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

[Jewjitzu]

When? Where?

Post #535 rule violation 12.
Post #505 edited for language.
Etc....

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

I don't believe in 3 persons that are gods. So, you clearly are misinterpreting my statements. Likely on purpose.

Nope, the trinity recognizes each person in the godhead as god, individually. You should know this basic fact.
You shall have no other gods before me. You have 2 extra persons that are god too many.

Again, they are all the same God. So, not 3 persons that are gods.

Really? That's funny because all sorts of people from all over the world have united under Christ. That some Jews remain in rebellion, isn't that big of a deal.

That's great, but it doesn't make you part of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34. The context is clear.

That's your take.

You can assert your opinion all you like; it doesn't change the fact that the grammar of Genesis 1:26 says "one person, recognized as God, said something."; it doesn't say "this particular God is only one person."

You can assert your opinion too.

I know, and I'm not just asserting opinion. You know the grammar of Genesis 1:26 says "one person, recognized as God, said something." If you thought that was wrong, you would have said something. You can't refute that because it's the truth. That's premise one. Likewise, "one person, recognized as God, said something." and "this particular God is only one person." don't communicate the same idea. One is talking about a person saying something; the other is commenting on the make up of a being. Therefore, logic demands they don't communicate the same idea. So again, this isn't just my opinion. That's premise two. Therefore in conclusion, "the grammar of Genesis 1:26 says 'one person, recognized as God, said something.'; it doesn't say 'this particular God is only one person.'" is a fact, and not just my opinion. That's the conclusion of my logical argument.

I just presented a logical syllogism. Two premises and one conclusion. At this point, you have a choice: show me the error in my logical syllogism, or admit you're wrong. Claiming the grammar of Genesis 1:26 says "this particular God is only one person." without interacting with my syllogism is logically admitting you're wrong. If you wish to play this game some more, just realize, you've already lost by refusing to interact the logical argument I just presented.

The term God is used because He's singular and the grammar proves it. Otherwise "Gods" to agree with "us" would have been used in translation to show a plurality. It isn't.

You can assert your opinion all you like it doesn't change the fact that the grammar of Genesis 1:26 says "one person, recognized as God, said something."; it doesn't say "this particular God is only one person." The singular term God is used because a singular person who is God is speaking, and the grammar proves it. No one is saying "Gods" to agree with "us". That doesn't even make sense from a Trinitarian perspective. Only one person is speaking to the other persons who are God, so the singular is necessary to communicate such.

Keep on projecting. It not like God will judge the intentions of your heart. I am pleading with you to act better, and you call me self-righteous. If my charges are false, defend yourself. You know you can't, so like Joe Biden, you project your faults on others.

DOGB, it's evident your emotional and upset and you can't prove your case and I'm pointing out the issues.

Yes, I'm emotional. That happens when someone else acts like you are acting. It has nothing to do with proving my case because the points your pointing out don't even relate to my perspective at all. You are presenting ignorance while treating me like dirt. And, it's painful to watch someone condemn themselves in an attempt to hide from the truth.

What mistakes? Outside of specifics, your statements are vacuous. And, disagreeing isn't a mistake.

You've made plenty in our exchanges here are elsewhere.

Keep on asserting things while justifying nothing. Specifics man, specifics. Oh, I forgot. How can you hide from the shortcomings of your arguments if you take the time to look at what I actually said?

Again, when one is blinded by hubris, it's hard to see what everyone else can easily see.

So get some eye salve for yourself.

Why are you projecting your blindness?

You can believe my position is wrong, but that doesn't justify accusing me of believing in three gods.

Each person in your godhead is god. 3 persons, 3 gods.

Each person in my godhead is the same God. 3 persons, 1 God.

God Bless

 

[Jewjitzu]

Again, they are all the same God. So, not 3 persons that are gods.

They aren't. Basic grammar rules for 3rd person plural "us" show they can't be the same God. You don't follow your own rules.

That's your take.

That's what the context in Jeremiah 31:31-34 says flat out. I guess here you make an exception to context here?

I know, and I'm not just asserting opinion. You know the grammar of Genesis 1:26 says "one person, recognized as God, said something." If you thought that was wrong, you would have said something.

I never said otherwise. The grammar shows the God speaking is singular.

You can't refute that because it's the truth. That's premise one. Likewise, "one person, recognized as God, said something." and "this particular God is only one person." don't communicate the same idea.

See above. That God is the only one speaking. So He can't be the same God as others.

One is talking about a person saying something; the other is commenting on the make up of a being. Therefore, logic demands they don't communicate the same idea.

See above. The others aren't the same God speaking.

So again, this isn't just my opinion. That's premise two. Therefore in conclusion, "the grammar of Genesis 1:26 says 'one person, recognized as God, said something.'; it doesn't say 'this particular God is only one person.'" is a fact, and not just my opinion. That's the conclusion of my logical argument.

Grammar and translation prove that God is singular and speaking to others not Himself.

I just presented a logical syllogism. Two premises and one conclusion. At this point, you have a choice: show me the error in my logical syllogism, or admit you're wrong. Claiming the grammar of Genesis 1:26 says "this particular God is only one person." without interacting with my syllogism is logically admitting you're wrong. If you wish to play this game some more, just realize, you've already lost by refusing to interact the logical argument I just presented.

You presented the same argument, and it was debunked.

You can assert your opinion all you like it doesn't change the fact that the grammar of Genesis 1:26 says "one person, recognized as God, said something."; it doesn't say "this particular God is only one person." The singular term God is used because a singular person who is God is speaking, and the grammar proves it. No one is saying "Gods" to agree with "us". That doesn't even make sense from a Trinitarian perspective. Only one person is speaking to the other persons who are God, so the singular is necessary to communicate such.

You've been debunked as to the others being the same God. Angels would be a better answer.

Yes, I'm emotional. That happens when someone else acts like you are acting. It has nothing to do with proving my case because the points your pointing out don't even relate to my perspective at all. You are presenting ignorance while treating me like dirt. And, it's painful to watch someone condemn themselves in an attempt to hide from the truth.

I'm just debunking your ideas and showing how inconsistent you are with grammar.

Keep on asserting things while justifying nothing. Specifics man, specifics. Oh, I forgot. How can you hide from the shortcomings of your arguments if you take the time to look at what I actually said?

Just look above.

Why are you projecting your blindness?

Check your beam, DOGB.

Each person in my godhead is the same God. 3 persons, 1 God.

You say that with your mouth, but in reality each is god and different and not the same. One worships the others, namely the Son which is less than divine in action.

Anyway, not much is being accomplished at this point other than rehashing the same things. So, I'm done here.

God Bless

Always.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Again, they are all the same God. So, not 3 persons that are gods.

They aren't. Basic grammar rules for 3rd person plural "us" show they can't be the same God. You don't follow your own rules.

In other words, you axiomatically understand the grammar to deny our perspective.

I know, and I'm not just asserting opinion. You know the grammar of Genesis 1:26 says "one person, recognized as God, said something." If you thought that was wrong, you would have said something.

I never said otherwise. The grammar shows the God speaking is singular.

You can't refute that because it's the truth. That's premise one. Likewise, "one person, recognized as God, said something." and "this particular God is only one person." don't communicate the same idea.

See above. That God is the only one speaking. So He can't be the same God as others.

One is talking about a person saying something; the other is commenting on the make up of a being. Therefore, logic demands they don't communicate the same idea.

See above. The others aren't the same God speaking.

So again, this isn't just my opinion. That's premise two. Therefore in conclusion, "the grammar of Genesis 1:26 says 'one person, recognized as God, said something.'; it doesn't say 'this particular God is only one person.'" is a fact, and not just my opinion. That's the conclusion of my logical argument.

Grammar and translation prove that God is singular and speaking to others not Himself.

I just presented a logical syllogism. Two premises and one conclusion. At this point, you have a choice: show me the error in my logical syllogism, or admit you're wrong. Claiming the grammar of Genesis 1:26 says "this particular God is only one person." without interacting with my syllogism is logically admitting you're wrong. If you wish to play this game some more, just realize, you've already lost by refusing to interact the logical argument I just presented.

You presented the same argument, and it was debunked.

Debunked? How? You didn't interact with the logic at all. "one person, recognized as God, said something." and "this particular God is only one person." communicate the same idea? Or, are you adding an axiom "That God is the only one speaking. So, He can't be the same God as others. " to the grammar to jump from one statement to the other? How do you get from "only one speaking" to "can't be the same God"? Obviously, your are applying an axiom saying if one is speaking then all others must be a different God/god.

Each person in my godhead is the same God. 3 persons, 1 God.

You say that with your mouth, but in reality each is god and different and not the same. One worships the others, namely the Son which is less than divine in action.

Looking at the Son incarnate and applying that to the Trinity proper is a category error. Outside of this obvious category error, what about reality says "each is god and different and not the same"? FYI, this argument is saying I'm being inconsistent, it's not arguing that I believe in three gods.

God Bless