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

[Jewjitzu]

That's funny, because I'm the one pressing you to interact with the text while you play games ignoring what the text says.

I've answered your questions. You may not like it, but that's your problem.

Not using "us" and "our". God speaking to nature rejects the very grammar of "Let us make man in our image."

Of course it does. You just don't like it.

What above relates to the fact that you simply ignored what I said in this previous comment? The text uses personal pronouns. Maybe you should stop pretending they don't exist. Yes, we've seen God doesn't just speak to persons, but there is no reason to believe God is talking to non persons using "us" and "our".

What Is A Personal Pronoun? Definition & Examples

Personal pronouns are often used to replace a noun. Learn to determine whether to use personal pronouns and how to use them in a sentence.

www.thesaurus.com

What is a personal pronoun?​

A personal pronoun is a pronoun typically used to refer to a speaker or to the people or things that a speaker is referring to. Often, personal pronouns are used to replace proper names as in Olivia went to bed early because she (Olivia) worked hard today...

Apparently, you don't know grammar as well as you think. Again, they are many places in Tanakh where figurative language is used.

So, you claim there is no connection, and YHWH is simply lying.

Why are you being dishonest with your accusations?

Do you know how to interact with what other people are saying?

Of course.

What does the Seraphim holding the tongs depict?

Does an angel of fire require tongs?

Answer the question. You're only giving orthodox Jews a bad name by playing this game.

Rotfl... do you think I care about your lousy opinion here?

Given that you don't know that personal pronouns refer to things as shown above, you should check your growing beam in the eye. Such a shame 😞.

Another excuse that allows one to ignore what the text says.

Why, because you don't understand it?

As if I haven't already read commentaries written by unbelievers.

Then it shouldn't come as a surprise what I've told you is really going on.

Yes, these sons of God are people. How does this even start to interact with what is depicted in Job? Oh yeah, you don't care what Scripture says as long as you can throw out an excuse, no matter how terrible.

Read up on Jewish thought.

God Bless

Always.

 

[Jewjitzu]

No. God is described as having attributes or acting as in Exodus 34:6-7, and seven spirits, as in Isaiah 11:2-3. Of course none of these are additional persons, but is what God is.

Overall, I don't prefer the idea of God requiring help from persons, be they other persons in your godhead or angels. The idea behind this is that God humbles Himself in counsel.


It's one of the options based on grammar. But, I don't prefer it.


Always.

Bump for DOGB. Refer to post #473. I'm curious what you think of either answer.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
That's funny, because I'm the one pressing you to interact with the text while you play games ignoring what the text says.

I've answered your questions. You may not like it, but that's your problem.

By ignoring what the text says.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Not using "us" and "our". God speaking to nature rejects the very grammar of "Let us make man in our image."

Of course it does. You just don't like it.

Yep, God speaking to nature rejects the very grammar of "Let us make man in our image."

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
What above relates to the fact that you simply ignored what I said in this previous comment? The text uses personal pronouns. Maybe you should stop pretending they don't exist. Yes, we've seen God doesn't just speak to persons, but there is no reason to believe God is talking to non persons using "us" and "our".

Personal pronouns are often used to replace a noun. Learn to determine whether to use personal pronouns and how to use them in a sentence.

A personal pronoun is a pronoun typically used to refer to a speaker or to the people or things that a speaker is referring to. Often, personal pronouns are used to replace proper names as in Olivia went to bed early because she (Olivia) worked hard today...

Apparently, you don't know grammar as well as you think. Again, they are many places in Tanakh where figurative language is used.

The text uses personal pronouns. Maybe you should stop pretending they don't exist. Yes, we've seen God doesn't just speak to persons, but there is no reason to believe God is talking to non persons using "us" and "our".

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
So, you claim there is no connection, and YHWH is simply lying.

Why are you being dishonest with your accusations?

I'm not. You think there is no such thing as seraphim, but YHWH gives visions of seraphim. I ask you what truth about reality YHWH is trying to convey to men by showing mythical creatures like seraphim in visions, and you simply double down on that they are not real. What else should take from this but that YHWH is lying to men?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
What does the Seraphim holding the tongs depict?

Does an angel of fire require tongs?

Nope, why don't you answer my question? What does the Seraphim holding the tongs depict?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
As if I haven't already read commentaries written by unbelievers.

Then it shouldn't come as a surprise what I've told you is really going on.

Yes, you are an unbeliever in YHWH because you reject his word in the Tanakh.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Yes, these sons of God are people. How does this even start to interact with what is depicted in Job? Oh yeah, you don't care what Scripture says as long as you can throw out an excuse, no matter how terrible.

Read up on Jewish thought.

Why? From what I see from your example, Jewish thought contains nothing but unbelief in the Tanakh.

God Bless

 

[Andreas]

The Bible says what it says, and when it doesn't explain in scientific terms, the heretics jump in, and make up their own "Precious theologies". So play your "word games" as if they meant anything.

Aggressive again? The world is filled with heretics! Heretics! But, when questioned on the substance of your posts, you are like ho-hum. Kumbaya. You're passive-aggressive.

 

[Andreas]

Interesting, thanks for letting me know. Here is a counter argument I found online:

The question is being raised whether such a use can be found in the OT. Supporters of this hypothesis point to 2 Sam 24:14, where David speaks of himself in the plural "let us fall [nippehih] into the hand of the Lord . . . but into the hand of men let me not fall ['eppokih]." In Ps 1:11 the following supposedly close parallel is found: "Let us make [noCaieha,s in Gn 1:26] ornaments of gold studded with silver."34However, it is by no means certain that this is really the plural expressing self- deliberation because the speaker can include here the craftsman who would be asked to produce such ornaments of gold. In any case, these examples hardly qualify as explanations that there is a plural of deliberation used in Gn 1:26, because in none of these examples do we find God as the speaker. Passages with God as the speaker are Is 6:8; Gn 3:22; 11:7. But these passages can hardly be used in support of a plural of deliberation in Gn 1:26, because they have the same problems as the passage under discussion and either fall into the same category without any supportive evidence or are to be explained as Gn 1:28 in other ways. "The rarity of parallels gives us little confidence in the correctness of this view, ..."35 It is difficult to disagree with this conclusion. Taken from THE MEANING OF "LET US" IN GN 1:26 by GERHARD F. HASEL Andrews University​

It doesn't sound like this explanation has much going for it when one looks into the specifics.

God Bless

The plural of self-deliberation was from the Hebrew Encyclopedia and Hasel finds "little confidence" due to the "rarity of parallels" with that view. So, you have the Hebrew encyclopedia vs. Hasel. Ok. As I said no one can say for certain who God was talking to, however, a Trinity is the least likely one. That God as King was speaking to the host of heaven, as I've said, is the most likely answer and something that the Jews have generally thought. It is not that anyone did the creative work, but God involved them in an ancillary way as He does throughout scripture. We do know that scripturally, God and the angels spoke often about men and their activities and angel participated in the garden of Eden. That God would speak to the angels about the creation of his image-bearers with whom the angels would be heavily involved with is the best answer.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Aggressive again? The world is filled with heretics! Heretics! But, when questioned on the substance of your posts, you are like ho-hum. Kumbaya. You're passive-aggressive.

Chuckle!!! Call me all the names you want. The whole discussion is totally unimportant.
YOU believe "Father/Son/Holy Spirit" but are "put off" by the word "Persons".
I believe "Father/Son/Holy Spirit" and I couldn't care less about the word "Persons". It means nothing - just an ignorant theological "handle" we attach to an unknowable.

Problem solved.

 

[Andreas]

Chuckle!!! Call me all the names you want. The whole discussion is totally unimportant.
YOU believe "Father/Son/Holy Spirit" but are "put off" by the word "Persons".
I believe "Father/Son/Holy Spirit" and I couldn't care less about the word "Persons". It means nothing - just an ignorant theological "handle" we attach to an unknowable.

Problem solved.

If it is all so unimportant then why do you defend the Trinitarian terms so often?

While you say that "persons" doesn't matter to you, conceptually you have three who's up in heaven. This is not what the bible says. What is it about Colossians 2:9 that you are not content with? All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily. The fullness of Father/Holy Spirit dwells in Christ bodily and that bothers you.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Which "Trinitarian terms"??
We wlready agreed that "Father", "Son", and "Holy Spirit" are O.K.
WHich ones (that I "defend so often") aren't??

 

[Jewjitzu]

By ignoring what the text says.

Not by me. We both know you're ignoring that God is either singular or plural gods. Guess which one describes your trinity?

Yep, God speaking to nature rejects the very grammar of "Let us make man in our image."

No it doesn't. It's no different than anthropomorphisms, personifications, we see with God, animals, nature, etc., throughout scripture.

The text uses personal pronouns. Maybe you should stop pretending they don't exist. Yes, we've seen God doesn't just speak to persons, but there is no reason to believe God is talking to non persons using "us" and "our".

See above. You're denying that people often talk this way to animals, objects, etc.

I'm not. You think there is no such thing as seraphim, but YHWH gives visions of seraphim.

I never said there aren't seraphim. They are just another level of angels, forces, etc., I've told you about.

I ask you what truth about reality YHWH is trying to convey to men by showing mythical creatures like seraphim in visions,

Why does God convey messages concerning nations using beasts, pots of water boiling over, etc.?

and you simply double down on that they are not real. What else should take from this but that YHWH is lying to men?

Visions and riddles aren't reality. They convey different ideas.

That you could even talk like that about God shows how desperate you are.

Nope, why don't you answer my question? What does the Seraphim holding the tongs depict?

Rotfl... since seraphim are angels of fire 🔥, why would they need tongs? Answer that.

Yes, you are an unbeliever in YHWH because you reject his word in the Tanakh.

Yes, you're a whiner. Just because things don't make sense to you doesn't mean others are apostates like yourself.

Why? From what I see from your example, Jewish thought contains nothing but unbelief in the Tanakh.

Rotfl... no, we just have had more years and experience to understand things beyond your level.

God Bless

Always in the singular...

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

The plural of self-deliberation was from the Hebrew Encyclopedia and Hasel finds "little confidence" due to the "rarity of parallels" with that view. So, you have the Hebrew encyclopedia vs. Hasel. Ok. As I said no one can say for certain who God was talking to, however, a Trinity is the least likely one. That God as King was speaking to the host of heaven, as I've said, is the most likely answer and something that the Jews have generally thought. It is not that anyone did the creative work, but God involved them in an ancillary way as He does throughout scripture. We do know that scripturally, God and the angels spoke often about men and their activities and angel participated in the garden of Eden. That God would speak to the angels about the creation of his image-bearers with whom the angels would be heavily involved with is the best answer.

Notice the difference in tone between what you presented and Jewjitzu. Self-deliberation is debatable. "God as King was speaking to the host of heaven" is less so but again respectable. Jewjitzu's position is beyond irrational. And, that's where I'm going to leave it.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

Notice the difference in tone between what you presented and Jewjitzu. Self-deliberation is debatable. "God as King was speaking to the host of heaven" is less so but again respectable. Jewjitzu's position is beyond irrational. And, that's where I'm going to leave it.

God Bless

Rotfl....

Why don't you reply to post #473?

 

[Jewjitzu]

I admit it pisses me off when someone spits in YHWH's face. As an unbeliever in YHWH who rejects his word in the Tanakh, watch out for the earth opening up to swallow you.

Being that you've agreed that God isn't physical and doesn't have a face, it's ironic you're using personification, anthropomorphisms here.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Notice the difference in tone between what you presented and Jewjitzu. Self-deliberation is debatable. "God as King was speaking to the host of heaven" is less so but again respectable. Jewjitzu's position is beyond irrational. And, that's where I'm going to leave it.

Why don't you reply to post #473?

Wow, I missed one of your posts. Look at who is whining now?

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Why is it not your preferred answer? Could it be that this kind of talk is foreign to Hebrews?

No. God is described as having attributes or acting as in Exodus 34:6-7, and seven spirits, as in Isaiah 11:2-3. Of course none of these are additional persons, but is what God is.

Overall, I don't prefer the idea of God requiring help from persons, be they other persons in your godhead or angels. The idea behind this is that God humbles Himself in counsel.

Who said anything about "God requiring help"? You're projecting. Who says "The idea behind this is that God humbles Himself in counsel."? The only person I ever heard say these things is you.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Another answer is that God was talking futuristically to mankind. After all God created Adam, then used Adam to create Eve in that image.
Oh, that's creative.

It's one of the options based on grammar. But, I don't prefer it.

It's not an option based upon the grammar. It doesn't contradict the grammar like God talking to nature, but it's not based upon any grammar.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I admit it pisses me off when someone spits in YHWH's face. As an unbeliever in YHWH who rejects his word in the Tanakh, watch out for the earth opening up to swallow you.

Being that you've agreed that God isn't physical and doesn't have a face, it's ironic you're using personification, anthropomorphisms here.

Yes, I can use figurative language too. That doesn't mean God didn't have the ground swallow people alive when they sinned in unbelief.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

Wow, I missed one of your posts. Look at who is whining now?

I'm not whining. I just want to see your reply and arguments.

Who said anything about "God requiring help"? You're projecting. Who says "The idea behind this is that God humbles Himself in counsel."? The only person I ever heard say these things is you.

It's an argument that folks give that God requires zero help. You're whining again 🙄.

I believe you, definitely other Christians, have argued the 3 persons in the trinity were involved in creation. That's definitely your point in Gen 1:26, isn't it?

It's not an option based upon the grammar. It doesn't contradict the grammar like God talking to nature, but it's not based upon any grammar.

It sure is. What's the problem specifically? It works for angels that are persons too if you prefer that.

What doesn't work is thinking God is speaking to others that are the same God too. Like I've said and you know, the grammar only supports a singular God or plural gods.

Yes, I can use figurative language too. That doesn't mean God didn't have the ground swallow people alive when they sinned in unbelief.

I wasn't talking about the ground. Earthquakes do happen. Spitting into the face of a non-physical being would be figurative. You know that was point, but are being silly about it.

God Bless

Yep.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Wow, I missed one of your posts. Look at who is whining now?

BTW, no apology from you for spreading falsehood about me?

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Who said anything about "God requiring help"? You're projecting. Who says "The idea behind this is that God humbles Himself in counsel."? The only person I ever heard say these things is you.

It's an argument that folks give that God requires zero help. You're whining again 🙄.
I believe you, definitely other Christians, have argued the 3 persons in the trinity were involved in creation. That's definitely your point in Gen 1:26, isn't it

Wow, how is this whining? Exactly, God requires zero help. No one disagrees. So, why do you think we are saying God requires help? Yes, my position is that the 3 persons in the trinity were involved in creation, and I think that's the point of Genesis 1:26. Again, no one is saying God requires something. We are not making a logical argument that God would require something. We are simply recognizing that the text teaches that the singular God is a an "us" and believing accordingly.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
It's not an option based upon the grammar. It doesn't contradict the grammar like God talking to nature, but it's not based upon any grammar.

It sure is. What's the problem specifically? It works for angels that are persons too if you prefer that.
What doesn't work is thinking God is speaking to others that are the same God too. Like I've said and you know, the grammar only supports a singular God or plural gods.

Nothing in the grammar of Genesis 1:26-27 implies that he is talking to the men that he is making in the future. The grammar doesn't directly deny such either, which is why I said "It doesn't contradict the grammar like God talking to nature." The reason why it doesn't work for angels who are persons, but not men, before the creation of men is because angels didn't create man with God. God alone created man. The reason why the Father, Son, and Spirit together as a Trinity works is because they are all the same God; so, God alone creates man, but the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons also justifying the use of "us" and "our".

"What doesn't work is thinking God is speaking to others that are the same God too." Why? Outside of dogmatic concerns, why? We have a singular God. We are monotheists even if you don't believe such to be the case. And, we've always admitted that only one person who is God is speaking in v26. So, that "the grammar only supports a singular God or plural gods" is utterly irrelevant to our position. Such is true, and such is utterly inconsequential to Trinitarianism.

God Bless

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

BTW, no apology from you for spreading falsehood about me?

No apology necessary when you're telling the Truth.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Wow, how is this whining? Exactly, God requires zero help. No one disagrees. So, why do you think we are saying God requires help? Yes, my position is that the 3 persons in the trinity were involved in creation, and I think that's the point of Genesis 1:26.

So your gods required help. The grammar in Gen 1:26-27, points to God being only one person. Any other person would not be that same God. It's pretty simple.

Again, no one is saying God requires something. We are not making a logical argument that God would require something. We are simply recognizing that the text teaches that the singular God is a an "us" and believing accordingly.

See above. You're wrong again.

Nothing in the grammar of Genesis 1:26-27 implies that he is talking to the men that he is making in the future. The grammar doesn't directly deny such either, which is why I said "It doesn't contradict the grammar like God talking to nature." The reason why it doesn't work for angels who are persons, but not men, before the creation of men is because angels didn't create man with God. God alone created man.

If you believe in persons involved besides God speaking, there's only the option of angels that are persons or humans themselves.

The grammar discounts any other person as God.

The reason why the Father, Son, and Spirit together as a Trinity works is because they are all the same God;

False, the grammar discredits that. In your argument God speaks to others that aren't Him. So, they're not the same God.

so, God alone creates man, but the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons also justifying the use of "us" and "our".

See above. This is hilarious 😆.

"What doesn't work is thinking God is speaking to others that are the same God too." Why? Outside of dogmatic concerns, why? We have a singular God. We are monotheists even if you don't believe such to be the case.

The grammar for elohim only supports a singular God or plural gods. Your idea is gods.

And, we've always admitted that only one person who is God is speaking in v26. So, that "the grammar only supports a singular God or plural gods" is utterly irrelevant to our position. Such is true, and such is utterly inconsequential to Trinitarianism.

See above. Since God is speaking to others, it can't be the same God. Remember, elohim in Hebrew is either a singular God, or plural gods.

God Bless

Yep.

 

[Jewjitzu]

No apology necessary when you're telling the Truth.

Wow. To prove someone is lying you need to show intent, and that they were knowingly misleading. There's no way you can prove this, nor was I dishonest.

Why do you think your posts were deleted by the moderators?

I'll ask you one more time to admit your mistake, and clean the beam in your eye.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Wow, how is this whining? Exactly, God requires zero help. No one disagrees. So, why do you think we are saying God requires help? Yes, my position is that the 3 persons in the trinity were involved in creation, and I think that's the point of Genesis 1:26.

So your gods required help. The grammar in Gen 1:26-27, points to God being only one person. Any other person would not be that same God. It's pretty simple.

Nope, I don't have "gods". The grammar in Gen 1:26-27, points to only one person saying "Let us make man in our image". Any other person would not be that same person, but they can still be the same God. It's pretty simple.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Nothing in the grammar of Genesis 1:26-27 implies that he is talking to the men that he is making in the future. The grammar doesn't directly deny such either, which is why I said "It doesn't contradict the grammar like God talking to nature." The reason why it doesn't work for angels who are persons, but not men, before the creation of men is because angels didn't create man with God. God alone created man.

If you believe in persons involved besides God speaking, there's only the option of angels that are persons or humans themselves.

This would make sense if one assumes only one person is God. Given that angels that are persons or humans themselves don't make sense in this passage, the logical thing to do is throw out your assumption that God is unitarian.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
The reason why the Father, Son, and Spirit together as a Trinity works is because they are all the same God;

False, the grammar discredits that. In your argument God speaks to others that aren't Him. So, they're not the same God.

The grammar only designates a singular person, who is God, spoke the words "Let us make man in our image". It doesn't designate that there were not other persons who were the same God.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
"What doesn't work is thinking God is speaking to others that are the same God too." Why? Outside of dogmatic concerns, why? We have a singular God. We are monotheists even if you don't believe such to be the case.

The grammar for elohim only supports a singular God or plural gods. Your idea is gods.

And, we have a singular God. So, that the grammar for elohim only supports a singular God or plural gods is utterly inconsequential.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
And, we've always admitted that only one person who is God is speaking in v26. So, that "the grammar only supports a singular God or plural gods" is utterly irrelevant to our position. Such is true, and such is utterly inconsequential to Trinitarianism.

See above. Since God is speaking to others, it can't be the same God. Remember, elohim in Hebrew is either a singular God, or plural gods.

Yes, one person, who is God, is speaking to two others, who are the same God, saying "Let us make man in our image." There is no reason to believe or assert "it can't be the same God" unless one is axiomatically assuming that other persons must be other gods or creatures. There is no logical connection whatsoever between "elohim in Hebrew is either a singular God, or plural gods" and "it can't be the same God." The connection you see between the two is assumed.

DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
No apology necessary when you're telling the Truth.

Wow. To prove someone is lying you need to show intent, and that they were knowingly misleading. There's no way you can prove this, nor was I dishonest.

Really? You've already admitted that God sent Isaiah the vision in Isaiah 6, you've admitted there are no spiritual entities like seraphim, and you ardently refuse to explain what God was teaching Isaiah by having him see a seraphim touch his lips with coal. Therefore, I must conclude that according to you, God lied to Isaiah by giving him a vision expressing falsehoods that have no figurative explanation. How many times must I ask you to explain what God was doing showing Isaiah seraphim when such beings don't exist? All you have to do answer my question: what does the seraphim depict in this vision? Your refusal to answer this clear, straightforward question leads me to this logical conclusion. And therefore, No apology is necessary because I'm telling you the Truth.

Why do you think your posts were deleted by the moderators?

They were?

I'll ask you one more time to admit your mistake, and clean the beam in your eye.

I don't think I made a mistake. You called God a liar by claiming he sent visions of falsehoods to men.

God Bless