Oneness is a 1st century dominant belief of early Christians.

froggy

Active member
This is an assertion asserted without any actual evidence. Formulated in 381? You've got to be joking. The term was coined in like 150. The Didache was written in 100 which includes triple baptizing in the name of each person in the Trinity. We have Trinitarian writers arguing with Modalist throughout the first three centuries. I'm not saying Modalism wasn't early. It was definitely earlier than Arianism, but the Trinitarian narrative presented above is nothing but pure fantasy.

God Bless
And Modalism doesn't deny the Deity of Christ while that doctrine is fatally flawed.

Blessings
 
Obviously, the Holy Ghost hasn’t developed the truth in any of your minds. All of you were arguing differently. Read your Bible. That is your source. The Bible alone contains your directions.

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Given that you have to simply reject passage after passage like Phil. 2:5-8, John 1:1, Matthew 28:19 etc to continue to hold your theology, the Holy Ghost clearly hasn’t developed the truth in your mind.

God Bless
 

Truther

Well-known member
Given that you have to simply reject passage after passage like Phil. 2:5-8, John 1:1, Matthew 28:19 etc to continue to hold your theology, the Holy Ghost clearly hasn’t developed the truth in your mind.

God Bless
Oh, you mean the interpretation of Philippians 2 that you believe is saying God thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Yeah right.
 

Truther

Well-known member
You mean what the text says? "though he was in form God, did not count equality with God a thing to be held onto..." Maybe, you should try reading Scripture instead of mocking it.

God Bless
What version did you come up with to support that? Or, did you personally re-write that verse?
 
What version did you come up with to support that? Or, did you personally re-write that verse?

Do you have any evidence that I mistranslated it, or is this an excuse to ignore what the text says? How about the KJV?
"being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:". Or,
"though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," ESV
"He was in every way like God. Yet he did not think that being equal to God was something he must hold on to." Worldwide English
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; NIV
No matter how you translate it, equality with God is something Jesus had and he didn't hold onto it but emptied himself. Why do you reject the Scripture?

God Bless
 

Truther

Well-known member
Do you have any evidence that I mistranslated it, or is this an excuse to ignore what the text says? How about the KJV?
"being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:". Or,
"though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," ESV
"He was in every way like God. Yet he did not think that being equal to God was something he must hold on to." Worldwide English
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; NIV
No matter how you translate it, equality with God is something Jesus had and he didn't hold onto it but emptied himself. Why do you reject the Scripture?

God Bless
They all say something different.

The KJV is the only non biased translation, explaining that a man was in the form of God....not a Deity was in the form of God, thinking it not robbery to be equal with God.

Don't forget, your idea of Phil 2 also teaches that God humbled himself to Satan and wicked man, whom ultimately killed him.
 
They all say something different.

And, no matter how you translate it, equality with God is something Jesus had and he didn't hold onto it but emptied himself. Why do you reject the Scripture?

The KJV is the only non biased translation, explaining that a man was in the form of God....not a Deity was in the form of God, thinking it not robbery to be equal with God.

So, Jesus didn't think he was robbing God being his equal. That's what "thinking it not robbery to be equal with God." means. This alone puts a nail in your theology. BTW, it doesn't say a man was in the form of God. It says Jesus was in the form of God as God's equal before he became a man. Jesus became a man by empting himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

Don't forget, your idea of Phil 2 also teaches that God humbled himself to Satan and wicked man, whom ultimately killed him.

Stop pretending Trinitarianism isn't Trinitarian. We believe the second person humbled himself. We don't believe the Trinity as a whole or the first person humbled himself. Besides, we believe "And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death". Where do you get the idea that Jesus humbled himself to Satan? Jesus' death was God the Father's plan. Jesus humbled himself by becoming obedient to the Father to the point of death. After all, "truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and by your plan had predestined to take place." Acts 4:27-28.

God Bless
 

Truther

Well-known member
And, no matter how you translate it, equality with God is something Jesus had and he didn't hold onto it but emptied himself. Why do you reject the Scripture?



So, Jesus didn't think he was robbing God being his equal. That's what "thinking it not robbery to be equal with God." means. This alone puts a nail in your theology. BTW, it doesn't say a man was in the form of God. It says Jesus was in the form of God as God's equal before he became a man. Jesus became a man by empting himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.



Stop pretending Trinitarianism isn't Trinitarian. We believe the second person humbled himself. We don't believe the Trinity as a whole or the first person humbled himself. Besides, we believe "And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death". Where do you get the idea that Jesus humbled himself to Satan? Jesus' death was God the Father's plan. Jesus humbled himself by becoming obedient to the Father to the point of death. After all, "truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and by your plan had predestined to take place." Acts 4:27-28.

God Bless
The equality Jesus had with God was that he was the sinless human son of God.

God cannot sin, nor did Jesus.

This makes he and his Father, "equals".

So, your idea that divinity #2 had equality challenges with divinity #1 and #3 are hokey, to say the least.
 
The equality Jesus had with God was that he was the sinless human son of God.

God cannot sin, nor did Jesus.

This makes he and his Father, "equals".

Sinlessness is not equality. Besides, you are simply ignoring "in the form of God" and "took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" parts. If he was in the form of God and then was made in the likeness of men, then he wasn't human when he "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." How can you think you are rightly interpreting Scripture when you interpretation necessitates ignoring half of what is written?

So, your idea that divinity #2 had equality challenges with divinity #1 and #3 are hokey, to say the least.

Not divinity #2. Any critique based upon straw men like this should be ignored and/or condemned. Make a logical argument next time.

God Bless
 

Truther

Well-known member
Sinlessness is not equality. Besides, you are simply ignoring "in the form of God" and "took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" parts. If he was in the form of God and then was made in the likeness of men, then he wasn't human when he "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." How can you think you are rightly interpreting Scripture when you interpretation necessitates ignoring half of what is written?



Not divinity #2. Any critique based upon straw men like this should be ignored and/or condemned. Make a logical argument next time.

God Bless
Sinlessness is the quality Jesus had to measure himself with God.

And all this time you thought God measured himself with God.
 
Sinlessness is the quality Jesus had to measure himself with God.

Sinlessness isn't in the context of Phil 2:6. You are simply reading this into the text to pretend the text doesn't teach what it teaches. The direct context for this equality was Jesus being "in the form of God". Deal with what the text says as opposed to what you wish it said.

And all this time you thought God measured himself with God.

Straw men like this should be ignored and/or condemned. Make a logical argument next time.

God Bless
 

Truther

Well-known member
Sinlessness isn't in the context of Phil 2:6. You are simply reading this into the text to pretend the text doesn't teach what it teaches. The direct context for this equality was Jesus being "in the form of God". Deal with what the text says as opposed to what you wish it said.



Straw men like this should be ignored and/or condemned. Make a logical argument next time
.

God Bless
What other qualities does God have to consider Himself to be equal with God?
 

Caroljeen

Member
So you think John was ignorant about who Jesus was and you have it right?

Do you worship Jesus as your Lord and Savior, or do you see Him as a good buddy?
No, I don't think of Jesus a my good buddy but as a high respected friend who is my Lord and God.
You misunderstood what I said about the disciples who walked who walked with Jesus. They would have never understood the doctrine of the Trinity, even John.
 

Caroljeen

Member
IIf Oneness was a doctrine from the earliest days you should be able to find plenty of examples prior to the early 20th century. Please provide your example
The Old testament which the apostles quoted often informed the disciples who their God was and who their messiah was. Jesus added to their knowledge of the Messiah and taught them from the OT about himself. Luke 24:27.

The early Oneness disciples were derided by Logos theologians and then the trinitarians from the 2nd century onward. The Oneness works were mostly destroyed by the trinitarians and many works were written against Oneness theologians. We only know what the early Oneness believed from there adversaries works, who we can't be sure that their representation of their beliefs were accurately relayed. So the best thing to do is rely on the Bible and what it says about God and his Messiah.
 
What other qualities does God have to consider Himself to be equal with God?

Straw men like this should be ignored and/or condemned. Make a logical argument next time.

Sinlessness isn't in the context of Phil 2:6. You are simply reading this into the text to pretend the text doesn't teach what it teaches. The direct context for this equality was Jesus being
"in the form of God". Deal with what the text says as opposed to what you wish it said.

God Bless
 
They would have never understood the doctrine of the Trinity, even John.

Then why did they teach all the tenets of the Trinity throughout Scripture? Why did those who sat under their teachings do the same in their writings? Since these men taught it, they clearly understood the doctrine of the Trinity without ever knowing/using the term.

The Old testament which the apostles quoted often informed the disciples who their God was and who their messiah was. Jesus added to their knowledge of the Messiah and taught them from the OT about himself. Luke 24:27.

And? This is what's called a non sequitur. Oneness does not follow from any of this. Jesus did add to their knowledge, namely, that he and the Spirit were God too, a second and third person who are also the one God of the OT.

The Oneness works were mostly destroyed by the trinitarians and many works were written against Oneness theologians.

You mean those Trinitarians who were under massive persecution by Roman officials? Those Trinitarians who had no political clout until 325 only to lose that clout to the Arians for some 50 years? Perhaps the real reason why we don't have their writings were due to the fact they didn't write as much and they didn't have an ongoing community eager to maintain it?

God Bless
 

Truther

Well-known member
Straw men like this should be ignored and/or condemned. Make a logical argument next time.

Sinlessness isn't in the context of Phil 2:6. You are simply reading this into the text to pretend the text doesn't teach what it teaches. The direct context for this equality was Jesus being
"in the form of God". Deal with what the text says as opposed to what you wish it said.

God Bless
What other qualities did Jesus have to be equal with God, other than sinlessness....Baptist?

Name one.
 

Caroljeen

Member
Then why did they teach all the tenets of the Trinity throughout Scripture? Why did those who sat under their teachings do the same in their writings? Since these men taught it, they clearly understood the doctrine of the Trinity without ever knowing/using the term.



And? This is what's called a non sequitur. Oneness does not follow from any of this. Jesus did add to their knowledge, namely, that he and the Spirit were God too, a second and third person who are also the one God of the OT.



You mean those Trinitarians who were under massive persecution by Roman officials? Those Trinitarians who had no political clout until 325 only to lose that clout to the Arians for some 50 years? Perhaps the real reason why we don't have their writings were due to the fact they didn't write as much and they didn't have an ongoing community eager to maintain it?


God Bless
The doctrine of the Trinity is murky at best in the OT and never clearly declared in the NT.
God always spoke in the first person singuar
God told Israel that they were his witnesses to the world. Yet, they never assumed a pleurality of persons in one being. Isaiah 44.8, 43:10-15

No, those considered to teach heresy had their books were burned
 
Top