I was raised believing trinitarian and am a new oneness believer, baptized correctly 4/19/21. I appreciate your hard work to explain this! Loved visiting your church too!
My grandfather was a theologian of the trinitarian belief for many years until he finally was shown the truth in a conversation like this that lasted several days. God finally showed him the revelation, and it changed the direction of my family forever! Thank God for truth!
@@Malvear1825 Praise God! I am very thankful for the Truth. My grandparents were pastors, but they was of the Trinitarian faith, and when I was revealed truth it opened to me a lot. But I am a 1st generation Oneness Apostolic.
Welcome to the truth. Yahweh says in Isaiah 44 that He is the first and last. Jesus in Revelation says He is first and last. There can’t be two first and last. Yahweh = Jesus
Thank you for taking the time and care to respond to my friend cody’s questions. We have had quite a few discussions on this topic. Your kind and apostolic perspective is very appreciated brother.
Let me pass on some good books . Ross Drysdales IF YE KNOW THESE THINGS ( complete rebuttal of Gregory Boyds attack against Oneness called Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity. Delroy Gayles's OUR ROOTS After the Way Called Heresy. Dr. Clinton Willis Countering Trinitarian Arguments, APOSTOLIC CATHECHISM, ANCIENT CREEDS and some others. Jason Weatherly 's Baptism in Jesus name 10th Anniversary edition, Larry J Tate The Weakness of the Trinity,Insights into Oneness, Jerry Hayes Godhead Theology , The Godhead Discussion ( hard to come by) and he has some written debates against Trinies ,Arian/Unitarian.
Thank you. This is one of the best presentations I’ve heard on ‘oneness.’ Among other things, I appreciate the kind, respectful, and professional presentation. This will help in my search for Biblical understanding.
Though I never believed in the Trinity (though raised Catholic, never really knew what it was) I only believed that God was God (one). Several months after being Acts 2:38 born again, I was reading the gospel of John and it was like a thunderbolt struck me! HALLELUJAH!!!! As Nancy Grandquist so beautifully sang, "Our God is ONE!
@@sidtom2741 This link is easier for you to listen to than there is space for a dialogue between us. th-cam.com/video/-tLEuEoz2M0/w-d-xo.html Oneness: A Response to a Trinitarian. Keep an open spirit. I hope this helps your further knowledge how God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, II Cor. 5:19.
@@sidtom2741 ONE GOD----ONE ETERNAL, ALMIGHTY HOLY SPIRIT, ONE GOD AND FATHER. Jesus is NOT the HOLY SPIRIT; AND; Jesus is NOT the, FATHER. With respect.
@ranospiteri5776The word name is singular. The original Greek word recorded is also the singular word for name in Matthew 28:19. That means that there is one name of the father son and Holy Ghost. Peter was there to hear Jesus say that, and he understood that Jesus was talking about Jesus being the name of the father son and holy spirit, which is why Peter and several other apostles baptized in the name of Jesus on the Book of Acts.
The name Jesus has only been around the last 400 years. The early New Testament Believers knew Messiah as Yeshua...The letter J is not in the Hebrew alphabet. The original Biblical accurate Aramaic Hebraic Name is Yeshua...Jesus is the translation of Greek Zeus ... Early Christians were baptized in Yeshua’s Name ❤Just dialoguing
@@maryhelencampos9964 Wrong. You are listening to false teaching. He was never called Yeshua. The Greek text says Iesou translated as Jesus. Also Jesus says He has the Father’s name.., John 17:11 NIV 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. His name is YHVH
I was at a church this man said God is three persons and all of a sudden I felt in my spirit strongly it was wrong. I was raised trinity I was shocked the the lord lead me to Isaiah 9:6 that woke me up! Then I asked God are you three in one or one That day I got my new Bible in the mail opened my Bible and the verse our lord God is one. What a wake up call. He is three in one Gods power full run in Jesus and Holy Spirit
Keep reading keep searching keep praying everything you need to know is right there in your Bible and prayer most people don’t read or study and they will accept anything ignorantly or just lazy ?
Yolanda Young: A) Trinitarians believe in ONE GOD THREE PERSONS or TRINITY of PERSONS. B) Oneness believe in ONE God THREE MODES or Trinity of Modes. Oneness are Trinitarians! The Trinity is inevitable!
Yolanda Young: The Bible mentions the word "PERSON" in comparison with God. Jesus is the image just like we're also the Image of God in a moral, spiritual, and intellectual nature (Gen 1:27). In Hebrews 1:3 it says: 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 at the right hand of the Majesty on high. Within a theological context, PERSON does not necessary refer to someone who possesses a physical body. Rather, a "PERSON" refers to an identity and set of characteristics that are unique when compared to none persons. The image of God is the most significant delineating factor which distinguishes man from physical creatures, and it's endows him with the confluence of qualities that is specific only to persons, namely, a mental faculty which possesses volition, logic, abstract thought, moral agency, self awareness, rationality, and emotive expressions. We may appropriately summarize these qualities as those that belong to a subject who is capable of love. Let me ask you, did Jesus have a body? Of course. Now is a donkey a person? Of course not, it is an animal but, still a donkey also has a body. So to be a person you necessarily need a body? Of course NOT, because if that was the case a donkey would be a person. I know that you reject the word PERSON but wasn't Jesus a PERSON like you and I? The answer is: yes, of course. So we would have to conclude that Jesus is DIVINE and also a PERSON or a man. There is no problem to use the word PERSON nor there is no problem in using the word as first PERSON, second PERSON or third PERSON. To say that there are "three Persons in the Godhead" has never been taken to mean that there are" three separate people who are God Yolanda oneness "MODES OF EXISTENCE" have the same attributes as "PERSONS". All Oneness do is change the word "Person" to "mode of existence" and then try to argue against the word "Person". Beside, "modes of existence" is not biblical terminology. The Trinity is inevitable!
Great job! I am passionate about Oneness. Because I was deceived for so long. And I believed it with all that’s in me. I was baptized 4 years ago. If God can unwrap my mind from deception I believe He can do it for anyone. I still remember the service my pastor preached when the lightbulb of One God came on in my mind. It was so revelatory. I knew then it was right!
That name is Jesus. Peter declared the great commission in Acts 2, even on the birthday of the church. The great commission had to be first preached before it is practiced. If it was not preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost, then when was it preached, and if it was preached on the day of Pentecost, then was it preached in Acts 2:38?
Your explanation of persons being corrupt is misleading. It assumes the Bible was written in English. Persons when used to describe God is referring to A unity of One as in the Hebrew word Echad. Persons is not corrupted. Early church Fathers as well as many early Hebrew teachers when speaking on God in the Old Testament understood Him to be One in Unity not one singular as oneness likes to claim. Oneness did not even come until around 1913. While there were people in early church it was not called oneness. Around 215 A.D. it was known as Sabellianism a heresy then. Reintroduced as oneness still a heresy.
@@glennhudson4827 you do err. The Hebrew word echad can be one singular or unity. In the Hebrew when the verb or noun are singular then it would mean one numerically. In Genesis it is in fact one numerically, not a unity. Also oneness is taught in the OT, and NT, and hardly started in 1913. Polycarp a student of the Apostle John taught One God not a trinity. Every part of your comment is misinformation.
I've just read Psalm 78 before watching all of this video and some things that you've mention makes reference to verse 39 and even 41 especially. However, I don't think it's a coincidence that I'm watching this after reading that passage of scripture in my Bible reading tonight as what you've mentioned throughout this episode is linked to that chapter. God bless you, I love the Biblios Network! I am a Oneness believer 🙏🏾
People that are truly seeking God heart, he will answer, I asked God a question, before I knew the truth, and the question was, the old Baptist way God come into my heart etc, then I look up towards God and said lord how do I know, I didn't feel anything, I year later I went to a Bible study to prove them wrong, hubris that we are, but when I got there I asked God if there's something to see I want to see it, 2 hours later I was baptized in Jesus name, and by the next Saturday, I got the holy Ghost speaking in tongues as God gave the utterance, and it's been 30 years and God is still here, even through my ups and downs, God bless and keep you in Jesus name sister
@@colonialroofingofnorthcaro441 Amen, thank you for sharing that! So true, keep on believing the truth brother! God bless you, I'll be praying for you as well :)
@rano spiteri Let’s look at this verse in context. Jesus spent 40 days teaching the disciples and this verse was part of that teaching. See Acts 1. So it is no doubt in my mind that the disciples did exactly what Jesus said in Acts 2:38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” All baptisms were in Jesus name in Bible. They truly baptized in the NAME the one name of God- Jesus. Acts 4:12 says there is salvation in no other name, I Peter 3:21 claim’s baptism that doth now save us. I could go on because I am a person that was baptized in the titles and in the name Jesus. I promise it’s a whole new ballgame. Pray with an open mind to God and I promise He will show you too!
@ranospiteri5776, They did baptize following JESUS's command, they baptized in Jesus name, for it is the only saving name whereby men must be saved. Whatever you do in word or deed, do it in his name. Acts 2:38, 8:16,10:48,19:5 all show they understood his words. Further, there are scholars that look at Eusebius writing in his works and prior to Nicea Council in 325 he quoted that without baptism or the titles F,S,HS. After Nicea he included the form from Matthew 28:19 as we have. There is a book #17 by Kulwant Singh Boora a converted Sikh called BAPTISM IN JESUS BANE A Compendium for references and quotes from Scholars, Historians, Writers that I clauses 625+ quites showing baptism was originally done in Jesus name. i.e. Schwartz hands 2007 the Christian Church biblical origins historical transformation and potential for the future Minneapolis fortress press page 69 "Are consideration of the New Testament Church and its worship would be incomplete if we would not at least touch briefly upon baptism the right that initiates one and two the Christian community there is no doubt that the First Christian community demanded a baptism 'in the name of Jesus Christ'(Acts 2:38) for the forgiveness of sins."
@rano spiteri beautiful verse but so misunderstood by the ignorant because they don't read the rest... for example, verses 18-20 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, 'ALL POWER' is given unto 'ME' in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 'NAME' of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever 'I' have commanded you: and, lo, 'I' am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. And Luke 24.46-47, also the words of Jesus 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved 'CHRIST' [Jesus] to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached 'IN HIS NAME' [Jesus the Christ] among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And the fulfillment of both Matthew 28:18-20 and Luke 24:46-47 is 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. So obvious but it flies over the heads of the blind. 😔
@@slonekettering7447 Amen! And there are about a dozen MORE Scriptures that illustrate a SINGULAR Text, such as; "In the name ( Sin- gular) of Jesus." Or, "In the NAME ( Singular) of Jesus Christ." No other verse is FOUND within Scripture that reads the way MATT. 28:19, which demonstrates a curious inconsistency.
The word Trinity doesn’t appear in the Bible. The term “Holy One” is used over 50 times in scripture. Mark 12:29 “And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord” Also, see Deuteronomy 6:4. John 17:17 “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”
The word omniscient doesn’t appear in the Bible… should Bro. Urshan be told not to use it? Oh… the concept is in the Bible just not the actual word. Like the concept of Trinity is shown throughout the Old and New Testaments even though the word isn’t there.
hargis----Jesus did not "Pre-exist," except in the PLAN of GOD; In other words----in the MIND of GOD. ROM.4:17, Gives us a subtle hint concerning this; "HE ( GOD) calls things that are NOT, as though they WERE.." This is called, "The Prophetic Word of GOD." HE speaks of things to come, but Prophetic, Biblical Linguistics, make these Prophecies appear to have already occurred. There are over 100 O.T., Prophecies concerning the, "Coming Messiah." Which means----he hadn't COME yet! Not until he was, "Born of the vir- gin Mary," was he LITERALLY among us. With respect.
All power was given to the resurrected man Christ Jesus. He walked among us and conquered everything pertaining to men and ultimately death in the flesh as a man. God came in flesh by Jesus Christ to conquer things pertaining to the flesh- humanity. He the son, must reign until all things are put under his feet. That’s what our salvation is all about; Jesus Christ conquering every enemy of humankind. The last enemy to be destroyed for every man is death. We would have no salvation outside of God positioning Himself as a man. The fulness of God, the eternal Spirit inhabited Jesus Christ the man and He conquered everything and is conquering everything pertaining to the flesh.
Jesus as the humanity of the Deity continued to impress upon men until the end that the son of God for our example had to demonstrate submission to the Father in heaven. But the fact remains that there is only one Father--Mal. --2:10---- and Jesus is that Father.
In Matthew 28:19, the risen Lord Jesus said to his disciples, "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth...." All power means only he has power, all power. His Father gave Jesus all power
Yes, you right we can interact with our spirit just as the Psalmist did in Psalm 42 and the rich man of the Luke 12 parable. The flesh interacts with the spirit. But how can we explain Romans8:26-27 that says the holy spirit intercedes for us to God(the Father)?
God the Father became his own Son. Any limitations on Christ were self imposed limitations because he's to glorify the Father's name, to manifest and declare the Father's name.
Will....with respect, your Theology doesn't make sense! FATHER does Not, "Become SON," no more than Son becomes GOD. GOD the FATHER Has always BEEN the, "FATHER of Creation," and, according to Scripture, Jesus was, "Born of a woman---born under the Law." GAL.4:4--7.
@Ray Gsbrelcik according to scripture, how many Gods are there? Was the Father in Christ or another? Was God himself manifest in the flesh or someone else?
@@Post-Trib Greetings. According to Clear Cut Scripture, there is not only ONE literal, Almighty GOD----There is but ONE, Eternal HOLY SPIRIT. DEUT.6:4. ZECH.14:9. MARK 12:29. 1 TIM.2:5. ROM.3:30. 1 COR.8:4. EPH.4:6. 1 COR.8:6. 1 COR.12:13, Which also teaches us that HE is, SPIRIT. JOHN 4:24, Makes it Crystal Clear----GOD the FATHER is...SPIRIT. And Obviously...HE'S HOLY! Jesus is neither the FATHER, nor the HOLY SPIRIT, therefore, he is NOT GOD----Obviously. One GOD and FATHER, Who IS that ONE and Only HOLY SPIRIT. And the Word, "Manifest" simply means, GOD the FATHER, "Showed Forth," HIS Righteous "Nature," within HIS Son; It doesn't mean Jesus IS, or, BECAME GOD. Did that help?
@@Post-Trib Let me ask YOU, my friend; Is Jesus an ETERNAL SPIRIT? AND; If GOD the FATHER isn't, HOLY, or isn't SPIRIT....Then just WHAT IS HE, if I may ask? With respect.
@@Post-Trib We, as Christians, are ALSO called to be those who, Manifest the "Nature of GOD," through Christ---'it doesn't mean WE are GOD. Do you follow?
🌅Let me share a testimony of the vision of God I saw that reveals a Light on the Wisdom of God in a mystery concerning God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. 📖 1 Corinthians 2:7 | Acts 2:17 | Numbers 12:6 📜 Within few days after I received the justification of God and the New Birth, the LORD gave me a vision of Himself. While praying in the middle of the morning in that certain day, suddenly I was caught up in a trance, and being in the spirit, I saw myself in Heaven kneeling before God. A typical picture of a man kneeling on his knees with his hands on his breast and bowing down his head. Above in front of me were God the Father and the Lord Jesus who was on His right hand side. There was One at the left of the Father, but I cannot tell you at this momemt. Let it be for an appointed time. All three of them were sitting on their pure white Thrones side by side. They were pure white all together and have shining pure white diamond crowns on their heads. They were in their "shekinah glory" of excellent and majestic purity. Their faces were as the sun shining on its might at noontime of a perfect day, that what I could see only on their faces were a line of their chins. But, it was so obvious that as they looked at me, they were smiling in a great delight. They were in dazzling pure white clothing from neck down to their feet. Then I saw just below them and in between us, the Holy Spirit in the shape of a dove formed out of a shining pure white light spreading its wings just above me. Rays of white light emanates from Him towards me and all around Him. I am also in pure white all the way from head to feet and in pure white clothing. The whole scenario was in pure white that shines. There was a pure white angel who was steadily flying horizontally, rejoicing and blowing a trumpet on the middle right side. 📜 Then God the Father, the One on the left of the Father, and the Lord Jesus raised their right hands one by one towards me and said something, which I cannot tell you at this time. 📜 The place, the Heaven, was so glorious, white and full of peace and harmony. I could feel happiness and joy everywhere. I did not see a tint or spot of any color in the whole scenario of shining pure white. 🕊 I hope this testimony may give more Light of understanding concerning our God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit being God as "One", but of "separate" persons. 📖 You may refer to the following scriptures that support this revelation and testimony, though there are a lot more in the Bible: 💎 The Lord Jesus Christ "Sitting" on the "Right Hand" of God His Father 📖 Colossians 3:1 | Hebrews 1:1-4, 13 | Hebrews 10:10-12 | Hebrews 12:2 | Matthew 26:63-64 | Ephesians 1:20 | Hebrews 8:1 💎 The LORD God as the "Father" of the Lord Jesus Christ 📖 Ephesians 1:3, 17 | Ephesians 3:14 | Hebrews 1:5, 8 | Hebrews 5:5, 8 | Colossians 1:3 💎 The Lord Jesus Christ "Calling" the "LORD God" His "Father" 📖 Matthew 11:25-27 | Matthew 16:16-17, 27 | Matthew 18:19, 35 | Matthew 24:36 | Matthew 26:29, 39, 42 💎 The LORD God "Calling" the Lord Jesus Christ "His Son" 📖 Matthew 3:17, 17:5 | Hebrews 1:5 | 2 Peter 1:17 💎 The Lord Jesus Christ as the "Son of God" 📖 Matthew 26:63-64 | Matthew 27:54 | Colossians 1:12-19 | Hebrews 1:8 | Hebrews 4:14 | Hebrews 5:5, 8 💎 God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ Being "Two Distinct Persons" 📖 Ephesians 6:23 | Philippians 1:2 | Philippians 2:11 | Colossians 1:2 | 1 Thessalonians 1:1-3 | 1 Thessalonians 3:11 | 2 Thessalonians 1:1-2 | 2 Thessalonians 2:16 | 1 Timothy 1:1-2 | 1 Timothy 5:21 | 1 Timothy 6:13 | 2 Timothy 1:2 | 2 Timothy 4:1 | Titus 1:4 | Titus 2:13 | Philemon 1:3 💎 The Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God being a "Separate Person of God" 📖 Matthew 3:16-17 | Mark 1:10-12 | John 1:32 | Luke 1:35 | John 14:16-17, 26 | John 15:26 | Acts 2:4 | 1 John 5:7 | Genesis 1:2 ☝To God be the Glory and Honor alone. May the Blessings, Graces and Peace of the LORD our God be to all who read this testimony. In the Name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen. 🙏📖👑🏅🎺✨🕊
One major problem, "Glory." The HOLY SPIRIT is not "Separate," or, dis- tinct FROM the FATHER. Scripture clearly reveals, GOD the FATHER is "SPIRIT," Therefore, HE'S Eternal SPIRIT ( JOHN 4:24). If GOD the FATHER isn't HOLY, then, is HE, UNholy? If HE isn't SPIRIT--- then just what IS HE?? Hmmm....
@@raygsbrelcik5578 The verse you refer to, that God is a Spirit, means the 'Being and Nature' of God as Spirit, whether He is the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit. Like a man, who is human or physical in 'being and nature', whether he is a father, a wife, a son or a daughter. 🕊
@@glory1ministries734 "BEING" refers to GOD'S Essence, which is SPIRIT. Scripture makes that Obvious. This is why HE dwells in the HEAVENLY, or, SPIRIT Realms. "NATURE," on the other hand, is a reference to the Righteous Character of GOD, i.e., HIS Holiness, Mercy, Grace, Long-suffering loving kind- Ness, etc. Jesus, on the other hand, was, "Born of a woman...born under the Law." MATT.4:1-11.
@@raygsbrelcik5578 The Nature of God is not limited to character only, but in the 'wholeness of Life' as a 'DIVINE Spirit Being'. Like a nature of man which is not limited to character, but in the 'wholeness of life' as a 'MORTAL human being'. The Body of Christ are sons and daughters of God by ‘regeneration’. The Lord Jesus is a Son of God by “directly proceeding” from the “bosom” of the Father, and not by regeneration. In coming into this world, He had to be conceived in the virgin’s womb to be ‘normally’ became ‘human in body’, instead of an immortal glorious spiritual body, but in the Spirit and Life, He is purely “God or Divine”. He was conceived by the Power of the Holy Ghost so that His body should not be that of the ‘fallen one’ as that of all mankind after the ‘Fall’, that is destined to return to dust. Instead, His human body was “sown” in the virgin’s womb by the Holy Ghost, and at the same time the “Holy Life of the Son of God” came into it at the moment of conception. This Life that has the “Being and Nature of God” directly proceeded from the “bosom” of the LORD, wherein ‘no created being’ could had been or ever be. The body of the Lord Jesus while on earth was “holy” like that of Adam before the ‘Fall’ who knew no sin. He was even the “Lord from Heaven” clothed in human body, but “Holy and of God”. Though, His body is Holy, yet it is ‘subject’ to death, infirmities, afflictions and temptations as that of all mankind. Therefore, it made the Lord Jesus a “perfect” offering: blameless, spotless and unblemished Lamb of God for the “atonement” of sin of the ‘fallen’ mankind. This also made Him “resurrected” in the ‘same’ body and glorified. His death on the Cross ‘opened the door’ for the ‘fallen soul’ of man, which is destined to ‘eternal death’, to receive “eternal Life” through Him instead. Titus 3:5 | Matthew 19:28 | John 1:18 | Matthew 1:20-21 | Luke 1:26-35 | 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 | Hebrews 9:14-15 | Romans 5:8-12, 21, 6:23 | 1 John 5:11-13 | John 3:15-16 | 1 Corinthians 15:47 | Philippians 2:6-8
@@glory1ministries734 Again---within Scripture, "Nature," does NOT refer to "SPIRIT," or, "ESSENSE," in ANY way. NOWHERE in any Text, is Christ referred to as, "Spirit," in fact----When Jesus was asked if he was a, "SPIRIT ( after his resurrection)," what was his reply? "Does a Spirit have FLESH and bone, as you see I have?" This immediately illuminates Jesus as...GOD! PLUS; On the cross, as he was dying...what did he cry out? "MY GOD, MY GOD----Why hast THOU forsaken me...?" THINK! Is this something Almighty GOD would exclaim....to HIMSELF?? I think NOT, my friend! Jesus flat out declares, in JOHN 20:17, that HE has the very same GOD, and FATHER as you and ME. That, my friend, pretty much seals the deal. With respect.
I have to disagree with you brother Urshan. There is no dialogue between the father and son, there is a monologue as an example prayers from the Son to the Father or the father making an announcement about his son but there is no discussion , no dialogue. The Oneness position is more correct when it says not my will but thine be done so if there's two wills in God then you have some contradiction there can be the will of the man Christ and the will of God the Father,but two wills or three in God is triadic.
This shows u r just a blind man to what trinitarian believes. Whatever u talked is just heretical. First try to understand what trinitarian believes and then make video. In OT period itself, Jews belived in 2 powers in heaven and in the memrah of God, so don't mislead people.
There might have been few Jews who believed in more than one divine power in Heaven, but by and large, the Jews believed in only one power in Heaven. Isaiah 44:6, 8; 45:6.
I know what Trinitarianism teaches. Each version of it. Which version do you mean? Are you referring to the 325 Nicaean Council's version or 381 Constantinople? Or do you refer to the Filioque version of 0f 1014 that split the Eastern and Western churches? There are multiple versions of the Trinity over the ages and each of them claim different things. That is part of why it is a false doctrine.
🙂Thank you for your reply. Two things: 1. Trinitarians through the ages state that the Trinity cannot ultimately be understood. It must be accepted in faith. By their own words it is impossible to understand how 1 can equal 3. 2. If it as you say “It’s all about what our Bible says” I couldn’t agree more. That’s actually why we don’t believe the Trinity. In all of scripture it was never used. No apostle taught it. Jesus never referred to it. It didn’t exist in its final form until hundreds of years after the apostles. If you can find any reference to the Trinity in scripture I’m happy to hear about it.
God is a relational Being within Himself rather than a family of individuals. Thus being spirit and soul, God can speak with Himself. In Gen. 8:21, we see God saying to, or within His heart.
At 7:45 you claim a separation between the Father and the Son, just to let you know that such a claim is completely contrary to the Trinitarian creeds, which talk about the Father and Sonb being distinct but not separate (i.e. 4th point of Athanasian Creed - not dividing the subsstance). As you used the word distinct just before this statement, I wonder if you think that these terms - distinct and separate are interchangeable in Trinitarian theology - they are not.
“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, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6). Firstly, the central theme of this passage is “peace.” This is clear by the fact that Isaiah is here speaking of God’s government, which is said to rest upon the messiah’s shoulder. Both shoulders are needed for a shepherd to carry a lamb, however so secure is Christ’s Kingdom that figuratively, he’s said to carry it on only one shoulder. Thus Isaiah 9:6 lists several names, all of which state the same thing about the Son, albeit in slightly different ways. Specifically that he is “the wonderful counsellor,” because a counsellor mediates peace between opposing parties. He is also the “Prince of Peace,” because He brings peace to God’s Kingdom. He is also “the Everlasting Father” because He is the originator (Father) of this peace, which being eternal, won’t end. Finally the Messiah is also the “Mighty God,” because such a true and lasting peace can only be accomplished by the power of Yahweh God himself. Secondly, some have attempted to read ‘God the Father’ into the actual text of Isaiah 9:6. But the word for ‘God’ or (El) in the Hebrew, is missing here, which is why we don’t read; ‘God the Father,’ but instead read ‘the Father of eternity.’ Thirdly, ‘Father of eternity’ is actually a Hebrew construct. This is a combination of a noun and an adjective, where the noun ‘Father’ means either the originator, or more commonly the possessor of something, that the adjective describes an attribute. As an example of a few Hebrew constructs; ‘abi-asaph’ (2nd Samuel 23:21), literally reads the ‘father of strength,’ and means a strong man. ‘Abi-tub’ (1st Chronicles 8:8-11), literally reads, ‘the father of goodness’ and means one who is good. ‘Abi-el’ (1st Samuel 9:1) means the ‘father of God’, and so implies that he was a Godly man. Fourthly, the term “prince” and its resulting titles in Isaiah 9:6, including the phrase “the Prince of Peace,” cannot be applied to God the Father. I make this claim, since it is only the Son of God, and never God the Father, who is called a “prince” in the Bible, and who secondly was killed; “and killed the prince of life” (Acts 3:15). Fifthly, Oneness folk don’t regard the word “Father” as a proper name, but as a title. One can respond to this claim by pointing out that in the Lord’s prayer, the Father is still addressed as “Father,” and that the Greek word “name,” (onoma) is directly applied to the Father; “Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.” (Luke 11:2). Finally, Oneness Pentecostals might try to counter these arguments by quoting Luke 1:35; “that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.” They’ll misquote this verse claiming that the Jesus was made (created as) the Son at his birth. But the text actually uses the word “called,” instead of the word “created.” So the human body inside Mary’s womb was indeed created, but the Son who was sent into the world from outside of it (John 16:28, 1st John 4:9-10, 14) is eternal and uncreated.
There is only one Father, is there not according to Mal. 2:20? Also, the term "son" is the terminology of time, not of eternity. The word of God came to be the son at Bethlehem's manger.
I love my oneness brothers and sisters as my family and i attend a oneness apostolic church however there will never be clear understanding on Hebrews 6:2 emphasizes "baptisms" meaning there is the father son holy Spirit version and the Jesus only in addition to the fact that Matthew 28:19 are the words of Jesus
I hope you guys don’t mind me asking. Have Oneness views helped at all when discussing the gospel with Jews and Muslims, from your experience? I’m sure that Jesus being God is still a stumbling block, but I’m curious if the removal of the Trinity helps them to consider it in a way that they wouldn’t have otherwise. Blessings!
16:30 you state that God indwells millions of Christians (today). Yet at John 14:23 the first person plural "we will come to him" states that both the Father and also the Son (plural) will indwell millions of Christians from Pentecost onwards.
So grand we have oneness like you to set us straight, after 2000 years of our error. Too bad the Holy Spirit let the church go into complete error just like Jesus said He wouldn’t.
@@kevinconnelly6075 Not many dissenting, or least the ones that matter for Oneness theology to be true. There is no Oneness church hailing from the time of the Apostles. There is no Oneness church in Ad 700, Ad 1110, etc. Modalism was completely prevailed against for centuries.
@@whist5618 Monarchians, Patripassionists and Sabellians were all Oneness advocates from the earliest of times. How can you say there were none? That the Catholic Church killed them and they were martyred doesn't mean they didn't exist.
I'm a oneness Pentecostals and lemme also prove the oneness of God as a oneness believer In Matthew 12:31-32 ;Mark 3:28-30 ;Luke 12:8-10 (Read the passage for more understanding) Jesus said to the Pharisees that "blasphemy against the son of man is forgivable but blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is unforgivable" So this is the replied of Jesus to the pharisees when they said jesus had "demon" in him and Jesus knowing that he have the "holy spirit" in him said the verse i quoted. So for a trinitrian point of view its hard to understand why jesus said blasphemy against the holy Ghost/holy spirit is unforgivable while the holy Ghost is understood as the third person in the God head and why didn't Jesus mention the "father" or "him(the second person in the trinity)"? This leads to misunderstanding of this verse and misinterpreted as blasphemy against the holy spirit means not able to turn back to God or able to change our minds till we die but If you think as a oneness you'll get a pretty clear understanding of the passage that God is spirit and the spirit of God dwells in him manifested in the flesh and the Pharisees accused the divinity/the spirit of God is a "demon" and that's a big insult to our God almighty and still Jesus humbly said blasphemy against the son of man(his human nature) is forgivable. We should know what Jesus come for and here's one more explaination; Just think God as a King who wanted to change something in his empire and came to live with the people/peasants to teach how to respect the king(himself) but as he came as someone disguise as not the King he had to pray and deny himself as the King for he come not to as a king but a humble person to show the people the way to live. Same goes to Jesus manifestation. And once more there's this thing that the trinitrian mostly used in arguements "how can Jesus interact with himself if God is he and God only one person?" And i wanna say to them by saying or asking that they reject the power of God (omnipotent:present everywhere) and we could see that Jesus knew about Nathanael under a fig tree without going there physically, And jesus knew about the 5 husband of the Samaritan woman, and much more. (LASTLY I'M NOT GOOD AT ENGLISH BECAUSE IT'S NOT MY FIRST LANGUAGE AND I HOPE Y'ALL CAN READ WHAT I WROTE AND I HAVE MUCH MORE TO PROVE THE ONENESS OF GOD)
17:18 you claim that God meaning the Father was manifested in flesh, but the text says that it was the Son who was given (i.e. to be incarnated in the future). I have something of mine saved on Isaiah 9:6, I will see if I can find it.
40:18 You misquote those baptismal verses, you said that every verse states that they were baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, err no they don't: The exact wordings and even the Greek prepositions differ widely between these so called Oneness baptismal proof texts found at Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19. At Acts 2:38 we read “in (ἐπὶ epi) the name Jesus Christ,” at Acts 8:16 and 19:5 we read; “in (εἰς eis) the name Lord Jesus,” and lastly at Acts 10:48 we read; “in (ἐν ev) the name Lord.” But if a baptismal formula were really being given here then it would not differ so widely between its various usages in Acts 2, 8, 10 and 19. The only sensible explanation is that the word “name” (onoma) means “authority,” as in “stop in the name of the law” and that this is how Luke is using this term “onoma.” Notice also that word “name” (onoma) is used this way by Luke in Acts 4:7, where here it is juxtaposed with the word ‘power’ to symbolise authority. 2. The reference to the Holy Spirit in Acts 19:2-3, further confirms Matthew 28:19 as baptism being upon the authority of the one God who is not simply Jesus, but is Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Paul meets certain disciples of John, and asks if they received the Holy Spirit since they believed. When they reply that they don't know who the Holy Spirit is (Acts 19:2), Paul then immediately asks how then were you baptised (verse 3). He did this because he knew that the name ‘Holy Spirit,’ is referred to at the Matthew 28:19 baptismal command. So if “Jesus Christ” is the proper baptismal formula, then Paul's question “into what then were you baptised?” does not make any sense, because it would be a complete change of subject from his question. 3. To baptise upon the name of the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19), is to baptise according to Acts 2:38, because both these passages imply the authority for baptism. 4. You cannot really understand the baptismal formula, apart from a study of the Aaronic blessing formula at Numbers 6:24-26. This specific blessing was used by the priests constantly in the Old Testament Scripture, but when it’s used, it is simply referred to in a shortened summary form. This is why we read of Levi blessing the people “in his name” (Deuteronomy 10:8), and the priests being commanded “to bless in the name of the LORD,” (Deuteronomy 21:50) or “to give a blessing in his name forever.” (1st Chronicles 23:13). So God does not need to slavishly repeat the entire Aaronic blessing word for word every time that it was used, and this shortened form “in his name” or “in the name of the Lord” refers directly back to the Numbers 6 formula. So you can see that your four baptismal passages in the book of Acts, mirrors exactly the way in which the Aaronic blessing formula was used and was referred to in the Jewish cultural usage. 5. My main problem with the Apostolic position on baptism are the implications that Trinitarians aren’t saved, so Martin Luther, John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards are now in hell. However, in my opinion our love towards God counts more than our own religious works, as I’m certain that God will recognise sprinkling, immersion or pouring, and even if no formula or an incorrect formula of words is used. What happens if a sincere apostolic, is plunged under the water, but the minister then absently mindedly misquotes the baptismal formula. Is that Apostolic now lost for all eternity because of the ministers mistake, which he being under the water, did not hear? I find the ‘hard hearted dogmatism,’ which claims that God will damn a man to hell upon a mere technicality, objectionable. Love is not enough, and neither is the cross or even the reception of the Holy Spirit in Oneness. They claim that our works save us, because our relationship with God starts and is even based upon our own deeds; namely correct baptism and also speaking in tongues. So the God of Oneness only loves us through our own good works for him, and yet my Bible says that God loves and justifies the ungodly and not the Godly: see Romans 4:5. I'd love to debate you on zoom. However possibly discussing tithing first to establish a polite and cordial basis for discussion, I don't want to end up being shouted at or shouting at you, lets consider a less controveral topic first. Robert thebagge2 at yahoo dot co dot uk
God mirrored his spirit in many ways as he knew the importance’s of visual manifestation for humans. If you go through the OT and the NT, you will see that God has manifested himself in different forms. Here are more thoughts upon your question: did God remain as the burning bush? Did he remain as a tabernacle, or pillar of 🔥 fire, or a cloud? Now God still uses flesh to manifest himself. This is the NT church after being filled with His Spirit we become the “body of Christ” Another mirror of God. I’m sure you have also read about the war of spirit and flesh... spirit speaks to flesh and visa versa. Like when we tell ourselves no for example for something we really want to do but know we shouldn’t. God is a Spirit. That’s in the Word. Jesus was in the beginning and then manifested himself in flesh. He was the Word in flesh according to Jn 1:1-14 When he rose his body glorified. Just some thoughts.
The Bible says that it will that everything will be brought under His feet. And of course He can’t put Himself underneath His feet. When it is all finished doing away with evil... then Zechariah 14:9 KJVS [9] And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.
Three persons will never be seen as one. 1+1+1=3. You were made in the image of God. Are you three persons? Where do you find the mention of three in one, Trinity, or triune in the Bible? To add words to scripture is blasphemy.
@@hargisP2 Trinitarians believe in ONE GOD THREE PERSONS or TRINITY of PERSONS. Oneness believe in ONE GOD THREE modes/manifestations or TRINITY of modes. Oneness are Trinitarians. The Trinity is inevitable!
@@msolav63 Wrong, Sir! We do NOT, in fact, believe in, "3 Modes." Maybe SOME do----Certainly not ME! Jesus is NOT a, "Mode." He is simply the "Son of the Most High." And although GOD, through the, "Working of HIS Will," Accomplishes HIS PLANS, and Purposes--- that does not mean that the, WORKING of GOD'S Will," is a Separate, and, Distinct, "Person." GOD the FATHER, and the HOLY SPIRIT, are not two separate Entities, my friend. GOD and FATHER are merely TITLES, whereas, SPIRIT, or, ESSENCE, is what GOD IS! Not TWO, much less, THREE, "Persons," Simply ONE GOD, "Anointing HIS Son, with, "Power and Authority."
It does not support the Trinity. It illustrates the roles of the Father and Son (the Spirit of God and the man Christ Jesus). Not two divine persons. II Cor. 5:19 shows how the Father was in the Son reconciling the world unto Himself. This language of interaction is to illustrate how God operates in redemption, not to show collaboration between divine persons. This does not show different persons any more than Jesus' baptism requires the Holy Spirit to be a physical, actual dove. They are illustrative ways God teaches us.
@@pastorurshan Pastor Urshan, where you and the apostolic church are going wrong, is that you refuse to call the Son a "person." The Son who was born of Mary is a "person." Not another divine person, but a human person with the divine nature in its fulness.
@@gimel77 🙂We do not have a problem calling Jesus a person. It is the concept of "Divine" persons to which we object. He was a human and a person in all that human personhood includes. God as Father however is only one being. Multiple divine persons violates His essential one nature.
Tertulia did not inventa the concepto of the Trinity. Historical the false doctrine of the Holy Trinity was formulated by ATHANASHOUS, a pagan filosopher in the NICEAN council 325 a. D.
Hold the phone the flesh died on the cross when he was resurrected was the body now glorified and officially and in for the rest of eternity now the representation of the invisible God?
At 2:18 the speaker misquotes the Trinity, the Father, Son (in his deity) and Holy Spirit all share the same one mind and will - which you claim that Trinitarians deny, this sir is not fair because its not accurate at the level of the creeds and Trinitarian scholars.
I receive many requests for debate. It is not possible to address them all. I am happy to address these points in an episode however. We obviously do not subscribe to Trinitarian dogma because it is unknown in scripture and is a later interpolation. I am happy to address your questions to the best of my ability. One small example is your claim that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost share the same mind and will. Why then did Jesus say, "Not my will but thine be done?" Oneness believers can easily answer this but I am interest as to how this fits with your "one mind and will" concept.
@@pastorurshan Chroist has two natures human and divine each with their own mind and will. So at Luke 22:42 Christ as a man is praying to the Father whose will (divine will) is shared by the Son in his deity and Holy Spirit. Look you misquoted the Trinity, I repeat my offer to debate on zoom or whatsapp, its wrong to straw man your opponents as you have done.
@@christian.comedy.channel.2 🙂If you can point me to the scripture that supports that Jesus Christ had two minds and two wills I will happily believe that. Or that the Eternal Son shares that with the Holy Spirit, I will believe that too. If you can point to where the Trinity is mentioned, I will happily concede your point. Problem is, they are nowhere to be found. Until 300 years later, and 400 years later in their final form. Scripture teaches one God who was manifested in flesh by the man Christ Jesus. That man didn't have two minds, brains or anything like that in his human vs. Eternal form. The man Christ Jesus was a human with a human will. The Father that indwell Him was God and was the Spirit of God. That Spirit was the perfect of that one true God and Jesus (the man) submitted to that. It's that simple. That is what the scripture teaches.
Trinitarism had been in existence long before Arius or the council of Nicea. A description and concept of the Trinity appears in several gospels. For example: God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit appear at Jesus' baptism, and in some other epistles. Jesus' final words acknowledges the existence of the Trinity in Matthew 28:19 ("...Baptizing them in the name of the FATHER , SON, and HOLY SPIRIT...") and Mark 1:10-11 etc. It was Jesus and the apostles who revealed and introduced this revelation to us about the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. By the time of the Council, Trinitarianism had been a well-established idea; it wasn't simply made up at the Council. They weren't creating doctrine, they were simply refining it based on what the church had already believed for hundreds of years. The Trinity is not a heresy; it was an absolute necessity to avoid Christians being called polytheists. Related to this argument oneness frequently raised contention that the concept of the Trinity did not originate from the Bible at all, (being this false), but from pagan philosophy and religion. It is claimed that a type of Trinity can be found in Plato, in Babylonian religion, in Mithraism, and in Hinduism, and that it supposedly crept in and perverted Christianity from these outside sources. Although early Christian theologians speculated in many ways on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no one clearly and fully asserted the doctrine of the Trinity until around the end of the so-called Arian Controversy. Nonetheless, the proponents of Arianism, Unitarianism, Modalism, and Sabellianism claim them to be in some sense founded on, or at least illustrated by, biblical texts. Sometimes popular antitrinitarian literature paints the doctrine as strongly influenced by, or even illicitly poached from some non-Christian religious or philosophical tradition. Divine threesomes abound in the religious writings and art of ancient Europe, Egypt, the near east, and Asia. These include various threesomes of male deities, of female deities, of Father-Mother-Son groups, or of one body with three heads, or three faces on one head. However, similarity alone doesn’t prove Christian copying or even indirect influence, and many of these examples are, because of their time and place, unlikely to have influenced the development of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinitarian doctrines were steeped in the thought not only of Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism, but also the Stoics, Aristotle, and other currents in Greek philosophy. Whether one sees this background as a providentially supplied and useful tool, or as an unavoidably distorting influence, those developing the doctrine saw themselves as trying to build a systematic Christian theology on the Bible while remaining faithful to earlier post-biblical tradition. Many also had the aim of showing Christianity to be consistent with the best of Greek philosophy. But even if the doctrine had a non-Christian origin, it would not follow that it is false or unjustified; it could be, that through Philo (or whomever), God revealed the doctrine to the Christian church. Still, it is a contested issue whether or not the doctrine can be deduced or otherwise inferred from the Christian Bible, so we must turn to it. Many Christian apologists argue that the doctrine of the Trinity is “biblical” (i.e. either it is implicitly taught there, or it is the best explanation of what is taught there) using three sorts of arguments. They begin by claiming that the FATHER of Jesus Christ is the one true God taught in the Old Testament. They then argue that given what the Bible teaches about Christ and the Holy Spirit, they must be “fully divine” as well. Thus, we must, as it were, “move them within” the nature of the one God. Therefore, there are three fully divine persons “in God”. While this may be paradoxical, it is argued that this is what God has revealed to humankind through the Bible. The Church Fathers wrestled with the divinity of Jesus and gradually developed the concept of the Holy Trinity during the second and third centuries. Arius, a popular Libyan priest, opposed the new concept, but it was was strongly supported by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, who raised the matter at the Council of Nicaea. The Nicaean Council debated the issue in 325 and decided in favour of Trinitarianism and rejected Arianism. Arianism rejected Jesus' equal divinity with God, it was a threat because this denied the central belief of the Trinity, the belief in our Redemption, and the divine nature of Jesus Christ. However this doctrine continued to be debated right up to 381, when the Emperor Theodosius required that all Christians believe in the Holy Trinity. Today some modern christians wouldn’t know Arianism if it was sitting on the pew right next to them, the same goes for Sabellianism. Most folks wouldn’t even know the difference. Incidentally, this is why so many bishops were initially on the fence regarding the Arian controversy, and it was only after Athanasius explained exactly why the Arian formulation created problems in other areas of Christian doctrine that most of them relented and sided with the Orthodox view. This was true both during and after the Council. Many of the bishops who were not present at the Council sided with Arius until Athanasius personally visited them and explained his position. If you don't have the Trinity, well you have to solve the problem of God dying. If you don’t have the Trinity, three persons, one God, then either Jesus was not divine, not the Messiah, and we are not saved; or you have God absent from existence while Jesus is in the tomb, or Jesus didn’t really die which takes us back to the not being saved problem. The simplest explanation is that it violates the teaching handed down from the Apostles, including Jesus’s own words. More in depth, we read (Phil. 2) that the eternal Word, Jesus, set aside his Deity to become Man, and (all through Hebrews) that His ministry involves standing before the Father AS a Divine Man (as our High Priest), and makes it clear that His ministry is valid because He stands before Him as one of us. No pre-eternal Word, no Incarnation. No Incarnation, no salvation. Heresy has nothing whatsoever to do with Trinitarian Doctrine. It’s a legal concept: a statement made out of court that is introduced in court to show the truth of the matter asserted.
Sorry there is actually proof of where the trinity was 1st accepted around 300ad. No weaseling your way out of that. No matter how big your speech 🎤is.🤣😂🤣
@@revamp6612 Sorry to burst your bubble but, Oneness are Trinitarians. Trinitarians believe in ONE GOD THREE PERSONS or TRINITY of PERSONS. Oneness believe in ONE GOD THREE modes/manifestations or TRINITY of modes. The Trinity is inevitable!
@@msolav63 no, again you are misrepresenting. God doesn’t have 3 modes. He has manifestations not limited to 3… Stop acting like you know about something that you are clueless to.🤦🏽♂️🤷🏽♂️
@revamp6612 REVAMP, I can't wrap my head around the splitting of hairs Oneness followers have on this issue. Can you explain to me how it is that oneness are not Trinitarians? Of course they are Trinitarians. Let's go back to grade school and do simple math: The PERSON or "mode/manifestation," of the Father is ONE. The PERSON or "mode/manifestation" of the Son is TWO. The PERSON or "mode/manifestation" of the Holy Spirit is THREE. So how many "PERSONS, modes/manifestations" do you HAVE? The answer is "THREE. The word TRINITY comes from THREE". Oneness are trinitarians because the Trinity is a biblical fact that cannot be denied even when doing the scriptural acrobatics as oneness does. Even if they are supposedly representations they are still THREE. Beside oneness go around and DIVIDE Jesus INTO TWO SUBSTANCES the human and the divine and then they criticize the Trinitarians saying that God is numerically indivisible. That is oneness logic, they say something and then they contradict themselves, lol. Did the Bible mentioned the FATHER, the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT. Answer is: YES. How many are MENTIONED? Answer is: THREE. There's only one God, but whether you call it modes, PERSONS, manifestations, masks, spheres, titles, functions etc, you have to acknowledge that there are THREE. To say anything different is to deny the Bible. I'm surprised that oneness deny they are not Trinitarians when they believe in THREE MODES/ MANIFESTATIONS since that is a cornerstone of Oneness theology. We are essentially saying the same basic things while trying to explain God. There is no way out of the Trinity. What's "out there" to me is why Oneness followers continually attack trinitarians. The question is: "Can three distinct, divine persons really be one being?" The short answer is YES. REVAMP: The Trinity is inevitable!
Have you debated a new movement called "The Father and His Son" (Son Jesus being subordinate to His Father Elohim). So One Elohim as Father being the Supreme One Elohim and then subordinate Son also Elohim as Jesus/Yahshau the Son - but Jesus is not the One Elohim.
Some of our Jewish Messianic Brethren Believers refers to the Godhead as a Compound Unity…regardless if one is Oneness’s or Trinitarian what matters is preach Him crucified…The death burial & Resurrection Atonement of Yeshua’s is what really matters…
19:22 You now make almost exactly the same claim as Jehovah's Witnesses at John 14:28, in that you are teaching that Father is the deity and Son is the humanity.
Spirit of God and Flesh of God interacting? This is ad hoc. The Son is called God and not simply the flesh of God. Regardless, Christ says no man has seen the form of the Father so then Christ cannot be the Father.
11:23 Your definition of Oneness that the Son is the humanity is one of three possible definitions of the Son of God and is the easiest to refute. Your claim is a denial that the Son of God is both God and Man, as your claiming that the Father = the deity and the Son = the humanity. It's easy to refute, the Son is called GOD see the word God at John 20:28 and Son at verse 31. Also the Son of God is the creator of the universe which your subordinationsm denies i.e. Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:16-17 re Son at verse 13. Also both the Father and the Son being omnipresent indweel Christians today - John 14:23. I'd love to debate you. How about a debate on tithing (which I am against) first of all and then once we've set a respectful tone another discussion.
The Oneness explenation for how Jesus can pray and dialogue with the Father does a great job of talking about the authentic humanity of Christ. Trinitarians and Oneness believers agree on this point. The disconnect that I am finding and it is something that isn't being addressed in any of the Oneness videos I've seen is this, Jesus is truly man and truly God, right? He is God manifest in the flesh, so how does Oneness theology get around the idea that either 1) Jesus is praying to himself, since he is also the Father, or 2) there is a distinction between the humanity and divinity of Christ, which means Christ is two persons in one. This is sometimes referred to as the dual nature of Christ. But natures are abstract, they don't communicate. I don't believe it is sufficient to show the humanity of Christ as the reason he is praying to God the Father,. You also need to show how Christ being fully God (Which Oneness believers say is the Father manifest in flesh) can pray to the Father and there not be some kind of illusion taking place that makes it appear that Jesus isn't the Father. Also, it's not so much THAT Jesus prayed, as much as it is WHAT Jesus prayed. for instance, John 17:21-23 "That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in US, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, that they may be one even as WE are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that they world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me." If Jesus is the Father, why does he use words like us and we to describe their relationship? Why not come out and say that you are the Father rather than pretend that he is a different person? Another point from this prayer, how can we as believers be one as Jesus and his Father are one? Can we all be one person? Of course not, the oneness that is talked about in this chapter is the oneness of unity and purpose not the oneness of personhood. These questions are not my attempt at a gotcha response, these are genuine questions that as a former Oneness believer I couldn't shake and haven't gotten a good response for. Thanks for the discussion! I think it is important to talk about!
Good questions. Thank you for dialoguing with us. They most certainly need to be talked about. The answer to your first question is that there is absolutely a distinction between the humanity and the divinity that was in Christ. We see this in his statement “not my will but thine be done”. Also in Jesus’ death. God did not die. The man Christ Jesus died. There is a distinction that we can obviously see. We could also say Jesus slept, hungered, was tempted in all points like us, etc. There is an obvious distinction. That is actually why God uses the term “Father” and “Son” and even why He speaks in the third person. It is to highlight and illustrate the difference between the roles He takes on in the process of redemption. To ascribe this activity to “persons” is to violate His Oneness. Granted, we can’t understand all the working of the man praying to the Spirit and scripture does describe it as the great mystery of Godliness. The mystery isn’t how divine person’s can argue with each other in Gethsemane, the mystery is in how the incarnation works. Paul describes this explicitly in I Tim. 3:16. John 14:16-19 illustrates this clearly. In verses 16 and 17 Jesus speaks of the Father and the Holy Ghost in the third person. He does not do this to teach tritheism or the Trinity. He does it to show the distinction in administrations. In verses 18-19 he (as you requested) clearly says it, “I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you…”. Here he shows that while there are different administrations, there is still one Spirit. I Cor. 12:4-6 tells us that God works in diversities and differences of adminstrations but there is still only one God. Great questions and they are indicative of your hunger for truth. Thank you.
Nathaniel, so from what I was told when I was growing up being indoctrinated into Oneness thinking is that John 17 was explained as the humanity praying to the spirit. Would you agree with this? If you do, then I would ask if the humanity was present prior to Creation and had glory as is stated in John 17:5 (according to the logic that it is the humanity saying these words)? What form did the humanity have prior to Creation?
@@EthanGottfredsen His humanity did not physically exist until he was born in Bethlehem. "This day have I begotten thee...". the Bible uses words that explain God in human terms (anthropomorphic language) while not limiting those things to every human limitation. For example Jesus is the "Lamb of God" and is "slain from the foundation of the world". Using this logic, is Jesus a small creature with wool and hooves hanging upon a cosmic cross, floating in outer space somewhere (where would he be crucified at if it was before the world began?). Of course not. That would be absurd. God is using the terms "Son" and "Lamb" to describe administrations and functions of God, not literal, exact things bound by every physical law.
I’m so glad the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to the lame explanations like this that I was raised hearing. I believe that was the moment I truly believed in Christ and was saved.
Let me reveal up front, first of all, I hold to the Oneness position; but your explanation to the first question doesn't make any sense. Yes, there is a distinction between the Spirit (God) and flesh (Man) in the full essence of His nature of existence. But to claim that Jesus in dialogue between the Son (the Man Jesus) to the Father (the God Jesus) in essence sounds like that you are teach a two person or split or dual personality of Jesus. "Was Jesus praying to Himself" or "Talking with Himself?" No. In my opinion, in these such passages, Jesus is in His role as the great Rabbi (teacher) who is leading by example. Who was He teaching, His disciples and His followers in every generation since: how to pray ... you take everything to our Father ... regardless of the circumstances that you are in. Jesus was using His transcendent nature to teach to all followers.
Jesus' dialogue with the Father was real. It was not simply an example. The man Christ Jesus truly prayed as a man and as God He truly spoke to the man Christ Jesus. Hebrews 1:8 says this fairly plainly. Jesus had a human will and a divine will at the same time i.e. "nevertheless not my will but thine be done." Jesus as a genuine human being prayed as all humans must pray. It wasn't a pseudo prayer or simply an example. As our great redeemer and substitute, he prayed in his humanity as all humans must pray. This is not two divine person interacting. It is the genuine human man praying to the eternal Father which is in heaven.
@@pastorurshan Just as I stated, your explanation doesn't make sense. If Jesus was talking to the Father (as a Man to the Spirit) then how come the trinitarian explanation that Jesus was talking or praying on earth to the Father who is in heaven as a distinct person. Ascensionally, these two thoughts actually teach the same thing in essence. In older writings by Oneness Pentecostal groups claimed that this is true because of the dual nature: Jesus who is fully God and fully Man in Himself - spoked as Man to the Father who is Spirit. He must be insane or unstable as a Person having a dual personality (disorder) conversion with Himself. If you, as a Oneness, believe that Jesus as Man was talking to the Father as Spirit (God) then like trinitarians who must explain the specific need for Jesus who is fully Man to pray to God the Father just like all humans pray to the Father - which again this doesn't make sense because Jesus is sinless in nature? Assuming you believe, as I do, in the absolute constitution of Being and Person to mean the same thing (in the essence of Self existence) the only conclusion was that Jesus was operating in His office of Teacher (Rabbi) as Man before all humans revealing how to pray (talk) to God, as our prime example. You, with your (I am assuming to be like the older Oneness Pentecostal teachings of dual nature) dual will or wills of Jesus, like the trinitarian view of distinct persons - these thoughts creates a paradox in the notion of Absolute constitution of Being (the nature of Self existence). For your thought to be true, then something must be an abstract (not completely real or genuine in nature). Either the substance of Being or Person must be abstract?
@@tp3922 They are not teaching the same thing. As the man Christ Jesus (who is a genuine human) his prayer would be like our prayers. A man praying to God. As the second person of the Trinity he would not need to pray. God doesn't pray. 1. He already has all power. 2. By definition God doesn't need to pray. 3. This puts the second person of the Trinity in subjection to the first person of the Trinity. As a human he prays as all men must pray. They are not remotely the same thing. Just because he is sinless doesn't mean he doesn't need to pray. All men pray, regardless of sin. You may think it is abstract. We see it as the great mystery of Godliness. Very difficult for us to understand but still true.
@@EthanGottfredsen This either means one of two things. Three different persons shared glory at the beginning of time and one of them voluntarily gave it up for redemption's sake, and is now asking the first person to give it back now that the job is almost over. Or (and this is what we believe), the man Christ Jesus is praying to the Father (Spirit) and is speaking of the glory that he had as the one true God from the beginning of time. This is hard for us to understand yet it is the great mystery of Godliness scriptures speaks of. The Sanhedrin didn't understand it either. Jesus' question to them as to why David would call Christ Lord when Christ would be David's son mystified them. The answer though hard to understand for us as human yet still stands. He is the son that would be born and He is the Everlasting Father at the same time. He is "the root and the offspring of David" (Rev. 22:16).
The term trinity, wasn't known in the early church but the concept had always been. Even in the Old Testament. For example, the term electricity wasn't known 500 years ago, but the concept or th such thing had always existed. Today, we cristians know more about God and the scriptures than the early cristians. God had revealed it to church. But still there remains many mysteries.
There might very well have been an existing concept in the then known world, which possibly caught few Jews, but the concept of the oneness of God, was the predominant one, which concept remains the true one in the church. If there is any progressive revelation of God, such revelation is in Jesus Christ, who is the one God of the two testaments.
And, "Concept," by itself, is not an convincing Exegetical Apologetic, my friend! It's Scripture, and Scripture ALONE, along with the correct Contextual inference, that decides what IS, and is NOT....Truth. Amen.
My brother Marco, the original Apostles had better understanding than we did and made sure to pass that on to the early Christians, which is why they were persecuted so strongly. The original Apostles had their understanding of the scriptures opened by Jesus Himself (Luke 24:44-45) and Jesus told them to preach His Name and what He had revealed unto them. (Luke 24:46-49). The early church and Apostles most likely knew more about the scriptures than we do today simply because of that. That's why they also taught how to apply it to the times through the Epistles and remaining NT. They had clear understanding, compared to what many have today.
The first several bishops of Rome believed in the one Lord Person,/Being. But as the apostasy that Paul predicted in Acts 20:29 ensued into the second century, the emergent trinity heresy began to deceive church leaders until the Roman bishops, partly because they despised the Oneness Jews for crucifying Christ, began to institutionalize the 3 Persons in God theory. In Augustine's time it was made the official teaching of the false church.
1Co 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is ONE Spirit. The Spirit is God's essence. Spirit is what God is, and the Spirit He is is the Holy Spirit. That is the missing key to understanding "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. The reason the Father and the Son are One is because they are the Holy Spirit. This scripture makes it plain. The Spirit is also how we are one in them when we believe. Ro 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but IN THE SPIRIT, if so be that THE SPIRIT OF GOD DWELL IN YOU. Now if any man have not THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he is none of his. 10 ¶ And if CHRIST be IN YOU, the body is dead because of sin; but THE SPIRIT IS LIFE because of righteousness. 11 But if THE SPIRIT OF HIM THAT RAISED UP JESUS from the dead DWELL IN YOU, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by HIS SPIRIT THAT DWELLETH IN YOU. Ro 12:5 So WE, BEING MANY, ARE ONE BODY IN CHRIST, and every one members one of another. 1Co 10:17 For we being many are ONE BREAD, and ONE BODY: for we are all partakers of that ONE BREAD. 1Co 12:12 ¶ For as THE BODY IS ONE, AND HATH MANY MEMBERS, and all the members of that ONE BODY, being many, are ONE BODY: SO ALSO IS CHRIST. In the exact same way, Jesus said,... Joh 10:30 I AND my Father ARE ONE. Joh 17:11 ¶ 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: (IN THE SAME WAY) Joh 17:20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for THEM ALSO WHICH SHALL BELIEVE IN ME through their word; 21 THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE; AS THOU, FATHER, ART IN ME, AND I IN THEE, THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE ONE IN US: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that THEY MAY BE ONE, AS WE ARE ONE: (IN THE SAME WAY) 23 I IN THEM AND THOU IN ME, that they may be made perfect IN ONE; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Joh 17:24 ¶ Father, I WILL THAT THEY ALSO, WHOM THOU HAS GIVEN ME, BE WITH ME WHERE I AM; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for THOU LOVEDST ME BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD. 25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. 26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I IN THEM. Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another COMFORTER, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for HE DWELLETH WITH YOU, AND SHALL BE IN YOU. 18 ¶ I will not leave you comfortless: I WILL COME TO YOU. Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and WE WILL COME UNTO HIM, AND MAKE OUR ABODE WITH HIM. Jesus comes to us in the Holy Spirit. The Spirit doesn't leave them, it emanates from them. That is how God is omnipresent. His Spirit permeates every place in heaven and earth. In the book of Revelation, in the last two chapters, where it talks about the new heaven and the new earth, we find no mention of the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit is there, in the Father and the Son. What we do see is a river of life flowing out of the throne. Re 22:1 ¶ And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. Joh 7:37 ¶ In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) Joh 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. 11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? 12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? 13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: 14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. Trinity isn’t a good explanation of theFather, Son and Holy Spirit. Look at these references to the Holy Spirit. These are from the kjv. Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, the Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of Jesus Christ, Spirit of the Lord , Spirit of Christ, Spirit of the living God, Spirit of our God, Spirit of your Father, holy Spirit of God, Spirit which is of God, Spirit of His Son, his Holy Spirit, My Spirit, His Spirit, the Lord is that Spirit, Spirit of grace, holy Spirit of promise, Spirit of adoption, Spirit of life in Christ, Spirit of life from God, the Spirit itself. The way the Spirit is described in the scripture as being "of God" and "of His Son" and being "His Spirit", it doesn't sound like a third person. I don't think the Spirit is a third person. I think it is what God is. Just as you and I are human beings, the Father and Son are Holy Spirit. Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Spirit is what God is, and the Spirit He is is the Holy Spirit.
Okay, a few things. Isaiah 9:6 - "Everlasting father" does not mean "God the Father," it means "father of eternity" or probably "father of the eternal age (of peace)." That's why he's also called the Prince of Peace, and the context of the passage refers to him ruling on the throne of David during the period of everlasting peace after he returns. And really, this prophecy could have had an immediate fulfillment in Isaiah's day. All of those terms can be applied to a man. The phrase "mighty God" (El Gibbor), for example; the word "God" in Hebrew is "El," which literally means "mighty one" and was applied to powerful people in Scripture, tall cedars, and mountains. Now, the phrase "El Gibbor" is also used for YHWH in Isaiah 10, but that doesn't mean it can't also be used for people. How many thrones in heaven? - I think this question misunderstands the use of the word "throne" in Scripture. It doesn't mean like a chair with a person sitting on it. Jesus said, in Revelation 3:21, that he who overcomes will be set down with me in my throne, even as I also overcame and am set down with the Father in his throne. So since we will be sat down with Jesus in his throne, does this mean we are the same person as him? No. It means to rule. God rules through Jesus, the Lamb, so that the Lamb's rule is God's rule. Now, Revelation 22 does use singular pronouns for this rule, because only God rules, but he's doing so through Jesus. Whose face do we see in Revelation 22? The divine visage that Jesus himself saw (John 6:46). And the name that is in their foreheads is the name of this one divine being, which is YHWH. The word "Hallelujah" in Revelation 19 means "praise YHWH" and the phrase "Lord God Almighty" comes from the phrase "YHWH the God of hosts." Revelation 3:5 - This verse clearly shows that Jesus' relationship with the Father in heaven is currently like how it was on earth. But Jesus is currently being glorified instead of humbled. In Revelation though, Jesus is still referring to the Father as his Father, and God, and is speaking to the Father in heaven, being our mediator, and high priest. The "name above every name" - This is something that was given to Jesus. Jesus did not have the "name above every name" while on earth; it was given to him after he ascended. The "name above every name" refers to a reputation and authority above all others. And, as 1 Corinthians 15:27 says, because God gave this to him, God himself is excepted from this. So Jesus has an authority above all others, except God. That's what this verse says. Acts 4:12 - Yes, Jesus is the only name by which we are saved, because Jesus is the way to the Father. Not because the name of the Father is Jesus. Calling the Father "Jesus" completely confuses verses like Acts 4:12 and others where Jesus said that he is the way to God, or the "door." Matthew 28:19 - I firmly believe that Jesus never gave that baptismal formula. It is quoted differently in historical sources, and really, if you completely ignore that formula, nothing is lost on the rest of Scripture. Luke says that remission of sins was to be preached "in his name." So stop trying to reconcile that one verse with the rest of Scripture, it just leads to false doctrine. Baptism in Jesus name has nothing to do with the Oneness and Trinity argument. It has everything to do with Jesus being the only way to God. And originally, the Matthew 28:19 formula was done with three immersions, one for each of the three persons. So don't invent a way to interpret it so that it agrees with Acts 2:38. That just leads to confusion. The name "Jesus" was the name of several other people in Scripture, and is a later form of the name Joshua. It's a name that refers back to God as being salvation. It really is an authentically human name. So it is not the unique name of God. That would be YHWH, which God specifically said was his "name." And that didn't change. Yes, Jesus is the root and offspring of David. Or, shall we say, the Father and Son of David. But "Father" refers to the one divine person which is YHWH, and "Son" refers to the offspring, which is Jesus. Because Jesus is the literal "imprint" of the Father on humanity (Hebrews 1:3), Jesus has the same nature as the Father, and any divinity that the Father has, Jesus has. So this is the "oneness" aspect. The "distinction" aspect is that Jesus is a person born of Mary, and the Father is the one divine person who was never born. This is how Jesus can call himself the root and offspring, and be equated with the Lord God of the holy prophets in that same chapter. But the words "Lord God" translate the name YHWH Elohim. In divinity, Jesus is YHWH. But the name "Jesus" refers specifically to the Son, not the Father. It is this distinction that apostolics don't make, but is a necessary Scriptural one. The divine being in Revelation is called YHWH. It is this being that Jesus still refers to as his Father, and God, in Revelation. The name "Jesus" refers to the Son, through whom we have access to the one divine person. Jesus is not the "flesh" of God. Jesus is a person, who was born of Mary, grew up, and had a genuine relationship with the divine personage of his Father. Don't get me wrong, there are not two divine persons, only one, but we need to call the Son a "person," for so he is. A human person with the divine nature in its fullness.
Almost all of what you say, Oneness believers would agree with. Except that the name Jesus is not the name of the Father. That is incorrect. Jesus is the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. (John 5:43, Matt. 1:21, John 14:26). You claim that YHWH is the highest name but surely you must know the YHWH suffixes. The progressive revelatory extensions of YHWH that illustrate his facets to man? Revealed in the Old Testament? Jesus is simply "YHWH is salvation". Jesus is YHWH. When he YHWH revealed Himself as YHWH Shalom, He didn't stop being YHWH. When he revealed Himself as YHWH Rapha, He didn't stop being YHWH. These were progressive revelations of His nature to man. YHWH Salvation (Jesus) is the name above all of the other names and is the only name that can save us. When Saul is knocked to the ground on the way to Damascus and asks "Who art thou Lord?" The reply would have been "I am YHWH" if what you are positing is true. The Lord did not say that. He said, "I am Jesus". Literally, I am YHWH your salvation. Jesus is the final YHWH facet to be revealed to man. That is why Jesus is most certainly the name that is above every name. This is why Jesus states "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" (John 5:43). The name of Jesus is the revealed name of God. It is the name that is above every other name. It is the name that will be written in the foreheads of His believers. Jesus IS the name YHWH with the added extension of salvation, which was never given until Christ came to manifest that to us. He was called Jesus because "He would save His people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21) That is literally the one, pre-eminent trait of that revealed name. Is. 12:1-6 illustrates this beautifully. "IN THAT DAY (this is Messianic) thou shalt say...the LORD Jehovah (YHWH) is my strength and my song".... This is a reference to their understanding up to that point. They knew YHWH as their "strength" and their "song". They did not know Him as their salvation. When Jesus (YHWH salvation) would come it would be fulfilled "he also is become my salvation...therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation". Literally thou shalt draw water out of the wells of Jesus. Surely you can see this?! V. 6 Cry out and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion: for great is the Holy One of of Israel IN THE MIDST OF THEE. Who was that "Holy One in the midst of thee"? It was Jesus. It was YHWH Salvation. You under appreciate that all powerful name of Jesus. I encourage to look a bit closer. You are not far from understanding the mighty God in Christ.
@@pastorurshan I appreciate your response, but I have Scriptural answers for everything you said. Let me go through them one by one. John 5:43 - No other verse is perhaps more misused than this one. Here's what the verse means. Jesus is contrasting his own authority to God's authority. In the Old Testament, David came to Goliath in the name of YHWH. The prophets spoke in the name of YHWH. And Jesus did too. He spoke in the name, or authority, of his Father. He was not speaking in his own authority. He makes this clear when he says "if another shall come in his own name, you would receive him." So what he's saying is, I am speaking in the authority of him whom you say is your God, but you are not accepting me; however, if someone else were to speak in his own authority, you would instead accept him. So what Jesus is saying is, I am NOT speaking in my OWN name, or authority, but in God's authority. So this verse really means that the Father's name is NOT Jesus. And think about it. Jesus was a man born of Mary. You're taking the name given to him at birth, and fixing it to the divine being revealed in him. You can't do that and be Scripturally sound. You just can't. John 14:26 - We receive the Holy Ghost through believing in Jesus. That's what this verse is saying. Now, the compound names of YHWH in the Old Testament. Take the name Jehovah-Jireh for example. That's not a name of God. That's the name of the place where Abraham offered Isaac. Jehovah-Nissi is not a name for God, it is the name of an altar. Jehovah-Shalom is not the name of God, it is the name of the place where the angel appeared in Judges. Whenever you compound the name of God with something else, it's no longer his name, but the name of either a person, place, or thing. The name Jesus is a later form of the name Joshua, and that specific form of the name, Jesus, or Yeshua, was the name of several people in the Old Testament and at least one other person in the New Testament. It is a human name that points back to YHWH as being salvation. The name Isaiah also means "YHWH is salvation." Hey, the name Elijah even means "YHWH my God," or "YHWH is my God." We are saved through Jesus' name because the Son of God, through whom we are saved, has that name. Again, "Jesus" was not a "name above every name" while Jesus was on earth. God gave him this position of power and authority after he ascended. And the thrust of this passage is, that every knee would bow to him. Those are the ones that Jesus was exalted above, and was given a name above all others. This is not to be contrasted with God's personal name YHWH. And as 1 Corinthians 15:27 says, God himself is excepted from that, because he was the one who put all things under Jesus' feet. It's contrasting humility with exaltation. He made himself nothing, and God in turn exalted him to the "name above every name" or the position of supreme power and authority. Hence, Jesus is called "Lord." He was a servant and became Lord. This is the position of exaltation that God gave to him. Like in Genesis where the Pharaoh made Joseph ruler over his kingdom, but the Pharaoh was still higher. Now, the road to Damascus. When Paul encountered Jesus, it was in fact Jesus who was speaking, so he naturally said, "I am Jesus." Any comparison between the names Jesus and YHWH here are completely mistaken. When Paul said "who art thou Lord," the Greek actually says "who are you my lord?" The Greek for "my lord" is used for men and angels in the Greek Septuagint. When Paul saw the bright light, he thought he saw an angel. So he responds by saying, "who are you my lord?" Jesus then responds by saying "I am Jesus." The Son of God. The man born of Mary, whom Paul rejected, had to appear to him. And that's what we see in this passage. Look in Revelation. The divine being is still called YHWH. It is he who is on the throne of rule. And Jesus rules, so he is sat down with the Father in his throne. And we rule, so we are sat down with Jesus in his throne. Again, not a physical chair with a person on it.
@@gimel77 I appreciate your response as well. We are aware of the metaphoric use of the term "throne". We understand it is not a physical chair. The use of metaphor in Revelation is well known to most serious students of scripture. We do not believe that we will sit in a literal chair with God. To point to the metaphor in one breath and to miss the metaphor of the interaction between the man Christ Jesus and the Father is striking. The entire scene is metaphoric. Revelation isn't showing two divine beings moving in some heavenly throne room. It is showing the beautiful relationship between the facets of the One true God in human terms so that we can understand it. To respond to each point is impossible. Hundreds of Trinitarians ask this of me and it isn't possible to respond exhaustively to each one. Feel free to look at the videos I have posted. I will post more as well. One thing I will point out through friend. Saul didn't speak Greek on that road to Damascus. Acts 21 & 22 is an account where he spoke to the people in Jerusalem. It takes care to say "he spoke in the Hebrew tongue to them..." (Acts 22:2). It then recounts the Damascus road moment. He says "Who art thou Lord?" to them in the Hebrew tongue. To say that in the Hebrew tongue is to invoke the Shema. There is only one Lord. There is only one YHWH. Paul was asking who this was and YHWH said, "I am Jesus". I am Jehovah salvation. The compound name of Jesus is the revealed name of God and it is the highest name. Progressively revealed from Moses' burning bush to the New Testament. You have explanations as to why each verse I have given must fit your interpretation but eisegetic exercise is not he same as a true exegetic hermeneutic. The scripture plainly states to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The disciples went and did just that. They baptized them all in the name of Jesus Christ which was the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
@@pastorurshan I think we can agree that the relationship between the Father and Jesus is not a metaphor. That relationship was seen on earth, and is still ongoing in heaven. I am not at all saying that there is more than one divine person. What I am saying is that the person born of Mary, Jesus of Nazareth, has a relationship with the one divine person who begat him. And that relationship is real, not metaphorical. The explanations I gave are not to fit how I believe. They are Scripturally, and Hebraically, sound. I mean, think of it. What other possible way can you view John 5:43, except for what the verse clearly says, and how the phrase "in the name of YHWH" is used in Scripture, which is what I presented? There is no other way to see it. I mean, how am I wrong here? I am not a Trinitarian, not in the least. And for you to think or say I am, is just to ignore the points that I have made, which are Scriptural. You can’t build a doctrine around one verse, as in Matthew 28:19. I am positive that Jesus never gave that command. Study its history. It was originally a three fold immersion that was included in Matthew as a doctrinal appendage. And with regard to the compound names involving YHWH, what I said about them is correct, and stands. What I said about John 5:43 is correct, and stands. What I said about Paul and the road to Damascus is correct. What you said about it is incorrect, and I can prove that from the Greek (which is the language the text was written in, even though it may not be the language he actually used). The Greek word is not related to the Shema. There are verses from the Greek Septuagint that have this exact word, and it’s not used for God. You mentioned Hebrew. In the Hebrew tongue, that would be "adoniy" which means "my lord." In fact, if you look at the Greek word used in Acts 9:5, and find the verses in the Septuagint where that Greek word is used, the Hebrew word is adoniy. Guess where that word is not found? The Shema. So please do sound Scriptural study instead of just making things up. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I just grow weary with the constant misuse of Scripture and people being dogmatic about that said misuse of Scripture. Basically everything in my previous post is correct, is exegesis, and it stands. You haven’t refuted any of it, and you can’t. If you could, you would have. I didn't make a ton of points. You could very easily have responded to all of them, showing me, Scripturally, how I may not be seeing it right. But I am seeing it right, correct?
@@gimel77 It is not you to which I cannot respond. Your arguments are repeated by many Trinitarian and Binatarian skeptics. It is the 1000 others who want a response that makes it difficult. Your points are not new and they are not sound. I will focus on the few you have brought up since you state “if I could have, I would have”. I can and I will…briefly. Again, there are hundreds of responses on these threads where I have taken the time. I cannot spend hours with 1000 different skeptics. I will do my best to help where I can. So…No, I do not believe the relationship between Father and Son is a metaphor. Revelation’s depiction of their interaction is metaphoric. The difference is vast. The relationship between the Father and Son is to illustrate how these two redemptive aspects of the one God interact to accomplish redemption in mankind and Revelation displays them beautifully. This is a profound facet of Hebrew eschatological literature. To think that we believe in literal thrones when the entire book is metaphoric is to waste time in insulting flawed assumption. What I said about Saul and the Damascus road is correct. The Greek word you are describing is “Kurios” and can be translated “adoniy” and is used interchangeably by the Septuagint in the Old Testament but in the New Testament it is used interchangeably with both “adoniy” and the tetragrammaton YHWH. If your background in Greek and Hebrew is what you say it is, I’m surprised you don’t know this. Before you grow weary with “constant misuse” or admonish to “do sound Scriptural study instead of making things up”, I recommend digging a bit deeper. As I stated previously, you are not far from what scripture is teaching. Your disrespect doesn’t offend me. I am ok. I am aware of the points you make. We have discarded them because they are not grounded in scripture. Your position on John 5:43 does not stand. Just saying it does, does not make it so. In John 5:43 Jesus says, “I am come in my Father’s name…”. You state that Jesus is simply speaking of God’s authority here. This is simply not true. That is a classic Trinitarian argument, though you claim you are not a Trinitarian. Hebrews 1:4 states that Jesus Christ “obtained a more excellent name than they (the angels). In other words, the Son inherited the Father’s name. This usage of name is repeated over and over in scripture. Of course David comes to Goliath in the name of the Lord (the Lord of Sabaoth) and that is authority, but Jesus is not David. Jesus carries the name of God and that name is used in baptism, prayer and healing. It is not simply his authority it is the oral invocation of the name of Jesus that is efficacious i.e. “his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong.” (Acts 3:16). That is not simply authority, it is the invocation of the name of God. In John 17:6 Jesus manifested the name of God to his disciples. Psalms 22:22 and Hebrews 2:12 I will declare thy name unto my brethren… Zech 14:9 says that there shall be one Lord over all the earth and His name one. Is. 52:6 states that my people shall know my name…I am he that doth speak: behold it is I. This is a direct reference to the gospel based on the context. The name revealed to the apostles was Jesus. The name revealed to Mary was Jesus. The name the apostles baptized in was Jesus. That is because it is the saving name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Of course we know about Matthew 28:19 and the possibility of later interpolation. We know of Jeromes hesitance to include it into canon. We know of the one manuscript used to validate it by the cardinals (that they possibly made up on the spot) and Jeromes subsequent notes next to the verse showing his misgivings. Please do not assume our ignorance. This does not change our argument. We aren’t trying to argue the legitimacy of scripture here. That is a separate conversation for another time. As I stated before, we have considered these points and discarded them long ago. These points are not hard to refute. I can and I did. A better question is do you speak from a theoretical perspective or have you put this into practice? I have. I have seen miracles happen in the name of Jesus. I have seen the lame walk and blind eyes opened at the invocation of that name. To suggest that we are abusing scripture or that we can’t refute your points is disingenuous. These points do not stand. We can and will refute them and further, we will continue to build great churches based on the sound doctrine of the mighty God in Christ. We stand on deep study AND apostolic practicum. Do you? Flawed assumptions of others has been the downfall of many. There is no need to assume the worst of me. My inability to refute every skeptic has nothing to do with substance, it has to do with limited time. Now, if you are like many others, you will respond to this with another multi page critique. I cannot respond to them all. I can address most of them on Biblos and I will if you like. I can cover many points in large scale in that forum. There are not enough hours in the day to respond to every flawed assumption here. If insulting and combative questioning is your modus operandi I have little time for that. If you are sincere, ask questions kindly and I will respond in the forum in which I have the time.
I agree with things that you said regarding Jesus's humanity, however, there is still that contrary belief i hold about his deity regarding being co-eternal with the father, as well as the configuration of the three. That is where the rubber seems to meet the road the most between the two. scripture makes more sense with this view, and i believe scripture upholds this view. I want to say though, that im not here to "beat up" oneness believers. To my opinion, if you believe in the father, son and spirit; and that Jesus is the christ and the only way to heaven by faith and not works, then your on the right track. i do have some further questions though, please dont take them in a hostile manner, as they are not given that way. Regarding this, as well as the question below, you said that in John 17, jesus was saying the oneness in that passage was in terms of unity and purpose. Why cant that also be true with Deuteronomy 6:4 "the Lord our God is united". Wouldnt the word "one" be the same thing in both passages? Theres no unity of purpose in paganism. Thats what makes them pagan by definition. Thats why there can be millions of people in 1 church. Why Trinitarians can rightfully say they believe in one God. Because we are seeing the father, son and spirit by their unity and not their individualism. Why 1 family can still have many members, 1 buisiness company can have multiple employees. We all identify this "oneness" by the unity found in all the individuals, same with trinitarians, and Same thing with God. So in that sense, i would say that i too am a oneness believer. Im both a trinitarian and a oneness believer, 3-in-1. How can that be, because of unity. If this were not true, and God were really only 1 person with 3 manifestations (which to me, is still be a form of a trinity. Which is why it surprises me that you say you dont believe in the trinity), then he (jesus) couldnt not have rightfully said "we" but he should have said "i". "May they be one just as i am one". This may have also been why they claimed him a blasphemer when they heard him call God his father in john 10:33, and why they tried stoning him when he said "before abraham was, I AM". Because they knew God had said that in the burning bush to moses, and here was a human identifying himself in a way only as God could. Since jesus (a human) was saying this, perhaps he could have exsisted before his incarnation days because he was also identifying the father as a second personn which is why he could have been the word who was with God in the beginning, and why he was able to say "we" in john 17. Regarding this, do you believe that the triune set of father, son, spirit wasn't always present in its fullest? Was it just the father alone at the beginning, or the father and the spirit before the incarnation happened? And now that the son has come, is he now suddenly included in the list where he wasnt before? For another question, you said that there were others besides steven whom had visons. Though some had symbolic visions, God can still provide something in a vision that can be what it really is, no symbols applied. If we can agree upon this at least, it would be a matter of hermeneutics at that point. That being said, what parts do you take literally? Along with this, if you say that the spacial words Jesus used to describe concepts about his relationship with the father concerning the redemptive story, then wouldnt he be speaking inaccurately about his relational testimonies with the father, thus missing the mark when he would say "truly Truely i say...", and by that, misguiding us as, we are told to be watchful of. Along with this, the disciples saw Jesus ascend into heaven in acts 1:9-11. And the angels said "why are you staring into heaven? in the same way youve seen him go, he will return". Was this not a literal event that took place, or was it just as metaphoric as the words Jesus spoke? Were the disciples just seeing things, mere daydreaming? If so, why the question from the angels as well as their testimony about jesus? If you accredit these spacial descriptions to be metaphoric, then this instance must also be metaphoric as well. In which case the disciples would not be literal people, jesus wouldn't have been, nor the angels. And if Jesus was only a metaphor, then that affects his life lived including the atonement and finished work. What hope is there at that point? But if this be a literal event, then the testifying words Jesus spoke relating to these ought to be literal as well. In this case my personal belief of this comes in- as youve said before, God will always be greater than us humans because he has no limits as we do. However, because he is all powerful, he is able to fashion all Creation after the cause of the redemptive story he foreknew would happen. He knew this redemption would be needed, so he formed all creation according to that. As the physical resembles the spiritual, he designed every symbol to be as it needed to be to accurately describe the "item" or "thing" its connected and related to in the spirit, and he designed everything in the spirit to be describable so they could be "assigned" symbols. So that no inaccurate, inadequate descriptions could be given, and noone be misguided by truth (an oxymoron). As for God himself, he knew all these descriptions would need to be given, and he knew how he would need to include himself into he redemption in reference to himself (redeeming things with limits to one who has no limits), and how to form those blueprints. He knew that from our perspective he would have to come and go, ascend and descend. So he fashioned creation in a way that those could be accurate and truthful testimonies about himself, and not testify falsely about himself, so that we wouldnt be misguided and mistaken by the one who is truth.
Deut 6:4 One. King James Bible Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: You have to be careful when using different translations They will change words like one to unity totally changes the meaning the jehovah witnesses made their own Bible to fit their beliefs because it wasn’t aligned with the original KJV. Be careful that’s all I’m saying one means 1 in the his verse numeric 1 1 God what would he be in “ unity” with?
Trinitarians are well adept at applying metaphors, analogies, and even a touch of Philosophical thought thrown in, my friend. But the so-called, "Rubber," only, "Meets the road," when we apply TRUE Biblical Hermeneutics. Jesus, as Scripture makes CLEAR, is NOT "Spirit." It ALSO makes it Clear that Jesus had a BEGINNING. AND; Scripture reveals the fact----Everything Christ HAS, he was, "GIVEN" by his Heavenly FATHER ( GOD). With respect.
The genuine distinction between Father and Son, and to a lesser extent the Spirit, is temporal in nature. Not an eternal distinction between persons, but rather a distinction between God’s eternal divine existence and His genuine human existence as the man Jesus. At the incarnation God assumed human nature and began a distinct and permanent existence as a man with a genuine human consciousness. At all times He thought and knew as a man, performing miraculous acts or possessing supernatural insight through the anointing of the Spirit of God, providing the perfect example of weak human flesh operating through power and anointing.
Notice where the distinction I’m describing between Father and Son is found and the nature of the distinction. It is not between eternal persons (trinitarianism) nor is it found within Jesus, between His divine and human natures (Nestorianism), but it is beyond Jesus and existential in nature resulting from the incarnation. Interestingly, both Oneness and trinitarian theology say the same thing with respect to the incarnation. Both claim that it is at the incarnation that a divine person added human nature to His divine existence and began a genuine human existence as the man Jesus. It is the identity of the divine person we’re at odds over. Trinitarianism claims it is the second of three eternal divine persons, Oneness theology says it is the one divine person known only as Yahweh
Amen to all that brother that’s why Jesus said no one comes to the father except through me…he didn’t say no one goes to the father! Protestants got rid of a lot of things like you said, except the Trinity, and if Pentecostals could get rid of unknown tongues because there’s nothing to compare it to in the Bible, you would be a lot closer to the truth!!! And no matter what verse you use or what words you put it in nobody ever prayed, for someone in a unknown tongue/language in the Bible, You pontificate an earthly tongue/language & and your unknown tongue/language! Do not forbid to speak in tongues/language … a foreign preacher can come and speak at your church, but there better be an interpreter! That’s all that means! You can twist verses anyway you want but you will answer for that! Every Pentecostal church I’ve ever been to will preach if you do not speak in an unknown tongue /language you are not saved? David Benard would not give a straight answer to that question. Uer teachings are just as flawed as trinitarians the third person talking for you to the first person! You’re doing the same thing the rituals of men!
The scripture never says that when we speak in tongues its unknown but what the scripture does say that it is the evidence that a person does have the Holy Spirit
@@Historylover94 the best to you if you’re a babbler Paul didn’t speak gibberish, nor did 3000 who were converted! People at Pentecost spoke other tongues/ languages! Whether it’s to gift for the evidence, the word is around the world in different tongues/languages! Other than that you’re adding to the Bible! Anytime the Bible talks about tongues/languages it’s earthly speech! Or the tongue in your mouth! And so I don’t know what you’re arguing! My point is modern Tongue speakers are selling that gimmick as the unknown tongue or heavenly language or language of angels,,,ect. Manifestations of the flesh!
The Bible mention the word "PERSON" (not mode, this is a non-biblical terminology) in comparison with God. Jesus is the image just like we're also the Image of God in a moral, spiritual, and intellectual nature (Gen 1:27). In Hebrews 1:3 it says: 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 at the right hand of the Majesty on high. Within a theological context, person does not necessary refer to someone who possesses a physical body. Rather, a "person" refers to an identity and set of characteristics that are unique when compared to none persons. The image of God is the most significant delineating factor which distinguishes man from physical creatures, and it's endows him with the confluence of qualities that is specific only to persons, namely, a mental faculty which possesses volition, logic, abstract thought, moral agency, self awareness, rationality, and emotive expressions. We may appropriately summarize these qualities as those that belong to a subject who is capable of love. Let me ask you, did Jesus have a body? Of course. Now is a donkey a person? Of course not, it is an animal but, still a donkey also has a body. So to be a person you necessarily need a body? Of course NOT, because if that was the case a donkey would be a person. I know that oneness reject the word PERSON but wasn't Jesus a PERSON like you and I? The answer is: yes, of course. So we would have to conclude that Jesus is DIVINE and also a PERSON or a man. So much that you reject the word PERSON but wasn't Jesus a PERSON like you and I? Of course. So we would have to conclude that Jesus is DIVINE and also He is a PERSON or a man. The Trinity is inevitable!
@@raygsbrelcik5578 Again: Trinitarians believe in ONE GOD THREE PERSONS or TRINITY of PERSONS! The Trinity is inevitable! Unless you don't believe that the FATHER is God, the Son is God and Holy Spirit is God! The Trinity is inevitable!
Let me help you describe it! J3:13… no one has gone up to heaven except the One having come down from heaven, that is the Son of Man who is in heaven. (Christ spoke these words on earth ,,,some say the verse was split & that it wasnt Jesus talking all the verse but that John finished it! Not true!) God is the eternal Spirt & and can be a complete man on earth, just like his brethren. Hebrew 2:17 Jesus did not know everything he grew in knowledge & stature! Always lead by the Holy Spirt! Jesus had the capacity to oppose God, but never did not my will but your will! Why can’t you believe that I am in the father and the father is in me. J14:10 If you would’ve known me, you would’ve known my father ,,, from now on you do know him and have seen him.J14:7 I c said the blind man!
I don't agree with falsely accusing any group but how many times do oneness accuse Trinitarians of being pagans? I have read and researched Oneness theology for many years which is why I am so strongly opposed to it. I have not inherited this belief nor have I been taught to reject Oneness theology mindlessly. After a lifetime of studying the scriptures, I'm convinced that trinitarian theology is both logical and biblical. Although on many forums such as this one, I've been called Godless, blasphemous, pagan or polytheistic, and had my salvation questioned or even flat out denied by the majority of Oneness believers I've encountered. Those Oneness believers based their attacks on their belief that only Oneness believers understand the "mystery" of God and are eligible for salvation. This is not only a lie, but it voids the sacrifice of the cross since salvation is now based on understanding the "mystery or the key" (which is not biblical in any way). That is a very dangerous line of thinking. In over 10 years I have only found one or two oneness' who have accepted that Trinitarians are not polytheists but they are only a small minority. The majority of Oneness followers reject that we also believe in ONE God, despite being told this many many times over. However, they are in line with the hypocritical belief that God can be THREE modes or manifestations, but not THREE persons. A) Trinitarians believe in ONE GOD THREE PERSONS or TRINITY of PERSONS. B) Oneness believe in ONE GOD THREE modes/manifestations or TRINITY of modes. I can't wrap my head around the splitting of hairs Oneness followers have on this issue. Can you explain to me how it is that oneness are not Trinitarians? Of course you guys are Trinitarians. Let's go back to grade school and do simple math: A) The PERSON or "mode/manifestation," of the Father is ONE. B) The PERSON or "mode/manifestation" of the Son is TWO. C) The "mode/manifestation" of the Holy Spirit is THREE. So how many "PERSONS, modes/manifestations" do you HAVE "THREE. The word TRINITY comes from THREE". Oneness are TRINITARIANS because the TRINITY is a biblical fact that cannot be denied even when doing the scriptural acrobatics as oneness does. Even if they are supposedly representations they are THREE. Beside, oneness go around and DIVIDE Jesus INTO TWO SUBSTANCES the human and the divine and then they criticize the Trinitarians saying that God is numerically indivisible. Question: did the Bible mentioned the FATHER, the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT. The answer is: YES. How many are MENTIONED? One, two or three? The answer is: THREE. There's only one God, but whether you call it modes, PERSONS, manifestations, masks, spheres, titles, functions etc, you have to acknowledge that there are THREE. To say anything different is to deny the Bible. I'm surprised that oneness deny they are not Trinitarians when they believe in THREE MODES/ MANIFESTATIONS since that is a cornerstone of Oneness theology. We are essentially saying the same basic things while trying to explain God. The question is: "Can THREE distinct, divine PERSONS really be ONE being?" The short answer is YES. What's "out there" to me is why Oneness followers continually attack trinitarians when they believe in a TRINITY of "modes/manifestations". The Trinity is inevitable!
That person/mode theological math you have applied in trying to prove oneness believers to be trinitarians, does not work. Wonderful is a person, and so is counsellor. Mighty God is person, as well as everlasting Father and Prince of peace. Each is regarded as a distinct revelation, which are five revelations of Jesus, but each revelation being a person, does not distinguish five persons of Jesus. The mighty God is Jesus, but the same Jesus is also the everlasting Father and the Prince of peace. So Father being a person, does not mean that person who is the Father, is not also the Son. My emotional person is one, my physical person is one, and my spiritual person is one, but my one person is all three.
Greetings. The error you are making, is to make each mode of the oneness, a distinct person as each mode is a distinct one. While it is true that a mode or manifestation relates to a person, it is equally true that one person can fill more than one mode or manifestation or expression at the same time. Some Unitarians use that same line of reasoning to prove that Jesus is not God, for they say the human side of him, which is a full human being, is a person. They will ask you, if Jesus is human and that human being is one person, then what makes that one person, human, also divine, for their reasoning is that the divine which is a person, dwells outside of the human person. This kind of logic doesn't hold up, because what the Unitarians fail to understand, is that while it is true that the one person is human, it is not true that the one person is human only, but that he is also divine. Now by the same principle, one mode being one person, does not equate to one person being one mode only, because the one person can exist in more than one mode, at the same time. This shows therefore, that the oneness doctrine, is not a trinitarian one.
Three distinct persons cannot be one being, because one person is one being. The burden of proof rests on you, to clearly establish that one divine person is not one divine being. I would never regard trinitarians of being believers in three Gods, but I do see where their doctrine implies the very thing they do not believe, three Gods. In oneness theology, the same God means the same person. The biblical usage of ”God”, is never used outside of the context of a person, and is never once used in a non-personal sense. You will have to prove such a position with the use of scripture. Jesus is the same God as the Father. Jesus is also the same God who is the Father. All the ”whats” of God, constitutes the one ”who” of God.
Does the bible present one God as one person or as a solitary one? Yes. Mal 2:10; Eph 4:6; 1Cor 8:6. With the last verse, the one God is not distinct from the one Lord, except if the one Lord is not God, and the one God is not Lord. The fact that the one Lord in the verse, is God in other verses, suggests that the one Lord is that same one God, in that verse. Th fact that the one God in the verse, is also Lord in other verses, means this one God is also the one Lord in this verse. This means then, that the one God and one Lord, point to only Jesus Christ. Do you accept Jesus to be one God, as you accept him to be one Lord? The Son in Jn 17:3, prayed to the only true God. Is this only true God to whom he prayed, a triune or one divine person? We will agree that the Son had a God. Is it therefore incorrect to substitute the word 'one' for 'a'. Did the Son serve and pray to only one God?
18:22 You claim that Jesus is a man who is filled with the one God - well big deal so am I and so too is every other hristian in Church history which would make me just as much deity as your Jesus. Your definition of th eSon is wrong, the Son is both God and man, but you make the Son the humanity and the Father the deity which traditionally is called subordinationism. I'd love to debate you on zoom.
I don’t have a problem with the oneness of God. I can understand the word becoming FLESH! A complete man with the fullness of deity, dwelling in him,and not a second divine person of some holy Trinity! ,,but my point is how has apostolic movement adopted the gibberish & babbling being tongues as a heavenly language! …and that it’s from God? When the apostles received the gift of the Holy Spirit and the signs followed them. They spoke other tongues/languages, showing the evidence that the Word was going to be sprayed around the world in different tongues/languages. You interpolate other versus to try to say there’s two kinds of tongues, which is hocus-pocus, the Trinitarians have their triune God, and you preach mystic tongues/languages! I grew up with people rolling in the ground, incoherent uttering gibberish. How does that get interpret? A dodo bird has laid an egg amongst you and it’s being nourished! When the Spirit of TRUTH comes, it can only testify of Jesus, not of itself! So, how can babbling be a testimony of Jesus? Out of your mouth, you professed Azusa St was proof for estatic gibberish! When Seymour & Parham sent out missionaries, speaking, gibberish, saying they didn’t have to learn a language that the message would be conveyed, speaking gibberish, and babbling they had to come back to the drawing board! Azusa St was a sham and that’s what you identify with? 1 Timothy 6:20 Timothy, guard what you were interested with (the Word) turn away from godless chatter/babble and the opposing ideas of what is falsely call knowledge! So how does one interpret Babel? There is no private prayer tongue/language.! Matt 6:7 when you pray, do not repeat, like pagans! Modern Apostolic Pentecostal moment has redefined. The Holy Spirit it’s just like the Trinitarians explain it the third person of the holy trinity talks to them first person of the trinity for your! In the last days, many will be deceived! Unknown tongues/languages are the signature of the pentecostals! Think about it Pastor! How does one say amen?
Oneness believers reject the Trinity but use Trinitarianism in their thoughts. You are inconsistent in articulating what you believe, for you cannot correlate your doctrine with all the teachings of the Bible without affirming something like the doctrine of the Trinity. So, Oneness Pentecostals end up affirming a God in "THREE manifestations" or a God in "THREE modes of activity" or a God in "THREE roles or performances" or a God in "THREE masks" or a God in "THREE spheres or God in "THREE titles" but according to oneness God is never and can never be a God in "THREE persons ", since this is very incoherent, Lol. Oneness say and teach that God is indivisible. Therefore, it is not that one "part" of God exists as the Father, another as a Son, and so on. Rather, the whole of Deity is fully present in each of the "sphere or modes." But the strange thing is that Oneness believers hold that God can be in these three "roles" simultaneously. Therefore, God acts and exists fully as the omnipresent Father, God exists fully as the incarnate Son and God exists fully within the believer as the Holy Spirit and HE does all of this at the SAME TIME. That is, the God who exists in the mode of the Son or Jesus exists completely "outside" the mode of God the Father and the mode of the God the Holy Spirit and each "mode" or "sphere" can therefore be called " The". Also, God can act, speak or manifest himself personally from any of his three personal forms of existence simultaneously and individually. As, for example, in the baptism of Jesus, Matthew 3-13-17, in where the supposed modes manifested themselves, completely, personally and simultaneously or at the same time. Therefore, from this point of view, God exists fully and personally in one "sphere or mode" and that at the same time he can communicate with himself while existing fully and personally in another sphere or mode. Only with this we could say that the Oneness point of view is similar to classical Trinitarianism. To say that God can exist fully and that he can personally exist in three different ways is almost indistinguishable from saying that God exists in THREE "persons." So is a "Trinity of activity or modes" less mysterious than a "Trinity of people?" No, but nonetheless you Onenessers go through with your attacks and endless twists, branding the Trinity as a logical and biblical monstrosity while at the same time you also believe in a Trinity by affirming and admitting that the one indivisible God can exist and exists in at least three different ways, that it does it completely, that it does it personally and that it does it simultaneously. In fact, up to this point, oneness affirms exactly the SAME MYSTERY expressed in the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, the mystery of the TRINITY IS INEVITABLE whether one labels or calls it "sphere or mode" or as a "different person". It does not matter whether this trinity is held to be eternal or merely temporary; It does not matter if one maintains that Jesus is the “unique personality” that shines through each manifestation independently, or if he is the “second“ person. ”In other words, Oneness are TRINITARIANS. The Trinity is inevitable!
John 5:37 "And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form." I am one of those silly trinitarians, as a disclaimer, blessings!
@@Post-Trib Hey man... I guess we're back to where we started. If you believe oneness, then go ahead and believe it... I can tell I can't break through the wall here. Man I don't care who coined the term, or who formulated the doctrine. This point is so frustrating and time-wasting to me because I could just sit here and ask who coined the term "oneness" and who came up with the idea that Jesus and Father just refer to two different natures... I try to be honest, read all the Bible, understand what they mean harmoniously together, and when deciding what I think God meant, the trinity, that Jesus, the Father, Holy Spirit, are distinct persons of one God, that explanation fits. The summary itself isn't in the Bible, but what it summarizes certainly is. What I've noticed, from you, from every oneness pentecostal I've talked to, is that I ought to just ignore certain Bible verses that don't fit the idea of oneness, that they aren't persons but roles. I can't just ignore John 5:37, John 16:13. The word 'trinity' is not in the Bible, but the Bible certainly teaches it. No one came up with it, no one formulated the doctrine. The trinity is what anyone would conclude from taking what Jesus said at face value, and not being saturated by the writings of that liar David Bernard.
How can there be dialogue between Jesus and the father? Its simple, they are two distinct persons. The father is the one true God just as Jesus acknowledged he was (John 17:3) and Jesus is the son of that one God! (Matthew 3:17), who was anointed and sent by his father. They are not one and the same which is why it could be said by Jesus and his disciples that the father ( God) was WITH Jesus (the son of God) (see John 8:16, Acts 10:38). Oneness and Trinitarians views both are unbiblical and are teachings foreign to Jesus who never claimed to be God and the disciples who taught he was the son of God.
Jesus did acknowledge that He was God. Thomas called Him "My Lord and My God" (John 20:28) Jesus plainly told Saul that He was God in response to the question "Who art thou Lord?" Jesus' reply was "I am Jesus". In the Hebrew tongue no less. Jesus told the disciples that "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father..." (John 14:9) The church is purchased with God's "own blood" (Acts 20:28) The apostles most certainly claim that Jesus was God. Colossians 2:9 The fulness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus bodily. I Timothy 3:16 states that God was manifest in the flesh. Jesus is God.
@@pastorurshan thanks for your response brother hope you are having a good day. I would like to say however that, I don’t believe Thomas expression concerning his “Lord and his God” was intended to be taken as if he was only acknowledging Jesus. If we look at other passages from the book of John, Jesus many times stated the fact that he was not ALONE but that the father was WITH him (John 8:16 & 8:29), so simply following that logic and harmonizing scripture I think its more likely that Thomas statement was both an acknowledgment to Jesus AND his God who was with him. Let’s not forget Jesus and Thomas both shared the same God (John 20:17). Also the passage where Jesus says He that had seen Him has seen the father, I don’t believe is a direct statement of Jesus claiming to be the father especially if you continue reading on because within that same conversation, Jesus plainly states that the father was in him and not only that but working through him (Jn 14:10). Thus the miracles he performed revealed or manifested the father to those that seen Jesus. It’s no different from believers who believe through their life today they are revealing Jesus to the world. Now on and on we can go but the bottom line is ,there are no direct statement from Jesus saying “I am God” and there is no direct statement from his disciples teaching that either. If you read Acts chapter 2, the message Peter preached was that Jesus was a man approved by God (Acts 2:22), and that he was risen from the grave by God and seated at his right hand (Acts 2:32-33) and that salvation was through his name. Peter spoke this on the day of Pentecost so who are we to teach anything different? If the goal is to lineup with the apostles teaching oneness doctrine needs to evolve and teach the same in my humble opinion.
@@ryanprovost4828 Absolutely. I love this topic and I love that people like yourself have a hunger to study it. The Father was indeed “with” him. The Father was also “in” him. These are ways to describe the beautiful revelation of the mighty God in christ that “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself…” (II Cor. 5:19). This is not “with” in some generic sense but it makes them one. Isaiah makes this clear when he states that not only would Messiah be the “son” but would also be the “everlasting Father”. (Is. 9:6). It is also what Paul meant when he told Timothy that “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.” (I I Tim. 3:16) As you stated, we could go on and on but hear this one portion. You state that Jesus never explicitly states that he is God. I would ask you to consider John 8:12-27. Specifically verse 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.” V. 27 then explicitly says that they understood not that they spake to them of the Father. This is the great mystery of how Jesus can be both the Prince of Peace and the Everlasting Father as the same time. It is what stumped the Pharisees when Jesus asked them how David could call the LORD (Yahweh), “my lord” (or his son). (Mark 12:37). People have wondered how Christ could be both Father and Son at one time. The answer is in Colossians 2:9 “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Here are a few commentaries that recognize this: Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary 24. if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins-They knew well enough what He meant (Mr 13:6, Greek; compare Mt 24:5). But He would not, by speaking it out, give them the materials for a charge for which they were watching. At the same time, one is irresistibly reminded by such language, so far transcending what is becoming in men, of those ancient declarations of the God of Israel, "I AM He" (De 32:39; Isa 43:10, 13; 46:4; 48:12). See on [1811]Joh 6:20. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges that I am he] Better, that I am. It not merely means ‘that I am the Messiah,’ but is the great name, which every Jew at once understood, I AM. Comp. John 8:28; John 8:58, John 13:19, John 18:5; Exodus 3:14; Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 43:10. I look forward to your reply.
@@pastorurshan Hey brother, so looking over John 8 I think verse 27 is better understood when read along with verse 26, where Jesus says “I have many things to say and to judge of you: but HE ….. that sent ME…… is true; (notice the distinction between the he that sent Jesus and Jesus who was sent) and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of HIM” (the one that sent him) …… Then verse 27 states that they understood not that he was speaking of the father. So again I don’t believe this passage intended to imply that Jesus was claiming to be the father but that rather he was speaking of the one that sent him, who was the father and the Jews understood it not. And yes Colossians does say the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus, but the Bible also says “For it pleased “the Father” that in him should all fulness dwell;” (Colossians 1:19). Does not this passage makes it evident that the father is someone separate from Jesus in who the fullness dwelt? I think by just acknowledging the distinction we see in the passage between Jesus and his father the idea that Jesus himself is the father becomes more and more less likely. Let me as you this how do you view the teaching of Jesus where he taught he had a God (Jn 21:17) and when Jesus speaks of this God why does he refer to him as someone OTHER than himself in passage were the context is that of Jesus speaking about God like 1.) MARK 10:6 - But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 2.) MARK 12:27 - He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. 3.) MARK 10:18 - And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. If Jesus was God and that’s what’s he was going around claiming as you believe wouldn’t or shouldn’t these passage read like 1.) MARK 10:6 But from the beginning of creation I made them male and female. OR 2.) MARK 12:27 I am not the God of the dead but the God of the living. It’s just doesn’t add up but would love to hear your thoughts until then take care.
@@ryanprovost4828 Thank you. Great questions. Many people have looked at these and asked similar questions. There is absolutely a distinction. That is the reason Jesus used other personal pronouns when teaching about the relationship between the Father and the Son. We do not believe that the Father is the Son. This is the misconception many make about Oneness believers. “Father” is a word that refers to God’s eternal deity. “Son” is a word that expresses God’s humanity working with His deity. As such, there is a distinction in those roles and God takes great care to preserve this distinction in administrations not divine persons. The Father however was IN the Son and as such we do emphatically say that Jesus was God and that Jesus and His Father were One. The Spirit in Christ was none other than the Father Himself and in that sense the Father was in Christ and they are one. That Jesus uses plural pronouns is not to suggest that two divine persons are working together. It is to demonstrate the distinct administrations and that the man (or flesh) Christ Jesus as an authentic human was working with the eternal Spirit of God the Father. Here’s a good example: John 14:16-18 16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Notice how Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as “another Comforter”? Notice how he says He dwells with them but would eventually be “in” them? He then plainly states “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you”. Jesus uses third person pronouns to emphasize the distinctions in administrations but then rightly points out that it will be himself that returns to comfort them. Here’s a question: Galatians 1:1 says the Father raised Christ from the dead right? 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 In John 2:19 Jesus says that “…Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” If the Father raised Him and He raised Himself, how can this be?
But you never exegeted any text. The answer either way is in the text. You should show it. How do arrive at what you claim from the text? Deut 6:4 echad - one, is compound unity. That doesn’t prove the trinity but it must be exegeted and definitely does not prove a oneness perspective. There needs to be a lot more scholarship in determining this truth.
Here is an excerpt from en exegesis on the Shema. We have dealt with it on a layman's level. There is profound scholarship that shows "compound unity" to be a Greco Roman/ pagan contstruct. This is a small example. First Echad has a spectrum of meanings in the Hebrew Bible. To say it means "compound unity" confines the word to a narrow category that doesn't match all its varied uses by the biblical writers. It's like saying the word elohim only refers to the true God. When, in fact, elohim is used for false gods and goddesses, angelic beings, the judges of Israel, the king of Israel, and the Messiah. It's necessary to qualify the phrase "it means…" Second The word "Shema" is a Hebrew command: "Hear, Listen, Obey" (Deut 6:4). It is not a creedal jewel suspended in mid-air. It exists within a theological context. It exists in the early, foundational chapters of Deuteronomy, and Deuternomy exists as the final chapter of the Chumash, the Torah. The specific placement of this crucial passage must have a bearing on how we interpret it. Third Yeshua told his disciples that he and the Father were "one" (John 10:30). He didn't define their oneness here. Later when he prayed to his Father on behalf of his disciples, he asked that they "may all be one, just as we are one" (John 17:21-22). Whatever this oneness may entail, we assume it doesn't mean his disciples would enter into metaphysical unity with the transcendent deity, as in Neo-Platonism or modern New Age pantheism. Paul provides a key definition of the unity of Yeshua's disciples: "The one who joins himself to the Lord [Messiah] is one SPIRT with him" (1 Cor 6:17). Jews and non-Jews can "both have our access in one SPIRIT to the Father" (Eph 2:18). Paul links being "filled" with this SPIRIT with "putting on" the "New Man," which reflects the nature of the Messiah that was created by God (Eph 5:18, 4:24; Col 3:10). [See Meanings & Uses of Ruach, and Synonyms of Ruach: A Study in Hebrew Metaphors] What Does אֶחָד Mean? The Hebrew adjective echad occurs 970 times in the Tanakh. (Its feminine form, achat, is included in this total.) [Note 1] Here are the main uses of the word, according to numerical counts. "One" By far, the most common meaning of echad (600+x) is the simple cardinal number "one." Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place [maqom echad]. (Gen 1:9) He took one of the man's ribs [achat mitzalotayv]. (Gen 2:21) The man has become like one of Us [ke-achad mimmennu]. (Gen 3:22) We are all sons of one man [ish echad]. (Gen 42:11) The youngest is with our father today and one is no more. (Gen 42:13) "First" In its first appearance in the Bible echad is an ordinal number and means "first": And there was evening and there was morning, the first day [yom echad]. (Gen 1:5b) Some expositors say "yom echad" alludes to the composite nature of the day, since it consists of an evening and a morning. Yet subsequent days in chapter 1 are also made of an evening and a morning, and they are numbered the "second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth" days of the week (Gen 1:8, 13, 19, 23, 31). This pattern shows that echad in v. 5b means "first," not "compound (day)." The ordinal echad occurs elsewhere in Genesis: The name of the first [ha-echad] is Pishon. (2:11) On the first day [be-echad] of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible. (8:5b) In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first of the month, the water was dried up. (8:13) "Same" Echad can signify "the same" or "one and the same." Behold, they are one people [am echad] and they all have the same language [safah achat, fem.]. (Gen 11:6) They both had a dream the same night [layelah echad]. (Gen 40:5) Pharaoh's dreams are one and the same [halom echad hu]. (Gen 41:25) "Singularity" Echad can denote oneness as "singleness." [The Passover] is to be eaten in a single house [bayit echad]. (Exod 12:46a) The [menorah] was a single [achat] hammered work of pure gold. (Exod 37:22b) They…cut down a branch with a single cluster of grapes [eshkol anavim echad]. (Num 13:23) Not a single word [davar echad] has failed of all He promised, which He promised through Moses His servant. (1 Kgs 8:56b) Look to Abraham your father, And to Sarah who gave birth to you in pain; When he was one [single man] I called him, Then I blessed him and multipled him. (Isa 51:2) I will remove the iniquity of that Land in a single day [yom echad; same as Gen 1:5b] (Zech 3:9) "Undivided Oneness" At times, echad denotes a unity of purpose or effort, or a shared condition. The people answered with one voice [kol echad]. (Exod 24:3) Then I will give to the peoples purified lips, That all of them may call on the name of YHVH, To serve him with one shoulder [shechem echad]. (Zeph 3:9) The Hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart [lev echad]. (2 Chron 30:12) Genesis 2:24 This passage is a common focus of attention in discussions of the Shema. [Adam and Eve] shall become one flesh. (Gen 2:24) Some expositors propose that our First Parents' oneness of flesh is a compound unity consisting of each other's physical being. But the verse points to the opposite. Before her creation, Eve was "in" Adam (Gen 2:22). Upon creation, she became a separated, though obviously related, distinct person. Then God reversed the operation and rejoined them in a new way, in marriage. They are no longer apart: they are one single body. Eve is not now "in" Adam, but "with" him as his counterpart [kenegdo, v. 20b]. Their unity is not composite, but singularly whole. The two, as male and female, are now one Human-one, single "Adam" (Gen 3:22, 24). Ezekiel 37 Similarly, in Ezekiel 37 God plans one day to bring together the two rebellion-split houses of Israel and Judah. There will not be a king in the Northern Kingdom Israel and a king in the Southern Kingdom Judah. God will take their two "sticks" or "rods" (symbols of their authority) and rejoin them as one scepter under "David," the future Messiah. I will make them an undivided nation [goy echad] in the Land . . . One single King [melech echad] will be king for all of them, And they will no longer be two nations, And they will no longer be divided into two kingdoms. (Ezek 37:22) Some believe this union of the two kingdoms is also a compound or composite unity of two parts. But that's precisely not the point here. Their once individual, self-willed identities will disappear; they will become one nation, indivisible, under God. As originally intended, the one people will be ruled by Messiah, The One King [melech echad]. "Uniqueness" Finally, echad has another nuance of meaning that sheds light on the Shema. We saw above that echad usually denotes the number "one" (as opposed to two, three, or 10 million). There is something about one thing that is like no other - a solitary "one-ity" that highlights uniqueness, one-of-a-kind-ness. Several things are unique in the Bible. King David, in overwhelmed prayer, after being given the privilege of leading God's redemptive program on earth, asks the Lord: Who is like Your people Israel, a unique nation [goy echad] on earth? (2 Sam 7:23) In the future, God will return to Har Zetim with his armies and radically change Jerusalem's geography. And that will be a unique day [yom echad; same as Gen 1:5b] which is known only to the LORD…. (Zech 14:7) And on that Yom Echad, Unique Day… YHVH will be king over all the earth; in that day YHVH will be Echad [the only one], and his name Echad [the only one]. (Zech 14:9) In the Song of Songs, the young man describes his singularly peerless, inimitable, incomparable beloved: My dove, my perfect one, is unique [achat; fem.] (Song 6:9a) יָחַד - The Real Word for Unity When commentators declare (without making qualifications) that "echad means compound, composite unity," they haven't done thorough lexical study. For example, the standard Hebrew word to denote joining, unity or togetherness is yachad, not echad. He was King in Yeshurun, When the heads of the people were gathered, The tribes of Israel together [yachad]. (Deut 33:5) My heart is turned over within Me, All together [yachad] my compassions are kindled. (Hosea 11:8b) Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For brethren to dwell together in unity [gam yachad]! (Ps 133:1) In the Dead Sea Scrolls document The Community Rule (1QS, The Manual of Disciple), the group of priests and their disciples abiding at Qumran is called The Yachad: the Union, the Comm-Unity. This is the rule for the men of the Yachad… (5:1) …the Yachad of the eternal covenant (5:5) Whoever enters the council of the Yachad enters the covenant of God (5:7-8)
Weak apologetics, the Oneness position is unjustifiable historically. The New Testament authors clearly fell into what might be called a two powers theology, not a supposedly obviously basic monotheism resting on faulty concepts of unity and multiplicity.
While oneness believers reject the doctrine of the Trinity, they nevertheless accept the doctrine of Dual Nature. Is it logical to reject the idea that God is a Trinity of Persons, and yet maintain the key doctrine wich supports that idea? Of course not. Does the Bible explicitly teach anywhere that Jesus was comprised of two natures? The answer is: No, it does not. It must be inferred from the text in the same manner that the Trinity is inferred from the text by many. Oneness criticizes Trinitarians for building a doctrine out of proof texts, rather than hearing the whole, clear counsel of God, while on the other hand they are doing the exact same thing with respect to the regarding Dual Nature. Oneness are being hypocritical without even realizing it, holding Trinitarians to a higher standard than they are holding themselves to. Oneness basically follow the teachings of Sabellius, who was a third century North African Libyan Catholic who rejected the idea of the Holy Trinity. Subsequently he appears as a presbyter of Ptolemais, in Egypt. Sabellius was EXCOMMUNICATED by Pope Callistus I (c. 220). He was part of the Catholic church. The same way that on January 3, 1521, Pope Leo X issues the papal bull Decet Romanum Pontificem, which excommunicates Martin Luther from the Catholic church. Again, oneness follow the dual nature of Christ that is a catholic doctrine and on top of that you have church on Sunday because in the fourth century the Catholic and Emperor Constantine replaced the Sabbath with "DAY OF THE SUN", or Sunday and then accuse the Trinitarians of being pagans. Like I stated before oneness have been following Catholic doctrines and then they go around judging others when they do the same thing.
@@revamp6612. REVAMP, Jesus himself was the one who revealed or brought to us this revelation of the FATHER, the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT in Matthew 28:19. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED WHEN JESUS WAS BAPTIZED? What Jesus said previously was fulfilled and the FATHER, the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT WERE PRESENT. In Mark 1:10 it says: 10 And immediately, coming up from the water, HE SAW the heavens parting AND THE SPIRIT descending upon Him like a dove. 11 THEN A VOICE came from heaven, “YOU ARE MY BELOVED SON , in whom I am well pleased.” REVAMP, do you notice, here it doesn't say "I AM MY BELOVED SON " Or I'M THE FATHER). Instead it says: "YOU ARE MY SON". Jesus is not the FATHER, He is the Son sent by the FATHER.
@@revamp6612 REVAMP: Who is this GOD? Revelation 3:11-13 says: 11 Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown. 12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of MY GOD, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him THE NAME OF MY GOD and the name of the city of MY GOD, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from MY GOD. And I will write on him My new name. 13 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” ’ Jesus tells us the temple OF MY GOD, THE NAME OF MY GOD, THE NAME OF THE CITY OF MY GOD, THE HEAVEN OF MY GOD and my new name. In all this time Jesus is in heaven and is the only one God, but, who is this God who is Jesus referring to when he says "the TEMPLE, NAME, CITY and HEAVEN OF MY GOD" and his new name, as if saying the NAME OF MY GOD doesn't change but my name is going to be changed, the same as our names will be change with new names, and, all this happens while Jesus is in heaven. Again, remember according to Oneness, Jesus is the only one God or the Father but, now Jesus in heaven so "who is this other GOD that Jesus refers to in heaven?" Answer: THE FATHER. Again: Jesus said to Mary , “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My FATHER; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to MY FATHER and YOUR FATHER, and to MY GOD and YOUR GOD.’ ” (John 20:17) Jesus is not the FATHER.
@@msolav63 then please explain Isaiah 9:6 where Jesus shall be called "the mighty God, the everlasting Father..." Please explain John 14 where Philip asked Jesus to show us the Father...and Jesus says "have I been so long with you Philip and thou hast not known me" It doesn't get any clearer than that.
Notice the lack of biblical exegesis in Mr. Urshan’s response. The oneness position is derived and defended from proof texting and lot’s of explanation. Context is key to properly exegeting the scripture.
I'm sure you are familiar with the saying "a text without a context is a pretext for a proof text." I'm happy to provide context and bedrock Exegetical analysis. This is a perspective for those desiring s synopsis illustrating the profound corruption trinitarianism has force fed to Christianity. I'm happy to discuss it with you publicly or privately. It is high time the world knows the Catholic foundation of trinitarianism and the devastating effect it has had on true, original Christianity.
Melp, Pastor Urshan is correct. This Post Apostolic, Dark age doctrine is the invention of the Corrupt Roman Catholic religion. I once WAS a Catholic; But that was back when I was a 'child.'
Duet 32 39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. 40 For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever. After hearing a preacher mockingly say who was Jesus talking to when praying and looking towards heaven he said was he throwing his voice ? Being a ventriloquist ? I then read where God was on earth praising himself in heaven? Am I reading this right?
Not at all. To divide them and to create three is the blasphemy. To know Him and His redemptive manifestations toward mankind as the One, True, Living God is the highest honor (and the greatest commandment) in scripture. I do not blaspheme or deny the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Quite the contrary. I deny the Trinity.
Oneness doctrine does not square with scripture. Ultimately, this is the foundation on which the error of any theological opinion must be exposed. But while this is the decisive consideration in judging any theological opinion, it is not the only consideration. I want to tell you that the teachings of those Christian leaders who immediately succeeded the apostles were also very revealing on this matter. The reasoning here is simple: religious traditions take time to change. In fact, from the study of world religions we learn that religious traditions, once established, are among the most stable aspects of all human culture. They are inherently conservative and resistant to change. Therefore, it is safe to say that the apostles' teachings were not corrupted as you oneness claims. This assumption is especially justified in light of the fact that the early post-apostolic Fathers were consciously trying to preserve and protect the apostolic teachings. An examination of the teachings of the early post-apostolic Fathers, therefore, should provide us with very relevant information on this matter. Oneness Pentecostals affirm that the original apostolic teaching was that Jesus is the Farher, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Why, if the apostles taught this, it is practically inconceivable that Christian leaders in the next two generations would have failed, or could have failed, intentionally or not. Yet that is exactly what one must believe to accept the adherents' claim of oneness that they possess the "original" New Testament that supposedly denies the Trinity. But none of the early Apostolic Fathers came close to upholding the doctrine of oneness. In fact, what is perhaps even more damaging to oneness' views is that there is no trace that anyone argued for or against modalism until the second or early third century. Therefore, to accept the claim of oneness, one must accept that this doctrine was not only lost (or overthrown) within a generation or two after the apostolic church, but that this occurred without anyone noticing or raising a single voice against it. If this conclusion is unacceptable and it certainly is, this provides further proof that God's vision of oneness is wrong. A relatively review of what the first post-apostolic father taught is all that is required to show that they did not have the vision that today he professes oneness. Following the New Testament pattern, we never, nor they, call Jesus the "FATHER" but rather the Son. Neither the apostles nor do we say or imply that it was the FATHER who sent himself to the world. On the other hand, and again closely following the New Testament pattern, Jesus is called the "Son of God" dozens and dozens of times. Many more times in this literature he is called "Son of God", "The Word of God", "image of God" etc. etc. Furthermore, Jesus is mentioned with great frequency alongside with the FATHER and with the HOLY SPIRIT. So if identifying Jesus as the Father and the Holy Spirit was vitally important to the apostles, then apparently they did a wonderful job of hiding this fact from those they taught. Neither Peter, nor Paul or any other disciple. Neither Clement 1 from the year 95. Neither Ignatius from the year 110. Neither Polycarp disciple of John (from the year 70 - 155). Neither Justin from the year 100-165. Neither Athenagoras 133-190. None of the above were ONENESS. They upheld and preserved the teachings of the Faith entrusted to them without any alteration. If the Trinity had been incorporated into the Christian Faith there would have been great resistance against this alleged apostasy, which did not happen. On the contrary, there was much controversy when some believers attempted to propagate the new vision or heretical dogma of the oneness of God at the end of the second century. This is further proof that oneness does not go back to New Testament times. But we do not find any controversy of the trinitarianism of the first post-apostolic fathers. That is why, following the New Testament pattern, the only conclusion is that the original apostolic doctrine of God was not at all the same as what oneness groups now claim it to be.
The FATHER is not the only one that is mentioned in the bible. The SON and the HOLY SPIRIT are mentioned too. The Trinity is inevitable Oneness are Trinitarians!
I ask a little kid to tell me about how many God is this: God the Father God the Son God the Holy Spirit I am confident that he will say One God. But he said, there are three Gods. I said NO, they are only persons of God. Again he said, yes they are three Gods, no person there. I'm trying to put those three distinct or different persons of God into one God, but the child is right.
@@dyarigon9492 the child will be also correct if you ask him/her what persons are talking when Jesus is praying. The child will tell you that the 2nd & the 3rd person are talking because they are as we know it. The point is, God is not a God of confusion, the Bible is also inspired by the Almighty God!
You have an unjustified assumption on the meaning of what it means to be one. When Christ himself makes it clear the manner in which He and the Father are One. He does not say it is like Bruce Wayne and Batman are One. But that He and the Father are One as the Peter, John, etc. are One.
Your assumption is wrong. How'd ya like that? You must see multiple personages in a godhead, not the simple biblical idea of One! You deny the Greek Heis Theos One God In scripture, always when referring to God ,it means a numeral one, a sole cardinal one as in one person. Heis Isa masculine one, not hen; a one denoting composite or unity one. You can't find your people in the follow up centuries from the Bible century, there wasn't anyone preaching till Tertullian fully saying Trinitas and most of them were subordinationists.
Jesus what not a man. God is not a man. He is the fullness of the godhead bodily. Hebrew said a body has he prepared. Father is Abba creator. The body of Christ which we are filled us from the beginning. The Eternal Spirit does not have a body. We who have repented and take on God are growing into a son. Jesus lived our life as a example how to live. Every communication Jesus had with God was us speaking. God's word defy logic. The red sea defies logic. Jesus walking through walls defies logic. This life is a Faith walk. God is a spirit. Yes I believe in the oneness of God.
Wow he’s very very good Apostolic apologist he should team up with brother Bernard and tag team that trithiest Calvinist James White but maybe it’s to late for Mr White he already took the mark.
Biblical network. You oneness people have to twist the scriptures to get your erroneous beliefs. You never give Biblical answers, you always give your own erroneous opinions. Jesus wasn't submitting Himself to God when He said My God why have you forsaken Me, He was forsaken by God, God left Him. Which means Jesus died Spiritualy as well as physically. How do you answers these. Gen 1: 26. Acts 7: 56. Jn 17: 3. And who was Jesus pray to. Eph 1: 20. Rev 5: 1--8. Please answers these scriptures WITH the Bible, NOT with your own opinions, like you have just done.
Hi been in Pentecost for 34yrs presently under Pastor Urshan. Jesus Christ was according to the flesh and a representation of humanity, but he still God. We know this because Paul stated that God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit etc. In Matt he is spoken of as who? Emanuel being interpreted as God with us. See God manifest himself as spirit or as we envision the father that created heaven and earth, manifested himself as flesh in Jesus Christ again still God! Then represents himself as his own agent to his own church, but it's still almighty God manifesting himself. Is9:6 describes him as the son that was born, the child that was given. But see here.,. He shall be called wonderful, counselor, The mighty God, the everlasting father the prince of peace! See so... All God all flesh.
Who was the Father of Jesus? The Bible says that the Holy Ghost over shadowed Mary. The Holy Ghost is the same as the Father. Notice how Isaiah tells us of the identity of Jesus. Isaiah 9:6 KJVS [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, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. How is it that Jesus would be called the everlasting Father?
@@timc5922 Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, LIKE UNTO ME; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, [that] every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Acts 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A PROPHET SHALL THE LORD YOU GOD RAISE UP UNTO YOU OF YOUR BRETHREN, LIKE UNTO ME; him shall ye hear. They say how can Jesus be the Father when he is the son of the Father? Answer in the same way Jesus is God and a prophet of God. How can Jesus be a Prophet of God and be that same God who sends the Prophet? John 20:28 / Acts 7:37 Rev 22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and *the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel* to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done. Rev 22:16 *I Jesus have sent mine angel* to testify unto you these things in the churches. *I am the root and the offspring of David* and the bright and morning star. The sender of the angel is identified as the Lord God of the Holy Prophets which 10 verses later is Jesus!! This is the same Jesus who is identified as a prophet in Acts 7:37
Putting aside the fact that you are utterly butchering Isaiah 9:6, or at least that version of it, I don’t even accept that translation of it. The Septuagint has completely different rendering. For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him
I was raised believing trinitarian and am a new oneness believer, baptized correctly 4/19/21. I appreciate your hard work to explain this! Loved visiting your church too!
When someone who still believes trinitarian hears this, what are some arguments they make against you to say your wrong?
Same here, I was raised trinitarian but God showed me truth, and I’m now a Oneness Apostolic. I was baptized the correct way 7/23/20
My grandfather was a theologian of the trinitarian belief for many years until he finally was shown the truth in a conversation like this that lasted several days. God finally showed him the revelation, and it changed the direction of my family forever! Thank God for truth!
@@Malvear1825 Praise God! I am very thankful for the Truth. My grandparents were pastors, but they was of the Trinitarian faith, and when I was revealed truth it opened to me a lot. But I am a 1st generation Oneness Apostolic.
Welcome to the truth. Yahweh says in Isaiah 44 that He is the first and last. Jesus in Revelation says He is first and last. There can’t be two first and last. Yahweh = Jesus
Thank you for taking the time and care to respond to my friend cody’s questions. We have had quite a few discussions on this topic. Your kind and apostolic perspective is very appreciated brother.
How do you explain John 17:5 within the first explanation of Cody’s first question… who is speaking in John 17:5? The humanity of Jesus?
Let me pass on some good books .
Ross Drysdales IF YE KNOW THESE THINGS ( complete rebuttal of Gregory Boyds attack against Oneness called Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity.
Delroy Gayles's OUR ROOTS After the Way Called Heresy.
Dr. Clinton Willis Countering Trinitarian Arguments, APOSTOLIC CATHECHISM, ANCIENT CREEDS and some others. Jason Weatherly 's Baptism in Jesus name 10th Anniversary edition, Larry J Tate The Weakness of the Trinity,Insights into Oneness, Jerry Hayes Godhead Theology , The Godhead Discussion ( hard to come by) and he has some written debates against Trinies ,Arian/Unitarian.
Thank you. This is one of the best presentations I’ve heard on ‘oneness.’ Among other things, I appreciate the kind, respectful, and professional presentation. This will help in my search for Biblical understanding.
Though I never believed in the Trinity (though raised Catholic, never really knew what it was) I only believed that God was God (one). Several months after being Acts 2:38 born again, I was reading the gospel of John and it was like a thunderbolt struck me! HALLELUJAH!!!! As Nancy Grandquist so beautifully sang, "Our God is ONE!
And this is different from the Trinity how?? The Trinity states one God.
@@sidtom2741 This link is easier for you to listen to than there is space for a dialogue between us. th-cam.com/video/-tLEuEoz2M0/w-d-xo.html Oneness: A Response to a Trinitarian.
Keep an open spirit. I hope this helps your further knowledge how God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, II Cor. 5:19.
@@sidtom2741 They state one God …..in three persons. That’s the difference.
@@juniormazariego9701 three persons within God. God is still one. I’m not seeing where the discrepancy lies, nor do I see where a Trinity is disproved
@@sidtom2741 ONE GOD----ONE ETERNAL, ALMIGHTY HOLY SPIRIT,
ONE GOD AND FATHER.
Jesus is NOT the HOLY SPIRIT;
AND;
Jesus is NOT the, FATHER.
With respect.
Pray for those who still need the revelation of the oness of God.
@ranospiteri5776and that name is YESHUA.
@ranospiteri5776The word name is singular. The original Greek word recorded is also the singular word for name in Matthew 28:19. That means that there is one name of the father son and Holy Ghost. Peter was there to hear Jesus say that, and he understood that Jesus was talking about Jesus being the name of the father son and holy spirit, which is why Peter and several other apostles baptized in the name of Jesus on the Book of Acts.
Amen, please pray for me so that I might see the revelation of the oneness of God . Tho I believe that God is One.
The name Jesus has only been around the last 400 years. The early New Testament Believers knew Messiah as Yeshua...The letter J is not in the Hebrew alphabet. The original Biblical accurate Aramaic Hebraic Name is Yeshua...Jesus is the translation of Greek Zeus ... Early Christians were baptized in Yeshua’s Name ❤Just dialoguing
@@maryhelencampos9964 Wrong. You are listening to false teaching. He was never called Yeshua. The Greek text says Iesou translated as Jesus. Also Jesus says He has the Father’s name.., John 17:11 NIV
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.
His name is YHVH
This is true teaching! Thanks for standing on the Word of God! Keep teaching and preaching.
I was at a church this man said God is three persons and all of a sudden I felt in my spirit strongly it was wrong. I was raised trinity I was shocked the the lord lead me to Isaiah 9:6 that woke me up! Then I asked God are you three in one or one That day I got my new Bible in the mail opened my Bible and the verse our lord God is one. What a wake up call. He is three in one Gods power full run in Jesus and Holy Spirit
Keep reading keep searching keep praying everything you need to know is right there in your Bible and prayer most people don’t read or study and they will accept anything ignorantly or just lazy ?
Trust the leading of the Spirit. He’ll reveal Himself to you and any other person who wants to know the truth Deut. 6:4
Yolanda Young:
A) Trinitarians believe in ONE GOD THREE PERSONS or TRINITY of PERSONS.
B) Oneness believe in ONE God THREE MODES or Trinity of Modes.
Oneness are Trinitarians!
The Trinity is inevitable!
Yolanda Young: The Bible mentions the word "PERSON" in comparison with God. Jesus is the image just like we're also the Image of God in a moral, spiritual, and intellectual nature (Gen 1:27).
In Hebrews 1:3 it says:
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 at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
Within a theological context, PERSON does not necessary refer to someone who possesses a physical body. Rather, a "PERSON" refers to an identity and set of characteristics that are unique when compared to none persons. The image of God is the most significant delineating factor which distinguishes man from physical creatures, and it's endows him with the confluence of qualities that is specific only to persons, namely, a mental faculty which possesses volition, logic, abstract thought, moral agency, self awareness, rationality, and emotive expressions. We may appropriately summarize these qualities as those that belong to a subject who is capable of love.
Let me ask you, did Jesus have a body? Of course.
Now is a donkey a person? Of course not, it is an animal but, still a donkey also has a body. So to be a person you necessarily need a body? Of course NOT, because if that was the case a donkey would be a person.
I know that you reject the word PERSON but wasn't Jesus a PERSON like you and I? The answer is: yes, of course. So we would have to conclude that Jesus is DIVINE and also a PERSON or a man. There is no problem to use the word PERSON nor there is no problem in using the word as first PERSON, second PERSON or third PERSON. To say that there are "three Persons in the Godhead" has never been taken to mean that there are" three separate people who are God
Yolanda oneness "MODES OF EXISTENCE" have the same attributes as "PERSONS". All Oneness do is change the word "Person" to "mode of existence" and
then try to argue against the word "Person".
Beside, "modes of existence" is not biblical terminology.
The Trinity is inevitable!
God is spirit (father) Holy Spirit was not in man form . Jesus was in man form on Earth.
Great job! I am passionate about Oneness. Because I was deceived for so long. And I believed it with all that’s in me. I was baptized 4 years ago. If God can unwrap my mind from deception I believe He can do it for anyone. I still remember the service my pastor preached when the lightbulb of One God came on in my mind. It was so revelatory. I knew then it was right!
That name is Jesus. Peter declared the great commission in Acts 2, even on the birthday of the church. The great commission had to be first preached before it is practiced. If it was not preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost, then when was it preached, and if it was preached on the day of Pentecost, then was it preached in Acts 2:38?
@@dgreenja that is not what Peter was talking about. That statement is reading into scripture.
Your explanation of persons being corrupt is misleading. It assumes the Bible was written in English. Persons when used to describe God is referring to A unity of One as in the Hebrew word Echad. Persons is not corrupted. Early church Fathers as well as many early Hebrew teachers when speaking on God in the Old Testament understood Him to be One in Unity not one singular as oneness likes to claim. Oneness did not even come until around 1913. While there were people in early church it was not called oneness. Around 215 A.D. it was known as Sabellianism a heresy then. Reintroduced as oneness still a heresy.
What was Peter talking about?
@@glennhudson4827 you do err. The Hebrew word echad can be one singular or unity. In the Hebrew when the verb or noun are singular then it would mean one numerically. In Genesis it is in fact one numerically, not a unity. Also oneness is taught in the OT, and NT, and hardly started in 1913. Polycarp a student of the Apostle John taught One God not a trinity. Every part of your comment is misinformation.
I've just read Psalm 78 before watching all of this video and some things that you've mention makes reference to verse 39 and even 41 especially. However, I don't think it's a coincidence that I'm watching this after reading that passage of scripture in my Bible reading tonight as what you've mentioned throughout this episode is linked to that chapter. God bless you, I love the Biblios Network! I am a Oneness believer 🙏🏾
People that are truly seeking God heart, he will answer, I asked God a question, before I knew the truth, and the question was, the old Baptist way God come into my heart etc, then I look up towards God and said lord how do I know, I didn't feel anything, I year later I went to a Bible study to prove them wrong, hubris that we are, but when I got there I asked God if there's something to see I want to see it, 2 hours later I was baptized in Jesus name, and by the next Saturday, I got the holy Ghost speaking in tongues as God gave the utterance, and it's been 30 years and God is still here, even through my ups and downs, God bless and keep you in Jesus name sister
@@colonialroofingofnorthcaro441 Amen, thank you for sharing that! So true, keep on believing the truth brother! God bless you, I'll be praying for you as well :)
@ranospiteri5776 But that is NOT a trinitarian formula, like some
people think, my friend!
@rano spiteri Let’s look at this verse in context. Jesus spent 40 days teaching the disciples and this verse was part of that teaching. See Acts 1. So it is no doubt in my mind that the disciples did exactly what Jesus said in Acts 2:38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
All baptisms were in Jesus name in Bible. They truly baptized in the NAME the one name of God- Jesus.
Acts 4:12 says there is salvation in no other name, I Peter 3:21 claim’s baptism that doth now save us.
I could go on because I am a person that was baptized in the titles and in the name Jesus. I promise it’s a whole new ballgame. Pray with an open mind to God and I promise He will show you too!
@ranospiteri5776, They did baptize following JESUS's command, they baptized in Jesus name, for it is the only saving name whereby men must be saved. Whatever you do in word or deed, do it in his name.
Acts 2:38, 8:16,10:48,19:5 all show they understood his words.
Further, there are scholars that look at Eusebius writing in his works and prior to Nicea Council in 325 he quoted that without baptism or the titles F,S,HS. After Nicea he included the form from Matthew 28:19 as we have.
There is a book #17 by Kulwant Singh Boora a converted Sikh called BAPTISM IN JESUS BANE A Compendium for references and quotes from Scholars, Historians, Writers that I clauses 625+ quites showing baptism was originally done in Jesus name.
i.e. Schwartz hands 2007 the Christian Church biblical origins historical transformation and potential for the future Minneapolis fortress press page 69
"Are consideration of the New Testament Church and its worship would be incomplete if we would not at least touch briefly upon baptism the right that initiates one and two the Christian community there is no doubt that the First Christian community demanded a baptism 'in the name of Jesus Christ'(Acts 2:38) for the forgiveness of sins."
I've always tried to explain this, but couldn't put it into words. This is exactly how the Lord showed me...🙌📖🕊🔥Awesome God, my Saviour.
Rev. N. Urshan is a Genuine Man of God...Thank you so much Rev. Urshan for helping others understand the Oneness of God..
Brother, this is an outstanding video. It's educational, easy to understand, and easy to listen to. I love the calm tone.
@rano spiteri beautiful verse but so misunderstood by the ignorant because they don't read the rest... for example, verses 18-20
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, 'ALL POWER' is given unto 'ME' in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 'NAME' of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever 'I' have commanded you: and, lo, 'I' am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
And Luke 24.46-47, also the words of Jesus
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved 'CHRIST' [Jesus] to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached 'IN HIS NAME' [Jesus the Christ] among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
And the fulfillment of both Matthew 28:18-20 and Luke 24:46-47 is 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.
So obvious but it flies over the heads of the blind. 😔
@@slonekettering7447 Amen! And there are about a dozen MORE
Scriptures that illustrate a SINGULAR Text, such as; "In the name ( Sin-
gular) of Jesus." Or, "In the NAME ( Singular) of Jesus Christ."
No other verse is FOUND within Scripture that reads the way MATT.
28:19, which demonstrates a curious inconsistency.
@@raygsbrelcik5578 Yes, a very curious inconsistency indeed.
A word of wisdom, thank you I appreciate it and it's always a blessing to hear God's word being discussed. The truth shall set you free! 👍
Love Biblos. So grateful to God for the revelation of one God. "Go and preach the gospel..."
Really enjoyed that revelation Bro Urshan God Bless You!
God bless you for so articulately explaining what He revealed to me. To Him be the glory!
The word Trinity doesn’t appear in the Bible. The term “Holy One” is used over 50 times in scripture. Mark 12:29 “And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord” Also, see Deuteronomy 6:4. John 17:17 “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”
I am oneness the truth is in the Word💜
The word omniscient doesn’t appear in the Bible… should Bro. Urshan be told not to use it?
Oh… the concept is in the Bible just not the actual word. Like the concept of Trinity is shown throughout the Old and New Testaments even though the word isn’t there.
Amen Bro, great, great, God is ONE
Thoroughly enjoyed this! Thank you for sharing!
Praise God! What was the song in the into!? So good
I was there, it’s my home and you was a blessing Sunday night of CM.
Very enjoyable talk it was calming voice
Yes Sir! Preach it Pastor!
How can a God give all power to another God? Did the one God not have power? There is only one Almighty God.
hargis----Jesus did not "Pre-exist," except in the PLAN of GOD; In other
words----in the MIND of GOD.
ROM.4:17, Gives us a subtle hint concerning this;
"HE ( GOD) calls things that are NOT, as though they WERE.."
This is called, "The Prophetic Word of GOD."
HE speaks of things to come, but Prophetic, Biblical Linguistics,
make these Prophecies appear to have already occurred.
There are over 100 O.T., Prophecies concerning the, "Coming Messiah."
Which means----he hadn't COME yet! Not until he was, "Born of the vir-
gin Mary," was he LITERALLY among us.
With respect.
All power was given to the resurrected man Christ Jesus. He walked among us and conquered everything pertaining to men and ultimately death in the flesh as a man. God came in flesh by Jesus Christ to conquer things pertaining to the flesh- humanity. He the son, must reign until all things are put under his feet. That’s what our salvation is all about; Jesus Christ conquering every enemy of humankind. The last enemy to be destroyed for every man is death. We would have no salvation outside of God positioning Himself as a man. The fulness of God, the eternal Spirit inhabited Jesus Christ the man and He conquered everything and is conquering everything pertaining to the flesh.
@@raygsbrelcik5578 I know that.
@@mebonweb578I know all this. Preaching to the choir.
How would I go about asking a question for y’all to consider?
In praying in the Garden at the Rock of Agony, Jesus was setting an example for humanity of how to pray to the Deity.
Glory ❤️🔥🙌🙏🏻
My God and your God.... Is also a question that must be answered.
Jesus as the humanity of the Deity continued to impress upon men until the end that the son of God for our example had to demonstrate submission to the Father in heaven. But the fact remains that there is only one Father--Mal. --2:10---- and Jesus is that Father.
Nicely done.
In Matthew 28:19, the risen Lord Jesus said to his disciples, "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth...."
All power means only he has power, all power.
His Father gave Jesus all power
But…how many do not see….the power was GIVEN to him..
Math. 28:18.
Blessing! Can you and your wife talk about the head covering? Thank you.
Yes, you right we can interact with our spirit just as the Psalmist did in Psalm 42 and the rich man of the Luke 12 parable. The flesh interacts with the spirit.
But how can we explain Romans8:26-27 that says the holy spirit intercedes for us to God(the Father)?
God the Father became his own Son. Any limitations on Christ were self imposed limitations because he's to glorify the Father's name, to manifest and declare the Father's name.
Will....with respect, your Theology doesn't make sense! FATHER does
Not, "Become SON," no more than Son becomes GOD. GOD the FATHER
Has always BEEN the, "FATHER of Creation," and, according to Scripture,
Jesus was, "Born of a woman---born under the Law."
GAL.4:4--7.
@Ray Gsbrelcik according to scripture, how many Gods are there?
Was the Father in Christ or another?
Was God himself manifest in the flesh or someone else?
@@Post-Trib Greetings. According to Clear Cut Scripture, there is
not only ONE literal, Almighty GOD----There is but ONE, Eternal HOLY
SPIRIT.
DEUT.6:4.
ZECH.14:9.
MARK 12:29.
1 TIM.2:5.
ROM.3:30.
1 COR.8:4.
EPH.4:6.
1 COR.8:6.
1 COR.12:13, Which also teaches us that HE is, SPIRIT.
JOHN 4:24, Makes it Crystal Clear----GOD the FATHER is...SPIRIT.
And Obviously...HE'S HOLY!
Jesus is neither the FATHER, nor the HOLY SPIRIT, therefore, he is
NOT GOD----Obviously.
One GOD and FATHER, Who IS that ONE and Only HOLY SPIRIT.
And the Word, "Manifest" simply means, GOD the FATHER, "Showed
Forth," HIS Righteous "Nature," within HIS Son; It doesn't mean Jesus
IS, or, BECAME GOD.
Did that help?
@@Post-Trib Let me ask YOU, my friend;
Is Jesus an ETERNAL SPIRIT?
AND;
If GOD the FATHER isn't, HOLY, or isn't SPIRIT....Then just WHAT IS HE,
if I may ask?
With respect.
@@Post-Trib We, as Christians, are ALSO called to be those who,
Manifest the "Nature of GOD," through Christ---'it doesn't mean WE are
GOD. Do you follow?
Just now jumping into this and wooow! Does anybody know what that song is on the intro?
If you found it let me know!!
🌅Let me share a testimony of the vision of God I saw that reveals a Light on the Wisdom of God in a mystery concerning God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. 📖 1 Corinthians 2:7 | Acts 2:17 | Numbers 12:6
📜 Within few days after I received the justification of God and the New Birth, the LORD gave me a vision of Himself. While praying in the middle of the morning in that certain day, suddenly I was caught up in a trance, and being in the spirit, I saw myself in Heaven kneeling before God. A typical picture of a man kneeling on his knees with his hands on his breast and bowing down his head. Above in front of me were God the Father and the Lord Jesus who was on His right hand side. There was One at the left of the Father, but I cannot tell you at this momemt. Let it be for an appointed time. All three of them were sitting on their pure white Thrones side by side. They were pure white all together and have shining pure white diamond crowns on their heads. They were in their "shekinah glory" of excellent and majestic purity. Their faces were as the sun shining on its might at noontime of a perfect day, that what I could see only on their faces were a line of their chins. But, it was so obvious that as they looked at me, they were smiling in a great delight. They were in dazzling pure white clothing from neck down to their feet. Then I saw just below them and in between us, the Holy Spirit in the shape of a dove formed out of a shining pure white light spreading its wings just above me. Rays of white light emanates from Him towards me and all around Him. I am also in pure white all the way from head to feet and in pure white clothing. The whole scenario was in pure white that shines. There was a pure white angel who was steadily flying horizontally, rejoicing and blowing a trumpet on the middle right side.
📜 Then God the Father, the One on the left of the Father, and the Lord Jesus raised their right hands one by one towards me and said something, which I cannot tell you at this time.
📜 The place, the Heaven, was so glorious, white and full of peace and harmony. I could feel happiness and joy everywhere. I did not see a tint or spot of any color in the whole scenario of shining pure white.
🕊 I hope this testimony may give more Light of understanding concerning our God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit being God as "One", but of "separate" persons.
📖 You may refer to the following scriptures that support this revelation and testimony, though there are a lot more in the Bible:
💎 The Lord Jesus Christ "Sitting" on the "Right Hand" of God His Father
📖 Colossians 3:1 | Hebrews 1:1-4, 13 | Hebrews 10:10-12 | Hebrews 12:2 | Matthew 26:63-64 | Ephesians 1:20 | Hebrews 8:1
💎 The LORD God as the "Father" of the Lord Jesus Christ
📖 Ephesians 1:3, 17 | Ephesians 3:14 | Hebrews 1:5, 8 | Hebrews 5:5, 8 | Colossians 1:3
💎 The Lord Jesus Christ "Calling" the "LORD God" His "Father"
📖 Matthew 11:25-27 | Matthew 16:16-17, 27 | Matthew 18:19, 35 | Matthew 24:36 | Matthew 26:29, 39, 42
💎 The LORD God "Calling" the Lord Jesus Christ "His Son"
📖 Matthew 3:17, 17:5 | Hebrews 1:5 | 2 Peter 1:17
💎 The Lord Jesus Christ as the "Son of God"
📖 Matthew 26:63-64 | Matthew 27:54 | Colossians 1:12-19 | Hebrews 1:8 | Hebrews 4:14 | Hebrews 5:5, 8
💎 God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ Being "Two Distinct Persons"
📖 Ephesians 6:23 | Philippians 1:2 | Philippians 2:11 | Colossians 1:2 | 1 Thessalonians 1:1-3 | 1 Thessalonians 3:11 | 2 Thessalonians 1:1-2 | 2 Thessalonians 2:16 | 1 Timothy 1:1-2 | 1 Timothy 5:21 | 1 Timothy 6:13 | 2 Timothy 1:2 | 2 Timothy 4:1 | Titus 1:4 | Titus 2:13 | Philemon 1:3
💎 The Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God being a "Separate Person of God"
📖 Matthew 3:16-17 | Mark 1:10-12 | John 1:32 | Luke 1:35 | John 14:16-17, 26 | John 15:26 | Acts 2:4 | 1 John 5:7 | Genesis 1:2
☝To God be the Glory and Honor alone. May the Blessings, Graces and Peace of the LORD our God be to all who read this testimony. In the Name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen. 🙏📖👑🏅🎺✨🕊
One major problem, "Glory." The HOLY SPIRIT is not "Separate," or, dis-
tinct FROM the FATHER. Scripture clearly reveals, GOD the FATHER is
"SPIRIT," Therefore, HE'S Eternal SPIRIT ( JOHN 4:24).
If GOD the FATHER isn't HOLY, then, is HE, UNholy?
If HE isn't SPIRIT--- then just what IS HE??
Hmmm....
@@raygsbrelcik5578 The verse you refer to, that God is a Spirit, means the 'Being and Nature' of God as Spirit, whether He is the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit. Like a man, who is human or physical in 'being and nature', whether he is a father, a wife, a son or a daughter. 🕊
@@glory1ministries734 "BEING" refers to GOD'S Essence, which is
SPIRIT. Scripture makes that Obvious. This is why HE dwells in the
HEAVENLY, or, SPIRIT Realms.
"NATURE," on the other hand, is a reference to the Righteous Character
of GOD, i.e., HIS Holiness, Mercy, Grace, Long-suffering loving kind-
Ness, etc.
Jesus, on the other hand, was, "Born of a woman...born under the
Law."
MATT.4:1-11.
@@raygsbrelcik5578 The Nature of God is not limited to character only, but in the 'wholeness of Life' as a 'DIVINE Spirit Being'. Like a nature of man which is not limited to character, but in the 'wholeness of life' as a 'MORTAL human being'.
The Body of Christ are sons and daughters of God by ‘regeneration’. The Lord Jesus is a Son of God by “directly proceeding” from the “bosom” of the Father, and not by regeneration.
In coming into this world, He had to be conceived in the virgin’s womb to be ‘normally’ became ‘human in body’, instead of an immortal glorious spiritual body, but in the Spirit and Life, He is purely “God or Divine”. He was conceived by the Power of the Holy Ghost so that His body should not be that of the ‘fallen one’ as that of all mankind after the ‘Fall’, that is destined to return to dust. Instead, His human body was “sown” in the virgin’s womb by the Holy Ghost, and at the same time the “Holy Life of the Son of God” came into it at the moment of conception. This Life that has the “Being and Nature of God” directly proceeded from the “bosom” of the LORD, wherein ‘no created being’ could had been or ever be.
The body of the Lord Jesus while on earth was “holy” like that of Adam before the ‘Fall’ who knew no sin. He was even the “Lord from Heaven” clothed in human body, but “Holy and of God”. Though, His body is Holy, yet it is ‘subject’ to death, infirmities, afflictions and temptations as that of all mankind. Therefore, it made the Lord Jesus a “perfect” offering: blameless, spotless and unblemished Lamb of God for the “atonement” of sin of the ‘fallen’ mankind. This also made Him “resurrected” in the ‘same’ body and glorified. His death on the Cross ‘opened the door’ for the ‘fallen soul’ of man, which is destined to ‘eternal death’, to receive “eternal Life” through Him instead.
Titus 3:5 | Matthew 19:28 | John 1:18 | Matthew 1:20-21 | Luke 1:26-35 | 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 | Hebrews 9:14-15 | Romans 5:8-12, 21, 6:23 | 1 John 5:11-13 | John 3:15-16 | 1 Corinthians 15:47 | Philippians 2:6-8
@@glory1ministries734 Again---within Scripture, "Nature," does NOT
refer to "SPIRIT," or, "ESSENSE," in ANY way. NOWHERE in any Text, is
Christ referred to as, "Spirit," in fact----When Jesus was asked if he was
a, "SPIRIT ( after his resurrection)," what was his reply?
"Does a Spirit have FLESH and bone, as you see I have?"
This immediately illuminates Jesus as...GOD!
PLUS;
On the cross, as he was dying...what did he cry out?
"MY GOD, MY GOD----Why hast THOU forsaken me...?"
THINK!
Is this something Almighty GOD would exclaim....to HIMSELF??
I think NOT, my friend!
Jesus flat out declares, in JOHN 20:17, that HE has the very same GOD,
and FATHER as you and ME.
That, my friend, pretty much seals the deal.
With respect.
I have to disagree with you brother Urshan. There is no dialogue between the father and son, there is a monologue as an example prayers from the Son to the Father or the father making an announcement about his son but there is no discussion , no dialogue. The Oneness position is more correct when it says not my will but thine be done so if there's two wills in God then you have some contradiction there can be the will of the man Christ and the will of God the Father,but two wills or three in God is triadic.
This shows u r just a blind man to what trinitarian believes. Whatever u talked is just heretical. First try to understand what trinitarian believes and then make video. In OT period itself, Jews belived in 2 powers in heaven and in the memrah of God, so don't mislead people.
There might have been few Jews who believed in more than one divine power in Heaven, but by and large, the Jews believed in only one power in Heaven. Isaiah 44:6, 8; 45:6.
@@dgreenja Ya just like Jews did not believe in Jesus too. 🤦
I know what Trinitarianism teaches. Each version of it. Which version do you mean? Are you referring to the 325 Nicaean Council's version or 381 Constantinople? Or do you refer to the Filioque version of 0f 1014 that split the Eastern and Western churches? There are multiple versions of the Trinity over the ages and each of them claim different things. That is part of why it is a false doctrine.
@@pastorurshan It's good you know all of it but try to understand also, it will be even better. It's all about what our Bible says.
🙂Thank you for your reply. Two things:
1. Trinitarians through the ages state that the Trinity cannot ultimately be understood. It must be accepted in faith. By their own words it is impossible to understand how 1 can equal 3.
2. If it as you say “It’s all about what our Bible says” I couldn’t agree more. That’s actually why we don’t believe the Trinity. In all of scripture it was never used. No apostle taught it. Jesus never referred to it. It didn’t exist in its final form until hundreds of years after the apostles. If you can find any reference to the Trinity in scripture I’m happy to hear about it.
God is a relational Being within Himself rather than a family of individuals. Thus being spirit and soul, God can speak with Himself. In Gen. 8:21, we see God saying to, or within His heart.
At 7:45 you claim a separation between the Father and the Son, just to let you know that such a claim is completely contrary to the Trinitarian creeds, which talk about the Father and Sonb being distinct but not separate (i.e. 4th point of Athanasian Creed - not dividing the subsstance). As you used the word distinct just before this statement, I wonder if you think that these terms - distinct and separate are interchangeable in Trinitarian theology - they are not.
If baptism is in Jesus name only? Who’s name did John the Baptist baptize?
John baptized unto repentance. Not unto salvation
If your really hungry for truth and not religion listen to this whole thing
“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, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6).
Firstly, the central theme of this passage is “peace.” This is clear by the fact that Isaiah is here speaking of God’s government, which is said to rest upon the messiah’s shoulder. Both shoulders are needed for a shepherd to carry a lamb, however so secure is Christ’s Kingdom that figuratively, he’s said to carry it on only one shoulder. Thus Isaiah 9:6 lists several names, all of which state the same thing about the Son, albeit in slightly different ways. Specifically that he is “the wonderful counsellor,” because a counsellor mediates peace between opposing parties. He is also the “Prince of Peace,” because He brings peace to God’s Kingdom. He is also “the Everlasting Father” because He is the originator (Father) of this peace, which being eternal, won’t end. Finally the Messiah is also the “Mighty God,” because such a true and lasting peace can only be accomplished by the power of Yahweh God himself.
Secondly, some have attempted to read ‘God the Father’ into the actual text of Isaiah 9:6. But the word for ‘God’ or (El) in the Hebrew, is missing here, which is why we don’t read; ‘God the Father,’ but instead read ‘the Father of eternity.’
Thirdly, ‘Father of eternity’ is actually a Hebrew construct. This is a combination of a noun and an adjective, where the noun ‘Father’ means either the originator, or more commonly the possessor of something, that the adjective describes an attribute. As an example of a few Hebrew constructs; ‘abi-asaph’ (2nd Samuel 23:21), literally reads the ‘father of strength,’ and means a strong man. ‘Abi-tub’ (1st Chronicles 8:8-11), literally reads, ‘the father of goodness’ and means one who is good. ‘Abi-el’ (1st Samuel 9:1) means the ‘father of God’, and so implies that he was a Godly man.
Fourthly, the term “prince” and its resulting titles in Isaiah 9:6, including the phrase “the Prince of Peace,” cannot be applied to God the Father. I make this claim, since it is only the Son of God, and never God the Father, who is called a “prince” in the Bible, and who secondly was killed; “and killed the prince of life” (Acts 3:15).
Fifthly, Oneness folk don’t regard the word “Father” as a proper name, but as a title. One can respond to this claim by pointing out that in the Lord’s prayer, the Father is still addressed as “Father,” and that the Greek word “name,” (onoma) is directly applied to the Father; “Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.” (Luke 11:2).
Finally, Oneness Pentecostals might try to counter these arguments by quoting Luke 1:35; “that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.” They’ll misquote this verse claiming that the Jesus was made (created as) the Son at his birth. But the text actually uses the word “called,” instead of the word “created.” So the human body inside Mary’s womb was indeed created, but the Son who was sent into the world from outside of it (John 16:28, 1st John 4:9-10, 14) is eternal and uncreated.
There is only one Father, is there not according to Mal. 2:20? Also, the term "son" is the terminology of time, not of eternity. The word of God came to be the son at Bethlehem's manger.
Amen!!
I love my oneness brothers and sisters as my family and i attend a oneness apostolic church however there will never be clear understanding on Hebrews 6:2 emphasizes "baptisms" meaning there is the father son holy Spirit version and the Jesus only in addition to the fact that Matthew 28:19 are the words of Jesus
I hope you guys don’t mind me asking. Have Oneness views helped at all when discussing the gospel with Jews and Muslims, from your experience? I’m sure that Jesus being God is still a stumbling block, but I’m curious if the removal of the Trinity helps them to consider it in a way that they wouldn’t have otherwise.
Blessings!
16:30 you state that God indwells millions of Christians (today). Yet at John 14:23 the first person plural "we will come to him" states that both the Father and also the Son (plural) will indwell millions of Christians from Pentecost onwards.
So grand we have oneness like you to set us straight, after 2000 years of our error. Too bad the Holy Spirit let the church go into complete error just like Jesus said He wouldn’t.
Over those 2000 years, you know? As if there was solidarity in that time.😂
Well, with the Inquisitions and the jesuits, not many dissenters survived.
@@kevinconnelly6075 Not many dissenting, or least the ones that matter for Oneness theology to be true. There is no Oneness church hailing from the time of the Apostles. There is no Oneness church in Ad 700, Ad 1110, etc. Modalism was completely prevailed against for centuries.
@@whist5618 Sabellians were the majority. Tertullian is on record as acknowledging that. You don't know that?
@@whist5618 Monarchians, Patripassionists and Sabellians were all Oneness advocates from the earliest of times. How can you say there were none? That the Catholic Church killed them and they were martyred doesn't mean they didn't exist.
I'm a oneness Pentecostals and lemme also prove the oneness of God as a oneness believer
In Matthew 12:31-32 ;Mark 3:28-30 ;Luke 12:8-10
(Read the passage for more understanding)
Jesus said to the Pharisees that "blasphemy against the son of man is forgivable but blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is unforgivable" So this is the replied of Jesus to the pharisees when they said jesus had "demon" in him and Jesus knowing that he have the "holy spirit" in him said the verse i quoted. So for a trinitrian point of view its hard to understand why jesus said blasphemy against the holy Ghost/holy spirit is unforgivable while the holy Ghost is understood as the third person in the God head and why didn't Jesus mention the "father" or "him(the second person in the trinity)"? This leads to misunderstanding of this verse and misinterpreted as blasphemy against the holy spirit means not able to turn back to God or able to change our minds till we die but If you think as a oneness you'll get a pretty clear understanding of the passage that God is spirit and the spirit of God dwells in him manifested in the flesh and the Pharisees accused the divinity/the spirit of God is a "demon" and that's a big insult to our God almighty and still Jesus humbly said blasphemy against the son of man(his human nature) is forgivable.
We should know what Jesus come for and here's one more explaination;
Just think God as a King who wanted to change something in his empire and came to live with the people/peasants to teach how to respect the king(himself) but as he came as someone disguise as not the King he had to pray and deny himself as the King for he come not to as a king but a humble person to show the people the way to live. Same goes to Jesus manifestation.
And once more there's this thing that the trinitrian mostly used in arguements "how can Jesus interact with himself if God is he and God only one person?" And i wanna say to them by saying or asking that they reject the power of God (omnipotent:present everywhere) and we could see that Jesus knew about Nathanael under a fig tree without going there physically, And jesus knew about the 5 husband of the Samaritan woman, and much more.
(LASTLY I'M NOT GOOD AT ENGLISH BECAUSE IT'S NOT MY FIRST LANGUAGE AND I HOPE Y'ALL CAN READ WHAT I WROTE AND I HAVE MUCH MORE TO PROVE THE ONENESS OF GOD)
Excellent explanation
17:18 you claim that God meaning the Father was manifested in flesh, but the text says that it was the Son who was given (i.e. to be incarnated in the future). I have something of mine saved on Isaiah 9:6, I will see if I can find it.
ABI AD means father of everlastingness. He is the source of eternal life. It doesn’t mean the father of the godhead I don’t know why he said that.
Amen Jesus even said if you don’t believe he’s the Father you’ll die in your sins
John 8:19-27
Brother there is never dialogue or conversation between the father and the son. It is only monologue.
40:18 You misquote those baptismal verses, you said that every verse states that they were baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, err no they don't: The exact wordings and even the Greek prepositions differ widely between these so called Oneness baptismal proof texts found at Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19.
At Acts 2:38 we read “in (ἐπὶ epi) the name Jesus Christ,”
at Acts 8:16 and 19:5 we read; “in (εἰς eis) the name Lord Jesus,”
and lastly at Acts 10:48 we read; “in (ἐν ev) the name Lord.”
But if a baptismal formula were really being given here then it would not differ so widely between its various usages in Acts 2, 8, 10 and 19. The only sensible explanation is that the word “name” (onoma) means “authority,” as in “stop in the name of the law” and that this is how Luke is using this term “onoma.” Notice also that word “name” (onoma) is used this way by Luke in Acts 4:7, where here it is juxtaposed with the word ‘power’ to symbolise authority.
2. The reference to the Holy Spirit in Acts 19:2-3, further confirms Matthew 28:19 as baptism being upon the authority of the one God who is not simply Jesus, but is Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Paul meets certain disciples of John, and asks if they received the Holy Spirit since they believed. When they reply that they don't know who the Holy Spirit is (Acts 19:2), Paul then immediately asks how then were you baptised (verse 3). He did this because he knew that the name ‘Holy Spirit,’ is referred to at the Matthew 28:19 baptismal command. So if “Jesus Christ” is the proper baptismal formula, then Paul's question “into what then were you baptised?” does not make any sense, because it would be a complete change of subject from his question.
3. To baptise upon the name of the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19), is to baptise according to Acts 2:38, because both these passages imply the authority for baptism.
4. You cannot really understand the baptismal formula, apart from a study of the Aaronic blessing formula at Numbers 6:24-26. This specific blessing was used by the priests constantly in the Old Testament Scripture, but when it’s used, it is simply referred to in a shortened summary form. This is why we read of Levi blessing the people “in his name” (Deuteronomy 10:8), and the priests being commanded “to bless in the name of the LORD,” (Deuteronomy 21:50) or “to give a blessing in his name forever.” (1st Chronicles 23:13). So God does not need to slavishly repeat the entire Aaronic blessing word for word every time that it was used, and this shortened form “in his name” or “in the name of the Lord” refers directly back to the Numbers 6 formula. So you can see that your four baptismal passages in the book of Acts, mirrors exactly the way in which the Aaronic blessing formula was used and was referred to in the Jewish cultural usage.
5. My main problem with the Apostolic position on baptism are the implications that Trinitarians aren’t saved, so Martin Luther, John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards are now in hell. However, in my opinion our love towards God counts more than our own religious works, as I’m certain that God will recognise sprinkling, immersion or pouring, and even if no formula or an incorrect formula of words is used. What happens if a sincere apostolic, is plunged under the water, but the minister then absently mindedly misquotes the baptismal formula. Is that Apostolic now lost for all eternity because of the ministers mistake, which he being under the water, did not hear? I find the ‘hard hearted dogmatism,’ which claims that God will damn a man to hell upon a mere technicality, objectionable. Love is not enough, and neither is the cross or even the reception of the Holy Spirit in Oneness. They claim that our works save us, because our relationship with God starts and is even based upon our own deeds; namely correct baptism and also speaking in tongues. So the God of Oneness only loves us through our own good works for him, and yet my Bible says that God loves and justifies the ungodly and not the Godly: see Romans 4:5.
I'd love to debate you on zoom. However possibly discussing tithing first to establish a polite and cordial basis for discussion, I don't want to end up being shouted at or shouting at you, lets consider a less controveral topic first. Robert
thebagge2 at yahoo dot co dot uk
Do you really think Jesus will quit being the son
God mirrored his spirit in many ways as he knew the importance’s of visual manifestation for humans. If you go through the OT and the NT, you will see that God has manifested himself in different forms.
Here are more thoughts upon your question: did God remain as the burning bush? Did he remain as a tabernacle, or pillar of 🔥 fire, or a cloud?
Now God still uses flesh to manifest himself. This is the NT church after being filled with His Spirit we become the “body of Christ”
Another mirror of God.
I’m sure you have also read about the war of spirit and flesh...
spirit speaks to flesh and visa versa. Like when we tell ourselves no for example for something we really want to do but know we shouldn’t.
God is a Spirit. That’s in the Word. Jesus was in the beginning and then manifested himself in flesh. He was the Word in flesh according to Jn 1:1-14
When he rose his body glorified. Just some thoughts.
The Bible says that it will that everything will be brought under His feet. And of course He can’t put Himself underneath His feet. When it is all finished doing away with evil... then Zechariah 14:9 KJVS
[9] And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.
Three persons will never be seen as one. 1+1+1=3. You were made in the image of God. Are you three persons? Where do you find the mention of three in one, Trinity, or triune in the Bible? To add words to scripture is blasphemy.
@@hargisP2
Trinitarians believe in ONE GOD THREE PERSONS or TRINITY of PERSONS.
Oneness believe in ONE GOD THREE modes/manifestations or TRINITY of modes.
Oneness are Trinitarians.
The Trinity is inevitable!
@@msolav63 Wrong, Sir! We do NOT, in fact, believe in, "3 Modes."
Maybe SOME do----Certainly not ME!
Jesus is NOT a, "Mode." He is simply the "Son of the Most High."
And although GOD, through the, "Working of HIS Will," Accomplishes
HIS PLANS, and Purposes--- that does not mean that the, WORKING
of GOD'S Will," is a Separate, and, Distinct, "Person."
GOD the FATHER, and the HOLY SPIRIT, are not two separate Entities,
my friend.
GOD and FATHER are merely TITLES, whereas, SPIRIT, or, ESSENCE, is
what GOD IS!
Not TWO, much less, THREE, "Persons," Simply ONE GOD, "Anointing
HIS Son, with, "Power and Authority."
Does revelation 3:5 support the trinity? God bless🙏
Nice question!
In my understanding it proves that the Father is not Jesus.
It does not support the Trinity. It illustrates the roles of the Father and Son (the Spirit of God and the man Christ Jesus). Not two divine persons. II Cor. 5:19 shows how the Father was in the Son reconciling the world unto Himself. This language of interaction is to illustrate how God operates in redemption, not to show collaboration between divine persons. This does not show different persons any more than Jesus' baptism requires the Holy Spirit to be a physical, actual dove. They are illustrative ways God teaches us.
@@pastorurshan Pastor Urshan, where you and the apostolic church are going wrong, is that you refuse to call the Son a "person." The Son who was born of Mary is a "person." Not another divine person, but a human person with the divine nature in its fulness.
@@gimel77 🙂We do not have a problem calling Jesus a person. It is the concept of "Divine" persons to which we object. He was a human and a person in all that human personhood includes. God as Father however is only one being. Multiple divine persons violates His essential one nature.
@@pastorurshan So Jesus is the person born of Mary. So why do you refer to the Father as Jesus?
Tertulia did not inventa the concepto of the Trinity. Historical the false doctrine of the Holy Trinity was formulated by ATHANASHOUS, a pagan filosopher in the NICEAN council 325 a. D.
Hold the phone the flesh died on the cross when he was resurrected was the body now glorified and officially and in for the rest of eternity now the representation of the invisible God?
If you used punctuation, it would be much easier to understand your
wording.
Hey, just saying...
Before you listen just say a prayer to Jesus to SHOW YOU THIS TRUTh
At 2:18 the speaker misquotes the Trinity, the Father, Son (in his deity) and Holy Spirit all share the same one mind and will - which you claim that Trinitarians deny, this sir is not fair because its not accurate at the level of the creeds and Trinitarian scholars.
I receive many requests for debate. It is not possible to address them all. I am happy to address these points in an episode however. We obviously do not subscribe to Trinitarian dogma because it is unknown in scripture and is a later interpolation. I am happy to address your questions to the best of my ability. One small example is your claim that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost share the same mind and will. Why then did Jesus say, "Not my will but thine be done?" Oneness believers can easily answer this but I am interest as to how this fits with your "one mind and will" concept.
@@pastorurshan Chroist has two natures human and divine each with their own mind and will. So at Luke 22:42 Christ as a man is praying to the Father whose will (divine will) is shared by the Son in his deity and Holy Spirit. Look you misquoted the Trinity, I repeat my offer to debate on zoom or whatsapp, its wrong to straw man your opponents as you have done.
@@christian.comedy.channel.2 🙂If you can point me to the scripture that supports that Jesus Christ had two minds and two wills I will happily believe that. Or that the Eternal Son shares that with the Holy Spirit, I will believe that too. If you can point to where the Trinity is mentioned, I will happily concede your point.
Problem is, they are nowhere to be found. Until 300 years later, and 400 years later in their final form.
Scripture teaches one God who was manifested in flesh by the man Christ Jesus. That man didn't have two minds, brains or anything like that in his human vs. Eternal form.
The man Christ Jesus was a human with a human will. The Father that indwell Him was God and was the Spirit of God. That Spirit was the perfect of that one true God and Jesus (the man) submitted to that. It's that simple. That is what the scripture teaches.
@@pastorurshan Just ask me one single question and I will do my best to answer it.
@@christian.comedy.channel.2 Can you show me the words Trinity, Eternal Son, Co-equal, Co-eternal or consubstantial in the Bible?
Trinitarism had been in existence long before Arius or the council of Nicea. A description and concept of the Trinity appears in several gospels. For example: God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit appear at Jesus' baptism, and in some other epistles. Jesus' final words acknowledges the existence of the Trinity in Matthew 28:19 ("...Baptizing them in the name of the FATHER , SON, and HOLY SPIRIT...") and Mark 1:10-11 etc. It was Jesus and the apostles who revealed and introduced this revelation to us about the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.
By the time of the Council, Trinitarianism had been a well-established idea; it wasn't simply made up at the Council. They weren't creating doctrine, they were simply refining it based on what the church had already believed for hundreds of years.
The Trinity is not a heresy; it was an absolute necessity to avoid Christians being called polytheists.
Related to this argument oneness frequently raised contention that the concept of the Trinity did not originate from the Bible at all, (being this false), but from pagan philosophy and religion. It is claimed that a type of Trinity can be found in Plato, in Babylonian religion, in Mithraism, and in Hinduism, and that it supposedly crept in and perverted Christianity from these outside sources.
Although early Christian theologians speculated in many ways on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, no one clearly and fully asserted the doctrine of the Trinity until around the end of the so-called Arian Controversy. Nonetheless, the proponents of Arianism, Unitarianism, Modalism, and Sabellianism claim them to be in some sense founded on, or at least illustrated by, biblical texts.
Sometimes popular antitrinitarian literature paints the doctrine as strongly influenced by, or even illicitly poached from some non-Christian religious or philosophical tradition. Divine threesomes abound in the religious writings and art of ancient Europe, Egypt, the near east, and Asia. These include various threesomes of male deities, of female deities, of Father-Mother-Son groups, or of one body with three heads, or three faces on one head. However, similarity alone doesn’t prove Christian copying or even indirect influence, and many of these examples are, because of their time and place, unlikely to have influenced the development of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
The Trinitarian doctrines were steeped in the thought not only of Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism, but also the Stoics, Aristotle, and other currents in Greek philosophy. Whether one sees this background as a providentially supplied and useful tool, or as an unavoidably distorting influence, those developing the doctrine saw themselves as trying to build a systematic Christian theology on the Bible while remaining faithful to earlier post-biblical tradition. Many also had the aim of showing Christianity to be consistent with the best of Greek philosophy. But even if the doctrine had a non-Christian origin, it would not follow that it is false or unjustified; it could be, that through Philo (or whomever), God revealed the doctrine to the Christian church. Still, it is a contested issue whether or not the doctrine can be deduced or otherwise inferred from the Christian Bible, so we must turn to it.
Many Christian apologists argue that the doctrine of the Trinity is “biblical” (i.e. either it is implicitly taught there, or it is the best explanation of what is taught there) using three sorts of arguments. They begin by claiming that the FATHER of Jesus Christ is the one true God taught in the Old Testament. They then argue that given what the Bible teaches about Christ and the Holy Spirit, they must be “fully divine” as well. Thus, we must, as it were, “move them within” the nature of the one God. Therefore, there are three fully divine persons “in God”. While this may be paradoxical, it is argued that this is what God has revealed to humankind through the Bible.
The Church Fathers wrestled with the divinity of Jesus and gradually developed the concept of the Holy Trinity during the second and third centuries. Arius, a popular Libyan priest, opposed the new concept, but it was was strongly supported by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, who raised the matter at the Council of Nicaea.
The Nicaean Council debated the issue in 325 and decided in favour of Trinitarianism and rejected Arianism. Arianism rejected Jesus' equal divinity with God, it was a threat because this denied the central belief of the Trinity, the belief in our Redemption, and the divine nature of Jesus Christ.
However this doctrine continued to be debated right up to 381, when the Emperor Theodosius required that all Christians believe in the Holy Trinity.
Today some modern christians wouldn’t know Arianism if it was sitting on the pew right next to them, the same goes for Sabellianism. Most folks wouldn’t even know the difference.
Incidentally, this is why so many bishops were initially on the fence regarding the Arian controversy, and it was only after Athanasius explained exactly why the Arian formulation created problems in other areas of Christian doctrine that most of them relented and sided with the Orthodox view. This was true both during and after the Council. Many of the bishops who were not present at the Council sided with Arius until Athanasius personally visited them and explained his position.
If you don't have the Trinity, well you have to solve the problem of God dying. If you don’t have the Trinity, three persons, one God, then either Jesus was not divine, not the Messiah, and we are not saved; or you have God absent from existence while Jesus is in the tomb, or Jesus didn’t really die which takes us back to the not being saved problem.
The simplest explanation is that it violates the teaching handed down from the Apostles, including Jesus’s own words. More in depth, we read (Phil. 2) that the eternal Word, Jesus, set aside his Deity to become Man, and (all through Hebrews) that His ministry involves standing before the Father AS a Divine Man (as our High Priest), and makes it clear that His ministry is valid because He stands before Him as one of us. No pre-eternal Word, no Incarnation. No Incarnation, no salvation.
Heresy has nothing whatsoever to do with Trinitarian Doctrine. It’s a legal concept: a statement made out of court that is introduced in court to show the truth of the matter asserted.
Sorry there is actually proof of where the trinity was 1st accepted around 300ad. No weaseling your way out of that. No matter how big your speech 🎤is.🤣😂🤣
@@revamp6612
Sorry to burst your bubble but,
Oneness are Trinitarians.
Trinitarians believe in ONE GOD THREE PERSONS or TRINITY of PERSONS.
Oneness believe in ONE GOD THREE modes/manifestations or TRINITY of modes.
The Trinity is inevitable!
@@msolav63 no, again you are misrepresenting. God doesn’t have 3 modes. He has manifestations not limited to 3…
Stop acting like you know about something that you are clueless to.🤦🏽♂️🤷🏽♂️
@revamp6612
REVAMP, I can't wrap my head around the splitting of hairs Oneness followers have on this issue.
Can you explain to me how it is that oneness are not Trinitarians? Of course they are Trinitarians.
Let's go back to grade school and do simple math:
The PERSON or "mode/manifestation," of the Father is ONE.
The PERSON or "mode/manifestation" of the Son is TWO.
The PERSON or "mode/manifestation" of the Holy Spirit is THREE.
So how many "PERSONS, modes/manifestations" do you HAVE? The answer is "THREE. The word TRINITY comes from THREE". Oneness are trinitarians because the Trinity is a biblical fact that cannot be denied even when doing the scriptural acrobatics as oneness does. Even if they are supposedly representations they are still THREE.
Beside oneness go around and DIVIDE Jesus INTO TWO SUBSTANCES the human and the divine and then they criticize the Trinitarians saying that God is numerically indivisible.
That is oneness logic, they say something and then they contradict themselves, lol.
Did the Bible mentioned the FATHER, the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT. Answer is: YES.
How many are MENTIONED? Answer is: THREE.
There's only one God, but whether you call it modes, PERSONS, manifestations, masks, spheres, titles, functions etc, you have to acknowledge that there are THREE. To say anything different is to deny the Bible. I'm surprised that oneness deny they are not Trinitarians when they believe in THREE MODES/ MANIFESTATIONS since that is a cornerstone of Oneness theology.
We are essentially saying the same basic things while trying to explain God. There is no way out of the Trinity.
What's "out there" to me is why Oneness followers continually
attack trinitarians.
The question is: "Can three distinct, divine persons really be one being?" The short answer is YES.
REVAMP: The Trinity is inevitable!
@@revamp6612
REVAMP, so you don't believe the FATHER is God, the SON is God, and the HOLY SPIRIT is God?
The Trinity is inevitable!
Have you debated a new movement called "The Father and His Son" (Son Jesus being subordinate to His Father Elohim). So One Elohim as Father being the Supreme One Elohim and then subordinate Son also Elohim as Jesus/Yahshau the Son - but Jesus is not the One Elohim.
Some of our Jewish Messianic Brethren Believers refers to the Godhead as a Compound Unity…regardless if one is Oneness’s or Trinitarian what matters is preach Him crucified…The death burial & Resurrection Atonement of Yeshua’s is what really matters…
19:22 You now make almost exactly the same claim as Jehovah's Witnesses at John 14:28, in that you are teaching that Father is the deity and Son is the humanity.
Spirit of God and Flesh of God interacting? This is ad hoc. The Son is called God and not simply the flesh of God. Regardless, Christ says no man has seen the form of the Father so then Christ cannot be the Father.
11:23 Your definition of Oneness that the Son is the humanity is one of three possible definitions of the Son of God and is the easiest to refute. Your claim is a denial that the Son of God is both God and Man, as your claiming that the Father = the deity and the Son = the humanity. It's easy to refute, the Son is called GOD see the word God at John 20:28 and Son at verse 31. Also the Son of God is the creator of the universe which your subordinationsm denies i.e. Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:16-17 re Son at verse 13. Also both the Father and the Son being omnipresent indweel Christians today - John 14:23. I'd love to debate you. How about a debate on tithing (which I am against) first of all and then once we've set a respectful tone another discussion.
The Oneness explenation for how Jesus can pray and dialogue with the Father does a great job of talking about the authentic humanity of Christ. Trinitarians and Oneness believers agree on this point. The disconnect that I am finding and it is something that isn't being addressed in any of the Oneness videos I've seen is this, Jesus is truly man and truly God, right? He is God manifest in the flesh, so how does Oneness theology get around the idea that either 1) Jesus is praying to himself, since he is also the Father, or 2) there is a distinction between the humanity and divinity of Christ, which means Christ is two persons in one. This is sometimes referred to as the dual nature of Christ. But natures are abstract, they don't communicate.
I don't believe it is sufficient to show the humanity of Christ as the reason he is praying to God the Father,. You also need to show how Christ being fully God (Which Oneness believers say is the Father manifest in flesh) can pray to the Father and there not be some kind of illusion taking place that makes it appear that Jesus isn't the Father.
Also, it's not so much THAT Jesus prayed, as much as it is WHAT Jesus prayed. for instance,
John 17:21-23 "That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in US, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, that they may be one even as WE are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that they world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me."
If Jesus is the Father, why does he use words like us and we to describe their relationship? Why not come out and say that you are the Father rather than pretend that he is a different person? Another point from this prayer, how can we as believers be one as Jesus and his Father are one? Can we all be one person? Of course not, the oneness that is talked about in this chapter is the oneness of unity and purpose not the oneness of personhood.
These questions are not my attempt at a gotcha response, these are genuine questions that as a former Oneness believer I couldn't shake and haven't gotten a good response for. Thanks for the discussion! I think it is important to talk about!
Good questions. Thank you for dialoguing with us. They most certainly need to be talked about.
The answer to your first question is that there is absolutely a distinction between the humanity and the divinity that was in Christ. We see this in his statement “not my will but thine be done”. Also in Jesus’ death. God did not die. The man Christ Jesus died. There is a distinction that we can obviously see. We could also say Jesus slept, hungered, was tempted in all points like us, etc. There is an obvious distinction. That is actually why God uses the term “Father” and “Son” and even why He speaks in the third person. It is to highlight and illustrate the difference between the roles He takes on in the process of redemption.
To ascribe this activity to “persons” is to violate His Oneness. Granted, we can’t understand all the working of the man praying to the Spirit and scripture does describe it as the great mystery of Godliness. The mystery isn’t how divine person’s can argue with each other in Gethsemane, the mystery is in how the incarnation works. Paul describes this explicitly in I Tim. 3:16.
John 14:16-19 illustrates this clearly. In verses 16 and 17 Jesus speaks of the Father and the Holy Ghost in the third person. He does not do this to teach tritheism or the Trinity. He does it to show the distinction in administrations. In verses 18-19 he (as you requested) clearly says it, “I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you…”. Here he shows that while there are different administrations, there is still one Spirit. I Cor. 12:4-6 tells us that God works in diversities and differences of adminstrations but there is still only one God.
Great questions and they are indicative of your hunger for truth. Thank you.
Nathaniel, so from what I was told when I was growing up being indoctrinated into Oneness thinking is that John 17 was explained as the humanity praying to the spirit. Would you agree with this?
If you do, then I would ask if the humanity was present prior to Creation and had glory as is stated in John 17:5 (according to the logic that it is the humanity saying these words)? What form did the humanity have prior to Creation?
@@EthanGottfredsen His humanity did not physically exist until he was born in Bethlehem. "This day have I begotten thee...". the Bible uses words that explain God in human terms (anthropomorphic language) while not limiting those things to every human limitation. For example Jesus is the "Lamb of God" and is "slain from the foundation of the world". Using this logic, is Jesus a small creature with wool and hooves hanging upon a cosmic cross, floating in outer space somewhere (where would he be crucified at if it was before the world began?). Of course not. That would be absurd. God is using the terms "Son" and "Lamb" to describe administrations and functions of God, not literal, exact things bound by every physical law.
I’m so glad the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to the lame explanations like this that I was raised hearing. I believe that was the moment I truly believed in Christ and was saved.
Ah I see. Well…I wish you the best in your continued pursuit of the truth.
Let me reveal up front, first of all, I hold to the Oneness position; but your explanation to the first question doesn't make any sense.
Yes, there is a distinction between the Spirit (God) and flesh (Man) in the full essence of His nature of existence. But to claim that Jesus in dialogue between the Son (the Man Jesus) to the Father (the God Jesus) in essence sounds like that you are teach a two person or split or dual personality of Jesus. "Was Jesus praying to Himself" or "Talking with Himself?" No.
In my opinion, in these such passages, Jesus is in His role as the great Rabbi (teacher) who is leading by example. Who was He teaching, His disciples and His followers in every generation since: how to pray ... you take everything to our Father ... regardless of the circumstances that you are in. Jesus was using His transcendent nature to teach to all followers.
Jesus' dialogue with the Father was real. It was not simply an example. The man Christ Jesus truly prayed as a man and as God He truly spoke to the man Christ Jesus. Hebrews 1:8 says this fairly plainly. Jesus had a human will and a divine will at the same time i.e. "nevertheless not my will but thine be done." Jesus as a genuine human being prayed as all humans must pray. It wasn't a pseudo prayer or simply an example. As our great redeemer and substitute, he prayed in his humanity as all humans must pray. This is not two divine person interacting. It is the genuine human man praying to the eternal Father which is in heaven.
@@pastorurshan
Just as I stated, your explanation doesn't make sense. If Jesus was talking to the Father (as a Man to the Spirit) then how come the trinitarian explanation that Jesus was talking or praying on earth to the Father who is in heaven as a distinct person. Ascensionally, these two thoughts actually teach the same thing in essence.
In older writings by Oneness Pentecostal groups claimed that this is true because of the dual nature: Jesus who is fully God and fully Man in Himself - spoked as Man to the Father who is Spirit. He must be insane or unstable as a Person having a dual personality (disorder) conversion with Himself.
If you, as a Oneness, believe that Jesus as Man was talking to the Father as Spirit (God) then like trinitarians who must explain the specific need for Jesus who is fully Man to pray to God the Father just like all humans pray to the Father - which again this doesn't make sense because Jesus is sinless in nature?
Assuming you believe, as I do, in the absolute constitution of Being and Person to mean the same thing (in the essence of Self existence) the only conclusion was that Jesus was operating in His office of Teacher (Rabbi) as Man before all humans revealing how to pray (talk) to God, as our prime example.
You, with your (I am assuming to be like the older Oneness Pentecostal teachings of dual nature) dual will or wills of Jesus, like the trinitarian view of distinct persons - these thoughts creates a paradox in the notion of Absolute constitution of Being (the nature of Self existence). For your thought to be true, then something must be an abstract (not completely real or genuine in nature). Either the substance of Being or Person must be abstract?
How do you explain the words in John 17:5? Who had glory with the Father prior to Creation?
@@tp3922 They are not teaching the same thing. As the man Christ Jesus (who is a genuine human) his prayer would be like our prayers. A man praying to God.
As the second person of the Trinity he would not need to pray. God doesn't pray.
1. He already has all power.
2. By definition God doesn't need to pray.
3. This puts the second person of the Trinity in subjection to the first person of the Trinity.
As a human he prays as all men must pray. They are not remotely the same thing.
Just because he is sinless doesn't mean he doesn't need to pray. All men pray, regardless of sin.
You may think it is abstract. We see it as the great mystery of Godliness. Very difficult for us to understand but still true.
@@EthanGottfredsen This either means one of two things. Three different persons shared glory at the beginning of time and one of them voluntarily gave it up for redemption's sake, and is now asking the first person to give it back now that the job is almost over.
Or (and this is what we believe), the man Christ Jesus is praying to the Father (Spirit) and is speaking of the glory that he had as the one true God from the beginning of time. This is hard for us to understand yet it is the great mystery of Godliness scriptures speaks of.
The Sanhedrin didn't understand it either. Jesus' question to them as to why David would call Christ Lord when Christ would be David's son mystified them. The answer though hard to understand for us as human yet still stands. He is the son that would be born and He is the Everlasting Father at the same time. He is "the root and the offspring of David" (Rev. 22:16).
The term trinity, wasn't known in the early church but the concept had always been. Even in the Old Testament. For example, the term electricity wasn't known 500 years ago, but the concept or th such thing had always existed.
Today, we cristians know more about God and the scriptures than the early cristians. God had revealed it to church. But still there remains many mysteries.
There might very well have been an existing concept in the then known world, which possibly caught few Jews, but the concept of the oneness of God, was the predominant one, which concept remains the true one in the church. If there is any progressive revelation of God, such revelation is in Jesus Christ, who is the one God of the two testaments.
And, "Concept," by itself, is not an convincing Exegetical Apologetic,
my friend! It's Scripture, and Scripture ALONE, along with the correct
Contextual inference, that decides what IS, and is NOT....Truth.
Amen.
My brother Marco, the original Apostles had better understanding than we did and made sure to pass that on to the early Christians, which is why they were persecuted so strongly. The original Apostles had their understanding of the scriptures opened by Jesus Himself (Luke 24:44-45) and Jesus told them to preach His Name and what He had revealed unto them. (Luke 24:46-49). The early church and Apostles most likely knew more about the scriptures than we do today simply because of that. That's why they also taught how to apply it to the times through the Epistles and remaining NT. They had clear understanding, compared to what many have today.
The first several bishops of Rome believed in the one Lord Person,/Being. But as the apostasy that Paul predicted in Acts 20:29 ensued into the second century, the emergent trinity heresy began to deceive church leaders until the Roman bishops, partly because they despised the Oneness Jews for crucifying Christ, began to institutionalize the 3 Persons in God theory. In Augustine's time it was made the official teaching of the false church.
1Co 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is ONE Spirit.
The Spirit is God's essence. Spirit is what God is, and the Spirit He is is the Holy Spirit. That is the missing key to understanding "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. The reason the Father and the Son are One is because they are the Holy Spirit. This scripture makes it plain. The Spirit is also how we are one in them when we believe.
Ro 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but IN THE SPIRIT, if so be that THE SPIRIT OF GOD DWELL IN YOU. Now if any man have not THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he is none of his.
10 ¶ And if CHRIST be IN YOU, the body is dead because of sin; but THE SPIRIT IS LIFE because of righteousness.
11 But if THE SPIRIT OF HIM THAT RAISED UP JESUS from the dead DWELL IN YOU, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by HIS SPIRIT THAT DWELLETH IN YOU.
Ro 12:5 So WE, BEING MANY, ARE ONE BODY IN CHRIST, and every one members one of another.
1Co 10:17 For we being many are ONE BREAD, and ONE BODY: for we are all partakers of that ONE BREAD.
1Co 12:12 ¶ For as THE BODY IS ONE, AND HATH MANY MEMBERS, and all the members of that ONE BODY, being many, are ONE BODY: SO ALSO IS CHRIST.
In the exact same way, Jesus said,...
Joh 10:30 I AND my Father ARE ONE.
Joh 17:11 ¶ 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: (IN THE SAME WAY)
Joh 17:20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for THEM ALSO WHICH SHALL BELIEVE IN ME through their word;
21 THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE; AS THOU, FATHER, ART IN ME, AND I IN THEE, THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE ONE IN US: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that THEY MAY BE ONE, AS WE ARE ONE: (IN THE SAME WAY)
23 I IN THEM AND THOU IN ME, that they may be made perfect IN ONE; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Joh 17:24 ¶ Father, I WILL THAT THEY ALSO, WHOM THOU HAS GIVEN ME, BE WITH ME WHERE I AM; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for THOU LOVEDST ME BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.
25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I IN THEM.
Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another COMFORTER, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for HE DWELLETH WITH YOU, AND SHALL BE IN YOU.
18 ¶ I will not leave you comfortless: I WILL COME TO YOU.
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and WE WILL COME UNTO HIM, AND MAKE OUR ABODE WITH HIM.
Jesus comes to us in the Holy Spirit. The Spirit doesn't leave them, it emanates from them. That is how God is omnipresent. His Spirit permeates every place in heaven and earth.
In the book of Revelation, in the last two chapters, where it talks about the new heaven and the new earth, we find no mention of the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit is there, in the Father and the Son. What we do see is a river of life flowing out of the throne.
Re 22:1 ¶ And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Joh 7:37 ¶ In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Joh 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. 11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? 12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? 13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: 14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
Trinity isn’t a good explanation of theFather, Son and Holy Spirit. Look at these references to the Holy Spirit. These are from the kjv.
Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, the Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of Jesus Christ, Spirit of the Lord , Spirit of Christ, Spirit of the living God, Spirit of our God, Spirit of your Father, holy Spirit of God, Spirit which is of God, Spirit of His Son, his Holy Spirit, My Spirit, His Spirit, the Lord is that Spirit, Spirit of grace, holy Spirit of promise, Spirit of adoption, Spirit of life in Christ, Spirit of life from God, the Spirit itself.
The way the Spirit is described in the scripture as being "of God" and "of His Son" and being "His Spirit", it doesn't sound like a third person. I don't think the Spirit is a third person. I think it is what God is. Just as you and I are human beings, the Father and Son are Holy Spirit.
Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Spirit is what God is, and the Spirit He is is the Holy Spirit.
Okay, a few things.
Isaiah 9:6 - "Everlasting father" does not mean "God the Father," it means "father of eternity" or probably "father of the eternal age (of peace)." That's why he's also called the Prince of Peace, and the context of the passage refers to him ruling on the throne of David during the period of everlasting peace after he returns. And really, this prophecy could have had an immediate fulfillment in Isaiah's day. All of those terms can be applied to a man. The phrase "mighty God" (El Gibbor), for example; the word "God" in Hebrew is "El," which literally means "mighty one" and was applied to powerful people in Scripture, tall cedars, and mountains. Now, the phrase "El Gibbor" is also used for YHWH in Isaiah 10, but that doesn't mean it can't also be used for people.
How many thrones in heaven? - I think this question misunderstands the use of the word "throne" in Scripture. It doesn't mean like a chair with a person sitting on it. Jesus said, in Revelation 3:21, that he who overcomes will be set down with me in my throne, even as I also overcame and am set down with the Father in his throne. So since we will be sat down with Jesus in his throne, does this mean we are the same person as him? No. It means to rule. God rules through Jesus, the Lamb, so that the Lamb's rule is God's rule. Now, Revelation 22 does use singular pronouns for this rule, because only God rules, but he's doing so through Jesus.
Whose face do we see in Revelation 22? The divine visage that Jesus himself saw (John 6:46). And the name that is in their foreheads is the name of this one divine being, which is YHWH. The word "Hallelujah" in Revelation 19 means "praise YHWH" and the phrase "Lord God Almighty" comes from the phrase "YHWH the God of hosts."
Revelation 3:5 - This verse clearly shows that Jesus' relationship with the Father in heaven is currently like how it was on earth. But Jesus is currently being glorified instead of humbled. In Revelation though, Jesus is still referring to the Father as his Father, and God, and is speaking to the Father in heaven, being our mediator, and high priest.
The "name above every name" - This is something that was given to Jesus. Jesus did not have the "name above every name" while on earth; it was given to him after he ascended. The "name above every name" refers to a reputation and authority above all others. And, as 1 Corinthians 15:27 says, because God gave this to him, God himself is excepted from this. So Jesus has an authority above all others, except God. That's what this verse says.
Acts 4:12 - Yes, Jesus is the only name by which we are saved, because Jesus is the way to the Father. Not because the name of the Father is Jesus. Calling the Father "Jesus" completely confuses verses like Acts 4:12 and others where Jesus said that he is the way to God, or the "door."
Matthew 28:19 - I firmly believe that Jesus never gave that baptismal formula. It is quoted differently in historical sources, and really, if you completely ignore that formula, nothing is lost on the rest of Scripture. Luke says that remission of sins was to be preached "in his name." So stop trying to reconcile that one verse with the rest of Scripture, it just leads to false doctrine. Baptism in Jesus name has nothing to do with the Oneness and Trinity argument. It has everything to do with Jesus being the only way to God. And originally, the Matthew 28:19 formula was done with three immersions, one for each of the three persons. So don't invent a way to interpret it so that it agrees with Acts 2:38. That just leads to confusion.
The name "Jesus" was the name of several other people in Scripture, and is a later form of the name Joshua. It's a name that refers back to God as being salvation. It really is an authentically human name. So it is not the unique name of God. That would be YHWH, which God specifically said was his "name." And that didn't change.
Yes, Jesus is the root and offspring of David. Or, shall we say, the Father and Son of David. But "Father" refers to the one divine person which is YHWH, and "Son" refers to the offspring, which is Jesus. Because Jesus is the literal "imprint" of the Father on humanity (Hebrews 1:3), Jesus has the same nature as the Father, and any divinity that the Father has, Jesus has. So this is the "oneness" aspect. The "distinction" aspect is that Jesus is a person born of Mary, and the Father is the one divine person who was never born. This is how Jesus can call himself the root and offspring, and be equated with the Lord God of the holy prophets in that same chapter. But the words "Lord God" translate the name YHWH Elohim. In divinity, Jesus is YHWH. But the name "Jesus" refers specifically to the Son, not the Father. It is this distinction that apostolics don't make, but is a necessary Scriptural one. The divine being in Revelation is called YHWH. It is this being that Jesus still refers to as his Father, and God, in Revelation. The name "Jesus" refers to the Son, through whom we have access to the one divine person.
Jesus is not the "flesh" of God. Jesus is a person, who was born of Mary, grew up, and had a genuine relationship with the divine personage of his Father. Don't get me wrong, there are not two divine persons, only one, but we need to call the Son a "person," for so he is. A human person with the divine nature in its fullness.
Almost all of what you say, Oneness believers would agree with. Except that the name Jesus is not the name of the Father. That is incorrect. Jesus is the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. (John 5:43, Matt. 1:21, John 14:26). You claim that YHWH is the highest name but surely you must know the YHWH suffixes. The progressive revelatory extensions of YHWH that illustrate his facets to man? Revealed in the Old Testament? Jesus is simply "YHWH is salvation". Jesus is YHWH.
When he YHWH revealed Himself as YHWH Shalom, He didn't stop being YHWH. When he revealed Himself as YHWH Rapha, He didn't stop being YHWH. These were progressive revelations of His nature to man. YHWH Salvation (Jesus) is the name above all of the other names and is the only name that can save us.
When Saul is knocked to the ground on the way to Damascus and asks "Who art thou Lord?" The reply would have been "I am YHWH" if what you are positing is true. The Lord did not say that. He said, "I am Jesus". Literally, I am YHWH your salvation. Jesus is the final YHWH facet to be revealed to man. That is why Jesus is most certainly the name that is above every name. This is why Jesus states "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" (John 5:43).
The name of Jesus is the revealed name of God. It is the name that is above every other name. It is the name that will be written in the foreheads of His believers. Jesus IS the name YHWH with the added extension of salvation, which was never given until Christ came to manifest that to us. He was called Jesus because "He would save His people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21) That is literally the one, pre-eminent trait of that revealed name.
Is. 12:1-6 illustrates this beautifully. "IN THAT DAY (this is Messianic) thou shalt say...the LORD Jehovah (YHWH) is my strength and my song"....
This is a reference to their understanding up to that point. They knew YHWH as their "strength" and their "song". They did not know Him as their salvation. When Jesus (YHWH salvation) would come it would be fulfilled "he also is become my salvation...therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation". Literally thou shalt draw water out of the wells of Jesus. Surely you can see this?!
V. 6 Cry out and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion: for great is the Holy One of of Israel IN THE MIDST OF THEE. Who was that "Holy One in the midst of thee"? It was Jesus. It was YHWH Salvation.
You under appreciate that all powerful name of Jesus. I encourage to look a bit closer. You are not far from understanding the mighty God in Christ.
@@pastorurshan I appreciate your response, but I have Scriptural answers for everything you said. Let me go through them one by one.
John 5:43 - No other verse is perhaps more misused than this one. Here's what the verse means. Jesus is contrasting his own authority to God's authority. In the Old Testament, David came to Goliath in the name of YHWH. The prophets spoke in the name of YHWH. And Jesus did too. He spoke in the name, or authority, of his Father. He was not speaking in his own authority. He makes this clear when he says "if another shall come in his own name, you would receive him." So what he's saying is, I am speaking in the authority of him whom you say is your God, but you are not accepting me; however, if someone else were to speak in his own authority, you would instead accept him. So what Jesus is saying is, I am NOT speaking in my OWN name, or authority, but in God's authority. So this verse really means that the Father's name is NOT Jesus. And think about it. Jesus was a man born of Mary. You're taking the name given to him at birth, and fixing it to the divine being revealed in him. You can't do that and be Scripturally sound. You just can't.
John 14:26 - We receive the Holy Ghost through believing in Jesus. That's what this verse is saying.
Now, the compound names of YHWH in the Old Testament. Take the name Jehovah-Jireh for example. That's not a name of God. That's the name of the place where Abraham offered Isaac. Jehovah-Nissi is not a name for God, it is the name of an altar. Jehovah-Shalom is not the name of God, it is the name of the place where the angel appeared in Judges. Whenever you compound the name of God with something else, it's no longer his name, but the name of either a person, place, or thing. The name Jesus is a later form of the name Joshua, and that specific form of the name, Jesus, or Yeshua, was the name of several people in the Old Testament and at least one other person in the New Testament. It is a human name that points back to YHWH as being salvation. The name Isaiah also means "YHWH is salvation." Hey, the name Elijah even means "YHWH my God," or "YHWH is my God."
We are saved through Jesus' name because the Son of God, through whom we are saved, has that name.
Again, "Jesus" was not a "name above every name" while Jesus was on earth. God gave him this position of power and authority after he ascended. And the thrust of this passage is, that every knee would bow to him. Those are the ones that Jesus was exalted above, and was given a name above all others. This is not to be contrasted with God's personal name YHWH. And as 1 Corinthians 15:27 says, God himself is excepted from that, because he was the one who put all things under Jesus' feet. It's contrasting humility with exaltation. He made himself nothing, and God in turn exalted him to the "name above every name" or the position of supreme power and authority. Hence, Jesus is called "Lord." He was a servant and became Lord. This is the position of exaltation that God gave to him. Like in Genesis where the Pharaoh made Joseph ruler over his kingdom, but the Pharaoh was still higher.
Now, the road to Damascus. When Paul encountered Jesus, it was in fact Jesus who was speaking, so he naturally said, "I am Jesus." Any comparison between the names Jesus and YHWH here are completely mistaken. When Paul said "who art thou Lord," the Greek actually says "who are you my lord?" The Greek for "my lord" is used for men and angels in the Greek Septuagint. When Paul saw the bright light, he thought he saw an angel. So he responds by saying, "who are you my lord?" Jesus then responds by saying "I am Jesus." The Son of God. The man born of Mary, whom Paul rejected, had to appear to him. And that's what we see in this passage.
Look in Revelation. The divine being is still called YHWH. It is he who is on the throne of rule. And Jesus rules, so he is sat down with the Father in his throne. And we rule, so we are sat down with Jesus in his throne. Again, not a physical chair with a person on it.
@@gimel77 I appreciate your response as well. We are aware of the metaphoric use of the term "throne". We understand it is not a physical chair. The use of metaphor in Revelation is well known to most serious students of scripture. We do not believe that we will sit in a literal chair with God.
To point to the metaphor in one breath and to miss the metaphor of the interaction between the man Christ Jesus and the Father is striking. The entire scene is metaphoric. Revelation isn't showing two divine beings moving in some heavenly throne room. It is showing the beautiful relationship between the facets of the One true God in human terms so that we can understand it.
To respond to each point is impossible. Hundreds of Trinitarians ask this of me and it isn't possible to respond exhaustively to each one. Feel free to look at the videos I have posted. I will post more as well.
One thing I will point out through friend. Saul didn't speak Greek on that road to Damascus. Acts 21 & 22 is an account where he spoke to the people in Jerusalem. It takes care to say "he spoke in the Hebrew tongue to them..." (Acts 22:2). It then recounts the Damascus road moment. He says "Who art thou Lord?" to them in the Hebrew tongue. To say that in the Hebrew tongue is to invoke the Shema. There is only one Lord. There is only one YHWH. Paul was asking who this was and YHWH said, "I am Jesus". I am Jehovah salvation.
The compound name of Jesus is the revealed name of God and it is the highest name. Progressively revealed from Moses' burning bush to the New Testament.
You have explanations as to why each verse I have given must fit your interpretation but eisegetic exercise is not he same as a true exegetic hermeneutic. The scripture plainly states to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The disciples went and did just that. They baptized them all in the name of Jesus Christ which was the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
@@pastorurshan I think we can agree that the relationship between the Father and Jesus is not a metaphor. That relationship was seen on earth, and is still ongoing in heaven.
I am not at all saying that there is more than one divine person. What I am saying is that the person born of Mary, Jesus of Nazareth, has a relationship with the one divine person who begat him. And that relationship is real, not metaphorical.
The explanations I gave are not to fit how I believe. They are Scripturally, and Hebraically, sound. I mean, think of it. What other possible way can you view John 5:43, except for what the verse clearly says, and how the phrase "in the name of YHWH" is used in Scripture, which is what I presented? There is no other way to see it. I mean, how am I wrong here?
I am not a Trinitarian, not in the least. And for you to think or say I am, is just to ignore the points that I have made, which are Scriptural.
You can’t build a doctrine around one verse, as in Matthew 28:19. I am positive that Jesus never gave that command. Study its history. It was originally a three fold immersion that was included in Matthew as a doctrinal appendage.
And with regard to the compound names involving YHWH, what I said about them is correct, and stands. What I said about John 5:43 is correct, and stands. What I said about Paul and the road to Damascus is correct. What you said about it is incorrect, and I can prove that from the Greek (which is the language the text was written in, even though it may not be the language he actually used). The Greek word is not related to the Shema. There are verses from the Greek Septuagint that have this exact word, and it’s not used for God. You mentioned Hebrew. In the Hebrew tongue, that would be "adoniy" which means "my lord." In fact, if you look at the Greek word used in Acts 9:5, and find the verses in the Septuagint where that Greek word is used, the Hebrew word is adoniy. Guess where that word is not found? The Shema. So please do sound Scriptural study instead of just making things up. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I just grow weary with the constant misuse of Scripture and people being dogmatic about that said misuse of Scripture.
Basically everything in my previous post is correct, is exegesis, and it stands. You haven’t refuted any of it, and you can’t. If you could, you would have. I didn't make a ton of points. You could very easily have responded to all of them, showing me, Scripturally, how I may not be seeing it right. But I am seeing it right, correct?
@@gimel77 It is not you to which I cannot respond. Your arguments are repeated by many Trinitarian and Binatarian skeptics. It is the 1000 others who want a response that makes it difficult. Your points are not new and they are not sound. I will focus on the few you have brought up since you state “if I could have, I would have”. I can and I will…briefly. Again, there are hundreds of responses on these threads where I have taken the time. I cannot spend hours with 1000 different skeptics. I will do my best to help where I can.
So…No, I do not believe the relationship between Father and Son is a metaphor. Revelation’s depiction of their interaction is metaphoric. The difference is vast. The relationship between the Father and Son is to illustrate how these two redemptive aspects of the one God interact to accomplish redemption in mankind and Revelation displays them beautifully. This is a profound facet of Hebrew eschatological literature. To think that we believe in literal thrones when the entire book is metaphoric is to waste time in insulting flawed assumption.
What I said about Saul and the Damascus road is correct. The Greek word you are describing is “Kurios” and can be translated “adoniy” and is used interchangeably by the Septuagint in the Old Testament but in the New Testament it is used interchangeably with both “adoniy” and the tetragrammaton YHWH. If your background in Greek and Hebrew is what you say it is, I’m surprised you don’t know this. Before you grow weary with “constant misuse” or admonish to “do sound Scriptural study instead of making things up”, I recommend digging a bit deeper. As I stated previously, you are not far from what scripture is teaching.
Your disrespect doesn’t offend me. I am ok. I am aware of the points you make. We have discarded them because they are not grounded in scripture.
Your position on John 5:43 does not stand. Just saying it does, does not make it so. In John 5:43 Jesus says, “I am come in my Father’s name…”. You state that Jesus is simply speaking of God’s authority here. This is simply not true. That is a classic Trinitarian argument, though you claim you are not a Trinitarian.
Hebrews 1:4 states that Jesus Christ “obtained a more excellent name than they (the angels). In other words, the Son inherited the Father’s name. This usage of name is repeated over and over in scripture. Of course David comes to Goliath in the name of the Lord (the Lord of Sabaoth) and that is authority, but Jesus is not David. Jesus carries the name of God and that name is used in baptism, prayer and healing. It is not simply his authority it is the oral invocation of the name of Jesus that is efficacious i.e. “his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong.” (Acts 3:16). That is not simply authority, it is the invocation of the name of God.
In John 17:6 Jesus manifested the name of God to his disciples.
Psalms 22:22 and Hebrews 2:12 I will declare thy name unto my brethren…
Zech 14:9 says that there shall be one Lord over all the earth and His name one.
Is. 52:6 states that my people shall know my name…I am he that doth speak: behold it is I. This is a direct reference to the gospel based on the context.
The name revealed to the apostles was Jesus. The name revealed to Mary was Jesus. The name the apostles baptized in was Jesus. That is because it is the saving name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Of course we know about Matthew 28:19 and the possibility of later interpolation. We know of Jeromes hesitance to include it into canon. We know of the one manuscript used to validate it by the cardinals (that they possibly made up on the spot) and Jeromes subsequent notes next to the verse showing his misgivings. Please do not assume our ignorance. This does not change our argument. We aren’t trying to argue the legitimacy of scripture here. That is a separate conversation for another time.
As I stated before, we have considered these points and discarded them long ago. These points are not hard to refute. I can and I did.
A better question is do you speak from a theoretical perspective or have you put this into practice? I have. I have seen miracles happen in the name of Jesus. I have seen the lame walk and blind eyes opened at the invocation of that name. To suggest that we are abusing scripture or that we can’t refute your points is disingenuous. These points do not stand. We can and will refute them and further, we will continue to build great churches based on the sound doctrine of the mighty God in Christ. We stand on deep study AND apostolic practicum. Do you?
Flawed assumptions of others has been the downfall of many. There is no need to assume the worst of me. My inability to refute every skeptic has nothing to do with substance, it has to do with limited time.
Now, if you are like many others, you will respond to this with another multi page critique. I cannot respond to them all. I can address most of them on Biblos and I will if you like. I can cover many points in large scale in that forum. There are not enough hours in the day to respond to every flawed assumption here. If insulting and combative questioning is your modus operandi I have little time for that.
If you are sincere, ask questions kindly and I will respond in the forum in which I have the time.
I agree with things that you said regarding Jesus's humanity, however, there is still that contrary belief i hold about his deity regarding being co-eternal with the father, as well as the configuration of the three. That is where the rubber seems to meet the road the most between the two. scripture makes more sense with this view, and i believe scripture upholds this view.
I want to say though, that im not here to "beat up" oneness believers. To my opinion, if you believe in the father, son and spirit; and that Jesus is the christ and the only way to heaven by faith and not works, then your on the right track. i do have some further questions though, please dont take them in a hostile manner, as they are not given that way.
Regarding this, as well as the question below, you said that in John 17, jesus was saying the oneness in that passage was in terms of unity and purpose. Why cant that also be true with Deuteronomy 6:4 "the Lord our God is united". Wouldnt the word "one" be the same thing in both passages? Theres no unity of purpose in paganism. Thats what makes them pagan by definition. Thats why there can be millions of people in 1 church. Why Trinitarians can rightfully say they believe in one God. Because we are seeing the father, son and spirit by their unity and not their individualism. Why 1 family can still have many members, 1 buisiness company can have multiple employees. We all identify this "oneness" by the unity found in all the individuals, same with trinitarians, and Same thing with God. So in that sense, i would say that i too am a oneness believer. Im both a trinitarian and a oneness believer, 3-in-1. How can that be, because of unity. If this were not true, and God were really only 1 person with 3 manifestations (which to me, is still be a form of a trinity. Which is why it surprises me that you say you dont believe in the trinity), then he (jesus) couldnt not have rightfully said "we" but he should have said "i". "May they be one just as i am one".
This may have also been why they claimed him a blasphemer when they heard him call God his father in john 10:33, and why they tried stoning him when he said "before abraham was, I AM". Because they knew God had said that in the burning bush to moses, and here was a human identifying himself in a way only as God could. Since jesus (a human) was saying this, perhaps he could have exsisted before his incarnation days because he was also identifying the father as a second personn which is why he could have been the word who was with God in the beginning, and why he was able to say "we" in john 17.
Regarding this, do you believe that the triune set of father, son, spirit wasn't always present in its fullest? Was it just the father alone at the beginning, or the father and the spirit before the incarnation happened? And now that the son has come, is he now suddenly included in the list where he wasnt before?
For another question, you said that there were others besides steven whom had visons. Though some had symbolic visions, God can still provide something in a vision that can be what it really is, no symbols applied. If we can agree upon this at least, it would be a matter of hermeneutics at that point. That being said, what parts do you take literally?
Along with this, if you say that the spacial words Jesus used to describe concepts about his relationship with the father concerning the redemptive story, then wouldnt he be speaking inaccurately about his relational testimonies with the father, thus missing the mark when he would say "truly Truely i say...", and by that, misguiding us as, we are told to be watchful of.
Along with this, the disciples saw Jesus ascend into heaven in acts 1:9-11. And the angels said "why are you staring into heaven? in the same way youve seen him go, he will return".
Was this not a literal event that took place, or was it just as metaphoric as the words Jesus spoke? Were the disciples just seeing things, mere daydreaming? If so, why the question from the angels as well as their testimony about jesus? If you accredit these spacial descriptions to be metaphoric, then this instance must also be metaphoric as well. In which case the disciples would not be literal people, jesus wouldn't have been, nor the angels. And if Jesus was only a metaphor, then that affects his life lived including the atonement and finished work. What hope is there at that point?
But if this be a literal event, then the testifying words Jesus spoke relating to these ought to be literal as well. In this case my personal belief of this comes in- as youve said before, God will always be greater than us humans because he has no limits as we do. However, because he is all powerful, he is able to fashion all Creation after the cause of the redemptive story he foreknew would happen. He knew this redemption would be needed, so he formed all creation according to that. As the physical resembles the spiritual, he designed every symbol to be as it needed to be to accurately describe the "item" or "thing" its connected and related to in the spirit, and he designed everything in the spirit to be describable so they could be "assigned" symbols. So that no inaccurate, inadequate descriptions could be given, and noone be misguided by truth (an oxymoron).
As for God himself, he knew all these descriptions would need to be given, and he knew how he would need to include himself into he redemption in reference to himself (redeeming things with limits to one who has no limits), and how to form those blueprints. He knew that from our perspective he would have to come and go, ascend and descend. So he fashioned creation in a way that those could be accurate and truthful testimonies about himself, and not testify falsely about himself, so that we wouldnt be misguided and mistaken by the one who is truth.
Deut 6:4 One.
King James Bible
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: You have to be careful when using different translations They will change words like one to unity totally changes the meaning the jehovah witnesses made their own Bible to fit their beliefs because it wasn’t aligned with the original KJV. Be careful that’s all I’m saying one means 1 in the his verse numeric 1 1 God what would he be in “ unity” with?
Trinitarians are well adept at applying metaphors, analogies, and even
a touch of Philosophical thought thrown in, my friend.
But the so-called, "Rubber," only, "Meets the road," when we apply TRUE
Biblical Hermeneutics.
Jesus, as Scripture makes CLEAR, is NOT "Spirit." It ALSO makes it
Clear that Jesus had a BEGINNING.
AND;
Scripture reveals the fact----Everything Christ HAS, he was, "GIVEN" by
his Heavenly FATHER ( GOD).
With respect.
The genuine distinction between Father and Son, and to a lesser extent the Spirit, is temporal in nature. Not an eternal distinction between persons, but rather a distinction between God’s eternal divine existence and His genuine human existence as the man Jesus. At the incarnation God assumed human nature and began a distinct and permanent existence as a man with a genuine human consciousness. At all times He thought and knew as a man, performing miraculous acts or possessing supernatural insight through the anointing of the Spirit of God, providing the perfect example of weak human flesh operating through power and anointing.
Notice where the distinction I’m describing between Father and Son is found and the nature of the distinction. It is not between eternal persons (trinitarianism) nor is it found within Jesus, between His divine and human natures (Nestorianism), but it is beyond Jesus and existential in nature resulting from the incarnation.
Interestingly, both Oneness and trinitarian theology say the same thing with respect to the incarnation. Both claim that it is at the incarnation that a divine person added human nature to His divine existence and began a genuine human existence as the man Jesus. It is the identity of the divine person we’re at odds over. Trinitarianism claims it is the second of three eternal divine persons, Oneness theology says it is the one divine person known only as Yahweh
Amen to all that brother that’s why Jesus said no one comes to the father except through me…he didn’t say no one goes to the father!
Protestants got rid of a lot of things like you said, except the Trinity, and if Pentecostals could get rid of unknown tongues because there’s nothing to compare it to in the Bible, you would be a lot closer to the truth!!! And no matter what verse you use or what words you put it in nobody ever prayed, for someone in a unknown tongue/language in the Bible, You pontificate an earthly tongue/language & and your unknown tongue/language! Do not forbid to speak in tongues/language … a foreign preacher can come and speak at your church, but there better be an interpreter! That’s all that means! You can twist verses anyway you want but you will answer for that!
Every Pentecostal church I’ve ever been to will preach if you do not speak in an unknown tongue /language you are not saved? David Benard would not give a straight answer to that question. Uer teachings are just as flawed as trinitarians the third person talking for you to the first person! You’re doing the same thing the
rituals of men!
The scripture never says that when we speak in tongues its unknown but what the scripture does say that it is the evidence that a person does have the Holy Spirit
@@Historylover94 the best to you if you’re a babbler Paul didn’t speak gibberish, nor did 3000 who were converted! People at Pentecost spoke other tongues/ languages! Whether it’s to gift for the evidence, the word is around the world in different tongues/languages! Other than that you’re adding to the Bible! Anytime the Bible talks about tongues/languages it’s earthly speech! Or the tongue in your mouth! And so I don’t know what you’re arguing! My point is modern Tongue speakers are selling that gimmick as the unknown tongue or heavenly language or language of angels,,,ect. Manifestations of the flesh!
And when you pray, do not repeat, like pagans
matt6:7 there is no such thing as private prayer language!
The Bible mention the word "PERSON" (not mode, this is a non-biblical terminology) in comparison with God. Jesus is the image just like we're also the Image of God in a moral, spiritual, and intellectual nature (Gen 1:27).
In Hebrews 1:3 it says:
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 at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
Within a theological context, person does not necessary refer to someone who possesses a physical body. Rather, a "person" refers to an identity and set of characteristics that are unique when compared to none persons. The image of God is the most significant delineating factor which distinguishes man from physical creatures, and it's endows him with the confluence of qualities that is specific only to persons, namely, a mental faculty which possesses volition, logic, abstract thought, moral agency, self awareness, rationality, and emotive expressions. We may appropriately summarize these qualities as those that belong to a subject who is capable of love.
Let me ask you, did Jesus have a body? Of course.
Now is a donkey a person? Of course not, it is an animal but, still a donkey also has a body. So to be a person you necessarily need a body? Of course NOT, because if that was the case a donkey would be a person.
I know that oneness reject the word PERSON but wasn't Jesus a PERSON like you and I? The answer is: yes, of course. So we would have to conclude that Jesus is DIVINE and also a PERSON or a man.
So much that you reject the word PERSON but wasn't Jesus a PERSON like you and I? Of course. So we would have to conclude that Jesus is DIVINE and also He is a PERSON or a man.
The Trinity is inevitable!
Hey, mosalav63, if you want to continue posting me, please start a NEW
Thread, the old one is TOO long!
Okay? Okay.
And NO---The Truth of the revelation of ONE GOD/ONE HOLY SPIRIT,
is, "INEVITABLE!"
@@raygsbrelcik5578
Again: Trinitarians believe in ONE GOD THREE PERSONS or TRINITY of PERSONS!
The Trinity is inevitable! Unless you don't believe that the FATHER is God, the Son is God and Holy Spirit is God!
The Trinity is inevitable!
Let me help you describe it!
J3:13… no one has gone up to heaven except the One having come down from heaven, that is the Son of Man who is in heaven. (Christ spoke these words on earth ,,,some say the verse was split & that it wasnt Jesus talking all the verse but that John finished it! Not true!)
God is the eternal Spirt & and can be a complete man on earth, just like his brethren. Hebrew 2:17
Jesus did not know everything he grew in knowledge & stature!
Always lead by the Holy Spirt! Jesus had the capacity to oppose God, but never did not my will but your will!
Why can’t you believe that I am in the father and the father is in me.
J14:10
If you would’ve known me, you would’ve known my father ,,, from now on you do know him and have seen him.J14:7
I c said the blind man!
I don't agree with falsely accusing any group but how many times do oneness accuse Trinitarians of being pagans?
I have read and researched Oneness theology for many years which is why I am so strongly opposed to it. I have not inherited this belief nor have I been taught to reject Oneness theology mindlessly. After a lifetime of studying the scriptures, I'm convinced that trinitarian theology is both logical and biblical. Although on many forums such as this one, I've been called Godless, blasphemous, pagan or polytheistic, and had my salvation questioned or even flat out denied by the majority of Oneness believers I've encountered. Those Oneness believers based their attacks on their belief that only Oneness believers understand the "mystery" of God and are eligible for salvation. This is not only a lie, but it voids the sacrifice of the cross since salvation is now based on understanding the "mystery or the key" (which is not biblical in any way). That is a very dangerous line of thinking. In over 10 years I have only found one or two oneness' who have accepted that Trinitarians are not polytheists but they are only a small minority. The majority of Oneness followers reject that we also believe in ONE God, despite being told this many many times over. However, they are in line with the hypocritical belief that God can be THREE modes or manifestations, but not THREE persons.
A) Trinitarians believe in ONE GOD THREE PERSONS or TRINITY of PERSONS.
B) Oneness believe in ONE GOD THREE modes/manifestations or TRINITY of modes.
I can't wrap my head around the splitting of hairs Oneness followers have on this issue.
Can you explain to me how it is that oneness are not Trinitarians? Of course you guys are Trinitarians.
Let's go back to grade school and do simple math:
A) The PERSON or "mode/manifestation," of the Father is ONE.
B) The PERSON or "mode/manifestation" of the Son is TWO.
C) The "mode/manifestation" of the Holy Spirit is THREE.
So how many "PERSONS, modes/manifestations" do you HAVE "THREE. The word TRINITY comes from THREE". Oneness are TRINITARIANS because the TRINITY is a biblical fact that cannot be denied even when doing the scriptural acrobatics as oneness does. Even if they are supposedly representations they are THREE.
Beside, oneness go around and DIVIDE Jesus INTO TWO SUBSTANCES the human and the divine and then they criticize the Trinitarians saying that God is numerically indivisible.
Question: did the Bible mentioned the FATHER, the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT. The answer is: YES.
How many are MENTIONED? One, two or three? The answer is: THREE.
There's only one God, but whether you call it modes, PERSONS, manifestations, masks, spheres, titles, functions etc, you have to acknowledge that there are THREE. To say anything different is to deny the Bible. I'm surprised that oneness deny they are not Trinitarians when they believe in THREE MODES/ MANIFESTATIONS since that is a cornerstone of Oneness theology.
We are essentially saying the same basic things while trying to explain God.
The question is: "Can THREE distinct, divine PERSONS really be ONE being?" The short answer is YES.
What's "out there" to me is why Oneness followers continually
attack trinitarians when they believe in a TRINITY of "modes/manifestations".
The Trinity is inevitable!
That person/mode theological math you have applied in trying to prove oneness believers to be trinitarians, does not work. Wonderful is a person, and so is counsellor. Mighty God is person, as well as everlasting Father and Prince of peace. Each is regarded as a distinct revelation, which are five revelations of Jesus, but each revelation being a person, does not distinguish five persons of Jesus. The mighty God is Jesus, but the same Jesus is also the everlasting Father and the Prince of peace. So Father being a person, does not mean that person who is the Father, is not also the Son. My emotional person is one, my physical person is one, and my spiritual person is one, but my one person is all three.
Msolav63, THIS will be our new Thread. When you get back to me, go
through THIS new line, okay?
Greetings. The error you are making, is to make each mode of the oneness, a distinct person as each mode is a distinct one. While it is true that a mode or manifestation relates to a person, it is equally true that one person can fill more than one mode or manifestation or expression at the same time. Some Unitarians use that same line of reasoning to prove that Jesus is not God, for they say the human side of him, which is a full human being, is a person. They will ask you, if Jesus is human and that human being is one person, then what makes that one person, human, also divine, for their reasoning is that the divine which is a person, dwells outside of the human person. This kind of logic doesn't hold up, because what the Unitarians fail to understand, is that while it is true that the one person is human, it is not true that the one person is human only, but that he is also divine. Now by the same principle, one mode being one person, does not equate to one person being one mode only, because the one person can exist in more than one mode, at the same time. This shows therefore, that the oneness doctrine, is not a trinitarian one.
Three distinct persons cannot be one being, because one person is one being. The burden of proof rests on you, to clearly establish that one divine person is not one divine being. I would never regard trinitarians of being believers in three Gods, but I do see where their doctrine implies the very thing they do not believe, three Gods.
In oneness theology, the same God means the same person. The biblical usage of ”God”, is never used outside of the context of a person, and is never once used in a non-personal sense. You will have to prove such a position with the use of scripture. Jesus is the same God as the Father. Jesus is also the same God who is the Father. All the ”whats” of God, constitutes the one ”who” of God.
Does the bible present one God as one person or as a solitary one? Yes. Mal 2:10; Eph 4:6; 1Cor 8:6. With the last verse, the one God is not distinct from the one Lord, except if the one Lord is not God, and the one God is not Lord. The fact that the one Lord in the verse, is God in other verses, suggests that the one Lord is that same one God, in that verse. Th fact that the one God in the verse, is also Lord in other verses, means this one God is also the one Lord in this verse. This means then, that the one God and one Lord, point to only Jesus Christ. Do you accept Jesus to be one God, as you accept him to be one Lord?
The Son in Jn 17:3, prayed to the only true God. Is this only true God to whom he prayed, a triune or one divine person? We will agree that the Son had a God. Is it therefore incorrect to substitute the word 'one' for 'a'. Did the Son serve and pray to only one God?
18:22 You claim that Jesus is a man who is filled with the one God - well big deal so am I and so too is every other hristian in Church history which would make me just as much deity as your Jesus. Your definition of th eSon is wrong, the Son is both God and man, but you make the Son the humanity and the Father the deity which traditionally is called subordinationism. I'd love to debate you on zoom.
😉👍🙏🙏🏼🙏🥰😇😇
I don’t have a problem with the oneness of God. I can understand the word becoming FLESH! A complete man with the fullness of deity, dwelling in him,and not a second divine person of some holy Trinity! ,,but my point is how has apostolic movement adopted the gibberish & babbling being tongues as a heavenly language! …and that it’s from God? When the apostles received the gift of the Holy Spirit and the signs followed them. They spoke other tongues/languages, showing the evidence that the Word was going to be sprayed around the world in different tongues/languages. You interpolate other versus to try to say there’s two kinds of tongues, which is hocus-pocus, the Trinitarians have their triune God, and you preach mystic tongues/languages! I grew up with people rolling in the ground, incoherent uttering gibberish. How does that get interpret? A dodo bird has laid an egg amongst you and it’s being nourished! When the Spirit of TRUTH comes, it can only testify of Jesus, not of itself! So, how can babbling be a testimony of Jesus?
Out of your mouth, you professed Azusa St was proof for estatic gibberish! When Seymour & Parham sent out missionaries, speaking, gibberish, saying they didn’t have to learn a language that the message would be conveyed, speaking gibberish, and babbling they had to come back to the drawing board!
Azusa St was a sham and that’s what you identify with? 1 Timothy 6:20 Timothy, guard what you were interested with (the Word) turn away from godless chatter/babble and the opposing ideas of what is falsely call knowledge! So how does one interpret Babel? There is no private prayer tongue/language.!
Matt 6:7 when you pray, do not repeat, like pagans! Modern
Apostolic Pentecostal moment has redefined. The Holy Spirit it’s just like the Trinitarians explain it the third person of the holy trinity talks to them first person of the trinity for your! In the last days, many will be deceived! Unknown tongues/languages are the signature of the pentecostals! Think about it Pastor! How does one say amen?
Oneness believers reject the Trinity but use Trinitarianism in their thoughts. You are inconsistent in articulating what you believe, for you cannot correlate your doctrine with all the teachings of the Bible without affirming something like the doctrine of the Trinity. So, Oneness Pentecostals end up affirming a God in "THREE manifestations" or a God in "THREE modes of activity" or a God in "THREE roles or performances" or a God in "THREE masks" or a God in "THREE spheres or God in "THREE titles" but according to oneness God is never and can never be a God in "THREE persons ", since this is very incoherent, Lol.
Oneness say and teach that God is indivisible. Therefore, it is not that one "part" of God exists as the Father, another as a Son, and so on. Rather, the whole of Deity is fully present in each of the "sphere or modes."
But the strange thing is that Oneness believers hold that God can be in these three "roles" simultaneously. Therefore, God acts and exists fully as the omnipresent Father, God exists fully as the incarnate Son and God exists fully within the believer as the Holy Spirit and HE does all of this at the SAME TIME.
That is, the God who exists in the mode of the Son or Jesus exists completely "outside" the mode of God the Father and the mode of the God the Holy Spirit and each "mode" or "sphere" can therefore be called " The". Also, God can act, speak or manifest himself personally from any of his three personal forms of existence simultaneously and individually. As, for example, in the baptism of Jesus, Matthew 3-13-17, in where the supposed modes manifested themselves, completely, personally and simultaneously or at the same time.
Therefore, from this point of view, God exists fully and personally in one "sphere or mode" and that at the same time he can communicate with himself while existing fully and personally in another sphere or mode. Only with this we could say that the Oneness point of view is similar to classical Trinitarianism. To say that God can exist fully and that he can personally exist in three different ways is almost indistinguishable from saying that God exists in THREE "persons."
So is a "Trinity of activity or modes" less mysterious than a "Trinity of people?" No, but nonetheless you Onenessers go through with your attacks and endless twists, branding the Trinity as a logical and biblical monstrosity while at the same time you also believe in a Trinity by affirming and admitting that the one indivisible God can exist and exists in at least three different ways, that it does it completely, that it does it personally and that it does it simultaneously. In fact, up to this point, oneness affirms exactly the SAME MYSTERY expressed in the doctrine of the Trinity.
Therefore, the mystery of the TRINITY IS INEVITABLE whether one labels or calls it "sphere or mode" or as a "different person". It does not matter whether this trinity is held to be eternal or merely temporary; It does not matter if one maintains that Jesus is the “unique personality” that shines through each manifestation independently, or if he is the “second“ person. ”In other words, Oneness are TRINITARIANS.
The Trinity is inevitable!
John 5:37 "And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form."
I am one of those silly trinitarians, as a disclaimer, blessings!
Who coined the word trinitas or trinity and who formulated the doctrine of the trinity?
@@Post-Trib Hey man... I guess we're back to where we started. If you believe oneness, then go ahead and believe it... I can tell I can't break through the wall here.
Man I don't care who coined the term, or who formulated the doctrine. This point is so frustrating and time-wasting to me because I could just sit here and ask who coined the term "oneness" and who came up with the idea that Jesus and Father just refer to two different natures...
I try to be honest, read all the Bible, understand what they mean harmoniously together, and when deciding what I think God meant, the trinity, that Jesus, the Father, Holy Spirit, are distinct persons of one God, that explanation fits. The summary itself isn't in the Bible, but what it summarizes certainly is. What I've noticed, from you, from every oneness pentecostal I've talked to, is that I ought to just ignore certain Bible verses that don't fit the idea of oneness, that they aren't persons but roles.
I can't just ignore John 5:37, John 16:13. The word 'trinity' is not in the Bible, but the Bible certainly teaches it. No one came up with it, no one formulated the doctrine. The trinity is what anyone would conclude from taking what Jesus said at face value, and not being saturated by the writings of that liar David Bernard.
How can there be dialogue between Jesus and the father? Its simple, they are two distinct persons. The father is the one true God just as Jesus acknowledged he was (John 17:3) and Jesus is the son of that one God! (Matthew 3:17), who was anointed and sent by his father. They are not one and the same which is why it could be said by Jesus and his disciples that the father ( God) was WITH Jesus (the son of God) (see John 8:16, Acts 10:38). Oneness and Trinitarians views both are unbiblical and are teachings foreign to Jesus who never claimed to be God and the disciples who taught he was the son of God.
Jesus did acknowledge that He was God.
Thomas called Him "My Lord and My God" (John 20:28)
Jesus plainly told Saul that He was God in response to the question "Who art thou Lord?" Jesus' reply was "I am Jesus". In the Hebrew tongue no less.
Jesus told the disciples that "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father..." (John 14:9)
The church is purchased with God's "own blood" (Acts 20:28)
The apostles most certainly claim that Jesus was God.
Colossians 2:9 The fulness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus bodily.
I Timothy 3:16 states that God was manifest in the flesh.
Jesus is God.
@@pastorurshan thanks for your response brother hope you are having a good day. I would like to say however that, I don’t believe Thomas expression concerning his “Lord and his God” was intended to be taken as if he was only acknowledging Jesus. If we look at other passages from the book of John, Jesus many times stated the fact that he was not ALONE but that the father was WITH him (John 8:16 & 8:29), so simply following that logic and harmonizing scripture I think its more likely that Thomas statement was both an acknowledgment to Jesus AND his God who was with him. Let’s not forget Jesus and Thomas both shared the same God (John 20:17). Also the passage where Jesus says He that had seen Him has seen the father, I don’t believe is a direct statement of Jesus claiming to be the father especially if you continue reading on because within that same conversation, Jesus plainly states that the father was in him and not only that but working through him (Jn 14:10). Thus the miracles he performed revealed or manifested the father to those that seen Jesus. It’s no different from believers who believe through their life today they are revealing Jesus to the world.
Now on and on we can go but the bottom line is ,there are no direct statement from Jesus saying “I am God” and there is no direct statement from his disciples teaching that either. If you read Acts chapter 2, the message Peter preached was that Jesus was a man approved by God (Acts 2:22), and that he was risen from the grave by God and seated at his right hand (Acts 2:32-33) and that salvation was through his name. Peter spoke this on the day of Pentecost so who are we to teach anything different? If the goal is to lineup with the apostles teaching oneness doctrine needs to evolve and teach the same in my humble opinion.
@@ryanprovost4828 Absolutely. I love this topic and I love that people like yourself have a hunger to study it.
The Father was indeed “with” him. The Father was also “in” him. These are ways to describe the beautiful revelation of the mighty God in christ that “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself…” (II Cor. 5:19). This is not “with” in some generic sense but it makes them one. Isaiah makes this clear when he states that not only would Messiah be the “son” but would also be the “everlasting Father”. (Is. 9:6). It is also what Paul meant when he told Timothy that “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.” (I I Tim. 3:16)
As you stated, we could go on and on but hear this one portion. You state that Jesus never explicitly states that he is God. I would ask you to consider John 8:12-27. Specifically verse 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.”
V. 27 then explicitly says that they understood not that they spake to them of the Father.
This is the great mystery of how Jesus can be both the Prince of Peace and the Everlasting Father as the same time. It is what stumped the Pharisees when Jesus asked them how David could call the LORD (Yahweh), “my lord” (or his son). (Mark 12:37). People have wondered how Christ could be both Father and Son at one time. The answer is in Colossians 2:9 “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
Here are a few commentaries that recognize this:
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
24. if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins-They knew well enough what He meant (Mr 13:6, Greek; compare Mt 24:5). But He would not, by speaking it out, give them the materials for a charge for which they were watching. At the same time, one is irresistibly reminded by such language, so far transcending what is becoming in men, of those ancient declarations of the God of Israel, "I AM He" (De 32:39; Isa 43:10, 13; 46:4; 48:12). See on [1811]Joh 6:20.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
that I am he] Better, that I am. It not merely means ‘that I am the Messiah,’ but is the great name, which every Jew at once understood, I AM. Comp. John 8:28; John 8:58, John 13:19, John 18:5; Exodus 3:14; Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 43:10.
I look forward to your reply.
@@pastorurshan Hey brother, so looking over John 8 I think verse 27 is better understood when read along with verse 26, where Jesus says “I have many things to say and to judge of you: but HE ….. that sent ME…… is true; (notice the distinction between the he that sent Jesus and Jesus who was sent) and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of HIM” (the one that sent him) …… Then verse 27 states that they understood not that he was speaking of the father. So again I don’t believe this passage intended to imply that Jesus was claiming to be the father but that rather he was speaking of the one that sent him, who was the father and the Jews understood it not.
And yes Colossians does say the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus, but the Bible also says “For it pleased “the Father” that in him should all fulness dwell;” (Colossians 1:19). Does not this passage makes it evident that the father is someone separate from Jesus in who the fullness dwelt?
I think by just acknowledging the distinction we see in the passage between Jesus and his father the idea that Jesus himself is the father becomes more and more less likely. Let me as you this how do you view the teaching of Jesus where he taught he had a God (Jn 21:17) and when Jesus speaks of this God why does he refer to him as someone OTHER than himself in passage were the context is that of Jesus speaking about God like
1.) MARK 10:6 - But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
2.) MARK 12:27 - He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
3.) MARK 10:18 - And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
If Jesus was God and that’s what’s he was going around claiming as you believe wouldn’t or shouldn’t these passage read like
1.) MARK 10:6 But from the beginning of creation I made them male and female.
OR
2.) MARK 12:27 I am not the God of the dead but the God of the living.
It’s just doesn’t add up but would love to hear your thoughts until then take care.
@@ryanprovost4828
Thank you. Great questions. Many people have looked at these and asked similar questions.
There is absolutely a distinction. That is the reason Jesus used other personal pronouns when teaching about the relationship between the Father and the Son. We do not believe that the Father is the Son. This is the misconception many make about Oneness believers. “Father” is a word that refers to God’s eternal deity. “Son” is a word that expresses God’s humanity working with His deity. As such, there is a distinction in those roles and God takes great care to preserve this distinction in administrations not divine persons.
The Father however was IN the Son and as such we do emphatically say that Jesus was God and that Jesus and His Father were One. The Spirit in Christ was none other than the Father Himself and in that sense the Father was in Christ and they are one.
That Jesus uses plural pronouns is not to suggest that two divine persons are working together. It is to demonstrate the distinct administrations and that the man (or flesh) Christ Jesus as an authentic human was working with the eternal Spirit of God the Father.
Here’s a good example:
John 14:16-18
16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
Notice how Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as “another Comforter”? Notice how he says He dwells with them but would eventually be “in” them?
He then plainly states “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you”. Jesus uses third person pronouns to emphasize the distinctions in administrations but then rightly points out that it will be himself that returns to comfort them.
Here’s a question:
Galatians 1:1 says the Father raised Christ from the dead right?
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
In John 2:19 Jesus says that “…Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
If the Father raised Him and He raised Himself, how can this be?
But you never exegeted any text. The answer either way is in the text. You should show it. How do arrive at what you claim from the text? Deut 6:4 echad - one, is compound unity. That doesn’t prove the trinity but it must be exegeted and definitely does not prove a oneness perspective. There needs to be a lot more scholarship in determining this truth.
Here is an excerpt from en exegesis on the Shema. We have dealt with it on a layman's level. There is profound scholarship that shows "compound unity" to be a Greco Roman/ pagan contstruct. This is a small example.
First
Echad has a spectrum of meanings in the Hebrew Bible. To say it means "compound unity" confines the word to a narrow category that doesn't match all its varied uses by the biblical writers. It's like saying the word elohim only refers to the true God. When, in fact, elohim is used for false gods and goddesses, angelic beings, the judges of Israel, the king of Israel, and the Messiah. It's necessary to qualify the phrase "it means…"
Second
The word "Shema" is a Hebrew command: "Hear, Listen, Obey" (Deut 6:4). It is not a creedal jewel suspended in mid-air. It exists within a theological context. It exists in the early, foundational chapters of Deuteronomy, and Deuternomy exists as the final chapter of the Chumash, the Torah. The specific placement of this crucial passage must have a bearing on how we interpret it.
Third
Yeshua told his disciples that he and the Father were "one" (John 10:30). He didn't define their oneness here. Later when he prayed to his Father on behalf of his disciples, he asked that they "may all be one, just as we are one" (John 17:21-22).
Whatever this oneness may entail, we assume it doesn't mean his disciples would enter into metaphysical unity with the transcendent deity, as in Neo-Platonism or modern New Age pantheism.
Paul provides a key definition of the unity of Yeshua's disciples: "The one who joins himself to the Lord [Messiah] is one SPIRT with him" (1 Cor 6:17). Jews and non-Jews can "both have our access in one SPIRIT to the Father" (Eph 2:18). Paul links being "filled" with this SPIRIT with "putting on" the "New Man," which reflects the nature of the Messiah that was created by God (Eph 5:18, 4:24; Col 3:10).
[See Meanings & Uses of Ruach, and Synonyms of Ruach: A Study in Hebrew Metaphors]
What Does אֶחָד Mean?
The Hebrew adjective echad occurs 970 times in the Tanakh. (Its feminine form, achat, is included in this total.) [Note 1] Here are the main uses of the word, according to numerical counts.
"One"
By far, the most common meaning of echad (600+x) is the simple cardinal number "one."
Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place
[maqom echad]. (Gen 1:9)
He took one of the man's ribs [achat mitzalotayv]. (Gen 2:21)
The man has become like one of Us [ke-achad mimmennu]. (Gen 3:22)
We are all sons of one man [ish echad]. (Gen 42:11)
The youngest is with our father today and one is no more. (Gen 42:13)
"First"
In its first appearance in the Bible echad is an ordinal number and means "first":
And there was evening and there was morning, the first day [yom echad]. (Gen 1:5b)
Some expositors say "yom echad" alludes to the composite nature of the day, since it consists of an evening and a morning. Yet subsequent days in chapter 1 are also made of an evening and a morning, and they are numbered the "second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth" days of the week (Gen 1:8, 13, 19, 23, 31). This pattern shows that echad in v. 5b means "first," not "compound (day)."
The ordinal echad occurs elsewhere in Genesis:
The name of the first [ha-echad] is Pishon. (2:11)
On the first day [be-echad] of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible. (8:5b)
In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first of the month, the water was dried up. (8:13)
"Same"
Echad can signify "the same" or "one and the same."
Behold, they are one people [am echad] and they all have the same language [safah achat, fem.]. (Gen 11:6)
They both had a dream the same night [layelah echad]. (Gen 40:5)
Pharaoh's dreams are one and the same [halom echad hu]. (Gen 41:25)
"Singularity"
Echad can denote oneness as "singleness."
[The Passover] is to be eaten in a single house [bayit echad]. (Exod 12:46a)
The [menorah] was a single [achat] hammered work of pure gold. (Exod 37:22b)
They…cut down a branch with a single cluster of grapes [eshkol anavim echad].
(Num 13:23)
Not a single word [davar echad] has failed of all He promised,
which He promised through Moses His servant. (1 Kgs 8:56b)
Look to Abraham your father,
And to Sarah who gave birth to you in pain;
When he was one [single man] I called him,
Then I blessed him and multipled him. (Isa 51:2)
I will remove the iniquity of that Land in a single day [yom echad; same as Gen 1:5b] (Zech 3:9)
"Undivided Oneness"
At times, echad denotes a unity of purpose or effort, or a shared condition.
The people answered with one voice [kol echad]. (Exod 24:3)
Then I will give to the peoples purified lips,
That all of them may call on the name of YHVH,
To serve him with one shoulder [shechem echad]. (Zeph 3:9)
The Hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart [lev echad]. (2 Chron 30:12)
Genesis 2:24
This passage is a common focus of attention in discussions of the Shema.
[Adam and Eve] shall become one flesh. (Gen 2:24)
Some expositors propose that our First Parents' oneness of flesh is a compound unity consisting of each other's physical being. But the verse points to the opposite. Before her creation, Eve was "in" Adam (Gen 2:22). Upon creation, she became a separated, though obviously related, distinct person.
Then God reversed the operation and rejoined them in a new way, in marriage. They are no longer apart: they are one single body. Eve is not now "in" Adam, but "with" him as his counterpart [kenegdo, v. 20b]. Their unity is not composite, but singularly whole. The two, as male and female, are now one Human-one, single "Adam" (Gen 3:22, 24).
Ezekiel 37
Similarly, in Ezekiel 37 God plans one day to bring together the two rebellion-split houses of Israel and Judah. There will not be a king in the Northern Kingdom Israel and a king in the Southern Kingdom Judah. God will take their two "sticks" or "rods" (symbols of their authority) and rejoin them as one scepter under "David," the future Messiah.
I will make them an undivided nation [goy echad] in the Land . . .
One single King [melech echad] will be king for all of them,
And they will no longer be two nations,
And they will no longer be divided into two kingdoms. (Ezek 37:22)
Some believe this union of the two kingdoms is also a compound or composite unity of two parts. But that's precisely not the point here. Their once individual, self-willed identities will disappear; they will become one nation, indivisible, under God.
As originally intended, the one people will be ruled by Messiah, The One King [melech echad].
"Uniqueness"
Finally, echad has another nuance of meaning that sheds light on the Shema.
We saw above that echad usually denotes the number "one" (as opposed to two, three, or 10 million). There is something about one thing that is like no other - a solitary "one-ity" that highlights uniqueness, one-of-a-kind-ness. Several things are unique in the Bible.
King David, in overwhelmed prayer, after being given the privilege of leading God's redemptive program on earth, asks the Lord:
Who is like Your people Israel,
a unique nation [goy echad] on earth? (2 Sam 7:23)
In the future, God will return to Har Zetim with his armies and radically change Jerusalem's geography. And that
will be a unique day [yom echad; same as Gen 1:5b]
which is known only to the LORD…. (Zech 14:7)
And on that Yom Echad, Unique Day…
YHVH will be king over all the earth;
in that day YHVH will be Echad [the only one],
and his name Echad [the only one]. (Zech 14:9)
In the Song of Songs, the young man describes his singularly peerless, inimitable, incomparable beloved:
My dove, my perfect one, is unique [achat; fem.] (Song 6:9a)
יָחַד - The Real Word for Unity
When commentators declare (without making qualifications) that "echad means compound, composite unity," they haven't done thorough lexical study. For example, the standard Hebrew word to denote joining, unity or togetherness is yachad, not echad.
He was King in Yeshurun,
When the heads of the people were gathered,
The tribes of Israel together [yachad]. (Deut 33:5)
My heart is turned over within Me,
All together [yachad] my compassions are kindled. (Hosea 11:8b)
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brethren to dwell together in unity [gam yachad]! (Ps 133:1)
In the Dead Sea Scrolls document The Community Rule (1QS, The Manual of Disciple), the group of priests and their disciples abiding at Qumran is called The Yachad: the Union, the Comm-Unity.
This is the rule for the men of the Yachad… (5:1)
…the Yachad of the eternal covenant (5:5)
Whoever enters the council of the Yachad enters the covenant of God (5:7-8)
Echad is not compound unity. Only Western educated seminarians would contend for this position.
@@TheBiblosNetwork Not always, true, but you cannot state that it never represents compound unity.
@Thomas Smith so God made a mistake in his doctrine?
Not sure I understand the question. God can’t mistake His doctrine. Doctrine is our attempt to intelligibly articulate His concepts.
Weak apologetics, the Oneness position is unjustifiable historically. The New Testament authors clearly fell into what might be called a two powers theology, not a supposedly obviously basic monotheism resting on faulty concepts of unity and multiplicity.
While oneness believers reject the doctrine of the Trinity, they nevertheless accept the doctrine of Dual Nature. Is it logical to reject the idea that God is a Trinity of Persons, and yet maintain the key doctrine wich supports that idea? Of course not. Does the Bible explicitly teach anywhere that Jesus was comprised of two natures? The answer is: No, it does not. It must be inferred from the text in the same manner that the Trinity is inferred from the text by many. Oneness criticizes Trinitarians for building a doctrine out of proof texts, rather than hearing the whole, clear counsel of God, while on the other hand they are doing the exact same thing with respect to the regarding Dual Nature. Oneness are being hypocritical without even realizing it, holding Trinitarians to a higher standard than they are holding themselves to.
Oneness basically follow the teachings of Sabellius, who was a third century North African Libyan Catholic who rejected the idea of the Holy Trinity. Subsequently he appears as a presbyter of Ptolemais, in Egypt.
Sabellius was EXCOMMUNICATED by Pope Callistus I (c. 220). He was part of the Catholic church. The same way that on January 3, 1521, Pope Leo X issues the papal bull Decet Romanum Pontificem, which excommunicates Martin Luther from the Catholic church.
Again, oneness follow the dual nature of Christ that is a catholic doctrine and on top of that you have church on Sunday because in the fourth century the Catholic and Emperor Constantine replaced the Sabbath with "DAY OF THE SUN", or Sunday and then accuse the Trinitarians of being pagans.
Like I stated before oneness have been following Catholic doctrines and then they go around judging others when they do the same thing.
Tertullian your man who used the word Trini was also excommunicated🤷🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️🤔
Stop being foolish.
@@revamp6612.
REVAMP, Jesus himself was the one who revealed or brought to us this revelation of the FATHER, the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT in Matthew 28:19. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED WHEN JESUS WAS BAPTIZED? What Jesus said previously was fulfilled and the FATHER, the SON and the HOLY SPIRIT WERE PRESENT.
In Mark 1:10 it says:
10 And immediately, coming up from the water, HE SAW the heavens parting AND THE SPIRIT descending upon Him like a dove.
11 THEN A VOICE came from heaven, “YOU ARE MY BELOVED SON , in whom I am well pleased.”
REVAMP, do you notice, here it doesn't say "I AM MY BELOVED SON " Or I'M THE FATHER). Instead it says: "YOU ARE MY SON". Jesus is not the FATHER, He is the Son sent by the FATHER.
@@msolav63 you don’t know that the only difference between the Father and Son has nothing to do with persons. It has to do with flesh and spirit.
@@revamp6612
REVAMP:
Who is this GOD?
Revelation 3:11-13 says:
11 Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown.
12 He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of MY GOD, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him THE NAME OF MY GOD and the name of the city of MY GOD, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from MY GOD. And I will write on him My new name.
13 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” ’
Jesus tells us the temple OF MY GOD, THE NAME OF MY GOD, THE NAME OF THE CITY OF MY GOD, THE HEAVEN OF MY GOD and my new name. In all this time Jesus is in heaven and is the only one God, but, who is this God who is Jesus referring to when he says "the TEMPLE, NAME, CITY and HEAVEN OF MY GOD" and his new name, as if saying the NAME OF MY GOD doesn't change but my name is going to be changed, the same as our names will be change with new names, and, all this happens while Jesus is in heaven.
Again, remember according to Oneness, Jesus is the only one God or the Father but, now Jesus in heaven so "who is this other GOD that Jesus refers to in heaven?" Answer: THE FATHER.
Again: Jesus said to Mary , “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My FATHER; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to MY FATHER and YOUR FATHER, and to MY GOD and YOUR GOD.’ ” (John 20:17)
Jesus is not the FATHER.
@@msolav63 then please explain Isaiah 9:6 where Jesus shall be called "the mighty God, the everlasting Father..."
Please explain John 14 where Philip asked Jesus to show us the Father...and Jesus says "have I been so long with you Philip and thou hast not known me"
It doesn't get any clearer than that.
Notice the lack of biblical exegesis in Mr. Urshan’s response. The oneness position is derived and defended from proof texting and lot’s of explanation. Context is key to properly exegeting the scripture.
I'm sure you are familiar with the saying "a text without a context is a pretext for a proof text." I'm happy to provide context and bedrock Exegetical analysis. This is a perspective for those desiring s synopsis illustrating the profound corruption trinitarianism has force fed to Christianity. I'm happy to discuss it with you publicly or privately. It is high time the world knows the Catholic foundation of trinitarianism and the devastating effect it has had on true, original Christianity.
Melp, Pastor Urshan is correct. This Post Apostolic, Dark age doctrine
is the invention of the Corrupt Roman Catholic religion.
I once WAS a Catholic; But that was back when I was a 'child.'
John 8:19-27 Jesus said if you don’t believe I’m the Father you will die in your sins
Kade...that ISN'T what JOHN 8:19-27, is saying at ALL!
With respect.
Duet 32 39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
40 For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever. After hearing a preacher mockingly say who was Jesus talking to when praying and looking towards heaven he said was he throwing his voice ? Being a ventriloquist ? I then read where God was on earth praising himself in heaven? Am I reading this right?
Blaspheming of the Father, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit...
Not at all. To divide them and to create three is the blasphemy. To know Him and His redemptive manifestations toward mankind as the One, True, Living God is the highest honor (and the greatest commandment) in scripture. I do not blaspheme or deny the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Quite the contrary. I deny the Trinity.
Oneness doctrine does not square with scripture. Ultimately, this is the foundation on which the error of any theological opinion must be exposed. But while this is the decisive consideration in judging any theological opinion, it is not the only consideration. I want to tell you that the teachings of those Christian leaders who immediately succeeded the apostles were also very revealing on this matter.
The reasoning here is simple: religious traditions take time to change. In fact, from the study of world religions we learn that religious traditions, once established, are among the most stable aspects of all human culture. They are inherently conservative and resistant to change. Therefore, it is safe to say that the apostles' teachings were not corrupted as you oneness claims. This assumption is especially justified in light of the fact that the early post-apostolic Fathers were consciously trying to preserve and protect the apostolic teachings.
An examination of the teachings of the early post-apostolic Fathers, therefore, should provide us with very relevant information on this matter. Oneness Pentecostals affirm that the original apostolic teaching was that Jesus is the Farher, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Why, if the apostles taught this, it is practically inconceivable that Christian leaders in the next two generations would have failed, or could have failed, intentionally or not. Yet that is exactly what one must believe to accept the adherents' claim of oneness that they possess the "original" New Testament that supposedly denies the Trinity. But none of the early Apostolic Fathers came close to upholding the doctrine of oneness.
In fact, what is perhaps even more damaging to oneness' views is that there is no trace that anyone argued for or against modalism until the second or early third century. Therefore, to accept the claim of oneness, one must accept that this doctrine was not only lost (or overthrown) within a generation or two after the apostolic church, but that this occurred without anyone noticing or raising a single voice against it. If this conclusion is unacceptable and it certainly is, this provides further proof that God's vision of oneness is wrong.
A relatively review of what the first post-apostolic father taught is all that is required to show that they did not have the vision that today he professes oneness. Following the New Testament pattern, we never, nor they, call Jesus the "FATHER" but rather the Son. Neither the apostles nor do we say or imply that it was the FATHER who sent himself to the world.
On the other hand, and again closely following the New Testament pattern, Jesus is called the "Son of God" dozens and dozens of times. Many more times in this literature he is called "Son of God", "The Word of God", "image of God" etc. etc. Furthermore, Jesus is mentioned with great frequency alongside with the FATHER and with the HOLY SPIRIT. So if identifying Jesus as the Father and the Holy Spirit was vitally important to the apostles, then apparently they did a wonderful job of hiding this fact from those they taught.
Neither Peter, nor Paul or any other disciple.
Neither Clement 1 from the year 95.
Neither Ignatius from the year 110.
Neither Polycarp disciple of John (from the year 70 - 155).
Neither Justin from the year 100-165.
Neither Athenagoras 133-190.
None of the above were ONENESS. They upheld and preserved the teachings of the Faith entrusted to them without any alteration. If the Trinity had been incorporated into the Christian Faith there would have been great resistance against this alleged apostasy, which did not happen. On the contrary, there was much controversy when some believers attempted to propagate the new vision or heretical dogma of the oneness of God at the end of the second century. This is further proof that oneness does not go back to New Testament times. But we do not find any controversy of the trinitarianism of the first post-apostolic fathers.
That is why, following the New Testament pattern, the only conclusion is that the original apostolic doctrine of God was not at all the same as what oneness groups now claim it to be.
This is where your knowledge of the history of the oneness movement, is lacking. Oneness is recorded in history throughout the centuries.
The FATHER is not
the only one that is mentioned in the bible. The SON and the HOLY SPIRIT are mentioned too. The Trinity is inevitable Oneness are Trinitarians!
I ask a little kid to tell me about how many God is this:
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit
I am confident that he will say One God. But he said, there are three Gods. I said NO, they are only persons of God. Again he said, yes they are three Gods, no person there.
I'm trying to put those three distinct or different persons of God into one God, but the child is right.
Might as well you also say the Father is not the only God. You wrote 'is not the only one' as though the person and being/existence, are separate.
@@dyarigon9492 the child will be also correct if you ask him/her what persons are talking when Jesus is praying. The child will tell you that the 2nd & the 3rd person are talking because they are as we know it. The point is, God is not a God of confusion, the Bible is also inspired by the Almighty God!
You have an unjustified assumption on the meaning of what it means to be one. When Christ himself makes it clear the manner in which He and the Father are One. He does not say it is like Bruce Wayne and Batman are One. But that He and the Father are One as the Peter, John, etc. are One.
Your assumption is wrong. How'd ya like that?
You must see multiple personages in a godhead, not the simple biblical idea of One!
You deny the Greek Heis Theos
One God
In scripture, always when referring to God ,it means a numeral one, a sole cardinal one as in one person. Heis Isa masculine one, not hen; a one denoting composite or unity one.
You can't find your people in the follow up centuries from the Bible century, there wasn't anyone preaching till Tertullian fully saying Trinitas and most of them were subordinationists.
Jesus what not a man. God is not a man. He is the fullness of the godhead bodily. Hebrew said a body has he prepared. Father is Abba creator. The body of Christ which we are filled us from the beginning. The Eternal Spirit does not have a body. We who have repented and take on God are growing into a son. Jesus lived our life as a example how to live. Every communication Jesus had with God was us speaking. God's word defy logic. The red sea defies logic. Jesus walking through walls defies logic. This life is a Faith walk. God is a spirit. Yes I believe in the oneness of God.
Wow he’s very very good Apostolic apologist he should team up with brother Bernard and tag team that trithiest Calvinist James White but maybe it’s to late for Mr White he already took the mark.
Biblical network.
You oneness people have to twist the scriptures to get your erroneous beliefs.
You never give Biblical answers, you always give your own erroneous opinions.
Jesus wasn't submitting Himself to God when He said My God why have you forsaken Me, He was forsaken by God, God left Him. Which means Jesus died Spiritualy as well as physically.
How do you answers these.
Gen 1: 26.
Acts 7: 56.
Jn 17: 3.
And who was Jesus pray to.
Eph 1: 20.
Rev 5: 1--8.
Please answers these scriptures WITH the Bible, NOT with your own opinions, like you have just done.
Is Jesus the son of the father
Jesus is The Son of God.
Are you asking if Jesus is the Son or the father? He’s both!!
Hi been in Pentecost for 34yrs presently under Pastor Urshan. Jesus Christ was according to the flesh and a representation of humanity, but he still God. We know this because Paul stated that God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit etc. In Matt he is spoken of as who? Emanuel being interpreted as God with us.
See God manifest himself as spirit or as we envision the father that created heaven and earth, manifested himself as flesh in Jesus Christ again still God! Then represents himself as his own agent to his own church, but it's still almighty God manifesting himself. Is9:6 describes him as the son that was born, the child that was given.
But see here.,. He shall be called wonderful, counselor, The mighty God, the everlasting father the prince of peace! See so... All God all flesh.
Who was the Father of Jesus? The Bible says that the Holy Ghost over shadowed Mary. The Holy Ghost is the same as the Father. Notice how Isaiah tells us of the identity of Jesus.
Isaiah 9:6 KJVS
[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, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
How is it that Jesus would be called the everlasting Father?
@@timc5922
Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, LIKE UNTO ME; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, [that] every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
Acts 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A PROPHET SHALL THE LORD YOU GOD RAISE UP UNTO YOU OF YOUR BRETHREN, LIKE UNTO ME; him shall ye hear.
They say how can Jesus be the Father when he is the son of the Father?
Answer in the same way Jesus is God and a prophet of God.
How can Jesus be a Prophet of God and be that same God who sends the Prophet? John 20:28 / Acts 7:37
Rev 22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and *the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel* to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
Rev 22:16 *I Jesus have sent mine angel* to testify unto you these things in the churches. *I am the root and the offspring of David* and the bright and morning star.
The sender of the angel is identified as the Lord God of the Holy Prophets which 10 verses later is Jesus!! This is the same Jesus who is identified as a prophet in Acts 7:37
7:43
Let me stop you there chief
You confuse distinction and seperation; nature and person
Clearly you have never read Hebrews if you think that God the Son calling his Father his God is a problem.
Trinity is a lie of the devil
Putting aside the fact that you are utterly butchering Isaiah 9:6, or at least that version of it, I don’t even accept that translation of it. The Septuagint has completely different rendering. For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him
You're making as many excuses as the Trinitarian does. YHWH is Satan, not God. YHWH is NOT the Father.