Apostolic Oneness Pentecostalsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread |
Praise the LordMy name is T. Byron Williams, I am an an ordained minister with The Way of the Cross Churches of Christ International, and pastor of the Agape Way of the Cross Church of Christ, which is only one month in existence. I also teach a weekly Bible Class, via the email, on every Monday, where I send out lessons to over 25 souls thus far, where we deal with many different subjects that that is self application to everyone. All are welcome.
I was asked by Brother David Ortiz to join the discussion board in hopes of answering any questions that one might have about the Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal Faith. Over the years, we have also been called “Jesus Only”, because many believe that we deny the deity of the Father and the Holy Ghost” and only worship The Son, and thus the name Jesus Only. Not true, we just believe that in Jesus, is the fullness of the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the Father in creation, the Son, in redemption, and the Holy Ghost in the Church today. Also we baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ, and not in titles of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, believing that Acts 2:38 is the fulfillment of Matthew 28:19. For we cannot find anyone in the New Testament Church ever being baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but only in Jesus Name. For Mathew 28:19 tells us to be baptized in the name, not names, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So the question that one must asked themselves what is that ONE name. For Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not names, they are tittles.
In closing, whatever questions that one might have concerning the Apostolic Faith, I will be more than glad to answer them. I am here not to fight with anyone, like the name of my “new” church, I believe in the AGAPE love of God. I have not a heaven or hell to send anyone to send anyone, only teach what thus said the Lord. It’s God’s business who he saves. So if at anytime, it gets nasty, I will remove myself. I am not against anyone disagreeing with me, but we at the same time can be agreeable to disagree in love.
I hope that this will be the beginning of blessed relationship and fruitful to all, discussing the Word of God, together as brothers and sisters in the Lord, in love. At anytime, one wants reach me personally, I can be reached at agapewotc@yahoo.com. As I said, I am now a pastor and also teach a weekly Bible class, so I might not always get back to right away, but I will get back to you.
Yours in Christ
Elder T. Byron Williams
-- Elder T. Byron Williams (agapewotc@yahoo.com), March 04, 2004
dear Elderone of the regulars here takes the opposite approach to yourself.
he denies the Divinity of Our Lord.
but he also styles himself the "Christian Yahwist".
do you think you can be Christian and believe that Our Lord was a mere human being?
that seems very odd to me.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2004.
Welcome to this forum. You may notice many dead links currently, but hopefully some may be restored. I never saved any of my threads; they may be gone forever..forever.....for e ver....Anywho, the topics are interesting for the most part, if nothing else for the display of humans at their "best."
Again hello.
-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), March 04, 2004.
Hi Mr. Williams.Here is my first of many questions:
Do you believe in the Holy Trinity to the point of acknowledging the The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit as more that mere "titles" and , instead, recognize the mystery as One? To baptize in the name of Jesus only, places a hiearchy that does not belong. If Jesus is also God and the Holy Spirit, then why should anyone split the names?
Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?
........................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 04, 2004.
hence my question, Rod. Elder seems to be Elpidio's anthithesis.when it comes to baptism, Acts seems to support Elder, whereas Jesus supports the Trinity.
Elpidio - well, in hos defence, Sripture also seems to emphasise the role of the Holy Ghost.
just a rough survey. but interesting for me anyway.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 04, 2004.
Hi Ian.Seems like all of the components are here for a nice long campfire. This should prove very interesting indeed.
Somebody please explain the title, "Elder" and how it is permissible over the other (criticized) titles.
BTW, I do recognize Mr. Williams from the other forum.
..............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 04, 2004.
Many questions, and will do the best to try to answer them all at once. I do not in anyway, knock the titles of the Lord. But it is the Name that saves, not the titles. I am a Father, a husband, a son, a brother, but my name is Byron. And I am not hung up on titles, those who know me know that Elder is something that I very seldom use, I rather just be called Brother Williams, or better yet, Byron. But if one is asking me do I believe in the Trinity, (meaning one God in three persons. No! I believe in One God with three different manisfestations. I do not deny the roles of Father and the Holy Ghost, I just have recieved the revelation of knowing the Name. IF I may, I would like to send each of you a lesson that I taught on the Oneness of God that I believe will show each of you exactly what I believe and teach, because I can see this coming many different ways, and somehow I would miss someone. I believe that the lesson would answer many questions, and from that point we can either agree or disagree, but at least you know where I stand. I have each of you email adddress and will wait until Monday, just in case there are more. If you choose not, then just let me know and I will do the best to try to answer each of you.Byron
-- T. Byron Williams (agapewotc@yahoo.com), March 04, 2004.
Byron-I await your email with great interest. I believe in The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. When I pray, I make the Sign of the Cross. I believe that when one does this he brings everything to one focal point. My "Oneness" understanding and practice seem different from the one you proclaim. I believe that God is one in three "persons". But, yes, we can agree to disagree. Hey, I'm married!
...........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 04, 2004.
Rod, Elder is the translation of the word Presbyteroi in Greek.Presbyter then in time became priest in the Catholic Church.
Only trained Protestant clergy received this title.
Mormons called their young 20 something's elder also.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 04, 2004.
Elder Byron,1-What particular scriptures your church uses to justify Baptism in Jesus only.
2-Do you use the word Trinity?
3-Is Jesus the same as Yahweh?
4-How old is the people you baptize
5-what should a person do to be saved?
6-Do you believe in Heaven?Hell?Purgatory?Limbo?
The Christian Yahwist The Man of Yahweh
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 04, 2004.
"1-What particular scriptures your church uses to justify Baptism in Jesus only."The Book of Acts???
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 05, 2004.
Byron..,When the Scripture says to be baptized in the name of the Father and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit--shouldn't we understand that these persons are One--but all equally valid and a part of our conversion?
Why do you insist on one name? Who said these verses are actually asking for a name?
I can say that in the name of love--I will donate 1,000 dollars to some charitable organization.., but does that mean that I donated under one particular name?? Did I actually even really donate under a name? No--I donated for the sake of love.
To be baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit--just means that we are baptised into God's full nature...but we don't need a literal name. Jesus is part of the Godhead.., and baptism is a spiritual conversion--becoming one with God, not just Jesus. Jesus is the bridge to God.....
No?
-- (faitho1@myway.com), March 05, 2004.
Guys,I'm still struggling to see the difference between the Oneness of God and the Trinity beliefs. I read on this site (It claimed it was defending the Oneness view) and it said Jesus was God, and Jesus was fully God and fully man. I don't see much difference between my view and theirs
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 06, 2004.
David, I THINK they believe that God the Father, God the Holy Spirit and God the Son are NOT separate persons. Hence, God left heaven and became Jesus. God then becomes the Holy Spirit which applicable. Then God reverts back to being Christ when need be.Byron, correct me if I'm wrong please.
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 06, 2004.
The "Oneness" concept implies a hierarchy of Divinity. "There shall be no gods before me" kind of gets distorted if this implication is reality....................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 06, 2004.
Byron,"Father, glorify Thy name.' There came therefore a voice out of heaven: I have both glorified it, and will glory it again.' The multitude therefore, who stood by heard it, were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, an angel has spoken to Him'" (John 12:28-29).
Who was Jesus praying too?
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 07, 2004.
Praise the LordI will answer some of these questions through this chat board, and try my best to answer them all in the attachments that I sending each of you. Though I know that I won’t, as over the years, I have wrote many different on this subject, such as the prayers of Jesus, the dual nature of Christ, and much more. I am afraid that two lessons will not do the job. It is my hope that it will open up soul searching of each of us, and prayer in seeking the Lord in the truth of this most important subject.
After much prayer, I have also decided to be part of this chat board for about a month, then that’s it. I will do my best to answer each of your questions, but I also understand that the Oneness of God is a revelation that only the Lord can give. As I said, I am a pastor and well as teacher of other classes, and a father and husband, and I hold down two jobs, so my time is limit. So once I put the food on the table, it’s up to you, if you eat or not. It’s not like I can give you something new, it’s the same information that has been taught forever. But at the same time, always feel free to contact me at agapewotc@yahoo.com, and if I can be of some help to bring further understanding, and not repeat myself, I will. But in the end, I am Apostolic, following the teaching of those who ate, slept, and walk with Christ, and throughout all of them, baptized in Jesus Name. And if Matthew 28:19 is correct formula, the one must ask the question, where the apostles just outright disobedience to the Lord. Or did they have a revelation that my Trinitarian brothers and sisters have not yet receive.
• Someone asked the question, what does one needs to do to be saved.
Well! The Jews asked that question on the day of Pentecost, when they asked, “what shall we do. It was the Apostle Peter who gave them the answer, and not only them, but to all who desire the new birth experience. “Repent, Be Baptized, Receive the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). For this the Biblical way of salvation, after one believes on the Lord and the only way that was practices by the Apostles.
• Someone asked the question do I believe in the Trinity.
No! The accepted definition of the “Trinity” is one God in three persons, and if that is what is being asked, again, I say no. I believe what is taught in the Colossians 2:9 that in HIM dwells that fullness of the Godhead, not in them, but in HIM. Him being Christ Jesus.
• Someone asked the question, “What age does one baptized”.
Well there is no real answer to this question. I feel the age of consent should be based up the age that a child comes to the knowledge of right and wrong, understanding salvation is needed for all. I do feel that as long as they are underage, it something that must be agreed on by the parents, but if a child can lie, and sneak, and know that it is wrong, they need to be saved.
• Someone asked to I believe in Heaven/Hell/Purgatory.
Yes! I do believe in Heaven and in Hell. No! I don’t believe in Purgatory.
• Someone asked to I believe that Jesus is the same as Yahweh
No! I don’t believe that Jesus is the same as Yahweh; I believe that Jesus is Yahweh. I will go into greater detail in the attachments.
• Someone asked, why do I put so much importance on the Name of Jesus and what scripture do I used to justify the Name of Jesus.
Acts 4:12; 10:43; Philippians 2:9-11; Colossians 3:17 teach us to do everything in the Name of Jesus and that is why I put so much importance on the name of Jesus. I need a teaching on this entitled, “There is something about that name”, which any of you can have upon request.
• Someone asked the question, I believe it was David, who did Jesus pray to, when He prayed to the Father, if He is God. I am sorry but the answer is somewhat long.
Do the prayers of Christ indicate a distinction of persons between Jesus and the Father? No. On the contrary, His praying indicates a distinction between the Son of God and God. Jesus prayed in His humanity, not in His deity. If the prayers of Jesus demonstrate that the divine nature of Jesus is different than the Father, then Jesus is inferior to the Father in deity. In other words, if Jesus prayed as God then His position in the Godhead would be somehow inferior to the other "persons." This one example effectively destroys the concept of a trinity of co-equal persons.
How can God pray and still be God? By definition, God in His omnipotence has no need to pray, and in His oneness has no other to whom He can pray. If the prayers of Jesus prove there are two persons in the Godhead, then one of those persons is subordinate to the other and therefore not fully or truly God.
What, then, is the explanation of the prayers of Christ? It can only be that the human nature of Jesus prayed to the eternal Spirit of God. The divine nature did not need help; only the human nature did. As Jesus said at the Garden of Gethsemane, "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Matthew 26:41). Hebrews 5:7 makes it clear that Jesus needed to pray only during "the days of his flesh." During the prayer at Gethsemane, the human will submitted itself to the divine will. Through prayer His human nature learned to submit and be obedient to the Spirit of God (Philippians 2:8; Hebrews 5:7- 8). This was not a struggle between two divine wills, but a struggle between the human and divine wills in Jesus. As a man Jesus submitted Himself to and received strength from the Spirit of God.
Some may object to this explanation, contending that it means Jesus prayed to Himself. However, we must realize that, unlike any other human being, Jesus had two perfect and complete natures - humanity and divinity. What would be absurd or impossible for an ordinary man is not so strange with Jesus. We do not say Jesus prayed to Himself, for that incorrectly implies Jesus had only one nature like ordinary men. Rather, we say the human nature of Jesus prayed to the divine Spirit of Jesus that dwelt in the man.
The choice is simple. Either Jesus as God prayed to the Father or Jesus as man prayed to the Father. If the former were true, then we have a form of subordinationism or Arianism in which one person in the Godhead is inferior to, not co-equal with, another person in the Godhead. This contradicts the biblical concept of one God, the full deity of Jesus, and the omnipotence of God. If the second alternative is correct, and we believe that it is, then no distinction of persons in the Godhead exists. The only distinction is between humanity and divinity, not between God and God.
• Last, I believe it was Gail, who gave her opinion or her definition of the Oneness doctrine. And let me say that she was very close, but somewhat missed the point.
Although we do not believe that the Father is the Son, we do believe that the Father is in the Son (John 14:10). Since Jesus is the name of the Son of God, both as to His deity as Father and as to His humanity as Son, it is the name of both the Father and the Son. For God did not leave heaven, His spirit that is every place at every time, and fill every space, came unto humanity as the Son, yet He remained in Heaven. Jesus Christ, the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Ghost in the church today. So we don’t believe that God left heaven and became Jesus, we believe that He became flesh and dwelt in flesh in Jesus, yet at the same time, He was the Father in Heaven. Just as today, He is still the Father in Heaven, yet He abides in man as the Holy Ghost.
IN closing, I will be sending attachments, I am sorry I don’t have them with me today, I am at work, and left them home. I will send them tomorrow. I hope that the answers so far will at least bring understanding, if not agreement.
Be Blessed
Byron
-- T. Byron Williams (agapewotc@yahoo.com), March 08, 2004.
well, as i disagree with just about everything Elder has said, i see little point in my using up the month that Elder has here arguing about everything.i will therefore become an interested spectator on this thread.
but maybe someone can organize it so that it doesn't become a thread covering 10 topics and impossible to follow.
Elder, i will send you my real email address so that you can forward the article you mention. (i do not use personal details on the internet because certain "people" out there create software that collects addresses from public websites and then mails porn and the like.)
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 08, 2004.
For ByronI agree that God was able to be both in heaven as the father and on the earth as Jesus at the samer time.., and that when Jesus returned to the Father., the Father left the Holy Spirit--which is also God.
So how is this not a trinity?
We know from Scripture that Jesus is less than the Father while on the earth., but that He regains His equality in heaven. There are things that only God the Father knows--that even Jesus--while on the earth, did not know. Yet we know that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One.
"For you heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the father, for the Father is greater than I." John 14:28
Why should we be glad that Jesus left this earth to be with the Father? Because the Father is greater than Jesus..and when He returns to the Father--He has His full divinty back.
See Philippians 2:5-11
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross! Therefore God exhalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
For me, the teaching of God as a Tri-unity is the positive testimony of the Scriptures themselves.
I see three distinctive divine persons. They are properly called God, whether separately or collectively. They are not three separate Gods, but one eternal God--Father, Son and Spirit.
There is one Lord (Ephesians 4:5)
Father, Lord of heaven and earth (Matthew 11:25)
James speaks of "Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory" (James 2:1)
(2 Corinthians 3:17) states: "The Lord is Spirit"
There is "One Spirit" (Eph 4:4). He is the "Holy Spirit" (Matt 28:19), "The Spirit of Christ" (Romans 8:9), and the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead' (Romans 8:11).
I think that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are so clearly and consistently linked in Scripture that to assume that God is not of three persons makes it impossible to understand some passages. For example.....
For this reason I kneel before the Father...I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith" (Ephesians 3:14,16,17a).
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with with you all (2 Corinthians 13:14).
Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He annointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come ( Corinthians 1:21,22).
Give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus . Do not put out the Spirit's fire (1 Thess. 5:18,19). But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior (Titus 3:3-6).
There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men (1 Cor. 12:4-6).
"But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the begining God chose you to be saved through the sactifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth" (2 Thess. 2:13,14).
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 08, 2004.
You all, who interject that human-ness, are making some amazing conclusions about God. I suppose that you can understand God through such a human perception, but God cannot be drawn to your conclusions. God was less than Himself when He became Jesus??!! Amazing! Jesus was still God and He can be whoever or whatever He wishes to be. He created all that is. God cannot be less than anything; He is God!!.......................................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 08, 2004.
It is true rod, that God can do whatever he chooses., and he chose to humble himself while in the human form. The Bible says so in Philipians 2:5-11.We also know that Jesus said it himself--"God the Father is greater than I."
But when Jesus created--he was with God...not here as Jesus.
John 1:1 says it clearly:
"In the begining was the Word [Jesus] and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." "
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 08, 2004.
One cannot look at the human side of Jesus and make some kind of equation with Divinity--that was the human side. The human side did not make the miracles, yet it was that human side that showed us all that Salvation is possible through Jesus the Divinity...................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 08, 2004.
You are going off topic rod. No one is disputing what you say.I am arguing Byron's idea that there is no Trinity because all three persons are equal and therefore, he says--it makes no sense.
I was showing that the person Jesus was *not* equal to God the Father while he was on this earth--all according to the Scripture--which I provided for all.
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 08, 2004.
I believe Bryon will eventually make that dispute clear as we continue this thread. Allow me to set all my men at their posts while you all get your men situated.Off-topic? Hmmm? Yet you made the same inference.....??
.....................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 08, 2004.
"my two-penneth worth" (if you're American make that 'two cents worth')I think it's important to recognise that Jesus was/is perfect man and perfect God. He did not have two 'natures', He had one - a divine one. He was made 'in the likeness' of sinful flesh, He did not possess a body of sin. Although Jesus as the son of 'Man' submitted to the authority of His Father, as the Son of 'God' He claimed equality with God as God Himself.
Jesus "being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
Hence the phrase "God our Saviour" in Jude, Titus, 1st Timothy.
I believe it is important to look into the Scriptures to grasp an understanding of the full humanity and full divinity of Christ in order to uncomplicate the issues surrounding the Godhead.
God Bless...
-- Gillian... (Gilliantwin@msn.com), March 09, 2004.
Dear Byron,Forgive me for being so simple, but could you please explain again what you believe the differences are between 'person' and 'manifestation'?
I refer to a portion of your post that says "if one is asking me do I believe in the Trinity, (meaning one God in three persons. No! I believe in One God with three different manisfestations."
Thankyou....and I know you are a busy man, so please take your time in responding.
God Bless...
-- Gillian... (Gilliantwin@msn.com), March 09, 2004.
The question was asked what is the difference between Oneness and Trinity. And please forgive me at if anytime, I give the wrong definition for Trinity. I am not sure if it is, three Gods, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, or One God in three persons, and if so, my count is four. As for the attachments, I will be sending them this afternoon, when things settle down for this evening. I hope that it will answer some of the questions that have been asked. Oneness believers and Trinitarians are similar in that 1. Both believe in one God; 2. Both believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are God; 3. Both confess that the Scripture makes a distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit; 4. Both believe that the Son of God died on the cross, and not the Father; both believe that Jesus was praying to the Father, and not to Himself. Oneness believers and Trinitarians differ in that 1. Trininitarians believe that the one God consists of three eternal persons while Oneness believes that the one God is one person; 2. Trinitarians believe that the second person of the Trinity became incarnated while Oneness believes that the Father, who is one person, became incarnated as the Son of God; 3. Trinitarians believe that the Son is eternal while Oneness believes that the Son did not exist until the incarnation, because the term refers to God as He exists as a man, and not as He exists in His essential deity; 4. Trinitarians sees the Biblical distinctions between the Father and the Son to be a distinction in both personality and flesh while Oneness believes that all distinctions are a result of the relationship of the Spirit of God to the incarnate God-man. As it pertains to Christology, then, the difference between Trinitarians and Oneness believers is that they say it was the second person of the Trinity, not the Father, who became man, while we maintain that the one God, known as the Father, became man. Jesus' testimony that the Father was in Him (John 10:38; 14:10-11; 17:21), and that those who saw Him saw the Father (John 14:7-11). Jesus is the express image of the Father's person (Hebrew 1:3). I find that Trinitarians have a hard time explaining these verses because they maintain that the second person became flesh. If that is the case, and the Father is not embodied, why did Jesus always say the Father was in Him, and never say the second person was in Him? This is the only difference between Oneness Christology and Trinitarians Christology. Similar, but yet so different. As for the difference between persons and manifestation, well! I am a person, you are a person, and everyone reading this is a person. But we are not all the same person, we are different people. But a manifestation of a person is how ONE reveals themselves. In the fictional world, Clark Kent and Superman was the same person, but at times he revealed himself as Clark, other times as Superman. But he still was just one person, just different manifestations.Be Blessed
Byron
-- T. Byron Williams (agapewotc@yahoo.com), March 09, 2004.
Based on what you say here, Byron.., I would say that we believe the same thing. I think you have a misunderstanding as to what we believe about the Trinity.I believe that it is God who is Jesus. I just understand that God as Jesus on the earth--is less than He is as the Father in Heaven. He willingly gave up that higher position to become flesh. I believe that He had the power to leave and be with the Father in heaven anytime He wanted--it just wasn't the Father's will.
I really fail to see much of a difference in what we are saying. Surely you are familiar with the verse that I provided where Jesus says that the "Father is greater than I." Jesus says that we should be glad that he is going to be with the Father because he is greater-- so what do you say to that?
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 09, 2004.
I'll answer your question with a question. You bring up this verse in an attempt to demonstrate that God must be at least two divine persons. If that is what this verse demonstrates, we need to ask how it is that Jesus, who is God the Son incarnate (according to your view), can say the Father is greater than Himself if God the Son and God the Father are coequalThe obvious answer is that such a statement was possible because of God's assumption of a genuine human consciousness in the incarnation. Even though Jesus' words must be attributed to the divine person, it is understood that the divine one person spoke these words from His incarnate existence/consciousness as a genuine human being. Though He was God in human form, on earth he was a human, unlike His Divine existence as the Father.
I say all of that to say that if Jesus' statement means that there are two persons in view, then why not conclude that the second person is inferior to the first? You would say that the second person is not inferior at all in His divine essence; He is only inferior in the particular mode of existence from which He spoke (human). I agree that it is the mode of existence from which the divine person spoke that would explain the inferiority inherent to Jesus' statement. So we would agree thus far. What we do not agree on is whether or not the distinction between the 'I' of Jesus and the 'him' of the Father requires that two distinct persons be in view. You argue that it does, whereas I argue that while it could be due to that fact, in need not be. When I look at all of the Scriptural data I have good reason to doubt that Jesus' statement should be interpreted as an indication of multiple divine persons.
You have asked me whether or not Jesus' statement, "my Father is greater than I," must not be interpreted to mean that Jesus and the Father are two distinct divine persons. You conclude that the reference to "Father" and "I" must indicate two distinct persons. In turn I ask you When Jesus said "I will ascend to your God and to my God" do the distinct referents, "God" and "my," mean that Jesus and God are two distinct persons-that Jesus is a human person, rather than the divine person incarnate? If the conscious self in Christ is the divine person, how can the divine person distinguish Himself from Himself to say that He, the divine person, will ascend to God when He is God? Is He going to ascend to Himself? If the use of two distinct nouns/pronouns in this case does not indicate that two persons are in view (one who is divine and one who is not), then we must not assume that the two distinct nouns/pronouns in the former case must indicate that two divine persons are in view.
Again, please understand again, I do not believe that the Son is God; I believe that God was in the Son, the Son meaning human form. So in human form he was limit, but as the Father he had no limitations. So the Father was greater than Jesus, or better yet, divine form is better human form.
Be Blessed
Byron
-- T. Byron Williams (agapewotc@yahoo.com), March 09, 2004.
Well since I agree with you and it seems we are saying the same thing- -I fail to see why you can't see a Trinity in God's nature??Perhaps I am just thick......
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 09, 2004.
Too many theories about who Jesus truly is:Three Wills-
Truly Man truly God: 451 AD- Pope Leo 1
The father part is higher: Nestorius 431 AD (same substance, still, born of a virgin)
Same substance as the Father-325 AD.-Athanasius(Deacon later bisop of Alexandria )(born of a virgin)
Of a similar substance, there was a time he wasn't in the beginning: Arrians-believed i virgin birth
I think Oneness pentecostals could fit the 3 modalities theory.Believe i virgin birth. 20th century
What about being Michael the archangel (Jehovah's Witnesses 1900s) Jesus not God yet born of a virgin.
Jesus not God. God's adopted son: Ebionites(50s),Cerinthus (130s), Paul of samosata(240s), Mary not a virgin.
Jesus in the mind of God from before time. Jesus not God himself: Elpidio Gonzalez(1980s), Theodore of Mopsuestia(300s). Mary not a virgin.
Jesus only a prophet- Muhammad (600s)(Muslims), Bahaullah 1800s (Bahai's)
Jesus never existed: Christian critics (Atheists, Jews,...) like Eisenmann, ...
Jesus only an appearance, no body: Many christian Gnostic sects 100- 400 AD.
Jesus truly human: Syrian position in 300-500 AD
Jesus truly divine(Monophosites)500s- Christ divinity supersedes humanity.
The Christian Yahwist
PS: you can see where I stand.
As for the Holy Spirit, I believe is God's essence coming into us.
That's how Israelites understood it.
Anyone who acts in righteousness who speaks on God's behalf is said to have his Spirit.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 09, 2004.
Examples of how God's spirit works in people and why I believe the Holy spirit is not the same as Jesus.Ruahh (spelled here as ruwach)is spirit. Genesis 41:38 referring to Joseph, Pharoah says: [is], a man [0376] 'iysh in whom [0834] 'aher the Spirit [07307] ruwach of God [0430] 'elohiym [is]?God's spirit is in Joseph, but Joseph is not the Holy Spirit.
Num 11:25 And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that [was] upon him, and gave [it] unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, [that], when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.
God sends his spirit into these men. They prophesy. He gives them part of his essence. Once the essence leaves, they stopped prophesying.
Around 1980 Pope John Paul used this verse:
Num 11:29 And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, [and] that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!
When I wrote to him in 1997 , 2000,and 2002 I reminded him of this verse. I said: you asked for too much (I was referring to myself). People who have visions or dreams in the Catholic Church tend to walk alonside the Catholic dogmas. Examples: Mary says to "Juan Diego in 1531?: I am the mother of the living God (Against Nestorius view). Fatima mentions Hell as fire(Sister Lucia).
I didn't walk that line.
Jdg 11:29 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over [unto] the children of Ammon.
Here means Jephtah is moved in his mind to do something , an inner voice from God guides him.
Saul's case is a powerful point what happens to God's Holy Spirit leaving a man he has chosen:
Samuel speaking to saul: 1Sa 10:6 And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.
1Sa 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.
This verse, Jim and Rod, became the basis for Jesus temptation in the wilderness as found in Matthew. Mark never mentions it. Luke copied Matthew.Here, it refers to Elijah's disappearance:
2Ki 2:16 And they said unto him, Behold now, there be with thy servants fifty strong men; let them go, we pray thee, and seek thy master: lest peradventure the Spirit of the LORD hath taken him up, and cast him upon some mountain, or into some valley. And he said, Ye shall not send.
Here the Spirit of God is thought of as power, meaning strength:
Mic 3:8 But truly I am full of power by the spirit of the LORD, and of judgment, and of might, to declare unto Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin.
Here, Matthew (following Mark) states that the Spirit of God can take on a corporeal appearance. here as a Dove. This basic text staes that Jesus cannot be God since he sees the Spirit. This refutes the oneness and Trinitarian views that either the Holy Spirit is another face of Jesus unless somehow both can be separated. For the Trinitarian view, seeing God talk, and the spirit descend shows God couldn't be Jesus since they are not together at this moment as one. Instead, it is like the old Testament view of God's spirit descending on prophets.
Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Matthew does that when quoting certain passages from Isaiah:
Mat 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. As they appear in Isaiah: Isa 49:5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb [to be] his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength. Isa 52:13 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, [and] shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities
The prophet(Jesus)sees himself as a servant of Yahweh.God was in charge of his birth. Since when is the servant (Jesus) higher or equal to ther master (Yahweh)?
The Christian Yahwist
The Man of Yahweh
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 09, 2004.
My previous quotes were from the Blue BibleThe Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 09, 2004.
Do you believe that Jesus is God?If yes--then the Holy Spirit, who is also God--must be Jesus as well. No?
Here is a great example of how the finished work of God reveals this much to us:
The Holy Spirit is God and Lord
I find that Scripture clearly reveals that the Holy Spirit is God. For example, when Ananias and his wife Sapphira lied to the apostles in (Acts 5:1-4), Peter said;
"Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?...you have not lied to men but to God".
In lying to the Holy Spirit, Ananias lied to God-- according to God's own Word.
Scripture identifies the Holy Spirit with Jehovah in Isaiah 6:9. The Lord told the prophet Isaiah.. "Go and tell this people"....and the apostle Paul, refering to this passage, states that the Holy Spirit spoke these words through the prophet Isaiah, in Acts 28:25- 26: They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul made this statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 'Go to this people and say, You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.'"
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 09, 2004.
The reason probably you have a hard time seeing The Holy Spirit as coming from God is because of 3 things: -God is not human as we are, but a certain type of everlasting "Spirit" -God is an ever creating spirit -Spirit also means wind both in Hebrew (ruahh) and Greek(pneuma).So in Acts when the spirit descends on the disciples as tongues of fire it means a bright wind entered them. That is, it is possible Jesus disciples shone like light bulbs.
Notice Gail the spirit is described as wind here in Acts:
Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Notice the words I underlined: the spirit entered each one of them separately. Can God be divided Gail? No.
Now shining as a light bulb happens to those who get God's Spirit or see God .This happened to Moses at mount sinai.Exd 34:29 And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him.
Exd 34:30 And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.
Jesus as the New Moses also shone like a light bulb:
Mar 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh [with him] Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
Mar 9:3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.
Mar 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
So Jesus shining now as you can see means not that Jesus is God, but that God has shone his Spirit on him like he did with Moses.
Imagine a light bulb, Gail, giving light. See yorself at at mirror looking at that light. That is how God Yahweh actually looks. God is like the sun. The sus's rays touch you and make you feel warm.
That is how it is for those who are touched by God's light (Holy Spirit).
The Christian Yahwist
The Man of Yahweh
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 09, 2004.
Elpidio?I don't think Gail is posting here lately, yet you keep saying her name. Why?
Notice the words I underlined: the spirit entered each one of them separately. Can God be divided Gail? No.
Not Gail--it's Faith, but that aside....
Can you show me in the Scriptures *why* God's Spirit cannot be on many people at once? I can show you that God's Spirit *is* able to be on many people at once. The very Scripture you used to pose your question--also answers it. Yes--God's Spirit is not confined.
It seems that you completely ignored these verses...
Care to address my point?
Here it is again:
"Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?...you have not lied to men but to God".
In lying to the Holy Spirit, Ananias lied to God-- according to God's own Word.
Scripture identifies the Holy Spirit with Jehovah in Isaiah 6:9. The Lord told the prophet Isaiah.. "Go and tell this people"....and the apostle Paul, refering to this passage, states that the Holy Spirit spoke these words through the prophet Isaiah, in Acts 28:25- 26:
They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul made this statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 'Go to this people and say, You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.'"
Remember that the verse that Paul is referencing in Isaiah says "Lord" meaning Jehovah God--not "Holy Spirit"--yet Paul ties this together and the message is that God and the Holy Spirit are One. And we can also see in the Scriptures that Jesus is God--and therefore also the Holy Spirit. This is the Godhead as revealed in the Word of God.
Jesus Christ is Jehovah.
Jehovah said, "...and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced" (Zec. 12:10). Verses 1, 4, 7 and 8 identify Jehovah as the one speaking. Christ is the one who was pierced, and John 19:37 clearly tells us that this prophesy was fulfilled in His crucifixion.
Try answering the following questions without concluding that the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity:
Who raised Jesus from the dead? The Father (Romans 6:4)? The Son (John 2:19-21; 10:17,18)? The Holy Spirit (Romans 8:11)? Or God (Acts 3:26; 1 Thess. 1:1,5; 4:2,8; 2 Thess. 3:5; 1 John 3:23,24)?
Who does the Bible say is God? The Father (Ephesians 4:6)? The Son (Titus 2:13; John 1:1; 20:28)? The Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3,4)? Or God (Deuteronomy 4:35; Isaiah 45:18)?
Who created the world? The Father (Ephesians 3:9-14; 4:6)? The Son (Colossians 1:16-17;John 1:1-3)? The Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2; Psalm 104:30)? Or God (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 11:3)?
Who saves and regenerates man? 1 Peter 1:3; John 5:21; 4:14; John 3:6; Titus 3:5; or 1 John 3:9.
Who justifies man? Jeremiah 23:6;2 Cor. 5:19; Romans 5:9; 10:4; 2 Cor 5:19,21; 1 Cor 6:11; Gal 5:5; Roman's 4:6; 9:33.
Who sanctifies man? Jude 1; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 1:2; Exodus 31:13.
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 10, 2004.
Faith, I hope than when I finall get a chance to respond to David's 100 questions I can answer yours one by one.From what you gave I deduce the following: It seems you are or maybe incapable, or could not find any sayings from Mark our oldest Gospel (canonical) to support Jesus divinity as God himself.
For Mark - (ch. 1) Jesus becomes God's son at his baptism - Calls Jesus Son of Man (as used by Ezekiel and Daniel) (Not as in Matthew and Luke which borrow where Jesus is called Lord.) -Where Mark speaks of Jesus, Matthew and Luke use Lord
From this site about Mark being written first
(These are not my words):
This confirms the conclusion, to which the facts mentioned already point, that the Markan form is the more primitive. Of these small alterations many have a reverential motive. Thus in Mark, Jesus is only once addressed as "Lord" kurie, and that by one not a Jew (the Syrophoenician). He is regularly saluted as Rabbi, or by its Greek equivalent didaskale (Teacher). In Matthew kurie occurs 19 times; in Luke kurie occurs 16, epistata 6 times.
This, Faith are the ,b>Lord passages in Mark:
refer to Yahweh-Mark 1:3, 5:19,11:9,11:10, 12:9 (indirectly),12:29,12:30,12:36
refer to ruling: Mark 2:28
refer to Jesus: Mark 7:28, 9:24, 10:51, 11:312:37?, *16:19 and *16:20 added to Mark later. Not in oldest copies.
Some misunderstood passages which refer to God, not Jesus:
Mar 5:19 Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee. -Here Jesus tells the man to give credit or praise to God (Yahweh) not to himself.
Mar 11:10 Blessed [be] the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest. -This passage implies Jesus is descended from King David. Jesus is coming in tha name of Yahweh.
In discussing these passages, Jesus never equates himself with God:
Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment.
Mar 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Mar 13:20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.
This, in my opinion is the only text which shows a change in the worship services in the primitive Church from Saturday(Sabbath) to Sunday(The Lord's day-that is Jesus resurrection):
Mar 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Yet, even then, as this later addition to Mark shows, and evidenced in Hebrews, is that Jesus is at the right hand of God, not that he is God Yahweh.
Mar 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
So the Catholic and by derivation, Protestant tenet that Jesus is God cannot be 100% ascertained by the earliest writings.
We have been duped into thinking our Lord (Maran in Aramaic, Adoni in Hebrew, Kyrios in Greek)Jesus christ is our Lord (Allaha in Aramaic, Adonay in Hebrew, and Kyrios in Greek)Yahweh, the ruler of the Universe!!!!
The Christian Yahwist
The Man of Yahweh
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 10, 2004.
Elpidio--it is not *we* who have been duped, but you. It seems to me that you have set aside the Scriptures in favor of the workings of mere men who have an agenda with Satan. No offense--but I am afraid for you.., because you seem very confused.Mark also supports what my other verses support--that Jesus is divine.
Jehovah said, "...and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced" (Zec. 12:10). Verses 1, 4, 7 and 8 identify Jehovah as the one speaking. Christ is the one who was pierced, and John 19:37 clearly tells us that this prophesy was fulfilled in His crucifixion.
Try answering the following questions without concluding that the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity:
Who raised Jesus from the dead? The Father (Romans 6:4)? The Son (John 2:19-21; 10:17,18)? The Holy Spirit (Romans 8:11)? Or God (Acts 3:26; 1 Thess. 1:1,5; 4:2,8; 2 Thess. 3:5; 1 John 3:23,24)?
John reports in 2:19-21 that Jesus said (speaking of his body): "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
Of course we know that it is God who raised Jesus from the dead.
Then in Mark 14:57-59., he refers to the same teaching: "Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him (Jesus): "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.'" Yet even then their testimony did not agree.
Down in Mark 14:64..Mark reports that Jesus was accused of Blasphemy for claiming to be God just a few verses earlier:
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the blessed One?"
"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven"
Jesus is saying that he will come to judge his accusers....refer back to Psalm 110:1 and Revelation 20:11-13.
Many people refuse to accept Jesus as anything more than a good teacher, but the Bible does not allow that option. Both the Old and New Testaments proclaim the diety of the One who came to save and to reign. Jesus explained that this verse in Psalm 110:1 "The Lord says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." spoke of the Messiah who is greater than David--Israel's greatest king (Mark 12:35-37).
Peter used this same verse to show that Jesus, the Messiah, sits at God's right hand and is Lord over all (Acts 2:32-35).
You can't straddle the fence calling Jesus just a good teacher.., or just some lesser type god, because the Bible clearly calls Him Lord.
Who does the Bible say is God? The Father (Ephesians 4:6)? The Son (Titus 2:13; John 1:1; 20:28)? The Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3,4)? Or God (Deuteronomy 4:35; Isaiah 45:18)?
Who created the world? The Father (Ephesians 3:9-14; 4:6)? The Son (Colossians 1:16-17;John 1:1-3)? The Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2; Psalm 104:30)? Or God (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 11:3)?
Who saves and regenerates man? 1 Peter 1:3; John 5:21; 4:14; John 3:6; Titus 3:5; or 1 John 3:9.
Who justifies man? Jeremiah 23:6;2 Cor. 5:19; Romans 5:9; 10:4; 2 Cor 5:19,21; 1 Cor 6:11; Gal 5:5; Roman's 4:6; 9:33.
Who sanctifies man? Jude 1; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 1:2; Exodus 31:13.
-- (faith01@myway.com), March 12, 2004.
Lets face it, oneness beliefs are heretical.Its just satan deceiving people in churches!(preach another gospel) Do you know how the oneness belief started? By a new revelation in the 19 century by a few men who broke away from the assemblys of god church!Did you know that most sects always have a new revelation for a new belief?Its the same for jehova witnesses, and mormans.What would you say about all the millions of believers baptised in the name of the father, son and holy spirit before the 19th century and not in jesus name? Are they saved? Thats its up to god or something similiar, right? My personal visit to an apostolic truth tabernacle church: The first time i went to this church, I had an opened mind.Within 15 minutes of the service there were 15 to 20 people running the isles, at least 10 people speaking in tongues at the same time, and a guy that spoke in tongues and interpreted what he was saying!Not to mention the 5 other people and a whole family doing some kind of dance that looked like an early american indian tomahawk dance, which lasted 30 minutes or more!The music was extremely loud and involved songs that repeated themselves over and over.Meanwhile the pastors only message preached for 1:15 minutes was this simple piece of scripture(what meanith this).There was no alter call! Oneness say its the spirit working,yea right!I could only sit there and wonder that if jesus himself was sitting next to me, What he would think?I was very sad about the whole experiance! I knew in my spirit that somethings very wrong here. There only real truth is a lie! Pray for them!!!!
-- brother Rick (pornhound2003@yahoo.com), September 22, 2004.
The Holy Trinity and "Oneness" Pentecostals--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
FILE: Thad / / CONFERENCE:
CONTENTS: A series of posts from Phil Porvaznik to Thad Foster (his words are TF>) who is a "Oneness" Pentecostal holding to the ancient anti-Trinitarian heresy known as "Modalism" or "Sabellianism" (after the third century heretic Sabellius) or "Monarchianism" (Greek for "One Ruler") -- that God is but One divine Person (not Three), and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mere titles or modes, not distinct Persons within the nature of God. We also discuss the Trinitarian form of Baptism (Matt 28:19) vs. Baptism in the name of "Jesus only" (e.g. Acts 2:38).
--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
TF> If you wish to carry on a conversation with me, I say again don't lable me and affirm my position. Many Cults teach part of the truth. Our teaching of the Godhead is nothing like that of the mormons, so dont get off on this kind of political debating. I do not have to discuss this matter with you if I choose not to. But it is a pleasure of mine to take the sword of the spirit and tear to shreads your propped up three god theory.
Okay, Thad, but I don't see you doing this just yet. I'm sorry I offended you by accusing you of reasoning like the Mormons. You are much closer to the historic orthodox teaching on the Trinity than them.
Let's at least get this much clear --
The Trinity teaches there is only ONE God (Deut 6:4; Mark 12:29). You affirm that much unlike the Mormons who are polytheistic. Good. And the Bible teaches there are three distinct Persons within the nature of that one God (Matt 28:19; John 14:16). Here is where our debate must center. We need to stick to this topic.
TF> You find me a scripture that proves the Holy Spirit is not the Father!
This is going to be rather detailed because I want to make the teaching of the Trinity as clear as possible to you.
In your posts to me you have ignored the grammatical points I made from the Scripture and have asked me theological questions like "how the Trinity could be true if...." type questions. Okay, I will answer your questions as I enjoy being challenged but you at least must attempt to deal with the grammar of the texts I brought up.
For clarity's sake, I will divide our debate into five sections for a total of SEVEN posts counting this introduction.
(1) Matt 1:18,20 and Luke 1:35 -- Is the Father the Holy Spirit?
(2) John 14:18 -- Is Jesus the Holy Spirit?
(3) Is the Father the Son or did the Father SEND the Son?
(4) Your Oneness objections to the Trinity
(5) The Historical quotes about the Trinity you have presented
============================================================
PROPOSITION -- The Holy Spirit is the Father
TF> The Holy Spirit is the Father...
TF> The Holy Spirit is the Father of Jesus...Matt 1:18,20
AFFIRMED: Thad Foster. DENIED: Phil Porvaznik.
============================================================
On Matt 1:18,20 and Luke 1:35 --
TF> The Holy Spirit overshadowed mary. Would the first person in the godhead allow the third person to father the second person in the godhead... The Holy Ghost is God the Father.. The God of which Jesus spake of in John 4:24
Yes the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. This was the Holy Spirit, Thad, not God the Father, that overshadowed Mary.
NOWHERE do these texts say "The Holy Ghost IS God the Father." Since you affirm that you need to produce a text for that belief.
You asked "Would the first person allow the third person" etc.... which is kind of a rhetorical question. The answer is right there in the Bible. The Holy Spirit is responsible for the virgin conception of the Son in Mary and certainly was "allowed" by God the Father. This does not make the Holy Spirit the Father any more than this makes the Holy Spirit the Son. Please try to be logical, Thad.
I already explained to you that the Trinity affirms the Holy Spirit overshadowed (Gr episkiazo Luke 1:35) Mary. This does not make the Holy Spirit the Person of God the Father. God the Father has always been the Father of the Son (Matt 3:16ff; 2 Pet 1:16ff; Jn 3:16ff; 16:25ff; 17:1ff; 1 Jn 4:9ff; Heb 1:1-10). We can get into these texts later and the statements of Church Fathers pertaining to this.
The Luke text does not say the Holy Spirit became INCARNATE in Mary which seems to be what you are saying. Notice what you affirmed --
TF> Is the Spirit that was in Jesus The Father? If you deny this you deny the Bible! Did Jesus send the comforter or did Father God and Jesus Send the comforter? The answer is Jesus or the Spirit which dwelt in Jesus did. In this case he spoke as the Father and not as man.
This is a rather confusing statement to me but perhaps you can explain. Whether I am denying the Bible or not remains to be proven by you. Neither did the Father become incarnate in Mary. The Person of the Word (the Son) became incarnate in Mary (John 1:1-3,14,18; 3:16-18; 1 John 1:1-3; 4:9-14).
The angel clearly told Mary that she would conceive the Son of God (Luke 1:31-32,35) by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit -- NOT that the Holy Spirit IS the Son of God, Jesus. That is nonsense.
The Matthew texts say that which is conceived in her is "OF the Holy Spirit" -- NOT that which is conceived in her IS the Holy Spirit. We need to stick to the text. Every inspired word counts. :)
Now here are the questions --
(1) Can you produce a text that SAYS "the Holy Spirit IS the Father?"
(2) Can you produce a text that SAYS "the Holy Spirit IS the Son?"
PP> QUESTION: Does Matt 1:18,20 (or Luke 1:35) SAY that the Holy Spirit IS the Father?
TF> It doesn't have to say it, It does say that which was conceived in mary was of the Holy Ghost!!! Now does it say that.
Of course it says that as I explained above. Does that make the Person of the Holy Spirit the Person of the Father? No.
You are still thinking in human terms that someone responsible for the conception of a person must be the father. But we are not talking human beings here but the nature of God. That is why I accused you of reasoning like the Mormon theologians who DID reason this way.
I realize you don't go this far but your logic is similar. The conception was miraculous and by the power of the Holy Spirit. We agree on that much. There is no "father" in the sense of human conception. All orthodox Christians believe in the Virgin Birth (or Virginal conception).
TF> It is you that has the delima of explaining how Jesus is the Son of the Father when the Bible says that that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost! Is it my understanding that you believe he had two fathers?
Again, you are still thinking in human terms. Please try to understand what the Trinity teaches. See above again. This is no dilemma --
(1) God the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary (Lk 1:35) -- God the Son was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit (Matt 1:18,20,23);
(2) God the Father is the Father of the Son (Jn 3:16; 1 Jn 4:9ff);
(3) God the Father (2 Pet 1:17) is distinct from God the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3,4; 2 Cor 3:17) and the Holy Spirit is explicitly called "ANOTHER [Gr allos] Comforter" (John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7ff).
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons in Scripture (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14; John 14:16; etc...) yet there is only ONE God (Deut 6:4; Mk 12:29; Jn 17:3; 20:28; etc...)
Not that I (or any Christian) can comprehend all of this in fullness, but I'm just accepting what the Bible says here about the nature of God.
Furthermore, you are misreading John 4:24. The verse should read "God IS Spirit" as it does in all the modern versions (e.g. NKJV). The point is God's NATURE is spirit, is incorporeal, does not have "flesh and bones" (cf. Luke 24:39; Psalm 139). The KJV reading "God is A Spirit" is misleading you. You are interpreting this as "God is ONE Person" when the text is referring to God's nature as spirit.
You also made a mistake regarding the word "conversation" (KJV) which in King James' day did not refer to speech. The Greek here means "conduct" or "behavior" or "manner of life" (Gr anastrophe cf. 2 Pet 3:11) or "citizenship" (Gr politeuma cf. Phil 3:20).
While I told you the KJV is fine to use during our debate, perhaps we need to use a modern version since the older English language of the KJV is misleading you.
I gave you an explicit text that distinguises God the Father from God the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:16). I am still waiting for your explicit text that says "the Holy Ghost IS the Father" or something similar. You failed to deal with this below as well as my interpretation of John 14:18 which you completely ignored. You are losing this, sorry.
============================================================
PROPOSITION -- The Holy Spirit is the Son (Jesus)
TF> Jesus is the Holy Spirit...
AFFIRMED: Thad Foster. DENIED: Phil Porvaznik.
============================================================
TF> Jesus is the Holy Spirit...
TF> John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. (KJV)
PP> Again, Thad, you are just quoting a verse and assuming you have the right interpretation. You need to demonstrate exegetically and grammatically that Jesus IS the Holy Spirit according to this verse and its context. I'm not very good at exegesis myself but you ignored the verse I brought up earlier.
Thanks for ignoring again my request to deal with the grammar of the texts I brought up. You then asked a theological question concerning "How many Spirits...." See following posts for the answer.
But what does this have to do with properly interpreting John 14:16ff and the grammar of the texts I presented to you?
PP> "I will pray the FATHER, and he shall send you ANOTHER Comforter" [the Holy Spirit] (John 14:16 KJV).
TF> You made the fatal error of not reading further.
No, I quoted the same texts you did but you ignored the pronouns.
TF> The Holy Spirit was not given until Jesus was glorified. But he was with them abiding in the flesh and blood body of Jesus Christ.
Now let me understand you here, Thad.
When Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as "HE" and "HIM" repeatedly in the THIRD PERSON in John 14:16,17,26 also 15:26; 16:7,8,13,14 -- Jesus was referring to HIMSELF abiding in the body of HIMSELF?
Do you have TWO PERSONS residing in Jesus, Thad? It would appear so. I am beginning to wonder if you can understand plain English grammar. Let's say we are building a house together and I said to you --
"I will ask the owner that he will send you ANOTHER helper so that HE may guide you in your work"
Or "the owner will send you the helper and HE will teach you many things and what HE has learned HE will tell you" --
Would you ever conclude that I was talking about MYSELF? And would you conclude the owner is the helper who is myself?
TF> John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. (KJV) And here he admits that the comforter is none other than Jesus himself.
No, the previous verses and the word "ANOTHER" and the pronouns "HE" and "HIM" rule out that interpretation. You completely ignored my interpretation of this that Jesus comforts His people BY His Spirit.
See 1 John 3:24 "HE abides in us BY His Spirit whom HE has GIVEN us."
See John 13:20 (also Mt 10:19-20,40; Lk 10:16) which says "he who receives whomever I SEND receives ME; and he who receives ME receives HIM who sent ME" -- not that He who I send IS Me. Get this clear.
Yes, Jesus is a "comforter" (see also Jn 16:33; Mt 5:4; 11:28ff) but Jesus cannot be the "ANOTHER Comforter" of John 14:16. Your interpretation is ruled out by this word ANOTHER and the pronouns.
With John 14:18 I would ask you to read John 14:23 -- Jesus says
"If anyone loves ME, he will keep MY word; and MY FATHER will love him, and WE will come to him and make OUR home with him."
Notice again the pronouns WE and OUR indicating plurality of Persons. The Father is not only distinct from the Holy Spirit (John 14:16) but distinct from the Son (John 14:23). More on that later.
====================================================================
PROPOSITION -- The Father is the Son?
AFFIRMED: Thad Foster?
TF> Even though Jesus was on this earth, he was still in heaven as the Father. In his omnipresent state.
====================================================================
DENIED: Thad Foster?
TF> I will fill you in on something. We do not teach or believe that the Son was the Father. Now this may be confusing to you. But we teach that the Son was the lamb of God or should I say the man. He was not from eternity with the father, but was made of the seed of Abraham, David, and finally of the woman. As prophesied in Gen 3:15 The Bible does not mention the term God the Son. What made him God or the part of God that he was, was the Fact that Jehovah God dwelt in him bodily. Col 2:9
====================================================================
Now back to John 14:18 --
PP> So you are saying the "I" is Jesus and the "I" is the Father and the "I" is the Comforter, right? That these are all ONE Person, right?
TF> Are you finally beginning to see!
What I am beginning to see is you have one strange theology, dude!
PP> That makes no sense, Thad. A distinction of Persons is clearly taught here. Look at verse 16 carefully. Jesus is praying TO the FATHER and asking the FATHER to SEND ANOTHER Comforter.
TF> The reason it does not make sense to you is because Jesus was not only God but he was also a man which suffered like passions like as of you and I. At times he spoke as a man.
Yes, but what does this have to do with interpreting John 14:16 ?
Jesus was God and man in ONE PERSON. You again appear to deny this to support your theology, which is not only "Oneness" but Nestorian also. Jesus the man is NOT a distinct person from Jesus as God. That is not biblical. You do not have Jesus referring to HIMSELF as Father. The Father and the Son are clearly distinct Persons in Scripture (John 1:1,14,18; 3:16ff; 5:30ff; 8:16ff; 10:30ff). I suggest you study these verses carefully.
TF> The fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ Jesus bodily. For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the godhead bodily and ye are complete in him (not them).
Here you try to make a grammatical point when you ignored the grammar of the previous section on the Holy Spirit. Make up your mind, Thad. Either pronouns mean something or they do not!
Yes, the word is "HIM" not "THEM." Why? Because Jesus Himself is ONE Person and not TWO Persons as you implied earlier. The word "Godhead" is more clearly rendered "deity" in the NIV and the point here is Jesus is FULLY God, not 1/3 of God which you misunderstand the Trinity as teaching. See following posts for answers to your objections.
TF> To prove my point with Gods Holy word, He said, The works that I do I do not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Yes, in the context of Philip's statement "SHOW us the Father."
"He who has SEEN Me has SEEN the Father," yes. "The Father who dwells in Me does the works," yes. "I am IN the Father and the Father IN Me," yes (John 14:9-11). The context here is Philip asking "SHOW us the Father" so Jesus pointed to Himself as the exact IMAGE of the invisible God (Col 1:15ff; 2 Cor 4:4; Heb 1:3). That does not deny Jesus is distinct both from the Father and the Holy Spirit (John 14:16,23).
Jesus NEVER says "I AM the Father." If He does, please show me the verse. What John 10:30 says (from the Greek) is "I and My Father one WE are [in union]." Notice again the pronoun WE indicating TWO Persons. Jesus never says He and His Father are the SAME Person.
Yet, the Jews recognized this as a claim to deity (John 10:33), a claim to be EQUAL with God (John 5:18ff; 8:58f). Yes, Jesus is fully God, fully deity but that does not make Him the Father.
You are misinterpreting the verses in John 14:9-11 to mean TWO persons WITHIN Jesus ("of myself" = one person the man, "but the Father" = second person God). That is not biblical but an ancient heresy known as Nestorianism or Patripassianism. Take your pick.
TF> Also you might take note that it was Jesus that raised himself from the dead.
Yes, believed by Trinitarians also (John 2:19). No problem here.
TF> Even though Jesus was on this earth, he was still in heaven as the Father. In his omnipresent state.
Here we are getting a little speculative and going beyond Scripture. Yes, Jesus was fully God while on earth (Col 2:9) but that does not make him God the Father who is distinct from the Son. See verses earlier. How Jesus can be omnipresent is not something the Scripture really talks about and we shouldn't be too speculative.
TF> I will fill you in on something. We do not teach or believe that the Son was the Father. Now this may be confusing to you. But we teach that the Son was the lamb of God or should I say the man. He was not from eternity with the father....
Yes, the humanity of Christ did not exist prior to the Incarnation. We are agreed on that much. What we must discuss is John 1:1ff and Heb 1:1ff which state clearly the Word (the Son) was "WITH" the Father as a distinct Person PRIOR to the Incarnation and from all eternity.
How do you understand John 1:1 ? Is the Word a Person WITH the Father or not? (See Jn 1:14,18; 3:16ff; 1 Jn 1:1-3; 4:9ff).
"And now, O FATHER, glorify Me TOGETHER WITH YOURSELF, with the glory which I HAD WITH YOU before the world was." (John 17:5, NKJV)
Notice this is not only prior to the Incarnation but prior to the creation of the world. Also notice the plural pronouns "WE" and "OUR" referring to the Father and the Son (Jn 17:11,21,22) and verse 24 "you have loved Me BEFORE the foundation of the world" (cf. Rev 5:5ff; 13:8; John 1:29 concerning the Lamb of God).
I would be most interested in your understanding of these verses.
==========================================================
PROPOSITION -- The Father SENT the Son.
AFFIRMED: Phil Porvaznik. DENIED: Thad Foster?
TF> The Father Sent the Son by being in the Son...
==========================================================
Back to John 14:16 again --
PP> Like I said last time, Jesus is not asking HIMSELF to send HIMSELF.
TF> The Bible says that he is going to present the church to himself! Why couldn't he send himself!
This passage is referring to a distinct Person -- the Holy Spirit that Jesus says the "Father will send in My name" (John 14:16,26). Now your question -- Why couldn't Jesus send Himself?
Because according to you, Jesus as the Son does not EXIST as a distinct Person from the Father or the Holy Spirit. I'm not saying God is not omnipotent or all-powerful. I'm just trying to be logical. For example, God could not create Himself. God does not contradict His own nature. Present the church to Himself I have no problem with (Eph 5:25-27) -- the Church EXISTS prior to her being presented as a Bride to Christ.
When the numerous texts in the Gospels say the Father SENT the Son -- are you saying the Father sent the Father but only calls Himself the "Son?" Or are you saying the Father sent a human body called the "Son?" Please help me understand you.
TF> The Father Sent the Son by being in the Son, The Son sends us by being in us. Christ in you the Hope of glory.
By being in the Son? So "Son" to you refers to Christ's humanity which did not exist prior to the Incarnation. The word "to send" (Gr apostello or pempo) loses all meaning for you when referring to persons as in "the Father SENT the Son INTO the world."
The Son sends us yes, but we exist PRIOR to being sent. Christ in us the hope of glory sends us (Col 1:27; John 17:18). Okay. However, the Father cannot send the "Son" INTO the world if the "Son" does not exist PRIOR to the Incarnation. I do not understand how you can believe your theology (see Jn 16:25-28; 17:1,5; 1 Jn 1:1-3; 4:9-14).
See particularly Hebrews 1:6,8 and explain the following --
"But when He [the Father] again BRINGS the firstborn [the Son] INTO THE WORLD, He says: 'Let all the angels of God worship Him.' "But TO THE SON He says: 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever..."
This is a dialogue BETWEEN the Father and Son PRIOR to the Incarnation of the Son (cf. Heb 10:5). How do you understand this dialogue?
PP> "And I will pray the Father, and HE [not "I"] shall give you ANOTHER Comforter, that HE [not "I"] may abide WITH you forever;
TF> He the Father not the man Christ Jesus But the Father was in the Son! Do you follow me.
No, I do not totally follow you. Please be more clear and deal explicitly with the pronouns and the grammar of the texts.
TF> Why was it then that the Spirit could not come until Jesus went away from the Apostles? He said it is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away the comforter cannot come. Then he said that he Jesus would send him to them. In another place which you already quoted the Bible says that the Father would send the comforter.
All of this is straight out of John 14-16, yes. But the Comforter is "ANOTHER" of the same kind, not the SAME Person as Jesus or His Father. You never dealt with this word "ANOTHER" nor the fact that Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit in the THIRD PERSON (he, him).
TF> Is the Spirit that was in Jesus The Father? If you deny this you deny the Bible! Did Jesus send the comforter or did Father God and Jesus Send the comforter? The answer is Jesus or the Spirit which dwelt in Jesus did. In this case he spoke as the Father and not as man.
You are not dealing with the grammar and pronouns. I won't accuse you of denying the Bible but you are ignoring the WORDS of the Bible. Every word counts, including pronouns (HE) and prepositions (WITH).
NOWHERE is the Holy Spirit called the Father. NOWHERE is the Holy Spirit called the Son (Jesus). NOWHERE is the Father called the Son (Jesus). If you believe this, please provide the explicit biblical texts.
TF> ....but if I depart, *I will send him unto you.* (KJV) Looks like you lost that one too, and Gods word is the winner.
QUESTION: Are the pronouns and prepositions in the Bible God's word?
============================================
Thad's Oneness objections to the Trinity
============================================
OBJECTION ONE: How many Spirits do you have?
TF> How many Spirits do you think we receive when we are born again? Do you believe that we receive the Spirit of The Father, The Spirit of the Son, and also the Spirit of the Holy Ghost. Would you have everyone here believe that we receive three Spirits? When the Bible says that we receive ONE. Jesus said he would not leave us comfortless, that he would come to us.
He certainly did. However, you are not dealing with the pronouns ("HE" "HIM") referring clearly to the Holy Spirit and you ignored any explanation for the word "ANOTHER" (Gr allos) used of the Spirit. I want you to deal with the actual grammar of the biblical texts.
Your questions are like asking "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" These are not really relevant. We are not able to figure out the nature of God completely (Isa 55:8-9; Rom 11:33). Apprehension, maybe, but not complete comprehension.
In answer to your questions -- we receive the one Holy Spirit when we are regenerated ("born again") at Baptism (John 3:3-5; Acts 2:38; Titus 3:5). That is also the unanimous teaching of all the early Church Fathers. But that is another whole debate. :) However, I won't limit God's Spirit at all. He works as He wills (John 3:8; Rom 8:9ff; 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; 12:11).
The Holy Spirit is CALLED the "Spirit of the Father" and the "Spirit of Christ" because He proceeds BOTH from the Father and the Son. Eastern Orthodox disagree here. There is no "Spirit of the Holy Ghost" in Scripture as that would be redundant.
Another completely different debate is whether we should baptize in the triune formula (Matt 28:19) or "in the name of Jesus Christ" which you mentioned and whether the former is a human tradition invented by the Catholic Church to promote the Trinity. As a Catholic, I don't believe so, Thad. :)
OBJECTION TWO: The Father is "greater" than Jesus
TF> And I might add here that the teaching of the trinity says that Jesus is co-equal with the Father. This is a false teaching that can be brought to light by the One statment which Jesus made. My Father is greater than I.
That might be a problem text for Trinitarians but such texts present "greater" problems -- no pun intended -- for you Oneness people. You again have TWO persons, the man Jesus, and the God "My Father" in Jesus?
John 5:18 and Phil 2:5ff teach that Jesus was by nature "EQUAL with God" yet in his voluntary state of humility He could say the Father in heaven was "greater" than Him. You accept the full deity of Christ as do all Trinitarians (John 1:1; 8:58; 10:30-33; Col 2:9) so John 14:28 should not really be brought into the discussion.
OBJECTION THREE: Did one-third of God die?
TF> To hold the position of the trinity you must face the matter that 1/3 of God died.
Here you sound like a skeptic of Christianity. You are again misunderstanding the Trinity as being three parts of God. That is not what the Trinity is -- God the Son is FULLY God. Also, death is not defined as complete annihilation as the conditional immortalitists believe so what you bring up is not a problem.
TF> Did you know that at the time of the reformation the protestant chuch took over the doctrine of the trinity WITHOUT SERIOUS CONSIDERATION!
Of course since the Protestant Reformers recognized the early Creeds as biblical as do Evangelicals today.
TF> Historical Facts about The Trinity!
Thad, you posted this once before and I received it the first time.
Perhaps you did not get my response to this. Here it is --
PP> Don't you guys realize that the nature of God was settled 1,700 years ago in the Church councils?
TF> ISAIAH 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the Lord? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
I assume you apply this verse to the Councils of the Christian church of the first few centuries? The context of Isaiah 45 says nothing about that. Do you suggest Isa 45:21 contradicts Acts 15 where the FIRST Church Council was held? Councils are biblical and receiving the doctrine and authoritative decisions of councils is a biblical concept. "He who hears you, hears Me" (Luke 10:16).
TF> Historical Facts about The Trinity!
You quoted a few statements from various Encyclopedias. I appreciate your research here but it will take a lot of time to get into the specific quotes you brought up. LIFE magazine from the 1950's is hardly a proper theological text. I do have access to the New Catholic Encyclopedia where you quoted the following --
TF> New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1977 Edition, Vol. 13, p. 1021 The first use of the Latin word "trinitas" (trinity) with reference to God, is found in Tertullian's writings (about 213 A.D.) He was the first to use the term "persons" (plural) in a Trinitarian context.
That is really irrelevant to whether the teaching of the Trinity -- whatever term you want to use -- is taught in the Bible. This aspect of the Trinity -- the development of the precise language and Christian development of doctrine in general -- would take a good amount of explaining. Do you have any writings from the early Church Fathers or a book like E. Calvin Beisner's GOD IN THREE PERSONS (Tyndale,1984) that traces the development of the Trinity from the New Testament through early Church history? If not, let's not discuss this aspect.
What I challenge you to is a debate FROM THE BIBLE ALONE!
The Trinity (ONE God in THREE DISTINCT Persons) versus the Oneness- Sabellian idea of God as ONE Person -- Jesus IS the Father, Jesus IS the Holy Spirit, the Father IS the Holy Spirit, etc....
Your view cannot be supported biblically in my opinion.
PP> Thad, do you have the Walter Martin/Calvin Beisner v. Robert Sabin/Nat Urshan debate on the John Ankerberg Show (1985) ? If not, write Ankerberg, P.O. Box 8977, Chattanooga, TN 37414.
You gave no response to this. Do you have this debate or not? I can send you a video of this FREE if you send me your home address through NETMAIL.
There was also a debate in 1990 between Robert Bowman, author of WHY YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY (Baker,1989) and UPC advocate Robert Sabin. I'd be interested in tapes of this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
Oneness Pentecostals and Baptism "in the name of Jesus only"
Thad,
Just wanted to let you know I received your two posts here. Hope you have a chance to deal with my 7-part post to you.
Much of what you gave me here is your theology of the Godhead which I hope I understand better now. Thanks for this.
However, I do not believe the following statements can be supported by the Bible --
TF> In other words *Jesus* is the Name of the Father, the Name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Ghost! At least the Apostles believed that.
No way, Thad. Jesus is called the Son of God (Mt 1:21; 1 Jn 1:3). See just the opening of Paul's epistles (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; Col 1:2; 1 Thes 1:1; 2 Thes 1:1; 1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1: Titus 1:4; Philemon 3). In each of these it is always like...
"God our Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ" (KJV).
Try 2 John 3 -- "from God the Father AND from the Lord Jesus Christ, THE SON OF THE FATHER...."
NOWHERE is Jesus called the Father. NOWHERE is Jesus called the Holy Spirit. I am still waiting for your explicit texts for this belief.
The text at Matthew 28:19 itself disproves your idea that "Jesus" is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of these nouns are preceded by the definite article "THE" separated by the conjunction "AND" indicating distinct Persons! Neither logic nor the grammar of the text indicates that these THREE Persons are the one Person "Jesus."
The singular "NAME" here indicates a unity of power or authority -- that there is only ONE God -- but that does not deny there are still THREE distinct Persons here, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
You also misunderstand the meaning of the word "NAME" as used by the Apostles in Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; etc...
As I explained earlier, Baptism is another whole debate. The apostles baptized by the AUTHORITY (Gr onoma=name) of Christ. They were not giving a special formula of words to use during Baptism but recognizing it was Christ who gave them AUTHORITY to Baptize (Matt 28:18-20).
And since it was Christ who has all authority and who told us to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" -- Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestant churches obey this command and use this Trinitarian baptismal formula.
The "problem" you bring up concerning which formula to use was discussed early on in the history of the Church. I quote Origen and Cyprian --
"Perhaps you may inquire even into this: WHY, when the Lord Himself told His disciples that they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [Matt 28:19], does this Apostle [Paul] employ the name of Christ ALONE in Baptism, saying, 'We who have been baptized in Christ' [Rom 6:3]; for indeed, legitimate Baptism is had ONLY in the name of the Trinity." (Origen, Commentaries on Romans 5:8 c. 244 A.D.)
"After the Resurrection, when the Lord sent the Apostles to the nations, He commanded them to baptize the Gentiles in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [Matt 28:19]. How then do some say that though a Gentile be baptized beyond the pale and outside the Church, yes, even against the Church, never mind how or of whom, so long as it be done in the NAME of Jesus Christ, the remission of sins can follow -- when Christ Himself commands the nations to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?" (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 73:18 c. 255 A.D.)
The answer lies in the meaning of "in the NAME..." Greek scholar W. E. Vine states that the phrase "in the NAME" may be analyzed as follows --
(1) REPRESENTING the AUTHORITY of Christ (Mt 18:5; 24:5; etc...)
(2) in the POWER of (see below)
(3) in acknowledgement or confession of (e.g. Acts 4:12)
(4) in RECOGNITION of the AUTHORITY of (e.g. Mt 18:20)
(5) owing to the fact that one is called by Christ's "Name" or is identified with Him (e.g. 1 Pet 4:14)
TF> Acts 2:38 ...baptized in the name of Jesus Christ / Acts 8:16 ...baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus / Acts 10:48 ...baptized in the name of the Lord / Acts 19:5 ...baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus
I understand these Baptism texts under 2) or 4). For example, see Acts 4:7 -- the Jews asked "by what POWER or by what NAME have you done this?" Peter answered "by the NAME of Jesus Christ of Nazareth" (v. 10). See also Acts 3:6; 16:18; Mk 16:17; Lk 10:17; James 5:14.
IOW, the apostles Baptized by the AUTHORITY of Christ. They were not giving us a specific Baptism formula of words. If you believe they WERE giving us an exact formula, then please identify for me the EXACT words to use. You gave me three formulas --
(1) "in the name of JESUS CHRIST"
(2) "in the name of the LORD JESUS"
(3) "in the name of the LORD"
Which is it? Answer: All three -- the phrase "in the NAME of Jesus" refers to the AUTHORITY of Christ, not a specific formula.
TF> Now if you can show me anywhere in the Bible where anyone was baptized in the Titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, then you win and I will join your church. Now you can talk around it all you want, but the facts remain very steadfast, that the Apostles baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ and not the Titles Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not simply "titles" but Persons as I've already tried to explain. "NAME" = AUTHORITY. Jesus commanded Baptism in the name (singular indicating unity of authority) of THE Father, AND of THE Son, AND of THE Holy Spirit -- THREE Persons.
So are you ready to become a Catholic yet? :)
Next you brought up more objections to the Trinity including --
How could Jesus pray to the Father? Why would he need to pray? Would not the Trinity insist Christ had one will? And again, did one-third of God die? Some of these were answered last time, we are getting off topic.
Speaking of Christ you said once again --
TF> He was the Father and he was the Son.
No way, Thad, I can't accept this. Give me some verses. I dealt with the "Father was in the Son" (John 14:9-11). Answer what I gave you.
TF> The Son was the body, the lamb, the perfect sacrifice.
No way, Thad. The Son is a divine Person, God and man in ONE Person.
TF> The Father entered back into that body after three days and raised him from the dead. Spirit and Flesh is the key to understanding the godhead.
No way, Thad. Give me ONE verse that ever says "the Father entered back into Jesus' body." Have you ever heard of Patripassianism?
TF> By the way the term God the Son is not in the Bible, it is a made up term by the Catholics.
Try Hebrews 1:8 -- the Father says "O God..." to the SON. Close enough.
TF> By the token the Father dwelt in him made him the Father.
No way, Thad. We can discuss Isaiah 9:6 if you like. You haven't brought up that one yet but I saw you bring it up for others.
TF> the man Christ Jesus was going to pray to the Spirit (which was the Father).....it was the Spirit which was in Christ, which was the Father....
No way, Thad. Instead of just giving me your theology of the Godhead, please answer what I already gave you on this.
TF> While in his fleshly tabernacle he could only do so much but he longed to break out of the straight jacket of his flesh so that he could fill his disciples with his Spirit.
What the heck? No way, Thad. Excuse me, but you sound like you want to put the Godhead in a box and figure everything out completely. Can't you accept the fact the Trinity is a mystery?
TF> He said that the world could not receive him (talking about the Spirit of truth) because it seeth him not neither knoweth him. Now look closely! he said but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you and shall be in you.
I'm looking very closely. HIM, HIM, HIM, HE, HE, HE referring to the Holy Spirit in the THIRD PERSON as I've pointed out to you. Jesus simply cannot be referring to HIMSELF! Jesus said HE, HIM!
TF> Jesus was with them at that time as their comforter. but when he sent his Spirit back after he ascended, he came as the Holy Ghost in their hearts.
(1) Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit, not Himself (John 14-16).
(2) Jesus, not the Holy Spirit, ascended to heaven (Acts 1:1-11).
(3) Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, not Himself (Acts 2).
TF> The Spirit of Jesus not Jesus in the flesh! Yes it was the Spirit of Jesus that came back to comfort them and millions more who have received the Baptism of the Holy Ghost.
So you are saying the "Spirit of Jesus" IS Jesus? No way, Thad. The "Spirit of Christ" of Romans 8 is the Holy Spirit, not Christ the Son of God, but the Holy Spirit. Stop confusing the TWO.
TF> I will keep the mail packet and respond to the rest of your statements at a later time.
Looking forward to more.
PHIL PORVAZNIK
-- brother be (pornhound2003@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.
For how long did you know the, Phil?
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.
I was raised Oneness Pentecostal...and after much thought and deliberating on the scriptures...it came to me like a boulder hitting me on the head. Oneness vs. Trinity....simple as this. Christ had to be the ULTIMATE sacrifice for our sins. The sacrifice had to be whole...if you believe as the Oneness do that His Spirit was in heaven...then first of all that would mean He wasn't a complete sacrifice...and when He prayed, "Father, I commend my Spirit unto You"...if His Spirit was already there...WHO WAS HE PRAYING TOO? Folks, its as simple as this...Truth doesn't have to be revealed to us like a secret code. Christ died for us and we have HIS WORD, open and clear to save and help us on our journey. He died for all, and his word is not a riddle. God Bless!
-- Sammie Erickson (SammieGirl026@aol.com), November 30, 2004.