articles about the Trinity that the term "persons" is not used in the Bible and though it not perfect is the best they have given the mystery of God and our limited minds.

Is it the best we can do to distinguish the relationships between Father and Son and Holy Spirit?

No, it is worse than simply not being perfect. Words can be used to describe a Biblical concept if the definition is clear and consistent. The problem with "persons" is that it fails.

"Persons" is essentially the same thing as "beings" because the term that has its origins describing humans is being used to describe someone that is not human. Let's break it down. You have one human being and that human being is one person. That human person, made in God's image is body, soul, and spirit. But one being = one person in reference to us.

Your justification for applying the term to the omnipotent and eternal God is that the pronouns "I" and "you" are used to describe a relationship between the man Christ Jesus and God. It's one of those subtle rhetorical tricks to focus the attention away from the problem of fixing God up with a human term in the first place and then misdirecting the discussion away from that issue and moving it towards talking about how to define the relationship between Father and Son.

Trinitarians err in two major ways. They redefined the fundamental existence of God away from the simple monotheism of the God of the OT that the Jews for thousands of years understood, and Jesus affirmed that they were correct (John 4:22) to a radically different concept of three persons in the Godhead. So it was a redefinition of the meaning of "one" God, from a numerical one, to a unity of "persons".

Secondly, they had to redefine the meaning of "hypostases" and "persons".

All the redefining of terms is a telltale sign of a radical philosophy on the move. It is amazing how modern leftist philosophy with its redefinition of "life" and "choice" and "woman" and all the ambiguities and confusion built into their redefinitions is a telltale sign of another radical philosophical movement.

This is why the Apostle Paul was dead set against empty philosophy applied to God in COLOSSIANS 2:8.

I think that the Trinitarian concept of "persons" has really detracted and demoted the deity and centrality of Jesus Christ and his name. Trinitarians therefore don't really know who Jesus is even like the pre-JOHN 14 disciples. "Lord, show us the Father and it sufficeth us". That's you.
 
If "#1-4 are all true statements", then no further commentary is necessary. Everything else you said is nothing but your human philosophy subtracting from the clear testimony of Scripture.

Correct, but that's all that can be done when communicating with human language: throw out a word that's close and admit it is not perfect. Scripture uses personal pronouns to distinguish between the Father, Son and Spirit. So in English, we call them persons while still recognizing #1-4. How can we be legitimately faulted for calling them persons when they are distinguished using personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc.? No matter what you call this eternal, relational distinction, it always better to recognize the Truth presented in Scripture as opposed to ignoring it like Oneness do.

Note, you didn't interact with a single verse we use to justify the Trinity. You simply complained about Trinitarianism. Clearly, our justifications for the Trinity are Biblical given you left them unchallenged. While, you just have a bunch of human reasoning issues comprehending what we are saying.

The use of the term "persons" has been controversial since Tertullian introduced it in the 3rd century. It is a problem because its definition is not consistent even among Trinitarians. Trinitarian writers often put a caveat in their articles about the Trinity that the term "persons" is not used in the Bible and though it not perfect is the best they have given the mystery of God and our limited minds.

Is it the best we can do to distinguish the relationships between Father and Son and Holy Spirit?

No, it is worse than simply not being perfect. Words can be used to describe a Biblical concept if the definition is clear and consistent. The problem with "persons" is that it fails.

Again, scripture uses personal pronouns to distinguish between the Father, Son and Spirit. So in English, we call them persons while still recognizing #1-4. How can we be legitimately faulted for calling them persons when they are distinguished using personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc.? No matter what you call this eternal, relational distinction, it always better to recognize the Truth.

"Persons" is essentially the same thing as "beings" because the term that has its origins describing humans is being used to describe someone that is not human. Let's break it down. You have one human being and that human being is one person. That human person, made in God's image is body, soul, and spirit. But one being = one person in reference to us.

Your equating of "Persons" and "beings" is just your definition. It is not clear or consistent given Scripture uses personal pronouns to distinguish between the Father, Son and Spirit. Unless you want to argue for multiple Gods, your definition isn't consistent with what Scripture teaches.

Note the difference between us: I start with the text, and you start with your definition. You define your words first and tell Scripture what's True. I am observing what Scripture says and believing accordingly.


Your justification for applying the term to the omnipotent and eternal God is that the pronouns "I" and "you" are used to describe a relationship between the man Christ Jesus and God. It's one of those subtle rhetorical tricks to focus the attention away from the problem of fixing God up with a human term in the first place and then misdirecting the discussion away from that issue and moving it towards talking about how to define the relationship between Father and Son.

"subtle rhetorical tricks"? When Oneness doesn't have an argument, project your own sins on others. Hello? This entire paragraph is a rhetorical trick.

FYI, the pronouns "I" and "you" are used to describe a relationship between the Son and the Father
BEFORE THE WORLD WAS in John 17:5. There is no way to explain away this verse by saying "the man" and God. The use of half truths like this is the primary reason why I can take your arguments seriously.

Trinitarians err in two major ways. They redefined the fundamental existence of God away from the simple monotheism of the God of the OT that the Jews for thousands of years understood, and Jesus affirmed that they were correct (John 4:22) to a radically different concept of three persons in the Godhead. So it was a redefinition of the meaning of "one" God, from a numerical one, to a unity of "persons".

Secondly, they had to redefine the meaning of "hypostases" and "persons".

All the redefining of terms is a telltale sign of a radical philosophy on the move. It is amazing how modern leftist philosophy with its redefinition of "life" and "choice" and "woman" and all the ambiguities and confusion built into their redefinitions is a telltale sign of another radical philosophical movement.

This is why the Apostle Paul was dead set against empty philosophy applied to God in COLOSSIANS 2:8.

I think that the Trinitarian concept of "persons" has really detracted and demoted the deity and centrality of Jesus Christ and his name. Trinitarians therefore don't really know who Jesus is even like the pre-JOHN 14 disciples. "Lord, show us the Father and it sufficeth us". That's you.

Blah, blah, blah. I'm sick and tire of your incessant narrative building. Try reading Scripture as opposed to vaguely referencing them in passing while expressing your dogma.

God Bless
 
Again, scripture uses personal pronouns to distinguish between the Father, Son and Spirit. So in English, we call them persons while still recognizing #1-4. How can we be legitimately faulted for calling them persons when they are distinguished using personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc.? No matter what you call this eternal, relational distinction, it always better to recognize the Truth.



Your equating of "Persons" and "beings" is just your definition. It is not clear or consistent given Scripture uses personal pronouns to distinguish between the Father, Son and Spirit. Unless you want to argue for multiple Gods, your definition isn't consistent with what Scripture teaches.


Note the difference between us: I start with the text, and you start with your definition. You define your words first and tell Scripture what's True. I am observing what Scripture says and believing accordingly.



"subtle rhetorical tricks"? When Oneness doesn't have an argument, project your own sins on others. Hello? This entire paragraph is a rhetorical trick.

FYI, the pronouns "I" and "you" are used to describe a relationship between the Son and the Father
BEFORE THE WORLD WAS in John 17:5. There is no way to explain away this verse by saying "the man" and God. The use of half truths like this is the primary reason why I can take your arguments seriously.



Blah, blah, blah. I'm sick and tire of your incessant narrative building. Try reading Scripture as opposed to vaguely referencing them in passing while expressing your dogma.


God Bless

The Truth is that "all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily" (COLOSSIANS 2:9). This verse emphasizes where our emphasis should be, not in a make believe Godhead of three persons.

My definition of persons? No, it's the definition from every English dictionary in the history of mankind. The only deviation from this is the ambiguous and inconsistent definition, if it can even be called that, by Trinitarians.


Dictionary.com puts you at #14 without actually defining what Trinitarians mean. It's like a secret code word.

1. a human being, whether an adult or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. an individual human being who likes or prefers something specified (used in combination):I've never been a cat person.
4. Sociology. an individual human being, especially with reference to social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
5. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.
6. the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.
7. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn:He had no money on his person.
8. the body in its external aspect:an attractive person to look at.
9. a character, part, or role, as in a play or story.
10. an individual of distinction or importance.
11. a person not entitled to social recognition or respect.
12. Law. a human being (natural person ) or a group of human beings, a corporation, a partnership, an estate, or other legal entity (artificial person, or juristic person ) recognized by law as having rights and duties.
13. Grammar. a category found in many languages that is used to distinguish between the speaker of an utterance and the person or people being spoken to or about. In English there are three persons in the pronouns, the first represented by I and we, the second by you, and the third by he, she, it, and they. Most verbs have distinct third person singular forms in the present tense, as writes; the verb be has, in addition, a first person singular form am.
14. Theology. any of the three hypostases or modes of being in the Trinity, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Ring-a-ding chicken dinner #14


What's even more ironic than being way down the list, is that you probably don't even agree with the vague non-definition! The Oxford dictionary says "3 modes too", at least some editions.

One has to get down to #9 before the singular term "being" is not used in the definition. But, it picks back up in #12.

So it makes your statement about my definition totally nonsensical.
 
Last edited:
Again, scripture uses personal pronouns to distinguish between the Father, Son and Spirit. So in English, we call them persons while still recognizing #1-4. How can we be legitimately faulted for calling them persons when they are distinguished using personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc.? No matter what you call this eternal, relational distinction, it always better to recognize the Truth.

Your equating of "Persons" and "beings" is just your definition. It is not clear or consistent given Scripture uses personal pronouns to distinguish between the Father, Son and Spirit. Unless you want to argue for multiple Gods, your definition isn't consistent with what Scripture teaches.

Note the difference between us: I start with the text, and you start with your definition. You define your words first and tell Scripture what's True. I am observing what Scripture says and believing accordingly.


"subtle rhetorical tricks"? When Oneness doesn't have an argument, project your own sins on others. Hello? This entire paragraph is a rhetorical trick.

FYI, the pronouns "I" and "you" are used to describe a relationship between the Son and the Father
BEFORE THE WORLD WAS in John 17:5. There is no way to explain away this verse by saying "the man" and God. The use of half truths like this is the primary reason why I can take your arguments seriously.

Blah, blah, blah. I'm sick and tire of your incessant narrative building. Try reading Scripture as opposed to vaguely referencing them in passing while expressing your dogma.

The Truth is that "all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily" (COLOSSIANS 2:9). This verse emphasizes where our emphasis should be, not in a make believe Godhead of three persons.

Amen, "all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily" (COLOSSIANS 2:9). Unless you deny Jesus is God, you take this verse exactly like Trinitarians do. This verse doesn't even speak to the differences between Trinitarianism and Oneness. We both believe Jesus is a divine person indwelling a human body, as this verse teaches.

My definition of persons? No, it's the definition from every English dictionary in the history of mankind. The only deviation from this is the ambiguous and inconsistent definition, if it can even be called that, by Trinitarians.

Dictionary.com puts you at #14 without actually defining what Trinitarians mean. It's like a secret code word.

1. a human being, whether an adult or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. an individual human being who likes or prefers something specified (used in combination):I've never been a cat person.
4. Sociology. an individual human being, especially with reference to social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
5. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.
6. the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.
7. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn:He had no money on his person.
8. the body in its external aspect:an attractive person to look at.
9. a character, part, or role, as in a play or story.
10. an individual of distinction or importance.
11. a person not entitled to social recognition or respect.
12. Law. a human being (natural person ) or a group of human beings, a corporation, a partnership, an estate, or other legal entity (artificial person, or juristic person ) recognized by law as having rights and duties.
13. Grammar. a category found in many languages that is used to distinguish between the speaker of an utterance and the person or people being spoken to or about. In English there are three persons in the pronouns, the first represented by I and we, the second by you, and the third by he, she, it, and they. Most verbs have distinct third person singular forms in the present tense, as writes; the verb be has, in addition, a first person singular form am.
14. Theology. any of the three hypostases or modes of being in the Trinity, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Ring-a-ding chicken dinner #14

Look at you using secular human dictionaries to tell Scripture what it must mean. What a waste of time. Obviously, I was talking about your restrictive understanding of person that rejects Trinitarian understanding before looking to see what Scripture says on the topic. Again, Scripture uses personal pronouns to distinguish between the Father, Son and Spirit. So in English, we call them persons while still recognizing #1-4. How can we be legitimately faulted for calling them persons when they are distinguished using personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc.? No matter what you call this eternal, relational distinction, it always better to recognize the Truth.
What's even more ironic than being way down the list, is that you probably don't even agree with the vague non-definition! The Oxford dictionary says "3 modes too", at least some editions.

One has to get down to #9 before the singular term "being" is not used in the definition. But, it picks back up in #12.

So it makes your statement about my definition totally nonsensical.

I didn't say your "definition totally nonsensical." I simply said it was your definition of person that you use to deny another legitimate use of the term.

God Bless
 
Amen, "all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily" (COLOSSIANS 2:9). Unless you deny Jesus is God, you take this verse exactly like Trinitarians do. This verse doesn't even speak to the differences between Trinitarianism and Oneness. We both believe Jesus is a divine person indwelling a human body, as this verse teaches.



Look at you using secular human dictionaries to tell Scripture what it must mean. What a waste of time. Obviously, I was talking about your restrictive understanding of person that rejects Trinitarian understanding before looking to see what Scripture says on the topic. Again, Scripture uses personal pronouns to distinguish between the Father, Son and Spirit. So in English, we call them persons while still recognizing #1-4. How can we be legitimately faulted for calling them persons when they are distinguished using personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc.? No matter what you call this eternal, relational distinction, it always better to recognize the Truth.


I didn't say your
"definition totally nonsensical." I simply said it was your definition of person that you use to deny another legitimate use of the term.

God Bless

I'm interested if you agree with "Persons" definition #14. It seems that there isn't even a consistent definition Trinitarians use. It is not a small thing to redefine the plain understanding of monotheism into a unity of three persons, when your definition isn't clear or consistent. It's been controversial ever since Tertullian and it's not just from those who deny the deity of Christ.

You are taking the pronouns "you" and "me" from the words of Jesus talking to the Father and you assume this relationship must be like earthly human relationships (Colossian 2:8) rather than thinking that God is omnipotent and unique, so maybe something more is going on here than would be assumed between two humans like Peter and John.
 
I didn't fix the KJV with the ESV. I simply showed the KJV teaches what the ESV teaches: names are not written in the book from the foundation of the world. It says the same thing in Revelation 17:8 "whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world".



Really, because for some reason you don't care what the actual grammar of the KJV says:


Again: "whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." This is a dependent clause.
The Subject "whose names"
The Verb "are not written"
Prepositional phrase #1 "in the book of life of the Lamb slain."
Prepositional phrase #2 "from the foundation of the world."
What does the first prepositional phrase modify? The verb "are not written".
What does the second prepositional phrase modify? You say "slain". I say the verb "are not written".
Question, if the KJV irks me so much, why am I the only one in the conversation digging into the actual grammar the KJV?



You do realize that there is no logical connection between me preferring modern Translations because people like you can't understand the KJV and the claim I think "it is impossible for God to transcend time". Honestly, how is pointing out what a prepositional phrase is modifying "changing the verse completely."? Are you really that ignorant?



How is putting words in my mouth busting anything? It appears more like a
desperate attempt to save face.



According to your reading of Revelation 13:8



Really? God didn't exist before all things? The 2nd person’s Spirit is the same Spirit as the 1st person’s Spirit and the 3nd person’s Spirit.



You think God was embodied in eternity past?



As per your ignorance of Trinitarianism.


God Bless
No, the ESV teaches the polar opposite of what the KJV teaches per Rev 13:8, thus, you completely abandoned the KJV for the ESV. That is why you ran to another modern version to attempt to argue. You are disqualified in any serious debate for this.

Also, since God transcends time(as you deny), God knew who would take the mark from the foundation of the world and saw them do it back then. This is why their names are not written in the book from the foundation of the world.

If only you believed that God was not bound by time....
 
Amen, "all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily" (COLOSSIANS 2:9). Unless you deny Jesus is God, you take this verse exactly like Trinitarians do. This verse doesn't even speak to the differences between Trinitarianism and Oneness. We both believe Jesus is a divine person indwelling a human body, as this verse teaches.

Look at you using secular human dictionaries to tell Scripture what it must mean. What a waste of time. Obviously, I was talking about your restrictive understanding of person that rejects Trinitarian understanding before looking to see what Scripture says on the topic. Again, Scripture uses personal pronouns to distinguish between the Father, Son and Spirit. So in English, we call them persons while still recognizing #1-4. How can we be legitimately faulted for calling them persons when they are distinguished using personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc.? No matter what you call this eternal, relational distinction, it always better to recognize the Truth.

I didn't say your
"definition totally nonsensical." I simply said it was your definition of person that you use to deny another legitimate use of the term.
I'm interested if you agree with "Persons" definition #14. It seems that there isn't even a consistent definition Trinitarians use. It is not a small thing to redefine the plain understanding of monotheism into a unity of three persons, when your definition isn't clear or consistent. It's been controversial ever since Tertullian and it's not just from those who deny the deity of Christ.

The phrase "modes of being" is from Thomas Aquinas I don't necessarily reject such terminology, but I am not fond of it because such phraseology is philosophical and not Scriptural in origin. I prefer not defining the term person, with respect to God, out side of pointing to whatever relational distinction is being expressed by the use of personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc.

Question: how are we redefining "the plain understanding of monotheism into a unity of three persons." Frankly, I don't think of the Trinity as a union of three persons because the term union/unity can create misunderstandings about what we are talking about. We are not unifying anything. God simply is. There are insights in Scripture that express some truths about God beyond monotheism, but given our human limitations, we should not expect to fully understand God. Remember, we, who are finite, are trying to describe what is expressed in Scripture about the nature of God. Perhaps a little humility with respect to accusing others of error is wise. Besides, what you call "the plain understanding of monotheism" is not but dogmatic rejecting of the eternal, relational distinction expressed in Scripture by personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc.

You are taking the pronouns "you" and "me" from the words of Jesus talking to the Father and you assume this relationship must be like earthly human relationships (Colossian 2:8) rather than thinking that God is omnipotent and unique, so maybe something more is going on here than would be assumed between two humans like Peter and John.

How and I taking the pronouns "you" and "me" from the words of Jesus talking to the Father to assume this relationship must be like earthly human relationships? In reality, I'm not assuming anything about this relationship outside of the fact that it exists as expressed by the use of personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc. Maybe, you shouldn't assume I
"assume this relationship must be like earthly human relationships (Colossian 2:8) rather than thinking that God is omnipotent and unique."

God Bless
 
I didn't fix the KJV with the ESV. I simply showed the KJV teaches what the ESV teaches: names are not written in the book from the foundation of the world. It says the same thing in Revelation 17:8 "whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world".

Really, because for some reason you don't care what the actual grammar of the KJV says:
Again:
"whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." This is a dependent clause.
The Subject
"whose names"
The Verb "are not written"
Prepositional phrase #1 "in the book of life of the Lamb slain."
Prepositional phrase #2 "from the foundation of the world."
What does the first prepositional phrase modify? The verb "are not written".
What does the second prepositional phrase modify? You say
"slain". I say the verb "are not written".
Question, if the KJV irks me so much, why am I the only one in the conversation digging into the actual grammar the KJV?

You do realize that there is no logical connection between me preferring modern Translations because people like you can't understand the KJV and the claim I think "it is impossible for God to transcend time". Honestly, how is pointing out what a prepositional phrase is modifying "changing the verse completely."? Are you really that ignorant?

How is putting words in my mouth busting anything? It appears more like a desperate attempt to save face.

According to your reading of Revelation 13:8

Really? God didn't exist before all things? The 2nd person’s Spirit is the same Spirit as the 1st person’s Spirit and the 3nd person’s Spirit.

You think God was embodied in eternity past?

As per your ignorance of Trinitarianism.
No, the ESV teaches the polar opposite of what the KJV teaches per Rev 13:8, thus, you completely abandoned the KJV for the ESV. That is why you ran to another modern version to attempt to argue. You are disqualified in any serious debate for this.

Or, you are unable to read the KJV for what it's saying. How about you try to interact with the Grammar of the KJV like I did:

Again: "whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." This is a dependent clause.
The Subject "whose names"
The Verb "are not written"
Prepositional phrase #1 "in the book of life of the Lamb slain."
Prepositional phrase #2 "from the foundation of the world."
What does the first prepositional phrase modify? The verb "are not written".
What does the second prepositional phrase modify? You say "slain". I say the verb "are not written".

Why do you take "from the foundation of the world." as modifying "slain" as opposed to "are not written"?

Also, since God transcends time(as you deny), God knew who would take the mark from the foundation of the world and saw them do it back then. This is why their names are not written in the book from the foundation of the world.

"God transcends time(as you deny)": Interesting accusation given I said nothing that could even be taken as denying God transcends time, but on the contrary, I affirmed over and over again that God transcends time.

Oh, so you believe the names were written in this book from the foundation of the world, but you don't think that's the point of Revelation 13:8, that's the point of Revelation 17:8?

If only you believed that God was not bound by time....

I truly wonder why you think this is true given my past statements.

God Bless
 
Or, you are unable to read the KJV for what it's saying. How about you try to interact with the Grammar of the KJV like I did:

Again: "whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." This is a dependent clause.
The Subject "whose names"
The Verb "are not written"
Prepositional phrase #1 "in the book of life of the Lamb slain."
Prepositional phrase #2 "from the foundation of the world."
What does the first prepositional phrase modify? The verb "are not written".
What does the second prepositional phrase modify? You say "slain". I say the verb "are not written".

Why do you take "from the foundation of the world." as modifying "slain" as opposed to "are not written"?



"God transcends time(as you deny)": Interesting accusation given I said nothing that could even be taken as denying God transcends time, but on the contrary, I affirmed over and over again that God transcends time.

Oh, so you believe the names were written in this book from the foundation of the world, but you don't think that's the point of Revelation 13:8, that's the point of Revelation 17:8?



I truly wonder why you think this is true given my past statements.

God Bless
You and your modern versions read the KJV backwards to arrive at a more agreeable conclusion.

I can see you teaching a class and the 2 verses being discussed come up, then you immediately pass out RSV's to the class to "correct" the KJV.

The RSV insinuates that God is bound by time, which you run to.

Question...Do you think that folks could have their names not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world as the verse says?...


,,,and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
 
The phrase "modes of being" is from Thomas Aquinas I don't necessarily reject such terminology, but I am not fond of it because such phraseology is philosophical and not Scriptural in origin. I prefer not defining the term person, with respect to God, out side of pointing to whatever relational distinction is being expressed by the use of personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc.

Question: how are we redefining "the plain understanding of monotheism into a unity of three persons." Frankly, I don't think of the Trinity as a union of three persons because the term union/unity can create misunderstandings about what we are talking about. We are not unifying anything. God simply is. There are insights in Scripture that express some truths about God beyond monotheism, but given our human limitations, we should not expect to fully understand God. Remember, we, who are finite, are trying to describe what is expressed in Scripture about the nature of God. Perhaps a little humility with respect to accusing others of error is wise. Besides, what you call "the plain understanding of monotheism" is not but dogmatic rejecting of the eternal, relational distinction expressed in Scripture by personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc.



How and I taking the pronouns "you" and "me" from the words of Jesus talking to the Father to assume this relationship must be like earthly human relationships? In reality, I'm not assuming anything about this relationship outside of the fact that it exists as expressed by the use of personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc. Maybe, you shouldn't assume I "assume this relationship must be like earthly human relationships (Colossian 2:8) rather than thinking that God is omnipotent and unique."

God Bless

The phrase "modes of being" is from Thomas Aquinas I don't necessarily reject such terminology, but I am not fond of it because such phraseology is philosophical and not Scriptural in origin. I prefer not defining the term person, with respect to God, out side of pointing to whatever relational distinction is being expressed by the use of personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc.

Question: how are we redefining "the plain understanding of monotheism into a unity of three persons." Frankly, I don't think of the Trinity as a union of three persons because the term union/unity can create misunderstandings about what we are talking about. We are not unifying anything. God simply is. There are insights in Scripture that express some truths about God beyond monotheism, but given our human limitations, we should not expect to fully understand God. Remember, we, who are finite, are trying to describe what is expressed in Scripture about the nature of God. Perhaps a little humility with respect to accusing others of error is wise. Besides, what you call "the plain understanding of monotheism" is not but dogmatic rejecting of the eternal, relational distinction expressed in Scripture by personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc.



How and I taking the pronouns "you" and "me" from the words of Jesus talking to the Father to assume this relationship must be like earthly human relationships? In reality, I'm not assuming anything about this relationship outside of the fact that it exists as expressed by the use of personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc. Maybe, you shouldn't assume I
"assume this relationship must be like earthly human relationships (Colossian 2:8) rather than thinking that God is omnipotent and unique."

God Bless

You don't reject but are not fond of Thomas Aquinas' terminology. I didn't know that was Aquinas' invention. Thanks for the info. It must be the main English dictionaries took his definition as the official one while ignoring all the other Trinitarians. Fascinating. I know he was a respected scholar so that sort of makes sense that his concept is considered by the world to be the authoritative voice for you guys.

The primary definition of modes is "a way or manner in which something occurs or is experienced, expressed, or done".

If modes is understood by this definition, it could be close to the Oneness theology. I do know that Aquinas had more to say about it that I don't agree with, but thanks for that insight into his theology. I think he was big into defining the modes in terms of relationships. Relationships was a big deal for him, correct? You seem to prefer a sort of definition of eternal relationships among Father, Son, and Holy Ghost who all exist in a sort of ambiguous fashion.

The dictionary definition of "modes" could be pretty broad to include both expression and experience. A mode in this sense would even include "manifestations".

From a Oneness point of view 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.)

That you simply "not fond" of Aquinas' view, but reject Oneness is fascinating.
 
Or, you are unable to read the KJV for what it's saying. How about you try to interact with the Grammar of the KJV like I did:

Again:
"whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." This is a dependent clause.
The Subject
"whose names"
The Verb "are not written"
Prepositional phrase #1 "in the book of life of the Lamb slain."
Prepositional phrase #2 "from the foundation of the world."
What does the first prepositional phrase modify? The verb "are not written".
What does the second prepositional phrase modify? You say "slain". I say the verb "are not written".
Why do you take "from the foundation of the world." as modifying "slain" as opposed to "are not written"?

"God transcends time(as you deny)": Interesting accusation given I said nothing that could even be taken as denying God transcends time, but on the contrary, I affirmed over and over again that God transcends time.

Oh, so you believe the names were written in this book from the foundation of the world, but you don't think that's the point of Revelation 13:8, that's the point of Revelation 17:8?

I truly wonder why you think this is true given my past statements.
You and your modern versions read the KJV backwards to arrive at a more agreeable conclusion.

I might consider this accusation as having weight if you bothered to interact with the actual wording of the KJV. But, you're more fixated on making accusations than reading what the KJV actually says.

I can see you teaching a class and the 2 verses being discussed come up, then you immediately pass out RSV's to the class to "correct" the KJV.
The RSV insinuates that God is bound by time, which you run to.

What? Where are you getting these accusations from?

Question...Do you think that folks could have their names not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world as the verse says?...
,,,and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Yes.

Do you forget what I said two seconds after reading it, or do you never bother to read any of my responses?


God Bless
 
The phrase "modes of being" is from Thomas Aquinas I don't necessarily reject such terminology, but I am not fond of it because such phraseology is philosophical and not Scriptural in origin. I prefer not defining the term person, with respect to God, out side of pointing to whatever relational distinction is being expressed by the use of personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc.

Question: how are we redefining
"the plain understanding of monotheism into a unity of three persons." Frankly, I don't think of the Trinity as a union of three persons because the term union/unity can create misunderstandings about what we are talking about. We are not unifying anything. God simply is. There are insights in Scripture that express some truths about God beyond monotheism, but given our human limitations, we should not expect to fully understand God. Remember, we, who are finite, are trying to describe what is expressed in Scripture about the nature of God. Perhaps a little humility with respect to accusing others of error is wise. Besides, what you call "the plain understanding of monotheism" is not but dogmatic rejecting of the eternal, relational distinction expressed in Scripture by personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc.

How and I taking the pronouns "you" and "me" from the words of Jesus talking to the Father to assume this relationship must be like earthly human relationships? In reality, I'm not assuming anything about this relationship outside of the fact that it exists as expressed by the use of personal pronouns like I, he, him, who, etc. Maybe, you shouldn't assume I "assume this relationship must be like earthly human relationships (Colossian 2:8) rather than thinking that God is omnipotent and unique."
You don't reject but are not fond of Thomas Aquinas' terminology. I didn't know that was Aquinas' invention. Thanks for the info. It must be the main English dictionaries took his definition as the official one while ignoring all the other Trinitarians. Fascinating. I know he was a respected scholar so that sort of makes sense that his concept is considered by the world to be the authoritative voice for you guys.

His definition is the Roman Catholic position/definition. Protestants are a mixed bag: some agree with Aquinas and others don't bother to define person with respect to God outside of Scriptural use of personal pronouns. Either way, it is by default the largest position on the definition of person with respect to God because of then size of RCC.

The primary definition of modes is "a way or manner in which something occurs or is experienced, expressed, or done".

If modes is understood by this definition, it could be close to the Oneness theology. I do know that Aquinas had more to say about it that I don't agree with, but thanks for that insight into his theology. I think he was big into defining the modes in terms of relationships. Relationships was a big deal for him, correct? You seem to prefer a sort of definition of eternal relationships among Father, Son, and Holy Ghost who all exist in a sort of ambiguous fashion.

The dictionary definition of "modes" could be pretty broad to include both expression and experience. A mode in this sense would even include "manifestations".

From a Oneness point of view 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.)

That you simply "not fond" of Aquinas' view, but reject Oneness is fascinating.

Okay.

God Bless
 
I might consider this accusation as having weight if you bothered to interact with the actual wording of the KJV. But, you're more fixated on making accusations than reading what the KJV actually says.



What? Where are you getting these accusations from?



Yes.

Do you forget what I said two seconds after reading it, or do you never bother to read any of my responses?


God Bless
Okay, so you agree that these folks did not have their names written in the book of life...from the foundation of the world, as it is written....


,,,and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.


Now, per Rev 13:8, can the lamb of God(Jesus) also be slain from the foundation of the world?...


8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
 
I might consider this accusation as having weight if you bothered to interact with the actual wording of the KJV. But, you're more fixated on making accusations than reading what the KJV actually says.

What? Where are you getting these accusations from?

Yes.
Do you forget what I said two seconds after reading it, or do you never bother to read any of my responses?
Okay, so you agree that these folks did not have their names written in the book of life...from the foundation of the world, as it is written....

God wrote names in the book from the foundation of the world. Those whose names were not written rebelled against God; those whose names were written are saved.

,,,and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Now, per Rev 13:8, can the lamb of God(Jesus) also be slain from the foundation of the world?...

Can, yes. But, Revelation 13:8 doesn't teach that. I'm not rejecting your interpretation for a theological reason. I'm rejecting it for grammatical reasons, aka your are simply misreading the English of the KJV.

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from thefoundation of the world.

Yes, "whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

God Bless
 
God wrote names in the book from the foundation of the world. Those whose names were not written rebelled against God; those whose names were written are saved.
Can, yes. But, Revelation 13:8 doesn't teach that. I'm not rejecting your interpretation for a theological reason. I'm rejecting it for grammatical reasons, aka your are simply misreading the English of the KJVYes, "whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

God Bless
Selective viewing...LOL.

Now, say "from the".

Don't interpret it, but say it.

That is your problem, you interpret something to make it say something else by ingnoring a part of it.

Same with much of your theology.
 
God wrote names in the book from the foundation of the world. Those whose names were not written rebelled against God; those whose names were written are saved.
Can, yes. But, Revelation 13:8 doesn't teach that. I'm not rejecting your interpretation for a theological reason. I'm rejecting it for grammatical reasons, aka your are simply misreading the English of the KJVYes,
"whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
Selective viewing...LOL.

Nice job projecting your error onto me. You routinely cut off the "whose names are not written in the book of life of..." part.

Now, say "from the".
Don't interpret it, but say it.

"Don't interpret it, but say it.": That's your problem. You refuse to think when reading Scripture as to understand what is being said.

That is your problem, you interpret something to make it say something else by ingnoring a part of it.

More projection: "ignoring a part of it."
No, true Christians are taught to study the text as opposed to mindlessly saying one part: You shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it.

Same with much of your theology.

In other words, my theology is fine, and you just like to project all your faults onto me as to pretend you're a follower of Christ.

God Bless
 
Nice job projecting your error onto me. You routinely cut off the "whose names are not written in the book of life of..." part.



"Don't interpret it, but say it.": That's your problem. You refuse to think when reading Scripture as to understand what is being said.



More projection:
"ignoring a part of it."
No, true Christians are taught to study the text as opposed to mindlessly saying one part: You shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it.



In other words, my theology is fine, and you just like to project all your faults onto me as to pretend you're a follower of Christ.

God Bless
Do you wish the problem portion would go away like this....

whose names are not written in the book of life ...DELETE ....from the foundation of the world

Or, maybe this....

whose names are not ...DELETE... slain from the foundation of the world

Or, maybe this...

whose names are not written in the ...DELETE... foundation of the world

All just to get rid of this....

whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world

And as this teaches...who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead....

He was resurrected before any old or new testament person, like this man....

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

Why?....that in all things he might have the preeminence.


Question:was this man the firstborn from the dead or was Jesus?
 
Last edited:
Nice job projecting your error onto me. You routinely cut off the "whose names are not written in the book of life of..." part.

"Don't interpret it, but say it.": That's your problem. You refuse to think when reading Scripture as to understand what is being said.

More projection:
"ignoring a part of it."
No, true Christians are taught to study the text as opposed to mindlessly saying one part: You shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it.

In other words, my theology is fine, and you just like to project all your faults onto me as to pretend you're a follower of Christ.
Do you wish the problem portion would go away like this....
whose names are not written in the book of life ...DELETE ....from the foundation of the world
Or, maybe this....
whose names are not ...DELETE... slain from the foundation of the world
Or, maybe this...
whose names are not written in the ...DELETE... foundation of the world
All just to get rid of this....
whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world

Or, you could just read what I said as opposed to accusing me of deleting things. It's surprising how irrational this response is.

And as this teaches...who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead....
He was resurrected before any old or new testament person, like this man....
21 And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet
Why?....that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Question:was this man the firstborn from the dead or was Jesus?

Again, Revelation 13:8 doesn't teach that. I'm not rejecting your interpretation for a theological reason. I'm rejecting it for grammatical reasons, aka your are simply misreading the English of the KJV. Try interacting with the grammar next time.

God Bless
 
Back
Top