What is the Oneness of God as taught by Oneness Pentecostals?

101G

Well-known member
Of course. :)
agreed, suggestion, why not us examine the scriptures and lets set us establish doctrine according to the scriptures, viathe gudiance of the Holy Spirit and see what we come up with by question and answers amoung ourselves and see if we agree with our respected beliefs.

let the scriptures determine our doctrine... ok? fair enough

PICJAG, 101G.
 

101G

Well-known member
My first scriptual reasoning is this, in a three person godhead, (but one Spirit), how do one explain one person of the same one Spirit being
G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō'), to make empty. so my reasonig or question is this. how much of the ONE "Spirit" was G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō')? see Phil 2:7.

PICJAG, 101G.
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
agreed, suggestion, why not us examine the scriptures and lets set us establish doctrine according to the scriptures, via the guidance of the Holy Spirit and see what we come up with by question and answers among ourselves and see if we agree with our respected beliefs.

let the scriptures determine our doctrine... ok? fair enough

PICJAG, 101G.

Of course.

My first scriptual reasoning is this, in a three person godhead, (but one Spirit), how do one explain one person of the same one Spirit being
G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō'), to make empty. so my reasonig or question is this. how much of the ONE "Spirit" was G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō')? see Phil 2:7.

PICJAG, 101G.

According to Trinitarianism, none of that Spirit was κενόω. The issue is how Philippians 2 defines κενόω.
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied (κενόω) himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Philippians 2:5-8.

So, the Spirit wasn't emptied, but the second person took up a second form, the form of a Servant. The term emptying is referring to the difference between existing in the form of God and existing in the form of man.

The question we Trinitarians have for Oneness with respect to this passage relates to the equality phrase. If there is no personal distinction between Jesus and the Father prior to the incarnation, what equality existed for Jesus to not hold onto?


God Bless
 

101G

Well-known member
According to Trinitarianism, none of that Spirit was κενόω. The issue is how Philippians 2 defines κενόω.
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied (κενόω) himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Philippians 2:5-8.
So, the Spirit wasn't emptied, but the second person took up a second form, the form of a Servant. The term emptying is referring to the difference between existing in the form of God and existing in the form of man.

The question we Trinitarians have for Oneness with respect to this passage relates to the equality phrase. If there is no personal distinction between Jesus and the Father prior to the incarnation, what equality existed for Jesus to not hold onto?


God Bless
first thanks for the reply,
second, ERROR, and here's why. you said, "According to Trinitarianism, none of that Spirit was κενόω.". lets see, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" here is your mistake, the term BEING is present tense, and in the form is NATURE, the NATURE of God is Spirit, (per John 4:24a). so we're dealing with the NATURE OF GOD/Spirit. now the next verse, Philippians 2:7 "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:" nere the NATURE was never Changed, notice he took on, took on, means in addintion to. so the Spirit was alway there but he made himself EMPTY... of WHAT? his powers. for the likeness of Men is in POWER/ G1411, dunamis to God. so now we must deal with the person, since the NATURE/Spirit never changed, because as said, "BEING" in the form of God, is PRESENT TENSE. and you said NONE OF THE SPIRIT KEVOW, but you said, "the second person took up a second form" how can the second person take on a form without the other two? remember it's only "ONE" Spirit/NATURE of the three person. so if none of the Spirit was KEVOW then ALL of the Spirit was in that body.... correct? or some of it was in that body? and if all the Spirit was in that body, and as you said all three person are the ONE Spirit, (because God is not Divided), then all the Person was KEVOW, for if not, then you have a DIVIDED GOD/SPIRIT, if only one PERSON was KEVOW, understand now?. for if only the second person was KEVOW then you have a DIVIDED Spirit/God/NATURE. and if all the persons was KEVOW then who was running/upholding the universe.... remember you cannot be a person without the Spirit, especially a piece or part of the ONE Spirit. that's division, and that's polytheistic by NATURE.

so please explain how only ONE PERSON kενόω himself as only one Spirit?
if need be re-read the post for clarity, or ask any question you need for better understanding.


The question we Trinitarians have for Oneness with respect to this passage relates to the equality phrase. If there is no personal distinction between Jesus and the Father prior to the incarnation, what equality existed for Jesus to not hold onto?
I cannot answer for the other oneness, Only for the "Diversified Oneness". pnly two words needed, "EQUAL SHARE", and this is found in the Ordinal designation of FIRST and LSDT... (smile).

PICJAG, 101G.
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
According to Trinitarianism, none of that Spirit was κενόω. The issue is how Philippians 2 defines κενόω.
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied (κενόω) himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Philippians 2:5-8.
So, the Spirit wasn't emptied, but the second person took up a second form, the form of a Servant. The term emptying is referring to the difference between existing in the form of God and existing in the form of man.
first thanks for the reply,
second, ERROR, and here's why. you said, "According to Trinitarianism, none of that Spirit was κενόω.". lets see, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" here is your mistake, the term BEING is present tense, and in the form is NATURE, the NATURE of God is Spirit, (per John 4:24a). so we're dealing with the NATURE OF GOD/Spirit.

I don't disagree with anything so far. Where is my error?

now the next verse, Philippians 2:7 "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:" nere the NATURE was never Changed, notice he took on, took on, means in addintion to. so the Spirit was alway there but he made himself EMPTY... of WHAT? his powers. for the likeness of Men is in POWER/ G1411, dunamis to God. so now we must deal with the person, since the NATURE/Spirit never changed, because as said, "BEING" in the form of God, is PRESENT TENSE. and you said NONE OF THE SPIRIT KEVOW, but you said, "the second person took up a second form" how can the second person take on a form without the other two?

I haven't disagreed with anything you've said so far? So where is my error? With respect to your question, If you believe the one person who is God can take up another nature in addition to his primary nature, then why can't one of our persons who are God take up another nature in addition to his primary nature? Also, why would you think if the Son took on another nature that would somehow affect the Spirit, or the Father? The divine nature is totally untouched by the incarnation. God does not change.

remember it's only "ONE" Spirit/NATURE of the three person. so if none of the Spirit was KEVOW then ALL of the Spirit was in that body.... correct? or some of it was in that body? and if all the Spirit was in that body, and as you said all three person are the ONE Spirit, (because God is not Divided), then all the Person was KEVOW, for if not, then you have a DIVIDED GOD/SPIRIT, if only one PERSON was KEVOW, understand now?. for if only the second person was KEVOW then you have a DIVIDED Spirit/God/NATURE. and

We believe Jesus was truly man, body and soul. We do not believe the one Spirit somehow just animated a human body. The Spirit is everywhere. Outside of that, there was no extra Spirit in that Body. The Person of the Son took up a second nature, with a separate human body and spirit. BTW, the Spirit of God wasn't κενόω, Jesus κενόω himself. This word is relating to how Jesus existed as man as opposed to existing as God. It says nothing about the only "ONE" Spirit/NATURE. "a DIVIDED Spirit/God/NATURE" Jesus does not cease being God while man. Therefore, no dividing going on.

if all the persons was KEVOW then who was running/upholding the universe.... remember you cannot be a person without the Spirit, especially a piece or part of the ONE Spirit. that's division, and that's polytheistic by NATURE.

We don't believe all the persons were κενόω. Jesus κενόω himself. So, heaven wasn't empty. But, this is a concern for oneness because the one person became flesh. Do you think Jesus divided up the one Spirit as to become man?

so please explain how only ONE PERSON kενόω himself as only one Spirit?
if need be re-read the post for clarity, or ask any question you need for better understanding.

This is a very odd question coming from a Oneness because Oneness believe "only ONE PERSON kενόω himself as only one Spirit". In the end, where was my error? It looks like I didn't say anything wrong, but you just took my statements to infer things I never claimed to believe in.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
The question we Trinitarians have for Oneness with respect to this passage relates to the equality phrase. If there is no personal distinction between Jesus and the Father prior to the incarnation, what equality existed for Jesus to not hold onto?
I cannot answer for the other oneness, Only for the "Diversified Oneness". pnly two words needed, "EQUAL SHARE", and this is found in the Ordinal designation of FIRST and LSDT... (smile).

Okay. You do realize you didn't answer my question. Before the incarnation, was there a distinction between the Jesus and the Father? If there was, what kind of distinction? If there wasn't how can there be any kind of equality, or equal share, before the incarnation?

God Bless
 

101G

Well-known member
I don't disagree with anything so far. Where is my error?
here is where you ERROR, "but emptied (κενόω) himself, by taking the form of a servant". if only ONE emptied (κενόω) himself to be a person one must have a "Spirit". see your ERROR NOW? it's ONLY "ONE" Spirit. and you said the Spirit was NOT emptied (κενόω), CORRECT well the person who was emptied (κενόω) is not God at all if there is no Spirit, (read that again), which contradicts, verse 6, which says the Person who emptied (κενόω) HIMSELF (ONE PERSON), have the same NATURE/Spirit, see it now? the problem is in the Spirit of the ONE person who was emptied (κενόω), (his Spirit) was Not..... as you said, see your dilemma now.

so, either some... or part of the Spirit, as you believe in your doctrine will have to be divided, or separated to accomplish what you suppose to be correct.

NOW LISTEN TO ME... lets see the TRUTH. the Spirit was not emptied (κενόω), but Equally SHARED... hence the Form/NATURE intact according to Phil 2:6, because of the TERM: "WITH" which show the SHARE, or ECHAD of God. watch, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery
to be equal with God:"
there is the ANSWER, "WITH"... why? for no one is EQUAL "TO" God, only Equal "WITH" God in the ECHAD as Deuteronomy 6:4 states, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" NOTICE ONE LORD. and ONE here is the ECHAD expressed in Ordinal First and Ordinal Last, supportive scripture. Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." (see the "WITH" there, sound like two separate and distinct person.... do it NOT? NO, we walk by Faith and not by sight, because what we THINK we see in Isaiah 41:4 as two person, is actually only ONE PERSON in the ECHAD DIVERSIFIED, or Equally shared, and here's why we say this.
Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first,
I also am the last." BINGO, it's the same one person, not TWO PERSON,, nor three no. the bible is clear as day.... READ in FAITH, meaning READ with the Holy Spirit who will guide us in all truth.

see DoctrinesofGraceBapt, that one little word "WITH" open up my understanding of the Godhead, starting with "Beginning" in Genesis 1:1.
watch for those small words, which means a lot.
PICJAG, 101G.
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
here is where you ERROR, "but emptied (κενόω) himself, by taking the form of a servant". if only ONE emptied (κενόω) himself to be a person one must have a "Spirit". see your ERROR NOW? it's ONLY "ONE" Spirit. and you said the Spirit was NOT emptied (κενόω), CORRECT well the person who was emptied (κενόω) is not God at all if there is no Spirit, (read that again), which contradicts, verse 6, which says the Person who emptied (κενόω) HIMSELF (ONE PERSON), have the same NATURE/Spirit, see it now? the problem is in the Spirit of the ONE person who was emptied (κενόω), (his Spirit) was Not..... as you said, see your dilemma now.

I'm saying that emptied doesn't refer to that which is God but in the difference of existing as a man as opposed to existing as God. I'm not denying that Jesus still had the Spirit. So, he is still God. How does it contradict v6? I deny the interpretation of Jesus emptying himself of deity; but the text itself denies that interpretation by says "by taking the form of a servant." No, I don't see the problem you're bringing up because I don't think there is no Spirit.

so, either some... or part of the Spirit, as you believe in your doctrine will have to be divided, or separated to accomplish what you suppose to be correct.

The same problem would apply to any from of Oneness. That's why you were talking about the emptying of power as opposed to the emptying of divinity. I'm saying the same thing. We both have Jesus sharing two natures: God and man. None of this is relevant at all to how many persons are God.

NOW LISTEN TO ME... lets see the TRUTH. the Spirit was not emptied (κενόω), but Equally SHARED... hence the Form/NATURE intact according to Phil 2:6, because of the TERM: "WITH" which show the SHARE, or ECHAD of God. watch, Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
there is the ANSWER, "WITH"... why? for no one is EQUAL "TO" God, only Equal "WITH" God in the ECHAD as Deuteronomy 6:4 states, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" NOTICE ONE LORD. and ONE here is the ECHAD expressed in Ordinal First and Ordinal Last, supportive scripture. Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." (see the "WITH" there, sound like two separate and distinct person.... do it NOT? NO, we walk by Faith and not by sight, because what we THINK we see in Isaiah 41:4 as two person, is actually only ONE PERSON in the ECHAD DIVERSIFIED, or Equally shared, and here's why we say this.
Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first,
I also am the last." BINGO, it's the same one person, not TWO PERSON,, nor three no. the bible is clear as day.... READ in FAITH, meaning READ with the Holy Spirit who will guide us in all truth.

see DoctrinesofGraceBapt, that one little word "WITH" open up my understanding of the Godhead, starting with "Beginning" in Genesis 1:1.
watch for those small words, which means a lot.
PICJAG, 101G.

Sounds like your trying your hardest to not admit multiple persons while teaching multiple persons. I say the Spirit was not emptied, and I'm in error, but then you say the Spirit was not emptied, and you are correct? You say the Spirit was equally shared. To this I ask, equally shared by who? Equal implies at least two people. So, who are the two who equally shared this Spirit prior to the incarnation? Remember, Jesus "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" BEFORE "taking on the form of a servant".

God Bless
 

Andreas

Active member
What are persons in this context? It seems like you just defining yourself in light of those with whom you disagree.



So, what are "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" if they are not "three distinct persons"? If you are going to present your position, then present what you believe, not what you deny.



Thank you for providing a more positive assertion of your belief. Perhaps instead of saying what you don't think it true about the Holy Spirit, you stick with what you believe.



That's stilly; there is no difference between Son of God and God the Son in Greek. And technically, Scripture never says
"only begotten Son". μονογενὴς υἱός means the unique, one of a kind, Son. If you feel the need to assert grammatical falsehoods into your statements of faith, what does that say about your position.



So in order to prove to us that he was authentically human, Jesus pretended to pray to himself? Wouldn't that cause confusion? You really shouldn't be comparing your position to another when defining your position.




I took from this post that you guys definitely define yourself as not Trinitarian. You're position isn't defined in an of itself; it's a clearly just a rejection of something else. What does that say about your position?

God Bless

Hello, I'm back from vacation and a break and will try to answer your questions. Trinitarianism is the dominate theology so that is why we often include a primary difference between Oneness and Trinitarianism in our explanations. It's for practical purposes since many people have been exposed to Trinitarianism. Oneness can stand alone without reference to "persons" but it is a practical matter, a learning aid to distinguish between true and false. Even the Trinitarian creeds and councils were drafted with the view of pushing back against Arianism. We certainly can simply say there is one God and we are to serve Him with all our heart, but philosophy has corrupted the term "one" in regards to God to take on a meaning that is not simple or plain. Oneness seeks to restore the simplicity and power of scripture. From a Oneness theological perspective, "person" or "persons" is not a required term. If it is used, it is a synonym for "being" just like we would use it in everyday speech. Oneness doesn't accept Plato's philosophy in regards to God. Plato is to theology as bloodletting is to medical practice.

Trinitarians made the doctrine of "eternally begotten Son" (Origen). For Oneness a Son is by default "begotten", as that is the only way a son is a son by definition. Romans 1:3 and Galatians 4:4 and Luke 1:35 all plainly testify that "Son" in regards to Jesus should be understood according to his flesh and not an eternally begotten philosophy that is empty and nonsensical.


I'm surprised that you would think that I mean "Jesus pretended to pray to himself" after all we have discussed. I'll forego answering for now because I've explained this many times to you. The only pretending I see is if someone should think that one co-equal God person prays authentically to another co-equal God person. That's a real problem for you isn't it?


There are many positive statements in my post that could help you understand the biblical view of God and Christ.
 

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
Hello, I'm back from vacation and a break and will try to answer your questions. Trinitarianism is the dominate theology so that is why we often include a primary difference between Oneness and Trinitarianism in our explanations. It's for practical purposes since many people have been exposed to Trinitarianism. Oneness can stand alone without reference to "persons" but it is a practical matter, a learning aid to distinguish between true and false. Even the Trinitarian creeds and councils were drafted with the view of pushing back against Arianism. We certainly can simply say there is one God and we are to serve Him with all our heart, but philosophy has corrupted the term "one" in regards to God to take on a meaning that is not simple or plain. Oneness seeks to restore the simplicity and power of scripture. From a Oneness theological perspective, "person" or "persons" is not a required term. If it is used, it is a synonym for "being" just like we would use it in everyday speech. Oneness doesn't accept Plato's philosophy in regards to God. Plato is to theology as bloodletting is to medical practice.

Welcome back. I have no problem with most of what you said above save a few things. Your accusation "philosophy has corrupted the term "one" in regards to God to take on a meaning that is not simple or plain." isn't justified. I mean you haven't proven this is the case. You've simply asserted it as a preset to guide people to your position. Secondly, categorically using "person" as a litmus test for truth likewise needs justification. Lastly, God is one, but if you demand that one only see God in ways that contradict divine revelation, we have a problem. So, the real fight isn't between those who needlessly complicate things and those who keep a simple faith; the real fight is faithfully believing what Scripture teaches. As I've said multiple times, I don't care if you use the term person. As long as you recognize an eternal distinction, that is not related to ontology, between the Father, Son and Spirit as Scripture teaches.

Trinitarians made the doctrine of "eternally begotten Son" (Origen). For Oneness a Son is by default "begotten", as that is the only way a son is a son by definition. Romans 1:3 and Galatians 4:4 and Luke 1:35 all plainly testify that "Son" in regards to Jesus should be understood according to his flesh and not an eternally begotten philosophy that is empty and nonsensical.

FYI, Origen is not considered orthodox.

With respect to this comment, how do you deal with the fact that the distinction between the Father and Son predates the incarnation?


I'm surprised that you would think that I mean "Jesus pretended to pray to himself" after all we have discussed. I'll forego answering for now because I've explained this many times to you. The only pretending I see is if someone should think that one co-equal God person prays authentically to another co-equal God person. That's a real problem for you isn't it?

Here is the problem: If Jesus is the same person as the Father, and Jesus prayed to the Father, then the person walking around as Jesus on earth prayed to the Father who is that same person. This is a logical syllogism. Jesus existing as a true human doesn't change the conclusion of this syllogism. The only way out of this conclusion is for Jesus to be a different person while on earth, Adoptionism or something similar. Are you saying it wasn't really God praying as a true man?

There are many positive statements in my post that could help you understand the biblical view of God and Christ.

Hopefully, I've expressed my concerns with your position clearly for future discussions.

God Bless
 

Truther

Well-known member
Are you just trying to start a discussion? Both Trinitarians and Oneness teach that Jesus was "truly man". It's even in Trinitarian creeds, so I'm a bit puzzled by your question. He is both God and man.

A difference between Oneness and Trinity is that Trinitarians believe that the person called God the Son became incarnate and Oneness teaches that the One God became incarnate and was called the Son of God.
The difference between the trinity and oneness is Trinity teaches "God the Son" and oneness teaches "God the son".

Trinity teaches the "hypostatic union" theory and oneness teaches a modified version of it.
 

Andreas

Active member
Welcome back. I have no problem with most of what you said above save a few things. Your accusation "philosophy has corrupted the term "one" in regards to God to take on a meaning that is not simple or plain." isn't justified. I mean you haven't proven this is the case. You've simply asserted it as a preset to guide people to your position. Secondly, categorically using "person" as a litmus test for truth likewise needs justification. Lastly, God is one, but if you demand that one only see God in ways that contradict divine revelation, we have a problem. So, the real fight isn't between those who needlessly complicate things and those who keep a simple faith; the real fight is faithfully believing what Scripture teaches. As I've said multiple times, I don't care if you use the term person. As long as you recognize an eternal distinction, that is not related to ontology, between the Father, Son and Spirit as Scripture teaches.



FYI, Origen is not considered orthodox.

With respect to this comment, how do you deal with the fact that the distinction between the Father and Son predates the incarnation?



Here is the problem: If Jesus is the same person as the Father, and Jesus prayed to the Father, then the person walking around as Jesus on earth prayed to the Father who is that same person. This is a logical syllogism. Jesus existing as a true human doesn't change the conclusion of this syllogism. The only way out of this conclusion is for Jesus to be a different person while on earth, Adoptionism or something similar. Are you saying it wasn't really God praying as a true man?



Hopefully, I've expressed my concerns with your position clearly for future discussions.


God Bless

I took a long break from this discussion, and it's helped me to see more clearly Trinitarians so deep into the trees and tall grass of human philosophy that they can't see the forest. In other words, they strain at the definition of words and terms while missing the big picture of scripture and what it says about God and Christ. Only the view from the rabbit trail chopped out by early Trinitarians of the 4th and 5th century, do things seem right and ordinary. There is hope, however, that some Trinitarians will see God more accurately because the Word of God is powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword.


Trinitarians have huge problems reconciling an eternally, begotten Son with scripture and common sense. Scripture gives us a definition of the Son of God (Luke 1:35).

References to the Messiah in the OT are prophetic. Trinitarians must read into the OT their narrative to find an eternal 2nd person in the Godhead.

You said, "Here is the problem: If Jesus is the same person as the Father, and Jesus prayed to the Father, then the person walking around as Jesus on earth prayed to the Father who is that same person. "

My Response: You create the problem by assuming that you can plug God and his ways into your human category termed "person". "Persons" has really put Trinitarians into a straitjacket of their own making. "The problem" only exists within your manmade box of philosophy. Your underlying assumptions are the problem. It's like someone saying, "Bricks can't fly", therefore air travel by man is impossible".
 
Last edited:

DoctrinesofGraceBapt

Well-known member
Welcome back. I have no problem with most of what you said above save a few things. Your accusation "philosophy has corrupted the term "one" in regards to God to take on a meaning that is not simple or plain." isn't justified. I mean you haven't proven this is the case. You've simply asserted it as a preset to guide people to your position. Secondly, categorically using "person" as a litmus test for truth likewise needs justification. Lastly, God is one, but if you demand that one only see God in ways that contradict divine revelation, we have a problem. So, the real fight isn't between those who needlessly complicate things and those who keep a simple faith; the real fight is faithfully believing what Scripture teaches. As I've said multiple times, I don't care if you use the term person. As long as you recognize an eternal distinction, that is not related to ontology, between the Father, Son and Spirit as Scripture teaches.

FYI, Origen is not considered orthodox.
With respect to this comment, how do you deal with the fact that the distinction between the Father and Son predates the incarnation?

Here is the problem: If Jesus is the same person as the Father, and Jesus prayed to the Father, then the person walking around as Jesus on earth prayed to the Father who is that same person. This is a logical syllogism. Jesus existing as a true human doesn't change the conclusion of this syllogism. The only way out of this conclusion is for Jesus to be a different person while on earth, Adoptionism or something similar. Are you saying it wasn't really God praying as a true man?

Hopefully, I've expressed my concerns with your position clearly for future discussions.
I took a long break from this discussion, and it's helped me to see more clearly Trinitarians so deep into the trees and tall grass of human philosophy that they can't see the forest. In other words, they strain at the definition of words and terms while missing the big picture of scripture and what it says about God and Christ. Only the view from the rabbit trail chopped out by early Trinitarians of the 4th and 5th century, do things seem right and ordinary. There is hope, however, that some Trinitarians will see God more accurately because the Word of God is powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword.

Interesting narrative, not that any of this is justified.

FYI, The term Trinity was coined in 170 ad. That's the 2nd century. Your grasp on early Christian history is faulty.

Trinitarians have huge problems reconciling an eternally, begotten Son with scripture and common sense. Scripture gives us a definition of the Son of God (Luke 1:35).

A huge problem we have is the words we employ? Not the concept behind those words? Interesting thing to focus on.

References to the Messiah in the OT are prophetic. Trinitarians must read into the OT their narrative to find an eternal 2nd person in the Godhead.

In reality, if all we had was the book of John, I would still be a Trinitarian. There is no requirement to read into anything.

You said, "Here is the problem: If Jesus is the same person as the Father, and Jesus prayed to the Father, then the person walking around as Jesus on earth prayed to the Father who is that same person. "

My Response: You create the problem by assuming that you can plug God and his ways into your human category termed "person". "Persons" has really put Trinitarians into a straitjacket of their own making. "The problem" only exists within your manmade box of philosophy. Your underlying assumptions are the problem. It's like someone saying, "Bricks can't fly", therefore air travel by man is impossible"

So, what you're saying is you don't like the words we use but agree with our theological concepts? Remember, words are just a tool used to communicate concepts. Same question without the word person: Here is the problem: If Jesus is the same as the Father, and Jesus prayed to the Father, then the one walking around as Jesus on earth prayed to the Father who is same. What's the point in praying if they are the same?

God Bless
 

101G

Well-known member
The difference between the trinity and oneness is Trinity teaches "God the Son" and oneness teaches "God the son".
God the Son is CORRECT, as well as God the son, but you both fail. God the Son is correct in Nature, and God the son is correct in Character

IN "NATURE", Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
here Form is God/JESUS nature.
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

IN "CHARACTER", Hebrews 1:3 "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;"
here, the "person" of God is expressed in his Image, which is his " Character".
for the term "express image" is,
G5481 χαρακτήρ charakter (cha-rak-teer') n.
1. an engraver (the tool or the person).
2. (by implication) an engraving.
3. (hence) a “character,” the figure stamped.
4. (by extension) an exact copy.
5. (figuratively) a representation.
[from charasso “to sharpen to a point” (akin to G1125 through the idea of scratching)]
KJV: express image

so, the "Son of God" is God in FORM: G3444 μορφή morphe definition 2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
and the "son of God" is God in "express image", G5481 χαρακτήρ charakter, definition #3. (hence) a “character,” the figure stamped.

both expressions are correct, but how each are implemented in PERSON(S), trinitarian doctrine, and PERSON, oneness doctrine are incorrect.

Both doctrines in how they are applied are incorrect. meaning a half truth is a FULL, lie in disguise.

why not both camps get the TRUTH? ....... well.

let's point out some faults in both doctrines.

1. Trinitarians, Reconcile Isaiah 44:24, and John 1:3 as to who "MADE ALL THINGS", the same one person in both verses? yes, or no. just keep in mind the person in Isaiah 44:24 states he was "ALONE", and "BY HIMSEL" meaning he did go through anyone.

2. Oneness, if it's just one person (and it is), and one Spirit, (and it is), tell us how much of the Spirit 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

again, how much of the ONE Spirit was made empty while in that flesh body? if you say .... 1/3 for the person called Son, then you have God divided. and if you say ALL of the ONE Spirit, (well while G2758 κενόω kenoo), in that flesh body. who was running/upholding the universe?
,
again, do both of you see your failing in Doctrine? a half TRUTH is nothing but a full lie in disguise. get the WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD.

:ninja:101G,
 

101G

Well-known member
I took a long break from this discussion, and it's helped me to see more clearly Trinitarians so deep into the trees and tall grass of human philosophy that they can't see the forest.
take a look at post #34.

101G.
 

Andreas

Active member
Interesting narrative, not that any of this is justified.

FYI, The term Trinity was coined in 170 ad. That's the 2nd century. Your grasp on early Christian history is faulty.



A huge problem we have is the words we employ? Not the concept behind those words? Interesting thing to focus on.



In reality, if all we had was the book of John, I would still be a Trinitarian. There is no requirement to read into anything.




So, what you're saying is you don't like the words we use but agree with our theological concepts? Remember, words are just a tool used to communicate concepts. Same question without the word person: Here is the problem: If Jesus is the same as the Father, and Jesus prayed to the Father, then the one walking around as Jesus on earth prayed to the Father who is same. What's the point in praying if they are the same?

God Bless

It is more than just a disagreement over words but what the words represent. Let's look at the concepts by looking at the prayers of Jesus. I believe his prayers were real and sincere. Can I assume you believe his prayers were real and not play acting?

Now, why did Jesus pray? You have a huge problem if you believe that the prayers of Jesus come from a distinction between two eternal God persons with the 2nd God person praying to the first God person. Think through this and you'll find the trinitarian concept explodes like a mentos in a bottle of diet Coke.
 

Andreas

Active member
God the Son is CORRECT, as well as God the son, but you both fail. God the Son is correct in Nature, and God the son is correct in Character

IN "NATURE", Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
here Form is God/JESUS nature.
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

IN "CHARACTER", Hebrews 1:3 "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;"
here, the "person" of God is expressed in his Image, which is his " Character".
for the term "express image" is,
G5481 χαρακτήρ charakter (cha-rak-teer') n.
1. an engraver (the tool or the person).
2. (by implication) an engraving.
3. (hence) a “character,” the figure stamped.
4. (by extension) an exact copy.
5. (figuratively) a representation.
[from charasso “to sharpen to a point” (akin to G1125 through the idea of scratching)]
KJV: express image

so, the "Son of God" is God in FORM: G3444 μορφή morphe definition 2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
and the "son of God" is God in "express image", G5481 χαρακτήρ charakter, definition #3. (hence) a “character,” the figure stamped.

both expressions are correct, but how each are implemented in PERSON(S), trinitarian doctrine, and PERSON, oneness doctrine are incorrect.

Both doctrines in how they are applied are incorrect. meaning a half truth is a FULL, lie in disguise.

why not both camps get the TRUTH? ....... well.

let's point out some faults in both doctrines.

1. Trinitarians, Reconcile Isaiah 44:24, and John 1:3 as to who "MADE ALL THINGS", the same one person in both verses? yes, or no. just keep in mind the person in Isaiah 44:24 states he was "ALONE", and "BY HIMSEL" meaning he did go through anyone.

2. Oneness, if it's just one person (and it is), and one Spirit, (and it is), tell us how much of the Spirit 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

again, how much of the ONE Spirit was made empty while in that flesh body? if you say .... 1/3 for the person called Son, then you have God divided. and if you say ALL of the ONE Spirit, (well while G2758 κενόω kenoo), in that flesh body. who was running/upholding the universe?
,
again, do both of you see your failing in Doctrine? a half TRUTH is nothing but a full lie in disguise. get the WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD.

:ninja:101G,

You've described a false understanding of Oneness theology. If you're open to what Oneness people really believe, I recommend the Oneness of God by David Bernard
https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/15f35b82/files/uploaded/One_God - Bernard.pdf
 

101G

Well-known member

SeventhDay

Well-known member
A. I'm not describing Oneness as u know and Dr. Bernard teach.

B, just answer the question I put forth to oneness. just provide as answer.... that's all.

then get back with me.... ok... :cool:

:ninja:
Not only is there confusion between the Son of God and God the Father but there is confusion regarding the son of man and the Son of God. The son of man and the Son of God is not the same thing! The son of man may be an express image of God because God is making man in his image, but the Son of God is of the original and so are sons of God in Christ.

Neither does the son of man or the Son of God say expressly they are God but rather that God is the Father. However, the son of man has spoken things concerning God which is why he is the very expression or Word of God, and the son of man identifies with the Son of God that he is but not as the son of man.

We need to understand that God the Father is singular, but his nature is a plurality within himself as one person not three.

God bless you. :)
 

Truther

Well-known member
God the Son is CORRECT, as well as God the son, but you both fail. God the Son is correct in Nature, and God the son is correct in Character

IN "NATURE", Philippians 2:6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
here Form is God/JESUS nature.
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

IN "CHARACTER", Hebrews 1:3 "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;"
here, the "person" of God is expressed in his Image, which is his " Character".
for the term "express image" is,
G5481 χαρακτήρ charakter (cha-rak-teer') n.
1. an engraver (the tool or the person).
2. (by implication) an engraving.
3. (hence) a “character,” the figure stamped.
4. (by extension) an exact copy.
5. (figuratively) a representation.
[from charasso “to sharpen to a point” (akin to G1125 through the idea of scratching)]
KJV: express image

so, the "Son of God" is God in FORM: G3444 μορφή morphe definition 2. (intrinsically) fundamental nature.
and the "son of God" is God in "express image", G5481 χαρακτήρ charakter, definition #3. (hence) a “character,” the figure stamped.

both expressions are correct, but how each are implemented in PERSON(S), trinitarian doctrine, and PERSON, oneness doctrine are incorrect.

Both doctrines in how they are applied are incorrect. meaning a half truth is a FULL, lie in disguise.

why not both camps get the TRUTH? ....... well.

let's point out some faults in both doctrines.

1. Trinitarians, Reconcile Isaiah 44:24, and John 1:3 as to who "MADE ALL THINGS", the same one person in both verses? yes, or no. just keep in mind the person in Isaiah 44:24 states he was "ALONE", and "BY HIMSEL" meaning he did go through anyone.

2. Oneness, if it's just one person (and it is), and one Spirit, (and it is), tell us how much of the Spirit 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

again, how much of the ONE Spirit was made empty while in that flesh body? if you say .... 1/3 for the person called Son, then you have God divided. and if you say ALL of the ONE Spirit, (well while G2758 κενόω kenoo), in that flesh body. who was running/upholding the universe?
,
again, do both of you see your failing in Doctrine? a half TRUTH is nothing but a full lie in disguise. get the WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD.

:ninja:101G,
I know you are oneness.

You teach "God the son".

You are a cousin of the trinitarian that teaches "God the Son".

You have a slight modification to make "son" lower case.

...all because you teach the ANCIENT trin concept of God becoming human....
 
Top