CLOSING COMMENT ONENESS APOSTOLIC

I thank Frank for standing up for the error he holds and trying to defend what is not in scripture and his attempt to refute me by questions what I made in my affirmation, that Jesus is God and Father, God is one person, God was in Christ the man and yet Jesus as Spirit Deity was the only God and Father.

Recap of major problem for Frank, he has YHVH and another god with YHVH, who he says is not also YHVH. I showed by comparing scriptures, that Jesus is that YHVH of the O.T. as the Lord God the Father stated as Theos and that Theos is never modified by any grammatical word for three or anything not masculine as heis-One modifies God as being ONE PERSON.

I believe Frank is on one end of a extreme holding that Jesus is someone other than YHVH and Robert Morey who wrote a book THE TRINITY holds that there is TWO YAHWEHS, both are in error.

I feel secure that anyone viewing this later will see errors and egregious ones made by Turk on his YHVH
idea.

The format allowed my opponent to skirt being rebutted and counter rebutted for each point he attempted to make.

I want to take some time to rebut in shorter format such points .

Turk did not affirm what he said he would in e-mails and that is three persons in his opening.

We saw no explanation of the H.G. and Son and HG and Father relationship as persons as I ask.

The comforter-paracleton is Jesus, clearly seen in John 14:16-21 who was coming to us and named such in the Greek in 1 John 2:1.
Allos for another means of the same kind, it is not heteros of a different kind which my opponent needed .

Only one person is mentioned and never three persons in scriptures as my affirmation pointed out. And his answer to a question of mine.

Regards to Rev. 21:6-7 and he agrees it is Jesus and Isa. 9:6 is speaking of Jesus, then Turk seems to be out of the norm of those Trinitarians on CARM, who have even stated there is TWO ALPHAS AND TWO OMEGAS. I guess you got something on them.

A4 “I’m confused by Aaron’s question because we actually have a passage in which all three persons who are God are plainly and clearly distinguished by Peter.”

Point, Turk never did list one scripture where any of the words and phrases or terms I mentioned is scriptural, I didn’t want conjecture and guessing what he thinks, just what I ask. Peter never used three persons for God, no hint either.

His response that three persons found in Acts is misinformation, nothing of the kind is stated by anyone.

Right hand is a place of power and not a literal seat. Jesus has all power, he thus is shown in his fulfilling the role as Deity.
There is not right hand to a OMNIPRESENT GOD literally.



Heb. 1:8 was refuted by me and not actually found in the languages of Hebrew, Greek and Oldest English.

There is a Son, but he was begotten, born and made, not eternal. The Son came in time as a man, Heb1:after the prophets spoke of him, poor thing never spoke in O.T.
Prophetic prolepsis of a Son was not a Son speaking.

Mary never was the Mother of God, but of that which was begotten in her womb and that is a Son of God , the Christ a Man. Theotokos is a pagan term used by Gentiles for Diana of the Ephesians. Fits with opponents pagan ideas on YHVH and other gods.

Jesus Christ was made both Lord and Christ according to Acts 2:36.

I see Turk as dismissed totally by scripture and his inserting ideas not found of a eternal Son or three persons. I did find the word Bible in scripture in the Greek, you need to get a new line, the English is a translation for it as Book.

I also don’t worship such words not found, you worship the name and idea of a deity which has no such backing though.


A5 Phil. 2: has a huge difference between us and would take a more in depth study even. I reject the idea of persons and see a clear distinction of Jesus as God and as Son of God a man.
I also believe his answer for John 17:3 is weak and shows Jesus is not truly and completely God, but a untrue God and the Father ‘YHVH’ to him is thee God.
Thus making Jesus “a god” as Jehovah Witnesses hold in alignment with Turk.

Oneness hold Jesus is YHVH alone.

A6 Turk has left all semblance of holding one God and has a multiplicity of them.
I showed that scriptures speaks of ONE on the throne and that it is GOD AND THE LAMB as seen in Rev.22:3-4,20 make such clear who that it. JOHN, ISAIAH AND EZEKIEL are clear, just one on the throne and not a threesome. (even called One man).
God and the Lamb is the same Personage, Jesus, SPIRIT DEITY AND THE ANOINTED CHRIST WHICH SPIRIT FILLS do all in Revelation 4th and 5th chapters.

I specifically ask Turk who was the Father in Heaven, since he has three fathers altogether.
Is Jesus and Holy Ghost persons in the Trinity not in heaven we must ask? I believe this is a Achilles heel for him, Clearly all three called Father or in Holy Ghost case is the Father of the Man Christ.
ONLY ONE FATHER IN HEAVEN, GOD! Who‘s JESUS!!.

I don’t believe a Christian can be forsaken, I believe though Christians can forsake and the letters to Epistles prove this. You though have Jesus forsaken by God and that is a real dilema for Jesus is our God and I his son.

Turk did not respond to final question as asked and definitions.
AARON

public service announcement

Aaron still gets his closing statement; we look forward to it.

I have been toiling all weekend to try to get Blogger to insert and execute a JavaScript word-counting routine. Because it requires the JavaScript to also read the Blogger notation, it has been an on-again, off-again implementation.

Right now, you should see the note "OFFICIAL WORD COUNT: #### WORDS" at the bottom of each post under the color part to the right. If you do, great. If you don't please e-mail me a screen shot.

A#10 for Aaron

What concerns me about Aaron’s question, I think is that he doesn’t really understand that the word “theotes” here doesn’t mean what he thinks it means. It’s used once in the NT, and it means something which the King James plainly relates: the concept of “the Godhead”; your Greek dictionary may say, “the state of being God” or “the essence or quality of divinity”.

This concept of “Godhead” – plainly expressed here by Paul – speaks not to some person but some quality of divinity. So it is right to say that Christ has “in him” the “fullness of the Godhead”. He is himself the exact representation of the Godliness of God, as it says in Heb 1. In no way does the Trinitarian deny that Jesus is completely God: what the Trinitarian would deny is that Christ is the same person as the Father who sent him, or the Spirit who comes from both Himself and the Father.

This is what you simply do not grasp, Aaron: the Trinitarian position does not reduce Jesus to either God or man, not does it somehow slice God into pieces, nor does it reason that there are “gods”. It simply states that the father is truly God; the Son is truly God; the Spirit is truly God; and all of these commune as co-equal and co-eternal, and are one in essence, nature, power, action, and will.

To your question, then, all that is necessary to be God dwells in Christ as “theotos” is a quality and not a person. And we, therefore, are complete in Christ. And Christ, as God, is the head of all principality and power. This is not a complicated textual riddle, but I admit something to you: it is entirely God’s description of himself, and in that we may never actually understand all its implications.

Problematically for you in this exchange, however, it does not let us believe that the Father and the Son are the same person. You are fortunate, Aaron, that by the count of the analytics counter installed on this blog, almost no one has read this exchange. You have not proven at all that Christ and the father are the same person, and you cannot prove such a thing – because any reasonably-literate person reading the Bible will see that the definition which you supplied for what it means to be a “person” applies to Jesus and to the Father distinctly. What that means, I think is that the reader has won this debate: the reader can hereby reach his own conclusion about the personhood of Christ and the personhood of the Father. He can read the texts we have exchanged and see for himself how utterly divested from the text your reading is.

You get the last word here; please stay inside your 1000-word limit. May you be blessed and kept well, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

final question for Turk

This last question of my opponent will be a bit harder for him as he must do some study and think before he types.

Col. 2:9 & 10
"For IN HIM (Christ) DWELLETH ALL THE FULNESS of the GODHEAD BODILY and ye are COMPLETE IN HIM, which is THE HEAD of ALL PRINCIPALITY and POWER:"

I would like for you to tell me which person or persons of the godhead is in Christ and to define the words above in BOLDFACE each,
If you need a additional 100 words to define them, take such.

example : 'IN' - function word to indicate location or position within limits.

I see you denying that inside of Jesus Christ the Son of God the man, is TRUE GOD , the YHVH himself wrapped in flesh.

Peter and John are distinct persons because they are two totally different men.
Both men of flesh and with different minds and bodies.

But Jesus is the one true God and the Son of God the man Christ and so differences are seen in that you wish to make a YHVH a different person than Jesus nature as God, Jesus becomes "a god" just like your sister religion the Jehovah Witnesses hold, matter of fact, your explaination is so close to them as to be almost word for word what they hold.

Jesus is SPIRIT DEITY IF HE IS GOD, because God is Spirit John 4:24 and John 20:28 and Rev. 21:6-7 clearly show that Isa. 9:6 is fulfilled and Jesus is God.
God is not and doesn't need to be seperate persons to fulfill his word.

The Father is the eternal Spirit deity of which Jesus as , has always been and always will be.
The addition of his human body/tabernacle of flesh came in time and is how he purchased us with HIS blood of God as the Son of God, for God's blood is his own and only came about with the incarnation in the Son.
Zech. 12:10 makes it clear God counts that body as his and yet almost aloof from him when he says..."they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him."
Clearly God speaks that the body is his and yet speaks as if it is not in the same passage.
DISTINCTION IS SEEN, it isn't two persons, but two natures of that one person of God, which I proved in my affirmation by scriptures and grammar that God is only one person.

You divide God up so much as to make a polytheistic group of deities, first the God the Father is YHVH an then you have a God who is not YHVH, but a junior demigod, where the third person deity is anybodies guess.

Trinitarians deny that Jesus is the God of the O.T., you cannot even conjure up a name for him.
I showed in previous questions and your answers define two First and lasts, two Kings, two coming ones, two everythings and yet we must add the third person in and I guess he is King , though the Bible doesn’t say such and he is a First and Last as well.

The problem you have is that it is YHVH=LORD that is called LORD AND KING in the O.T. and clearly there is only ’ONE’, LORD the KING and he is Jesus and stated in Rev. 19:16 as the LORD OF LORDS AND KING OF KINGS, means you cannot rightly divide the word of God.

Your two first and lasts is absurd, the context is clear, only one is the first and last, one is not the first and the other the last, the language doesn’t state that in Rev. 22:13 compared to Isa 43:10-11 and 44:6,8.

You need the only true God, Jesus.

Q#10 for Aaron

Since this is my last question to Aaron, let me first thank him for his participation here.

Aaron -- you have completely misunderstood my last question. The point is not that John and Peter are the same person, but plainly distinct persons. The ways we can know that for them are the ways we can know the same regarding Jesus and the Father.

So I ask you: given the explanation of this I gave in my previous answer, why do the tests we would use to distinguish between Peter and John not apply to the same clear distinctions in Scripture we see between the Father and the Son?

A#9 for Aaron

The direct answer to your question, Aaron, is that both the Father and the Son are referred to by all of these titles -- which is why we can confidently say they are both God.

The problem, of course, is that we cannot say they are the same person. I have already used several of your own questions and examples to express this: the Scripture clearly expresses to us that the Father sent the Son -- not that the Father is the Son. The Scripture expresses that the one who sits on the Throne in Revelation 4 hands the scroll to another who is His equal, but is not the self-same him. The Father speaks of the Son, and makes promises to the Son.

That, however, does not make you think for a moment regarding what Scripture says: it only causes you to find ways to deny what Scripture says. This is the reason I asked you to consider the example, in Scripture, of Peter and John. The ways we know in Scripture that Peter is not John is that Scripture shows us that they interact with each other, and they are distinct from each other, and they demonstrate personal motive and activity. That is, for example, Jesus says to Peter and not John, "feed my sheep". Peter denied Christ, not John. We could literally make a two-page list of distinctions between the two because Peter is a different person than John.

The problem for you is that this is exactly the case with the Son and the Father. They are personally distinct, and yet Scripture also tells us that they have something extraordinary in common: when the OT speaks of YHVH, these descriptions are applied elsewhere both to the Son and the Father.

But the distinctions are necessary and clear -- for the Father is not the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. The Son is not the one who declared the Law to Moses. The Son did not conceive himself in Mary's womb. The Father does not descend on Jesus at his baptism.

Your view of Scripture is horribly disfigured, Aaron: it lops off all the beauty and superiority of God. It makes God only explicable, and not at all greater than that which he created.

It's a shame. You need him -- and I invite you to see why. You need the God who is greater than man so that he can both punish sin and die for the punishment of sin. You need the God who both reigns over all things and still makes the hearts of believers his sanctuary. You need the God who is humble enough to pour himself out and be a man, but still sovereign to see that his definite plan to see his son die on a cross is fulfilled by sinful men.

You need the Triune God, Aaron. Repent and turn to him.

Turk’s statement
LORD (YHVH) is hiding from Israel but speaking to Isaiah; He tells Isaiah…another person is coming--a person who is not "I, YHVH", but in fact, "he, a child".

You have YHVH and another person who is not YHVH (yet god) coming and who is only a child.
I am not concerned that a child did come, but as to the part that says in ISA. 9:6
Speaking of He who was a child and Son that he would also be called MIGHTY GOD AND FATHER!

That said, let us make a comparison and ask you is there
ONE or MORE of the following
and
Who is it, and is any of these stated to be Jesus and or YHVH?

FIRST AND LAST
THE KING
THE ONE COMING
THE I AM AND I AM HE
REDEEMER AND SAVIOUR
THE SHEPHERD
THE ROCK

ScriptureS teach us Jesus is YHVH.

answer to Turk

God is only one person.
Jesus has two natures a divine Spirit nature and a human flesh nature and is a complete man and not just a shell as some say.
God indwells his Son, the human nature and Jesus by the miracle of incarnation is that God and man.

I find no two or three persons, no dialog (and neither did you), no YHVH with another who is equal, but not YHVH God.

Turks question: "How do we know Peter and John are two distinct persons?"

I know very well in that Jesus is the express image of the substance of God and is one numerically.
I know that Man is made in the image of God is not a three person man, because God is not a three person deity as Trinitarians wish the passage in Gen 1:26 says, but then is shown not to be three beings as God, but rather 1 in Gen 1:27.
I am thus created in the image of God and that image is his Christ, the Son of God a single individual and a real man.

Trinitarians try and make their God a triad of three beings or persons or entities. We hold to the Jewish idea of a single one and the Christian idea that the Jews rejected that God was in Christ, his Son. Thus God is one and our Father and Jesus is fully that God by his Spirit.

Peter and John are made in God's image and thus are one person each, just like God is one person as Job 13:8 and Gal.3:20 shows and the thousands of singular personal pronouns show over the handful of plural places taken out of context as in Gen.1:26,3:22,11:7,Isa.6:8.

Peter is one person and not John and vice versa, like you are one person a man made in God's image and that express image of the invisible God was Christ.

So if you can show they are the same person then do so, otherwise I must claim early victory, because neither them or you or I, are three persons, made from such a God.

I have already made my affirmation of God is one person and Jesus is fully God and the only true God to us Oneness. I have defended such in my answers to you as well.
It is then seen that Theos is never modified by anything other than the masculine word one/heis in the N.T., and three never used for one time, and to think, as much as you folks use it, you would think it is on every page , if not every verse.

I have noticed your answers are getting shorter and shorter hard to prove what the Bible never stated, huh?

Aaron

Q#9 for Aaron

Since there are only two questions left, Aaron, I'll go easy on you to wind this up quickly.

You're pretty adamant to deny that there are no examples of the Father and the Son being shows as two persons in the NT, which is fine by me: suit yourself.

In Acts 3, the chapter opens, "Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour." Here's my question: How do we know Peter and John are two distinct persons? Feel free to quote as much or as little Scripture to substantiate your assertion, inside your 500 word limit.

A#8 for Aaron

There's no sense attempting to debunk this question -- and I'm surprised that it didn't come sooner from Aaron.

The number "3" occurs about 78 times in the New Testament, and none of them refer directly to God.

This fact does not in any way affirm Aaron's thesis, which is the Father and the Son are one person.

Question for Turk

My opponent earlier said that Jesus was equal with God and he termed God as YHVH, but Jesus is not YHVH, but only equal to him, thus he has YHVH and something not YHVH the deity of the Tetragrammaton.

For what you have is when Jesus is around and a passage speaks of God,
that Jesus is not that God, but rather is lesser than for he is not the YHVH of the O.T., then it follows that when Jesus is called Lord, your first person or any other would not be Lord either.

Question, if Jesus is only equal and not identical as YHVH, then can you show me anywhere in the N.T. where God/Theos is modified by a numeral other than a sole numeric one and called three "persons" as well.



Oneness say Jesus is YHVH/THEOS come in flesh, 2 Cor.5:19, John 20:28

Aarons answer to Question

Jesus as the Christ of God could not be forsaken period, my verses showed that, your NO verses showed nothing.
What you may think, means nothing, it is what the scriptures say regarding God's own, including his only begotten Son.
Next time maybe you can show that God forsakes his own.
We have no problem anywhere.
Jesus the Christ took are sins, didn't mean God forsakes him anymore than when we feel forsaken.
Jesus paid our debt, not needing to be forsaken by God against his own word.
Jesus saying “why hast thou forsaken me” is no different than any other human saying it in need.
You accept that God forsakes, I don’t.



Turk- “What is the Gospel? That is: what is it that God has done in Christ (or as you would say “as Christ”) which we should receive as good news .

[1st point, I would not say as Christ as you tried to make it seem I would.]

The Gospel is the good news of a savior and the death, burial and resurrection and all that goes with it like healing and deliverance and he not letting his children begging for bread.
Does not mean bad things don't happen to us, but that we are delivered from even those things and come out better (Like Job) than before, even if it means death for us, we will still be saved on the other side.

Now to be exact, this leads then to salvation and a death burial and resurrection in us which is our salvation. This takes place when we believe by faith in the grace he provided, we confess and repent of our sins and have those sins remitted in water baptism only in the NAME, which is Jesus and we persevere in the world and run the course and stay a Christian in Holiness and not a dead and fallen away individual.
Our belief leads us to a dying out to sin and having the old man buried and being filled with the newness of life and to be in the resurrection or the saints.

I don’t see a Trinitarian salvation example, you don’t believe that which is truth, trinitarians don’t confess sins and repent in most cases and they reject in most cases either or water baptism and Spirit baptism which is the New Birth experience of being Born Again, and they certainly don’t teach and live Holiness in the vast majority of the Trinity churches.

Since God is not three persons and Jesus is the only person, then salvation comes from him as God and Savior and by this Son which he brought forth to fulfill the payment and purchase our salvation, his tabernacle.
Jesus is God (though I do not see you accepting him as YHVH, God the Father and only true God as John 17:3 speaks of),
Jesus is Son of God the propitiation for our sins as a man.
He is the indwelling Spirit in us, the comforter.

Aaron

Q#8 for Aaron

Aaron gave us this very interesting statement in his last answer:

So Jesus was not forsaken for God does not forsake his own which are his, but feelings of such came over that Son of God, the man hung on the cross.

This is interesting because it speaks directly to the second-greatest problem of his philosophy.

It seems obvious that in order for Christ’s work to be the kind of work necessary to save the believers from sin, the Son must by necessity have been forsaken by God in wrath.

So here’s my question to Aaron: What is the Gospel? That is: what is it that God has done in Christ (or as you would say “as Christ”) which we should receive as good news which excludes the fact that Christ was forsaken on the cross?

A#7 for Aaron

Here’s an answer I think Aaron was probably not expecting: I think the problem, as he reasons it, is far worse than he expresses it here. For example, the Jews called Abraham “our father” (John 5); Joseph is called the father of Jesus (John 6); David is also called the father of the messiah (Luke 1:32).

So who is actually “the Father” or “our Father”? I mean: the Bible says all these things, and we are stuck with the apparently-unenviable task of trying to extract from the inscrutable text – and only “oneness” can sort it out for us because they say they don’t obey any tradition. But we can see that the method they use to raise questions against those who disagree with them is simply inadequate -- it doesn't even consider the implications of the questions across all of Scripture.

Look at Aaron last answer to me – the question was, “what does it mean for Jesus to be forsaken?” And Aaron has interpreted that question to mean that any Christian can be forsaken. Well: no. There’s no way to hang that on me personally, or on any version of theology I would call Christian – but it’s part of Aaron’s interpretation. The question is “why?” – and the answer is obvious: he approaches Scripture by first disqualifying any interpretation which does not meet the expectations he has before receiving what Scripture says is true. To his credit, he did answer the question – but his answer opens a more consequential question than whether we can distinguish between the Father and the Son. We’ll get there in a minute.

To answer Aaron’s question, the Father is the title of the person Jesus refers to frequently in the NT, who is also God. However, when we reason out what Scripture tells us about the Father and the Son, there are things which they share in common – culminating in the highest form or equality as the Father and the Son are both named as God – YHVH. They are distinct persons who are at the same time God – not gods who might be at odds with each other, but the same God together with the Holy Spirit.

question for Turk

Opponent has what I call Trinitarian absurdities,
three persons in a godhead and he doesn't realize it gives him problems.

Turk has three Fathers in a godhead and only one is God in heaven.

The trinitarians with three persons has God the Father, the first person,
they have God the Son, another person and who Isaiah says would be called mighty God and what? FATHER!
then there is God the Holy Ghost the third person (who’s generally truant) and is shown as being the Father of the Son, for Mary conceived of the Holy Ghost and not the first person they clamor about.

Who then is the ONE FATHER in heaven, which of these three is the real Father, like in the TV game show WHATS MY LINE, who is the Father in heaven according to
Matthew 23:9 ?

Oneness say Jesus is Father and He fulfills all three roles.



aaronsRod1@excite.com

ANSWER TO TURK

My opponent has a deity which forsakes his own, it is evident that he doesn't read the Bible, for if he did, he would see that God cannot forsake or leave us.

Turk would have us to believe that the footprints in the sand pictures hanging on peoples walls is a God that is not walking with his own when he chooses not to and so forsakes his own son, thus he could forsake us.

Wrong! as Dt.4:31,31:6,8, Jos.1:5, Heb.13:5 and others attest.

So what is meant here, I reject the idea that God forsakes any who is walking with him and obedient and (Christ was the most obedient servant as a man).

It means that Christ a "MAN" and not a hybrid god-man idea that trinitarians espouse
'FELT FORSAKEN'
because he truly was a man a man of feelings and subject to limitations and hurt and shame and pain.

Just like a young girl in church gets raped and loses what someone took from her, she is never forsaken by God if she was a Christian in such a case.
Just like a young girl becomes pregnant and not married and the issue will eventually be known, she is not forsaken even though in sin if she turns to God and repents, God is there, always has been and always will.
Just like a young man hurt in a accident and loses his manhood in what may be the most embarrassment that can happen to a man or boy, he is not forsaken, but because he is a man and the girls are of mankind, they FEEL FORSAKEN, as the Christ felt so.

When Jesus gave up the Ghost, it was not Spirit deity seeing how fast and far he could get away from this man, but was a Spirit that gave life and kept him, like it does us.
We see from scriptures that Jesus was in hell and was not sleeping only, but was taking captivity captive, so Spirit was still there, just not that life giving Spirit as we as men get to live on this earth.

LIMITATIONS REMEMBER.

So Jesus was not forsaken for God does not forsake his own which are his, but feelings of such came over that Son of God, the man hung on the cross.

If things went as Trinitarians held was happening here, then God (and notice Jesus is not God to them, save when it suits them) forsakes his Son and thus could one day tire of this mess and say, I will destroy it all and start over, wrongo!
God the creator, became part of his creation, he added humanity to himself and is not going to tire, for his body is his and that was the Son of God.

Lastly, God the Father is not distant at all, for all the fullness of the godhead dwelleth bodily in him.
The Father was in him John 14:10
God was in Christ 2 COR.5:19.

Aaron aka SCHMIT on CARM.

Q#7 for Aaron

Aaron: in Mat 27:46, Jesus plainly says, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

I am sure you have an explanation why this doesn’t mean that the Father was not only distinct from the Son at this moment, but was actually distant from Jesus.

Here’s my question: if Jesus is the same person as God the Father, what does it mean here, on the cross, that Jesus was “forsaken” by God?

A#6 for Aaron

One of the things I have enjoyed about this exchange so far is that Aaron has given us a very diverse number of questions in each round to answer, and I’ve had to work hard to maintain my commitment to the readers of this blog not to exceed my word count.

For this grouping of questions, there’s no question that God the Father is the who is seated on the throne in Rev 4:2. We know this for a fact because at his right hand is a scroll (Rev 5:1), and the one who is worthy to open the scroll (Rev 5:6-8) who is “a Lamb” comes from those who are assembled before the throne and takes the scroll from him. If Aaron wants to connect Isa 6 and Eze 1 to Rev 4-5, that’s his business, and his problem to harmonize all the issues this would create.

Instead, we should simply and rightly see that, even in this prophetic language, John the Apostle makes a clear distinction between the Father and the Son. Somehow Aaron takes these separations and ignores them for the other side of the coin here in Scripture – which are the ways that the Son and the Father are held in common. For that reason, I stipulate all of the ways in which the Bible, and specifically the book of Revelation, say that the Son is exactly like the Father.

But for Aaron, we can only read the passages of common nature and common glory and common activity as descriptions of the person of God, but when actual persons are described, we have to ignore the distinctions and somehow come up with one person even when more than one person is simply listed in the text.

The Trinitarian does not deny, for example, that all things were created and are sustained through Jesus Christ, and that all things are also created by God the Father. But what the Trinitarian admits which Aaron cannot accept is that the Father and the Son have been together since the beginning of all things (John 1:1-2), and are equal in every way (Phil 2:6; Heb 1:1-3a). We admit to the relationship implied in the language of Father and Son, and in the relationship demonstrated by the ways Scripture expounds that the Father glorifies and is glorified by the Son.

The Oneness advocate simply cannot do this: he abandons Scripture when these things become evident. And the serious question the reader has to consider is this: why? Why would Aaron want to abandon Scripture even if it leads him to things which are impossible for men but not hardly impossible for God?

Question for Turk

In the following passages how many persons/beings/men are seen on the throne sitting, was it
ONE or THREE?
*[men in reference to anthropomorphic usage in the KJV for the one on the throne].

Isaiah 6:1 Ezekiel 1:26-28 Revelation 4:2

Coupled with that on the same subject idea, who is spoken of in the following passages on the
ONE THRONE?
Revelation 4:8 Is the one which was, is , and is to come. AND is the Almighty?
Revelation 4:11 Is the creator?
Rev.4:11 Is worthy to receive Glory, Honor, and Power
compare and answer who is this in
Revelation 1:8 The one who; is, and is to come?
Rev.1:8 Who is the Almighty?
John 1:3 Who is the creator?
Revelation 5:12 Is worthy to receive Glory, Honor and Power?

Then answer is it one person/being or part of one spoken of in
Revelation 22:3-4 & who is it?

Any persons missing?

Answer #6 for Frank

The Son was not called God according to Hebrew, Oldest Greek and Oldest English versions.
If the passage is interpreted properly as of old, then God is the Son’s throne.

Oneness hold distinction in a Human Son spoken in Hebrews 1: in surrounding passages as well. See vss 2-9

Your question then answered by this study.

Psalm 45:6KJV
"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

Now look at Heb.1:8KJV

Not exactly verbatim copied over.

The Power New Testament, William Morford reads...

"But to the Son, Your Throne, God, is forever and ever, and the scepter is the righteous scepter of Your kingdom."

Older English versions

Wycliffe N.T. 1380

"but to the sone he seith, god thi trone is in to the world of world : a zerd of equite is the zerd of thi rewme,"

Translated :'To the son he saith, God thy throne is in the world of worlds: a staff of equity and the staff of thy realm'.


Tyndale 1534
But vnto the sonne he sayth: God thy seate shal-be forever and ever. The cepter of thy kyngdome is a right cepter."

Translated :'But unto the son He saith: God thy seate shall be forever and ever. The sceptre of the Kingdom is a right sceptre.'

The Coverdale Bible 1535
"But vnto ye sonne he sayeth: God, yi seate endureth for euer & euer: the cepter of yi kyngdome is a right cepter."


The three oldest English Versions do not state the Son is God!


A.T.Roberston Word Pictures of the New Test. Vol.5 pg 339
" O God(ho Theos)....It is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative (address with the nominative form as in John 20:28) with the Messiah termed Theos as is possible, John 1:18) or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood:
"God is thy throne" or "Thy throne is God." Either makes good sense."


Bart Ehrman The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture pg 265

Anti-patripassianist Corruptions of Scripture


Interpretive problems abound in the passage, in part because the nominative o Theos, normally construed as a vocative ("O God"), could also be taken as a predicate.
In that case,
"Your throne is God forever and ever,..."

Recognizing the exegetical issue, however, makes the textual problem at the end of the verse all the more interesting. For the second person pronoun sov ("your" kingdom) has been changed to the third person avtov in some of the best Alexandrian witnesses from the third century (p46 N B). with this reading, the kingdom is said not to be Christ's but God's.

Oneness Dr. Marvin Treece The Literal Word-Hebrews pg 12

"Translation- But to the Son, "God is your throne into the ages of ages, and the rod of uprightness (is) the rod of His kingdom."

Commentary
But to the Son, "God is your throne." The Writer is quoting the LXX where the nominative ho theos is used instead of the vocative.

Q#6 for Aaron

In Heb 1:8-9, the Son here is said to be God (v. 8), and yet "God" has anointed the Son. Here's how I think you have to read these verses:

But unto Himself he said, my throne, God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of my kingdom. I have loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, even me myself, has anointed myself with the oil of gladness.

Now seriously: how do you make sense of this in the context of Heb 1 where the writer is saying that God has made use of the Son, and not that God has merely done all this as one person throughout the ages?

A#5 for Aaron

There's no question: this passage says that the Father is the One true God. As I read what Aaron means here, however, I am faced with the troubling idea that he thinks the Son is not at all God -- for here Jesus calls the Father God, but not himself.

The problem for Aaron is that this passage makes a clear distinction or the person of the Father and the person of His Son. In the end, it's Aaron who has a problem in this verse, where he must justify the distinction Jesus Himself makes between the person of the Father and the person of "His Son" -- yet harmonize it with places like Phil 2:6 (as previously asked) where the Son is said to be an equal to the Father.

What's also troubling is that Aaron has called the trinitarian reading of Phil 2:6 the oneness reading. That is: when the Trinitarian points out that Jesus was "isos" to God before his birth, the Trinitarian makes it clear that Jesus was "equal to" the Father in nature and as God. Aaron wants to leverage that into "identical in person", but to try to force this passage to say that renders it, again, completely absurd.

The Trinitarian does not surrender that the Father is wholly God, nor that the Son is wholly God. What the Trinitarian admits freely is that the Son and the Father are consistently spoken of in Scripture as distinct as persons but wholly of the same nature.

Question #5

John chapter 17 vs 1-3
"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, FATHER, THE HOUR IS COME; GLORIFY THY SON, THAT THY SON ALSO MAY GLORIFY THEE."
"As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him."
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thous hast sent."

My opponent has a problem for in his previous comments he
has a person/being Jesus who is equal but not identical to YHVH, then who is the
ONLY TRUE GOD! and what would that make Jesus logically in anyone's mind as to anything but a untrue or non-true god!

Who is called THE ONLY TRUE GOD in the passage?

Answer by Aaron

Turk did not affirm any three person deity or provide a passage for such a thing,
So to Peter did not prove such, anywhere.

My opponent has proven he holds gods and not a God, he states that Jesus is not YHVH/YHWH but is merely equal to YHVH and thus presents YHVH and a deity which is not YHVH.
Scriptures say my opponent is in error. Isa. 40:25 To whom will ye liken me , or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
See Isa. 45;5,9

I answer Turks' question that Jesus alone is that person of God in my affirmation .

Turk proves 2 god, YHVH and another equal with YHVH, but who is not YHVH himself.

Oneness hold that the word for "equal" is not just merely like or similar , but that identical as in the very nature itself of Jesus as God or YHVH.

Turk has something Robert Morey a Trinitarian doesn't even have, Jesus not YHVH, Morey believes in two of them in his book THE TRINITY pg 116.
Turk believes in YHVH and one equal to that deity and so he has two of them.

Oneness like myself believe in distinctions of identities and natures of Jesus as Father and God and the human man which is being spoken of in PHIL. 2: passage.

Jesus was in the morphe and Thayer says it is "The form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance".

From "The Christology of the N.T." by Cullman he speaks of the relationship of the story of Adam and Jesus "The phrase which follows , this declaration that Jesus was in the form of God, 'he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,' can also be explained only on the basis of a contrasting parallel between (CHRIST) and Adam."pg 177

Oneness hold the humanity of Jesus is not YHVH, but his Spirit is YHVH himself, that Jesus is and always has been by nature, but he also has a human limited nature that God Theos/YHVH dwells in 2Cor.5:19.

I reject your idea that the Greek means or is translated "HE WAS AN EQUAL TO GOD."

The Oneness position is then The Son of God was God incarnate with both divine and human capacity, that the Son made a ethical decision not to cling to divine prerogatives, that God could never have had a temptation to rob or usurp a divine prerogative while he was in heaven and only a man could be commended for refusing such temptation.

Oneness holds that morphe refers to the Son born at Bethlehem, the visible image or form of the invisible God.

We hold the text speaks of the actual relationship between the Christ and his Father God.

Oneness interpretation holds that the Apostle is telling the Phillipians that they should emulate the humble and obedient mind of the Messiah.

There is no eternal Son, no second person, no persons in a godhead.

Q#5 for Aaron

I’m disappointed, Aaron, that you don’t really have a reason to doubt what Peter says is true, but you are welcome to your own thoughts on that matter. Let’s move on.

It’s my position that the Scripture does not say Jesus is identical to YHVH, but is in fact equal to YHVH. For example, in Phil 2:6 says Jesus had the form of God before the incarnation, but did not seek to hold onto this “equality with God” – the Greek says literally, “εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ”, or “he was as an equal to God.”

So my question is this: If the Bible says that Jesus existed at the same time as YHVH, and was an equal with YHVH, how can we then say that Jesus is the same person as YHVH?

A#4 for Aaron

I’m confused by Aaron’s question because we actually have a passage in which all three persons who are God are plainly and clearly distinguished by Peter. However, I am also disappointed that he wants to machine gun through these points in one question as each certainly deserves it’s own answer in detail. Sadly, a 500-word answer for all of them at once will not do that.

If Aaron is looking for a “trinity” – specifically, three persons – Acts 2:14-36 is one of the most rich and obvious places in which three distinct persons are named and shown in relationship to each other. For example, Acts 2:32 says, “This Jesus God raised up.” And then in v. 33 Jesus is “at the right hand of God” (distinct but equal), and “received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit” (from one to another, not to himself), and then that the Holy Spirit is therefore “poured out” to create the miracle of the many tongues. Plainly there are three here – denying that denies that the text means anything at all – you might as well deny Peter is talking to a crowd.

Regarding the “eternal son”, I’d refer Aaron to Hebrews 1 which says that God has spoken through his Son “through whom he also created the world”. That is: Jesus existed before anything else did, and specifically before he was born in the flesh. This is mirrored in John 1 as well, that Jesus, the Word, was in the beginning, and with God, and was God. But the writer of Hebrews doesn’t stop there as in v. 8 it says his throne is “forever and ever”, and then in v. 10, “You laid the foundation of the Earth in the beginning.” This is said of the Son explicitly. As to Jesus’ unique sonship, John 3:16 makes that explicitly clear: that Jesus is the “one and only” son, or “only begotten son” as it says in the KJV.

The only other statement Aaron has made here which isn’t already covered is the question of whether Mary gave birth to a child which was God at birth – which is the full meaning of “theotokos”, and not some exalted title which lifts her up. I have no idea why Aaron would want to dispute this as a matter of Trinitarian theology, but without any question Luke 2:11, in the announcement of the angels, on that day a child was born “who is Christ the Lord”. At his birth, he was fully the messiah, and he was fully Lord.

While Aaron may dismiss these, he cannot disprove them. And most importantly, while he will certainly declare there is no word “trinity” in any of these, that word applies in exactly the same way the word “Bible” applies to a collection of books which are Scripture and not merely one book written at one time for one purpose. It is theological short-hand to name something which the Scripture defines by example and declaration.

Question#4 to Frank

Turk throws out the word person as if in the passages he types up or about, I want the passages for the following nonsense he and his trinity cult continues to post and say as if true.
Find the following and tell me what you worship as true is actually taught or in scriptures…
Trinity
A Trinity
The Trinity
THREE PERSONS,especially this one!
PERSONS in a plural sense
eternal Son
eternally generated Son
eternally begotten Son
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit
Three in one
triune godhead
triunity
triad
three members in a godhead
three individuals
three beings or are you the variety which rejects that ?
God prays to God
Mary the Mother of God
The Son is God, instead of what it says 'SON OF GOD".

These are not Christian doctrines that we might find them taught and repeated by someone other than in creeds .

Answer #4 to Frank

Peter said nothing of another person, so you failed in that, just like in your 500 word affirmation, you proved nothing of or even supported with any post a three person deity. I stated there is distinction, but not of persons, but of Father and Son natures of Jesus, two of them SPIRIT AND A HUMAN OF FLESH.

You added nothing further and failed on this. FIND PERSONS IN THE PASSAGE, EVEN ONCE!

You can use my definition till your little heart is content, but there is not two or three persons in any godhead and you did not affirm such in your opening and couldn't do so, so that is one fact and taking a verse which I refuted and showed you errantly use adonai for adon and or adoni did not prove other persons in a godhead, but a human master.
David thus is not on your side, because in all of the O.T. he did not state his God was multiple persons or beings.

You also don't have a A Son being eternal, so YHWH did not speak as I stated to a real Son, but would be by the passage a prophetic prolepsis and you apparently don't have a clue what that is either.
You failed, no three persons, no person stated by Peter or David, David or Peter never taught or themselves believed in a three person godhead.
FELL FLAT ON YOUR FACE is what we all see.

I answered you very well and with scripture and with a fellow tritheist (because that is what I believe you hold) in Robert Morey and his TWO YAHWEHS, to go along with your two Lords.

The Hebrew had a way of using a Double emphatic and when they said such here or in Gen 19:24 they meant THE LORD, in two different ways of expressing himself.
Thus David could speak as he did and God in Zech 12;10 as I stated before could as well speak of his body pierced and then make it sound like someone else was being pierced.

I hold very well that Jesus is the person of God and fulfills as well the SON OF GOD role and does not in anyway need to be a second junior god as you actually hold and deny his full deity and position as Father.

Oh and yes Jesus is that YHWH of the O.T. for if he is God, he is that one God of the O.T. the eyeh asher eyeh or Tetragrammaton YHWH.
I am glad you deny he is YHWH and I guess that makes Robert Morey wrong as well.

Thanks for proving me now totally right and you still unable to find someone saying three persons or persons for this multiple person godhead you hold.

Q#4 for Aaron

Your last answer is interesting as an explanation of your hermeneutics, but it avoids the question I actually asked.

If we were talking about Ps 110 in a vacuum, I think your explanation is probably a very serious and sober way to interpret the poetic language and the theological paradigm of the Psalm.

The problem for your serious and sober interpretation is that it ignores the inerrant and sufficient interpretation that Peter attaches to Ps 110, in which plainly Jesus the Son is a person who is distinct from YHVH, another person. And I offer the word "person" using the definition you yourself have provided.

That said, I'll ask my previous question again here a different way: Since Peter's interpretation of David's words is necessarily inerrant, on what basis do you contradict it? By what authority or reason?

A#3 for Aaron

I don't know anyone who would say that Rev 21:6-7 does not show Jesus speaking and declaring His final triumph; I don't know anyone who would deny that Isa 9:6 is a prophecy of Jesus, the Messiah; I don't know anyone who would actually say that Rev 21:6-7 fulfills Isa 9:6, but I also don't see any conflict with saying that this prophecy is a concurrent prophecy to Isa 9:6 and in some way speaks to the same fulfillment.

These verses do not overturn the doctrine of the Trinity -- they fortify it. What is interesting in the way Aaron wants the reader to interpret here is that he demands that if you call Jesus "God", you must therefore be calling him "YHVH". But in fact what is startling is that Jesus is called God but is not called "YHVH".

If we accept that the Isaiah passage is the precursor to Rev 21, Isaiah 8 & 9 spells this out for us: the LORD (YHVH) is hiding from Israel but speaking to Isaiah (end of Isa 8); what He tells Isaiah is that another person is coming -- a person who is not "I, YHVH", but in fact, "he, a child".

Aaron has brought up the question of what the Jews thought of God, but here we see what they thought of the Messiah -- and why they thought it. The child born of a virgin is the King in David's line, someone who is not himself YHVH. But those phrases "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father" for the Jew do not mean "the same person as YHVH". They mean "the one YHVH has sent".

We know this because while the Jews puzzled over whether Jesus was the Messiah, they rejected Him because he claimed to be equal with God. Consider the implications of John 5:18 in that respect.

Now, I say all that to say this: Aaron's interpretation demands that we see Jesus as identical with YHVH, but the Bible teaches us that Jesus was equal with YHVH. That's the only way to make sense of Isa 9:6, and the only way to make sense of Rev 21. And we will see as this exchange unfolds that it is the solution to the mystery of Jesus which the Bible itself offers up.

Question #3 to Turk

Trinitarians pull the old sly game of who is the Alpha and Omega, there is not truly one Alpha and Omega to them, they instead have at least two of them and must twist and make Jesus one of them and God (which I thought was Jesus according to John 20:28 and their own explaination), but in REV. 21:6-7 is another A&O CHARACTER!

Who is the Alpha and Omega in that verse and tell me how Isa.9:6 does not get fulfilled by that verse, where Jesus is spoken of as not being only a SON AND CHILD, but GOD AND FATHER!

You people have even gone so far as taking red letter editions and leaving Rev. 21:6-7 in black, instead of red and thus making two Alphas and Omegas!

Answer #3 from Aaron

I am glad you brought this verse back up in this question.

The passage in Psalm 110:1 is a prophetic prolepsis and was not one person speaking to another in the first place, it was for anticipation of that Son a man to come as if pre-existing but looking toward the future.

The distinction you speak of supports me, God is YHWH and the word for Lord in the O.T. here is adon or adoni, which is not supporting a second person at all of a godhead and a name for God, but for a human master, in this case the Man Christ, the humanity/flesh of God.

If God is YHWH, the second god(yes person you say) in your trinity would also be YHWH and this fits what Robert Morey holds in his book THE TRINITY pg 116 where he boldly proclaims TWO YHWHS! and not one.

Oneness Apostolics see distinction, but not in God and junior god Jesus the Word/Son person in your teaching, but we see Spirit Deity enfleshed in his only begotten Son, the Christ, which was not eternal and which was God dwelling in his tabernacle of flesh which was brought forth in Time.

God speaks of his body at times as if his and others as if aloof from him as he does in ZECH.12:10
'They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him'.

Where you have a problem is in Rev. 22:13-16 where Jesus the Alpha and Omega is stated of being the ROOT! and the offspring of David. This supports me above, as well, Jesus having two natures is David's God (ROOT) AND David's Son (offspring).
Further problem is he is David's Lord and David's Son, this shows his two natures, he is the one true God, the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, Spirit Deity and he is David's offspring the human heir a man God indwells.
2 Cor. 5:19, 1 Tim.3;16 and John 14:10-11.

So we are not dealing with your first two persons of the godhead (and where is that poor third chap at?).

We see absolutely no DIALOG either, we see a monolog statement and you may want to get a Dictionary and look up that word dialog, for you didn't find any such thing as I asked in my question.
Monolog statements 'a prayer to God by the man Christ' and a 'voice speaking of his Son' is not conversation dialog, period.
Thus the promise is a man the Son received a promise of his Father and God.
God does not have a God, a Son of God does.

Trinitarians have a mess with explaining who and where is God in many verses, they must insert which god is speaking of the triad they hold and which is spoken to, it is a neat game of fill in the blank, God prays to God and God raises God from the dead,
LOTS OF PROBLEMS! And you gotta explain them.
Aaron