Muslim expectations: The Mahdi from Istanbul
How common is this notion, I wonder?
ISTANBUL HAS BEEN SPECIALLY CREATED FOR HAZRAT MAHDI (AS) (From Mr. Adnan Oktar’s live interview on Kocaeli TV and Tempo TV, October 23rd, 2009)
ADNAN OKTAR: Turkey will lead the whole world, insha’Allah. That will become even more definite with the coming of the Messiah. Hazrat Mahdi (as) will come from Turkey, and has already done so. Istanbul is the place. It is not me who says that, but our Prophet (saas). There are 8 or 9 hadith about his coming from Istanbul. They ask Rasulullah (saas) about it, and he says, “Hazrat Mahdi (as) will come from Medina.” They then ask, “Which Medina, O Rasulullah?” They have it made clear. “Constantinople,” he says. Istanbul. It was known as Constantinople at the time. And that put the matter to rest. It is over and done with in the sight of Allah. Istanbul was designed specially. Allah prepared it specially for Hazrat Mahdi (as). Qur’an refers to a place where two seas meet. He will be an adorned, beautiful and magnificent leader, and Istanbul has been so adorned since it will be the spiritual bastion. And Allah has bestowed it on the Turks. Can you ever imagine the Christian world saying, here is Istanbul, please take it. Is that possible? Almighty Allah gave Istanbul to the Turks because that is where Hazrat Mahdi (as) will appear. It was given to us in trust, insha’Allah. And it has been beautified from end to end, with mosques, roads and trees. He had that preparation made for the coming of Hazrat Mahdi (as). Istanbul began to be beautified as far back as the time of Sultan Fatih the Conqueror. Because Hazrat Mahdi (as) would be coming. That is the reason for all these mosques, roads and trees… All the roads were lined with trees. Even those trees are awaiting Hazrat Mahdi (as), insha’Allah. Look, there are trees that have been waiting for hundreds of years, since the time of Sultan Fatih, the Conqueror.
PRESENTER: The capture of Istanbul was a great event. Something that happened through the direct will of Allah. It looked impossible for the Turks to capture it under those conditions.
ADNAN OKTAR: A miracle happened. The Qur’an refers to “a good land.” Baldatun tayyibatun. Numerological calculation gives the date 1453 for the capture of Constantinople. The city is being taken now with the takbir and monotheism. Its spiritual walls are being reinforced with love and brotherhood. We are getting ready to assume the leadership of the world, insha’Allah. They can read the newspaper reports every day.
December 20th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Good, I hope their Mahdi gets here soon, because Jesus cannot return until all prophecies are fufilled and the tribulation period has purged Jerusalem and the world…
December 20th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Joel,
If the Mahdi brings “Peace” and rebuilds the temple, or takes part in its rebuilding could jews be decieved into thinking he is the Messiah?
One who unites Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Kinda like an interfaith Messianic figure. From following some of the things Asher Intrater is saying, and what Adnan Oktar blabs about this looks very possible. What do you think?
December 20th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
yes he’s the key to get the ball rolling. Too many candidates though
i just watched a video about El Hassan bin Talal of jordan as the AC with fairly good qualification to be one.
December 20th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I have recently been wondering if Istanbul might be the Babylon of Revelation 18. It was built on seven hills and it was the imperial seat of the “Christian” Roman Empire for far longer than Rome. The reason I place Christian in parenthesis is because I have been reading a history of the Byzantine empire and the rulers were cruel and bloodthirsty; far from Christian in their behavior. I have also been thinking lately how interesting it is that the Devil likes to take over formerly Jewish or Christian places of worship (witness the Temple Mount and Hagia Sophia) and has such genocidal hatred for the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the people of God’s promises. Maranatha, Come Lord Jesus!
December 20th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
scripture says ‘by peace many are destroyed’
it would seem to me that this ‘peace’ will be a means to gain many following the mahdi with one mission in mind. to destroy Israel and all other ‘infidels’.
how israel will be able to erect some kind of temple remains to be seen.
just some thoughts
December 20th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
But Mecca sits on seven mountains…..could this Turkey end time coalition try to take away control?
December 20th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
king of the north is turkey with his Stan allies and the king of the south must be Egypt or Saudi.
December 20th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Perhaps the many Messiahs will be many Muhdi’s.
December 20th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Check the Greek histories regarding the conquering of Constantinople. The invaders outnumbered the defenders by a ratio of 8:1, so given that an attempt was made centuries earlier to conquer Constantinople, and that attempt ties in with the Orthodox Christian feast of the Protection of the Theotokos on October 1, it is hardly surprising to see such revision by the Sons of Allah.
December 21st, 2009 at 12:07 am
Joel:
What does HAZRAT mean?
December 21st, 2009 at 8:24 am
Its a title of respect and honor. “Honorable” works. Sort of a “Mr.” Mahdi kind of thing.
December 21st, 2009 at 8:28 am
prophet/messenger
December 21st, 2009 at 11:22 am
Sometimes it happens that I wonder, after recalling all what I read here, how could Christians be believing in Islam’s prophecy about the Mahdi and Christ, however attributing the former to their Anti-Christ and the latter to their False Prophet, while disbelieving in the Message of Quran as a whole.
Dear people, look :
There is an essential contradiction between the refusal of the Quran and the expectation that some prophecy in it could become true.
Let’s go mathematic,
The Quran has come after the Gospel. That it is a non divine message inspite of what it delievers about the Christ and the Anti-Christ and their future coming can only lead us to two interpretations.
1. The Quran is a book devised by a human/deamon who took in consideration the prophecies of the previous Gospel.
2. The Quran was authored by a human/deamon without consideration/knowing of the Gospel.
The second can not be true except if the Quran is a true divine message. Of course you believe that Gospel is from God, hence, what is the chance that some new message that foretells the same names can be devised without knowledge of previous scriptures and without that it can be from a divine source ?
To the first case. The author of the Quran and Islam’ religion intended to invent a new thing contradicting the previous books.
The problem is if it advocates the coming of a third person called the Mahdi, that is different from what it accepts as the False Christ, and different from what it accepts as the True Christ, a person who has nothing to do with the son of Mary, nothing to do with the Anti-Christ,
then why should Christian believe in that new invented person ? Believing in him meaning you do accept the totale invention.
However, finally, For those who want to know about the Identity of The Anti-Christ in Islam, I am ready to give you informations.
Informations about the Anti-Christ from the Islamic perspective, not to confound with the Islamic AntiChrist, the expression used to imply that the identity of the AntiChrist is a Muslim while hiding behind the claim that the book is only about the similarities between the Islam’s righteful Man and the Christian’s Man of Sin. Totally forgetting about the Anti-Christ as claimed by Islam itself.
December 21st, 2009 at 11:25 am
..or as viewed by Islam.
December 21st, 2009 at 1:26 pm
The way I see it is why would G-d get it wrong the first time? The new testamant is just a fullfillment of the old. The Quran is an anti parallel of the old and new. I think I rather believe many witnesses than just one . Wouldn’t you want a jury of 12 to judge you instead of just one jury member if you knew you were innocent?
The toughest thing imo is whatever religion you were brought up in as a child it is most likely that which you tend to believe. I recall Larry King interviewing a Jew, Muslim, Protestant, Catholic, Budhist, Spirtualist New Ager and an Athiest. Larry asked each one if they were raised in their current religious beliefs and they all said yes. lol
December 21st, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I’d be interested to know what he thinks about moving to Ankara.
I still think he will reign in Babylon here my thoughts on it.
Based upon God’s interpretation contained in Daniel chapter 2 verses 37 thru 44). If we must name the first kingdom I believe it most likely would be Babylonian as it is said Nebuchad-nezzar reigned as its king.
The next two kingdoms have very little information about them, or do they? From what I can gather about the second kingdom from this interpretation I only find it was inferior to the first. One would think of Belshazzar as he is the second king of Babylon written of in the Book of Daniel. There is no evidence in this or other books of the bible that he or his kingdom was ever held in as high regard as his predecessor. He had what appeared to be a much less stately manner about him as we read of the party he threw for his pleasure using the temple instruments. We are also told Belshazzar had not a humble heart (Daniel 5:22-23). I think it was not the size of his kingdom’s border that mattered rather it was because of his heart and behavior he was considered inferior to his father king Nebuchad-nezzar.
Now we come to the third kingdom! This is interesting, as it appears to be identical to Nebuchad-nezzar’s in that it too will bear rule over all the earth. Using scripture as sole commentator and interpreter, there is, to the best of my knowledge, only one other man written of in the bible to ever be specifically granted such power and title. But it was not granted by men, as some do, giving it to Alexander the Great and his Grecian Empire. No-no, this authority was granted in writing by the God of Heaven Himself. After I read Ezra 1:1-2, I now believe the identity of the third kingdom to be that of Cyrus king of Persia whom God gave the authority to bear rule over all the kingdoms of the earth, this same Cyrus known also as king of Babylon (Ezra 5:13). Unlike king Alexander and Greece Cyrus is at least specifically mentioned in scrpiture by name and the authority that he held.
So far we have the names of three kings; one specifically granted rule over all the kingdoms of earth, another was given the same kingdom though he is considered inferior and then one specific Persian man who is granted rule over all the kingdoms of earth. All three of these men are known scripturally in their own time as a king of geographical Babylon.
Reading Daniel 11:2, I find four more, though unnamed, kings will rise up from Persia, if my math is correct, this will total seven kings written of so far in the Book of Daniel namely Nebuchad-nezzar, Belshazzar and Cyrus. Consider that if the first three kings were known as kings of Babylon wouldn’t it then be acceptable to consider the next four would hold the same title too.
To back this up when we read in Revelation 17 we see there is diffenetly a relationship seen between Babylon and seven kings.
And here (is) the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings five are fallen, and one is, (and) the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was , and is not, even he is the eight, and is of the seven, and go into perdition. Revelation 17:9 -11.
Do we have enough scriptural support and wisdom to finally understand where Anti-Christ will reign? I contend he, the eighth king in Revelation 17:10 “is of the seven”. Like the seven kings of the north before him, this king will not reign in Washington D.C., Ankara, Rome or Moscow. No he will I think actually be a king of physical Babylon.
In Daniel chapter 8. We read of a a battle happening at the time of the end between the Madi and Persian kings and that of the king of Javan . We see here the speed and ferocity with which Javan came against these middle eastern kings who stirred up all against his realm. Later four notable horns arise from the aftermath of this battle and out of one of them “when the time of the transgressors have come full” comes the little horn.
In Daniel chapter 11 I believe we are told it is the seventh king to arise from Persia who will stir up all against the realm of Javan. And it appears to be speaking of the same battle described in chapter 8. However in chapter 11 I think what we have in greater detail is the aftermath of that battle. The rise, conflicts, and fall of the fourth kingdom a period of time I would call ‘the time of the transgressors’ which eventually culminates in the vile king (a.k.a. little horn). When we read Revelation 17:10, which if I’m not mistaken, was given to John around 60 A.D. not only has the seventh king not come yet but king Alexander had long since been dead and buried.
Considering todays events in that region of the world is it possible we are now living at the appointed time of the end? Are we witnessing the realm of Javan in action in the middle east? Forces from the United States, Poland, Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey, France, Britain and other lands where the tribes of Javan are thought to have migrated (see Genesis 10 and the Table of Nations online) establishing kings and kingdoms in that region stand up for them. Later when their power is broken will we see the rise the 4th kingdom and eventually the little horn. Just a thought.
But now who is this Darius? There are no records he was ever a king of Babylon especially since we see in Daniel 6:28 that he reigned during the same period as Cyrus. We also know as a scriptural fact that it was Cyrus whom God gave the authority to bear rule over ALL the kingdoms of the earth in addition to holding the title of king of Babylon. Also reading the story of The History Destruction of Bel and the Dragon it seems in that account that it was actually Cyrus who cast Daniel into the lions den. There are also some who believe Darius and Cyrus being one and the same.
Which leads me to believe there were 3 named kings of Babylon Nebuchad-nezzar, Belshazzr, and Cyrus followed by four unamed kings yet to rise up in Persia. The other point I’d like to bring up was the three named kings all had something to with the Temple in Jerusalem. Nebuchad-nezzar the destruction of it, Belshazzar the misuse of its instruments, and Cyrus the rebuilding of it. I suspect we may find the other four had something to do with it as well, then again, maybe not.
December 21st, 2009 at 4:23 pm
@jon
Quote :
“The Quran is an anti parallel of the old and new.”
Also Quran claims that scriptures were modified by men in a bad way. If you want I can send you the versets.
Thus it is rather the anti parallel of those altered versions.
December 21st, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Interesting….
December 21st, 2009 at 5:00 pm
@hIOExpectedMKDisk
The problem is that Islam acknowledges that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures are true (the originals) and that they’ve been corrupted by man.
Then, Islam claims that the Quran is also true, but this time Man isn’t stronger than God (as Man must’ve been to overcome God’s protective power over the Scriptures). Man hasn’t and cannot corrupt the Quran, according to Islam/muslims.
So, if the muslim god was powerless to protect his word the first two times, how can anyone trust him now to protect the Quran from corruption? How can we trust that it wasn’t corrupt to begin with? How can we trust that he is indeed the same god as the God of Moses, if he isn’t consistent with the omnipotent God of the Jews and the Christians? I can’t trust a god who can’t even keep his word safe. Thus, the conclusion: I don’t trust Allah, because Allah is not Jehovah.
I can only trust in the God of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac. The God who keeps his covenants. The God who never lies. The God who delivers His Word and proves faithful to it every time. The one true God who is more powerful than man and can protect his Sacred Word.
I find it interesting that anyone can claim that the Scriptures have been corrupted when you have something like the Dead Sea Scrolls confirming that the Old Testament hasn’t been corrupted in at least in 1000+ years.
The New Testament also, has been quoted thousands of times by the Church Fathers and can be completely recomposed from sermons, quotations, and extrabiblical writings. All except for a few verses.
There is just way too much evidence to prove that the Bible that we have today is indeed the way it was originally written.
Man nor the devil have the power to overcome God and his Word. God has been true to his Word.
December 21st, 2009 at 5:18 pm From this Christian’s perspective, it’s plain to me that Islam can’t be the “final revelation” because it regularly contradicts the previous revelations. As a result, it’s either all the product of men, or the construction of another spiritual being delivered through men. Either way the only information about the future the man or spirit in question knows is its own knowledge and what’s been revealed, since they don’t have access to the omniscience of God.
Knowing this and that Satan is a frequent dealer in half-truths, it makes perfect sense that enough of the Islamic prophecies must be true to get gullible humans to believe in Islam’s truth, but it can’t predict the future by the standard of a prophet-100% accuracy-because the prophecy cannot reflect God’s perfect knowledge.
December 21st, 2009 at 5:29 pm
hIOExpectedMKDisk,
I keep hearing Muslims say the scriptures have been changed by Israel and the church. But the Dead Sea Scrolls, found by a Bedouin Arab no less, completely destroy that argument. The scrolls found in Qumran were at least 2,000 years old, vastly pre-dating Islam, and they were virtually identical to the corresponding texts we have today. Instead of changing them, it seems they preserved them with remarkable diligence.
December 21st, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Do not be given over to doubtful disputation gang. The truth is written in bible which tells of Yahushua as the Son of God. The Noble Quran at best just describes a fiercely anti-christ doctrine. Do not look upon it as your guide to Yaweh’s prophecy.
December 21st, 2009 at 5:59 pm
If you compare the dead sea scrolls to the King James version you find only
minor differences,mostly in the grammar.
There is no contradiction.Scripture only can be supported by scripture.
Jesus said:Heaven and earth shall pass away,but my words shall not pass away.(Matthew 24:35)
Scripture is as eternal as the Lord Himself.He is not a prophet,He is the I AM.The One True God manifest in the flesh.
He was in the world, and the world was made by him,and the world knew
him not.
He came unto his own,and his own received him not.
But as many as received him,to them gave he power to become the sons
of God,even to them that believe on his name.(John 1:10-12)
His Name Is JESUS.
They shall call his name Emmanuel,God with us.(Matthew 1:23)
Thou shalt call his name JESUS:for he shall save his people from their sins.(Matthew 1:21)
December 21st, 2009 at 6:33 pm
From a Christian standpoint, the Quran and the Hadith are not authoritative. End time prophetic understanding, to a Christian, must match biblical prophecy above any other prophecy. But if other prophecy, in this case Islamic prophecy, were to parallel biblical prophecy in certain ways, then there is no harm in comparing the two for insight – especially when their parallels are opposite (the good guy for one is the bad guy for the other) and the following for both is huge (with the potential for a great conflict in the future). As long as we keep in mind that we won’t know exactly how it unfolds until it happens, and as long as we don’t demonize people as a result, such research and comparison shouldn’t be a problem.
December 21st, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Another question remains for me. What about the seventy week period. I begining to think there is no so called gap in time between the third and fourth kingdoms anymore. Me thinks it’s a straight shot through no parking, no meandering, no loitering, no time is wasted. But where to begin with this. I know when Daniel was told of this portion of prophecy he was reading Jerimiah. Jerimiah seems to hammer away at a 70 year period of time. Does the seventy weeks in Daniel actually means seventy years? Does the weeks spoken of mean the feast of weeks which would equate to seventy years? Or is it really a week of years which would equate to 490 years? Help me out gents and ladies.
If after the battle between the realm of Javan and the kings of Madi and Persia will there be 490 years or 70 years? Inquiring minds want to know.
Oh one more thing Im sure some have been wondering where I got Javan from and what happened to Darius?
When you read the text in Hebrew you will find the word Yaw-vawn (Javan) the word the translators used for Javan was Grecian. However Javan is identified as those tribes occupying the Isles of the Gentiles in Genesis 10. We are speaking of family lines stemming from Noah and his sons of which there is no Greek the son of Japeth to found anywhere in the bible. It is one big family affair complete with relatives arguing over land and inheritence.
It mind boggling when I think sometimes we are all in some form or fashion blood relatives. Egads.
December 21st, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Sorry about the Darius question popping up again. It was in my original post further up. sorry
December 21st, 2009 at 7:33 pm
@hIOExpectedMKDisk
Send away but Quran and Bible have flaws in them. I don’t expect people to be 100%. I’ve looked at them both a little bit and found those that I did look at were true errors.
email1223@gmail.com
December 21st, 2009 at 7:35 pm
hIOExpectedMKDisk says, “Also Quran claims that scriptures were modified by men in a bad way.”
Here is clear and indisputable archaeological evidence exposing the fact that the Qur’an was modified by men:
Part 1:
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/99jan/koran.htm
Part 2:
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/99jan/koran2.htm
Part 3:
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/99jan/koran3.htm
Quotes “Some of the parchment pages in the Yemeni hoard seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., or Islam’s first two centuries — they were fragments, in other words, of perhaps the oldest Korans in existence. What’s more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God.”
Quote: “Their variant readings and verse orders are all very significant. Everybody agrees on that. These manuscripts say that the early history of the Koranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less stable, and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed.”
Quote: “… the Koran evolved only gradually in the seventh and eighth centuries, during a long period of oral transmission when Jewish and Christian sects were arguing volubly with one another well to the north of Mecca and Medina, in what are now parts of Syria, Jordan, Israel, and Iraq. The reason that no Islamic source material from the first century or so of Islam has survived, Wansbrough concluded, is that it never existed.”
Quote: “Indeed, for more than a century there have been public figures in the Islamic world who have attempted the revisionist study of the Koran and Islamic history — the exiled Egyptian professor Nasr Abu Zaid is not unique. Perhaps Abu Zaid’s most famous predecessor was the prominent Egyptian government minister, university professor, and writer Taha Hussein. A determined modernist, Hussein in the early 1920s devoted himself to the study of pre-Islamic Arabian poetry and ended up concluding that much of that body of work had been fabricated well after the establishment of Islam in order to lend outside support to Koranic mythology. A more recent example is the Iranian journalist and diplomat Ali Dashti, who in his Twenty Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammed (1985) repeatedly took his fellow Muslims to task for not questioning the traditional accounts of Muhammad’s life, much of which he called “myth-making and miracle-mongering.”
Quote: “Another scholar with a wide readership who is committed to re-examining the Koran is Mohammed Arkoun, the Algerian professor at the University of Paris. Arkoun argued in Lectures du Coran (1982), for example, that “it is time [for Islam] to assume, along with all of the great cultural traditions, the modern risks of scientific knowledge,” and suggested that “the problem of the divine authenticity of the Koran can serve to reactivate Islamic thought and engage it in the major debates of our age.” Arkoun regrets the fact that most Muslims are unaware that a different conception of the Koran exists within their own historical tradition. What a re-examination of Islamic history offers Muslims, Arkoun and others argue, is an opportunity to challenge the Muslim orthodoxy from within, rather than having to rely on “hostile” outside sources. Arkoun, Abu Zaid, and others hope that this challenge might ultimately lead to nothing less than an Islamic renaissance.”
http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/Nabodinus.html
Quote: “Nabonidus ruled Babylon for 17 years until its fall in 539 BC. Although he was a neo-revisionist he still adhered to the time-honoured sacred rites of venerating celestial bodies as gods. Archaeologists have discovered a stone-carved relief depicting Nabonidus praying to the sun, Venus, and the moon-god, Allah.
The moon-god is depicted in artefacts as a crescent moon and later cultures included the addition of a star inside the crescent. Everywhere in the ancient world, archaeologists discover symbols of the crescent moon on steles, clay tablets, pottery items, amulets, seal impressions and cylinder seals themselves, official measuring weights, wall paintings, and jewellery. In ancient Babylon, the stele of Ur-Nammu has the moon-god crescent at the top of the list of gods as it was the most important.
Ur (ancient Babylon) has several examples of moon-god worship. More portable objects have been removed from their sites and are held by the British Museum in the Babylonian Room. Many small statues have been excavated and identified by inscriptions found on them as ‘daughters’ of the moon-god. Archaeologists working in modern Iraq have discovered and recorded thousands of inscriptions on walls and rocks indicating that Allah, the moon-god was regarded as the ruler of the gods at the time of Nabonidus’ reign. Archaeological evidence is overwhelming that the Allah of Islam is directly descended from the ancient moon-god deity represented in rock and picture by a crescent moon.”
December 21st, 2009 at 7:36 pm
@hIOExpectedMKDisk
Like I have said in prior posts I don’t know if those errors are due to old originals that are missing some words due to being worn and torn or just plain wrong. That is something I would like to know.
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:09 am
It shoud be noted that in the ARRIVALS SHIA ISLAM is portrayed as
A TOOL OF DAJJALL……
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:47 am
Give me two days.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 am
Jim L. Says:
December 21st, 2009 at 5:59 pm
His Name Is JESUS.
They shall call his name Emmanuel,God with us.(Matthew 1:23)
Thou shalt call his name JESUS:for he shall save his people from their sins.(Matthew 1:21)
————–
Jim L
Please don’t stop, tell all and help all hungry for the Truth. How is the Blood applied, Jim? Where is “the doorpost” in our lives? What is the ONLY saving Name, and why is the ONLY saving Name? What is the Father’s Name, Jim? What is the Holy Spirit’s Name? Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus? What is the scripture for that, Jim?
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:59 am
@Paolo
Many moslems do not believe in Mahdi. Many of those who believe in him have different view of him than what is known by Shias (a term used to qualify those who followed the Twelve Imams, grand sons of the Prophet (P&PBUH))
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
From the middle of June to the middle of July, 1990, my Mom and the elder
of my two sisters were backpacking through Greece and Turkey. The first
part was in Greece, and on the first of July, they were on Samos Island. When the restaurant owner found out they were Canadians, he broke open
a bottle of good Madeira wine, and the three toasted Canada.
When my Mom and elder sister were in Turkey, they arrived during the feast of Ishmael almost being sacrificed on what would be the Temple Mount. (This is a case of revision, because as it is recorded in Genesis, it
was Isaac that was almost sacrificed by Abraham).
I mention this for the sake of context.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
hi hioexpectedmkdisk,
by the time a strong leader appear in the islamic world and claim to be mahdi and doing all sort of things the bible describe about the AC i hope you recognize him for who he is. A lot of christian blood will be persecuted when this coming muslim savior appear.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:16 pm
blood will be spilled what i mean to say and persecution is assured when he comes
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
hIOExpectedMKDisk, in response to your first post on this thread:
If the Muslim believes that someone is promised to come in a time of great turmoil to bring peace to the world and spread Islam everywhere, establishing his rule and determining the laws, dates, and holidays to match how things should be under Islam, bringing prosperity to those who follow his rule and fighting against those who oppose him in order to end oppression and tyranny, ruling under the authority of the one who sent him (Allah)…
And if the Christian believes that someone is promised to come in a time of great turmoil with the appearance of bringing peace to the world, who will determine to spread his beliefs and rule as far as he can, who will try to change the set times and laws, who will bring prosperity to those who follow him and destruction to those who oppose him – in particular the saints of the Most High (God’s people, Christians and Jews), ruling under the authority of the one who sent him (the Dragon, Satan)…
Then can you see how a Christian can see the Mahdi as the Antichrist, considering their actions reflect each other?
If the Muslim believes that ‘Isa will return to support the Mahdi, that he is a Muslim, that he will work to convince everyone – especially Jews and Christians – to follow the Mahdi and the one who sent him (Allah), that he will enforce this with the threat of death (removing the jizyah seems to imply that the only remaining options are submit or die, which the idea of breaking the cross and killing the swine seems to support as well)…
And if the Christian believes that someone will come to support the Antichrist and work to force everyone to follow the Antichrist and the one who sent him (the Dragon, Satan), even to the point of death – with Jews and Christians as the main enemy, who will help bring prosperity to those who follow the Antichrist (the Mark of the Beast) and who will perform miraculous signs to convince (deceive) people…
Then can you see how a Christian can see the Muslim ‘Isa as the False Prophet, considering their actions reflect each other?
It’s not because the Quran and Hadith predict the Mahdi that we believe he may appear as well. It’s because the Bible prophesies about the Antichrist that we believe such a man will come onto the scene one day – and the actions of that man look very similar to what many Muslims are looking for in the Mahdi, although understanding the intent of that man may differ (Christians believe he will deceive and destroy, while Muslims believe he will be sincere in bringing peace). The fact that the Muslim ‘Isa will do similar things as the False Prophet in Christian eschatology only adds to the comparison.
When the Antichrist (from Christian eschatology) makes his appearance, it is possible that, because of his actions, many Muslims will think he is the Mahdi, especially if he comes from the Middle East and has a Muslim background. He will not be obviously evil. He will be very pleasing (unlike the Dajjal of Muslim eschatology, who sounds hideous), and the world will be drawn to him. Miraculous signs with accompany him to help convince people to follow him. He will bring peace – temporary peace, but it will seem permanent at the time. The conditional status of the peace will be revealed when some people refuse to follow him, but he will no doubt make his actions look just and right so the world will support him against the rebels. He will be a master deceiver, directed by the Master Deceiver himself.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Correction:
“the Dead Sea Scrolls confirming that the Old Testament hasn’t been corrupted in at least in 1000+ years.”
I meant, 2000+ years.
It’s hard to argue with hard evidence that the Old Testament is indeed intact. Historians agree, secular and religious. The Old Testament has been preserved throughout the ages.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Guys,
Another great proof of the accuracy of Hebrew scriptures is the Septuagint–the full translation of the OT completed over 100 years prior to Christ–an independent confirmation of not just the Tanakh as a whole, but in particular, the 300 or so messianic prophecies fulfilled by Christ.
Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding the Septuagint:
“The Septuagint (pronounced /ˈsɛptʊ.ədʒɪnt/), or simply “LXX”, referred to in critical works by the abbreviation , is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC in Alexandria. It was begun by the third century BC and completed before 132 years Before Christ.
It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean Basin from the time of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC).
The Septuagint was held in great respect in ancient times; Philo and Josephus (associated with Hellenistic Judaism) ascribed divine inspiration to its authors…”
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
@David, let me see if I can give you a thumbnail sketch of this somewhat complicated matter of the 70 weeks.
They are most likely weeks of years. The Hebrew is ambiguous in that it does not specify weeks of days or years. It simply says “seventy sevens.” Of course, the Jews have a “seven” of years which is very important, and the further cycle of seven sevens leading up to the Jubilee in the 50th year.
What’s important in terms of the Daniel-Jeremiah connection is the reason the captivity was 70 years. The people were exiled 70 years so that the land could enjoy her sabbaths. You can read about this principle in Leviticus 26:33 and verses following. The principle is that the land is to lie fallow every 7 years, thus enjoying a sabbath as people do. If the land does not get its sabbaths God will ensure that the land does get them - by removing the inhabitants out of the land!
Now, 2 Chron. 36:21 ties the length of the captivity into this principle very directly: “To fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: [for] as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years.” [KJV]
So, we see that there was a time period of 490 years leading up to Jeremiah’s day during which the land did not get its sabbaths. Accordingly, the expulsion would endure until the land got its sabbaths, 490/7 years, which is of course 70 years. To sum it up, this is why the Babylonian Captivity was 70 years.
Now, it would seem in Daniel that God graciously allowed a further period of 490 years for the Jews to accomplish certain things and/or for God to accomplish certain things through them. Its starting point is variously dated but most people would start counting it from the decree to Nehemiah in 445 B.C., the reason being that the building project under Nehemiah includes the element of the wall mentioned by the angel.
After 69 of those weeks (483 years) transpire, Messiah is cut off. Most premillenialists would say that that ended the sequence and one week or seven-year period remains. In Daniel 9 it speaks of someone, a “he” who would confirm a covenant with many for one week. The “he” is thought to refer to Antichrist, as the antecedent is the “prince” whose people destroy the sanctuary. (Also, the covenant made by the Lord Jesus Christ is not in any way limited to 7 years’ length!)
Certainly John in the Revelation is clear that a 7-year timeframe remains, being divided into equal halves of 3.5 years, sometimes referred to as 42 months, or 1,260 days. This corresponds with Daniel’s odd expression, “time, times (dual plural in Hebrew meaning 2 times) and half a time,” equalling 3.5 once again. John uses that expression once also.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Random thoughts on the Mahdi and Quran/Haddith predictions about the End Times:
The infinite/eternal God, who exists outside of Space-Time, knows the beginning from the end, and so has inspired writers and prophets to record “Future History” in the pages of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.
The Devil and his fellow fallens, stuck here in Space-Time along with the rest of us (albeit in the “heavenlies”) are playing catch-up. (BTW, this Heavenly Spiritual World we will soon access fully too when we receive our 1 Corinthians 15 ressurrection bodies. We’ll live in the New Jerusalem, suspended over Israel like some oversized Ford LTD in a compact car space.)
So the Devil, now in red alert, catch-up mode, says “Hey, another opportunity to smack God”. How ’bout I “inspire” some new “scriptures”? The Devil, remember, is not originally creative, but is a master counterfeiter. He inspired these predictions of a Mahdi and the coming Isa to fit hand-in-glove with his plans for his end of the age move to take out God’s people.
Or that’s my take, anyway!
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:25 pm
What my concern is I see no so called ‘gap’ between the third and fourth kingdoms now. I do know at the moment two possibilities that I have not fully investigated yet. The first I just noted that the prophecy concerning the seventy weeks occured while Daniel was reading Jeremiah is there a reason why? A portion of Jeremiah does seem to point to a ‘final’ period of time.
I am thinking now too, these Persian kings had some direct influence on Jerusalem and or the Temple. I also am pondering whether the Sanctuary actually describes the inner Temple or if describes Jerusalem herself. Especially when one considers the land promised to Abraham has already been swallowed up by the Gentiles. Nothing left but the City of Peace right now.
If we believe we are in the period of time known as the time of the transgressors. could we count backwards (well within the 490 year period) a certain number of years and see some significant history involving a persian king and Jerusalem? And where we stand now? Could it involve the Crusades? The rebuilding of the walls by some Islamic king? Or is today the realm of Javan in action. Or have we yet to find ourselves in the period known as the time of the transgressors and when we do then have another 490 yeras to go?
Taking the Greek king Alexander out sure opens up a new can of thought.
Its not complicated provided we throw out those blasted commentaries, quran and stop disputing over those books and other mindless drivel. And start reading Gods word and finding out the truth together. This squabbling I see here would only alienate a gentile or jew even further still and cause him to think ill of those who supposedly preach Christ’s doctrine.
Sounds like a bunch but I hope to have it sorted out one day, God willing.
Ya’all have fun
Peace
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Kurt J. - those are my thoughts about the subject as well.
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Mishael - “Independence Day” alien ships suspended over cities around the world as a foreshadowing of the New Jerusalem hovering over the Old…except not so deathy.
You can redeem about anything if you try hard enough!
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Kurt - LOL! Your car comparison made me laugh, too.
I can’t wait for that time to see how it actually looks and works and to actually be with Jesus! It’s so interesting and exciting.
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Also, remember that the devil has had the opportunity to listen to some of the greatest expositors of Biblical prophecy down through history. Once God’s plans were revealed in Scripture and to and through His Church, Satan began crafting his own response. And then came Muhammad, the ideal vessel… The rest is history.
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Wow,Pam music to my ears!
Your scripture is from the Amplified Bible,Colossians2:9-10
For in Him(Jesus)the whole fullness of Deity(the Godhead)continues to dwell
in bodily form[giving complete expression of the divine nature].
And you are in Him,made full and having come to fullness of life[in Christ you too are filled with the Godhead-Father,Son and Holy Spirit-and reach
full spiritual stature].And He is the Head of all rule and authority[of every angelic principality and power].
Father,Son and Holy Spirit are not names.They are offices or manifestations
of the One True God.
Acts 4:12 says-Neither is there salvation in any other:for there is none other name under heaven given among men,whereby we must be saved.
The Lord Jesus Christ,is the name which is above every name.
It is at the name of Jesus that every knee should bow.
What is the definition of Jesus name?Jehovah has become my salvation.
In Jesus Christ the invisible God has been manifest in the flesh.
Timothy 3:16-And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:God was manifest in the flesh,justified in the Spirit,seen of angels,preached unto the Gentiles,believed on in the world,received up into glory.
Keep in mind that God is a Spirit(John 4:24)God could only have been manifest in the flesh in the form of Jesus Christ.In Jesus Christ God was seen of angels(John 1:18 says:No man hath seen God at any time)before
the revelation of Jesus Christ.Jesus was preached to the Gentiles,He was believed on in the world and received up into glory at His ascension.
I John 3:16-Hereby perceive we the love of God,because he laid down his life for us.Let me stop right there and ask you,when did God die on the cross for your sins?
The blood of course is applied to our lives in the waters of baptism in Jesus name.
When you look at the door post of the pass over you see a perfect symbol of the cross.
There is a song we sing in church”It’s All In Him”The fullness of the Godhead is all in Him!
When asked,Which is the first commandment of all?Jesus answered him(in Mark 12:29-31) Hear,O Israel;The Lord our God is one Lord:
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,and with all thy soul,and with all thy mind,and with all thy strength:this is the first commandment.
And the second is like,namely this,Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.There is none other commandment greater than these.
There is only One God,and His Name is The Lord Jesus Christ.God bless
you and yours at this Christmas time.
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Joel,
Do you think that Adnan Oktar has a big enough following that he could be proclaimed the Mahdi?
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:49 pm
I know from watching your interveiw with him that somewhere in the back of his mind he thinks that he could be the Mahdi.
Is he at all revered and or taken seriously in the turkish goverment?
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Kurt,
Me thinks you have been watching to many special affects movies and combining them with biblical prophecy, you imaginitve child! LOL
December 22nd, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Adam says “I know from watching your interveiw with him that somewhere in the back of his mind he thinks that he could be the Mahdi…”
I totally agree - he was saying something to the effect of “I look like him, I have the same facial structure, facial hair, body shape…”
It would be kind of funny, if this subject wasn’t so consequential.
December 22nd, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Kurt,
I just wanted to comment on the Septuagint. The LXX (translated in Greek) is just one of the translations between the 3rd-1st Centuries B.C; the other is Masoretic text (fully Hebrew). The LXX had been used by the Hellenistic Jews (Greek speaking), and regarded the LXX as sacred scripture. The confusing thing about the LXX is that it contains the apocrypha (deuterocanonical for Catholics) which Protestants don’t consider divinely inspired by God. Martin Luther determined this when his Bible was published during the 1500s, but the Catholics present at the Treaty of Trent decided to consider the apocrypha sacred scripture. Because the Jews wanted to rid the Jewish faith of all “gentile” influences the LXX with the apocrypha, being in Greek not Hebrew, were excluded from Jewish doctrines. This is why Protestants do not follow the LXX. Catholics say that early Christians, and Jews during that era, used the LXX, therefore it must be inspired by God. (If we consider the Protestant commentary on the apocrypha, wouldn’t that mean there was apostasy for nearly 1500 years until Martin Luther took them out?) Who has the right translation; Catholics or the Protestants?!?!
(By the way, I am a Protestant).
December 22nd, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Adnan Oktar is trying to potray his-self as Mahdi. But According to islamic traditions Mahdi will have a lineage from Mohammad and He will have same name as Mohammad. And I dont think Adnan has lineage from Mohammad. So, he cannot be Mahdi.
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Mishael got us started a few posts above, but for the sake of hIOExpectedMKDisk and others like him (hopefully!) who are reading this, we should “play” What’s the Counterfeit, What’s the Truth?
Here’s a couple; feel free to add to the list:
Counterfeit: In order to be fully satisfied in heaven we will need to have 70 virgins and all the carnal delights denied us here in this world.
Truth: We won’t need to have physical marital relations then–we will have new, eternal bodies and will be “married” to Yeshua.
Counterfeit: Isa (Yeshua) will serve the Mahdi when he comes out into the open.
Truth: At the name of Yeshua, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess, of those in Heaven, on earth and under the earth, that He is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Mohammad,
Why do you think that Adnan is trying to protray himself as the Mahdi?
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Justin,
On the Septuagint, that’s very interesting, thanks. My main point was there was a translation centuries before Christ of the Tanakh, which:
1. Confirms the accuracy of the OT very early on
2. Locks in the prophecies about Christ, that are essentially impossible for one man to fulfill by accident.
Regarding the apocrypha, I just read somewhere the books were included in the King James Bible until the 1850s. I have not read them yet, except for reading the spare quote here and there. I really should. Maybe I’ll start tonight!!
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Just read “Tobit”, first of Deuterocanonical books. Very nice story about God’s faithfulness to Tobit and his son Tobias, who finds a godly wife. Near the end there’s a prophetic flourish; here’s an excerpt:
“Go to Media, my son, for I fully believe what Jonah the prophet said about Nineveh, that it will be overthrown. But in Media there will be peace for a time. Our brethren will be scattered over the earth from the good land, and Jerusalem will be desolate. The house of God in it will be burned down and will be in ruins for a time.
But God will again have mercy on them, and bring them back into their land; and they will rebuild the house of God, though it will not be like the former one until the times of the age are completed. After this they will return from the places of their captivity, and will rebuild Jerusalem in splendor. And the house of God will be rebuilt there with a glorious building for all generations for ever, just as the prophets said of it.
Then all the Gentiles will turn to fear the Lord God in truth, and will bury their idols.
All the Gentiles will praise the Lord, and his people will give thanks to God, and the Lord will exalt his people. And all who love the Lord God in truth and righteousness will rejoice, showing mercy to our brethren.”
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:12 am
Kurt,
Thank you for your help on researching the apocrypha. The prophesy that you found is really interesting as it has been playing out now.
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:44 am
Hi Kurt,
For another awsome prophecy in a deuterocanonical book, do not miss the book of Wisdom (or the Wisdom of Solomon) chapter 2. Especially Wis 2:10-19.
regards
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:48 am
Jim L — May the LORD JESUS CHRIST continue to shine His Face on you and yours! The NAME and the BLOOD will be what it all comes down to. Jim, what do you think about Dr. Daniel Briggs’ view of Islam and a coming caliphate? Quite different in many respects from Irvin Baxter, but seems could meld their two views together (Mahdi AC/Pope false prophet). I find both of those men’s ideas on prophecy interesting.
http://www.apostolicpentecostalchurches.org/literature.html
Pam
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:58 am
Adam– Check out Jim L’s posts.
HE knows EXACTLY how the blood is to be applied to our doorposts. Mine’s covered, ALL GLORY to HIM ALONE, the KING of kings who DIED for me, not some BAD DADDY god who sent his baby boy god to do it for him!
Better watch those fallen angels; they have ions (? who knows ?) of experience tricking humans to disregard Scripture rightly divided. Those fallen angels/demons (including the devil himself) *believe*, they have *prayers answered* and THEY ARE NOT SAVED. They TREMBLE at the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the FACT that there is ONE GOD. They RAVAGE those who are not baptized in the NAME of the Lord Jesus Christ and fail to see in Scripture that their sins are NOT remitted and remain OVERLY CONFIDENT without being filled with HIS SPIRIT; i.e., the seven sons of Sceva. My question was is YOUR doorpost covered, Adam? You told me to stay in the New Testament, I believe. . .
The Mighty God is Jesus! The Prince of Peace is He!
The everlasting FATHER, throughout eternity,
He’s WONDERFUL in wisdom, by whom all things were made–
The FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD *in* JESUS IS DISPLAYED!
It’s ALL IN HIM, it’s ALL IN HIM! The FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD is ALL IN HIM. It’s ALL IN HIM, it’s ALL IN HIM! The MIGHTY GOD is JESUS (not Isa and not a second person on a committee of three), and it’s ALL IN HIM!
December 23rd, 2009 at 10:33 am
Wow, what an interesting brew we have going here….
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:09 am
Uumm… ok Pam… I see exactly what your beliefs are, you win… blood on the door post,LOL.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:33 am
I have to admit that I’m a bit lost. But that’s okay, I’m sure I’ll figure it out.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Joel,
as u were interviewing him, he said he cannot deny that he cannot be mahdi, he has physical features like him. thats why i think he is trying to potray himself as Mahdi.
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
And he is trying to potray himself as a peace maker. I am not doubting his intentions but as it is said in islamic world that Mahdi will bring peace to the world and muslims will unite under his leadership (Adnan oktar has proposed turkish led islamic union).
December 23rd, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Praise the Lord Pam,
I do have a copy of Bro. Baxter’s end time home Bible study,my personal
views are different.I will look at bro.Brigg’s material also.
He is God in the Father,He is God in the Son,He is God in the Holy Ghost.
Praise God all three are One.Thanks.Jim
December 23rd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Mishael
This blood on the doorframes of the house comes from Exodus 12: 7 in the verse below the first Pass Over. It is a future picture referance to what happened at the Pass Over when Christ laid down his life on the cross for you and me and all mankind.
The action below in applying the blood of the lamb to the doorframes is a referance to what Christ The Lamb of God would one day do -putting the blood on the sides and on the tops of the doorframes makes a Cross - a picture of what the Lamb of God would one day do to defeat sin. His sacrifice for all who will accept him, it is Christs sacrfice that saves us. The Holy and Righteous and innocent Blood that was shed once - for all and forever.
Ex 12:7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs
All of the Hebrew First Born that were in Egypt both men and animals were saved from the “The Plague on the Firstborn” all those that failed which were the Egyptians First Born died in this Plague including Pharaohs first born son.
This final plague was the final straw for Pharaoh and he released the Jewish people only to later change his mind once again and follow them into the sea and be destroyed.
It will be likewise for all of the Islamic Armies now surrounding Israel in these last days - they will sign a seven year Peace Treaty with Israel only to change their mind at the 3 1/2 year point and again be totally destroyed by God himself for the final time. Ezekiel says God will put a hook in their jaw and pull the Muslim Islamic armies into the final war against his people Israel. Zechiariah 12 beginning at verse 1 specifically tells us when it will happen and that is when all of the nations will surround and try to divide up Jerusalem,
Zec 12:2 “I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that sends all the surrounding peoples reeling. Judah will be besieged as well as Jerusalem. Zec 12:3 On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves.
The surrounding nations will be defeated and totally and completly destroyed as they were in Egypt and on a smaller scale in 1948, 1967, 1973
December 23rd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Willard - thanks for the clarification. I already knew about the blood and the doorposts and all that, but I hadn’t compared the Egyptians of that time, letting them go then essentially taking it back, to the Muslim nations in the future. That is an interesting thought!
I was confused a bit about the point Pam is trying to make, but I’m sure it will be made more clear in time.
December 23rd, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Mohammad,
I understand. I was just curious if your perception was formed by anything other than my interview. I have heard his say elsehwere that he is not the Mahdi. Regardless, I do consider him my friend, although we do not agree on many things.
Bless you, Joel
December 23rd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Joel, do you think the Mahdi will act in a similar way to Adnan regarding his views and efforts to bring peace to the region and bring all under Islam? He seems like a very nice guy, a decent fellow, and I hope he will belong to the Truth before the end. I hate to even wonder if he could end up being the Mahdi considering the implications of such a thing.
Do you think that’s how it will be when the Antichrist appears? I know it will be so deceptive and so pleasing that even the elect could be deceived, if it were possible. Could it be like this, to this extent? I imagine it would have to be in order to deceive as many as possible. It just seems so horrible that someone with the amiability and generosity that Adnan has could possibly do any of the things the Antichrist is said to do. But I guess that’s the way Satan works - disguising himself as an angel of light.
December 23rd, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Pam,
I was hoping for perhaps an article.Where exactly am I supposed to be
looking?Interesting site though.
I also am not familiar with bro.Baxter’s view on this subject.My bible study
material of his is out dated.When I ordered it he was all about the EU,has his
position changed?
Willard,
Obey Acts 2:38,Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you,and to your children,and to all that are afar off(that is us,you and me),even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
That is what it is all about!
In fulfilling Acts 2:38 in your own life you also fulfill John 3:5,which says,
Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.
Everybody wants to go to heaven.
Many also want to bypass what Jesus said to Nicodemus and move on to
John 3:16 and accept Jesus.
We are the ones who deserve to be on that cross, not Jesus.He is the only one to walk the face of this earth that was without sin.That is how we know He Is God.
Jesus said in John 3:7,Marvel not that I said unto thee,Ye must be born again.
That is the command of God Almighty.
Why did Jesus teach in parables?
Jesus said in Mark 4:12,He taught in parables because if the people really
saw and understood at anytime,that they should be converted,and their sins should be forgiven them.
Conversion is repentance,changing from the way you have always seen and done things in the past.Turning from the old life to new life(born again).Your sins are forgiven at conversion,and remitted in the waters of baptism,never to be brought to the memory of God again,He will never hold your past against you.Then you still have the promise of the Spirit to look forward to.These things prepare you for the infilling of the Holy Ghost.
Like Acts 2:39 says,The promise is unto you.What better time of year,the celebration of Jesus birth,could there possibly be to receive that precious gift.That is the reason for the season,He came that we might have life and have it more abundantly!New life.That is why His blood was shed on Calvary’s tree.
We can have so much more of God,if we would only believe.
I will get off my soap box,may God richly bless you all.Jim
December 23rd, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Pam and Jim - I’m sorry, it seems like you’re preaching to the choir (as the saying goes). Are you trying to correct an incorrect understanding? What is it that you are offering that is different from what we already have? This is where my confusion lies, and maybe I’m just tired and missing something.
Thanks for your help.
December 23rd, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Mishael, As you know, the Bible says that Antichrist will initially be a man of peace and deception who will gain a measure of trust among the decieved. You get the idea…
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Jim L.
Not sure what you are trying to tell me as it seems to have nothing to do with my comments to Mishael - I received and accepted Christ many, many years ago??
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Pam,
Can you clarify if you believe in the Trinity–i.e., God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, existing at the same time, not in a progressive line, from Father, to Son to Holy Spirit? Threes whos, one what?
I think that’s where people are getting confused–if you can just speak plainly on that, thanks.
December 24th, 2009 at 1:52 am
Muslims (and Oneness adherents) will, on one hand, say that they have difficulty with the concept of One God who is Triune in nature (often calling it illogical or nonsensical), yet on the other hand they would still acknowledge that one can indeed be comprised of three. Take, for instance, the universe. Modern science now understands that this one universe is expressed as time, space and matter. Each is distinct, yet there is three in one. In fact, the very first verse of the Bible itself sums up the nature of the universe:
Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
* “In the beginning …” — TIME
* “… God created the heavens …” — SPACE
* “… and the earth.” — MATTER
In each of these three, there is also three in one: Time is comprised as past, present, and future. Space is comprised of height, width and depth. Matter is comprised of solid, liquid and gas. This is essentially a “trinity of trinities”. If the Trinity is “illogical” or “nonsensical”, then why isn’t the universe illogical? Or time? Or space? Or matter for that, uh, matter? Does God reveal hints to us in His creation regarding His triune nature? I say yes, and the uni-verse (one spoken sentence) is that fingerprint.
Though Islam teaches otherwise, Trinitarianism is strictly monotheistic. It may be difficult for our finite minds to comprehend an infinite God and His triune nature as revealed in Scripture, and it is difficult to come up with a perfect analogy that could help everyone understand, but let’s consider this one: “FIRE”. Think of a lit candle. We have three things that make up the fire of a lit candle: light, heat, and a flame. Although these three are distinct from one another, it is just ONE fire. Yet, the light is fire. The heat is fire. The flame is fire. Illogical? Not at all, in fact it is beautifully natural on one hand, Divine on the other.
This is similar to the nature of God as revealed to us in the Bible — three distinct personages called the Father, the Son (Word) and Holy Spirit — yet Scripture calls the Father “God”, Scripture calls the Son “God”, and Scripture calls the Holy Spirit “God”.
December 24th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Jim L–
I hope this link works better, sorry about that. At the top of this linked page there is a FREE download of Volume 7 that I believe covers Dr. Briggs’ ideas concerning a coming caliphate that–if i remember correctly (and I have not read this for quite some time, so forgive me if my memory has failed me!) he thinks based in Instanbul, 7 mountains. This is quite different than Baxter thinks as you know. I believe the two meld quite well even though my view that there will be an evil Pope who will be the false prophet rubs some the wrong way (to be expected). Acceptance of Islamic “Isa” or someone or multiple men who claim to be Mahdi, does seem to smack of false messiah “in the desert” etc.
http://www.wcma-usa.org/booksliterature/prophecyendtimes.html
Hope this will get you to an interesting read, Brother!
Pam
December 24th, 2009 at 9:03 am
THE God who created heaven and earth IS GOING TO SEND A STRONG DELUSION on people (it may have happened in 325 A.D., heh?).
I once had a trinitarian try to solve the mystery of 1+1+1 NOT equalling THREE separate and distinct gods (if we just leave off the plural “s”, we would be okay, yes?) using a three-pronged FORK as an example! However, the handle of the fork just made is FOUR gods–the “essence”. Trinitarianism is polytheism–I was one.
Mitchell, who was Jesus’ Father? We modalistic monarchianists to not confuse THE Invisible God with His visible manifestation–the Son created for the purpose of suffering for our healing and dying for our sins. Our doorposts are located on our tabernacles/houses/physical bodies housing our souls. The BLOOD of the Lord Jesus Christ is applied to our doorposts by way of His applying it to our “house” through baptism by immersion in water (not sprinkling) in HIS NAME (not His titles) for the remission of sins making way for His (He is the Comforter/Holy Ghost) Spirit to indwell us and made apparent as on the Day of Pentecost.
Mishael– That is why to you it seems we are preaching to the choir. What song are you singing?
Pam
December 24th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Thanks for the link Pam,I will look again
I am deeply saddened that we can not have civil discourse here without
name calling from our host.
My base,my center if you will,is based on two facts which I have stated in
my posts here.
First,God is a Spirit(John 4:24)
Second,God is One(Mark 12:29),as stated by Jesus,this is the most important difference
between the faith of those that were in the world,and the first revelation of God to Abraham,Issac and Jacob.
Everyone else were pluralists.We serve One God,there is no other God besides Him.From this fact we cannot deviate.God Bless you Pam,I get
slammed hard here sometimes.Thanks again,good to know I am not alone here.Jim.Merry Christmas,Sis.
December 24th, 2009 at 10:43 am
I know that this will probably not change any minds of those who believe in the doctrine of Oneness, but for those who haven’t studied specifically the reasoning behind why Trinitarians disagree with Oneness theology, here is a list of many reasons why:
http://www.joywell.org/apologetics/oneness.html
1. Oneness apologists claim that Deut.6:4 denies the Trinity.
Deut.6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:”
Duet. 6:4 does not deny the Trinity, but rather affirms one of the tenets of the doctrine of the Trinity (see above). The doctrine of the Trinity affirms that there is “one God.” Quite often, those who argue against the Trinity don’t understand the doctrine of the Trinity well enough to explain it, much less refute it. They exaggerate and distort the doctrine of the Trinity into something that can be easily dispelled. That is known as the straw man fallacy. The name of the straw man fallacy comes from the idea that if you set up a straw man, he is easier to knock down than a real man. That is exactly the way the fallacy works, set up a distorted view and knock it down. In dealing with Deut.6:4, the oneness apologists set up a distorted straw man view of the Trinity and then knock it down. They claim that the Trinity is a belief in three Gods in order to make the doctrine contradict the Bible.
2. Oneness apologists claim that Isa.9:6 proves that Jesus is God the Father.
Isaiah 9:6 “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”
The Darby Bible and Young’s Literal Translation both render this passage as “Father of Eternity.’
Isa.9:6 (Darby Bible) “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.”
Isa.9:6 (Young’s Literal Translation) “For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.”
Dr. Robert Bowman points out that Abiethon - literally “father of strength” (2 Sam. 23:31) means “strong”; Abiaseph - literally “father of gathering” (Ex.6:24) means “gatherer”; and Abigail - literally “father of exultation” (1 Chron.2:16) is a woman’s name meaning “exulting.” Therefore, “Father of eternity” in Isaiah 9:6 means that Jesus is “eternal.” According to Matthew Henry’s Commentary this implies that Jesus is the creator of the ages (Heb.1:2; 11:3). It does not mean that He is “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2Cor.1:3).
3. Oneness apologists claim that John 5:43 shows that “Jesus” is the Father’s name and thus that Jesus is the Father.
John 5:43 “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.”
Notice that the second part of this verse insinuates that one who comes “in his own name” is not to be “received.” If Jesus was actually the Father which would literally make His name Jesus, then He would have been coming “in His own name” and it would have been wrong to receive Him. This contrast between “My Father’s name” and “his own name” proves that Jesus did not come “in his own name.” Therefore, “Jesus” is not the Father’s name, and Jesus is not the Father. This turns out to be a proof text against oneness theology.
4. Oneness apologists claim that John 10:30 proves the Father and the Son are one person.
John 10:30 “I and my Father are one.”
Any first year Greek student will notice that a one-person interpretation of this verse is precluded by the first person plural in the Greek New Testament. A literal translation of this verse would be: “I and the Father we are one.” If Jesus was the Father, He would have used the first person singular and said, “I am the Father.” Furthermore, the Greek word for “one” is in the neuter gender which points to the idea of one in “unity or one essence” (Margin of NASV Bible). The masculine form would have been used to signify one in contrast to many.
5. Oneness pentecostals claim that John 14:6-11 proves that Jesus is God the Father
John 14:6-11 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.”
Notice in the passage that Jesus begins by stating, “No man cometh unto the Father but by Me”(v.6) and later states, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (v.9). Dr. Robert Bowman points out that “the natural sense of these words is that Jesus is, not the Father, but a mediator between us and the Father.” It would be ridiculous for Jesus to claim that no man could come “to” the Father except “through” Him if Jesus and the Father were one and the same person. The words “to” and “through” only make sense if Jesus and the Father are distinct persons, with Jesus being the Mediator between man and the Father. In verse 7, Jesus states, “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.” Bowman points out that “this is true, not because Jesus is the Father, but because those who know Jesus are led by Him to know the Father as they see Him imaged perfectly in Jesus. Thus, says Jesus, ‘from now on you know Him, and have seen Him’ (v.7b). Existing with the Father as the one indivisible Divine Being, Jesus can say, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father’ (v.9). Nevertheless, Jesus does not say, ‘I am the Father,’ but rather, ‘I am in the Father and the Father is in Me’ (v.10, repeated in v.11; and 10:38).” oneness believers frequently cite the second part of this last statement, “the Father is in Me,” to mean that the deity (”Father”) dwells in the humanity (”Son”) of Jesus. This view, however, is clearly faulty in light of the first part of the sentence, “I am in the Father,” which in oneness terms would mean that the human nature of Jesus dwells in His deity. No oneness pentecostal believes the humanity of Jesus dwelt in the divinity of Jesus. Moreover, it fails to account for the fact that in this same context, as well as elsewhere, Jesus uses this sort of expression to denote His unity with believers: “In that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you” (v.20; and 17:21-23).
6. Oneness apologists interpret John 17:6,11-12 as proof that “Jesus” is the Father’s name and therefore that Jesus is the Father.
John 17:6,11-12 “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word… And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.”
Oneness writers point to the words “manifested” and “gave” in order to claim that Jesus was the Father’s name, and that the Father “gave” His name to Jesus, as evidence that Jesus is the Father. They overlook the fact that a human father can give his name to his son, without the father and son being the same person! Furthermore, it should be noted from this passage that Jesus said twice that His disciples were “in Thy (the Father’s) name.” If oneness believers interpret this phrase in a consistent manner with the way they interpret it in John 5:43, they are left with the ridiculous conclusion that the disciples are the Father! The oneness interpretation simply does not work because it is not logically consistent.
7. Oneness writers claim that Col.2:9 proves that Jesus is God the Father and Holy Spirit.
Colossians 2:9 “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
Since Colossians 2:9 says that the fulness of “the Godhead” dwells in Jesus, Oneness writers have argued that the Godhead is in Jesus, not Jesus in the Godhead. This either/or approach, however, causes the oneness interpretation of Colossians 2:9 to contradict their interpretation of John 10:38 where Jesus states, “the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father.” Since “the Father” in oneness theology is “the Godhead,” John 10:38 in their terms would mean that the Godhead is in Jesus, and Jesus is in the Godhead. When Oneness believers deny that “Jesus is in the Godhead,” what they mean to deny is that Jesus is one person in a triune Godhead. Colossians 2:9, though, does not rule out that possibility. What it affirms is that Jesus is no less than the full and complete revelation of God’s nature (’theotetos’, “deity”) in the flesh. While not all three persons of God are incarnate in Jesus, all of God’s essence is incarnate in Jesus.
http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/oneness.htm
Here is a portion from the link above entitled, “An Examination and Refutation of the Denial of the Doctrine of the Trinity by Oneness Pentecostalism”
Boyd, an ex-Oneness Pentecostal has drawn attention to the lack of literature that has been produced by the evangelical community on the subject of Oneness Pentecostalism. Despite the vast amount of literature that has been written on other new religious movements and contemporary world religions, most Christian authors hardly ever mention this very large heretical movement. 1 Oneness believers often appear orthodox in their belief in the nature of God due to their strict monotheism and confession that Jesus Christ is the one true God manifest in the flesh. 2 Bowman observes that it is because of this seeming orthodoxy that many Christians do not see anything wrong with their theology, on the contrary, many are even attracted by it. 3 For this reason many Christians of initial Trinitarian persuasion (Pentecostals in particular) have joined their ranks. 4 Boyd observes how former professing Trinitarians constitute the largest single group of people who convert to the Oneness movement. In the eyes of Oneness believers, Trinitarian churches are ripe to proselytise. 5
How the Oneness Position Differs From Trinitarianism
Despite its seeming orthodoxy, Oneness Pentecostalism differs significantly from classic Pentecostalism on account of its belief in the nature of God. Oneness believers, along with groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Way International, and The Church of God International, completely rejects the doctrine of the Trinity and claim that it is pagan in origin. 6 It is also argued that the doctrine of the Trinity should be rejected because it is unscriptural. Graves criticises nonbiblical Trinitarian terminology such as ‘Trinity’ and ‘Persons’ as evidence against the Trinity being unbiblical. 7 Instead, Oneness Pentecostals adhere to the belief that God is absolutely one in numerical value, Jesus Christ is fully God, and that there is no place for a plurality of Persons within the one God. 8 It is reasoned that Trinitarianism implies belief in not one God but three separate gods, and hence falls into the error of Tritheism. 9 While Trinitarians understand Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as referring to the Persons of the Trinity, Oneness theologians believe that these refer to three ways in which the one Person (the Father), or one God manifests Himself. 10 This teaching is brought into harmony by the cross referencing of two Scriptures in particular, Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38. It is argued that the ‘name’ (singular) of Matthew 28:19 that believers are baptised into is ‘Jesus’, as is found in the book of Acts. From this, it is therefore deduced that the Father, the Son and the Spirit are one Person who is called Jesus. 11 Oneness exponents not only contend that the doctrine of the Trinity is totally incompatible with the biblical teaching of Monotheism, and the Deity of Christ, but state that belief in the Trinity actually detracts from them. Sabin, accuses Trinitarians of denying the full Deity of Christ because they view Him as being distinct from the Father. 12 However, despite these serious accusations, it is actually the opposite which is true. When the facts are closely examined it soon becomes apparent that it is actually Oneness Christology that detracts from the full Deity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. 13
Trinitarianism Defined
Bowman observes that the first premise within Trinitarian doctrine is that God is only one. 14 It is this truth that Trinitarians have always affirmed as an indisputable fact, being found in both Old and New Testament records (Deut. 6:4; Isa. 42:8; 44:6; Mark 12:29; 1 Tim. 2:5; Jas. 2:9). But despite these affirmations, Oneness adherents, along with other anti- Trinitarian groups consistently accuse Trinitarians of worshipping three god’s. 15 Much of this misrepresentation often comes from a misunderstanding of the word ‘Person’ when used to refer to the distinctions within Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). 16 Modern day understanding of the word usually denotes an individual that is completely independent of others even to the point of being at variance with them. 17 Despite this contemporary thought original Greek and Latin terms used of the word person (prosopon, persona) did not originally carry with them the meaning that is associated with the word today; that is to say these terms did not necessarily ascribe any separate kind of consciousness or will. 18 Prestige notes how the word originally meant ‘face’, up until the fifth century when it came to mean ‘representative’ or ‘type’. 19 The Christian doctrine of perichoresis, or mutual indwelling of the three Persons, whereby all of God is present in each Person, acts as a safeguard against charges of Tritheism. 20 In Trinitarianism, the word Person is merely used as a convenient shorthand to refer to the distinctions that exist in the one eternal God. To speak of three eternal and Divine Persons in this sense is to recognise the relationships that exist between the Three. 21 These relationships are clearly seen threaded throughout the New Testament: the Father sends the Son into the world (John 3:16, Gal. 4:4, 1 John 4:9) and both the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7; Gal. 4:6). The Father speaks to and of the Son as another (Mark 1:11; John 12:28; Heb. 1:8-12), as does the Son to the Father (Matt. 11:25; 36:39; John 17); and the Son likewise addresses the Holy Spirit as another (John 14:16-17; 25-26; 16:5-15) who glorifies the Son (John 16:14) as the Son glorifies the Father (John 17:1-4). 22 To be able to do these things clearly indicates that the Father, Son and Spirit are more than the one Person who is operating in different modes. Each is referred to as a ‘He’ as opposed to an ‘it’ and as ‘Another’ as opposed to a ‘thing’. 23 Trinitarians freely admit that the word Person does have its limitations; however, no other word has been successfully agreed upon which has led to the traditional word being retained despite the limitations and misunderstandings that it brings with it. 24 The present writer observes how such terminology is not always unavoidable, even for those who profess Oneness. For example, Oneness believers and Trinitarians alike will agree that God is a Person; however this could be mistaken to mean that God is a Person in the sense that He is a human being. But if the word Person was not used at all, some may arrive at the mistaken conclusion that God is an impersonal force. The truth is, when finite humanity speaks of a Being who is infinite, limitations in terminology are inevitable.
The above is also true of the charge that Trinitarians are in error because non-biblical words like ‘Trinity’ are used to explain their position when speaking of God. Although this kind of reasoning is popular in non-Trinitarian circles it cannot be consistently sustained. Oneness believers, like Trinitarians, also employ unbiblical words to express their beliefs. Words like ‘millennium’, ‘theocracy’, and ‘incarnation’ are often used but not found in the Bible. 25 This, however, does not mean that what these words seek to express is untrue; they are simply used in such a way to better express and explain one’s position. The same can also be said with Trinitarian terminology. 26
Matthew 28:19
The ‘name’ in Matthew 28:19 has long been a subject of contention between Oneness and Trinitarian Pentecostals. 27 Oneness believers insist that because the name is singular it must be referring to Jesus on account of the baptismal pattern in the book of Acts (2:38; 8:16; 19:5 etc.). From this it is not only concluded that Jesus is the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but that it is absolutely essential that baptism is administered in His name only, if one hopes to be saved. 28 The first thing that can be said in response to the name of Jesus applying to Father, Son and Spirit is that it would be contrary to the general teaching of the New Testament. As was seen, the overall biblical witness testifies to a distinction between the three. It would therefore be most unlikely to conclude that Jesus was in some way cryptically referring to Himself as all three in this one verse. 29 It should be observed that there were long established Greek and Semitic traditions in existence in the first century milieu that understood the phrase ‘in the name of’ to have an extensive variety of meaning. 30 For example, Matthew 10:40-42 speaks of receiving a prophet ‘in the name of’ a prophet, a righteous man ‘in the name of’ a righteous man etc, clearly meaning to receive such a one because of who they were and not by simply receiving them with the words “I greet you in the name of a prophet.” 31 In Rabbinical literature, it is recorded that pagan slaves were expected to receive a baptism ‘in the name of slavery’ (understood to mean ‘being immersed into’) when coming under the roof of a Jewish family. 32 Samaritans would circumcise ‘in the name of Mount Gerizim’ (understood to mean that an obligation to the God of the Samaritans who is worshipped there was expected). 33 In the light of the historical context surrounding the phrase ‘in the name of,’ it is therefore quite probable that the pattern in Matthew 28:19 was originally understood to mean something like ‘in the authority of’, 34 or ‘for the sake of’ the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 35 The same can also be said of the book of Acts when it speaks of baptism being administered ‘in Jesus name’. 36 It should also be noticed that the early Church was never bound by precise baptismal formulas which would account for the variations found in the New Testament. 37
December 24th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Jim–
We are in good company! The Apostles Paul, Peter, John. . . . . . . . We cannot expect popularity. Just “LOLs” and twists of truth and logic.
Of course, Jesus the Father knows how to add. I teach, and mathematical patterns never cease to amaze me as Jesus the Son of God’s orderly creation points so beautifully to Jesus the One Spirit’s orderliness–I’m having fun
Should we expect to be less than hated for His Name by those who “believe” but disregard baptism IN HIS NAME or by those who are daughter churches or by Nicolaitan/people conquerors or by those who would have us believe that another title like “allah” (”god” referencing anyone or anything refers to “what” not “who” by the way, youguyz’ll) is the same god as OUR Jesus the FATHER, and another person in another trinity named Isa, and yet another person in another trinity, MITHRA? No, we know we should not expect popularity.
I am thankful to Jesus every day that He, the invisible ONE SPIRIT inhabited FLESH while remaining omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Totally God and totally man. HIS *NAME* BE PRAISED.
Pam
December 24th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Pam and Jim,
Others on this site have provided many proofs of the Trinity in scripture, so I won‘t duplicate their prior posts. Let me just move on to what I believe is the clearest proof in the Bible. Let‘s go to the Revelation and see who ’the Alpha and the Omega’ really is;
Rev 1:8 “I am THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”
I think we would agree that this is God himself, correct? Seems plain enough. The suggestion that He is still “to come” would be curious if it were not a reference to Jesus Christ, but let’s put that aside for the moment and see where else the Revelation identifies the ‘Alpha’ and ‘Omega’;
Rev 21:6 “He said to me: “It is done. I am THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA, the BEGINNING AND THE END. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life.”
Again we have another identification of the Lord God as the ‘Alpha’ and ‘Omega’, which means the Beginning and the End, just as the text states. But let’s keep reading;
Rev 22:13 “I am THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA, THE FIRST AND THE LAST, THE BEGINNING AND THE END.”
Here the Almighty again describes himself as ‘the Alpha and the Omega’ and ‘the Beginning and the End’, but then He also adds that He is ‘THE FIRST AND THE LAST’. It all means the same thing, but this phrase is very important to this study, because we see this same term used in the most definitive verse in the Revelation;
Rev 1:17 “When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am THE FIRST AND THE LAST. 18 I am the Living One; I WAS DEAD, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.”
So I ask you, if this is not a direct reference to the death of Jesus on the cross, then when did God die?
December 24th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Pam,
Okay, I just read your last post once mine posted. So you do believe in Jesus Christ as the Almighty? Your prior posts and discussion seemed to deny the Trinity. So now I understand Mishael’s and Willard’s confusion about your statements and/or beliefs. Do you believe that Jesus is the one and only, and that there is none other in the Godhead - no Trinity? What is it that you believe, because I’m also a bit in the dark here?
Jim,
I went back through the thread and read it finally. What ‘name calling’ are you referring to? I saw none. Are you referring to past threads?
December 24th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Pam says, “I once had a trinitarian try to solve the mystery of 1+1+1 NOT equalling THREE separate and distinct gods”
past + present + future = time
height + length + depth = space
solid + liquid + gas = matter
light + heat + flame = fire
Father + Son + Holy Spirit = God
The only way for Oneness believers to deny the triune nature of the one true God of the Bible is to claim that the Trinity is polytheistic, which is a poor strawman argument. The doctrine of the Trinity is by its definition strictly monotheistic. Oneness believers cannot demonstrate the problems with Trinitarianism without first distorting its definition.
http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/oneness.htm
The Trinity and Paganism
It has long been a popular practice in non-Trinitarian circles to draw parallels between the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the pagan trinities of other religions. 38 It should therefore come as no surprise that Oneness believers also follow this same line of reasoning. 39 However, criticism of this kind is not based on sound reasoning and is really a falsification that has no real parallels with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity at all. Bowman observes that while it is true that pagan civilisations did indeed believe in triadic deities, these were always three separate god’s (as in Tritheism) who were often the three most eminent god’s at the top of a pantheon of other lesser god’s (as in Polytheism). 40
The Father and the Son in Oneness Theology
In Trinitarian thought the Father and the Son speak to one another and defer to one another as distinct Persons. Oneness theology however, argues that the Father and the Son are not two Persons but rather the two natures within the one Person - Jesus Christ. 41 The Son is considered to be the humanity of Christ, (the obvious implication being that the Son is not God) 42 and the Father (who is called Jesus) is considered to be the divinity of Christ. 43 Therefore, as unusual as it may sound, Jesus is both the Father and the Son who sent His Son, and the Son who was obedient to the Father who sent Him. Furthermore, He was also the Son who prayed to and heard the Father and the Father who heard and answered the Son. 44 The many biblical texts that clearly show relationship between the Father and the Son, such as John 14:16; 17:5 etc., are often interpreted as being a type of illusion assumed by Christ so that He could fulfil His role as mediator to man. 45 In addition to this, Oneness theologians often argue that the many salutations contained within the New Testament Epistles (Eph. 1:2; Phil, 1:2; Thess. 1:1 etc.) do not refer to distinctions between the Father and the Son as Trininitarians have traditionally understood them to mean, but rather ‘prove’ that Jesus is indeed the Father. 46 This interpretation is arrived at by the use of the Greek word kai. Bernard points out that kai (often translated “and”) should be translated “even”, so that the salutations would read: “from God our Father, even our Lord Jesus Christ”. 47
The Trinitarian Understanding of the Father and the Son
There are several reasons why the above argumentation is grounded on faulty reasoning. The burden of proof is upon Oneness adherents to show why it is that the Scriptures never distinguish between Jesus and the Son; indeed, the Scriptures refer to Jesus’ identity as the Son of God (Matt. 4:3; Mark 1:20; Luke 1:35; John 3:18 etc.), and most clearly in 2 John 3 where He is referred to as “the Son of the Father.” But never once is Jesus identified as the Father. 48 It should be observed that the preposition ‘of ‘ in 2 John 3 expresses the idea of Christ being of the same nature as the Father but also differentiates between the Father and the Son as distinct Persons. 49 However, despite the clear teaching of the Scriptures, Oneness theologians maintain that any texts that seem to imply a relationship of Persons is purely illusionary and in reality, it is actually Christ’s two natures that are in operation within the one Person. This kind of interpretation casts an air of doubt and uncertainty upon the many interactions between the Father and the Son in the Gospels. 50 Particularly troublesome to this Oneness interpretation are the many texts that speak of the love that exists between the two Persons (John 3:35; 17:23-26; 14:31 etc.). As Bowman rightly observes, natures cannot love, only persons can. 51 This is also true of the many passages where Jesus speaks to His Father and the Father speaks to Him; natures cannot speak to one another, only persons can. 52 Concerning the Greek word kai, Boyd readily admits that it can indeed mean ‘even’ when context demands it to be such (eg. Gal. 1:4; Col. 1:6). 53 However, the context of the salutations that Oneness scholars argue should be translated ‘even’ clearly point to a distinction between the Father and the Son and should therefore be translated as ‘and’. For example, Boyd refers to Romans 1:7 as a typical salutation whereby Oneness adherents blur the distinctions between the two divine Persons. But an unbiased reading of the immediate context clearly shows Christ to be one who is distinguished from the Father (His Son 1:1-4; through Jesus Christ 1:8-9). 54 As well as being distinct from the Father this does not exclude the Son from being God ( Heb. 1:8; 1 John 5:20). The Son should therefore be equally honoured as God in the same way that the Father is honoured as God (John 5:23).
Jesus as the Father
Isaiah 9:6
Brumback observes how Isaiah 9:6 is the one verse in the entire Bible that gives Christ the title ‘Father’ and is therefore seized upon by Oneness adherents as ‘proof’ that Jesus is God the Father. 55 It should first be observed that this verse can also be translated ‘Father of eternity’, or ‘Father of the ages’ (even Oneness theologians will agree to this). 56 The Hebrew word for Father (av or ab) is used in accordance with Hebrew and Aramaic custom where the one who possesses something is said to be the father of it. For example, Abialbon (2 Sam. 23:31), ‘father of strength’, means ’strong’; Abiasaph (Ex. 6:24), ‘father of gathering’, means ‘gatherer’. Therefore, in keeping with the Hebrew custom, the title ‘everlasting Father’ is simply declaring the eternal nature of Christ. 57 This particular understanding of the passage is perfectly consistent with the Trinitarian belief that Christ is the one true eternal God, who transcends all time and eternity (c.f. Rev. 1:8, 17). 58
John14:7-11
Another very common proof text used in an attempt to ‘prove’ that Jesus is the Father is John 14:7-11. 59 In one sense it is perfectly legitimate to say that some manifestation of the Father is seen in Christ because He shares and reflects the same Divine nature (c.f. Heb. 1:3) 60 But to conclude that Jesus is Himself the Father is to go beyond what the text actually says and ignore both the context of the chapter and the consistent title of Son of God used throughout John’s Gospel. Contrary to what Oneness believers think about this passage of Scripture, Jesus does not say “I am the Father”, but simply declares the mutual indwelling that exists between the Father and Himself (vv. 10-11). 61 The immediate context of this passage strongly testifies to Christ’s distinctiveness from the Father (vv. 2, 6-7, 12, 16, 20-21, 26, 28 see especially v. 23 “We” and “Our”).
Jesus as the Holy Spirit
2 Corinthians 3:17
A classic prooftext that is cited to argue the Oneness belief that Jesus is the Holy Spirit is 2 Corinthians 3:17 where the Lord is described as the Spirit. 62 Even outside Oneness circles some scholars also interpret this text to mean that Christ is the Spirit. 63 However, it can be demonstrated that there are a number of significant reasons why this interpretation is inaccurate. It should be noted that this verse does not say “Jesus is the Spirit”; the Oneness view would perhaps be more convincing if this was the case, but instead, it has to be assumed that the one spoken of as the Lord is a reference to Jesus. 64 Although Paul certainly viewed the activity of the risen Christ and the Holy Spirit very closely, he clearly distinguishes between the two in verses 3-6 of the same chapter. Paul also distinguishes between Jesus and the Spirit immediately after stating that the Lord is the Spirit when he calls the Spirit the Spirit of the Lord. As Boyd states: “Paul…is clearly making some distinction between “the Lord” and “the Spirit of the Lord” who is also “Lord.” 65 In context, the passage is concerned with the Lord to whom Moses turns to in Exodus 34:33ff and the Apostle Paul’s allegorising of that event in Israel’s history. The shining but veiled face of Moses representing the old covenant, is contrasted with the new covenant of the Spirit. Therefore, for Paul to refer to the Spirit as the Lord to whom those under the new covenant experience the presence of, is to make an identification with Yahweh God of the Old Testament to whom Moses turned. 66 This identification of the Spirit as Yahweh God, the Lord, is perfectly consistent with Trinitarian belief in the full Personhood and Deity of the Spirit.
Romans 8:9-11
Another popular prooftext used in arguing that Jesus is the Holy Spirit is Romans 8:9-11. The first thing that can be said of this text is that the phrase “The Spirit of Him who raised Jesus…” immediately suggests a distinction between Jesus and the Spirit. Dodd shows how Paul is not identifying Christ with the Holy Spirit as one and the same Person, but rather the apparent equation of Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, and Christ in you, is merely a typical way in which Paul viewed the activity of the Spirit in the life of the believer as being closely associated with the presence of Christ Himself. 67 This is in perfect consistency with the fact that the early Christians were a fellowship who lived their life in the Spirit, and realised that their experience of the Spirit in their life of faith and worship would naturally bring them into close relationship with Christ, whereby His presence would be made manifest. 68 Paul, therefore, is simply stating that wherever the Spirit of God is present in the life of the believer something of Christ is indeed present in the Person of the Holy Spirit, but this by no means blurs Christ and the Spirit into one Person. 69
The Pre-existence of the Son of God
Although Oneness Pentecostals profess to be firm believers in the full Deity of Jesus Christ this cannot be consistently affirmed. Because the Oneness position holds that the Son is the mere created human nature of Jesus Christ, they also deny that He pre-existed in eternity, with the Father, but instead came into being at His birth in Bethlehem nearly 2000 years ago. 70 Passages that clearly speak of God creating through Christ (implying distinction) are often interpreted as God creating all things simply with the envisaged Son in mind. 71 In addition to this view, some Oneness writers simply assert that Christ pre-existed as the Father, but not as the Son. 72
The prologue of John’s Gospel is a strong witness to the truth of the pre-existence of the Son. 73 John 1:1a clearly states the pre-existence of Christ as the eternal Word (logos) by the use of the phrase en arch en ho logos, (”In the beginning was the Word”). Tenney notes how the use of the verb en (which in the imperfect tense implies eternal existence) is significant in this passage because it brings out the importance of the word arch. The phrase could therefore be literally translated: “When the beginning began, the Word was already there.” 74 Having declared the eternal pre-existence of the Word, John 1:1b specifies the relationship and distinctiveness that exists between the Word and the Father with the word pros (”with God”). The sense in which John uses pros indicates an active intercommunion whereby the Persons exist face to face with one another in eternal relationship. 75 The statement in verse 2 further emphasises John 1:1a and b. As well as being distinct from God, the Word Himself is also explicitly called God (John 1:1c), and of course God is personal not impersonal. The Word, therefore, is all that God is, including His full Personhood. 76 The full Deity of the Word is also reinforced in verse 3 where the work of creation is ascribed to Him (c.f. Col. 1:15-20; Heb. 1:10). However, although the Word is identified as God, this does not mean that He pre-existed as God the Father before His incarnation, as it is occasionally suggested by some Oneness exponents. 77 Brown notes that as well as the obvious relationship that exists between the Father and the Word in John, the omission of the article in John1:1c further avoids any suggestion of personal identification of the Word as the Father, but at the same time avoids any polytheistic connotations. 78 The personalistic nature of the Word is further seen in verse 14 where the Word is described as coming forth from the Father (not as the Father) and becoming incarnate. It should be observed that the verse does not suggest that the Word only becomes distinct at this point in time because as was seen, this same Word is spoken of as distinct from the Father from the very beginning of John’s Gospel. 79 The testimony of John the Baptist in verse 15 (repeated in v. 30) provides further evidence to the theme of the Son’s pre-existence. It is notable that reference to Jesus existing “before” John is made in the light of the fact that the Baptist was born before Him, and consequently provides an unmistakable allusion to the pre-existence of the Son. The testimony by John the Baptist in the wider context of chapter 1 also invalidates the Oneness explanation of the Son merely existing as the Father prior to the incarnation due to the fact that John identifies this one who was before him as the Lamb of God (v. 29) and the Son of God (v. 34). 80 Furthermore, the Oneness attempt to explain the Baptists testimony as the Son pre-existing in God’s foreknowledge is not convincing because verse 15 (as does the entire prologue) is obviously saying something profound about the Son. But there would be nothing profound about saying the Son only existed in the mind of God because even John the Baptist himself, along with the rest of humanity, can be said to exist in this limited sense. 81 The unique relationship that is shared between the Father and the Son is further expressed by the phrase “Who is in the bosom of the Father” (v.18). Commenting on this, Dr. Beasely-Murray recognises that the phrase denotes the “closest fellowship with Him” (the Father) and although the primary reference is speaking of the incarnate Son of God and God the Father, the context of the prologue naturally implies that this relationship extends to the Son’s pre-existent and post-resurrection relationship with the Father. 82
The Trinity, Oneness, and the History of the Church
Oneness believers argue that the New Testament Christians and the early Church Fathers were Modalistic in their beliefs on the nature of God, 83 and that this pattern continued as the true doctrine of God until apostate leaders (principally the apologists of the second century) who held to the doctrine of the Trinity prevailed against them and drove them out. 84 But despite the claims of Oneness writers there is ample evidence to show that the early Church had a simple belief in one God existing in three Persons. Strong notes how belief in the Trinity was implicitly held by the apostolic Church and the New Testament writers in the first century, but was only formulated and crystallised as an explicit doctrine when abhorrent beliefs concerning the nature of God arose. 85 Before this, none of the New Testament writers saw the need to formulate a thorough definition of the God’s triunity. Wainwright observes that another reason why the early Christians did not define their belief in the nature of God was that they were more concerned with the activity of God in the work of salvation rather than attempting to systemize a finely tuned theology. 86 They are simply content to present information about the Deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit which would naturally cause later theologians to reflect on God’s unity in relation to the distinctions that exist between Father, Son, and Spirit. 87 It took the Church over three centuries to grapple with these paradoxical issues and come to a more thorough and systematic understanding of God eternally existing as Three Persons. 88 Because of this significant time period, Oneness theologians often feel that they have further valid criticism against the doctrine of the Trinity as being the invention of a late Church 89 But Lagoon notes how Oneness Pentecostals have no right to criticise Trinitarians on this point because the Oneness belief itself has been steadily evolving throughout the 20th century. 90 When the Scriptures and the ancient writings of the Fathers are examined, and taken at face value, it soon becomes apparent that the Church has always believed in the basic fundamental truths that are foundational to the doctrine of the Trinity. 91
The New Testament Witness to the Trinity
In the Apostolic era a definite pattern of thought was moving towards a triadic understanding of God. This can be discerned from the consistent threefold pattern that runs throughout the New Testament record. Often, this pattern of thinking appears to be an unconscious one, because in most occurrences the New Testament writers simply state belief in the Father, Son, and Spirit while at the same time betray almost no awareness of any problem as to how these three exist in relation to one another within God’s unity. 92 Kelly recognises that throughout the New Testament there are many Trinitarian patterns where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are spoken of in such an incidental way that it appears that this type of language was already commonly accepted in the early Church and deeply embedded within Christian thought from the very beginning. 93 Threefold patterns are clearly discerned in numerous passages (for example: Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 1:21f.; 13:14; 1 Cor. 6:11; 12:4-6; 1 Pet. 1:2; 4:14; Eph. 1:3-14; Heb. 10:29; Jude 20f.). 94 Kelly observes that “The Trinitarian ground-plan obtrudes itself obstinately throughout, and its presence is all the more striking because more often than not there is nothing in the context to necessitate it.” 95
The supreme biblical pattern of Trinitarian thought, as with Christ’s pre-existence, appears in the Johannine testimony. In several passages the three Divine Persons are mentioned together (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:13-15; 20:21-22; 1 John 4:2; 4:13-14). 96 In typical Trinitarian fashion, John does not hesitate to call Jesus God (John 1:1,18; 20:28; 1 John 5:20), but at the same time, the relationship between the Father and the Son is clearly evident, more so than in any other New Testament writing. It is therefore apparent that John was aware of the problem that Christians were faced with when reconciling God’s unity with the three distinct Persons. 97 As Wainwright notes, John was not inventing the Trinity, but was merely explaining an association that was already recognised and accepted amongst the first Christian believers. 98
The Witness of the Early Church Fathers to the Trinity
The writings of the early Church Fathers also give evidence to show how common it was for the early Christian community to continue to recognise clear distinctions within the one God. Throughout his first letter Clement speaks of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Spirit in such a way that can only imply some sort of distinction. For example, he writes of Christ calling His people through the Holy Spirit to live righteously. 99 Immediately after this exhortation, in the next paragraph, the Father is specifically referred to. 100 Clement distinguishes Christ from God (the Father) as being sent by God and from God as the Apostles were sent from Christ. 101 Following this, he goes on to use a three fold Trinitarian pattern whereby he speaks of “God’s will…, the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ…” and “the confidence of the Holy Spirit”. 102 This kind of Trinitarian language appears most significantly in two passages cited by Prestige: “For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit (Who are the faith and hope of the elect)…”, 103 and “Do we not have one God and one Christ and one Spirit of God poured out upon us?” 104
Bernard names Ignatius 105 as being a leader in the early Church who stressed Modalism. 106 However, throughout his book Bernard does not provide any references from Ignatius to support this theory. As with Clement, a Trinitarian pattern of writing can be discerned in Ignatius’ letters. For example, he declares how “…Our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit.” 107 When writing to the Magnesians he encourages them to prosper “…in the Son, and Father and Spirit.” 108 Fortman notes that the most famous threefold pattern declares: “You are stones of a temple, prepared beforehand for the building of God the Father, hoisted up to the heights by the crane of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, using as a rope the Holy Spirit.” 109
Despite the apparent orthodox statements of the Oneness movement, reflected in their strict monotheism and confession that Jesus Christ is the one true God manifest in the flesh, Oneness believer’s have made it abundantly clear that they reject the doctrine of the Trinity as pagan and unscriptural, and consequently place themselves outside historic Christianity. Although Trinitarians understand ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ as referring to the Persons of the Trinity, Oneness theologians reject the idea of any plurality in the Godhead and teach the ancient Modalistic doctrine whereby Father, Son and Spirit are three ways in which the one Person (the Father) manifests Himself. It has been noted that the most obvious problem with this view is that it is contrary to the general teaching of the New Testament, as well as the clear relationships that exist between the Three. The Oneness view of the Trinity is particularly defective in its teaching on the Person of Jesus Christ. The denial of the personal and distinct pre-existence of the Son has been shown to be without foundation from the prologue of John alone. It has been demonstrated that the assertion that the Son is to be identified as the humanity of Christ and the Father, who is called Jesus, as the Divinity of Christ is unscriptural. The Scriptures never distinguish between Jesus and the Son but rather refer to Jesus’ identity as ‘the Son of God’, or ‘the Son of the Father’; and not once is Jesus identified as the Father. Oneness Christology, therefore actually confuses Christ’s Person, and detracts from His full Deity as the Son of God. In Trinitarian thought the Father and the Son speak to one another, love one another, and defer to one another as distinct Persons; something that only Persons, and not natures can do. The Trinitarian position maintains that the Son should be equally honoured as God in the same way that the Father is honoured as God. Proof texts that Oneness believers offer to support their position (Matt. 28:19; Isa. 9:6; John 14:7-11; 2 Cor. 3:17; Rom. 8:9-11) have actually shown to be at variance with their theology rather than be in support of it. The Oneness claim that the New Testament Christians and the early Church Fathers were Modalistic in their beliefs on the nature of God has been proven to be historically misleading. It has been demonstrated that although Trinitarian belief was not always consciously taught in an explicit manner, there is every evidence that the basic fundamental truths that are foundational to the doctrine of the Trinity were certainly held by first century Christians and the early Church Fathers alike, and have continued to remain as foundational to this present day.
——–
At the end of the day it can be demonstrated that Oneness theology does not even have one leg to stand on.
December 24th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Mitchell,
Thanks. That takes a little mystery out of it.
December 24th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Here’s a slight tweak of Mitchell’s math above, with my additions in parenthesis:
past (time) + present (time) + future (time) = time
height (space-distance above a horizontal plane) + length (space-distance from a vertical plane in the ‘X’ axis) + depth (space-distance from a vertical plane in the ‘Y’ axis) = space
solid (matter) + liquid (matter) + gas (matter) = matter
light (fire, since fire can’t exist without it) + heat (fire, since fire can’t exist without it) + flame (fire, since fire can’t exist without it) = (fire, since fire can’t exist without it) fire
Father (God) + Son (God) + Holy Spirit (God) = God
A bit wordy, but the point being, which of course Mitchell has already more than adequately made, is that any component of these tripartite wholes are still fully, in essence, that object.
And perhaps the better math equation would be 1 x 1 x 1 = 1.
December 24th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Bernard refuted everything Bowden, et al, wrote *without* twisting scripture. Trinitarian/Oneness Pentecostal debates have to be edited by trinitarians to get a good, salable product.
You write: Father + Son + Holy Spirit = God
Consider what MONOtheists REALLY see in Scripture and believe: Father + Son + Holy Spirit = Jesus the I AM
Michael, you cannot say “that takes a little mystery out of it” to a trinitarian and get away with it! Their final statement after being soundly refuted by those who rightly divide Scripture is “the trinity is a great mystery that we cannot understand.”
Mitchell quotes: “41 The Son is considered to be the humanity of Christ, (the obvious implication being that the Son is not God)”
The flesh was created when Mary who was a virgin was overshadowed–that is the Son was created. So when was God ever created? He had no beginning and He has no end. He is outside of time. We MONOtheists say that the Son is the visible human flesh (only begotten) in which the INVISIBLE God who is Spirit without flesh and bones dwelt for the purpose of shedding HIS BLOOD. Blood is manufactured in the marrow of BONE. INVISIBLE Creator Jesus made it that way at the time He created Adam and by Adam’s bone, Eve. The flesh was the PLAN before the FLESH the INVISIBLE SPIRIT indwelt was born of a VIRGIN. Where in the Bible does it even once refer to “God the Son”? You will not find it; there is the Son/Flesh of God, but Scripture NEVER refers to “God the Son”. God/invisible Spirit was IN the Son/visible flesh reconciling the world to HIMSELF.
2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV To wit, that God was IN CHRIST, reconciling the world unto himself [not themselves, BTW], not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
“Christ,” by the way, can refer to both VISIBLE flesh/Son as well as INVISIBLE Spirit/God.
David K. Bernard’s books including The Oneness of God (David K Bernard being the author Mitchell’s copy and pasted article above) are online as well as debates with trinitarians, etc. Just google David K. Bernard. The schpiel above is long and on the surface looks good with all the scriptures referenced; but it as well as others like it have been soundly rebutted if one is hungry and truth-loving and cares to look. Jesus is going to/has sent a strong delusion on people so they will believe a lie–it is not His will that anyone should perish.
Mitch and all: Would you be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins and receive the promised gift (dorea, not charisma) of His indwelling Spirit; that is, obey the Gospel (see gospel defined in Ephesians 6) so that you might avoid Jesus coming in fire to take vengeance on those who do not obey His death, burial and resurrection (see in Thessalonians)? Fall in love with His Name. He loves us all.
Pam
December 24th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
David K Bernard was the main author that the author of Mitchell’s copied and pasted article above was attempting to refute. Sorry for all my typos and miscommunications.
It is only wise to read both authors. I only pointed out error in #41 which puts words into the mouths of modalistic monarchianists (we are not dynamic monarchianists such as Unitarians, JWs, etc., by the way).
Pam
December 24th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Kurt J says, “And perhaps the better math equation would be 1 x 1 x 1 = 1.”
Yep!
December 24th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Btw, I made a post above that is awaiting moderation since it included two links. It should be visible soon.
http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=2380#comment-234347
December 24th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Pam,
Soundly refuted? In whose eyes? Certainly not mine.
Frankly, I have no trouble understanding the Trinity of God, and I have wondered for years why it’s such a difficult thing for some to grasp. To claim that it cannot be understood seems a little disingenuous.
God can manifest in any way He chooses, and to choose the roles of Father, Son and Spirit to display his essence to man seems completely logical. After all, our experiences in this world provide a similar trinity, which in my instance also include being a father and a son and an invididual spirit. All are different roles contained in one individual. God has apparently personified Himself in this way so that we could relate to him better through common experiences.
As to your position on God’s Trinity, you’re obviously free to believe what you choose. Experience tells me there is no way we will come to agreement on this, so I suppose there is not point in going through the futility. But to imply that those of us on this site who disagree with you still need to be baptized into Jesus Christ, well……that’s a bit much, and it sounds a little ‘cult-ish’ to me.
December 24th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Mitchell said: “The doctrine of the Trinity is by its definition strictly monotheistic. Oneness believers cannot demonstrate the problems with Trinitarianism without first distorting its definition.” I notice that it was ignored and applied at the same time in the response.
From Kurt: 1 x 1 x 1 = 1
Very true. I like it.
Pam said: “Jesus is going to/has sent a strong delusion on people so they will believe a lie – it is not His will that anyone should perish.”
Whoa! Talk about twisting scripture. Perhaps it’s not meant, but be careful about mixing verses together like that. The face-value reading of what you said implies that Jesus will send a strong delusion so people will believe a lie because He doesn’t want anyone to perish. That makes absolutely no sense.
Let’s take the original verses in context:
———-
“The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
———-
Because people refuse to love the truth and so be saved, God will send a powerful delusion (during the time of the lawless one, the Antichrist, the context implies), essentially to draw the line between those who belong to Him and those who don’t. There will no longer be ambiguity among people; it will be clear to whom you belong. It will be the final choice - choose the Truth or choose the Lie.
———-
“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”
2 Peter 3:8-9
———-
God has been patient and has taken a long time in pouring out final judgment because He wants as many to be saved as will be saved. If we want to connect it with the 2 Thessalonians passage, then He’s holding out on sending the Strong Delusion until the last moment possible to give people as much chance to be saved as can be given - since soon after that His wrath will be poured out.
December 24th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Michael–
Jesus makes Himself known in many ways, you sure are right! He manifest Himself in the burning bush, but the bush was not God. I can know Him through His creation, but His creation is not God.
I do not see that I invited anyone to be “baptized into Jesus Christ” (although that is not a bad idea) but asked if you would obey the Bible if you have not already and be baptized in the NAME of the Lord Jesus Christ by immersion. It is according to Scripture the ONLY saving Name and is the Name ABOVE all names, and it is the Name that remits sin and covers us with His Blood.
Try cashing a check signed “father.” It won’t accomplish your intended purpose. You will have to use your name, your “who,” not your title which is only your “what.” Many will conclude “allah” is a right choice for some and that “Isa” is the second person in the trinity. As a matter of fact, Pope Benedict has accepted the title “allah” hasn’t he?
I totally understand and taught trinitarianism for decades. I repented and was baptized just as those in Ephesus were (Acts 19:5), in the Name of Jesus.
I am sure you and others are feeling implicated–but not by me. I am happy to have had an opportunity to share the Word.
Pam
December 24th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Hmm…so a name like Yahweh / Jehovah is not a valid name for the Father?
December 24th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Pam,
The check I’m going to cash certainly does have Jesus’ name on it, because I would have received nothing from the Father if the Son hadn’t written the check. But the Father is going to cash it for him’
Mt 10:32 “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.”
The Father is running the show, and his name is on the bank.
December 24th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, AND of the Son, AND of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19)
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. - 1Jo 2:23
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. - 2Jo 9
No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. - 1Cor 12:3
Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. - Gal 1:1
Not sure where the hostility toward referring to God the Father, and the Holy Spirit come from. Nor how anyone would say they’re not all eternal, not having been created. But I’m happy to say I’m fully baptized/immersed, my sins washed away by the blood of Christ, Jesus is Lord revealed to me by the Holy Ghost, my soul and life permanently in the Father’s hands. God is One and I love ALL of Him. Every part He’s revealed about Himself. People are not one-dimensional!!! How more so is God not one dimensional. He is so far greater than us, it cannot be put into words. It is not a sin to acknowledge the Father,and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. As God Himself has revealed Himself in scripture!
December 24th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Michael K- Your interpretation of Matthew 10:32 according to you means that the Father who “is running the show” and it follows then that the Son who is not “running the show” are *not* co-equal which the man-made doctrine of the trinity clearly teaches.
I do pray that you will find a different bank and banker because the Bible says in Jude 25 that there is only ONE wise God. You disowned the Son when you said this before men; and if your interpretation of Scripture is correct, your so-called unwise “God the Son” will disown you before His Father in heaven.
Pam
December 24th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Basically, this Oneness doctrine is WAY more confusing than the Trinity, with multitudes of verses, many referenced above, militating against it. I think in essence what’s happened is that some folks who insist that God is singular have forced their view onto scripture where it clearly doesn’t fit, OT or NT.
Why is Jesus praying to the Father if they are the same Person? That alone kills their theory for me–don’t need much else. Seems like the Book of John is one long argument for the Trinity.
While we can’t COMPREHEND the Trinity, we can certainly APPREHEND it.
When you try the trinitarian view on for size, it starts to fit pretty well. How does an eternal God of LOVE exist without three persons? Try the trinitarian view–you’ll like it! Mmm, mmm good.
December 24th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Mishael - Do you agree that Yahweh (Jehovah) means “Self-Existing One or the Eternal One”? It was used by Jesus as the Father as well as by Jesus speaking from His humanity. Yahweh means “He is.” When used by God, it is “I Am.” When asked at the time of His arrest, Jesus said, “I AM He” with power!
John 18:5 KJV They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. (18:6) As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, **they went backward , and fell to the ground**.
December 24th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Here’s a great thread on the oneness cult:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f34/oneness-pentecostalism-heresies-50751/
Just wanted to share. One lady’s post is about how she helped her friend out of the cult by showing her the massive amount of verses about The Father and the Son, and waited to add the Holy Spirit.. one step at a time. It worked. But I find the mantras, which surely pull on altered states on consciousness, very disturbing to. Like repeating Jesus’ name over and over and over. Mysticism is getting so popular… and an A/C using dark saying and mystical practices already has a foot in the door with all these heresies being (re)introduced.
December 24th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Kurt - Shouldn’t a trinitarian ask CAN one God pray to another God? If Father and Son are co-equal “persons,” WHY did Jesus pray to the Father? These question are more to the point.
And about the Book of John being one long argument for your trinity. History shows that the man-made doctrine of trinity didn’t exist until AFTER the third century and even then early trinitarians did not hold to your basic teachings of co-equality and co-eternality. Trinitarianism was first officially recognized AFTER JOHN WAS LONG DEAD at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD and even then it wasn’t finished; it was incomplete until the Council of Constantinople (interesting location!!) in 381 and its defining creeds not until the fifth century! John in his book, which was Divinely inspired, wrote about Jesus saying, “If you have seen ME you have SEEN THE FATHER.” And, again in chapter 14 Jesus says, “I [visible human flesh about to die] will pray the Father [invisible Spirit without blood or bones except as He indwelt the flesh He created in Mary’s womb and whom we refer to as His Son] and He shall give you another Comforter. . .even the Spirit of truth. . .but ye know Him [speaking about His humanity] for He DWELLETH WITH YOU [humanity not dead yet, still on earth] and shall be IN YOU [speaking about the invisible Spirit, the Comforter, and then wraps it all up CLEARLY] in verse 18, I will not leave you comfortless; I WILL COME TO YOU [not as another god but in a different manner for a different purpose]. The Book of John is a wonderful portrait of the MIGHTY GOD IN CHRIST.
Pam
December 24th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Kurt, you ask “How does an eternal God of LOVE exist without three persons?
Are you asking how God could be love and show love before He created the world unless God was a plurality of persons that had love one for another? Danger, polytheism ahead! If so, why does God need to prove the eternality of His love to you or me? Can’t we just accept that God IS love like He says He is? If we can’t just accept His Word for it, why try to limit God to our ideas of love? We humans need an object of love in time. God is not limited to time–He created time and will do away with time (hopefully soon). He knew each of us before we existed and loved us! And WHY did God the Father love “God the Son” and vice versa but neither of the TWO expressed love for the THIRD? Grief! The TWO of them never even allowed the THIRD to take part in their god conversations! Is that love?
Pam
December 24th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Pam, we will pray that the Lord open your eyes.
In the meantime, here is some good reading for you to digest.
http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=2380#comment-234347
By the way, Merry Christmas Pam, and everyone!!
December 24th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Well Pam looks like you have had a busy day while I was away,I pray that all
is well with you.
May I add one simple statement into the fray here?
John 14:8-9
Philip saith unto him,Lord,show us the Father,and it sufficeth us.
Now just what exactly was Philip asking Jesus here?
He is asking,show us another “person”,is he not?
What is Jesus response?
John 14:9
Jesus saith unto him,Have I been so long time with you,and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
Is He not saying to him,The Father has been with you all this time and yet,thou hast not known Him.
The verse then continues-he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;
Whenever Jesus spoke this clearly in the presence of those who sought His life,they made an attempt on His life(ie. when He forgave sin,it was said can anyone forgive sin accept God?The answer clearly is NO,No one
accept God can forgive sin and that is exactly who was forgiving the mans sin!)
Jesus then asked Philip,
and how sayest thou then,Show us the Father?
That is because the Father was standing right there in front of him!!!
Pam I believe the great lie that has deceived the ages started at the council of Nicaea.With the inception of the doctrine of the trinity.Who was it
that they went after?Christians,because they taught a different doctrine.
They were used as human candles,driven into the catacombs,killed by lions in the Colosseum,crucified,sawed in two,etc.
Thank God we have not seen this kind of persecution,but it is obvious
that the same religious intolerance still persists today.
Michael(K),I will simply say,we are not deceived,look again.
Mitchell,the vision we cast is clear,as are our eyes.
I Corinthians 13:12
For now we see through a glass,darkly;but then face to face(who’s face will we see?):now I know in part;but then shall I know even as also I am Known.
All will be made perfect and clear,in the passage of time.
When Jesus returns on the clouds will there be God the Father with Him,
will the Holy Spirit come too?
At the white throne judgment,is there three thrones?,there is one throne
and One who sits upon it,His Name Is JESUS.
Great is the mystery of godliness,yes.The One True Name given among men where by we must be saved is clear(must sounds like it means we
must so much for freedom of choice)that Name is Jesus(Jehovah Saviour).
How are we saved,Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of your sins,and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Where is the deception in that Joel?
December 25th, 2009 at 12:46 am
“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”
Daniel 7:13-14
———-
———-
“Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals. … Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.”
Revelation 5:1, 6-7
———-
One approaches and takes something from the other. How can this happen if there is only one person? Is this only symbolic? If so, what is the purpose for this symbolism?
———-
“That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.”
Ephesians 1:19b-21
———-
———-
“But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. ‘Look,’ he said, ‘I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.’”
Acts 7:55-56
———-
“From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. Before the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits [sevenfold spirit] of God.”
Revelation 4:5
———-
One is on the throne; One is at the right hand of the throne; One is before the throne. Same person in three different places at the same time?
———-
“I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”
John 16:28
———-
“Jesus said, ‘Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, “I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”‘”
John 20:17
———-
If He is the Father Himself, why would He say that He is going back to the Father? He is, essentially, already with Himself.
He clarifies what He means when He says, “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” He goes on to say, “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. … Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you” (John 14).
Anyone who has seen Jesus has seen the Father because Jesus is in the Father - just as we are in Jesus and He is in us. This is what He says Himself. The comparison is one that He made Himself. Because I am -in- Jesus, does that mean I -am- Jesus? Or is it the special nature of this type of relationship that God desires with us? If I am not Jesus despite being in Jesus, then it stands to reason that Jesus can be in the Father without being the Father Himself. He obviously made that comparison for a reason.
December 25th, 2009 at 12:49 am
By the way, Merry Christmas, everyone!
December 25th, 2009 at 2:03 am
Merry Christmas, Mishael, and everyone.
I boned up on Oneness Pentecostalism (yes, I went to Wikipedia…) and apparently this argument has been going on for awhile (approximately beginning the same time as and involving the some of the same players in the Azusa Street Revival, early 20th Century). Oneness people will tell you (of course) it was the original belief of the church before the trinitarians came in about 300 AD.
Well, there are scads of Oneness denominations and millions of people who believe this general thing. So the ones who are “into it” no doubt have their arguments down, and are making them with orthodox believers all the time.
As I close down for the night, I’m going to pray for Pam and Jim, and just relax in the fact that I probably don’t have anything new to add to this debate.
December 25th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Kurt,
You posted after 2 AM. Were you waiting up for Santa?
Mishael,
Precisely the arguments I was going to make, had I posted back. I had typed out such a response to this yesterday, and then decided against it. One thing I’ve learned recently is that when people have made up their mind on things like this, you cannot convince them of anything different. It’s sort of like the Judaizers that come here about every 4 or 5 months and make the argument that Christians must be Torah observant. They offer plenty of selected scripture to support their belief, but ignore the full counsel of scripture that would defeat their argument.
It also reminds me of a few of the things that are being twisted by the emergent church movement, such as Christ dying on the cross so that God could reconcile Himself TO MAN, allowing all mankind to be saved via whatever path they choose. I went to one of Rob Bell’s services at Mars Hill and I heard that very thing preached. While that may sound right to some, we know that Christ died for our sins so that WE could be reconciled TO GOD, not the other way around. We also know that ALL mankind will not be saved, not even close, and that the path we choose is very narrow. But these people make similar long arguments as to why they are correct, using only selected scripture, while ignoring it’s full counsel. You cannot dissuade them of their opinion, ever.
Getting back to the Trinity, I have no idea why this concept should be such a difficult thing to grasp. Nothing is too difficult for God. He could assume as many roles as He would like, in as many personages. But Father, Son and Spirit makes complete sense to me, since that’s the experience we live out, every day. Since God desires to have a relationship with us, what better way to achieve that goal than to share our experience? To deny that God could create three personages of himself, all in one essence, is to deny the unlimited power and wisdom of God. Who are we to determine what God can or cannot do?
Now, even if many Christians profess to not understand the Trinity, that doesn’t invalidate it’s reality. I don’t know how Einstein’s Theory of Relativity works, but I believe in it’s existence every time I watch a film of a nuclear detonation. I don’t understand how it is that air can oxygenate our blood, but I accept it as true every time I take a breath. I could go on and on with analogies, but the point is clear. Truth is truth, whether we understand it or not.
Anyway, keep up the good work my friend, and have a very merry Christmas.
And a Merry Christmas to All!
December 26th, 2009 at 1:04 am
Kurt and Michael, thanks and good points. I don’t think there’s anything more I can add myself. I’ve been through this sort of discussion many times with a number of different people (both theists and atheists), and it does always end with agreeing to disagree. I enjoy it at the start as I seek to determine what it is I believe and why I believe it, but then it gets to the point where both sides are just going in circles and it gets frustrating. In the end, it’s God who’s the source of Truth, not me, so I shouldn’t expect to convince people (or even assume I’m always right). Ultimately it’s between each person and God, and we’re responsible for seeking and discovering the Truth from Him for ourselves.
That is an interesting view in the Emergent Church Movement. It sounds nice and hopeful for those who aren’t followers of Jesus, but it’s not biblically sound and is actually deceptive. The Path is narrow, indeed; Jesus said so Himself.
It’s true that just because we don’t fully understand something, it doesn’t mean it’s not true. That makes me think of something I read in Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion. When it comes down to it, the main reason why he does not believe in God is because he doesn’t know/understand where God came from (”who created the Creator?”). He refuses to accept the idea of an eternal being because, of course, he can’t comprehend it and it sounds like a cop-out. I find it rather silly and dangerous. He refuses to believe in God because he doesn’t understand His eternal nature? I’d like to see him try to get away with explaining that to God when he faces Him one day. “I’m sorry - I didn’t believe in You because I didn’t know where You came from, and to say You’ve always existed is just silly.” I feel sorry for him, and I hope that one day before it’s too late he’ll become more “open-minded” and consider the possibility of an eternal, all-wise, all-powerful Being in charge of the universe.
Anyway, I hope everyone has had a wonderful Christmas! Take care, all, and God bless.
December 26th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Mishael Says:
December 25th, 2009 at 12:46 am
———-
“Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals. … Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.”
Revelation 5:1, 6-7
———-
One approaches and takes something from the other. How can this happen if there is only one person? Is this only symbolic? If so, what is the purpose for this symbolism?
———-
Mishael, I thought you might consider the following. Shortage of time on my part to answer; since the subject of “right hand” has been discussed so often, I will copy and paste with reference to a site oneness/trinitarianism is discussed on a regular basis.
Right Hand of God
Our trinitatian friends pose a fair question. “If God is only one then how do you explain Jesus being on the right hand of the Father”?
This term the “right hand” goes back to ancient Bible times. It was and still is a figure of speech. Today the term is used as such, “John is my right hand man”. That statement today simply means that John is his good friend and someone that can be counted on. The point is that the term “right hand” is a figurative term. Another figure of speech is that “it is raining cats and dogs”. We know that cats and dogs are not coming down from the sky!
The Bible is full of such figurative terms, parables and typology that in some cases we must know a little of the Eastern customs to understand what is being implied and taught in the Bible passage.
The trinitarians look at this term and teach that it proves that two sit on the throne of God.
Let us look at some scriptures using this term “right hand”.
Ex 15:6
6 Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O LORD, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.
Ex 15:12
12 Thou stretchedst out thy right hand, the earth swallowed them.
In the two previous verses we can see that the right hand is not referring to position or location but the power and authority of God. When similar terms are used we find that the Bible never uses God’s left hand to describe His power and strength. Again the term has nothing to do with position or location but the very power and might of the almighty God!
Isa 63:12
12 That led them by the right hand of Moses with his glorious arm, dividing the water before them, to make himself an everlasting name?
Here was another very good example of how the term “right hand” is used to describe power. This time it is used in reference to Moses and how God used him in delivering the children of Israel from Egypt. It says “That led them by the right hand of Moses”. Does this mean that Moses literally took his “right hand’ and led out 3 million Jews? Of course not! It simply means that God used Moses and demonstrated his power through him in that great deliverance. No, it is not about location or position, it is about the power of God in operation.
How many sit on the throne of almighty God?
Rev 4:2
2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
According to what John saw only one sits on the throne. If one sits on the throne, who is it? Is it the Father, Son or Holy Spirit?
In the following passages let us remember what we have just learned about the “right hand”. The right hand does not refer to position or location but of power and authority.
Heb 10:12
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 1:3
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;
By looking at these verses in a natural sense we then see two on the throne. What did John see? He saw only one! We must know that the Bible always agrees with itself. There is no contradiction in scripture.
Should we look at one verse and make a decision on what God is saying? Should we not look at the Bible as a whole?
Now let us look at the phrase “sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high” . Who is Jesus sitting next to here? How can one sit next to “Majesty on high”?
Mark 14:62
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
How can one sit next to “the right hand of power”? The fact is Jesus sat down forever as God with all power and authority. Remember, it is not about location or position.
Isa 66:1
66:1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?
If God is omnipresent how then can you sit down on His right side? If God is a Spirit how then can one sit down on the right side of Him? If it possible to sit on the right side of God as a position then we must say that God is not everywhere but that He is limited to space, that He is confined to a certain amount of height and depth. Is God limited to a certain amount of height and depth? I say not!
Because God is an omnipresent Spirit He does not “sit” as we do on a physical throne. The Heaven is His throne. In other words in the universe He sits and reigns, there is no place where He isn’t.
Jesus Christ sat down with all power as Almighty God on the throne by Himself.
The term “sat down” leads us to more understanding of these passages. In understanding the sacrificing of the priests they were not allowed at any time to sit in the Holy place where the sacrificing was done. There was no place to sit. The reason for this is that their sacrificing was never finished. The sins of the people were only pushed ahead another year. When Jesus became our final sacrifice, He at the same time being the high priest, forever sat down as God ending all sacrifices!
So we see the subject is not about how many are sitting on the throne of God but about Jesus sitting down as the almighty God after the final sacrifice!
The term “the almighty” is used 44 times in the Bible. The last verse referring to the almighty is Jesus claiming to be the almighty. How many almighties do we have? Only one and He Jesus, sits on the throne alone!
Rev 1:8
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Luke 11:20
20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
The term “ the finger of God” can be taken literally but again God wants us to understand His great power and authority. Do you think Jesus reached into people’s lives and literally pluck out demons with His finger? A more clear understanding is that God doesn’t even need a whole hand to cast out demons. In a figurative way of speaking God only needs a finger to cast out the devil! The devil is no match for God!
I recommend books you can purchase from your local Christian book store that will help you understand eastern customs. With our western way of thinking sometimes we take the Bible too physical not understanding the intent behind the eastern mind.
FROM: http://blog.apostoliccontender.info/2008/08/31/jesus-sits-on-the-right-hand-of-god.aspx
Pam
December 26th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Jim L. Says:
December 24th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Well Pam looks like you have had a busy day while I was away,I pray that all
is well with you.
——–
Jim–
All is well! It all boils down to it being “okay” to refer to “God”, “Father”, “Son”, but *something* sure rises up in and around people when we NAME the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost!
Shortage of time forces me, in an effort not to forget those who may be reading but not posting as well as those who may truly be hungry for the Truth or who are not presently hungry but will be when it comes to the need to CALL ON THE NAME of the Almighty Mighty God Jesus Christ, I am leaving this discussion to those who want to continue or may want to begin visiting the following site–
http://blog.apostoliccontender.info/2008/08/31/jesus-sits-on-the-right-hand-of-god.aspx
Pam
December 26th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Blessings, Jim and all! The LORD Jesus Christ loves all humanity, and it truly is His desire that none perish although most will not love the Truth and will believe the strong delusion He will send.
Press on! LOVE Him enough to obey the Gospel (gospel defined: I Cor 15:1-4; gospel hidden II Cor 4:3-4; gospel *obeyed* Romans 6:1-6; gospel disobeyed II Thes 1:7-9). HIS NAME is Jesus (R.– Singular NAME in Matthew 28:19, not nameS — very simple. See also Luke 24:45-49 and the how it was obeyed in Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5 and 22:16; Matt 1:21, John 5:43, 14:17-26; I Cor 1:13, 4:12, Col 3:17, Mark 16:16). His titles, among many– not just three — are Father, Son (refers to flesh only), Holy Spirit, and Christ (can refer to flesh/Son as well as Spirit/God).
http://blog.apostoliccontender.info/2008/08/31/jesus-sits-on-the-right-hand-of-god.aspx
Pam
December 26th, 2009 at 9:46 am
What The Trinity Preachers Will Not Tell You!
Posted by Apostolic Contender at 2/14/2009 11:50 AM
Categories: Trinity Preachers
The Trinitarian preachers do NOT want you to know the truth of when the trinity doctrine began! When a person sees the documented history of the origin of the trinity and reads the Bible he can see as never before. Some trinitarian teachers vehemently despise Oneness Christians. Some forbid their church members to study along with Oneness Christians.
Any sincere Christian should wonder first of all why the terminology of the trinity is NOT found in the Bible. There are many words, terms and phrases that trinity preachers use to indoctrinate their people with. When you speak where the Bible speaks it is very difficult to go into false teachings. When you think that God needs your help in describing HIM, by saying that God is a trinity, three persons and the like, you have made yourself smarter than God!
Let us look at a little history of the origin of the trinity. Where did it come from? When was its beginning. Who were the “fathers” of this teaching? Why did it come into being? When did the trinity water baptism start? How did the early church baptize?
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, VOLUME 8
“Justin Martys was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church who helped change the ancient baptism of “in the Name of Jesus Christ” to the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost”
FORMULA “With regard to the form used for baptism in the early Church, there is the difficulty that although Matthew 28:19 speaks of the Trinitarian formula which is now used, the Acts of the Apostles (2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5) and Paul (I Corinthians 1:13, 6:11, Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:3) speak only of baptism “in the Name of Jesus.”
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1967 edition, volume 2, pages 56, 59.
“An explicit reference to the Trinitarian formula of baptism cannot be found in the first centuries.”
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEIA, 1913 edition, volume 2, Page 265:
“They acknowledge that the original formula for baptism was in the Name of Jesus, but
the pope changed it.”
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS Scribner‘s T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1924, vol 1 Page 380
“Christian baptism, when connected with the mention of a formula, is alluded to four times in the Acts (2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5) and the formula is never that of (Matthew 28:19) but is twice in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38, 10:48) and twice in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 8:16, 19:5). That this was the usual formula of Christian baptism is supported by the evidence of the Pauline Epistles, which speak of being baptized only into Christ or into Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:3). Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ commanded the disciples to baptize in the trine name? The obvious explanation of the silence of New Testament on the trine name, and the use of another formula in Acts and Paul is that this other formula was the earlier, and that the trine formula is a later edition. It would require very strong argument to controvert this presumption, and none seems to exist”.
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS James Hastings, Published 1924, volume 2, Pages 377, 378, 384, 389:
Page 377. “It is clear from the contemporary usage (Acts 1:15; 11:13; Revelations 3:4) that ‘name’ was an ancient synonym for ‘person.’
Page 378 “Whereupon the latter sealed the reception of the candidate into the holy community by invoking ‘the fair name’ of the Lord Jesus upon his head (James 2:7; Revelations 7:3; 9:4; 14:1; 22:4).”
Page 384. “The formula used was “in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” or some synonymous phrase. There is no evidence for the use of the triune name.”
Page 389. The earliest known formula is, “in the name of the Lord Jesus” or some similar phrase…”
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA—1910, 11th Edition, Volume 3, pages 365-366
Page 361 “The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning, nor did they always go together. The teachings of the Apostles indeed prescribes baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but on the next page speaks of those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord—the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century, baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Garthage, declared it to be valid. From Pope Zachariah (ep.x) we learn that the Celtic missionaries in Baptizing omitted one or more persons of the trinity, and this was one of the reasons why the church of Rome anathematized them; Pope Nicholas, however (858867), allowed baptism to be valid (Tantum in nimineChristi), as in Acts.
Ursinus, an African Monk A.D. 1284), also asserted that baptism into the name of Christ alone was valid. The formula of Rome is; “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and Son, and holy Spirit”
Page 366 No record of such use can be discovered in the Acts or the Epistles of the Apostles. The baptisms recorded in the New Testament after the day of Pentecost were administered “in the Name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38), “into the name of the Lord Jesus” (8:16) “into Christ” (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27). This difficulty was considered by the Fathers.
THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA 13th. Edition Volume 3, pages 365-366
The baptismal formula, the trinitarian and the trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning nor did they always go together.
A DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE—James Hastings, Scribner’s New York Published 1900, Volume I. page 241.
“the original form of words was ‘into the name of Jesus Christ’ or ‘the Lord Jesus’. Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development”
DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE— James Hastings, 1906 Edition, volume 1, page 241
“Moreover there is no mention in the New Testament of any one being baptized into the name of the trinity.”
HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION—Vol 2, pages 377, 378, 389.
“The Christian baptism was administered using the name of Jesus. The use of the trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church history, Baptism was always in the Name of the Lord Jesus, until the time of Justin Martyr, when the trinity formula was used. Volume 2, page 377, commenting on Acts 2:38, “Name was an ancient synonym for person. Payment was always made in the name of some person, referring to ownership, therefore, one being baptized in Jesus name became his personal property, “Ye are Christ’s I Corinthians 3:23.
HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE— PAGE 88.
“It must be acknowledged that the three-fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the” “Name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord”
THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA—Volume 1 pages 392, 393, 396.
“the formula of Christian baptism, in the mode which prevailed, is given in Matthew 28:19, ‘I baptize thee in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’ But it is curious that the words are not given in any description of Christian baptism until the time of Justin Martyr; and there, they are not repeated exactly, but in a slightly extended and explanatory form. In every account of the performance of the rite in Apostolic times a much shorter formula is in use. The 3,000 believers were baptized on the Day of Pentecost “in the Name of Jesus” (Acts 2:38), and the same formula was used at the baptism of Cornelius and those that were with him (Acts 10:48). Indeed it would appear to have been the usual one, from St Paul’s question to the Corinthians: “Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?” (I Corinthians 1:13). The Samaritans were baptized “into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16); and the same formula was used in the case of the disciples at Ephesus. (Acts 19:1-5)….Others think that the full formula was always used and that narratives in the book of Acts and in the Pauline Epistles are merely brief summaries of what took place; an idea rather difficult to believe in the absence of any single reference to the longer formula The evidence to show that the formula given by St Matthew became the established usage is overwhelming; but it is more than likely that the use of the shorter formula did not altogether die out, or, if it did, that it was revived. The historian Socrates informs us that some of the more extreme Arians “corrected” baptism by using the Name of Christ only in the formula. “The practice of using the shorter formula existed in the 5th. and 6th. Centuries, at all events in the East”
Page 396. “No record of such use can be discovered in the Acts of the Epistles of the
Apostles. The baptisms recorded in the New Testament after the Day of Pentecost are
administered “in the Name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38), “into the name of the Lord Jesus”
(8:16), “into Christ” (Romans 6:3, Galatians 3:27). This difficulty was considered by the
Fathers.”
HISTORY OF CHRISTANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE—A.C. McGiffert, Scribners, 1901, page 61.
…”of the trinitarian formula, into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which later became universal in the Church, we have no trace in the New Testament, except in the single passage, (Matthew 28:19). It is difficult to suppose that it was employed in the early days with which we are here concerned; for it involves a conception of the nature of the rite which was entirely foreign to the thought of the primitive Christians, and indeed no less foreign to the thought of. When and how the formula arose, we do not know.”
http://blog.apostoliccontender.info/2008/08/31/jesus-sits-on-the-right-hand-of-god.aspx
December 26th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Mitchell - Thank you for your prayers! I passed this test with my eyes wide open!!!
Jesus Christ or Father, son & Holy Ghost
Take this Test regarding the name used in the New Testament
Choose the correct answer
1. What is the only name we can be saved by according to? Acts 4:12
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
a) Jesus Christ
b) Father, son & Holy Ghost
2. What is the name we are to call upon to be saved according to Romans 10:13?
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
a) Jesus Christ
b) Father, son & Holy Ghost
3. What is the name we should believe in to obtain eternal life according to 1 John 5:13?
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
a) Jesus Christ
b) Father, son & Holy Ghost
4. What is the name that we should use in words or deeds according to Colossians 3:17?
17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
a) Jesus Christ
b) Father, son & Holy Ghost
5. What is the name that is above every name according to Philippians 2:9?
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
a) Jesus Christ
b) Father, son & Holy Ghost
6. What is the name we should use to cast out devils according to Mark 16:17?
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
a) Jesus Christ
b) Father, son & Holy Ghost
7. What is the name by which the whole family in Heaven and earth is named according to Ephesians 3:15?
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named…
a) Jesus Christ
b) Father, son & Holy Ghost
8. What is the name Jesus said that we should use to baptize with according to Matthew 28:19?
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name…
a) Jesus Christ
b) Father, son & Holy Ghost
9. What is the name that Peter said we should use to baptize with according to Acts 2:38?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name…
a) Jesus Christ
b) Father, son & Holy Ghost
10. What is the name Paul used to rebaptize some believers with according to Acts 19:5
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name…
a) Jesus Christ
b) Father, son & Holy Ghost
11. When you say Grace over your meal what name do you use?
a) Jesus Christ
b) Father, son & Holy Ghost
12. What name were you baptized in?
a) Jesus Christ
b) Father, son & Holy Ghost
http://blog.apostoliccontender.info/2008/08/31/jesus-sits-on-the-right-hand-of-god.aspx
Pam
December 26th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Pam, Jesus is the Christ. Yeshua Ha’Mashiach. Of course no one can be saved unless they go through Jesus. This does not, however, negate the Triune nature of God. Taking the whole of Scripture, one cannot support the Oneness doctrine.
December 26th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Pam,
Very good points there!
Moreover, I have heard that the following: “and baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit…” is adding to the Word of G-d by the church fathers or the Roman Catholic church.
They who question the trinity in the passage in question above say that in the original Scriptures Yeshua commanded believers to baptize new disciples in His name and not in the name of somekind of “trinity” which is unbiblical doctrine in itself.
YHWH and Yeshua is one and the same G-d. Period. YHWH is Yeshua and Yeshua is YHWH. Yeshua is YHWH in the flesh.
We aren’t saved in the name of “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”, but in the name of Yeshua Messiah. The name of Yeshua is everywhere in the Bible (including Tanach, the “Old Testament”) and in that name we are saved, forgiven, baptized, blessed etc. It is simple as that.
Shema Yisrael Adonai Elohim Adonai Echad! Our G-d is one.
December 26th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
It is no wonder why the religious Jews and Muslims reject Gospel, because they think that we serve three gods. And after all, they don’t reject Gospel itself because the original Gospel doesn’t declare the saving grace of the “trinity”, but the saving grace of Yeshua Messiah.
I understand religious Jews and Muslims very well in this issue. The hellenized Christianity, which have forsaken it’s Hebrew / Jewish roots, has truly mixed up many many things when it comes to the biblical faith of the original Jewish and Gentile followers of Yeshua Messiah.
December 26th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Ironic. We have a Messianic Arian agreeing with a Oneness Pentecostal. In years past, I have met many Oneness believers who claim that we must be baptised (or rebaptised) in the name of “Jesus” only. On the other hand, I have met some Messianics who would say that if one is baptised in the english (pagan) name of “Jesus” that it didn’t count. Thus some have been be re-baptised in the name of “Yeshua”. I imagine a Roman Catholic who was baptised as a baby, who gets saved later in life as a Protestant, getting re-rebaptised in the name of the “Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.” who later embraces Oneness Pentecostalism and gets re-re-rebaptised again in the name of Jesus, only to eventually find Messianic Judiasm and get re-re-re-baptised once more in the name of Yeshua.
By the way, an accurate translation, free of any reactionary theological interpretation, would be as follows:
Hear Oh Israel: Yahweh, He is God, Yahweh alone!
The Shema was a reminder to Israel that they were to serve Yahweh, the One True God, and no others. The commandment follows, which is the portion that Yeshua quoted as the first commandment: “You shall love Yahweh your with all your heart, mind, soul etc.” In embracing Hebraic roots, (which I believe in) it is important to avoid the errors of Judaism that have compounded over the past two thousand years. Unfortunately, a rejection of the Trinity is precisely this: embracing reactionary theological errors.
December 27th, 2009 at 8:40 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qxE9qDspJE
December 27th, 2009 at 11:02 am
The Jesus only ZZTop?
December 27th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Joel:
About your re, re-re, re-re-re concerns: It is impossible for a Roman Catholic to be re-baptized. You only got dripped or poured if you held still as an infant. People such as myself and “R” who were immersed who posted above are not re-baptized: the first time I was immersed I only got wet because I was “baptized” using the Roman Catholic daughter church formula that the Roman Catholic Church SAYS in the histories that they first used the biblical formula but then changed their formula to multiple titles instead of NAME (singular) which is Jesus as discovered in the history of THE CHURCH contained in the Book of Acts. I was baptized in the NAME and my sins were remitted. What must we do to be saved was asked. Peter answered. You should do what your so-called first pope told you to do, Joel. Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent , and be baptized every one of you in the NAME of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off , even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort , saying , SAVE YOURSELVES FROM THIS UNTOWARD GENERATION. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized : and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ [ALL the apostles, plural possessive] doctrine. There is ONE baptism, and there is ONE Lord which is yet another problem for trinitarians such as yourself in preaching a LORD god as well as a Lord Jesus son of god.
I knew you’d enjoy Steve Winter. He has personally invited you to visit at http://www.TheTruthOfTheBible.com He is well able to clue you in on the Jesus only thing, Joel.
The devil is a SLEAZY PREACHER of the false doctrine of the trinity that does not remit people’s sins. It wouldn’t matter if Steve Winter set his lyrics in the style of a waltz written as Beethoven would have!
Jesus only? We will all meet the ONE one day. My knees are already bowed and my tongue has already confessed that Jesus Christ is LORD.
Pam
December 27th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
ACTION, Day of Pentecost: HOLY BIBLE: Baptism in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sin is found in the Book of Acts. The Epistles were written to the Church having had been baptized in the Name of Jesus and who were continuing steadfastly in the APOSTLES’ doctrine.
REACTIONARY theological errors [as Joel puts it]: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEIA, 1913 edition, volume 2, Page 265: “They acknowledge that the original formula for baptism was in the Name of Jesus, but THE POPE CHANGED IT.”
:-)
Pam
December 27th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Correction of typo Lord Jesus son of god: Lord Jesus god the son.
December 27th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Joel, I love that Shema translation; I’ve heard the same thing elsewhere, and noted another alternate wording “…there is no one else”. The Shema then is not a negation of trinitarian belief.
What I would like to hear from the orthodox-believing regular posters to this site is, do you think these oneness people are “in the faith”? Are they calling on the same Jesus?
My sense is, although I think they’re completely contorting scripture, in the end they don’t deny the deity of the Father and the Holy Spirit and they believe we are saved by faith in Christ’s work, but with some troubling additions, depending on which of their denominations you listen.
December 27th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Though I cannot judge the hearts of Oneness believers, I will judge the teachings of Oneness theology and find it to be quite “cultic” imho. Oneness theology will make many of the same arguments that Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons make in denying the Trinity as revealed in God-inspired Scripture.
“The most serious weakness in the modalistic system of the ‘Jesus Only’ movement is its failure to recognize the subject-object relationship among the members of the Godhead. All reality in the realm of personality is based upon this commonly-accepted fact. For, if there is no object in a given conversation, then there is no meaningful dialogue. One is merely talking to oneself!
If Jesus alone is God, and the Father and the Holy Spirit are only ‘manifestations’ of Jesus, many passages of Scripture are meaningless and even deceptive. Did Jesus imitate His Father’s voice in Matthew 3:17, or the Spirit’s command in Acts 13:2? Who said, ‘Thou art my (subject) beloved Son (object), in whom I (subject) am well pleased’ in Mark 1.11? Where, might we ask, was the Son when the Father said, ‘Listen to Him’ (Matthew 17:5 NIV)? Where was the Father when the Son said, ‘I (subject) have brought you (object) glory’ (John 17 :4 NIV)? The very existence of an ‘I’ - ‘you’ relationship denotes personality; and the followers of the ‘Jesus Only’ movement must either ignore or pervert these, and many other passages, to destroy the personal Ego of the members of the Holy Trinity. Our Lord’s great plea upon the cross, ‘Father, forgive them:’ becomes a hollow sham; His resignation to the Father’s will, an illusion - ‘Yet not as I will, but as you will’ (Matthew 26:39 NIV); and His final words to His Father on the cross, ‘into your hands I commit my spirit’ (Luke 23:46 NIV), a pathetic fraud, if there is not a genuine Person known as the Father, distinct from the Person of the Son.
The same can be said of the Person of the Holy Spirit, who exhibits every attribute of deity and personality, and of whom Jesus said:
Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. When He comes, He will convict the world… But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on His own; He will speak only what He hears, and He will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me… John 16:7-8, 13-14, NIV
The multiple references of the Holy Spirit in Scriptures in a subject-object relationship to the Persons of the Father and the Son (John 14:16, 26) are positive proof that the Holy Spirit is a Person distinct from the Persons of the Father and the Son. Furthermore, Scripture teaches that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4), and that He is no phantom, ‘mode,’ or ‘manifestation’ of Jesus Christ, as the ‘Jesus Only’ or ‘Oneness’ Pentecostal movement maintains.
http://biblefacts.org/cult/oneness.html
Any group or church that distorts Biblical orthodoxy, twists Scripture, or attempts to rewrite Christian history by (falsely) claiming that their position is the original position of the Apostles, is playing with fire.
December 27th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
LOL Joel
It’s curious that most cults and aberrations all center around the year 300 as being the time when the church fell. In spite of what Jesus said in Matthew 16 that :18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Well according to most cults and heretical teachings the true church hasn’t been around for over 1600 years! I guess they have no problem calling Jesus a liar.
Good arguments from those of you who support the trinity, but I’ve realized from my debates with cultists that it is futile, only God can change their heart. I have a long time friend who’s a JW and I showed her a document written by Ignatius (who died for his faith in 64 ad) where he quotes John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. I asked her at what time she supposed the verse was changed to “a god” and she had no answer, yet remains a JW to this day. “Because it feels right to me”.
December 27th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
sorry….changed from “a god”
December 27th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
What if you were baptized in the name of Jesus, Yeshua, and in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all at the same time… would you be saved then,LOL?
December 27th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
LOL Adam I dunno, what would be the correct formula? And would you be fully immersed or sprinkled? There must be some way to stop people from going to hell…
December 27th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Ignobluese, Right. While I agree that error crept into the Church, this is different than believing that the Church “fell” as many believe. Unless we believe that the essentials have all been preserved, then we end up with broken promises and nothing more than individual opinion to stand on. The end result of that of course is one denomination for ever believer.
December 27th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Kurt, Mitchell,
Whenever we speak of heterodoxy or heresy, the protestant mind always tends to ask if the individual in question is saved or not. I think a better appraoch is to simply say that we cannot know where the edges are, only the center (orthodoxy). Our goal must be to remain as close to the center as possible and call other there as well. But in the end, God is the judge.
December 27th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Exactly Joel, what hope do any of us have if the basic tenants of Christ’s birth, death and ultimate sacrifice are null and void? If Jesus Christ was not fully God and fully man, who allowed himself to be the burden of our sinful life/what hope is there? The Judaizers and torah worshipers all command us to follow the old law to earn our salvation, almost all other cults like oneness, jw’s, mormonism, islam, etc. demand that we deny the divinity of Jesus Christ!
This cannot be. God is in control and has been throughout history. Surely he didn’t get things wrong in 300 ad.
There was a nutter who posted on here who said that to worship Jesus in the name of Jesus was to worship Zeus. What’s in a name? It sounds like so it must be. There’s a lady in my small group who is from Columbia, and they call Jesus “Jesus (yes that’s Heysus) Christos”. This woman is a powerful intercessor for the Lord. She is bound for hell because she doesn’t deny the divinity of Christ? Because she eats pork? Because she prays to Jesus Christos?
Get thee behind me Satan.
December 27th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
I agree Joel.
December 27th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Amen.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Ditto.
December 28th, 2009 at 3:57 am
Pam,
You are making a great case here.I pray it is not falling on” deaf ears”only.
Honestly I believe it is not.There have been those in the past that have
answered the call.
The thing I find interesting is,that from the Book of Acts on,the Bible is
written to Spirit filled believers who have repented,been baptized in Jesus
Name and filled with the Holy Ghost.
We have been called names and pushed around,but still we know that the Bible
is applied to our lives in a way they may never know.Still we press on,keep
up the good fight knowing our warfare is not carnal.We seek to pull down
the strongholds of tradition which in the past have led to the death of our
brothers and sisters in the faith.They call us a cult,Jesus only etc.Yet we will not stop,our course is true and set,We know what we know,and we know where we are going.Our task is to get to heaven and take as many with us as we can.
If we were not in the truth,God would not be blessing our fellowship the
way He does.Early mornings for me this week,take care and God bless,
thanks for what you are doing here,if no one else, I appreciate you.Jim
December 28th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
hIOExpectedMKDisk says (December 22, 2009): “Give me two days.”
Are you still there? I was wondering if you have a response yet.
December 28th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Ignobleuse –
Please read with understanding ALL the Scripture which interprets Scripture. Especially interesting is OT Scripture which refers to THE ROCK that has become MY SALVATION because it is saying THE ROCK has become JEHOVAH-SAVIOR; that is, THE ROCK has become Yeshuwa, JESUS.
In Matthew 16:18 is the “Rock” upon which Christ established His church Peter? Or is the “Rock” Christ? God’s answer:
For other foundation NO ONE can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus. (I Corinthians 3:11)
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and THAT ROCK WAS CHRIST). (I Corinthians 10:4).
Jesus said to them, “Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejectcd, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?” (Matthew 21:42) (Compare with Psalm 117:21, 23)
For they stumbled or the stumbling-stone, as it is written, “Behold I lay in Sion, a stumbling-stone and a ROCK of offence: and whosoever believeth on him (Christ) shall not be ashamed.” (Romans 9:33)
Let us see what the apostle, St. Peter, had to say concerning this.
To whom coming (Christ), as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men but chosen of God, and precious,
Wherefore also it is contained in the Scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe He is preciou: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and, a stone of stumbling, and a ROCK of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: (I Peter 2:4. 6-8)
This is The stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: For there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Also the words of St. Peter, speaking of Jesus Christ, as recorded in Acts 4:11, 12)
Turning to the Old Testament we find the following:
The Lord is my ROCK, and my fortress, and my deliverer. My God, is the ROCK of refuge. Psalm 18:2, 94:22.
God was their ROCK, and the high God their redeemer. Psalm 78:35.
Unto Thee will I cry, O LORD, MY ROCK; Psalm 28:1.
Bow down Thy thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be Thou my strong ROCK, FOR A HOUSE of defense to SAVE me. for Thou art my ROCK and my FORTRESS; therefore for Thy name’s sake lead me, and guide me. Psalm 31:2,3).
I will say unto God my ROCK, why hast Thou forgotten me? Psalm 41:l0.
Lead me to the ROCK that is higher than I Psalms 61:2
He Only is my ROCK and my salvation; He is my defense; I shall not be moved. In GOD is my salvation and my glory: THE ROCK of my strength, and my refuge, is in God. Trust in him at all times, ye people, Pour out your heart before him; God is a refuge for us. Selah Psalm 62:6-8
To shew that the Lord is upright: He is my ROCK, and there is no unrighteousness in Him. Psalm92:15.
but the Lord is my defense; and MY GOD IS THE ROCK of my refuge. Psalm 94:22.
O Come, let us sing unto THE LORD; let us make a joyful noise to THE ROCK of our salvation. Psalm 95:1.
The stone which the builders refused is become the head of the corner. This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvellous in our eyes. Psalm 118:22, 23.
Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Isaiah 28:16.
Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto OUR GOD! He is THE ROCK, His work is perfect: for all his ways are judgement: Deuteronomy 32:3,4.
Then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed THE ROCK of his salvation. Deuteronomy 32:15, 18).
And he said: THE LORD IS MY ROCK, and my fortress, and my deliverer II Samuel 22:2.
December 28th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Pam, nothing you have provided proves in any way, shape or form, Oneness theology.
December 28th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
There has never been a Oneness Pentecostal (modalistic monarchianist) who has proceeded to burn Bibles and then to burn those who will not accept truth people at the stake, sawing us asunder, using us as flaming lanterns after discussions such as these. There have been those who have and will again. But we of THE NAME have been the burned, the hated. We have been told by the ONE that knows:
Matthew 10:22 KJV And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved .
Matthew 24:9 KJV Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.
Mark 13:13 KJV And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake : but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved .
Luke 21:17 KJV And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.
Pam
December 28th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Mitchell–
Jesus declares you presently blind and wanting, but not without hope. He loves you; He hates your Nicolaitan false doctrine.
Pam
December 28th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Mitchell– Jesus does not need me to prove anything. His Word is all we need together with the avoidance of traditions of men and vain philosophy. Please carefully evaluate the following:
Who Gave Who to Die on the Cross?
Did the first person give the second person to die in capital punishment or did God himself love His creation so much that He himself took on the nature of flesh and came to earth as the Messiah?
John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
1 John 3:16
16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
The verse in John says that God gave His son but in 1 John it says that God gave himself. Which is it? Who came to die? Did God die? Did His son die?
When we understand that God is a Spirit and that He came in flesh helps us understand the verses. God did not die. The Son of God died. The manifestation of God died. The flesh of God died. There is a difference between the flesh and spirit. God has a Spirit nature and a flesh nature. Everyone that is born again also has a Spirit nature and was born with a human nature.
God is a Spirit but added a human nature when he came in flesh. Not another person but simply a revealing of God in human flesh!
1 Tim 3:16
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
The fact is that God himself came in flesh and died on a tree for our sins. It was not another person but simply God loving His own creation enough to come Himself and die!
God is one in number. He said it.
Isa 43:10-11
10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
Isa 43:14-15
14 Thus saith the LORD, your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; For your sake I have sent to Babylon, and have brought down all their nobles, and the Chaldeans, whose cry is in the ships.
15 I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.
Isa 44:6
6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Isa 44:8
8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
Isa 45:4-5
4 For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
Isa 45:18
18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
Isa 45:21-22
21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
Jesus Christ the manifestation of God is the ONE true God!
1 John 5:20
20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
December 28th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Pam: Sooooo…we hate you and want to burn you? Is that what you’re saying? And no trinitarians have ever been persecuted and killed for following Christ? Even if that’s not what you meant, it’s what you’re implying by bringing it up here. Why are you resorting to making us your persecutors when we don’t agree with you? It just makes me doubt your position all the more if that’s your final argument on the matter.
Don’t fall for the lie that disagreement means hatred and persecution.
For that matter, Jim said, “If we were not in the truth, God would not be blessing our fellowship the way He does.” Honestly, people of those denominations which openly accept homosexuality as a valid and God-given lifestyle (with clergy who live it) also say that. We here, who believe something you think is wrong and unbiblical, also feel we are living in God’s blessing. We know to Whom we belong as much as you do. My point is that saying this and believing this does not necessarily mean you’re right. God knows who are His. Learn about Him and love Him by studying His Word. That’s what we are all to do as His followers.
December 28th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Pam,
Well, I suppose it was inevitable. Now you’re presuming to speak for God as you judge Mitchell. All I can say is ‘wow’. Many of us have varying positions in our discussions on this site, but I don’t recall anyone else presuming to speak for God. I’d be very careful with that.
Mitchell,
Way to contend for the Word bro, but this is why I dropped out a little while ago. These debates always end this way. I suppose it was a valuable exercise however, as some of us finally got up to speed on ‘oneness’ doctrine.
December 28th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Sorry Pam, but I disagree.
John 1:14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
The bible is replete with verses like this, and like the ones you quoted. God so loved the world that HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON.
Later on we read 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.
No one has ever seen God? According to you Jesus is God. So apparently at least John saw him. And we have ample evidences that people walked with God in the old testament, Jacob even wrestled with him. In the old testament they are pre-incarnate manifestations of Jesus Christ called Christophanies. No one has seen God the Father because he is Spirit.
I agree with you Michael, it was interesting to hear about the oneness doctrine. It never fails to amaze me how cults will take the verses they want to use and disregard the rest of the bible. And I’ll add again, most modern cults all seem to think that the true church fell around 300 ad.
Untold millions of Christians all died for their faith in vain until the “correct” gospel was revived in 1820, 1872, 1913, or the 1930’s. Take your pick.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
To me the most obvious way the oneness gospel falls is this. If God the father was in fact the son and the holy spirit why wouldn’t he use language to make it clear?
For example, John 1:18 could have read: No one has ever seen God, until now. (Which would of course put it in conflict with the entire old testament.)
John 3:16: For God so loved the world that he himself came as his only begotten son. (It seems really odd but that is exactly what oneness doctrine is claiming.)
Or how about Matthew 3:17? 17And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Oneness adherents would have it worded quite differently: This is me, whom I love; and with me I am well pleased. Sounds like a narcissist with low self esteem issues, hardly the God of the bible.
The trinitarian doctrine is the only one that makes sense. In my debates with my JW friend, one of her major arguments against the trinity was that we should be able to understand God. I think knowledge of God is not something we can take lightly. Our finite minds wouldn’t be able to grasp an infinite God. Can an ant understand word processing?
December 28th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Got another one!
Philippians 2:5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Oneness adherents: Christ Jesus, Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with himself something to be grasped,
9 Therefore He exalted himself to the highest place, and gave himself the name that is above every name. That at the name of himself every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of Jesus Christ.
Very confusing stuff. Anybody else have some confusing verses for our oneness brethren? Please share!
December 28th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Discussions like this are always good to bring in the early Church Fathers factor. Their writing provide us with a clear glimpse of what the earliest Church believed. No, they do not sue the term Trinity, but they clearly express Trinitarian belief. The relevance of this is seen in that these were the earliest leaders of the Church, such as Polycarp a disciple of John etc. Those who were close to and ministering beside the apostles.
The utter lack of anything vaguely Oneness in these writings reveals that the Oneness heresy is yet one more early prophesied heresy. There were many such heresies. Even as Jesus and the Apostles warned of. But this particular heresy didn’t raise its ugly head until the 3rd Century. But the Church defeated it. Of course, it all but disappeared until William Branham reintroduced the idea in the 50’s.
Another issue is the irony and contradiction in that Modalists accept the Canon of Scripture that was canonized by the 3rd Century Church while at the same time claiming that this very same Church was heretical. In other words, by accepting their canon, they affirm that God was with them in their decision making, yet in the next breath declare that they were heretics.
This factor is the glaring probelm, whether it be for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Oness folks or any other popular cult today. They all claim to stand on the Bible, but reject the men whose authority declared which books were in and which books were out. The books did not choose themselves. Believe it or not, this took a… gasp!… a Church council!
December 28th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
R - I only just saw your posts and your link to the other board. Thank you for sharing that! Sorry I missed it before.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Joel,
Thank you for those references. They clearly demonstrate the fallacy of ‘oneness’ as the accepted wisdom in the early church. And now maybe we can put this to bed. But somehow, I sense a rebutall coming.
December 29th, 2009 at 12:07 am
I’d really like to know if hIOExpectedMKDisk has found anything in his research or not.
December 29th, 2009 at 1:57 am
Joel, excellent references brother. Here are more from Justin Martyr and Tertullian:
Justin Martyr — “God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words: ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness.’ … I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that [God] conversed with someone numerically distinct from himself and also a rational being… But this offspring who was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with him” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 62 – 155 AD)
And from Tertullian — “And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Against Praxeas 2 — 216 AD)
“While keeping to this demurrer always, there must, nevertheless, be place for reviewing for the sake of the instruction and protection of various persons. Otherwise it might seem that each perverse opinion is not examined but simply prejudged and condemned. This is especially so in the case of the present heresy [modal monarchism, ie. Oneness theology], which considers itself to have the pure truth when it supposes that one cannot believe in the one only God in any way other than by saying that Father, Son, and Spirit are the selfsame person. As if one were not all … through the unity of substance” (Against Praxeas 2:3–4 – 216 AD)
“Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe, now, that I say the Father is other [distinct], and the Son is other, and the Spirit is other … I say this, however, out of necessity, since they contend that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are the selfsame person” (Against Praxeas 9:1 – 216 AD)
“Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number” (Against Praxeas 25 – 216 AD)
And these as well:
The Letter of Barnabas — “And further, my brethren, if the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,’ understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men” (Letter of Barnabas 5 — 74 AD)
Hermas - “The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the Father’s adviser in his creation. Therefore also he is ancient” (The Shepherd 12 — 80 AD)
Ignatius of Antioch — “Jesus Christ … was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. … Jesus Christ … came forth from one Father and is with and has gone to one [Father]. … [T]here is one God, who has manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased him that sent him” (Letter to the Magnesians 6–8 — 110 AD)
Polycarp of Smyrna — “I praise you for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 — 155 AD)
Irenaeus — “For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty … and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit” (Against Heresies 1:10:1 — 189 AD)
“It was not angels, therefore, who made us nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor anyone else. … For God did not stand in need of these in order to accomplish what he had himself determined with himself beforehand should be done, as if he did not possess his own hands. For with him [the Father] were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying, ‘Let us make man in our image and likeness’ [Genesis 1:26]” (Against Heresies 4:20:1 — 189 AD)
Theophilus of Antioch — “It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. … The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom” (To Autolycus 2:15 — 181 AD)
Origen — “For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages” (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 — 225 AD)
ignobleuse asks, “Anybody else have some confusing verses for our oneness brethren? Please share!”
Isaiah 6:3, “And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, [is] the LORD of hosts: the whole earth [is] full of his glory.” Interesting that the seraphim says “holy” not just once, but three times here.
Isaiah 48:16, “Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit Have sent Me.” Isa 48:12-13 tells us who the “Me” is. It is the Creator. Jesus, who was sent, is called the Creator in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:10-12. So here in 48:16 we have the Father sending the Word of God. “The Jews simply had no way to explain how both the sender and the one sent (ME) could both be YHWH. This is a good example of doctrinal development between the Old and New Testament. Christians can easily make sense of the passage! So Isa 48:16 has YHWH sending another who is also YHWH. Of course Trinitarians know that all three members of the Godhead are called ‘YHWH’. Anti-Trinitarians, can do no better than the Jews in explaining how the sender and the one sent are both called YHWH in Isa 48:16 Combined with Isa 61:1, it is clear that the ME is Jesus)
Isaiah 61:1: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, Because the Lord (YHWH) has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives And freedom to prisoners; ” (Jesus applied the text to Himself in Luke 4:18-30)
Isaiah 63:8-10: “For He said, ‘Surely, they are My people, Sons who will not deal falsely.’ So He became their Savior. In all their affliction He was afflicted, And the angel of His presence [lit: face] saved them; In His love and in His mercy He redeemed them, And He lifted them and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled And grieved His Holy Spirit” (The angel of His face is YHWH Himself not a created angel: Ex 23:14-15, 20-23; 14:19; Num 20:16; Ex 33:12. Trinitarians expect to find this kind of passage in the Old Testament, that would not be fully understood until the mystery was revealed about the Trinity in the New Testament.)
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/
December 29th, 2009 at 7:23 am
Polycarp of Smyrna — “I praise you for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 — 155 AD)
Thats an important quote. Again, Polycarp was a direct disciple of John the Apostle, and was clearly a Trinitarian… One cannot find a single reference to Oness theology until the 3rd Century, and only then as a small heretical movement.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:28 am
By the way, for anyone who seriously wishes to further examine this issue, I would highly recommend a book by Yoel Natan called The Jewish Trinity. In this book, Yoel documents that Judaism was throughly Trinitarian throughout the Bible. By the first century, many Jews had fallen into the unitarian heresy which was then essentially codified over the years through their ongoing anti-Christian reactionary theology.
December 29th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Joel:
“Polycarp died about 155. The Martyrdom of Polycarp by an UNKNOWN AUTHOR can be no earlier, and some scholars date it much later. It is not a trustworthy eyewitness account, for it relates fanciful miracles: when Plycarp was burned at the stake (it was NOT modalistic monarchians who lit the fire by the way) his body shone like gold and silver and gave off sweet odors, a dove flew out of his body, and his blood extinguished the fire. Here’s where you laughers-out-loud should be ROLLING ON THE FLOOR. It contains many interpolations, as a comparison with a version preserved by Eusebius shows. It includes several trinitarian prayers, which are probably embellishments of the original story or interpolations. They exist in contradictory forms, and scholars have noted that they sound remarkably like “Eucharistic prayers of a later date.”
For example, Polycarp’s prayer, which scholars GENERALLY AGREE IS FICTITIOUS OR HEAVILY INTERPOLATED, gives glory to God “along with” Jesus Christ and “to” the Holy Ghost. Eusebius’s version gives glory to God with Jesus Christ “in the Holy Ghost.” The account also says that Polycarp glorified God the Father and blessed Jesus Christ; later manuscripts add a blessing to the Holy Spirit. The closing salutation twice gives glory to Jesus Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit. A scribe named Pionius added the second statement of praise, and an earlier scribe probably added or embellished the first.” Oneness and Trinity A.D. 100-300, David K. Bernard, WAP, 1991.
Pam
December 29th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Joel, thanks for the book recommendation, it sounds like a very interesting read. How anyone can read the whole of Divinely inspired Scripture, especially in light of the numerous triadic Biblical passages (and even the writings of the early church Fathers), and still deny the triune nature of the One and only God of the Bible is beyond me. It is expressed not only in the Word of He who is the Creator, but within His spoken creation as well.
For Pam and others, you can read a few pages of “The Jewish Trinity” here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=CvY-v4YQ1UYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Jewish+Trinity&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Blessings to all …
December 29th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Here is the Foreword to “The Jewish Trinity”:
“Tradition says that Moses and the rest of the OT writers seldom hinted at the existence of the Trinity. This book, however, shows that the NT writers knew that Moses and the other OT writers wrote strikingly and often about the Trinity and about the deity of Christ. The OT and NT writers both wrote about the Trinity and the glory and grace of the Messiah so that their readers could be saved.
The aim of this book is to disperse the smog of those who would obfuscate the witness of the OT and the NT to the Trinity and to the deity of Christ, so that the OT and NT will continue to save as many as possible through their witness to the truth. This book ought to accomplish this aim, God willing, because even if someone were to arbitrarily reject the majority of the Trinitarian proofs mentioned in this book, the minority of OT and NT proofs that remained would still total more than the number of proofs known before the publication of this book.
By God’s grace, many readers of this book will conclude that:
* Many of the cults and world religions from which people need to escape are based on the mistaken idea that Moses was unitarian rather than Trinitarian, and
* If Moses, Yeshua, and all the OT and NT writers were through and through Trinitarian, then the reader should forsake all anti-Trinitarian religions, cults, and churches, as well as their leaders, teachers, theologians and philosophers, and quickly join a Trinitarian church
Yoel Natan
May 2003″
December 29th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Pam, you have accused trinitarians of twisting scripture, and yet it is unitarians who have had to find alternative, symbolic meanings for every single verse (and there are many) that describes the Father and the Son as interacting with each other and/or describing the other in third person (He, Him, His). Please understand this.
December 29th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
LOL. How did this discussion go from the Mahdi (Antichrist) coming from Istanbul… to arguing over the triunity of God.
December 29th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Why were at it, I’d like to discuss this whole Calvinist- Armenian issue… LOL. I’m just kidding, ya’ll knock yourselves out.
December 29th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Oh, going off-topic is a common, old habit of discussion boards/blogs like this.
It’s bound to happen.
I am quite interested in the original topic of this blog entry, though, and I wouldn’t mind getting back to it.
December 29th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Mishael -
Unitarians are *dynamic* monarchianists. Oneness Pentecostals are *modalistic* monarchianists.
Pam
December 29th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Yoel
It was a Jewish person who tried to teach me about the trinity using a three-pronged fork, but did not know how to “handle the handle” other than referring to “it” as God the Essence. That would be four. . .
Pam
December 29th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Hahahaha! I answered Yoel! LAS (Adam, that means “laughing at self” and I want you to have a good time with it!)
Pam
December 29th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Pam - I don’t know the difference (and I don’t really care); I was merely making the differentiation between those who believe in God’s oneness through a trinity (we, too, believe He is One God) versus those who believe God’s oneness in purely one being (no Father-Son-Holy Spirit in co-existence). My point remains.
Do we agree that God is a God of relationships and that our relational nature is a reflection of His own? Is it possible to have a relationship with no other person than yourself, or must there be at least two people for a relationship to exist? Do we agree that God is Love? Is it possible to love without a recipient, or is Love not Love until it is given away?
Do we agree that God does not change, that His nature is immutable? If He is a relational God, and if He is Love, then He has always been so. If God is the only Being who is from everlasting and to everlasting, who did He have a relationship with before this universe came into being? Who did He love?
The marriage relationship is a reflection of God’s relationship. Husband and wife come together to become one - this is a biblical description - but they don’t lose their identities in the process. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are also One without losing their individual identities; remember, we are reflections of Him.
In fact, the marriage relationship is a reflection of Christ’s relationship with the Church - this is a biblical claim. Jesus Himself said that as He is one with the Father, so we are one with Jesus and He is one with us (I already quoted this above). He Himself made the comparison. If our being one with Jesus doesn’t -make- us Jesus, and He compares our relationship with Him to His relationship with the Father, then it would be incorrect for us to change it to say that He is claiming to be the Father. That is twisting His words. He wouldn’t use that comparison if it was faulty in such a big way.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
I am really tiring of the name calling,obviously none of you even has a idea of what a cult is.A cult writes it’s own book guys.Of which Islam,JW’s and
Mormons would each qualify.We use the whole Book,without swaying to the right or the left.
Please get your facts straight,it is easy to name call, point fingers and
condemn.You are cyber bullying.You people amaze me.You should
be ashamed of yourselves.What would your Pastors think of what you are doing here.Where is your accountability?Honestly.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
You remind me of my father,who has gone to church all his life.When I tried to witness to him about what God had done in my life,he grit his teeth at me and acted as if he was going to hit me.
God delivered me from alcohol,drugs and nicotine and rock and roll music.He also delivered me from false doctrine.I was raised Trinitarian.Yes I was rebaptized in Jesus name,We are the people of the Name.I would rather do a hundred things that were not needed,and make heaven my home,than to not have done one and miss out.As my father you would condemn me,because you are being made uncomfortable.My father
was more comfortable looking down on me in my sin,than he was with who I became after I was delivered.
Sticks and stones folks,you are acting like some kid who has had a toy taken away.Give me a major break.
And you wonder what turns people off to you?Please,they shall know we are Christians by our love?I’m not feeling it brothers.Give it a rest!
I Timothy 4:1-2- Now the Spirit speaketh expressly,that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith,giving heed to seducing spirits,and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy;having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Obviously even you Joel, think these scriptures apply to me and Pam,we think otherwise.God is interested with the inward man.
More importantly lets think about those lost in the world as I was,that think they do’nt need God,or worse yet there is no God.They are the ones
that have had the hot iron put to them.There is a God can we please agree on that!
Lets keep the main thing the main thing guys.It’s about souls.Jim
December 29th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Jim - will you answer my last post? I am not calling anyone names, nor am I questioning other people’s salvation. I am asking you and Pam based on what the Bible says and what we know of God. You would say that we need to go to God’s Word to find the Truth; that is what I am doing.
Do you agree with the nature of God as described in my last post? Do you recognize that I am referring to things from God’s Word and not my own? If you need me to provide references, I will.
The idea of the Trinity is an essential aspect of Christian belief and something worth discussing as a result. At least, I believe so.
December 29th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Jim,
Cults and heretics have always appealed to the Bible as their source of authority and argumentation. You cited the JW’s. Classic example. But going back to the various early Christian heresies, whether Arianism, Oneness, Gnosticism etc., they all appealed to Scripture. But as I pointed out, the idea of what constitutes Scripture was actually determined by the very men whom Oneness believers would claim were apostates. Do you understand my point? What is the Word of God? This issue was not settled until the 3rd century. And who determined it? The very Church that you claim was fallen away from the truth.
December 29th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Pam,
I assumed that this would be the reaction. Disregard the source. But disregarding Polycarp, does nothing to the numerous other sources that also show a trinitarian view of the early Church. One would have to so an awful lot of disregarding to maintain your worldview. Are you even open to reconsidering the facts?
December 29th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Jim says, “He also delivered me from false doctrine. I was raised Trinitarian.”
Jim, if Jesus is the Father as you believe (thus His will being identical to the Father’s will), why then did Jesus express the desire to escape the cup but resigns Himself not to His own will, but rather to the will of the Father? Why does Jesus not pray instead, “Not My will, but My will be done”?
Did Jesus misspeak by saying “We” when He said in John 14:23, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.”
Jim says, “Yes I was rebaptized in Jesus name, We are the people of the Name. I would rather do a hundred things that were not needed, and make heaven my home, than to not have done one and miss out.”
If someone prayed the “sinner’s prayer” on Saturday, and the next day died on their way to church in an accident before they could get baptized “in Jesus’ name”, where will they go?
Jim says, “No man hath seen God at any time) before the revelation of Jesus Christ” and Pam says, “Mitchell, who was Jesus’ Father? We modalistic monarchianists do not confuse THE Invisible God with His visible manifestation”
You say that Jesus was in the “mode” of the Father in the Old Testament and invisible, yet Scripture is clear that God was seen in Exodus 6:2-3:
And God continued, “I am the LORD. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob AS GOD ALMIGHTY, though I did not reveal my name, the LORD, to them.”
This is not as a vision or a dream or an angel. In John 6:46 Jesus says that no one has seen the Father. If they were seeing God Almighty but it was not the Father, then who was it?
December 30th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Mishael says: “I don’t know the difference (and I don’t really care); I was merely making the differentiation between those who believe in God’s oneness through a trinity”
Do you realize how dangerously ignorant that idea is?! A huge case could be made if a person decides to list ALL the pagans who now believe or have in history believed in trinities with whom Roman Catholocism could could be defined. Read Hislop! He is one of your own trinitarians by the way. Hislop just would not SEE with eyes that SEE and repent of his traditions of men and vain philosophies!!
Pam
December 30th, 2009 at 8:07 am
Pam,
Truly Pam, you are the one that needs to repent. Your argument is a tired on that is not rooted in any logic. Did pagan peoples use priests? Yes. But did that make the Jewish priests pagan? No. Did the pagan have temple with animal sacrifices? Yes. Did this make the Old Testament Temple with animal sacrifices pagan? Of course not! Did pagan peoples have temples within an inner chamber called the holy of holies? Yes. So did God command such a thing. The list can go on and on and on. Because pagans have similar ideas or practices, this does not make anything in an of itself pagan.
Alexander Hislop’s Two Babylons is perhaps the worst example of gutter scholarship that has ever been perpetrated on the Church. Please read Ralph Woodrow’s book on this, the Babylon Connection?
From Woodrow:
In my earlier Christian experience, certain literature fell into my hands which claimed paganism had been mixed into Christianity. While the Roman Catholic Church was usually the target, it seemed other churches had also been contaminated by customs and beliefs for which pagan parallels could be found.
“The Two Babylons” by Alexander Hislop (1807-1862), with its alarming subtitle, “the papal worship proved to be the worship of Nimrod and his wife,” was THE textbook on which much of this teaching was based. Over the years, this book has impacted the thinking of many people-ranging all the way from those in radical cults to very dedicated Christians who hunger for a move of God and are concerned about anything that might hinder that flow. Its basic premise is that the pagan religion of ancient Babylon has continued to our day, in disguise, as the Roman Catholic Church and is described in the book of Revelation as “Mystery Babylon the Great”-thus, the idea of TWO Babylons, one ancient, and on modern. Because Hislop’s book is very detailed, having a multitude of notes and references, I assumed, as did many others, it was factual. We quoted “Hislop” as an authority on paganism, jut like “Webster” might be quoted on word definitions.
As a young evangelist I began to share a sermon on the mixture of paganism into Christianity, and eventually wrote a book based on Hislop-”Babylon Mystery Religion.” In time, my book became quite popular, went through many printings, and was translated into Korean, German, Spanish, Portuguese, and several other languages. I came to be regarded by some as an authority on the subject of pagan mixture. Even a noted Roman Catholic writer, Karl Keating, said: “Its best-known proponent is Ralph Woodrow, author of ‘Babylon Mystery Religion’.”
Many preferred my book over “The Two Babylons” because it was easier to read and follow. Sometimes the two books were confused with each other. Letters in a steady flow were received praising my book. Only occasionally would there be a dissenting voice. ONE WHO DISAGREED was Scott Klemm, a high school history teacher in southern California. Being a Christian, and appreciating other things I had written, he began to show me EVIDENCE THAT HISLOP WAS NOT A RELIABLE HISTORIAN. As a result, I realized that I needed to go back through Hislop’s work, my basic source, and prayerfully check it out!
As I did this, it became clear-Hislop’s “history” was often only mythology. Even though myths may sometimes reflect events that actually happened, an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths can not provide a sound basis for history. Take enough tribes, enough tales, enough time, jump from one time to another, from one country to another, pick and choose similarities-why anything could be “proved”!
The concern about not having anything pagan in our lives can be likened to a ship crossing a vast ocean. This concern has taken us in the right direction, but as we come to a better understanding as to what is actually pagan and what is not, a correction of the course is necessary in our journey. This is not a going back, but a correction of the course as we follow “the shining light, that shines more and more unto the perfect day” (Prov. 4:18).
Although we challenge some of Hislop’s claims in THE BABYLON CONNECTION?-this is not intended as an attack against him personally. As far as we know, he was a dedicated Christian, a brother in Christ. Nor is it our goal in writing this book to merely discredit another book. Instead, it is our desire that this effort will help us understand “the way of God more perfectly” (cf. Acts 18:26), find a biblical balance, and glorify Him who said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).
December 30th, 2009 at 8:12 am
Mishael
I addressed the “God is love” issue that trinitarians have in previous post. Please read it.
Trinitarians insist on thinking of God as a “person” even though God Himself by way of His Word says HE IS NOT. And just so we will GET it, HE not only STATES CLEARLY what He is NOT, He ALSO states WHAT HE IS! Isn’t He a loving, Wonderful God! Hallelujah!! And the reason He did this for humanity is because He does not want us to FALL (the ultimate “fall” of course being into an eternity WITHOUT Him) for the coming FALSE MESSIAH whether a “second person” in a trinity or a Mahdi coming up out of some well or A TRICKY false messiah sitting on a throne in a rebuilt third temple. SAVE YOURSELF!!
The only “person” is the Son, and the term “son” refers to human flesh; a “person” has a physical body, soul and spirit. God the Father is an INVISIBLE SPIRIT who HAS NO BLOOD OR BONES; HE HAS NO SOUL; He says (ALL Scripture is given BY INSPIRATION OF GOD) that He (GOD) is NOT a MAN.
Your problem is simply that you have not realized that the Godhead is not a committee of three. “Godhead” refers to DEITY. The FATHER was IN THE SON. DEITY was in the FLESH for the purpose of DYING for us. DEITY was everywhere present WHILE in the FLESH/Son. FLESH/Son who had a human will PRAYED to DEITY “Thy, will be done not my will.” The INVISIBLE was IN the VISIBLE. God who is an INVISIBLE SPIRIT overshadowed Mary the virgin mother of the Son (read: flesh) of God (VISIBLE of the INVISIBLE). The Son of God (read: flesh) was TOTALLY human AND TOTALLY indwelt WITHOUT MEASURE by God the FATHER (read: INVISIBLE SPIRIT WHO IS THE ONLY GOD–the ALMIGHTY MIGHTY GOD who is A SPIRIT and there is ONE SPIRIT).
Your soul is agape’d, Mishael. Please forgive any typos in this–I am on break at work.
Pam
December 30th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Joel
I pray prayers of repentance every day, but will NEVER repent of hating the false doctrine of the trinity and will NEVER repent worshiping the MIGHTY GOD IN CHRIST, my LORD, Jesus Christ. I will NEVER repent of being ready to share the GOSPEL which is the death, burial and resurrection of the VISIBLE of the INVISIBLE as this is the ONLY way to SALVATION for ALL HUMANS.
Pam
December 30th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Joel
Neither myself nor Hislop is immune from the following inspired Scripture:
Galatians 1:8 KJV
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
(9) As we said before , so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received , let him be accursed.
We must let Scripture interpret Scripture rightly divided, Joel.
Pam
December 30th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died ONCE for all our truly repented sins–not once every time the roman catholic church has mass.
Pam
December 30th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Pam, please see my last post. Though I had addressed most questions to him, please feel free to answer.
December 30th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Joel Says:
December 29th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Pam,
I assumed that this would be the reaction. Disregard the source. But disregarding Polycarp, does nothing to the numerous other sources that also show a trinitarian view of the early Church. One would have to so an awful lot of disregarding to maintain your worldview. Are you even open to reconsidering the facts?
Joel–I am not burdened by disregarding because I have REGARDED the ONE LORD who wrote His Word and INTERPRETS His Word with His Word.
Don’t you want to discuss the writings of the “numerous of sources”, Joel?
Pam
December 30th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Pam said: “Do you realize how dangerously ignorant that idea is?! Etc…”
You are still ignoring my point, Pam, and that is that your point of view - whatever you want to call it - has to symbolize and redefined so many verses that describe interaction between the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit for that matter). You accuse us of twisting scripture to fit our view and are blind to your own doing of this very thing. If you’re going to keep deflecting, that’s your own problem to deal with when the time comes. I obviously can’t force you to think about what you’re saying.
I’ll read the rest later as I need to head off to work. Take care!
December 30th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Jim and all –
I was disowned by my Dad when I shared Scripture with him. He yelled at me, “Get out of my house and never come back!”
But Jesus Christ has healed that between us! Praise the Wonderful Name of Jesus! Just one month ago, my 86-year-old dad made his way to an alter of repentance and wept in the Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Jim! My rough old dad! I saw him cry when my brother died in his forties. I saw him cry when my mother died. And now I have seen my dad cry in the Presence of the One he chose not to hear about regarding obedience to the Gospel and the ONLY SAVING NAME, Jesus Christ! I pray that he continues on to obedience and does not stop with repentance.
I used to pray in fear because I was so worried that I would pray to “God the Son” more than God the Father. It never even occured to me that I was totally not praying to the “third person in the trinity”!! I was once asked who I wanted to see when I got to Heaven. I quickly answered, “Oh, I want to see Jesus first!” Then, because of FEAR, and fear is not of the Lord remember, I said “Well, I guess I had better go see Father God first.” I wasn’t concerned about seeing the Holy Ghost! I was kind of just binitarian, maybe. But now I know when I pray to Jesus, I am praying to He who hold the titles of Father, Son and Holy Ghost! My God, my Savior and my Friend and so, so much more! He is everything to me!
I’ve experienced too much with my Jesus to turn back now! He is the Truth and the Truth has set me free.
He is the ONE who REVEALED HIMSELF through His Word to me and He is the ONE I will see in His Glorified human flesh (nevermore to die) on His Throne in Heaven. He is the ONE who John was blessed to sit so close to that he could lay his head on His human shoulder, and He is the ONE who John was blessed to write about in the REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST who as the INVISIBLE God of eternity past and future who took on human flesh for a period of 33 years. He walked on His creation, earth, to save His creation, humanity–that flesh could have sinned, but did not. The ONE who made a way to die for my healing and for my sins–His perfect plan! The plan He loved from eternity past!
Without the possibility of sin, there is no perfect sacrifice! Satan wants NO perfect sacrifice, so Satan tries to get people to worship a “God the Flesh/Son” because GOD CAN’T SIN! Think about that! God CANNOT sin so if SON=SECOND PERSON GOD, then He could not have been the SINLESS LAMB.
There is no “God the Son.” But there was the human flesh of the INVISIBLE Father who indwelt the flesh WITHOUT MEASURE He created for the purpose of coming and dying for us.
And I will fall on the feet of that now Glorified human body of the ONE TRUE GOD and pour tears of thankfulness and tears of joy out upon Him one day. No man or woman can come to the INVISIBLE but through the VISIBLE! There was a Perfect, Sinless sacrifice! ONCE. And His Name which was inherited from the Father because it is the Father’s Name is Jesus, and the Comforter whom Jesus said He is and that He will not leave us “Comforter-less” will come in His Name, which is Jesus. This is Truth. This Truth sets free.
Pam
December 30th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Peteliuz–
Are you still reading? I would like to hear so much more from you! You don’t sound like a dynamic monarchianist to me even though Joel promptly branded you one an “Arian”. You kind of sound like a modalistic monarchianist who would shun Arian doctrine to me.
Have you declared yourself “Messianic Arian” to Joel, or was that his own “assessment”?
Moslems are heading in the right direction with their rejection of the Roman Catholic/daughter-church trinity.
Pam
December 30th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Hmmm…Pam, your story makes me sad. I can see why you had a problem with the Trinity if that was your view of it, being afraid to offend one part by “spending too much time” with the other. I know that when I speak to God, it doesn’t matter whom I address (O Lord, O Father, O Jesus - whatever name/title comes first to my mouth) because Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all connected as One and what one has the rest also have (see John 16:12-15). I don’t need to worry about making sure I “spend time with all three” when I’m in Heaven, because being with One is being with all (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Don’t assume that your view of the Trinity is an accurate one, especially if it causes fear.
You keep repeating things that we already agree with, and I don’t understand why - like the fact that Jesus is God come in the flesh and that He died once to save us all (most people here are not Roman Catholic and don’t believe that He is crucified again every mass or whatever). We don’t disagree on what God has done for us - just the nature of God. At least, that’s what it seems so far.
Apparently your idea of personhood is different from mine. When I say “person” relating to God, I do not mean humanity. I mean identity; in us, it would be that part that is the soul, that which makes us us. I would figure that God has an identity, considering He’s a personal (-person-al) God. He has no soul? I’ve never heard that before. Do you have scripture reference for it? I’m sorry I missed your post from before. I’ll try to go find it again; I thought for sure I had read everything.
What is “spirit,” anyway? In my thoughts, “spirit” is a form of existence, like “physical.” The soul is what makes you you; your body and your spirit are just aspects of your existence, one for the physical world and one for the spiritual world, as we belong to both.
Don’t worry about typos.
I’m at work now as well, so I’m bound to have them, too. Speaking of which, I need to go for now.
December 30th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Addressing Pam’s fear of insulting one of the persons of the Trinity by exalting one over the other:
Jesus said: “Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am [b]gentle and humble[/b] in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS.” Matthew 11:29
Paul wrote: “Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, [b]”Abba! Father!”[/b] ”
Our God is humble, loving, gentle, understanding. All 3 persons of the Triune God are worthy of worship:
I exalt you Spirit of God, who lives in me!
I praise you Jesus, man forever (1 Cor 15:24-28, Heb 13:8), interceding before the Father, my Saviour, Messiah of Israel!
I worship you Father of Lights, uncreated God, eternal, immutable!
Here is all three in one verse:
“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” John 14:26
December 30th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Mishael–
The part that really makes me sad when I look back at my experience was that I *was* dividing ONE God into “parts.” God is not divisible. He is One.
When my husband speaks to me, he is speaking to Pam who is wife, mother, daughter. My *name* is Pam, three of the roles I manifest myself by way of are entitled wife, mother and daughter.
You are Mishael, you may (let me imagine possible roles of manifestation of you) son, brother?, uncle?. I’m sure you know your titles.
When I speak to God, it *very much* matters whom I address. If husband wanted to talk to wife, would it matter if he phoned her workplace and asked the receptionist to connect him to wife? Yes, because the receptionist might connect him to any number of wives! He would have a hoppin’ jealous woman at home when he arrived!! I know that is kind of a silly example, but you get my point. It would matter if he substituted a title for his wife’s name!
God is a jealous God. He wants us to use His Name for He has become Yeshua - Jehovah-Savior - and BOUGHT my salvation. He has manifest himself as Jehovah-Savior (Jesus) and says He ALONE is Savior, there is no other in Isaiah.
“God” to some could be a way to address a tree in a high place! Names matter. One might say, “Well, I’ll just name the tree Jesus.” But the tree would not be able to exhibit all the attributes of God culminating in Jehovah-Savior and raise Himself from the dead! God’s Name matters to Him so much that He says in His Word that it is the ONLY saving Name, the ONLY Name that saves us, and the Name above all Names.
It is the most important revelation to us because of who He is and what He did for us. He could have revealed Himself to the extent of Jehovah - Nissi, etc. But if He had left us there, we would not be saved. That was not His loved *ultimate plan*. His ultimate plan was always to manifest Himself in human form titled Son. Son never refers to God, because God cannot have an ending being Omega. God did not die, the Son/Humanity died after deferring Son-will to Father-will.
God says of Himself that He is an invisible, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient Spirit without flesh and bones. The miracle of the virgin birth was that Mary had the female chromosomes, but there were no male chromosomes until Mary was overshadowed by that *one* Invisible Spirit who created - ex nihilo - male chromosomes that combined with Mary’s female chromosomes and made a totally human body that the Invisible Spirit, the Father/Holy Spirit, dwelled in without measure.
The key to understanding is simple: Jesus was totally God and totally man. Sometimes He spoke from His Diety (Before Abraham, I AM.) Sometimes He spoke from His humanity (I thirst!) When praying, humanity prayed to Divinity (Not my will but Thine.)
Next point: definition of “person.” Webster’s defines “person” as “an individual human being” and “the individual personality of a human being.”
Genesis 2:7 KJV And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man BECAME a LIVING SOUL. Adam’s, and then all humans, soul is a creation of God, not God, and pertains to only human beings.
Genesis 35:18 KJV “And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing , (for she died ) . . . .” Souls depart from a body when they die. Another proof to me of the Son of God’s humanity, his soul departed when he died, he had an end (but not permanently for he was raised from the dead on the third day never to die again - he died once. Once is important.)
Leviticus 4:2 KJV “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying , If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done. . . .” This and other places in the Bible speak of a soul being able to sin. Of course, we know that God cannot sin. The humanity, the Son, could have sinned but was the only human being who never sinned. He was the spotless Lamb of God, spotless flesh of God.
John 12:27 “Now is *my soul* (the Son of God, the flesh) troubled ; and what shall I say ? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.” This proves that the Son of God had a DUAL NATURE, total Divinity (ALL the FULLNESS of the Godhead/DIETY dwelled in Him without measure) and total humanity. This was not a second person in a trinity praying to the first person in the trinity, it was humanity praying to Divinity.
What is a spirit? Webster’s includes in its definition of the word the following: “A supernatural, incorporeal, rational being usually invisible to human beings but having the power to become visible at will. . .a being having an incorporeal or immaterial nature.” The Hebrew word translated as spirit is ruwach, and it can mean wind, breath, life, anger, unsubstantiality, region of the sky, or spirit of a rational being. The Greek word translated as spirit, pneuma, can mean a current of air, breath, blast, breeze, spirit, soul (and Scripture says that only God can divide between soul and spirit), vital principle, disposition, angel, demon, or God. All three definitions emphasize that a spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Similarly, Jesus indicated that the Spirit of God does not have flesh and blood (Matthew 16:17). So, when the Bible says that God is a Spirit, it means that He cannot be seen or touched physically by human beings. As a Spirit, he is an intelligent, supernatural Being who does not have a physical body.” David Bernard, The Oneness of God, WAP, 1983. “Spirit” as it pertains to God is outside of His creation, and “spirit” (lower case) refers to among other things, the human spirit, closely related to the human soul, but not the same as God can divide asunder a human’s spirit from a human’s soul.
Who do you want to see first when you get to heaven, Mishael?
Pam
December 30th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Kurt -
“Addressing Pam’s fear of insulting one of the persons of the Trinity by exalting one over the other. . . .”
It was my FORMER trinitarian beliefs that caused the fear, and fear that caused my trinitarian beliefs if you would like to consider that, Kurt. FORMER.
Pam
December 30th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Ah, I found it, I think.
Pam said: “Are you asking how God could be love and show love before He created the world unless God was a plurality of persons that had love one for another? Danger, polytheism ahead! If so, why does God need to prove the eternality of His love to you or me? Can’t we just accept that God IS love like He says He is? If we can’t just accept His Word for it, why try to limit God to our ideas of love? We humans need an object of love in time. God is not limited to time–He created time and will do away with time (hopefully soon). He knew each of us before we existed and loved us! And WHY did God the Father love “God the Son” and vice versa but neither of the TWO expressed love for the THIRD? Grief! The TWO of them never even allowed the THIRD to take part in their god conversations! Is that love?”
Your points which I gather from this:
1) God is not like us, so His Love doesn’t have to be like our love which requires a recipient for love.
2) God loved us before we were created, so if we must give Him someone to love before time, that solves that.
3) If God is three, why is there only love described between the Father and the Son with no reference to the Holy Spirit? How is that loving to keep Him out of the loop?
My response:
1) If you want to believe that God’s Love doesn’t require a recipient, so be it. I can’t prove all the characteristics of God’s Love, just what I know from what the Bible says. If you are able to accept that some aspects of God’s Love may not be fully relate-able by us, then can you see how we in turn accept that some aspects of God’s nature may not be fully relate-able (or understandable) by us? We do not deny that there is one God alone. The Trinity is not three separate gods despite what you say of it; it is three Beings in the unity of one God - hence tri-unity/trinity.
2) If that’s what you want to believe, so be it. We in turn believe that the eternal relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit fulfills this concept.
3) There is no indication that the Holy Spirit is not loved by the Father and the Son. This is just a silly thing you have said to try to support your point. Just because the Father didn’t speak from the clouds to announce that He loves the Holy Spirit as He did for the Son, it doesn’t mean He doesn’t love the Holy Spirit. What was the purpose for this pronouncement in the first place? To confirm who Jesus was to the people around Him. The Holy Spirit didn’t need this because His purpose is different from that of the Son, who as we all know came to die in our place as the perfect Sacrifice.
What about everything else I said about relationships - the marriage relationship reflecting what we see with God, Jesus’ comparison of His being one with the Father and our being one with Him, etc.?
December 30th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Pam,
I don’t know how it is when you pray, but when I pray, all three parts of the Trinity are involved:
I pray with the Spirit, who transmits my thoughts and praises and requests via a means more effective and accurate than words (Romans 8:26-27). I still use words myself, but the Spirit conveys my heart beyond mere words.
I pray through Jesus, my intercessor (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:23-25; 1 Timothy 2:5). Intercession by its definition refers to a middle person representing one person to another as a mediator. Jesus is this mediator between God and man as described in 1 Timothy 2:5.
I pray to the Father (Matthew 6:6-13 - although I rarely actually use the Lord’s Prayer itself).
Sometimes I address specifically the Spirit or Jesus or the Father; but since they are all connected as One, a message addressed specifically to one is known by all.
To be honest, I don’t understand your point with the whole name thing. Are you saying we should only use the name “Jesus” while praying? No titles like Lord or God or Father? What about Jesus’ example of a prayer, starting with “Our Father”? What about crying, “Abba, Father” - a right given to us by the Spirit (Romans 8:15)? What about the fact that God -is- God and He -is- Lord? Maybe other people use those titles for lesser or false beings, but He is still King of Kings and Lord of Lords, God of the universe. His Spirit cries out from my heart and is able to distinguish between genuine and false titles. I don’t have to get caught up in semantics like this because He knows my heart for Him. I am His, and just as I know His voice, He knows mine.
Next point.
Okay, I’m sorry I didn’t follow Webster’s definition. I can understand where confusion came in there. But now I have explained what I meant by personhood, so try to see it from my point of view.
I’ve never been able to come to a solid conclusion on the difference between spirit and soul. Over the years I’ve pondered it and heard various ideas. I don’t think anyone has a complete understanding of it (human-wise, anyway - I know God understands it completely). My ponderings today led me to this possibility: the soul is to the spirit as the mind is to the body. They are inseparable by us, but God is capable of dividing them. They are obviously two aspects of ourselves, but they are intimately connected and affect each other. As the body can die, so the spirit can die (after all, we are spiritually dead until God gives us new life - Ephesians 2:1; Colossians 2:13); but the soul, like the mind, lives on. Perhaps the soul is where our free will is based, which is why it can sin.
Maybe the mind and the soul are the same. On a website I read the following: “Death is separation. A physical death is the separation of the soul from the body. Spiritual death, which is of greater significance, is the separation of the soul from God.” (From www . gotquestions . org / spiritual-death . html) I don’t know for sure.
You quoted Genesis 2:7 - interesting to note that Adam because a living soul after God breathed into him; thus God imparted the soul to Adam. If He imparted it by breathing into Adam, then the soul came -from- God. It’s not just something God spoke into existence like everything else. It’s something from God Himself - from His own Soul? No, God does not sin, but that is not evidence that He has no soul. Just because a soul can sin, it doesn’t mean all souls must therefore sin. That is a fallacy, an invalid argument.
Where does God’s personality (-person-ality) come from? Where do His emotions and decisions come from? I would suggest that He is spirit in essence, and His Soul contains the source of Who He is. They are interconnected, so that by referring to God as a spiritual being, we actually mean the spirit-soul combination. For comparison, when we refer to people as physical beings, we actually mean the body-mind combination, as we know that people are more than just their physical body. The soul drives the spirit as the mind drives the body. *shrug* But maybe I’m wrong. These are just ponderings, anyway.
Who would I like to see first when I get to Heaven? Oh, it doesn’t matter, I’ll be in awe and joy no matter what - and I don’t know if I’d get the choice, anyway. But really, in seeing one member of the Trinity, I would be connected with them all because their connection is so complete. One God, remember, despite your preconceptions. I imagine I would be greeted by Jesus in particular, since He is most like us. That was His purpose, anyway, to be someone we can identify with while at the same time being our connection to God. The Spirit lives within us, and by seeing Jesus we will be in connection with the Father as well. So I will be with them all at once, even if my eyes only see the figure of Jesus before me.
This reminds me of reading Randy Alcorn’s fictional books when his characters die and meet Jesus face to face. I cry every time! I can’t even begin to imagine what that will truly be like. I look forward to that moment more than anything else ever! Ah…may it be soon…!
December 31st, 2009 at 6:38 am
Mishael -
John 8:23-24, 27
23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.
The son of God had a dual nature: He was both Divine and Human. Not 50% of either. He was 100% God and 100% man.
Do you see this in the son? He was talking to people who were looking right at Him, visible humanity capable of sinning and dying and being tired–but He told them He was the Father (invisible, indivisible Spirit headquartered in that human body while still being everywhere present); they understood NOT that He spake to them of the Father and that if they did not believe Him to be the I AM, they would die in their sins. Two NATURES in that human body, not two persons in the Godhead or of two Gods. Spirit and flesh. We cannot adequately compare our existence or experience to His. I have Him living and operating inside me, but His Spirit was not given to me WITHOUT MEASURE. Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man at the same time.
I am not disregarding your last posts, Mishael, just revisiting this a little. I’m at work this morning at 5 a.m.!
Pam
December 31st, 2009 at 8:02 am
For those still following this thread, I urge you to read at least the first few pages of “The Jewish Trinity” at the link Mitchell provided in his prior post. But here it is again;
http://books.google.com/books?id=CvY-v4YQ1UYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Jewish+Trinity&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
If you read even just a few portions of the book, you will understand why Moses, Abraham, the prophets, the disciples, and the early church were clearly Trinitarians. The meanings contained in the original languages leave no doubt.
December 31st, 2009 at 10:54 am
Michael and all pointed to “The Jewish Trinity”
A suggestion–READ the Tanakh then you will VERY CLEARLY understand why some Jewish people would stoop to disregarding the first commandment. Then investigate “The Jewish Trinity” if you can stomach the delicacies.
It makes me very sad to hear that some Jewish people have disregarded monotheism. But, really, why should anyone be surprised since there is record of those who came to be called Jewish who had no problem with mixing visits to the High Places, weeping for Tammuz, continuing to live in Babylon when they could have returned home after their exile because they loved it *and* wrote the Talmud under the pagan influences there.
There were others who remained separated in Babylon — the Hebrew children who would not even EAT the king’s delicacies (probably a lot to why they would not eat it. . . ). And it is commonly said that many if not most Jewish people today are Jewish by blood but atheist.
Pam
December 31st, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Here is another book that seems very interesting on the matter of the Trinity. It isn’t released yet and I don’t know exactly when it will but I’ve send in for the pre-publication offer.
http://www.promisestoisrael.org/aboutus.php?id=19&PHPSESSID=105ca95faaa3fbefcb9b6cd7bba2f5ce
December 31st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Pam,
Early morning! I hope you get to go home early this New Year’s Eve.
Don’t forget the context of John 8:
————
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”
Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”
Then they asked him, “Where is your father?”
“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time had not yet come.
Once more Jesus said to them, “I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come.”
This made the Jews ask, “Will he kill himself? Is that why he says, ‘Where I go, you cannot come’?”
But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.”
“Who are you?” they asked.
“Just what I have been claiming all along,” Jesus replied. “I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.”
They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.” Even as he spoke, many put their faith in him.
John 8:12-30
————
He clearly speaks of His Father as a separate entity from Himself. Note in particular verses 17-18: “In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.” Right here He makes it clear that they are TWO, since He is using the witness of the Father and the Son to confirm His validity according to their own Law, which requires TWO.
I agree that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man - I think most everyone here will agree as well. But that doesn’t automatically mean He is the Father. Remember what I’ve said before: they are so connected as One God that connection with one is connection with all. Since Jesus is the only part of the Trinity with a physical form, seeing Him is essentially seeing the Father as well because they are intimately connected in One God.
December 31st, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Mitch and Michael,
Thanks for that link! I’ve wondered for a long time if the Israelites were trinitarian in their beliefs. It must have seemed odd for them to write some things if they weren’t.
“Let’s make man in OUR image, in His image HE created them.”
“The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”
A pastor I had said that the bible is God’s revealing of himself to us throughout the ages, but it makes way more sense that he’s always declared his triune nature.
December 31st, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Now that I have some time again,where do I begin?There is too much to try to address it all.
When we die what is left of us?Our eternal spirit(our soul).When speaking of God,we know that His Spirit is eternal and was from the beginning,yes?
Genesis 1:1-2 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form,and void;and darkness was upon the face of the deep.And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
So we see from the very beginning that God is a Spirit(John 4:24),God is the
Spirit,Holy Ghost,Holy Spirit(what ever),God is that self same Spirit.
When we die,are we visible or is our spirit(soul) invisible?Invisible,yes?
We are changed and yet the same,that also holds true with God.
Malachi 3:6-For I am the Lord,I change not.
God is a Spirit,God is Holy,so the Spirit of God is a Holy Spirit,yes?
of course it is.
In the Old Testament,when Solomon finished his temple,many animals were sacrificed in preparation for the beginning of worship there.The presence,the glory of God filled that house in the form of a glory cloud,and the priests could not stand to minister.This self same presence of God is His divine essence,God IS a Spirit.He makes His presence known,but you do not see Him,yes?
What was the Holy of Holies for in the Tabernacle?It was for the mercy seat,what was the place and the mercy seat for?So the presence of God could be with His people in that place.Did God visibly sit on the mercy seat?No,but He made His presence known there.
First God was in heaven,Then with Moses He was God who made His presence known on the mountain top,Then He was God in the Tabernacle in the wilderness.As He was then God in the Temple.Did they see God in these places at any time?No they did not.Did God make His presence known?Most assuredly He did!
Is He the same today?Yes He is,He changes not.God is a Spirit.Where our perception of God changes is with the birth of Jesus.(Jehovah Saviour).
John 1:18 says:No man hath seen God at any time;the only begotten Son,which is in the bosom of the Father(the heart of God),he hath declared him.A simply definition of the word declare is,to make perfectly clear.The Father(God)is made perfectly clear in His Son,yes?OK
John1:18 also says Jesus is the only begotten Son,we automatically, by our own experiences,separate Father and Son,yet I myself,am father to my children,and son of my mother and father.I am still the same person,and that also is how God is,He does not change.Neither does Jesus,
Hebrews 13:8 says:Jesus Christ(is) the same yesterday,and today,and forever.How can that be,you ask.Jesus is in the bosom of God,He is the heart of God,and God does not change neither does Jesus Christ,the intention of God to reveal Himself to mankind has never changed.The plan of God,has never changed.Jesus is God-man this revelation of God has not changed who God is,and this revelation has not changed the fact that Jesus is the heart(the very life source) of God.If you take away someones heart you take their life away.
II Corinthians 4:4 says:Christ,who is the image of God.
Colossians 1:14 says:We have redemption through his blood,even the forgiveness of our sins.
Colossians 1:15 again states:(Jesus) who is the image of the invisible God-God is invisible because God is a Spirit,and He changes not,His Son has revealed Him unto us.In Jesus Christ(according to I Timothy 3:16)God was manifest in the flesh.
II Corinthians 4:6 says:The glory of God(is found) in the face of Jesus Christ.Yes,God is love,God also is light.God commanded the light to shine out of darkness,hath shined into our hearts to give the light of knowledge (of who Jesus really is).The heart of God dwelling in the bosom of God.
He is the light of men.Revelation 22:5 says:And there shall be no night there;and they need no candle,neither light of the sun;for the Loed God giveth them light:and they shall reign for ever and ever.Jesus is the light
of the world.Jesus Christ is Lord,to the glory of God the Father,where is that glory found?In the face of Jesus Christ.God is a Spirit,Jesus Christ is Lord.II Corinthians 3:17 says: The Lord(Jesus Christ ) is that Spirit(of God).
If you seek to separate God you will separate Him,that does not change who He is.If you look to see that God is One ,you will find scripture to support that claim as well.Will I change your mind,will you change mine.
No,because we have the support of the church we belong to,we have been taught and we have studied to show ourselves approved unto God.
About 1700 years ago,my church fathers were said to have been proven wrong by yours,that is what Joel said in a earlier post.Where are your church fathers in the Bible?Mine are found in the Book of Acts,the only real proof we have that there ever was a church-EVER.Is the Bible the word of God,you ask yes it is.
Hebrews 8:5 says the patriarchs Abraham through Moses: serve to our example (and are a) example and shadow of heavenly things,as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle:See
saith he,that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee
in the mount.
They are our examples,shadows of the heavenly things which are very soon to come.We too must follow their pattern.God(if you choose to call Him Jesus or not)inspired all the writers of the Bible,God also inspired Peter and the early church to baptize in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ,
that is a pattern we should follow.They spoke in tongues as the Spirit of God gave them the utterance,that also is a pattern we should follow.It is in the Bible for a reason.The early church is our example,not those that say they were wrong three hundred years later,that are not in the Bible.
I do not believe according to what these men have put down as a pattern.The Bible is soul authority and as such,I will do according to what it says,not some later church organizers.
Where we loose a lot of people and I will end with this point,because I know I have been long.
Is the fact that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.There in you see God as two persons,by definition,Father and Son, are the self same,”person”,if you must term it that way.Jesus is, the only begotten,
this word in the Greek is,Monogenes.Monos-only,geno-to form,to make.
John is the only one to usemonogenes to describe the relation of Jesus to God the Father.Who laid his head on Jesus chest at the last supper,signifying he was the closest to the heart of God,it was John.
John presents Jesus to us as,the UNIQUE ONE,actually as,The ONLY ONE
(monos)of the family(genos).The term monogenes from which genes is derived means race,stock,family,and geno comes from ginomai,become,as in John 1:14 ,”…and the Word became(egeneto)flesh”
(of course John 1:1 says,In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God,and the WORD WAS GOD)In monogenes,we have Jesus Christ
designated as the only One of the same stock in the relationship of the Son to the Father.He is not to be understood as eternally born of the Father,but only in His humanity was He born.Therefore,monogenes can be
held as synonymous with the God-Man.This explanation comes from the
Key Word Study Bible AMG publishers,formerly Titled,The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible.
Other than that this work is my own and not pasted from someone elses work.I do my best to inform not discredit others.
I John 4:12-13:He that hath the Son hath life:and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
These things have I written(John says)unto you that believe on the name
(authority)of the Son of God;that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
You cannot separate the name from the Son anymore than you can separate the Son from the heart of God,because as Jesus said,The Father and I are One.They are the same.
When Thomas doubt the resurrection of Jesus,Thomas said unless I see the nail prints in His hands and the hole in His side,I will not believe.(I am paraphrasing),but when he saw Jesus face to face and not only saw Him but touched Him,he said Who Jesus IS,Thomas said He is, my LORD and my GOD.Jim
December 31st, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Sorry Jim but I think you’ve forgotten or were unaware of a few things.
You are right in saying God is spirit, that is God the Father. And yes, no man has ever seen God the Father.
Adam and Eve however did see God. He was walking through the garden of Eden and they hid from him in Genesis 3.
Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
And there’s another hint of his triune nature at the end of the chapter: The man has now become like one of us.
He also appeared to Abraham:
Gen 18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
Joshua worshiped the angel of the Lord in Joshua 5. Did Joshua commit the ultimate sin and worship and angel? No, he worshiped a pre-incarnate Jesus Christ.
There are many examples of this throughout the old testament. These are called Christophanies and are an appearance of Jesus in human form. Remember as you read the old testament that no one has ever seen God the Father. So who is this they are seeing?
December 31st, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Jim,
We don’t deny that God is Spirit - that is clear in His Word. For those who believe in God as the Trinity, Jesus is the only member of the Trinity who has a physical form from when He came the first time - and He still has His physical form in His resurrection body, which the disciples saw and touched, which we will have one day (as described in 1 Corinthians 15 and confirmed in 1 John 3:2).
As I have said, all members of the Trinity are intimately connected - to the point where interaction with one is essentially interaction with all. Talking about Jesus is talking about God. Talking about the Father is talking about God. Talking about the Holy Spirit is talking about God. They are not three guys who just like to hang out together; they are intimately connected as One in a way we can’t fully understand because we are not God. Oneness in marriage is a simplified model of this, as I described before.
Don’t forget the teaching Jesus gave on oneness - His oneness with the Father and our oneness with Him (John 14). He makes the comparison Himself. See my comments on it above. Please also note my comment about His discussion in John 8 where He clearly describes the Son and the Father as two witnesses. He wouldn’t deceive the people by making it look like two witnesses when in reality there was only one (which would be the case if Jesus and the Father are technically the same person). This is not to mention all the references of the two interacting with and speaking about each other as if they were separate. Those have to be symbolized in order to fit the Oneness theology. And that’s a lot to be symbolized, not just by Jesus but by the other writers in the New Testament as well.
December 31st, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Jesus in His resurrected form,was not the same as His physical form.He walked through walls,yet still ate fish with the Apostles.When He spoke with His followers on the road to Emmaus,they did not recognize Him until after
He had prayed.
I could not say for sure,but I would imagine it had to have been much the same in the OT.When He came to Abraham,before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah,it must have been much the same.
Genesis 17:1And when Abram was ninety years old and nine,the Lord appeared to Abram,and said unto him,I am the almighty God;walk before me,and be thou perfect.
(3)And Abram fell on his face:and God talked with him,…Does not speak of form.
The revelation is not only in who He is,but also the Name of Jesus.
Abram knew Him as Lord and God,not Jesus.Yet that is who He is.
In Matthew 22:32,Jesus says,I am the God of Abraham,and the God of Isaac,and the God of Jacob…When Jesus said,I AM they knew it was a direct reference to Moses and the burning bush.
Also the Bible is not specific on the appearance of God with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden,it does say He walked with them in the cool of the day(Genesis 3:8).I will give you that, it does not speak of His form,again they did not know Him as Jesus.
Matthew 1:23-they shall call his name Emmanuel,which being interpreted is,God with us.(verse 21)thou shalt call his name Jesus…
Isaiah 9:6-For unto us a child is born,unto us a son is given:and the government shall be upon his shoulder;and his name shall be called(again what is the name ?His name is Jesus)Wonderful,Counselor(the Holy Ghost shall lead us in all truth),The mighty God(the son shall be called the mighty God?, as well as),The everlasting Father(wow),the Prince of Peace
(every one knows Jesus is the Prince of Peace,right?)
December 31st, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Well first you said he didn’t exist until he was born of Mary and now he does? Read the whole bible first man. Strange theology to have the ability to flip flop every way when it suits you.
I wonder which church fathers you claim, since they are all trinitarian right from the start.
“I have learned that certain of the ministers of Satan have wished to disturb you, some of them asserting that Jesus was born in appearance, was crucified in appearance, and died in appearance; others that He is not the Son the Creator, and others that He is Himself God over all.”
Ignatius died in 64 ad for his faith and wrote precisely against the heresy that you are promoting.
1 John 2:23No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
According to Pam the Son doesn’t exist. Guess what that means?
December 31st, 2009 at 7:56 pm
John 1:1says in the beginning was the Word,the Word was with God and the Word was God.
(2)The same was in the beginning with God.
(3)All things were made by him;and without him was not anything made that was made.(Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth).
(4)In him was life;and the life was the light of men.
(When was this beginning?Some six thousand years ago,according to the scripture).
John 1:14-And the Word was made flesh,and dwelt among us(that was two thousand years ago).Do not put words in my mouth,I was speaking of the revelation of Jesus Christ.He was from the beginning,as I have previously stated,in the bosom of God (the heart of God).He was from the beginning the Word,thought and intention of God,the plan of God was the fullness of His revelation.
Colossians 2:9 For in him(Jesus Christ)dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead(Father,Son and Holy Ghost)bodily.
Now you are making me repeat myself.
December 31st, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Well I’m sorry Jim it just seems kind of confusing. I’ve shown you examples of the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ in the old testament as a human being. I thought Oneness adherents didn’t believe in that?
January 1st, 2010 at 2:08 am
I still don’t see an answer from Jim or Pam to my questions.
January 1st, 2010 at 7:54 am
Mitchell,
I doubt you will get a response. Theological and exegetical gymnastics only go so far.
January 1st, 2010 at 9:34 am
To All,
The Shema mentioned in another recent thread should settle this issue, but sadly it’s been ignored. Here is what Moses said, according to a typical translation (NIV) in English;
Dt 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”
That sounds fairly benign on the surface, but the question is, why did Moses have to confirm that the Lord is ONE? Wouldn’t that have been the natural assumption on behalf of Israel? Well, no, and that’s because they were experiencing three personages of God in the wilderness, and Moses needed to eliminate their confusion. So let’s consider what the transliteration of this verse actually implies;
“Hear, O Israel: Yahweh and our Elohim are a united one.”
If God was not Three in One, this statement would make no sense. Yahweh AND our Elohim (plural) are A UNITED ONE. Hmmm. This is where the word ‘echad’ becomes critical, because it refers to a ‘united one’, not a lone individual. When Rambam (Maimonides) changed the Shema, he removed ‘echad’ and substituted ‘yachid’, which means ‘alone’. So now, the Shema uttered by Israel today goes something like this;
“..Yahweh, our God Yahweh is alone.”
But even this change did not completely erase the idea of the Trinity, because the word ‘Elohenu’ (‘our Gods’) is still in his Shema, which actually makes it read like this;
“..Yahweh, our Gods Yahweh are alone.”
I urge each of you to read the on-line version of “The Jewish Trinity”, because the Triune nature of God will come under increasing assault as the last days approach. This is a big deal. To know the counterfeits, you have to know the real thing first. There are literally multiple hundreds of uses of the terms ‘echad’ and ‘Elohenu’ and ‘haElohim’ in the Old Testament, clearly describing God’s plural nature, and demonstrating that the prophets were Trinitarians.
Let’s not let false teachers creep in among us.
January 1st, 2010 at 11:55 am
Good post Michael, amen.
January 1st, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Amen. The nail was hit on the head above when Pam said the following: “Moslems are heading in the right direction with their rejection of the Roman Catholic/daughter-church trinity.” Sadly, I believe that Pam and others may be heading in the direction of the Muslims. Heresy always begets heresy, which in the end begets eternal damnation. This is why the battles raged so deeply within the early Church and precisely why they were so careful to preserve the apostolic tradition of Trinitarianism.
Also, I want to repeat something that I touched on earlier. Somewhere in the many posts above, Pam mentions that many Jews have abandoned the first commandment because they do not adhere to the oneness of God. See, to unitarians (Muslims, modern rabbinic Jews, pseudo-Christian heretics, etc), the commandment aspect of the Shema is the idea that “God is one (singular).” However, when Jesus mentions the first commandment, he does not quote the Shema, but instead quotes that “you shall love Yahweh your God, with all your heart… etc.” The Shema is a statement regarding the nature of Yahweh, and the “gods” of Israel: He is unified. The commandment is that we are to love Him with all of our hearts, mind, sould, etc.
January 1st, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Questions:
Do you believe that each of your persons in your trinity have their own personal mind, personal will and personal emotions separate and sometimes different than the other two in your trinity?
Does it concern you that Tertullian, revered as the father of trinitarianism, was judged to be a heretic and excommunicated for his belief that Montanus (Tertullian was a Montanist) *was* the Holy Ghost (Paraclete/Comforter of John 14) and Tertullian believed Montanus was the last prophet before the end of the world?
Pam
January 1st, 2010 at 12:50 pm
ignobleuse Says:
December 31st, 2009 at 7:09 pm
“According to Pam the Son does not exist.”
Where did I say that? Have you even read what *has* been posted?
Pam
January 1st, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Joel Says:
January 1st, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Amen. The nail was hit on the head above when Pam said the following: “Moslems are heading in the right direction with their rejection of the Roman Catholic/daughter-church trinity.” Sadly, I believe that Pam and others may be heading in the direction of the Muslims.
Joel–
“. . .heading in the right direction. . .” certainly does not mean they (meaning Moslems you want to link me with so badly) have arrived. Rejecting the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church (infant baptism, transsubstantiation, the pope) by Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. was heading in the right direction, too. Am I heading in the direction of Muslims, Lutherans, Baptists, etc? But one thing is sure, YOUR POPE BENEDICT has pronounced Moslems IN THE FAITH just as YOU are! Did you not see photographs of Benedict kissing the quran? Who is heading in what direction, Joel?
January 1st, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Joel,
Regarding canonicity as claimed by the roman catholic church–
“There is a difference between the canonicity of a book and the authority of that book. A book’s canonicity depends upon its authority. When Paul, for example, writes to the Corinthians, his letter is to be acknowledged as possessing divine authority (I Cor. 14:37) . This letter had authority from the moment he wrote it, yet it could not be referred to as canonical until it was received in a list of accepted writings formed sometime later. At a later time it was accepted as canonical because of its inherent authority. A book first has divine authority based on its inspiration, and then attains canonicity due to its general acceptance as a divine product. No church council by its decrees can make the books of the Bible authoritative. The books of the Bible possess their own authority and indeed had this authority long before there were any councils of the church. The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church completely ignore this important point.
“Good evidence exists in the New Testament which shows that by the time of Jesus the canon of the Old Covenant had been fixed. It cannot be questioned that Jesus and his apostles time after time quote from a body of writings as “Scripture.”
“In conclusion, it is necessary to emphasize that no church through its councils made the canon of Scripture. No church - in particular the Roman Catholic Church its decrees gave to or pronounced upon the books of the Bible their infallibility. The Bible owes its authority to no individual or group. The church does not control the canon, but the canon controls the church. Although divine authority was attributed to the New Testament books by the later church, this authority was not derived from the church but was inherent in the books themselves. As a child identifies its mother, the later church identified the books which it regarded as having unique authority.” “How We Got The Bible,” Neil R. Lightfoot (Grand Rapids, MI; Baker Book House, 1970).
January 1st, 2010 at 2:03 pm
# Mitchell Says:
January 1st, 2010 at 2:08 am
I still don’t see an answer from Jim or Pam to my questions.
# Michael (K.) Says:
January 1st, 2010 at 7:54 am
Mitchell,
I doubt you will get a response. Theological and exegetical gymnastics only go so far.
Michael and Mitchell– Yes, yes. Nicea could “only go so far” so it was obviously theological and exegetical gymnastics!!
All your Scripture posts have been answered; you are not matching questions to answers. Jim and I have both gotten to the point we are even repeating answers.
Pam
January 1st, 2010 at 2:08 pm
And still no recognition of the truth contained in the Shema of Moses.
*sigh*
January 1st, 2010 at 2:17 pm
I’ve got an “ecumenical” drawing done by a trinitarian artist that I think pope benedict would appreciate which is a representation of the three members of the trinity sitting together on a crescent moon (as if sitting on a swing together) in front of the sun and its many rays.
Pam
January 1st, 2010 at 2:27 pm
The Jews believed the title YHWH to be so holy that they would not use it,instead they would insert other adjectives which describe the attributes of
God,such as Elohim.The “self-existing one”is who He is.
My Interlinear Bible says the text as,”Hear, O Israel,Jehovah our God is one
Jehovah.For you Joel that would be,Hear O Israel,Yahweh our God is one
Yahweh.God is God,and God is one.
I do not intend to speak for anyone other than myself,when I say that in the
end times,I believe there will be,a one world government and a one world
religion.I personally believe that one world religion,and perhaps even the one world government will be controlled by Islam.
It seems to me from what you have posted recently(Sanhedrin meetings,
Pope kissing Koran ,The belief of Rabbi Abrahamson of a common,
fudamental faith,that being called Islam etc) make it seem the world is heading in that direction. I believe these actions are motivated by fear,and a hope of self preservation.
I would not make the accusation that you are heading in that direction,
anymore than I believe you should accuse me of heading in that direction.
If I did not agree with you on Islamic antichrist,and the coming Islamic super power etc.,believe me when I say,I would not bother with your web site,because fundamentally our beliefs are different.
I come here for the news you share of world events,but I will not back down when you make accusations and try to bully,and make yourself out to be the expert.You use mostly other peoples material,here it is in one place and I do not have to serf all over the place to find it.For that I am greatful.Other than that your articles are to peddle your goods and make money off the things you sensationalize.I understand that and have bought both your DVD’s because I agree with you,not for ammunition to condemn you.
Yes,we are commanded to love God with all we have and are,Jesus said that is the most important thing we can do.I am not here to say you do not.The second most important thing we can do is love our neighbors as ourselves.Look at how you treat your neighbor.You are condemning and rallying the troops, so to speak,to do the same.With that I do not agree.
I realize I am in the minority here,as well as,in this world in which we live.Why would you not be looking at the common ground we share?
Instead of making false accusations.We are no more heading towards Islam than you are.Even though I am a monotheist.
Abraham rejected the household gods of his father to seek the One True God,abelief shared by Isaac and Jacob.A belief that was not rejected until 1300 years ago,you said that yourself.So go ahead and condemn,you will
reap that which you sew my friends,that is Bible.Where is the love?
of Jews and Muslims and that being called Islam)
January 1st, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Joel
Jesus did not quote the ten commandments, he summarized the first few regarding our love for God and the last few regarding our love for humanity. It in no way does away with the DUAL NATURE of CHRIST in whom dwelled ALL the fullness of Godhead who is that ONE SPIRIT entitled Father and Holy Ghost.
Pam
January 1st, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Pam,
First, your point that Jesus is fully God and fully man is precisely correct. This is what the orthodox Church has held from the beginning.
But on your other point: Jesus was not citing the first of the ten commandments as you suppose, but the Shema. The ten commandments begin with the following:
This is not what Jesus was citing. He was citing “the Shema” which reads as follows (KJV):
This is what Jesus was citing. But notice that when He speaks of the “commandment”, he does not quote the declaration of God’s Unity, but the portion which speaks of loving God:
So again, for clarity, the greatest commandment is to Love Yahweh. Unitarians, whether they be Muslim apologists, modern rabbinic Jews or heretical Christian unitarians, consistently and wrongly claim that the commandment aspect of the Shema is the portion that (allegedly) speaks of God’s singularity. So it is with a misinterpretation and false translation of this passage that the anti-Trinitarian heresy derives. Do you really think that Muhammad, a demon possessed prophet would lead mankind to a closer revelation of the truth? Satan draws people away from God, not toward Him…
January 1st, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Jim,
Pam said that Muslims are heading in the right direction by rejecting the Trinity. Islam is a demonically inspired religion. As such it rejects God’s self-revelation of Himself and leads millions to hell. If you continue to choose a path of rejecting God’s self-revelation then you are in danger. Of course God will be your judge and in no way do I presume to know who is or is not saved. This was not my intention. My intention was to show that Pam is extolling the demonically inspired doctrinal positions of Islam. So yes, I do pray that you would reconsider not only your doctrine. I would be entirely unloving if I did not warn you and others of the dangerous path of rejecting God’s clearly revealed self-revelation of Himself. Beyond this, your personal accusations toward me are both unfounded and enitrely out of line. Theological discussions need not turn into attacks on character and motives. I’m genuinely sorry that you felt the need to go down this road.
Blessings
January 1st, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Michael, good post and thanks for the link earlier.
Pam said: “Do you believe that each of your persons in your trinity have their own personal mind, personal will and personal emotions separate and sometimes different than the other two in your trinity?”
I believe they are individual, but the nature of their relationship binds them together as One. I don’t know if their emotions ever differ from each other, as they have been One for all eternity, and the more time you spend with someone and the closer you are, the more in line will be your emotional responses.
However, the Bible is clear that the Father is the head (1 Corinthians 11:3) and the Son submits to the Father’s will (Mark 14:36; John 6:38; 1 Corinthians 15:27-28) and both the Son and the Spirit do nothing on their own but only what the Father says and does (John 5:16-30; John 7:16-17; John 14:10, 23-26, 30-31; John 16:12-15). If they were all the same person, why the different positions of authority?
Please note: in biblical discussions of positions of authority between men and women, it does not say that one is better than the other, just that they have different roles; therefore, just because different parts of the Trinity have different positions of authority, it doesn’t make any part “less” God.
I’m going to repeat myself here, but I will also expand on it.
Remember, we are made in God’s image, so we are reflections of Him. Our relationships with each other are models of our relationship with God and His nature as a relational/personal God. Father/son, husband, brother, friend.
I think the marriage relationship represents the highest form of relationship that God desires with us - which is the essence of His own nature (as the Trinity). In the marriage relationship, two people join to become one (Genesis 2:24). Jesus describes His relationship with the Father as being one with Him (John 14:10). In the same passage, He describes our relationship with Him as being one with Him as He is one with the Father (John 14:20). Paul later makes the comparison between the marriage relationship and our relationship with Christ (Ephesians 5:31-32), which Christ has already compared with His relationship to the Father (John 14:20).
Another example of multiple people being as one is that of the Church as one body, belonging to Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Ephesians 5:29-30). We all maintain our individual identities and roles, but we work as one and respond as one (when one part suffers, all suffer; when one part is honored, all are honored - like what I said before about emotional responses being the same for those who are close).
The two examples are related (one in marriage, one body). Paul wrote: “After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church – for we are members of His body. ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ This is a profound mystery – but I am talking about Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5:29-32). He describes us as Christ’s body in 1 Corinthians 12, and he connects the oneness of two people in marriage with our oneness with Christ. Jesus, in turn, compares our oneness with Him to His oneness with the Father: “On that day you will realize that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you” (John 14:20). Granted, the relationship isn’t exactly the same as the God to God relationship can’t be identical to God to man relationship (they are different beings by nature). But the God to man relationship is a reflection of the God to God relationship.
I hope this makes sense. Happy New Year, everyone!
January 1st, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Michael -
Your answer, sir, from a Jewish source:
http://judaism-now.blogspot.com
The Trinity - Part Two - “The Shema and Echad”
It must be noted that Jehovah declares Himself as being alone and without other deities more times than the rest of the Bible describes Him as being “one”. This is important to keep this fact in mind when attempting to gain a complete understanding of the Shema. 1 The Shema (an imperative command to listen up) is a signature-scripture to the Hebrew Bible and is comparable to what John 3:16 is to the New Testament. Its opening line states: “Hear O Israel Jehovah is our God, Jehovah is one”.
.
Because the Shema is part of the foundational concept of Judaism, and because of the need to proof-text their doctrine, the Trinitarians twist the Shema totally out of its context of how it was originally given to the Jewish people by the hand of Moses. They wish to inject into the Shema the idea of a three-person Godhead, even though the Shema along with its complete original meaning and context out dates Christianity by more than a thousand years!
.
The Trinity within the Shema is a mindset that reasons; if Adam and Eve can be considered “one” flesh2 and evening and morning can be “one” day3 so too could three God-persons of the Trinity be called “one” in the Shema. The Trinitarians then take it a step further in suggesting (even to the point of outright lying) that the Hebrew word, echad (meaning ‘one’) has only the meaning to “categorize things in number into a single unit”. In other words, the word echad within the Shema is a sure signal that there is something plural within Jehovah whom the Shema described as one. It’s almost laughable how these willful Trinitarian twisters of the Hebrew scriptures attempt to make the Shema say the exact opposite of what its true message is. I don’t mean to stereotype, but perhaps its their Gentile nature (desire to worship multiple gods) coming out in them that causes them to do this?
.
What they will willfully withhold and avoid is that echad, like out English word “one” is an adjective and is subject to the noun(s) it’s describing. In English, as well as in Biblical Hebrew “one/echad” can be used to describe one set of eyes, as well as one nose on a face. Example:
“There is one [echad] alone, and there is not a second..” - Ecclesiastes 4:8
.
There are not multiple subjects in the opening declaration of the Shema to be united with the adjective, echad. “God” is the single subject and “one” is that single subject’s adjective. Again, there are no two or three subjects in the opening statement of the Shema to united under the adjective “one”! Multiple subjects such as three God-persons within the Shema are only a figment of a Trinitarian’s imagination. It’s simply not in the text. A Trinity can only be injected into the text outside the confine structures of the Biblical Hebrew and English languages. The Trinitarians not only try to superimpose three subjects unto one original subject but try also to alter the concept of written and spoken languages to meet their own superimposation. This is the lengths of which they will go in their desperate need to worship multiple god-persons while trying to hang unto the vindicated one true God of Israel.
.
The correct doctrine of the Shema, “Hear O Israel Jehovah is our God, Jehovah is one/echad” can only be a description of its single subject (in this case God Himself) without the blinding of another subject to Him in set-descriptions. The Shema is clearly a declaration that their God (the God of Israel) is one in nature and that He is one in being. But don’t take my word for it, let the very words of God Himself declare this truth of the Shema:
“I am Jehovah, and there is none else, there is no God beside me” - Isaiah 45:5
Just a thought, but this Jehovah that was using the personal pronoun “I” and “me” in the above scripture doesn’t sound much like He’s in favor of Trinitarianism Himself!
.
The bottom line is that the Trinity doctrine undermines God’s very nature and being as “one” as well as disregarding His own declaration of Himself being alone and knowing no other deities. One of the greatest rebukes to God is to call Him three, after He Himself has declares Himself is “one”!
.
Scriptures regarding Jehovah’s declared oneness:
.
“Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that Jehovah he is God; there is none else beside him.” -Deuteronomy 4:35
.
“Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that Jehovah he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.” - Deuteronomy 4:39
.
The Shema: “Hear O Israel Jehovah is our God, Jehovah is one/echad - Deuteronomy 6:4
.
“That all the people of the earth [including Trintarians] may know that Jehovah is God, and that there is none else. - I Kings 8:60
.
“I am Jehovah, and there is none else, there is no God beside me” - Isaiah 45:5
.
“That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am Jehovah, and there is none else.” - Isaiah 45:6
.
“For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else.” - Isaiah 45:18
.
“Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I Jehovah? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.” - Isaiah 45:21
.
“Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am El (not “Elohim” - see part 1) and there is none else.” - Isaiah 45:22
.
“Remember the former things of old: for I am El (not “Elohim” - see part 1), and there is none else; I am El, and there is none like me.” - Isaiah 46:9
.
“And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am Jehovah your God, and none else” - Joel 2:27
January 1st, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Joel–
Regarding Muslims and your trinity: In using the phrase “heading in the right direction” I was (I thought quite obviously) referring to *walking away from* something; that is, the false doctrine of a so-called “Christian” trinity. The “right direction” I was referencing was AWAY–much like the first step(s) away from a lake by a drowning person onto a shore. I did not say if those taking a first step *away* onto the shore would turn left, right, go straight or immediately step into quicksand.
No one appreciates having words put into their mouth, and sometimes we do miscommunicate unintentionally.
Muslims are considered “monotheists” because “mono” means “one” and they say they believe in one god: allah. I do not consider “allah” to be a title for MY Jesus Christ. And I do not consider a second in their belief, Isa, to be MY Jesus. And I do not know if their Mary (who was originally, when the false doctrine of the trinity was taking form, considered the third member of your triune godhead) is the same Mary who was in the Upper Room on the Day of Pentecost and who was, it follows, baptized in the NAME Jesus Christ for REMISSION of HER SINS. And I do not accept anything islam’s prophet said or did to be good or Truth.
If your Mother Mary is officially elevated to co-equal status with the son, will catholics announce they are no longer tri-nitarian but quad-ritarian? Just a question.
Pam
January 1st, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Pam, this is what you posted earlier:
There is no “God the Son.” But there was the human flesh of the INVISIBLE Father who indwelt the flesh WITHOUT MEASURE He created for the purpose of coming and dying for us.
January 1st, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Mishael–
I believe that a marriage relationship does not parallel or validate a belief in a trinity. My husband and I each have our own personal imperfect minds, wills and emotions, we both make ourselves known by titles, but the titles are different, but we each have a name that means only us, and we do not need each other to “be.” Your members of the trinity are not able to “be” without the other two, or even without one of the others. The Father is sovereign and outside His Creation and does not need another being of any kind to “be.” He was even before He created the first angel, the first anything. He is the self-sufficient ONE.
The Father has PERFECT mind, PERFECT will, PERFECT emotions. We cannot compare humanity to Diety or try to make Diety into a human being. I believe that a human being’s soul is IMPERFECT mind, IMPERFECT will and IMPERFECT emotions. The Son of God (human flesh) was 100% PERFECT Diety and, at the same time, IMPERFECT humanity.
I will pray about the following in case it is one of my accidental “miscommunications” but what I am trying to visualize below is the One invisible Spirit of God who in a 33-year parenthetical period of time manifest Himself in human flesh for the purpose of His death, burial and resurrection so that we might obey His death by repentance, obey His burial by baptism in His Name (singular Name) for the remission of sin, and obey His resurrection by receiving (becoming indwelt by) His Spirit as evidenced by speaking in an unknown tongue as He, the Spirit, gives utterance to walk in newness of life. The parentheses represent Son/Flesh. FATHER = Spirit. After God raised Himself from the dead, my parentheses would equal GLORIFIED human flesh.
January 1st, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Pam said: “All your Scripture posts have been answered; you are not matching questions to answers. Jim and I have both gotten to the point we are even repeating answers.”
Ditto! We’ve been repeating ourselves, too. I know I have. And you have not addressed all my scripture references. Examples?
~ My comments on John 8, where Jesus clearly considers Himself and the Father as two separate individuals acting as two separate witnesses to the validity of His testimony.
~ My comments on oneness in marriage reflecting God’s oneness in the Trinity and with us. (Your quote from “a Jewish source” did not discount this comparison. It mentioned it but didn’t prove it’s wrong.)
~ My comments on the verses that reveal the different roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the different positions of authority as ordained by those roles.
~ My comments on the verses that differentiate between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and yet show how they are connected as One (John 14-16), as I have been trying to explain. No dispute on One God!
~ My comments on your combination of 2 Thessalonians 2 and 2 Peter 3 (back early in the conversation).
I find it interesting that you have to attack fallible human beings who believe in the Trinity as support that the idea of the Trinity is “wrong.” Why is this? I thought we were to use scripture to determine truth, not ad hominem attacks.
January 1st, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Pam
January 1st, 2010 at 5:18 pm
——eternity past——–S–P–I-(–)-R–I–T——–eternity future——-
If there is no typed representation above, it is not being allowed.
Pam
January 1st, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Ignoblese
The phrase “God the Son” is nowhere found in Scripture. The Son of God is the correct phrase, and the wording is eternally important. “God the Son” would equal “God the flesh” and flesh can sin and die. God cannot die or sin, therefore, the phrase son of God is what you will find in Scripture and it always refers to Jesus’ humanity, not Diety. So there was no need for you to apply I John to me, Ignoble. “God the Son” is NOT in the Bible. Son of God (flesh of God) is in the Bible and I have always said the same thing.
I believe I remember you exhorting Jim L to read the whole Bible as if *he* had not learned something??????????????????????
Pam
January 1st, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Pam, please consider -everything- I said together. It has be taken -together- in order for you to understand my point. Don’t miss this part of my post: “Granted, the relationship isn’t exactly the same as the God to God relationship can’t be identical to God to man relationship (they are different beings by nature). But the God to man relationship is a reflection of the God to God relationship.”
Pam said: “I believe that a marriage relationship does not parallel or validate a belief in a trinity.”
Why? I very clearly laid out this progression from scripture:
~ Marriage brings two together as one (Genesis 2:24).
~ The mystery of marriage describes Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:31-32).
~ Jesus declares that we are one with Him (John 14:20) - as represented in marriage (Ephesians 5:31-32).
~ Jesus declares that He is one with the Father (John 14:10).
~ Jesus declares that He is one with the Father AS we are one with Him (John 14:20) - here is the connection with the Trinity, in particular the relationship between the Father and the Son. This same idea is repeated in Jesus’ prayer to the Father - “may they be one as we are one” (John 17:11, 20-21). Are you familiar with the idea of a simile?
Please show me scripturally where this is wrong, not just your opinion. I am taking this only from God’s Word.
January 1st, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Pam,
Should I be surprised that a Jewish commentary would deny the Trinity of the Shema and even the true meaning of ‘echad’, any more than I should be surprised that these same men also deny that Jesus Christ is/was the Messiah? Do you know what lengths they go to in denying the Son in their own scriptures? You may as well choose similar writings from Islam and post them here.
Let’s deal directly with this, from Webster’s New World Hebrew Dictionary;
“eekh ed” /-ahah /-adetee v UNITED; UNIFIED; (pres me-akhed; fut ye’akhed).
Nowhere in this description - anywhere - is there even the remotest hint that aloneness could somehow be inferred upon this word ‘echad’. Nowhere. It is quite the opposite. In excerpting that article, you essentially accuse me of perverting the meaning of the word, but right here and now the truth is revealed. Words mean things, and we cannot change them to fit our desires.
Now, you or they can list as many selected singular references to God’s names as you/they wish, but I can do the same thing with the many HUNDREDS of times that plural forms of God’s name or attributes are used, such as Adonai, Elohim, haElohim, or even Panim. And these words are highly specific Hebrew PLURAL references, as shown below;
Adon = Lord
Adonai = Lords (plural)
El = God
Elohim = Gods (plural)
HaElohim = All the Gods (more than two)
Pan = Face
Panim = Faces (plural)
These plural forms are used throughout the Old Testament by Moses, by Abraham, by the patriarchs of Israel, by the prophets, by virtually anyone of any significance. They were ALL trinitarians. Why on earth would they constantly use plural forms of God’s name if they were not referring to a plural essence?
The inverse of that idea is that nobody here will call you ‘Pams’ (or ‘Pam-im‘), because you are an individual, not a plural. But we do refer to God as Adonai (plural), Elohim (plural), haElohim (plural-all), and also to His Panim (plural), and so on. But if God is/was alone and not a Triune essence, this would be the strangest commentary on the Old Testament that I could imagine. Plural means plural, and nothing can change that reality.
Of course, I do understand that nothing anyone can say from this point on will have even the remotest chance of resonating with you. But frankly, my concern is for the Christians on this site that are new or just growing in their faith. My desire is that they not be taken in by this perverted logic of ‘Oneness’. That’s the only reason I’m still participating on this thread.
January 1st, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Hear,O Israel;The Lord our God is one Lord:
Is used in Mark 12:29 when Jesus is answering,which is the first commandment of all.
Mark is believed to be the first of the Gospels written,and is quoted by other
writers.Each of the Gospels was written to reach out to different ethnic groups.
Actually,the son of man speaks of the flesh of Jesus.That is why you see the
word him without a capital being used in reference to Jesus.Still that being said,He is fully God and fully man at the same time.
I tend to be self defensive especially when I feel I am being talked down to,
sorry.Jim
January 1st, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Michael(K)-I understand what you are saying,but there is one thing you need to understand also.These words you have used are not Gods name.They were inserts,so that YHWH would not be used.They speak only of the attributes of God.Father,Son and Holy Ghost also are not names.Jesus is the only name given among men,where by we must be saved.Jesus is the only saving name.
January 1st, 2010 at 7:03 pm
28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29″The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
32″Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
34When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.
January 1st, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Jim, what is the purpose of a title? Is it not to describe/identify someone? It may not be as specific as a name, but that doesn’t make it irrelevant.
As an example:
I could point Joel out to you and say, “This is Joel Richardson.” I could also say, “He is a writer, a speaker, the owner of this blog, a friend to Muslims, a child of God, a pursuer of truth.” Can those titles be used for other people (correctly or incorrectly)? Sure. Does it point him out from other people? Perhaps not, since others may be given the same titles. But it helps describe who he is beyond just his name.
January 1st, 2010 at 7:12 pm
(32)”Well said teacher”,the man replied.”You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.
Exactly my point thank you Joel. Jim
January 1st, 2010 at 7:16 pm
I forgot to add that titles and names work together to help describe/identify someone. Purposefully ignoring or downplaying one or the other is misleading.
January 1st, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Mishael–
I hope you saw my answer regarding marriage. I think I was writing it at the same time you were bringing that to my attention.
Mishael~ My comments on John 8, where Jesus clearly considers Himself and the Father as two separate individuals acting as two separate witnesses to the validity of His testimony.
Pam John 8:14-32 — Two witnesses
Jesus was referring to His dual nature. He as a man was one witness and the Father (divine Spirit) was the second witness. It is also apparent that the Son (flesh) and the Father (Spirit) were not co-equal. Jesus *speaking as a man* said in verse 28 that he did nothing of himself but did what his father taught him. Also in Matt 28:18 Jesus said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth”–the Spirit/Father/HolyGhost gave the human flesh power. The Son stated that the Father was greater than him. No co-equal here. But just before this passage, Jesus said that he was the light of the world (verse 12) and was asserting his Messianic role (Isa 9:2, 49:6). This is a really interesting Scripture, because if a person says the two witnesses were separate persons in a trinity, why didn’t Jesus say, “Hey, there are not only two witnesses, but THREE?” The law in Deut 17:6, 19:15 required two witnesses but asked for three if at all possible! Then those Pharisees started asking Jesus where the Father was, and He didn’t even say the Father was another person in the godhead! He started identifying Himself with the Father, the I AM of the OT and those Pharisees got so mad they would have killed Him but the time wasn’t right.
Mishael~ My comments on the verses that reveal the different roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the different positions of authority as ordained by those roles.
A plurality of roles or relationships to mankind, but not a plurality of “persons.” I do not readily see the verses to which you refer. Would you be so kind as to copy and paste them into a new window so I will be certain to answer each? I might just be tired, but I do not see them.
Mishael~ My comments on the verses that differentiate between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and yet show how they are connected as One (John 14-16), as I have been trying to explain. No dispute on One God!
Jesus Christ is both humanity and Deity. There is a real duality, but it is a distinction between Spirit and flesh, not a distinction between persons in God.
Jesus, the man, lived and had his being in God (”Believe me that I am in the Father 14:9-11) who is an invisible Spirit just like we move and have our being in the omnipresent Spirit of God; but the Spirit of God was also inside the man Jesus (. . .and the Father in me.) and was “doing the works” Jesus, the man, told them that they could either believe He was in the Father and the Father was in Him or believe Him for the miraculous works being done. Philip had not comprehended that the Father is an invisible Spirit and that the only way to see the invisible Spirit was through the person, the Son, Jesus Christ. There are not two sons, one divine and one human. There is one Son, 100% human, and one Father/Spirit.
In 14:18 Jesus said He would not leave us comfortless. The word “comfortless” in Greek is “orphanos.” He said He would not leave us orphans! He was saying He would not leave us FATHERLESS, but He would come to us! The Father was IN the Son. The Spirit of God was IN the flesh of God.
By the way, compare John 2:19-21 and Acts 2:24. Jesus said He would resurrect His own body from the dead in three days. Peter preached that God raised raised up Jesus from the dead. Was that one of the trinity raising another person of the trinity from the dead? No. It was the Spirit of God IN the dead human Son who raised the body up.
John 16:7 Jesus said that He would send the Comforter to us; John 14:26 Jesus said that the FATHER would send the Comforter. Jesus was not confused, in 16:7 Divinity/Father was speaking, in 14:26 Son was speaking. It all boils down to Jesus is the Father.
Same situation in 14:14 where Jesus, as the Father said He would answer prayer, and then in 16:23 He said the Father would answer prayer. Jesus answers prayer because He is the Father.
In John 16:32, for example, Jesus is speaking from His humanity talking about His upcoming crucifixion. I know it is humanity not divine Spirit speaking because the eternal Spirit of God did not leave the human body, the Son, until the Son’s death.
To sum up (please let me know if I missed any Scriptures you have asked about) 14 -16 John, it is easily understood if we realise that Jesus has a dual nature. He is the only one who has ever had a dual nature! He is both Spirit and flesh, God and man, Father and son. On his human side, he is the son of man, on his divine side, He is the Son of God (”God the Son” is NEVER a phrase used in the whole entire Bible.)
Mishael~ My comments on your combination of 2 Thessalonians 2 and 2 Peter 3 (back early in the conversation).
I remember mentioning II Thess 1:7-9 regarding those who chose to obey the Gospel, and II Peter 3:8-9 does talk about his long-suffering and his desire that none would perish but in the next verse :10 says “that day will come.” I guess I do not understand the point you are making, but would very much like to. Did you understand the Gospel defined, obeyed, not obeyed and the reason why the Gospel might be hidden to some people who will be lost for eternity? II Cor 4:3-4. Theos but lower case “g” is the god of this world (means the devil). This is not the strong delusion. The strong delusion will come from God (capital G).
Mishael~I find it interesting that you have to attack fallible human beings who believe in the Trinity as support that the idea of the Trinity is “wrong.” Why is this? I thought we were to use scripture to determine truth, not ad hominem attacks.
I find it interesting that fallible human beings would be believed saying the trinity is right when Scripture says it is wrong. I also do not feel it is an “attack” to point out human error. Feel free to tell me where you perceived an “attack.”
Thank you for the opportunity you have given me to share the Gospel part of which is the only saving Name as opposed to echoing titles and being deceived or deluded.
Pam
January 1st, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Michael K asks: “Should I be surprised that a Jewish commentary would deny the Trinity of the Shema and even the true meaning of ‘echad’. . . .”
The site http://judaism-now.blogspot.com is a Jewish source by a gentleman who is not of “the tribe” so I guess you may be surprised if you care to be.
Pam
January 1st, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Michael K–
Joe Whitehead writes that he is “a Hebrew Bible - reading Gentile” and “I will gladly stand toe to toe with anybody who wishes to debate me over what the Hebrew Bible states in Hebrew concerning the Hebrews.
Why don’t you straighten the guy out, Michael? He has a very interesting transcript of a debate he had with a Muslim recently if you click the link above.
Pam-im
January 1st, 2010 at 9:13 pm
Mishael says - If they were all the same person, why the different positions of authority?
The Father is NOT the same person as the Son. The Father is NOT a person *at all*. John 4:24 “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”
Pam
January 1st, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Jim,
Sorry, I popped the last post off in a hurry before I left tonight. Now back… You are right in that Mark’s gospel does quote the full passage. I missed this. However, every gospel stands on its own, I’m sure that you will agree? Matthew’s gospel does not even quote the first portion of the passage. Are we in agreement that the portion of the passage that is a commandment is the portion that calls for loving God? The first and greatest commandment is not that God is one. This is simply a statement of fact that precedes the actual commandment. Agree?
Blessings, Joel
January 1st, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Pam,
I think that I am begining to percieve part of the problem. You continually confuse the meaning of “person” with “human”. Being a spirit does not diminish the fact that God is a “person”. All Christians (all theists for that matter) believe that God is a personal being and not merely an unintelligent cosmic force.
January 1st, 2010 at 10:55 pm
Thank you, Joel. That is the point I was trying to get across some time ago.
January 1st, 2010 at 11:13 pm
In Revelation 5 we have God Almighty sitting on the throne, and the Lamb. Both are worshiped, and both are distinct persons. The Lamb is called “the Lamb who was slain”. Why would God choose to reveal himself to John this way if Jesus was just a part of himself? I’m sorry but it doesn’t add up.
January 1st, 2010 at 11:32 pm
OK, I can give you that point,but this discussion has been oneness verses trinity.In return give me Mark 12:32.
Isaiah 43:3-For I am the Lord thy God,the Holy One of Israel,thy Savior:…
43:11-I even I,am the Lord;and beside me there is no savior.
45:15…O God of Israel,the Savior.
45:21…a just God and a Savior;…
49:26I the Lord am thy Savior and thy Redeemer,..
Hosea 13:4-..I am the Lord thy God…there is no savior beside me.
Come on now.Jim
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:37 am
Pam, thank you as well for engaging in this discussion. I think it is beneficial all around.
Pam said: “I hope you saw my answer regarding marriage. I think I was writing it at the same time you were bringing that to my attention.”
I did, and I responded to it:
————
Pam said: “I believe that a marriage relationship does not parallel or validate a belief in a trinity.”
Why? I very clearly laid out this progression from scripture:
~ Marriage brings two together as one (Genesis 2:24).
~ The mystery of marriage describes Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:31-32).
~ Jesus declares that we are one with Him (John 14:20) - as represented in marriage (Ephesians 5:31-32).
~ Jesus declares that He is one with the Father (John 14:10).
~ Jesus declares that He is one with the Father AS we are one with Him (John 14:20) - here is the connection with the Trinity, in particular the relationship between the Father and the Son. This same idea is repeated in Jesus’ prayer to the Father - “may they be one as we are one” (John 17:11, 20-21). Are you familiar with the idea of a simile?
Please show me scripturally where this is wrong, not just your opinion. I am taking this only from God’s Word.
————
~*~
Your talk of this dual nature is a bit confusing to me. Let me see if I’ve got it straight: the Son is only the physical body which the Father indwelt. Accordingly, the Son is not God. Only the Father, who indwelt the Son, is God.
So…does the Son have His own mind, or was He only an empty body, merely an earthen vessel - like a puppet - for the Father (Spirit)? If the Son has His own mind, separate from the Father, then there are two; Jesus and the Father must be separate. If the Son has no mind, then how could an empty vessel submit to the will of the Father? He must have a will of His own in order to give it up in place of someone else’s will.
~*~
Pam said: “A plurality of roles or relationships to mankind, but not a plurality of ‘persons.’ I do not readily see the verses to which you refer. Would you be so kind as to copy and paste them into a new window so I will be certain to answer each? I might just be tired, but I do not see them.”
…
Mishael said: “However, the Bible is clear that the Father is the head (1 Corinthians 11:3) and the Son submits to the Father’s will (Mark 14:36; John 6:38; 1 Corinthians 15:27-28) and both the Son and the Spirit do nothing on their own but only what the Father says and does (John 5:16-30; John 7:16-17; John 14:10, 23-26, 30-31; John 16:12-15).”
This is what led to the question you were answering: “If they were all the same person, why the different positions of authority?” How did you miss them? *confused*
These verses pertain to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’s roles in relation to each other (Father is the head, Son and Spirit submit to the will of the Father and only do as the Father has said and done). Do you want more?
The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world; when the Son returned to the Father, He sent the Spirit so that we wouldn’t be left as orphans. See John 3:16-17; 1 John 4:9-10, 14; John 8:16, 29 42; John 14:16-17, 26; Romans 8:1-17.
The Son was sent by the Father to be the atoning sacrifice to save us from our sins. He is also the Word of God and the one through whom everything was created. The Father has placed everything under the Son’s feet - except for the Father Himself, of course, since He is the head. See verses above along with John 1:1-18; Colossians 1:15-23; 1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Corinthians 15:24-28.
The Spirit was sent by the Father after the Son went to the Father so we wouldn’t be alone (God is always with us) and to guide us and remind us of the things Jesus said. He is also a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance, confirming that we belong to God. He will also convict the world. See verses above (from John 14) along with John 16:5-15; Ephesians 1:13-14; 1 John 3:24; 1 John 4:13.
It is through the Spirit that we are one with God because it is by the Spirit that God is in us. “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in Me? … I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever – the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see Me anymore, but you will see Me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you. … If anyone loves Me, he will obey My teaching. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make our home with him” (from John 14).
Right here Jesus clearly says that the Spirit will live in us, and He (the Son) and the Father will make their home with us - that’s all three. Jesus said “we” not “I.”
~*~
Quote from myself a while ago:
————
Pam said: “Jesus is going to/has sent a strong delusion on people so they will believe a lie – it is not His will that anyone should perish.”
Whoa! Talk about twisting scripture. Perhaps it’s not meant, but be careful about mixing verses together like that. The face-value reading of what you said implies that Jesus will send a strong delusion so people will believe a lie because He doesn’t want anyone to perish. That makes absolutely no sense.
Let’s take the original verses in context:
~~~
“The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
~~~
Because people refuse to love the truth and so be saved, God will send a powerful delusion (during the time of the lawless one, the Antichrist, the context implies), essentially to draw the line between those who belong to Him and those who don’t. There will no longer be ambiguity among people; it will be clear to whom you belong. It will be the final choice - choose the Truth or choose the Lie.
~~~
“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”
2 Peter 3:8-9
~~~
God has been patient and has taken a long time in pouring out final judgment because He wants as many to be saved as will be saved. If we want to connect it with the 2 Thessalonians passage, then He’s holding out on sending the Strong Delusion until the last moment possible to give people as much chance to be saved as can be given - since soon after that His wrath will be poured out.
————
~*~
Pam said: “I find it interesting that fallible human beings would be believed saying the trinity is right when Scripture says it is wrong. I also do not feel it is an ‘attack’ to point out human error. Feel free to tell me where you perceived an ‘attack.’”
Scripture does not say that the Trinity is wrong. That’s what this whole discussion is about. That’s your position - knowing that the Bible says God is One and reconciling everything else to fit into your understanding of that. Our position is that God is One and yet there is evidence of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all being God - and we have to reconcile that together.
And also, just because someone is wrong at one point, it doesn’t mean he’s wrong in everything. Everything he says should be questioned and compared with scripture if that is the case, but that doesn’t automatically mean everything he believes or says is wrong.
I’m getting exhausted, so I can’t keep a good train of thought. I’ll leave it at that.
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:25 am
Jim, God is the Savior. Yes, we agree, because Jesus is God. Remember, the Trinity claims that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit make up One God (it’s the nature of their relationship).
If you’re with Pam in that the Son is merely a human body, not God, then please answer this:
How did Jesus save us, thus becoming our Savior? Was it not by dying in our place, paying the price for our sin - which is death (Romans 6:23)? If Jesus is the Father and was only the Spirit indwelling the human body known as the Son, which, according to what Pam said, left when the body died, then He didn’t actually die. The body died, but since Jesus is actually the Father (Spirit) only, He didn’t experience death Himself.
Let me compare two ideas (if I can think properly):
1) The Father makes a human body for Him to dwell in temporarily, to get it to the point where it could be used as a sacrifice to pay for the sin of all mankind. The body itself is mindless, directly by the Father’s Spirit until the point of death (like a puppet), where the Father’s Spirit leaves the body. In three days, the Father brings the body back to life (as a resurrection body) and dwells in it temporarily again until it is taken up to Heaven.
2) God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) devises a plan involving the Son becoming fully human while not losing His deity. This isn’t merely filling an empty vessel; this is the Creator becoming part of His creation. In this way, He identifies directly with His creation and can experience death as we experience it so that He truly dies in our place. The Father then raises Him from the dead through the Spirit (Romans 8:11; Ephesians 1:19-20). Throughout this whole thing, God is still on the throne, and the Father and Son are in constant connection through the Spirit.
Is the Son a puppet, or is the Son God? Did a puppet die for us, or did God die for us?
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:52 am
Jim, I think the mistake you’re making is thinking we worship 3 gods which is untrue. As Mishael said, we worship one God with 3 distinct persons. Mark 12:32 does nothing to change that, it only adds to the proof of the trinity.
“You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.”
That’s what we’ve been saying all along. “Let us make man in our image; in the image of God he created them.” To me there are no contradictions in the bible, but you’ve conceded Revelation 5 is in conflict with oneness theology. Looking at Mark 12 and Revelation 5 together, the triune God is the only one that makes sense.
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:35 am
Pam,
What would be the point, if we can’t even agree that ‘echad’ means what a Jewish dictionary says it means. The Hebrew dictionary I used was produced by ‘Websters’, hardly a light-weight organization, and was transliterated by a Jewish scholar, Hayim Baltsam. Jewish organizations have lauded this work, such as the Jewish Standard, which said it was “a true beauty and dream to the lay reader”. Jewish Week called it a “ground breaking resource”, and the Boston Jewish Times called it “a breakthrough work of linguistic scholarship”.
Your guy can argue with them.
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:17 am
The New Catholic Encyclopedia : ” the formula ( one God in three person )
it self does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins ;
it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development ……. the formula
” one God in three persons ” wasn’t solidly established , but it is precisely
this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma .
Among the Apostolic Fathers , there had been nothing even remotely
approaching such a mentality or perspective .
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:45 am
Michael K — I believe Britannica is hardly a light-weight organization and this is to the point
The New Encyclopedia Britannica :” Neither the word trinity nor the
explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament , nor did Jesus and his
followers intended to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament :” Hear , O Israel : the Lord our God is one Lord , ( Deuteronomy 6:4 ) ….. the doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies ……. It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons ….. By the end of the 4th century …. The doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since ”
And please consider THE NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA entry above as to what the Roman Catholic Church says about trinitarian dogma, especially regarding the perspective of the APOSTOLIC FATHERS.
While I’m at it, let’s take a look at these sources also–
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics :” in the New Testament we do not find
the doctrine of the Trinity in anything like its developed form , not even in
the Pauline and Johannine theology .
New Bible Dictionary :” the word trinity is not found in the Bible , and
through used by Tertullian in the last decade of the 2nd century , it did not
find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century .
According to history (including Roman Catholic history) the doctrine of the trinity came to completion through ERROR and CORRECTION the refinements of which (co-equality, etc) were accepted only after long and bitter debates that culminated in a vote of a majority, not a unanimous vote–there was still ERROR and CORRECTION. This method of formulating this MAN-MADE false doctrine continued until ceasing approximately ONE THOUSAND TWO-HUNDRED YEARS later (13th century). It is very CLEAR that even though “Church Fathers” claimed to be MORE indwelled by the Holy Ghost than others, their holy ghost was capable of ERROR.
Pam
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:58 am
Hey, you 1+1+1=1 and 1×1x1=1 wizards–
I would like to introduce you to Dr. Robert A. Herrmann:
http://creationwiki.org/Robert_Herrmann
In addition to those writings sited at the above link, Dr. Herrmann has also written “Oneness, the Trinity, and Logic”. It goes a little farther than second grade arithmetic. . .
Pam
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:22 am
Mishael–
You asked Jim and question: Is the Son a puppet, or is the Son God? (We are all tired and our entries, ALL of which is so IMPORTANT for us all to be discussing because of the expected caliphate and false prophet and use of the Temple Mount, so I am trying to copy and paste comments and questions I am referring to for convenience, but one might always want to look back to see that context has not been compromised.)
The son of God was not an empty-shell-body. He was 100% human with an IMPERFECT mind, IMPERFECT will, and IMPERFECT emotions AS WELL AS 100% Diety with a PERFECT, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Mind, PERFECT, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent will, and PERFECT, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent emotions. This quantifies His DUAL nature. The man-made (history underlines man-made) doctrine of a trinity WEAKENS the Christian’s personal relationship with God as well as weakening the diety supernaturally contained within Jesus. The son of God was neither a puppet nor does Son = God. God did not die other than by way of His indwelling the flesh/son that was capable of dying AND raising that dead body to life: the GLORIFIED FLESH the Father now resides in and Who was, is and will always be Perfect God.
Pam
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:24 am
Pam,
None of those commentaries speak to the meaning of ‘echad’. They add nothing to this discussion. They offer only opinions.
The fact that the word ‘Trinity’ is not found in the Bible is meaningless. It’s like the word ‘Rapture’, which is also not found in the Bible. Using that logic, since the words ‘Unitarian’ and ‘Oneness’ are also not found in the Bible, then they also don’t exist.
This is an old and tired argument, and a real straw dog.
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:40 am
Mishael says: “Scripture does not say that the Trinity is wrong. That’s what this whole discussion is about.”
Scripture does not say that the trinity is *right.* Oneness monotheistic doctrine using Scripture (all Scripture interpretting Scripture) does not weaken the Diety of Jesus who is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost but identifies this Diety as being the Diety of the ENTIRE Godhead. The Roman Catholic Church, however, still after more than A THOUSAND YEARS of trying and lying came up with EIGHT trinities and SEVEN of the eight have not been officially rejected by Orthodox Protestant or the Catholic church; they have not been declared “heretical.” So you’ve all got to decide just which one of these trinities is true, and that kind of means to me that there is ERROR, “error” meaning “wrong.” I do hope you are interested in Dr. Herrmann’s Oneness, the Trinity and Logic.
Pam
January 2nd, 2010 at 11:15 am
Pam, maybe you could address Revelation 5. Why does God show himself as the Lamb and also as “the one sitting on the throne”?
They are worshiped separately and together. Of the Lamb it is said: with your blood you purchased men for God. That wasn’t said of He who sits on the throne. If Jesus was just an extension of God, why are they both called he, and shown as distinct from each other?
January 2nd, 2010 at 11:19 am
Mishael,I believe where we are having trouble is your lack of understanding
that the name of Jesus is the only saving name.
I John 3:16 says:Hereby perceive we the love of God,because he laid down his life for us:and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
Who died on the cross ? This verse says this is how we understand the love of God.The love of God died on the cross.Did Jesus die on the cross,or did
God lay down His life as the verse says.
Nothing can separate us from the love of God,once you apply the Name.
When you are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ,you are baptized into Christ.You are baptized into His name,meaning baptized into the faith or
confession of that person and you are identified with His character and
purpose.
What is the definition of the word Christian?It is Christ-like,who were the first to be called Christians?The Apostles and early disciples,how did they baptize?They baptized in the saving Name of Jesus Christ.They were called
a sect in the scripture.
They were identified with Jesus name, character and purpose-they were called Christians.Jesus was not alone,he was preceded by John the Baptist.
John also baptized,did he not?He baptized unto repentance preparing the way for the one that was to come after him,Yes?
In Matthew 3:11 John says:I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:but he that cometh after me is mightier than I,whose shoes I am not worthy to bear:he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost,and with fire:
Who was coming after John?He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost,and with fire.Were Johns disciples “saved”?Then why were Johns disciples
rebaptized in the name of Jesus in Acts 19:4?
(4)Then said Paul,John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance,saying unto the people,that they should believe on him which
should come after him(Did John say they should believe on God?Or Jesus?),that is on Christ Jesus.
(5)When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.(John had baptized them unto repentance,but told them to believe on the one who came after him-they did ,they were then baptized in Jesus name).
(6)And when Paul had laid his hands upon them,the Holy Ghost came on them;and they spake with tongue and prophesied.(They became Christians-they were Christ-like because the Spirit of God dwelt in them)
Who was Jesus Father?Luke 1:35-And the angel answered and said unto
her,The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,and the power of the Highest
shall over shadow thee(The Holy Ghost is the Power of the Highest,the
power of God):therefore also that holy thing(or one)which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
If there are three distinct persons within God,would not Jesus then be considered the Son of the Holy Ghost?and not the Son of God?Two distinct persons could not possibly be Jesus Father,there is only one Father right?
So which is it,the Holy Ghost,or God?
I would say this verse shows there is no distinction between the Holy Ghost and God,the Holy Ghost is the power of God according to this verse.
Not a distinct person.
Ignoble,I never said you worship three gods,as I have just stated:there is no distinction between,Father and Holy Ghost,I do not speak for others,
you must apply the only saving Name,you do not seem to be willing to do this.Jim
When do you guys sleep anyway?You post both late and early,have a good one.
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Mishael again refers to II Peter/II Thessalonians–
I see that you are exclusively referring to the strong delusion that God will send. My point is that I do not see in Scripture that the lie will ONLY be sent by God, however, He will do it finally. Until Jesus does, there is room for repentance because it is not His will that any perish. It is obviously not a situation where delusion will be a “presto-you’re-deluded” type occurrence considering warnings to the Church in Acts 20:29 KJV where Luke under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost writes: “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.” Consider Revelation 2:15, Jesus is speaking to the Church at Ephesus where the delusion had already started. Some people won’t wait to “apprehend” their delusion, they will buy into it voluntarily (see this word elsewhere in the posts!). When Jesus finalizes this, there will be no room for dodging it or avoiding it or repenting of it. In Galatians believing a lie had already begun and the Apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost cursed those who would PERVERT the Gospel of Christ: Galatians 1:6-9 KJV starting at verse 9 “As we said before , so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received , let him be accursed [eternally damned].” Please see in multiple previous posts by searching “gospel defined.”
The Body of Christ is, by the way, ONLY those who have obeyed the Gospel, but the GOOD NEWS becoming a part of the Body of Christ is an invitation to “whosoever will.”
We all agree there are cults. Cults ALWAYS WEAKEN the DEITY of Jesus Christ–that’s the bottom line. To relegate Jesus as to his Diety to a less-than-omniscient, less-than-omnipresent, less-than-omnipotent second person in a trinity proves who is a cult.
I do hope you will visit Dr. Herrmann’s website at
http://www.serve.com/herrmann/attributes.htm especially
and in general http://www.serve.com/herrmann/main.html
Pam
Pam
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Mishael — “The body died, but since Jesus is actually the Father (Spirit) only, He didn’t experience death Himself.”
I certainly have not said that Jesus is “the Father (Spirit) *only*.” I seriously doubt Jim has either, but he will answer himself I am sure!
The son of God experienced death.
Pam
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Revelation 5 is very much open to interpretation,any vision would be.How can
we possibly hope to explain every mystery of God?The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world,was He not?This sacrifice was ordained of God from the beginning,yes?This a an act of God,which divided the Old
Testament operation of God from the New.This was not changed, until Jesus
went to the cross.It was a separate act we must not separate God.
I Timothy 3:16-And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:\God was manifest in the flesh(Jesus),justified in the Spirit(sacrifice
was necessary that He might indwell the believer at Pentecost and since),seen
of angels(no man has seen God at anytime until He was seen in the face of Jesus Christ),(Jesus was)preached unto the Gentiles,(Jesus was)believed on in the world,(and)received up into glory(upon His ascension).Jim
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:34 pm
You don’t have an answer yes? Enough said!
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:36 pm
And sorry, we’ve already been through men seeing God. Adam and Eve walked through the garden of Eden with him. Abraham fed him. And on and on…
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:43 pm
The flesh died only,yes I would agree.Or else how did Jesus descend into
hell to take the keys to death and the grave?He took them with Him.He gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom,which he used on the Day of Pentecost,when asked(in 37)Men and brethren what shall we do?
(38)Then Peter said unto them,Repent,and be baptized every one of you in
the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins,and ye shall(in a separate experience)receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
(39)For this promise is unto you,and to your children,and to all that are afar off(in the distant future-today),even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Apply the Name.Jim
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Ignobleuse Says:
January 2nd, 2010 at 11:15 am
Pam, maybe you could address Revelation 5. Why does God show himself as the Lamb and also as “the one sitting on the throne”?
They are worshiped separately and together. Of the Lamb it is said: with your blood you purchased men for God. That wasn’t said of He who sits on the throne. If Jesus was just an extension of God, why are they both called he, and shown as distinct from each other?
—————
“We can conclude that the vision in Revelation 5 symbolically depicts the two natures and two roles of Jesus Christ. As Father, Judge, Creator, and King, He sits upon the throne; for in His deity He is the Lord God Almighty. As the Son, He appears as a slain lamb; for in His humanity He is the sacrifice slain for our sins. John did not see the invisible Spirit of God, but he did see a vision symbolically portraying Jesus on the throne in His role as God and as a lamb in His role as the Son of God sacrificed for sin.
“If a person insists upon literalizing this demonstrably symbolic passage, then he would need to conclude that John still did not see two persons of God, but rather that he saw one God on the throne and a real lamb near the throne. This is not logical, but it reveals that the attempts of trinitarians to make the passage a proof text for a trinity is futile.
“Other verses in Revelation make it clear that that Lamb is not a separate person from God. In particular, Revelation 22:1 and 3 speak of “the throne of God and of the Lamb,” referring to the one throne of 4:2 and 5:1. After mentioning “God and the Lamb,” Revelation 22:3 goes on to talk about “his servants,” and verse 4 refers to “his face” and “his name.” The Lamb and the glory of God light the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:23), yet the Lord God is the light (Revelation 22:5). So, “God and the Lamb” is one being. The phrase refers to Jesus Christ and designates His dual nature.
“We conclude that Revelation 5, symbolic in nature, reveals the oneness of God. It describes One on the throne, but also describes a lion, a root, and a Iamb. Does this description reveal four in the Godhead? Clearly not. Rather, there is only One on the throne. The lion, the root, and the lamb all represent in symbolic form the characteristics and qualifications of the One worthy to open the seals of the book. The lion tells us He is the King from the tribe of Judah. The root tells us He is the Creator. The lamb tells us He is God incarnate and our sacrifice. It is only in this last role that He can be our Redeemer and can open the book. Thus, Revelation 5 teaches there is one God and this one God came in flesh as the Lamb (the Son) to reveal Himself to man and to redeem man from sin.
“Many prominent trinitarian scholars agree that Revelation 5 is symbolic and does not describe God the Father on the throne and God the Son standing by the throne. The Pulpit Commentary identifies the One on the throne as the Triune God, [28] and the Lamb as the Christ in His human capacity. It states, “The Son in his human capacity, as indicated by his sacrificial form of the Lamb, can take and reveal the mysteries of the eternal Godhead in which he, as God, has part.” [29] Thus, even in the eyes of trinitarian scholars, this scene is not an indication of a trinity in the Godhead.”
Excerpted from The Oneness of God by David K. Bernard, Volume 1 that can be purchased along with Volume 2 at –
http://www.amazon.com/Oneness-God-Pentecostal-Theology-Vol/dp/0912315121
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Ignoblese, Happy???? :-}
Pam
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Ok so God took the scroll from his own right hand and opened it? He was the only one who was worthy to open the scroll, or a part of him was? And then allowed part of himself to be worshiped separately from his other self?
Quite convoluted to me, set up a straw man argument and then push it down. Wow, all I can say is wow.
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Ignoblese and anyone else who has had questions about the throne and who is sitting on it–
“There is one throne in heaven and One who sits upon it. John described this in Revelation 4:2: “And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.” Without doubt this One is God because the twenty-four elders around the throne address Him as “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come” (Revelation 4:8). When we compare this to Revelation 1:5-18, we discover a remarkable similarity in the description of Jesus and the One sitting on the throne. “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8). Verses 5-7 make clear that Jesus is the One speaking in verse 8. Moreover, Jesus is clearly the subject of Revelation 1:11-18. In verse 11, Jesus identified Himself as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. In verses 17-18 Jesus said, “I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of bell and of death.” From the first chapter of Revelation, therefore, we find that Jesus is the Lord, the Almighty, and the One who is, was, and is to come. Since the same descriptive terms and titles apply to Jesus and to the One sitting on the throne, it is apparent that the One on the throne is none other than Jesus Christ.
“There is additional support for this conclusion. Revelation 4:11 tells us the One on the throne is the Creator, and we know Jesus is the Creator (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). Furthermore, the One on the throne is worthy to receive glory, honor, and power (Revelation 4:11); we read that the Lamb that was slain (Jesus) is worthy to receive power, riches, wisdom, strength, honor, glory, and blessing (Revelation 5:12). Revelation 20:11-12 tells us the One on the throne is the Judge, and we know Jesus is the Judge of all (John 5:22, 27; Romans 2:16; 14:10-11). We conclude that Jesus must be the One on the throne in Revelation 4.
“Revelation 22:3-4 speaks of the throne of God and of the Lamb. These verses speak of one throne, one face, and one name. Therefore, God and the Lamb must be one Being who has one face and one name and who sits on one throne. The only person who is both God and the Lamb is Jesus Christ. (For discussion of the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7 see Chapter 7 - OLD TESTAMENT EXPLANATIONS. For discussion of the Lamb in Revelation 5 see Chapter 9 - NEW TESTAMENT EXPLANATIONS: ACTS TO REVELATION.) In short, the Book of Revelation tells us that when we get to heaven we will see Jesus alone on the throne. Jesus is the only visible manifestation of God we will ever see in heaven.”
Excerpted from The Oneness of God by David K. Bernard, Volume 1 that can be purchased along with Volume 2 at –
http://www.amazon.com/Oneness-God-Pentecostal-Theology-Vol/dp/0912315121
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:03 pm
You still have not acknowledged the importance of applying the Name of Jesus in baptism,according to the scripture.You twist the scripture,rather than
acknowledging it.
This is not about scoring points in some game, it is about eternity.Acknowledge the only name given among men where by we must be saved.You will not,obviously
Matthew 24:5-For many shall come in my name,saying,I am Christ;(saying I am a Christian,baptism in Jesus name denotes ownership,how can you be one of His if you do not apply the Name in the waters of baptism?)and shall deceive many.This deception has been going on for two thousand years,they have crept in unaware.
Acts 7:51-Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears,ye do always resist the Holy Ghost:as your fathers did,so do ye.
You are living below your privilege.God has more for you.Jim
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Ignoblese– How would anyone find the right hand of a person who is invisible? Are you dizzy?
Check this out and please watch all of the parts, not just three
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5jcdBA9GIA&feature=related
Pam
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Mt 28:19 “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the FATHER and of the SON and of the HOLY SPIRIT..”
Three in One. Trinity.
264 comments so far. Let’s see if we can get to 500. Joel, do you know what the record is? Just curious.
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Pam
I’m pretty sure you don’t have any answers for me lol. Hey God bless you though dear!
Matthew 28:19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
I’m quite aware what the bible says about it Jim. And I haven’t twisted anything. Are you sure you haven’t?
So far you’ve first stated that no one has ever seen God until Jesus came. I pointed out several passages that showed people interacting face to face with Jesus before his incarnation. You agreed. Then you changed it back to say no one has ever seen God. Well which one is it?
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Michael–
NAME, not NAMES of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit. READ it.
We have repeatedly mentioned this. And we have invited you to obey it. Have you looked to see where this was obeyed in Scripture? I have even listed ALL the places this command was obeyed! AND I have posted facts about the formula for baptism being changed by the Roman Catholic Church as WRITTEN by the RCC.
I reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally need to bake some cookies for my grandchildren!
Pam
January 2nd, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Sorry Michael, I guess we posted at roughly the same time. How do you think this will all work out in the end times? I fully expect to see all belief systems that deny the divinity of Christ to fall in line behind Islam. As Pam has already said (forgive me if I paraphrase you wrong Pam) that Islam is a lot closer to the true path of God than trinitarianism is.
I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch to go from Jesus being “a god” of the JW’s, or Michael of the Mormons, or just a part of God to just a plain old prophet in the eyes of Allah. Especially if there’s a guy performing miraculous signs and wonders, it’ll appear to be a total vindication of the Islamic faith.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Mishael and anyone following your questions/comments regarding 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 and 2 Peter 3:8-9 –
It seems you are referring only to the strong delusion that Jesus will send. I do not see in Scripture the strong delusion that Jesus will send as being a “presto-you’re-deluded-and-damned” occurrence. It will, however, be a delusion from which there is no hope. I see it is already incrementally happening. Consider Acts 20:29 - 32, I Timothy 4:1-3, Galatians 1:6 - 9, Revelation 2:12-16. These Scriptures, as well as others, refer to delusional, lying, false-prophet doctrine that COULD be avoided if one loves the Truth.
The Gospel defined (search this site for that phrase); it has been posted for those who love the Truth, and they are invited to become part of the “whosoever will”, part of those who buy the Truth and sell it not. Otherwise they HAVE, presently, by choice, become accursed and are in danger of NOT WANTING to avoid being deluded on a PERMANENT basis and the day WILL come. See Galatians 1:6 - 9.
I will state together with the above that it is not Jesus’ will that *any* would perish. He also said in Matthew 7:13 - 15, “. . .wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction; and many there be which go in thereat. . .BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHETS.”
False prophets/cults: We all know there are those, but who are they and what makes them a cult? You guys have had fun bantering around with the accusation of being cult-ish. Let’s see. . . . . .
A cult ALWAYS weakens a persons relationship with God and and weakens the Deity indwelling Jesus Christ. Those who devised and teach and demand a belief in a false doctrine of the trinity facilitate this weakening. The Roman Catholic church as well as those churches thought to be Orthodox Protestant do this by forcing those who desire to be Christians to worship a less-than-omniscient, less-than-omnipotent, less-than-omnipresent second person in a trinity. And those who hold this doctrine as “Orthodox” cause those who follow their teaching to make a wrong choice because their followers must choose between EIGHT different trinities. Seven of the trinities have not been rejected as heretical by the RCC or their so-called “orthodox” daughter churches–Lutherans, Calvinists and all others who have adopted a belief in a trinity.
Who are among those false prophets warned about, wolves in sheep’s clothing, a cult? Those who deny there is ONE LORD (SHEMA!), ONE faith, ONE baptism (by immersion in the NAME of Jesus for the remission of sins), ONE God and Father of all who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Ephesians 4:4 - 6.
Pam
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Ignoblese says: “As Pam has already said (forgive me if I paraphrase you wrong Pam) that Islam is a lot closer to the true path of God than trinitarianism is.”
You are a liar.
Pam
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Would anyone care to have a list of ALL the trinities the Roman Catholic church and it’s daughter Protestant churches? There is a combination of somewhere around 24 deities PLUS another eight if you count the “essence.”
Pam
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Mishael asks: Do we agree that God is a God of relationships and that our relational nature is a reflection of His own? Is it possible to have a relationship with no other person than yourself, or must there be at least two people for a relationship to exist? Do we agree that God is Love? Is it possible to love without a recipient, or is Love not Love until it is given away?
See by way of the lin below: Chapter Eight, page 185
Do we agree that God does not change, that His nature is immutable? If He is a relational God, and if He is Love, then He has always been so. If God is the only Being who is from everlasting and to everlasting, who did He have a relationship with before this universe came into being? Who did He love?
See by way of the link below: Chapter Two “The Nature of God”
http://www.newlifeupc.org/wp-content/uploads/online-books/oneness/One-Top.html
4001 Adelphi Lane, Austin, TX 78727
Telephone: 512.832.LIFE (5433)
Fax: 512.832.9108
email: office@newlifeupc.org
I know you love God. You very obviously have a relationship with Him, and it is very apparent that you want to learn all you can about Him–we have that in common, Mishael! And we worship a wonderful, loving and kind God I know you agree.
Please follow the link above for the answers to the last two questions of yours that I may not have answered as directly as would have been ideal. I did not see them until now but think I answered these somewhere in these posts. And feel free to visit http://www.newlifeupc.org where there is a blog link on the home page. And if you are ever in the Austin, TX area, please visit!
Blessings, Mishael!
Pam
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Pam I couldn’t find your exact quote but I found Joel’s quoting you lol.
“Moslems are heading in the right direction with their rejection of the Roman Catholic/daughter-church trinity.”
I’m a liar? Not according to what you’ve stated. I did ask that you forgive me if I quoted you wrong, but I don’t appreciate being called a liar. Don’t be so rude.
January 2nd, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Ig no bless -
There WERE and ARE answers! Enough said!
Pam now baking cookies for my grandchildren
January 2nd, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Ig -
Here’s how to copy and paste with your keyboard:
1. Highlight the text which you wish to quote ACCURATELY, and include all answers such as the one in answer to Joel’s misquote.
2. Press CTRL/C
3. Move to the place you with to begin your answer to the now ACCURATELY quoted and COMPLETE, CONTEXTUAL quote
4. Press CTRL/V
It is deceptive to misquote intentionally with a superficial apology and then misquote again out of context. It is lying. Satan is the father of all lies.
Pam
Pam
January 2nd, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Ignoblese
Here’s the answer to Joel and now you that you needed to read with understanding.
————————–
Pam Says:
January 1st, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Joel–
Regarding Muslims and your trinity: In using the phrase “heading in the right direction” I was (I thought quite obviously) referring to *walking away from* something; that is, the false doctrine of a so-called “Christian” trinity. The “right direction” I was referencing was AWAY–much like the first step(s) away from a lake by a drowning person onto a shore. I did not say if those taking a first step *away* onto the shore would turn left, right, go straight or immediately step into quicksand.
No one appreciates having words put into their mouth, and sometimes we do miscommunicate unintentionally.
Muslims are considered “monotheists” because “mono” means “one” and they say they believe in one god: allah. I do not consider “allah” to be a title for MY Jesus Christ. And I do not consider a second in their belief, Isa, to be MY Jesus. And I do not know if their Mary (who was originally, when the false doctrine of the trinity was taking form, considered the third member of your triune godhead) is the same Mary who was in the Upper Room on the Day of Pentecost and who was, it follows, baptized in the NAME Jesus Christ for REMISSION of HER SINS. And I do not accept anything islam’s prophet said or did to be good or Truth.
If your Mother Mary is officially elevated to co-equal status with the son, will catholics announce they are no longer tri-nitarian but quad-ritarian? Just a question.
Pam
—————
January 2nd, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Pam,
The problem is that I didn’t put words into your mouth. Nor did I need to link you to Muslims. Your own comments have accomplished this just fine. But I am sure that your reactionary lashing out is due to the conviction that you are experiencing. Rather than address the fearful reality that I highlighted regarding who it is that you share common beliefs with, instead you chose to attack.
Again, we both agree that Satan was the spirit behind Muhammad’s inspiration. According to the Quran and the demonic spirit behind it, believing in the Trinity is the worst form of blasphemy imaginable. It is considered worse than rape or murder. Since your understanding of God and Islam are both in agreement regarding the Trinity, tell me, why would Satan inspire Muhammad to reject Trinitarianism?
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Ignobleuse,
I can’t say that you’re wrong in those assumptions. In the art of war ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’, and the triune nature of God is coming under increasing assault from all directions. The natural extension of this is that when the antichrist/Mahdi appears with all his miraculous signs, the most dominant of the monotheistic faiths (Islam) will then have an easier time absorbing the others.
The fact that the Trinity is reviled by all other faiths make me think that the spirits behind those faiths know something about God’s true nature, and they seek to discredit it. In the same way, these same faiths all deny that Jesus is the Messiah. Again, me thinks they protest too much.
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Matthew 10:24. The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. 25. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?
26. Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered , that shall not be revealed ; and hid, that shall not be known .27. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. 28. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Pam
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Michael K says Joel twists and Ignobleuse worries and tries to be Latin (or was it Shakespearean me thinks?): “The natural extension of this is that when the antichrist/Mahdi appears with all his miraculous signs, the most dominant of the monotheistic faiths (Islam) will then have an easier time absorbing the others.”
Why did Pope Benedict kiss the Quran? Did you not see the photographs in the news? Does this not make room for his followers to LOVE the quran?
Pope Benedict has already positioned the RCC as well as all those churches who are “daughter churches” because of baptism in the titles of the trinity. The RCC admits their initial mode of baptism was in the Name of Jesus Christ UNTIL THE RCC CHANGED IT to the titles Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But, back to subject, Pope Benedict has already pronounced Moslems just as saved as you are because they are the seed of Abraham! Don’t you think that is positioning the Vicer of Christ’s flock and daughter flock to think of the Mahdi as A-Okay?
And do you ever consider the Mithran practice of calling down fire from heaven that some connect with the RCC and St Peter’s might work well from the Temple Mount? Moslem Mahdi/AC being publicaly petted, included, and kissed by whoever will be the RCC Pope at that time? Moslems like titles, too! BIGGER PLUS! They already have one of the original trinities allah/father/god, Isa/jesus/son and mother Mary!!
Your beliefs contain error and God cannot err. So where does your error come from? The father of lies.
Pam
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Pam are you a member of Bro. Bernard’s church there in Austin?I have friends that help in the daughter works there,or are you referencing our new general superintendant.He is a very intelligent man of God.
Did you read the article in the Pentecostal Herald?Pray the transition goes well.God bless,Jim
January 3rd, 2010 at 12:52 am
Wow, so much going on…I’m getting lost in all the different little discussions making this one big discussion.
I’ll start with an answer to Jim.
Jim, I think you’ll find that we all agree that salvation is found in Jesus - after all, “there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). SALVATION is found in Jesus. Baptism is an outward expression of an inner change. Baptism does not save - Jesus saves. Baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is merely following Jesus’ direct command from Matthew 28. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Him. (If it needed to be specifically recited as “in the name of Jesus Christ”, then He could have easily told His disciples, “Go and make disciples in all nations, baptizing them in My Name.”)
We also agree that Jesus is the Savior (John 3:16), hence salvation coming through Him. As you already pointed out, Isaiah clarified that God alone is the Savior. As John also points out, the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world (1 John 4:14). So…
Jesus = Savior
God = Savior
Son = Savior
And if the position of “Savior” is exclusive as Isaiah seems to determine, then logically Jesus = Son = God. Hm?
January 3rd, 2010 at 1:18 am
Regarding dualism:
Pam, thank you for all your effort in trying to explain it. I don’t quite understand it fully, but I am trying.
You have made it perfectly clear that the Bible never uses the phrase “God the Son,” thus coming to the conclusion that the Son is not God. The Son is just the flesh, the human form. Am I understanding correctly?
You said: “The son of God was not an empty-shell-body. He was 100% human with an IMPERFECT mind, IMPERFECT will, and IMPERFECT emotions AS WELL AS 100% Diety with a PERFECT, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Mind, PERFECT, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent will, and PERFECT, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent emotions. This quantifies His DUAL nature.”
So, do you then admit that there was a separate mind which is the Son (albeit not God)? What happened to that mind when the body died? Does it still exist or has it been destroyed? If it still exists, where is it? In the resurrected body? Will God always have this dual nature, half of it imperfect? Or has it been perfected through death? And if this mind of the Son still exists and is connected to God, then do you not believe in a “duo-unity” God?
Along a different train of thought, and yet the same as what I said to Jim.
If God alone is our Savior (Isaiah)
…and…
If the Father sent the Son to be the Savior (1 John)
…then…
The Son is God our Savior.
(And He happened to be given the name “Jesus” by the Father - John 17:11, Philippians 2:9-11.)
Is this not logical?
January 3rd, 2010 at 1:42 am
Pam and Jim, please respond to this:
~ Marriage brings two together as one (Genesis 2:24).
“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”
~ The mystery of marriage describes Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:25, 28-32).
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her… In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church – for we are members of His body. ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ This is a profound mystery – but I am talking about Christ and the church.”
~ Jesus declares that we are one with Him (John 14:20) - as represented in marriage (Ephesians 5:31-32).
“On that day you will realize that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you.”
~ Jesus declares that He is one with the Father (John 14:10).
“Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in Me?”
~ Jesus declares that He is one with the Father AS we are one with Him (John 14:20). This same idea is repeated in Jesus’ prayer to the Father - “may they be one as we are one” (John 17:11, 20-21).
“On that day you will realize that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you.”
“I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, protect them by the power of Your name – the name You gave Me – so that they may be one as We are one… My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in Me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as You are in Me and I am in You. May they also be in Us so that the world may believe that You have sent Me. I have given them the glory that You gave Me, that they may be one as We are one: I in them and You in Me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that You sent Me and have loved them even as You have loved Me.”
“That they may be one as We are one.” What does this mean? Are you familiar with the idea of a simile?
If Jesus being one with the Father means He IS the Father, then the comparison He makes would mean that our being one with Jesus means we ARE Him. This is obviously silly. Therefore, could this oneness relate to the nature of the relationship, like the one modeled by marriage where two become one yet maintain their identities? The Bible has already made the comparison between marriage and the relationship of Christ and the Church, which Jesus Himself compared to His relationship with the Father. Hm?
January 3rd, 2010 at 2:02 am
Pam, why does believing Jesus to be the Son in the Trinity of Father, Son, Holy Spirit diminish His deity? He is as fully and equally God as the Father and the Holy Spirit, always was, always will be. Even though He willingly “became nothing” and “humbled Himself and became obedient to death,” He was still “in very nature God” (Philippians 2). This is biblically declared.
God is God, whether you’re talking about the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.
January 3rd, 2010 at 3:29 am
Oh yeah, and the positions of authority that I brought up before. I’ll actually paste the verses for you to read for this as well, rather than just the references.
Again I quote myself: “However, the Bible is clear that the Father is the head (1 Corinthians 11:3) and the Son submits to the Father’s will (Mark 14:36; John 6:38; 1 Corinthians 15:27-28) and both the Son and the Spirit do nothing on their own but only what the Father says and does (John 5:16-30; John 7:16-17; John 14:10, 23-26, 30-31; John 16:12-15).”
“Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”
1 Corinthians 11:3
“‘Abba, Father,’ He said, ‘everything is possible for You. Take this cup from Me. Yet not what I will, but what You will.’”
Mark 14:36
“For I have come down from heaven not to do My will but to do the will of Him who sent Me.”
John 6:38
(NOTE: This is obviously the Son speaking, and He says He came down from heaven - not the only time He says this is where He comes from. If the Son is only the flesh, then He could not have come from heaven. Therefore, it is very clear that the Son not merely the flesh as He very clearly came from heaven.)
“Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For He ‘has put everything under His feet.’ Now when it says that ‘everything’ has been put under Him, it is clear that this does not include God Himself, who put everything under Christ. When He has done this, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put everything under Him, so that God may be all in all.”
1 Corinthians 15:24-28
(I added verses 24-26 to give more context.)
“Jesus gave them this answer: ‘I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by Himself; He can do only what He sees His Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does… By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please Myself but Him who sent Me.”
John 5:19, 30
“Jesus answered, ‘My teaching is not My own. It comes from Him who sent Me. If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether My teaching comes from God or whether I speak on My own.’”
John 7:16-17
“Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in Me? The words I say to you are not just My own. Rather, it is the Father, living in Me, who is doing His work… If anyone loves Me, he will obey My teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love Me will not obey My teaching. These words you hear are not My own; they belong to the Father who sent Me. All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you… I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me, but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what My Father has commanded Me.”
John 14:10, 23-26, 30-31
“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on His own; He will speak only what He hears, and He will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to Me by taking from what is Mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is Mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is Mine and make it known to you.”
John 16:12-15
What say you to this?
January 3rd, 2010 at 6:09 am
Pam,
(updated comments)
First, you’ve got too many facts wrong to correct, but first, Benedict has never kissed the Qur’an. That was JP II his predecessor over a decade ago. Kissing something in eastern culture simply denotes respect. Daniel himself actually fell to the ground and bowed before Nebuchadnezzar, a forerunner of the Antichrist. Eastern expressions of respect is something that few in the West understand. Whenever Pope JPII visited a country, he would kiss something as a symbol of respect for the people of that nation. This was always his practice. So, to be clear, this was not a signal to respect the doctrines in the Quran, as this would violate Catholic belief. On one hand, we have a superficial sign of respect for the Muslims that the Pope was visiting and on the other hand, we have you, who actually endorses, agrees with and fully embraces (some of) the demonically inspired teachings of the Qur’an. Honestly, think about it…
January 3rd, 2010 at 8:51 am
Joel,
There is a very positive element that has come out of this discussion despite the frustration felt on both sides. It seems that we (the church) have neglected to emphasize the thousands of examples of the Trinity that are contained in the Old Testament. Our various English translations take the Trinity for granted and therefore do not specifically single out God’s plural names and attributes. Our footnotes refer to them and explain this triune nature, but perhaps they should be transliterated into the text itself.
I for one will be teaching the Shema of Moses in class this week, and contrasting it to the Shema pronounced by Israel today. In a certain sense, the entire rebellion of Israel/mankind can be exemplified in this one simple case study. I will no longer take this issue for granted.
January 3rd, 2010 at 9:25 am
Joel Says:
January 3rd, 2010 at 6:09 am
Pam,
First, you’ve got too many facts wrong to correct, but first, Benedict never kissed the Qur’an. That was JP II his predecessor over a decade ago. Kissing something in eastern culture denotes a superficial sign of respect for the Muslims that handed it to him, not the doctrines. You on the other hand, actually endorse, agree with and fully embrace (some of) its demonic teachings. Honestly, think about it…
Joel
——————-
Joel: Thank you for correcting my error regarding which Supreme Vicar of Christ on Earth it was who kissed the Quran and which one just added Islamic green to his vestments. Considering the unbroken chain going back to Peter that RCC claims, it doesn’t matter what the name of a pope is when acting as the Vicar of Christ. The bottom line is that Vicarius Christ on earth underscored by his SUPREME AND UNIVERSAL PRIMACY and JURISDICTION OVER THE CHURCH OF CHRIST kissed the quran AND added Islamic green to his vestments to show honor to allah in the eyes of all Islam and DID pronounce them as saved as you are.
You actually endorse, agree with and fully embrace (some of) its demonic teachings, Joel. Belief in Islam’s demonic teachings has been embraced by Vicar of Christ on earth when he did not pronounce them heretics but embraced them and, therefore, their beliefs and, therefore, their Quran. Kiss. Kiss. Vicar of Christ did not and does not (and you echo it) embrace MODALISTIC monarchianists/Oneness Pentecostals who DO BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST and pronounced/pronounces us heretics (which does not make us so) and has burned us at the stake (Servetus and others)! Vicar of Christ BURNED BIBLES (revisit a study of Wycliffe and Hus) so that people could not find their way to salvation. Was that just denoting a superficial sign?
Islam is *DYNAMIC* monarchianism/monotheism, they believe Jesus was a prophet but not God in flesh, the Savior. We are *MODALISTIC* monarchianists/monotheists who believe Jesus IS God in the flesh, Emmanuel, God WITH us. You are *TRINITARIAN* monotheist you say. I am a *ONENESS* (*mono-ness*) monotheist. You see that adjectives further define and are important because you are an intelligent person. You intentially, it appears, continually disregard the ADJECTIVES when it suits your twisting purposes, Joel. You know or should learn it is a fact that Unitarian, Arianism monotheism denies Jesus Christ, God in flesh, the Mighty God IN Christ to one extent or another. Honestly, I have thought about it; your Tri/Mono beliefs are closer to DYNAMIC monarchianism than Christianity because it weakens a belief in Jesus Christ as I have referred to in recent posts.
The Catholic Encyclopedia: Vicar of Christ
(Latin Vicarius Christi).
A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: “Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep” (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19.
In the course of the ages other vicarial designations have been used for the pope, as Vicar of St. Peter and even Vicar of the Apostolic See (Pope Gelasius, I, Ep. vi), but the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. Thus, Innocent III appeals for his power to remove bishops to the fact that he is Vicar of Christ (cap. “Inter corporalia”, 2, “De trans. ep.”). He also declares that Christ has given such power only to His Vicar Peter and his successors (cap. “Quanto”, 3, ibid.), and states that it is the Roman Pontiff who is “the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ” (cap. “Licet”, 4, ibid.). The title Vicar of God used for the pope by Nicholas III (c. “Fundamenta ejus”, 17, “De elect.”, in 6) is employed as an equivalent for Vicar of Christ.
January 3rd, 2010 at 9:36 am
Pam,
I have prayerfully decided to ban you from any further posting here. The Bible teaches us that we are to reach out to those who are open to the truth. However once one openly and unrepentantly embraces error, then we as the true Church are to have nothing with you. I do not see any hint that you possess humility or a desire for truth, but simply a desire to spread your error. When someone is willing to have a rational discussion, I am generally quite tolerant. I simply do not see this in your comments. Go in peace.
January 3rd, 2010 at 9:57 am
Having re-read Pams comments, I must highlight yet another example of why I simply cannot tolerate this any further. Pope Benedict (obviously to whom I owe no allegiance) dons the color green (which has always been done during certain seasons of the Church calendar. So according to Pam, this is a sign of the Pope’s endorsement of Islam. And as a result, all Protestants, including myself and others here will be swept up in some coming Pope-led Catholic conversion to Islam. So again, on one hand, we have a sectarian conspiracy theory / fantasy rooted in ignorance all based on something as a harmless color, and on the other hand, we have someone who actually endorses the same demonic doctrines as Islam - namely a rejection of the Trinity. I would truly be a poor administrator if I allowed such error and foolishness to continue here any longer. I hope everyone reading this understands. Besides, everyone knows the Pope wears green as a secret sign of his deference to the Mother Earth Goddess. Saracasm off…
Blessings everyone. Joel
January 3rd, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Well she was entertaining when she wasn’t so rude. She did claim to be a Christian who believed in the trinity before she found the “truth” of oneness theology. But how many times do you suppose one would have to go to church before they realized that the pope has absolutely nothing to do with protestant denominations? Once? Maybe twice if you’re a little slow.
Michael, I’d be interested in seeing your notes on that if you’d care to share.
January 3rd, 2010 at 5:31 pm
ignobleuse,
There may be something available here in the near future that will provide a synopsis of this topic. Stay tuned on that. For now, I still highly recommend ‘The Jewish Trinity’. There’s a free read available on-line at the following link;
http://books.google.com/books?id=CvY-v4YQ1UYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Jewish+Trinity&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
It’s ironic that this whole Trinitarian thread came up in the last couple of weeks here. At church I’ve been doing a walkthrough of Genesis and the ante-deluvian world, and had pointed out how the use of ‘Elohim’ in Genesis 1 was the Bible’s first revelation of God’s plural nature. However, I had no appreciation for the sheer depth of the Trinity in the Old Testament until I read Natan’s book. Our English translations don’t capture it at all, and our footnotes don’t do it justice.
January 3rd, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Joel,
You showed plenty of patience and humility throughout this thread, and you made the correct decision in my eyes. Once ridicule and mocking creep into the discussion, there’s really no point in taking it any further.
January 4th, 2010 at 1:36 am
So close to 300…
January 4th, 2010 at 7:51 am
Mishael,
Let’s make it happen!!……
(your turn)
January 4th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Okay!
Yay!
June 10th, 2010 at 5:42 am
Please e-mail me your contacts. I have a question < a href=”http://spottovo.ru/ webmaster@spottovo.ru” >…< /a >
Thank you!!!