Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

OK Oneness Liars Here Is The Best HISTORICAL Proof That Your Claims Are False

Posted by Job on October 25, 2007

Similar to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, many Oneness Pentecostals claim that their unitarian view of the godhead is the true apostolic biblical faith and doctrine, and that the Holy Trinity came as a result of paganism being introduced into the church down the line. Well, if that is true, then this paganism took over the church rather quickly; long before Constantine and the Council of Nicea in the fourth century. Why? Because the oldest recorded Christian hymn, Hail, Gladdening Light!, which was being sung as early as 150 AD, is utterly Trinitarian! Now this date is key, because church tradition generally holds that the Gospel of John and Revelation were the last books of the New Testament and that one or the other was written as late as 96 AD, as the beloved disciple apostle John lived an exceptionally long time. So this hymn was being sung than 60 years after the New Testament was completed and the apostle John died, meaning that people that were personally taught by John and the other apostles were still alive, and thus would have contended against any paganism, heresy, or false doctrine expressed by it (as after all, in those days people actually did contend against false doctrines rather than just throw up their hands and say “who am I to judge … I am just going to remove the beams from my eyes before I go take the speck out of the eyes of the antinomian gnostics over there … who is to say that the montanists, marcionites, arianists, etc. are wrong and I am right … only God knows the heart and He will restore these good hearted Christians and forgive them on judgment day).

People, this is why the intellectual component of our faith, disciplines like systematic theology and church history, cannot be ignored. I would like to know what “oneness historian” deceiver Dr. Curtis Ward with his “unbroken Church lineage in which the oneness church began in the first century and has succeeded in continual perpetuity throughout history” says about this? Well, below is the hymn, and thanks to Ingrid Schlueter of Hope In Laodicea for providing it. Here post (which can be accessed here: Hail, Gladdening Light!) also provides an audio recording of the song.

Hail, gladdening Light, of his pure glory poured,
who is immortal Father, heavenly blest;
Holiest of Holies, Jesus Christ our Lord!

Now are we come to the sun’s hour of rest;
the lights of evening round us shine,
we hymn the Father, Son and Holy Spirit divine.

Worthiest art thou at all times to be sung,
with undefiled tongue,
Son of our God, Giver of life, alone!
Therefore in all the world thy glories, Lord, they own.

717 Responses to “OK Oneness Liars Here Is The Best HISTORICAL Proof That Your Claims Are False”

  1. Jen said

    This does not prove the Trinity. Remember that Oneness Pentecostals recognize Father, Son, AND Holy Spirit as offices of GOd, or the ways he manifests himself to mankind. Its not a “SON ONLY” kinda way.

    **rolls eyes**

  2. Jen: Please re – read my post. My post says that this proves that the early church was not oneness. Oneness pentecostals claim that the early church was oneness until Constantine infused Roman paganism into Christianity. If you debate that, then I can give you plenty of quotes from Tertullian that specifically deny oneness doctrine. It is just that this psalm is the oldest Christian psalm on record, and predates Tertullian. You can believe your oneness doctrine if you want to, but you cannot claim that it was the position of the early church or of historic Christianity. Quite the contrary, it was rejected as heresy in the second century, was was re – formed as a cult in 1913.

    • Bobby said

      Is that the quote in Against Praxeus where he says most Christians in his day would reject his theology? Which quotes should we buy here?

  3. djenk23 said

    ummm…if the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are “offices” that God occupies, who exactly was Jesus praying to in the garden?…maybe He was praying to Himself…How can Jesus sit on the right hand of Himself?….I guess Jesus was a paranoid schizophrenic with a touch of MPD…

  4. djenk23 – You kid that those in the Oneness heresy feel Christ prayed to Himself, but see the comments in this blog post by a guy named “Bishop612” The New Oneness Translation (NOT) of Scripture.

    They go through all kinds of cartwheels with scripture to defend that mess. Notice once we responded he got only more ridiculous.

  5. Eden Hadassah said

    Wow jesusman,
    Didn’t your Dr. pastor ever consider consulting the Holy Spirit to know the truth of it? Sounds like a lot of milage to try to solidify something that was outside himself, instead of coming to a real knowledge of the one whom they peirced, and humbling himself, and yourself as well to the One True God. But I guess your pastor, who you lift up as an idol is sufficent enough for you to build your faith on. Maybe he is your lord and savior…you sure make it sound that way to me.

  6. Charles D. said

    Eden Hadassah

    Didn’t you have a website? Do you visit it often? Do you work, I mean other than on here? I admire your zeal and willingness to keep it going, you have many things to say and I was just wondering?

    Charles

  7. Eden Hadassah said

    Hey Charles,
    Job encouraged me to get a blog going, and I am still working on what my main focus will be. I have been praying a lot about having a site, and my main concern is committment. I do not want to start a site I will not be able to regularly maintain.
    Balance in my homelife is important to me, and I care for my grandbaby all day…so coming on this site, allows me to still get involved in discussion, and have the freedom to stop when I am busy with the family or the house. As I work out my time constraints during the day (and they change from moment to moment with an unpredictable baby) I am doing my research as well. I don’t know if I explained myself very well, but I hope I answered your question.🙂
    I did have a site, and I removed it until I figure out how to incorporate it into a blog. If I decide not to have a blog, my site will go back up.
    Thanks for asking

  8. Jesusman said

    Eden Hadassah,

    Thank you for that attack. I hold my Pastor in high regard as we all should so long as our Pastors follow the truth. I’m sure Timothy held Paul in high regard as well. The meat of my refutation was this… HOW COULD THIS “HYMN” BE SUNG AS WRITTEN ABOVE IN 150 AD WHEN THERE WAS NO ENGLISH LANGUAGE AT THAT TIME? Now go consult all three of your gods(or all three heads of your mutant hydra-god) and see what they come up with.

    • Dr. Clinton Willis said

      Dear Brother “Jesus-man” Eden Hadassah. I would love to talk to you my Deut 6:4 Acts 4:12 Brother. A early Gnostic/Catholic chant or song proves that there are three gods coexsting in heaven? Wow! The song in question even supports Isa. 9:6 John 14:6-9 and 1 Tim. 3:16! No chant song or man-made creed can take the place of the Holy Scriptures! Trinity folks always go out side of the Bible because the Scriptures do not teach their Catholic Dogma. I have proof that the early Christian songs were really One God songs! The false Triad or Trinity teaching did not start at Nicaea but was forced upon humanity by Emperor Constantine and his Bishops in 325 AD. This is one of the weakest arguments I have ever seen. I could write a song about ufo’s that came to the earth in 150 AD! However, that would not prove that ufo’s came to the earth in 150 AD! Neither does this song new or old song prove that there are three gods. I have written a new book that is worth reading on this subject. May God bless and keep all of you. Dr. Willis PS I would love to talk to your Pastor.

  9. Charles D. said

    Jesusman

    You’re a man of my heart. Okay, not for what you have going with Eden because I haven’t read your post uet, but I intend to do so. I’m referring to your stated feelings about your minister, then, you indirectly state EXACTLY what God”s word say about our pastors and our treatment of them.

    I bet some would really freak out if they knew that on THAT day, it is the pastor who have to account for for his flock. There is no amount or quality of verbosity that can or will minimize that fact!

    I too, have a tremendous relationship with my pastor and his wife who is a Rev. in her own right. And before anyone sticking their nose in our dialogue thinking that my churches Rev/(Mrs) is one of those that become ministers by the default of “husband’s position), that would be false. They both are ivy league educated young talented, blessed and annointed ministers of God who were ministers before marriage.

    I’m not sure why I felt it necessary to add that last qualification. In truth, my pastor would probably admonish me on that point alone. And if I told him about some of the things I have seen here; I can just hear him say: Well Borther Charles, there are those who are on their way to hell anyhow…..

    Charles

  10. Eden Hadassah said

    Jesusman,
    You thought that was an attack?😉
    Your nerves must constantly be on edge then!
    Your admiration for your pastor goes beyond admiration straight up to mountain top worship. Sorry. I guess you can’t see a difference between observation and naked aggression.
    Would you like an example of naked aggression?

    “Now go consult all three of your gods(or all three heads of your mutant hydra-god) and see what they come up with.”

    Now I am sure your sensitivity to the Holy Spirit made you write such things, right? So where does something like this come from? I saw blind adoration in you for a pastor, which you clearly gushed out upon this board, and you did not expect a response? It is one thing to look up to a pastor for guidance, it is quite another to depend upon him for your faith. Our faith comes from the Lord Most High. It is a gift of the One True God. End of story.
    By the way, Jesusman…what is a three headed mutant hydra-god?
    You say it so matter of factly.🙂

  11. Jesusman said

    E.H.

    Read Charles’ comment about respecting your Pastor, then answer the question HOW COULD THIS “HYMN” BE SUNG AS WRITTEN ABOVE IN 150 AD WHEN THERE WAS NO ENGLISH LANGUAGE AT THAT TIME?

  12. Jesusman said

    BTW, I’ve known the Lord Jesus for over 17 years. He alone is God and is worthy of worship. I’ve known Bro. Ward for less than three years. I don’t worship him. I believe in giving honor to whom honor is due, and if someone called your Pastor a liar and a deceiver having never met him(or her), I would expect you to defend your Pastor as passionately as I have done. If you wouldn’t, you need to ask the Holy Spirit of Jesus to give you a little more of that faith you seem to be so proud of. Now answer the question HOW COULD THIS “HYMN” BE SUNG AS WRITTEN ABOVE IN 150 AD WHEN THERE WAS NO ENGLISH LANGUAGE AT THAT TIME?

  13. Eden Hadassah said

    I don’t pay attention to hymns, so what are you getting all bent out of shape for?
    What are you going on for about some hymn? Is this what is important to you? A hymn, and showing no proof that your pastor is NOT a liar?
    I follow the Lord Yeshua…he is my pastor, my High Priest, my shepherd, my God, my friend and the lover of my soul. And since he is all those things to me, I do not have to defend Him, because He is not, nor will He ever be a liar or a deciever.
    Defend your pastor if you must, but I will follow the Lamb of God.

  14. Dear Eden:
    You don’t know how much that touched me seeing you write what you’ve written above. I feel the same way. He is my all! MY All!
    There is none like him, nor will there ever be. I lay my head upon His chest, He is my comforter! God bless you!

  15. Eden Hadassah said

    Minister🙂
    God bless you too!

  16. Jesusman said

    Then what is the purpose of human Pastors as part of the five-fold ministry? The original article used some hymn as proof that my Pastor was a liar and a deceiver, and I took exception to that and thoroughly refuted the so called “historical proof”. I was defending someone I care about. It’s called loving the Brethren. You should try it some time. Johh 13:35 “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” We are commanded to love Jesus(Yeshua, Jesu, Isa, or whatever language you prefer[I’m quite proficient in Hebrew but choose not to be pretentious about it]) but we are also commanded to love the Brethren. You can’t have one without the other. If you don’t love your brother, you can’t love Jesus. Now I’ll be a little pretentious… “Shema Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad”

    • Med Darnell said

      The Hebrew for Jesus is Jesu, pronounced Geez-oo; as the ‘oo’ in ‘boot’. Yeshua is a hybrid Caballist Fraud. Google ‘IEUE’ and read my forum on Jesus Name. It will open your eyes up to the truth.

  17. Eden Hadassah said

    Hear O Israel, The Lord Our God, The Lord is One.

    That is not pretentious, that is the truth!

  18. Eden Hadassah said

    Jesusman,
    Here is a link about five fold ministry…

    http://www.spiritwatch.org/fivespabu.htm

  19. Charles D. said

    First and foremost, this post was presented in such a fashion as to create argumentative response. It is one-sided and confusing at best. One could get more exercise reading it than you could ever get at a sports club. After all of the “jumping to conclusions and leaps in logic, taking short cuts and for what? Over a ?hymn? PLEASE!!!

    Look further and carefully at “Now this date is key, because CHURCH tradition GENERALLY HOLDS that….” What church are we talking about here? Now thats key! Also, “GENERALLY HOLD” is inadmissible in any court of law. So! Is it supposed to be taken as the Gospel on the writer’s reputation or intentions?
    Then, I’d like to know who among us can speak with any credibility about what John taught, other than what’s written in the Bible?

    Now before going further with all of the weasel words and loopy ideas holding this thing together, the most obtuse and damaging thesus put forth is the contention that “only God knows the heart and He will restore these good hearted Christians and forgive them on judgment day).” Folks don’t take that to heart or, as truth. If you don’t have it together before judgement day, please don’t expect it then. There just isn’t going to be forgiveness on that day!
    That is one reason it is so awfully important that your time be well spent doing those things that you DO know about and stop all of the non-spiritual non-sense.

    Attacking for the sake of either attacking or oneupsmanship are signs of insanity or a reprobate mind.

    In Christ,

    Charles

  20. Jesusman said

    “Adonai ro’i lo echsar
    Binot deishei yarbitzeini
    Al-mei menuchot yena-haleini”

  21. Eden Hadassah said

    Jesusman,
    Did you check out the link?

    When you quote things in hebrew, or in any language, you should probably translate it into english. I did the first time, but now, maybe the foothold of pretention has grabbed hold of you!
    What do you gain by such things? Bring glory to the Lord, not yourself for what you know…(by the way, I am not the most proficient speller, but I think you spelled some of the words wrong in the above statement.)

  22. Jesusman said

    I checked out the link. I don’t have time to trudge through such a long article. How about checking out the Bible? Nowhere does the Bible say that offices of the Ministry would be done away with. God puts Pastors in place to shepherd His people until His return. They’re not God and not worthy of worship, but they are worthy of respect and love. Wouldn’t you defend someone you care about against a stranger’s accusations that he/she were a liar and a deceiver? Such Love is the true fruit of the Spirit.
    Transliterated spelling is not an exact science. I’m just spelling it in English the way it sounds in my head. The only right way to spell it would be with Hebrew letters, none of which I can seem to find on my keyboard. The above is the first two verses of Psalm 23. What I was getting at was the fact that so many people are using “Yeshua” now instead of Jesus. If you have to have Jesus’ Hebrew(and Aramaic) name, then why speak everything else in English? I speak English, and when I say the Saviour’s Name I say “Jesus”, the English rendering. The people who insist on “Yeshua” never seem to apply the same standard to other Biblical names like David(pronounced Dah-veed), Isaiah(Yishayahu), Jacob(Ya’akov), or Paul(Shaul)

  23. Eden Hadassah said

    That’s true about the word Yeshua, but it is what I am comfortable with. As far as loving your minister’s, brothers and sisters, yes, of course we love them as our selves, but I have to admit, you took your love to a feverish pitch. That is reserved for God alone.
    Please show me the scriptures that name, the “office”, of anything. This word office is added to doctrine. Yes there are pastors, prophets, apostles, teachers and evangelists, but we do not need to lay the foundation of the apostles again. There is a great spiritual abuse that has taken place in the five fold ministry outlet, and those who have been indoctrinated do not realize they are actually worshiping the words of the self-appointed prophets and apostles. There is a lack of servant leadership, and they currently try to sit on the throne of God, userping his authority. This is blasphemy at it’s height. If you are not willing to read about spiritual abuse, so that you can understand it’s forms, then you willingly decieve yourself and those around you.
    Can you walk away from your church, with out fear of retaliation from them or being subjected to some sort of verbal abuse? Do they, “the prophet’s” tell you what you should be doing, and what you shouldn’t be doing with your life? Do they request that you consult them before you make purchases or go somewhere? These are just the begining of it. I have seen these abuses first hand, and I wouldn’t allow myself to be enslaved to that kind of bondage. There are so many things going on in these types of churches, and the pastors…they don’t care for the sheep, they devour them. They break the “spiritual spine” of the church, and when they are paralysed, they start naughing on the flesh.
    Pride has puffed them up to believe they are the “true church”, when in fact they make up their own prophecies and tell others to follow them instead of the word of God.
    I will follow the Lamb, and where ever he leads me, I will follow him.

  24. Jesusman said

    “Do they, “the prophet’s” tell you what you should be doing, and what you shouldn’t be doing with your life? Do they request that you consult them before you make purchases or go somewhere?” Absolutely not! I don’t know what kind of cult mentality you’ve been subjected to, but I can assure you that’s not the kind of Church I go to. Not all Pastors are psychopathic control freaks. Love for the Brethren should go to such a feverish pitch that you would “lay down your life for your friends”. Jesus loved His disciples with a feverish pitch, yet no one would accuse Him of worshipping them. If you wouldn’t die for your brother, you wouldn’t die for Jesus, which would make you a fake Christian. I don’t go for the “Apostles” and “Prophets” types either. If there are any, God will show me so without their own self recognition. Built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, however, is the ministry of Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers. Bro. Ward, while giving advice to young Ministers and Bible College students, says “There are way too many preachers, and hardly any Ministers! A Minister is a servant. The people aren’t there to serve you with accolades and Amens, they are there to be served by a Minister(servant)with God’s Love, His Understanding, and His Word.”

  25. Eden Hadassah said

    Ah yes, Yeshua did lay down his life for us, but was it for us first? Or was it so that His Father could be reconciled to us?
    He did the will of his Father First. We are the creation, and he loved us enough to lay down his life for us. Was his feverish pitch on the cross called out to man or God? Were his last words directed towards us or his Father? Or maybe you think that he was talking to himself? His passion was for his Heavenly Father first. It is what he talked about when he came to Earth. No split personality disorder, he said clearly that he and his father were one. Imagine coming to Earth and proclaiming the love and mercy of the Father, and his creation turning right back around and saying Jesus is the father. There is a problem with that thought. There are not three gods. They are one.
    As far as cults go, I was never involved in cults like this, but I have visited them. And it isn’t as in your face as I put it in an earlier post. It is subtle. Slick. And with scripture to try to back up their manipulations.

  26. Jesusman said

    Jesus was not His own Father. That is a misrepresentation of Oneness belief that Trinitarians try to throw at the wall and see if it sticks. The Father was not the Son. The Father was IN the Son(John 14:10
    Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself: but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works) Jesus prayed to God the Father, not to Himself, although the Father dwelled in Jesus. We pray to God, yet in a sense, He dwells within us through the Holy Spirit. That doesn’t mean we pray to ourselves.(And no, we’re not God like Jesus was God, but that’s another discussion entirely) If God were three seperate persons who are One in unity and purpose, why was the man God created in His Own Image only one man instead of three united men? One threefold being of body, soul, and spirit just like the God in Whose Image he was Created; One threefold being of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Did you know this was what Oneness theology really stands for? I doubt it if you learned our beliefs from those who would try to smear us.

    The bottom line question in Trinity vs. Oneness is this…IS JESUS IN THE GODHEAD OR IS THE GODHEAD IN JESUS? I’ll take the Apostle Paul’s word for it in Colossians 2:9 Go ahead and have the last word, I’m going to let the Scriptures speak for themselves. May the Lord Bless and Keep you.

  27. Eden Hadassah said

    Oh my, Jesusman…

    talk about manipulation! How many scriptures you leave out. Do you circulate just around the verses you choose? And then extrapolate upon them? That is as pharasaical as the chief priests and rabbis themselves! Careful oneness man, your not as wise as your teachers have instructed you to be.
    You would have more luck converting a Jehovah Witness or a Mormon for that matter, then to come on this board and sit and spin! Why don’t you go talk to them, they will believe anybody who can try to package God into a nice little package. Muslims will listen to! I can not follow where you go, I follow the Lamb.

  28. Eden Hadassah said

    You can think that the scriptures will speak for themselves, but that is only possible when you QUOTE THE SCRIPTURE IN CONTEXT! Why didn’t you finish the next few verses? Where was Jesus going? Humm. Funny how you omit what doesn’t suit you or your doctrine. Next time you want to spin out scriptures, use them in context, and don’t just throw one or two out there. I don’t have time for that.

  29. Jesusman said

    Do you agree with this statement “God the Father revealing Himself to mankind through the Son and the Spirit is at the very heart of Christian belief.”?

  30. Jesusman said

    Or are you expecting If so I feel sorry for you.

  31. Jesusman said

    Sorry, not the best with links. The first is the mutant three headed monster and the second is a nice family portrait of Senior, Junior, and Birdie.

  32. Eden Hadassah said

    I don’t believe in trying to put God on display with images. Why would you continue to profane God? You mock what you can not possibly understand or explain. Unfortunately, that is the meaning of faithless. And with out faith, it is impossible to please God.
    Blasphamy never seems to escape your very being does it?
    Take care, sweet jesusman…
    No picture, no image and certainly nothing that any man can make on paper can compare to the majesty of God. You degrade yourself, and have totally showed the depth of the puddle in which you dwell. You have not learned anything of God, so these seventeen years have been a waste of your time.

  33. Jesusman said

    “No picture, no image and certainly nothing that any man can make on paper can compare to the majesty of God.”

    Exactly. Especially not a triangle or three connected circles or a convoluted explanation involving “persons”, “essences”, “hypostasis”, and all the other unbiblical trash that has been thrown at God in man’s futile attempt to explain Him. I believe that God is One. I believe that Jesus is God. Isn’t that the very heart of Christian belief? The Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, in defense of the Trinity doctrine says “That God the Father imparts Himself to mankind through Son and Spirit without ceasing to be Himself is at the very heart of the Christian Faith.” A better explanation of Oneness theology I could not have made myself. If the above statement is the correct explanation of the Trinity Doctrine, then consider me a Trinitarian. Maybe it is that some have a faulty understanding of the Trinity?

  34. Jesusman said

    “Ah yes, Yeshua did lay down his life for us, but was it for us first? Or was it so that His Father could be reconciled to us?
    He did the will of his Father First.” 2 Corinthians 15:9 To wit, that GOD WAS IN CHRIST, RECONCILING THE WORLD UNTO HIMSELF, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

    According to Paul, the Father did His own reconciling THROUGH Jesus.

  35. Eden Hadassah said

    I don’t have a need to circle the scriptures like you, nor go into anything about the Lord to try to “explain” his position. Faith is central to any belief, and you can try to reiterate your views and doctrine, but you just keep it going around and around like a dog chasing his own tail. It is quite an amusing trait to watch my dog do it, (when I had a dog) but in people it is just down right annoying. Understand something, I am not in the slightest bit interested to do any sort of dialogue with you concerning the nature of God, so if you would like to discuss something else, I would consider it. It is not my particular passion to go in circles with anyone, but I am sure there are others that may like doing the doctrinal whirly gig. If someone else would like to engage you in conversation concerning this topic, great…
    You will get no self-satisfaction engaging me in conversation about this, but I guess you couldn’t take a hint, or even many.

  36. Hi Dr. Ward.

    I have been following along with this for sometime viewing both sides. I have studied the bible for over 20 years and have somewhat of an education having studied (and still studying) Theology.
    I have seen verse after verse that does indeed infer Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
    If I may. In the Old Testament there is no distinct reference to God existing in three persons. Hints of it, however are found in the name of God as Elohim. A plural noun, and though no clear statement of a trinity is contained, a plurality of persons may well be implied.
    Gensis 1:26 “Let us make man in our image after our likeness,: even more strongly suggests a plurality within God.

    See Gensis 3:22

    Behold, the man has become like one of us: and Genesis 11:7 Come let us go down. No trinity is proven, but plurality is definitely suggested.
    Other OT passages suggest two divine personages, Example, Psalm 110:1 The Lord says to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.
    I think this next is the most interesting to them all.
    Isaiah 48:16 And now the Lord God has sent me and His Holy Spirit.
    The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because the Lord has anointed me to bring good tidings to the afflicted.

    Although these passages do not specifically depict one God in three persons, they point in that direction.
    In the New Testament we see Jesus baptized in the Jordan River, thereafter he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, Thou art my beloved Son. Mark 1:10-11.
    Three are involved. One speaks from heaven, One comes upon like a dove, and One who the dove comes upon,and hears the voice.
    Spirit and Son are both mentioned and the voice in unimistakenly the Father. It would be unsound to dismiss what the scripture reads, as if the writer didn’t mean to write what saw.
    The personhood of the Holy Spirit is clearly affirmed in the fourth gospel where Jesus says, The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things.
    He also adds (John 14:26) that the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me.
    I could go on and on. But this is why I believe. I don’t know what other see, but the bible does imply. If Jesus is the only begotten, it is implied someone Fathered Him. He didn’t do it himself. This is the same thing God has set in His creation, as we are patterned after things above. God Bless.

  37. Jesusman said

    “If Jesus is the only begotten, it is implied someone Fathered Him. He didn’t do it himself.”

    Oneness theologians have NEVER said that Jesus Fathered Himself. It is the Trinitarians who have a problem here. If Jesus is the “Eternal Son”, how was He the only begotten Son? To be begotten there has to be a time before the begotten existed. Another quandry you have is that the Bible clearly states that Mary was with child of the Holy Ghost. So who was the Father? If the Father and the Holy Ghost are two seperate persons, we’ll need to get Maury Povich to do a paternity test. Now that’s a show that’s sure to get some ratings! “When it comes to the man Christ Jesus, Holy Ghost, you ARE THE FATHER!!!”(and He is!) ;oD

  38. Eden Hadassah said

    Round and round Dr. double D…

    Why on earth would you even use a catholic commentary to try to prove something…that is simply amazing to me.

    Let me ask you something…
    What does “And the government shall rest upon his shoulders” mean to you? I am sure that you can “interpret” it, or make assumptions, but do you know what it means?

  39. Eternal in heaven before the world began; begotten of the flesh.

    Luke 1:35 The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall over shadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

    Again all three were present. The Holy Spirit, The Most High Father, and holy seed is the Christ. The angel even called the fleshy seed of Christ thing. Isn’t God good.

  40. Charles said

    Jesusman:

    When I read your question: “If Jesus is the only begotten, it is implied someone Fathered Him. He didn’t do it himself.”

    I thought about the sublty of Satan and I will tell you why: Satan to Eve:”Did God really say…….?” I;m sure you get my meaning. Regarding “implications” and the trouble they often gets us in, especially, regarding spiritual matters, is that you have to lean less on your own understanding and more on God’s.

    EXAMPLE: Your quiry commence with the big “IF” implying that you don’t believe what is written in the Bible. However, if you do believe what is written; why would you use the good time that God’s has so generously given you upon this earth or even be having this dialogue. Your question suggests further, that you have yet to read, say…, the Gospel of Matthew Chapter’s 1 and 2. And if you have read them, then, you don’t believe what you’ve read. If that is the case, how in the world can you expect someone here to answer your questions, or, change your preconceived belief? The only truth they will be able to point out to you are the Gospels, especially, Matthew, but there are other scripture references as well. My point is, if you don’t get Matthew, then, probably the others references might prove a challenge too.

    In Christ,

    Charles

  41. johnkaniecki said

    Greetings All,

    The book of Hebrews teaches that what Jesus did on Earth in the shadows He did in the reality of His Father.

    The analogy of Father, Son and Holy Spirit may break down when we look at it in human terms. I have no problem the Father begetting the Son through the Holy Spirit. Read John chapter 1. In the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Clearly Jesus, the Word, existed before this Earth. So the begetting by the instrument of the Holy Spirit could refer to the human aspects.

    Let’s not let technacalities get in the way of mysteries. I can’t explain every last detail and from reading the log entries I am sure you can’t neither. Sometimes we just have to accept what we read in the Bible and not dissect it to discover every nuance.

    The Bible clearly teaches three aspects of Love or God as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Do research on the Godhead among other things and the point will be proven. We get into trouble when we try to figure out every last detail. Many times these details are void of spiritual edification. It was once asked “How many angels could sit atop the head of a pin?” Quite frankly, to get a little vulgar for emphasis, “I don’t give a crap!!!”

    Love,

    John

  42. johnkaniecki said

    Greeting Dr. Ward,

    May God bless you!!!

    When Jesus was baptized the Holy Spirit descended and the Father spoke “This is my son with whom I am well pleased.”

    You give many words but you say very little. This is beyond intellectualism but a practical thing.

    The Father is beyond our comprehension.
    Jesus is like the Father but only a ray of light compared to the sun. Jesus became human and can explain to the Father something the Father could never experience.
    The Holy Spirit indwells believers and guides them.

    The Father is not omnipresent. The Father was not in the fish head my wife threw in the garbage when she cooked my dinner.

    You Dr. Curtis have said a lot on something that is a mystery. Can you define the rainbow? Can you define the sunset? I can tell you that they are real and they are very beautiful. I could probably calculate the lengths of the different wave lengths in the light that produces the colors, but would that make the phenomana more or less beautiful?

    Love,

    John

  43. Charles D. said

    Eden;

    Okay, listen ya lil fruitcake, because you ignored me yesstidy, I’ve lost and don’t know how to retreive the post or topic we were on. Which post were we on last and how can I find it?

    I worked a straight undershift and could not find our conversation when I got hiome. I do have at least three questions that I want to see how you view the topics, so, help me out here. AND! don’t you ever again promise to get back to me and fail to do it. Missy

    Charles

  44. Journeyin2Light said

    johnkaniecki said God is not omnipresent.

    Your Bible says
    “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.” Deut. 139;7&8

    Proverbs 15;3 ‘The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good”

    Acts 17;27&28 says “he be not far from every one of us; For in him we live, and move, and have our being”

    God says in Jerimiah 23;24 “Do not I fill all heaven and earth? saith the LORD”

    This is omnipresense.

  45. Jesusman said

    Charles, that question wasn’t mine. If you’ll notice the quotation marks, I was repeating a rhetorical question from Minister Patrick Williams so I could refute it.

    Job, How could your little hymn be sung in 150 A.D. as you have it written above when there was no English language or anything similar to English at the time? If it was written the same but in a different language, there is no way it would rhyme in English. This is your ” best historical proof that your claims are false”? Well there would be no sense in you trying to debate Dr. Ward on history since I just shredded your BEST proof quite easily, and I’m just a one year Bible College student.

  46. Charles D. said

    Hey Jesusman:

    Now you’re just gonna have to forgive this old man in the “aged” state that I find myself. Not to big to apologize when I’m wrong and in this instance, I was, so I do. I notice the reference made by Mr. Williams at comment 40,41 or there about and had not read his post. I am often caught with my foot in my mouth and never feel ashamed because my motives are pure.

    Your thing and mine have (really not too much to do with the post, actually) or your pastor’s beliefs or teachings. Ours has to do with “our respective relationships with our respecive pastors, and I admire the relationship you have with your pastor. I certainly love my pastor and I am not in the minority and share feeling with the mostbase of members within the confines of my church building.

    However, my feeling does not approach “hero worship” and I understand that yours does not involve any type of hero worship either. My pastor would be the first to admonish me if he thought or, otherwise detected any such improper focus.

    What? Accept an admonition from ANYONE at my age??? Well, yeah!!!

  47. Job said

    Jesusman:

    The Bible was not written in English. So by your own standard, you should not call yourself “Jesusman” but rather “Yeshuaman” or “Y’shuaman” or “Yehoshuaman” as “Jesus” is a 1629 English transliteration of a bad Greek translation of a Name that was in Hebrew. (For how “Iesous” came to be “Jesus” see http://www.pfrs.org/jewish/hr09.html.) Of course, you are a first year Bible college student, so you knew that the Hebrew name for Jesus Christ (the Jesus part, not the Christ part, which is either Mashiach or Moshiach) is the same as the Hebrew name that was translated “Joshua” in the Book of Zechariah. I am also sure that you know that the “Joshua” in Zechariah is slightly different in spelling than the “Joshua” that led Israel up against Jericho.

    Incidentally first year Bible student, you are also aware that when Joshua after the one that the book was named met the man on the plain of Jericho, that man was not an angel, but a Christophany, an appearance of the pre – incarnate Jesus Christ. It was, then Joshua meeting THE REAL Joshua. (Joshua means “God saves” or something similar by the way.) How do we know this? Well Joshua 5:13-15 said that Joshua worshiped Him. Since only God can receive worship, we know that it was not an angel. How do we know that it was not God the Father? For He called Himself “The Lord of Hosts”, or commander of the army of the Lord.” The name “Lord” was actually Adonai, which is always used for God the Father, never God the Son, for that is the same Name that Jesus Christ used to call God the Father in the New Testament. So even at that point, Jesus Christ was making a plain distinction between Himself and God the Father. Actually, the earliest distinction was Genesis 1:2, when the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Or Genesis 1:27, when God refers to Himself as “us and our” … let US make man in OUR image.

    But back to history. 150 AD is significant because it was long before anything resembling Roman Catholicism came about. It was right after the schism between the Jews and the Gentile Christians in the church. And it was right when people who had personally received the teachings from the apostles were still alive. That time, early to mid first century, is called “the time of the apostolic fathers.” It is not called the apostolic age, because the apostles were dead, but the apostolic fathers, because people who received the teachings directly from the apostles were still alive. (Polycarp, a disciple of John, died in 155 AD, 5 years after the hymn’s dating.) And it was during that time that A) the Didache, otherwise known as the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, referred to baptism being in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and B) Theophilus the leader of the church at Antioch made the first mention of the term “Trinity” to describe the godhead according to history. By comparison, the first recorded oneness heretic was Noetus, who came along 75 years after Theophilus!

    So first year college student, rather than shred my proof, you merely exposed the vacuity of your own position. And if you are going to live up to your own standard, you had better be “Yeshuaman” when you return.

  48. Charles D. said

    I have no “A” game to bring on Saturday. Then, I might not need one. Charles

  49. Dr. Ward said

    Job’s words are between the double asterisks. My reply immediately follows.

    **”the first reference to the Godhead as “Trinity” was made by Theophilus of Antioch, a fellow who was born 115 A.D… The word was used again by Tertullian about 100 years later.”**

    The word “Trias” (NOT “Trinity”) was used by Theophilus and it was in no sense a description of the modern doctrine of the Trinity. Theophilus’ Trias was God, His Word, and His Wisdom. Where was the Holy Ghost in this Trias?
    Tertullian introduced the Trinitas in his book Theophilius to Autolycus – 115-181 – Book 2, chapter 15 and also probably the foreshadowing of the formula “three Persons, one Substance” as the Latin “Tres Personae, Una Substantia” (“itself from the Koine Greek “Treis Hypostases, Homoousios.”) However please take close note that the word “Person” or “Persona” properly translated meant “Mask” , so that when they referred to the persons of God they were referring to the Masks of God. A great difference.

    **”it was because they believed in Arianism, donatism – which denied that Christ came in the flesh”**

    Donatism did NOT deny Christ came in the flesh. DOCETISM was the teaching which espoused such a view. Neither did Arianism teach such a doctrine. Once again you seem to have confused your historical facts.

    **”the book Didache (which contained references to baptism in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), who came about the first half of the second century barely 100 years after Jesus Christ resurrected”**

    The “book” you refer to has some serious interpolations the most glaring being the abovementioned Tri-unity baptismal formula. It is believed to have been added by later Catholic scribes.
    The “Key of Truth” translated by Fred Coneybeare reveals that portions of that book concerning the water baptismal formula of the ancient Paulicians was erased and scratched out and most likely done by the Catholic scribes who held the manuscript in their custody for ages. Roman Catholics are believed to have been the culprits that interpolated the only reference to “three” in the entire Bible..l John 5:7,8 which is omitted by the more trustworthy versions today (including the NIV). So interpolations are not unusual.

    **”then we can only conclude that Christianity became corrupted by paganism from the very beginning and is an invalid religion. In other words, either the Jews, Mormons, Muslims, or Jehovah’s Witnesses are right. ” **

    No…the Word of God is right! ” For there are certain men who have crept in…turning the grace of God into lasciviousness…” Jude1:4. Christianity was plagued with Docetism, Gnosticism, Mithraism, etc., from the beginning. They were plagued by the doctrine of Balaam and the Nicolaitines (Rev. 2:14,15) and the Lord said “I have somewhat against thee , because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen and repent..(Rev. 2: 4,5)

    **”So, I trust first my own reading of scripture such as where the Son of Man was presented to the Ancient of Days in Daniel and when the Father spoke from Heaven and the Holy Spirit descended like a dove upon the Son at baptism backed up by doctrines and writings of people who came about less than 100 years after the birth of Jesus Christ (because if the church had fallen into apostasy by that early date we cannot even trust the Bible, because no references to manuscripts of Bible books from a time earlier than that have ever been found or ever will be!),”**

    As mentioned above the Bible may have several interpolations such as l John 5: 7,8 and Matthew 28:19 (every early reference to Matthew 28:19, including Eusebius, reads “baptizing in the Name” and ends there. Eusebius uses this scripture 16 times in his “History of the Church ” and never includes the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost thus adding weight to the theorem that Matthew 28:19 was a later interpolation) however the Word is “spirit and life” and ” the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”
    Concerning Daniel’s Ancient of days…since the Son of Man had not yet been born as Son of Man then this must be an allegorical or symbolic reference just as the lamb with seven horns and seven eyes in the book of Revelations (no one believes Christ really looks this bizarre). Concerning Christ’s baptism why do you even mention it when I plainly stated I believe in three distinct manifestations of God? This was evidence to the Jewish John the Baptist who had to have two or three witnesses for anything to be established as factual. John needed a sign to know who was the Christ among the multitudes coming to be baptized. “And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God” (Jn. 1:33,34)

    **”and you trust a splinter group that formed less than 90 years ago.”**

    Actually it was 101 years ago that the group you mentioned experienced revival. Charles Parham spoke in tongues and certainly baptized in Jesus name, as did Dr. Sykes around 1906. However there were many baptizing in Jesus name and speaking in other tongues in the 1800’s on Billy’s Island. A new German history of the early church relates that the first few centuries of the Church the predominant doctrine of the Godhead was Modalism and that the Trinity doctrine was formulated to combat Arianism and Gnosticism but overthrew Modalism as the predominant doctrine in the process. Sabellianism and Montanism certainly predates the Azusa Street Revival. Holy Rollers have been around for a long, long time!

    **”By the way, your habit of going back through history and claiming that every heretic was oneness kicked out by the Catholic church for telling the truth? “**

    “Every heretic” ? Can you name them? Have you read any of my literature or my recent book on Church history? If you can’t name the links I teach are in the chain of our Church lineage then you have no right to say I am a “liar” because YOU DON”T EVEN KNOW WHAT I AM SUPPOSEDLY LYING ABOUT!!!!

    ** “Further, Tertullian, who wrote “Against Praexis” to contend against your oneness doctrine, was considered a heretic himself. As you can tell that I regard Tertullian highly, it is only because, but please realize that Tertullian ultimately left the Montanists. If he was able to leave his false movement in the 200s (and at a very old age at that), then you are capable of doing so now.” **

    Sorry but Tertullian became a Montanist LATE in life, not visa versa. Except for a statement from St. Augustine who was trying to defend the memory of Tertullian, all indications are he remained theologically a Montanist to the very end, going as far as creating a sect more RADICAL then the original Montanists.

    “Sometime before 210, Tertullian, having become more and more displeased with the stolidity of many Christians and clergymen, converted to Montanism, a sectarian movement begun by the prophet Montanus and defined by its strident and ascetic moralism. Following his second conversion, Tertullian wrote many of his most vehement pronouncements on the morality of his contemporaries and moved far afield from the orthodox Christianity he had earlier championed. Tertullian wrote his final treatises by or before 222” (Enote Dictionary)

    If you wish to call me a “liar” that is your choice. But please know what I teach before you attack me.

    Thank you.

  50. Jesusman said

    Job,

    If a song written in Hebrew or any other language were translated word for word and came out rhyming in English, that would be a truly amazing accomplishment. There is nothing wrong with translating things into English(BTW thanks for the Hebrew lesson, but I’m already pretty Hebrew literate and Yeshua/Yehoshua/Yoshua all mean “YHWH is saviour”), which is why the name Jesus is perfectly legitimate, but when the translated material just happens to rhyme and perpetuate a certain belief to speakers of the language into which it was translated, it must be concluded that there was a bit of tampering done with the original. If it rhymes in the original language, it is guaranteed NOT to rhyme in the translated.

    If the trinity doctrine is so clearly taught in Scripture, why do we have to infer it upon areas like you mentioned when it doesn’t say it directly? If this doctrine is so important, why didn’t Jesus or any of the Apostles make it absolutely clear? Why should Theophilus or anyone else have to clear things up for us? Show me a man living today who will tell you that he found your trinity doctrine from the Bible alone, without any “orthodox” teaching whatsoever, and I’ll show you a liar.

    “Let Us make man…..” God talking to Himself, it never actually mentions how many of “us” there are. Why not infer all of God’s attributes to be seperate persons? David spoke to his own soul many times “Bless the Lord, Oh my soul” The rich man in Jesus’ parable did the same “And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.” Should we conclude from these instances that David and the rich man were each made up of at least two seperate persons because they talked to themselves? I say “Let’s go here” or “Let’s do this” to myself all the time, and I can assure you, if there were more than one of me, disaster would be on the horizon. God said “Let Us make man in Our Image” and He then proceeded to make one man, a threefold being of body, soul, and spirit. Why didn’t he make three men united in one human nature?

  51. Dr. Ward said

    You state that the little hymn is “THE BEST HISTORICAL PROOF” that Oneness claims are false.

    That is YOUR BEST??????

    I am thankful I have much better histoical proof then you do.

    BTW Charles, I was referring to scheduling a live debate. This forum is not the best medium in which to successfully engage in a debate. Waht we are now doing is about as good as it gets🙂

  52. Eden Hadassah said

    Charles!

    I came on this morning, and saw the merry-go-round, so before I watch everyone go round and round, I will answer your post first…
    The last few days have been crazy in my home, so I had only have a few moments here and there to see some of the posts.
    Back to the original post…I COULDN’T FIND IT EITHER, AND IT DROVE ME NUTS! I did read your last one before it was lost in the sea of other posts.
    Joshua 9, I did read it, and after I am done reading this thread, I will give you my thoughts on the chapter. But I will say, that you have a point according to chapter 9, and I understand your perspective…IT’S A GOOD ONE!

    Love,
    the lil fruitcake

  53. Eden Hadassah said

    Dr. double D,

    Here is the problem with “debate” on topics of who’s right and who’s wrong about the divinity and personhood of God…
    If it is not done in humility, and only to try to “prove” a point, it is done in vain. “Do not take the name of the Lord in vain.” I can not go round and round on this issue, because it leads to the vanity of man and what he knows. It gives no real glory to the Lord of Hosts.
    There is but One God, and of our God, is His Holy Spirit, and of our God, is His Son, Yeshua the Messiah. He is seated at the Right Hand of God. It is our beautiful Lord that we are to love and admire, worship and adore…not our great grasp of “bible knowledge” or needing to prove anything.
    You have taken the name of the Lord in vain, as well as your disciple Jesusman by coming here with a sinful prideful attitude about what YOU think you know about God. You will go round and round with the same scriptures, but refuse to see that our Lord is the King, seated at the Right Hand of the Father. In doing so, you and Jesusman mock what you yourselves can’t seem to understand and expose your prideful and contentious spirit.
    Jesusman and you have both tried to create “images” of our God, yet, we know that images could not compare to the matchless beauty of the Lord our God. There is none like the Lord, and he is worthy of all our praise, yet you do not praise him as Lord. Is he the risen Lord to you? Did he suffer and die, and was he raised again to life by the Holy Spirit? I hope you believe at least this much.
    God is only a subject to you, this is what both of you have shown me. He is not real to either of you, but rather a subject for which you can have debates and show how you can read words.
    You obviously are not subject to the Lord and this is clear by your prideful vanity.

  54. Charles D. said

    Okay Missy, forgiven. I remember your grandchild wasn’t feeling well, so I pray that everything is fine now. I remember asking a few questiobs which might need long answers, but, they can certainly wait for less traffic.

    Hey Jesusman: Is the college that you attend denominational? If so, which one? Also, how do you plan to ultimately use your acquired skills and knowledge upon completion, (of course, we never “complete”), however, you get my meaning. Look forward to your response.

    Charles

  55. Charles D. said

    Dr. Double D:

    I will wait for your response, including ground rules. I have only one: That each of us absolutely use only the Bible and make zero references to anyone not included, or, otherwised mentioned in the Bible. The version however will be immaterial.

    Hey Missy; I’m leaving for work now, so, we will speak later.

    In Christ

    Charles

  56. Charles D. said

    Jesusman:
    I meant denominationally supported in comment 63 above.

    Chas

  57. Eden Hadassah said

    Charles,
    Ok, chapter 9. I agree that you have a really good point, but I wouldn’t apply it to Kate. She did not come being deceptive to try to trap us. She was pretty front and center with her beliefs and lack of beliefs. She made it clear what her position was from the beginning, so in this I found no deceit. HOWEVER, I would apply it to this thread, so the fact that we could not find the original post, makes perfect sense to me to post my comments in this thread. Classic!🙂

  58. Dr. Ward said

    Job, Your repetitive referencing of JesusMan as a “first year Bible College student” appeared to be slurs and in my opinion was totally uncalled for. I personally know JesusMan and I can truthfully say he was a more then an accomplished autodidact before ever gracing the threshold of the College. His knowledge far exceeds most who have already graduated with honors. You or anyone else would do well in avoiding him in a live debate. You would not win.

    May I also add it was quite insensitive and uncalled for to condemn JesusMan for holding up the hands of his Pastor. An unknown individual (who obviously has never bothered to even read Dr. Ward’s literature) posted a public attack against JesusMan’s Pastor calling him a “liar.” JesusMan defends his Pastor and someone has the audacity to call it “hero worship.” It appears it is alright to lambast someone as a liar but it is NOT alright to defend that individual. The word says when one member suffers we all suffer and , may I add, it is a mandatory we stand together else we fall alone.

    JesusMan is not only an accomplished scholar but a dedicated Christian with high moral values and is quite a gentleman proficient in business matters. He is probably the most talented musician in our state and one of the most talented in our country, having played in a popular band. He could have much to brag about but all I see in his posts are defense of his Pastor and defense of the precious truth he holds so dear.

    I would caution you not to touch God’s anointed.

  59. djenk23 said

    Try again, doc…..a well versed Bible scholar such as yourself should know “touch not God’s anointed” is not applicable here….first of all, the verse says touch ie physically harm….stretching that verse to include talking about someone else is terrible exegesis of said verse….secondly, it seems like youre trying to draw attention away from that fact that you guys cant defend oneness in shape or form…..can you answer Acts 7:55-56?…how does Jesus stand on the right hand side of Himself?

  60. Jesusman said

    “You obviously are not subject to the Lord and this is clear by your prideful vanity.”—Eden Hadassah

    Your assertion that you are sort of “above the fray”, as it were, shows that it is YOU who are bubbling over with pride. You act as if you are the most spiritual, so you can’t be bothered to come down to the nitty gritty and mingle with the commoners. You claim Dr. Ward and I are lifting up our own knowledge, but then you go and do the same thing with your so-called spirituality. Reading someone’s defense of a doctrine does not give you the insight into their relationship with Jesus(this Jesus whom Dr. Ward and I both praise as the ONLY Lord, the risen Lord who suffered and died and was risen again by the Holy Spirit), and I would never assume what your standing with the Saviour is, especially based on what you post on a forum. Critique the message, not the messenger. When you can’t handle the heat of debating the issue at hand, you personally attack the people debating you. You should be ashamed of yourself. I’ll pray for you.

    Charles,
    My Bible College is independent. I was ordained as a minister on October 6th of this year with both Mercy Tabernacle in Benton, TN and the International Church of Jesus Christ. The calling I have received from God is that of an Evangelist. I hope to complete my studies and receive my degree and go with it where the Lord leads. I feel a strong call to go out into the evangelistic fields, but I must be led of the Lord in every step that I take. Your prayers would be appreciated. God Bless.

  61. Dr. Ward said

    Charles, Please forgive me if it appeared as if I ignored you. I am very busy and it was not intentional.
    I was referring to setting up a public debate in a College setting or a televised debate.
    However I would be more then happy to arrange something online in the not too distant future. At the present I am too bogged down. At any rate we seem to have already been engaged in a healthy debate and both sides have been very articulate.
    Blessings🙂

  62. Jesusman said

    how does Jesus stand on the right hand side of Himself?—Djenk23

    How about this, How can ANYONE stand at the right side of an Omnipresent God? There is nowhere where God is not, so that leaves no room for anyone on EITHER side. The Right Hand of God refers to His Power, as Jesus said “The Right Hand of Power”, not to his physical right hand side, because an omnipresent being has no sides.

  63. Jesusman said

    “touch not God’s anointed” is not applicable here….first of all, the verse says touch ie physically harm….stretching that verse to include talking about someone else is terrible exegesis of said verse…——DJenk23

    Well I guess the kids who called Elisha “bald head” and became bear cuisine have a legitimate complaint. Maybe you could plead their case?

  64. Dr. Ward said

    I simply do not have any further time to spend on this forum.

    I have stated my position.

    Again I will attempt to leave this discussion in more able hands then mine.

    Many blessings to all on your Christian journey.

  65. Eden Hadassah said

    Gee, I wonder if Jesusman and Dr. Curtis are the same man? Maybe that is the meaning of oneness?

    Jesusman, I don’t feel attacked or even baited by your vain attempts. Just because you make statements, doesn’t make them true. I love how the Dr. refers to himself in third person. (I hope you are not making statements for him.)
    You do not recognize that I have given glory to the Lord, and you still have not praised him, nor lifted him up as the King who sits at the Right Hand of the Father. So you nullify all your “you think you are so spiritual” talk, and deny the truth that you and the pastor have, and still continue to take the name of the Lord in vain. I gave you my position as far as debate goes, but I guess you still can not understand what I am saying to you. There is no debate…Yeshua wins. He is the King.

    It is equally troubling that your pastor feels the need to give us your resume’…
    You both lift up each other more then God. You brag more about your own accomplishments and knowledge, then about the Beauty of the Lord of Hosts. What is that?
    Who is anointed?
    Biblically speaking, there is ONE anointed ONE, that is the KING.
    Try not to usurp and attempt to de-throne Him!
    If your intention was to come and “make corrections” then also be prepared to be corrected.
    May all glory, power, and majesty be given to our Lord and our Savior, forever. For He alone is worthy to recieve all our praise.

    “Your assertion that you are sort of “above the fray”, as it were, shows that it is YOU who are bubbling over with pride. You act as if you are the most spiritual, so you can’t be bothered to come down to the nitty gritty and mingle with the commoners. You claim Dr. Ward and I are lifting up our own knowledge, but then you go and do the same thing with your so-called spirituality”

    Now there is interesting interpretation of “Do not take the name of the Lord in Vain”…
    I give a commandment of the Lord, and you tell me I am bubbling over with pride and “above the fray”? What planet did you come from? I did not lift up myself, nor did I give a laundry list of accomplishments of myself. And when does “do not take the name of the Lord in vain” refer to me as my own brand of spirituality?
    Will you really deny the truth that you are trying to lift up your knowledge about God, instead of actually lifting him up? Or don’t you believe in honoring him and being subject to him?

  66. djenk23 said

    how does Jesus stand on the right hand side of Himself?—Djenk23

    How about this, How can ANYONE stand at the right side of an Omnipresent God? There is nowhere where God is not, so that leaves no room for anyone on EITHER side. The Right Hand of God refers to His Power, as Jesus said “The Right Hand of Power”, not to his physical right hand side, because an omnipresent being has no sides.

    jesusman….thats a SERIOUS stretch of the text…Stephen saw Jesus at the right hand of God….if God has no sides, how could Moses see His back(Exodus 33)?…yall are stretching scripture to its breaking point to try and make the unexplainable explainable…Jesus always talked about the Holy Ghost and the Father as separate entities….Who was Jesus praying to in the Garden?..You’d have me believe that He was talking to Himself…Who was Jesus talking to on the cross…and your reference to Elisha has nothing to with “touch not mine anointed”..those boys didnt touch Elisha and the Bible says that he cursed those boys in the name of the Lord…..are you calling down curses now??….try again…

    • Ana said

      I am not defending anyone’s side when it comes to the general date in which this website was created, but in reference to your argument, in which God says “touch not mine anointed”. This scripture does not only warn of physical harm but harm in gerneral, which can be verbal. ALthough punishment is more severe to those who physically harm an anionted person of God, consequences do occur to those who verbally attack or try to cause harm to God’s people in other ways. The children that disresepected Elisha , though they did not physically touch him, were punished according to God’s will. Elsiha was a man of God and that is where the power that he had came from (God himself). Nothing can be done through God’s power unless it is willed by him, thus the children were cursed because they disrespected a man of God or rather disrespected God himself. The children I am quite sure would not have been cursed if they did nothing wrong in God’s eyes in regards to their treatment of Elisha.

      David’s first wife that was cursed because she criticized him while praising God naked, is also an example of this. Though she did not physically harm him, she was punished by God.

      ALso, the bible says that there is life and death in the tongue. If there is life and death in the tongue….then someone can intend harm upon God’s anionted without even laying a finger on them. Our words are powerful tools that can disrespect and harm others. Things that we say can cause emotional damage as well as bring negative events to come to pass. So this scripture I very well believe encompasses this meanign as wwll. If you can show me were individuals within teh bible were punished by God because of physical violence alone thatthey intended or caused to his anionted….then my opinion may change.

  67. djenk23 said

    how does Jesus stand on the right hand side of Himself?—Djenk23

    How about this, How can ANYONE stand at the right side of an Omnipresent God? There is nowhere where God is not, so that leaves no room for anyone on EITHER side. The Right Hand of God refers to His Power, as Jesus said “The Right Hand of Power”, not to his physical right hand side, because an omnipresent being has no sides.

    jesusman….thats a SERIOUS stretch of the text…Stephen saw Jesus at the right hand of God….if God has no sides, how could Moses see His back(Exodus 33)?…yall are stretching scripture to its breaking point to try and make the unexplainable explainable…Jesus always talked about the Holy Ghost and the Father as separate entities….Who was Jesus praying to in the Garden?..You’d have me believe that He was talking to Himself…Who was Jesus talking to on the cross…and your reference to Elisha has nothing to with “touch not mine anointed”..those boys didnt touch Elisha and the Bible says that he cursed those boys in the name of the Lord…..are you calling down curses now??….try again…

  68. djenk23 said

    jesusman….thats a SERIOUS stretch of the text…Stephen saw Jesus at the right hand of God….if God has no sides, how could Moses see His back(Exodus 33)?…yall are stretching scripture to its breaking point to try and make the unexplainable explainable…Jesus always talked about the Holy Ghost and the Father as separate entities….Who was Jesus praying to in the Garden?..You’d have me believe that He was talking to Himself…Who was Jesus talking to on the cross…and your reference to Elisha has nothing to with “touch not mine anointed”..those boys didnt touch Elisha and the Bible says that he cursed those boys in the name of the Lord…..are you calling down curses now??….try again…

  69. Eden Hadassah said

    There is a belief that an “anointed one” is a prophet. But prophets suffer a cruel fate if they are wrong. And if they are right, they also suffer a cruel fate. Isaiah was sawed in half, Jeremiah has seen the bottom of a well more than once, John the baptist had his head taken off, and the Lord himself, the True Anointed One, suffered and died, and was raised again to life.
    Some went into exile, others, died in exile, in the maddness of King Saul (the Lord’s anointed, who David was insistant on not harming for that main reason) he pursued David to the company of prophets, and the King’s men killed them all, to try to get David…
    The “touch not my anointed” senerio doesn’t work in your interpretation of the scriptures. It doesn’t work in the context of the “touch-not” cults because it promotes the flesh, and doesn’t lift up the One who anoints in the first place. The “touch-not” group are self-preservationist, and we know the Lord says “Those who seek to save their lives will loose it.”

  70. Eden Hadassah said

    I am also amazed at those who would call God a liar.
    This too is blasphamy. To say that God has no “sides”, when HE himself said to Moses, you can not see my FACE, but you will see my BACK. Now, to change anything that God says, calls Him a liar. And God does not lie.
    Again you mock the Lord.

  71. Crimson Wolf said

    So, we are to take these descriptions such as “face”, back”, “side”, etc. literally?

    Psalms 36:7 says “How excellent is thy loving kindness, O God! Therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings.”

    What? Are you saying God is a big feathered chicken?

  72. Eden Hadassah said

    I knew that one was coming!🙂

    UHHH…no.😉

  73. Eden Hadassah said

    You imply that he is a big feathered chicken,
    I say he is God…

  74. Charles D. said

    Of course you ignored me and slighted me as well. I’m very offended by your total disregard for mah feelins, suh!!!

    I certainly hope you have a sense of humor; because every now and again we all need to lighten-up. I’ve heard that God has a terrific sense of humor and He laughs every time we plan future events without first consulting Him. Seriously, I believe that God’s business is serious at all times and at every turn.

    Regarding my acceptance of your debate challenge: in my wildest dreams I would not have anticipated a sitting as formal as academia and a live televised debate (from my standpoint) would be totally out of the question. Even those candidates who are seeking the highest office in the land can barely get sufficient air time and even the air time they are getting, well I find somewhat over-bearing, to say nothing about boring.

    Those operating at that level have either an agenda, have a deep-seated need to bring someone around to their way of thinking, addicted to media exposure, for reasons other than propagating God’s truth. Then, you will understand why I insisted on using no references other than the Bible and no mention of any person not mentioned in the Bible. After all, the Bible is the only textbook God left us and the Bible is sufficient to make ANY points, or, state ANY positions pertaining to God.

    Now, my proposal may have seemed overly simplistic, even “country,” if you get my meaning; however, God’s Word says something to the effect of “I will use simple things to confound the wise…..” [emphasis added]. Again, the Bible is the only text God left me and in all of my years the Bible has been all I’ve ever needed and it has served me well.

    I appreciate the civilized manner in which you have propounded your position; I respect that and assure you that I’m not the enemy here. When I find myself in disagreement with a denomination, a school of belief, or doctrine, then, aat best, all I can do spiritually, include withholding financial and material support of any kind; however, I am required to respect you as God’s creation and avoid attacks of any kind which, include but is not limited to, verbal castigations or intellectual slights.

    I wish you well,

    Charles

  75. Eden Hadassah said

    Crimson,
    Why not answer the original question? Is God a liar? or did he say to Moses, you can not see my figuritive face, but you will see my figuritive back? YOU WILL NOT MAKE GOD A LIAR!
    That is as literal as it gets. He is not a liar, nor was he being “poetic” when he met Moses on Mt. Sinai.

    He is the Lord Most High, and He NEVER LIES.

    Charles…we missed each other again. I will be on tomorrow. My daughter has a cello concert tonight, so I won’t be on anymore this evening…
    (My bubbie used to call me “Missy”… I loved her so much!🙂 )

  76. Charles D. said

    I’m headed back to work. I hope the concert goes well and you don’t need a head of steam before going. So, cool off, forget all comments and take up tomorrow. I will have lots of time over the weekend and I am dying to hear your take on a program I viewed while at work which have to do with The Palestinians in Jordan during (I think 1986) but I might be mistaken because I was so punch-drunk, dead on my feet.

    Take care, be blessed,

    Charles

    BTW my previous comments were directed to Dr. Ward; but I know you knew that. Now, enjoy your daughter’s concert. Bye.

  77. Crimson Wolf said

    Wus up, Eden?

    No God is not a liar.
    He said “I am the first and I am the last; and beside me there is no God” (Isa. 44:6)
    “Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any” (Isa.44:8)
    And in Isaiah 43: 11 the Lord God says “I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is NO SAVIOR.” (Isa. 43:11).

    Let’s see now,
    The first person of the Trinity says that HE is the first AND the last, he said there is NO other God BESIDE him? and and there was NO SAVIOR BESIDE him?
    Now did he boot out God number 2 and God number 3 or did he lie when he said no other God or savior was BESIDE him?

    Sounds like your chicken theory just layed an egg.

  78. johnkaniecki said

    Greetings All,

    Let me say that I hope you are all blessed and are in a joyful mood not only as the holidays approach but for the whole year.

    omnipresent- present everywhere

    As far as God being omnipresent I see the scriptures that were stated. My understanding is that God the Father has an awareness of all things. He could tell you the exact location of every electron throughout the entire universe if He so choose to do. But God the Father is not in everything. He is certainly no in a false idol. There is no God in a dollar bill even though it says In God We Trust. (The God a greed and the God of lust. To quote myself.)I can only see the Spirit as being omnipresent but on the cross Jesus gave up the Spirit, that is how he died. So Jesus was at a moment isolated from the Father and the Spirit….. Coments please.

    Doctor D. I spoke very little, yes it it true. That it is because it is a simple thing to count to three. One Jesus getting baptized, two the Holy Spirit getting sent down and three the Father speaking.

    Do not let me offend you that is not my intent. There is obviously great controversy and misunderstanding on this topic generated by the great amount of responses. I love to see everyone’s zeal.

    The cross was painful. We don’t need to examine methods of crucifixions or testimony’s of those who were near by to determine that. Sometimes learning will get in the way. I admire you because you have studied hard and have done your best. But this is not something to debate. The Bible is a book of perfect harmony, there are no contradictions. There is an answer to many things. Sometimes the answer is a mystery and we can’t come to it. This answer to this question is three distinct personalities united as one. We can clearly see from scripture the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. How they come together is beyond any human mind to understand.

    Charles, I like your comments better than mine this time around.

    Love,

    John

    I picture God more like Big Bird than a normal chicken though.

  79. johnkaniecki said

    Hello,

    It was further commented on another entry about the issue of God being present everywhere. This is a serious issue and my previous entry above touches on many points. I will need time to gather scriptures to see if it substantuates my point of view. I always bow to scripture when it is presented clear and without bias.

    God is not in everything. God’s Spirit is thought to be everywhere though. There is never a command to worship the Spirit of God. In Joshua when the Spirit of God commands Joshua to take off his shoes as the land is holy the Spirit does so for reverence for His position. The Spirit of God at this moment comes as the commander of the Lord’s Army. A title that demands and requires respect.

    The pagans worship nature and any Christian would know that this is wrong. The question then would be, Is God’s Spirit in Trees? If God is omnipresent then the answer must be yes. It is the manifestation of God in that tree that must be examined. I can say with authority of the Bible that neither Jesus, nor the Father dwells in a tree. I can further say with the authority of the Bible that the Spirit of God does not dwell in unbelievers. Acts 2:38 talks about the gift of the Holy Spirit under some conditions. The scripture comes to mind when Jesus says that some people are children of God and some people are children of the devil.The Spirit of God dwells only in those who have been regenerated. I think it is safe to say that God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit do not dwell everywhere.

    Recall that some parts of the Bible are poetic. This does not make them less than scripture. You can’t take the Bible literally or Jesus would be a lamb. That is a four legged beast walking around with curly hair. The best way to resolve these issues of scripture would be to examine them one by one and see what the author really intended to say. I think some of what the author says will be missed by us because we are finite. The Bible was written by men in conjuncture with the Holy Spirit. Luke and Acts uses medical terms because they were in the author’s vocabulary.

    I hope that anyone would feel free to jump right on in this conversation as this is exactly the free expression of ideas and opinions that this forum provides to its participants.

    Please pray for my wife and I. I need prayer for tomorrow and the next few days. Much has happened here.

    Love,

    John

  80. Jesusman said

    “We can clearly see from scripture the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”—Johnkaniecki

    The Roman Catholic Church, who officially standardized the Trinity doctrine and made it a core belief of the faith, has made it clear that the “Sola Scriptura” Protestants have no business believing the Trinity doctrine because it cannot be found solely in the Bible. The Trinity doctrine has been declared part of the RCC’s “progressive revelation” and not something that was fully revealed to any Biblical author. It’s like I’ve said before, show me a man who says he found the Trinity doctrine as held by mainstream Christianity by studying the Bible alone without any orthodox teaching at all, and I’ll show you a liar.

    “God is not in everything. God’s Spirit is thought to be everywhere though. There is never a command to worship the Spirit of God.”—-Johnkaniecki

    John 4:24
    GOD IS A SPIRIT: and they that worship him must worship him in SPIRIT and in TRUTH.

    Moses saw a Manifestation of God. Is John a liar when he said “No man hath seen God at any time”? Solomon declares “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?”
    Certainly Mount Sinai cannot contain Him either. The entire Universe cannot contain Him. The Universe exists within God. Don’t try to make Him smaller than He is. That is the very opposite of “Magnifying the Lord” Ciao.

  81. Jesusman said

    Deuteronomy 4:39Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

    Psalm 139:7Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
    8If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
    9If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
    10Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.

    Proverbs15:3The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.

  82. Jesusman said

    Jeremiah 23:24Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

    Acts 17:27That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
    28For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

  83. Crimson Wolf said

    Ok Dudes, we’ll take the scripture literally when it says Jesus sat on the right hand of God.

    But I have just one annoying thought….

    ….I wonder if God’s hand has gone numb with Jesus sitting on it for so many centuries?

  84. Eden Hadassah said

    I am amazed by the mocking that goes on concerning the word of God.
    God is not a liar, yet no one seems to want to stop the merry-go-round about what GOD said to Moses. Did God lie to Moses and deceive him about His presence?

    “Ok Dudes, we’ll take the scripture literally when it says Jesus sat on the right hand of God.

    But I have just one annoying thought….

    ….I wonder if God’s hand has gone numb with Jesus sitting on it for so many centuries?”

    I don’t recall the scriptures saying that Yeshua sat ON the right hand of God. Hummm…?
    Lovely. Anyone who would mock the word of God has no respect or honor for His authority, nor His Worthiness to be Praised.

    John, I will be praying for you and your wife.

  85. Jesusman said

    E.H.,

    Did John lie when he said “No man hath seen God at
    any time”? Moses saw a manifestation of God, which was no less God, but not as His omnipresent self. Abraham and Jacob saw a manifestation as well. Too many more to mention.

    “I don’t recall the scriptures saying that Yeshua sat ON the right hand of God. Hummm…?” You mean you don’t recall any of these?

    Mark 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.

    Acts 7:55
    But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus STANDING ON the right hand of God,

    Acts 7:56
    And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing ON the right hand of God.

    Colossians 3:1
    If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth ON the right hand of God.

    Hebrews 10:12
    But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down ON the right hand of God;

    1 Peter 3:22
    Who is gone into heaven, and is ON the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

  86. Crimson Wolf said

    Uh oh, Eden….

    …You laid another egg.

  87. djenk23 said

    please quit with the verbal gymnastics…..

    Mark 10:35-37
    35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to Him, saying, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask.”
    36 And He said to them, “What do you want Me to do for you?”
    37 They said to Him, “Grant us that we may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on Your left, in Your glory.”

    did James and John want to literally sit on Jesus’ hands…..no…..just show me in scripture, particularly during Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration, when it says Jesus abandoned the Jesus manifestation to become the Father manifestation in order to proclaim from Heaven that He was His son….you cant..

  88. Jesusman said

    “just show me in scripture, particularly during Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration, when it says Jesus abandoned the Jesus manifestation to become the Father manifestation in order to proclaim from Heaven that He was His son….you cant..”—Djenk23

    We’ve never tried to, because Oneness doctrine doesn’t teach this. The manifestations were simultaneous. The God of the Apostolic Faith is a God capable of being in more than one place at a time. We can’t hold God to a human standard. Notice He said “This is My Beloved Son IN whom I am well pleased” The Father is not the Son. The Father is IN the Son.

    John 14:7If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
    8Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
    9Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet HAST THOU NOT KNOWN ME, Philip? HE THAT HATH SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
    10Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and THE FATHER IN ME? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but THE FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME, he doeth the works.

    Colossians 2:8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men(like Trinity doctrine), after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
    9FOR IN HIM DWELLETH ALL THE FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY

  89. Crimson Wolf said

    Gymnastics?

    You have to admit that would be quite a feat to hold a human being on each hand.

    But read the next verse,

    “Jesus said, You know not what you ask”

    Whoops another egg!

  90. Eden Hadassah said

    Well Crimson, the only thing that you have shown me is that you literally misquote scriptures…consistantly.

    I guess that leaves egg on your face.

    Yet you still didn’t answer the question…Did God lie to Moses?
    If he didn’t lie, then stop trying to change the subject by asking if John lied. Last time I checked, John was just a disciple. A servant. Not the Lord of Hosts who spoke to Moses.
    No more, “there are many manifestations of God.” That is circumventing and duplicitous at best, showing no “oneness” with God. If you were “one” with God, you would know this. But I guess that is the missing link in all of your “knowledge.” Satan knows scriptures, and knows how to quote and misquote too, but he isn’t one with the Lord either. Satan has no regard for the Word of God either, and his vain attempts to lift himself up are showing me more and more that you are one with someone, but it aint God.
    It is clear that you would like to misquote scriptures, but what is the good in that? What glory does it bring to the Lord?
    It only draws attention to you as someone who doesn’t submit to the authority of God.

  91. johnkaniecki said

    Eden,

    Hello and best wishes from a snowy New Jersey.

    Jesus was the one John quoted. Furthermore angels have seen God’s face many many times. A man will die seeing God’s face but then he goes on to judgement. His status has changed from human being to something else. Ever watch a dying person? I never did but I have heard accounts. It is like they see a face. Is it then God’s face calling them home?

    Love,

    John

    Eden, might I compliment you on your vocabulary. It helps me to learn and relearn difficult words.

    GOD BLESS YOU!!!!!

  92. Eden Hadassah said

    Hi John,
    How is your wife? I hope all is going well for you.
    What vocabulary?🙂
    I have always stunk at spelling and vocabulary. Math too! Sometimes my kids would ask for help spelling a word, and I would laugh and tell them they were asking the wrong person!
    My famous line to them was always, “go get the dictionary.”
    But I guess my better half is the balance! He is a word nut. He loves to break words a part and deconstruct them to the root.
    We play a game at dinner time using our huge dictionary…
    Someone flips open the book, points to a word, and each of us has to see if we know the meaning of the word. (Notice, no one attempts to spell it?😉 ) It isn’t a shortcoming with the three of my kids though. Only one of them has inherited my mental block with spelling.
    Anyway they love that game, as do I.
    But thank you John for your kind words.

  93. johnkaniecki said

    Eden,

    duplicitous-
    circumventing-

    How about Edenessing – The attempt to explain a difficult topic compassionately while trying to maintain calmness, getnleness and composure. Usually with regards to a religious or political topic.

    Love,

    John

  94. Eden Hadassah said

    😉
    🙂

    Now I have no words.
    My husband will love your new word and definition.

    Thank you for cheering my soul, I was a little upset in the other thread. Not at anyone in particular though.

  95. Eden Hadassah said

    Oops, I did lay an egg,
    I forgot to add Jesusman to comment #102.

    Please forgive my neglect of not adding you Jesusman to the comment. It was directed towards both of you.

  96. Crimson Wolf said

    Shalom, Namaste. Howpla, and Howdy neighbor!!!

    Eden, sweetie, I don’t claim to completely understand the godhead….
    I don’t even understand my wife’s head!

  97. Crimson Wolf said

    OK, Eden, I will answer your question using God’s very spoken word, straight from the first person of the Trinitarian club:

    No God is not a liar.
    He said “I am the first and I am the last; and beside me there is no God” (Isa. 44:6)
    “Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any” (Isa.44:8)
    And in Isaiah 43: 11 the Lord God says “I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is NO SAVIOR.” (Isa. 43:11).

    (1) Now God says there is no other God beside him.

    Therefore if Jesus is sitting by his side then Jesus is not God.
    Right? Or does God lie?

    (2) God says there no savior beside him.

    Therefore if Jesus is sitting beside God then Jesus is not a savior.
    Right? Or does God lie?

    I answered you, cupcake, now answer me🙂

  98. Crimson Wolf said

    Look, I’m not trying to be irreverent.

    It’s just that I am reading all these postings and this is what I am seeing: The Trinitarians are attacking the Oneness individuals in this forum calling them “liars” (Dr. Ward in particular), making fun of their acadamia (JesusMan), calling these individuals names, putting them down, and saying things like : Liar, sports club jumping, insanity or reprobate mind, bring glory to yourself, you mispelled , pride, blasphemy, you give many words but say little, prideful, vanity, heretic, toilet face, make fun of a young minister who tries to defend his Pastor by calling it hero worship,and make fun of someone just because they are in their first year of college, etc.

    HOWEVER, the ONLY thing the Oneness people stick to is the scripture. I have seen absolutly no character attacks from the Oneness people like I do the Trinitarians…Hmmmmm…THAT DOES IT…I have made up my mind…I am joining the Oneness group!!!
    Thanks Trinitarians.

    • RaeAnne Jones said

      Praise the LORD! I am in Oneness in Council Bluffs, IA. “By this shall all men know you are my disciples, that you love one another. Praise the LORD.

  99. Crimson Wolf said

    By the way…everything above is true except the part about toilet face…no one said that…I just threw that one in for effects.

    Poetic liscense🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 😉

  100. Eden Hadassah said

    You did not answer the question I asked you. You said, “No God does not lie.” That is not what I asked, and you know it. I asked you if God lied to Moses and deceived him about his presence.

    Love
    Cupcake😉

  101. Eden Hadassah said

    I think you have made your point…the oneness group is perfect for you. Enjoy the bliss.

  102. Eden Hadassah said

    These are the concluding remarks of Ariel
    Ministries…

    “In the Hebrew Scriptures you will also find all three personalities of the Godhead referred to in single passages. Two examples are Isaiah 48:12-16 and 63:7-14.

    Because of the significance of the first passage, it will be quoted:

    “Listen to Me, O Jacob, and Israel, My called: I am He, I am the first, I am also the last. Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand up together. All of you, assemble yourselves, and hear! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD loves him; he shall do His pleasure on Babylon, and His arm shall be against the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken; yes, I have called him, I have brought him, and his way will prosper. Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit have sent Me.”

    It should be noted that the speaker refers to himself as the one who is responsible for the creation of the heavens and the earth. It is clear that he cannot be speaking of anyone other than God. But then in verse 16, the speaker refers to himself using the pronouns of I and me and then distinguishes himself from two other personalities. He distinguishes himself from the Lord YHVH and then from the Spirit of God. Here is the Tri-Unity as clearly defined as the Hebrew Scriptures make it.

    In the second passage, there is a reflection back to the time of the Exodus where all three personalities were present and active. The Lord YHVH is referred to in verse seven, the Angel of YHVH in verse nine, and the Spirit of God in verses 10, 11, and 14. While often throughout the Hebrew Scriptures God refers to Himself as being the one solely responsible for Israel’s redemption from Egypt, in this passage three personalities are given credit for it. Yet no contradiction is seen since all three comprise the unity of the one Godhead.

    Conclusion
    The teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures, then, is that there is a plurality of the Godhead. The first person is consistently called YHVH, while the second person is given the names of YHVH, the Angel of YHVH and the Servant of YHVH. Consistently and without fail, the second person is sent by the first person. The third person is referred to as the Spirit of YHVH or the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. He, too, is sent by the first person but is continually related to the ministry of the second person.

    If the concept of the Tri-Unity of God is not Jewish according to modern rabbis, then neither are the Hebrew Scriptures. Jewish believers in Yeshua (Jesus), or Messianic Jews, cannot be accused of having slipped into paganism when they hold to the fact that Yeshua is the divine Son of God. He is the same one of whom Moses wrote when the LORD said:

    “Behold, I send an Angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him and obey his voice; do not provoke him, for he will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in him. But if you indeed obey his voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. For My angel will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off” (Exodus 23:20-23).

    New Testament Light
    In keeping with the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament clearly recognizes that there are three persons in the Godhead, although it becomes quite a bit more specific. The first person is called the Father while the second person is called the Son. The New Testament answers the question of Proverbs 30:4: “…What is His name, and what is His son’s name, If you know?” His son’s name is Yeshua (Jesus). In accordance with the Hebrew Scriptures, he is sent by God to be the Messiah, but this time as a man instead of as an angel. Furthermore, he is sent for a specific purpose: to die for our sins. In essence, what happened is that God became a man (not that man became God) in order to accomplish the work of atonement.

    The New Testament calls the third person of the Godhead the Holy Spirit. Throughout the New Testament he is related to the work of the second person, in keeping with the teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures. We see, then, that there is a continuous body of teaching in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament relating to the Tri-Unity of God. “

  103. Charles said

    Crimson Wolf Says:

    “But I have just one annoying thought….”
    “…I wonder if God’s hand has gone numb with Jesus sitting on it for so many centuries.”

    You inability to be “funny,” is exceeded only by your ability to annoy others and make a donkey of yourself. “Seated at the right-hand of the Father” is quite different than “sitting on.” However, if you will study the “parts of speech,” then I will teach you how both can mean the very same thing, but right now, you’d rather pursue the question of just how many Christians will engage in the folly with a fool.

    Wise up,

    Charles

  104. johnkaniecki said

    Hello,

    Allow me to add my two cents, a quarter of the moon and a liberty half dollar.

    The light shines in the darkness. This is a good thing. The light shines through and the darkness allows it to pass without obstruction.

    The shadow is created when something gets in the way of the light like a tree.

    The Spirit of God is illuminated only through the Spirit’s allowing the light to pass unfiltered.

    Look outside at the universe and then see the light. If air wasn’t clear we would have either no light or a haze.

    Revelation 11 talks about the two to come. I believe one of them will be the Spirit of God in the flesh. He will be like Elija while the other like unto Moses. I get these two figures when I see the plagues they inflict upon the world. When the Spirit of God manifests Himself in the Flesh, The Comforter will lead us into all things. (I’m going back to John.) This is what I call the footnote in the Bible. I believe the Bible is complete yet Revelation 11 talks about two who will prophesy. They got a lot of stuff to say about things Jesus didn’t or couldn’t deal with.

    Some of the views expressed in this entry are my own opinion while others are inferences from scriptures.

    Saying all that may the peace of God keep you and bless you.

    Eden, your prayers worked.

    Love,

    John

    On another matter about God being omnipresent please read 1 Samuel chapter 5 in its entirety. If you think God was present in the statue of Dagon we have a serious problem and must go to basics. I say this because it is a true statement.

  105. Eden Hadassah said

    John,
    Your point about being omnipresent is right on. It would be a pagan thought process to say that the spirit of God is in everything.
    I do feel that dirt is holy though!🙂 That is a joke, yet I am serious at the same time. It is holy because it always obey’s what God designed it to do. When water is added to it, it becomes wet, and never remains dry. An observation. (I am not saying that God is in the dirt, but he did make Adam from it)
    Just a little diversion.
    I am glad that she is doing better. May the Lord be praised for his faithfulness and love. It wasn’t my prayers, it was his love and his goodness.

  106. Eden Hadassah said

    Have a great night all…

    Chaz man, when do you sleep? I know you are busy…
    This weekend my husband will be busy in Annapolis😦 , so I will most likely be online here and there. In the mean time, GET SOME SLEEP!
    love you.
    Fruitcake Missy

  107. johnkaniecki said

    Eden,

    In engineering we call the dirt soil. The soil can have a lot of clay in it.

    Love,

    John

  108. Charles D. said

    Are you stalking me!!?? I cannot believe the coincedent but I too will be in Annapolis this weekend. BUT, I will ahev my laptop so tyou’re not off of the hook. I will sneak in a moment here and there.

    I am off 3 week days next 2 weeks. I absolutely cannot wait to tell you about something I received which accounts for my dwelling on our friend. Take care, wish you blessings

    Charles

  109. Crimson Wolf said

    Charles, Charles, Charles,

    Did you not read my post above about how naughty it is to attack peoples character?

    I am dissapointed in you!

    You called me a fool and a donkey. Is that any way to win me to the Lord? Aren’t you concerned about my soul?

  110. Crimson Wolf said

    Now let’s put aside donkey’s, chickens, and fish heads for a moment and let us analyze the scripture in question.

    Your “seated at the right hand of the Father” phrase comes from the Nicene Creed. YES, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ONE!!!

    The WORD says :
    Mark 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.

    Acts 7:55
    But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus STANDING ON the right hand of God,

    Acts 7:56
    And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing ON the right hand of God.

    Colossians 3:1
    If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth ON the right hand of God.

    Hebrews 10:12
    But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down ON the right hand of God;

    1 Peter 3:22
    Who is gone into heaven, and is ON the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

    Charlie, ya just cant get the Roman Catholic out of ya, can ya?

    And YOU called ME stupid?

    I can hear you braying all the from Canada.

  111. Crimson Wolf said

    Now of course I do not believe Christ actually sat ON Gods hand. Your assuming I did betrays your donkeyness.
    What I was trying to get all of you hillbilly’s to see (oops, now you got ME calling people names) is that you cannot take these phrases literally. I am very fluent in Greek,Hebrew,Aramaic, and Appalachian and I can assure you the Syrian Bible in Aramaic paints a more realistic picture of these phrases then does our bulky, clumsy, limited english.

    Playing the donkeys advocate, what would it matter ANYWAY if Jesus sat on a chair by the Father? How would that threaten Oneness theology? Oneness believe in three!!! The big battle is over whether or not God has three bodies or one.

  112. Crimson Wolf said

    Because pagans believe in omnipresence that makes it wrong?

    They also believe in the immortal soul. Does that mean WE shouldn’t?

  113. Journeyin2Light said

    The problem upon us involves not understanding the nature of God.
    What does it matter if God is one body or three bodies or a thousand bodies. He is still God. You may call him Jehovah and he is still God. You may call him Jesus and he is still God. You may call him Allah, Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, or Rama. Are you foolish enough to beleive that God is a Trinity or a Jesus Only or any description within these comments? God has not three but MILLIONS of manifestations.Every major religion has a Trinity. In India it is Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu. It is no different then the Christian Trinity. As a matter of fact it is the SAME Trinity and the SAME God who has revealed himself to different cultures in different times. Do you honestly believe that if a sincere soul cried out to God calling him Brahma that a loving merciful God would burn that sincere soul in hell forever just because he got Gods name wrong?

  114. Charles D. said

    Crimson Wolf:

    You take much for granted and in so doing you have mistaken me for one who actually gives a tinkers (you fill in the blank). Anywho, as long as I present the gospel as the Spirit leads me to and as Christ has commanded, then, the maintenance of your soul is entirely up to you (free moral agency), but then, that would not be a concept that’s foreign to you.

    I have to stand by my earlier comments; both of them. You are to learn the “parts of speech” “You are,even more of a donkey” and you prove it with each additional utterence.

    Now, I have one more for you. Part of it scripture, part is my opinion of you in view of the totality of your comments:

    There are three things that that cry for more: a barren womb; an empty grave; and stripes for the back of Crimson Wolf.
    Again, wise up. About your language gymnastic abiblty; I have to assume you speak those better than you speak English. What is the “mother” tongue of Canada, anyway? AND, Can’t resist this one:
    “Charles I can hear you braying all the from Canada.” oooooooouuuuuuuuuu!!! All the way from the newnited states, huh? I guess you put me in my place. Now, if only you could find yours.

    You’re in over your head son and you don’t even realize it. Dare I say more?

    Charles

  115. Jesusman said

    Deuteronomy 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.

    Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

    Deuteronomy 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

    2 Samuel 7:22 Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.

    Psalm 83:18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

    Psalm 86:10 For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.

    Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. 11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

    Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

    Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

    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.

    Hosea 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: FOR THERE IS NO SAVIOUR BESIDE ME

    Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

    John 14: 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
    8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
    9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
    10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

    John 14: 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
    17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: BUT YE KNOW HIM; FOR HE DWELLETH WITH YOU, AND SHALL BE IN YOU.
    18 I WILL NOT LEAVE YOU COMFORTLESS: I WILL COME TO YOU.
    19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
    20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father(omnipresence), and ye in me(omnipresence), and I in you.(indwelling/omnipresence)

    1 Corinthians 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

    Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

    1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

    1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

    James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

  116. Charles D. said

    Crimson Wolf Says:
    “Charles, Charles, Charles,
    Did you not read my post above about how naughty it is to attack peoples character?”

    I did, then, as I was strolling down other of your comments where you violated your very own admonition addressed to Eden, I suddenly realize that you were of the type that like to dish it but can take very little. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    Now please understand, Eden doesn’t need me defending her. I’ve seen her “clean the clock” of some more knowledgable then yourself. Matter of factly, if you can stop acting like the side-show freak (with a new suit), and look closely enough; then, you will realize that she has already “cleaned your clock” and you don’t realize it yet. One day, whenever you decide to read a Bible (for full effect), then it will hit you like a ton of spiritual bricks.

    Have a good one, your friend from the U.S.,

    Charles

  117. johnkaniecki said

    Hey Crimson Wolf,

    Welcome to the blog. I like you ideas and your swift mind.

    Might I comment. A loving merciful God can overlook anything He wants as exhibited by the thief on the cross. Yet the reality is Jesus is Lord. I try to promote that because I have a deep love for people.

    About oneness and trinity. Do you notice people only argue between one and three. Nobody on this blog suggests two or four. That speaks volumes.

    Love,

    John

    Oh Wolf you could hunt a lot better when the natives bring the buffalo back.

  118. Crimson Wolf said

    HA HA HA, Oh Charlie…I just love how elegantly you insert your foot in your mouth!
    May I reprint your quote:

    “Again, wise up. About your language gymnastic abiblty; I have to assume you speak those better than you speak English. What is the “mother” tongue of Canada, anyway? AND, Can’t resist this one:
    “Charles I can hear you braying all the from Canada.”

    In my haste I ommitted the word “way” in “all the WAY from Canada.” A common typo. But what is so hilarious is in your attempt to discredit me by focusing in on an ordinary typo you criticize my gymnastic “abiblty.”

    Char, You don’t happen to live in a glass house do you?

  119. Crimson Wolf said

    John,
    Now that you bring it to my attention I indeed notice that.

    Last night I got to wondering if I might be a god.

    My wife served me a burnt offering for supper.

  120. Crimson Wolf said

    John Said:

    “Hey Crimson Wolf,

    Welcome to the blog. I like you ideas and your swift mind.”

    Thank you, John. I am quite thankful that God has allowed me to have any mind at all. Early in my college days I began to seek “God consciousness” through drugs. I finally got off of drugs and had a genuine experience with God and it was YEARS after I got saved that I finally went back and finished college.
    Many of my former friends are dead or burned out. I thank God for the lifeline.

  121. Eden Hadassah said

    Charles,

    My daughter wrote a song once called “Stalkers Inc.”
    It was pretty funny. She had one of those love sick puppies chasing her. It was cute until he couldn’t take no for answer, and used to park outside our house after school all day, crying because he just knew “they were meant to be together.”
    It turned into a circus. It didn’t turn out too bad, but she learned alot about eighteen year old boys that still suck their thumbs! I guess that should have been her red flag, huh?😉

    I will be home this weekend, but my husband will be in Annapolis. Maybe he is stalking you. He has loved all your posts since I started coming to this site…should I be concerned? 🙂

    Yes, this weekend, when you have time, give me your thoughts.

  122. Crimson Wolf said

    Charles, Eden,
    Hey I appreciate both of you and your dedicated commitment to the Lord. In this country we live in (never really SAID I was from Canada so keep guessing) we have religious freedom and with that comes the luxury of disagreeing among ourselves. However should trial and tribulation come upon us here as it has in China and other countries and we had to meet underground then we would be rowing the boat together as comrades.
    My concern is the blatant attack on the CHARACTER of those that believe different then you do. For example, what brought me to this forum was Dr. Wards name came up in a Google search. While you might think he is some starchy, dry, boring, intellectual in reality he is not. He evangelized for over 20 years or more and was well known as an evangelist BEFORE he ever published anything about church history. As an evangelist he was vibrant and exciting. I assure you others like myself will Google his name and end up here commenting. Calling him a liar is a guarantee to bring Oneness people out of the woodwork like termites. I also sat different times under Dr. Marvin Arnolds ministry. There is an undercurrent that is growing in Apostolic ranks that believe in Church perpetuity. It has become a subject dear to the hearts of many and to hear it blasted not only hurts but ironically energizes us to take it to further heights. Many Oneness people themselves do not believe in it but once you study it out you will never again be the same. The history has been laying there dormant for centuries and just within the last few years has it begun to be discovered.
    Once again when you attack peoples character you accomplish nothing. You have simply made an enemy NOT a convert. Sticking to the scripture will not only sharpen ones intellectual ability in researching the scriptures but will cause one to search his/her personal opinions.
    BTW Charles, Eden, and others….I really have a luv fer ya all and most of what I say is just in fun (kinda like chasing the birdie in Tennis). Just lighten up, have fun, dig deep, and be constructively critical but unconditionally loving.
    Thanx🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 😉
    XOXOXOXO

  123. Charles said

    Hey Crimson:

    One of the main differences between us might be security and insecurity. Have you noticed how you have to always go back and set the stage before you address a comment? That’s a sign of insecurity. I am perfectly comfortable disregarding one of my typos, so long as the intended party gets my meaning, and you obviously did. I feel perfectly comfortable with my collegiate background; unlike some people I know who sounds as though he stole the paper upon which his ?degree? is written. I won’t write his name, but, his initials are: “Crimson Wolf.”

    As I negotiate the mine-fields that you call comments, I have determined that the only people that understand you are those whose mind is not on the Bible and those who just don’t care about whatever you have to say. Count me in the latter group.

    Listen Rube, you heard it here first: you’re in over your head son and you don’t even realize it. Why do you like to self-flagellate? You should spend so much time thinking about, studying the Word, and talking about Jesus.

    If you are just determined to get that B’hind blistered, repeatedly, I will provide my email address, then, we can “take it to the streets,” and leave this post for the ones seeking spiritual things.

    Gu day,

    Charles

  124. Charles said

    Hey My Fruitcake:

    I was (still am) so overly protective of my two girls and it made them so up-set. I only had problems with one boy; she was 19 and about 105 on her best day at the time and he was 6’6” 225 and he was 18. She married him and made me a grandpa with a boy and girl. And yes, that little manipulative granddaughter have had me wrapped around her little finger since she was 6 months. Good thing she has a good and honest heart, so, I could always live with that. Tell you about my grandson later. He and I have always been close, however, we’ve just started to very seriously bond within the past 2-3 years. I wanted his father to do the deed before I stole anyone’s thunder; I think thats important.

    I was a little apprehensive about Annapolis at first because most of my previous experiences there were not always good. On more than a couple of occasions, I had to “high-tail it” to the Academy’s grounds to be safe. Those were my young-dumb years though.

    When I comment over the weekend, I will make reference to an email that I have already deleted (in fact, almost as soon as I had received it). So, the major basis for what I’m thinking comes from that, plus, two different posts on this site. That said: it doen’t make me right and I have noticed some very sharp observations that you’ve made, things that some of us probably would have missed had you not brought it up. So, I will just see what happens, and look forward.

    Okay, I did notice you let my lil ole stock market comment slide. whutssup wid dat?

    Chas

  125. Crimson Wolf said

    HA HA, Atta boy Charley, go down with the ship!

    Your foot must really taste good.

    MY critical mention of YOUR typo was in defense of YOUR criticism of MY typo.

    BTW You never one time heard me claim to have or not have a degree.
    I never came here with intellectual words like Dr. Ward, or volumnous scriptures like Jesus man or pompous superiorority like Job.
    I came as a donkey (according to you) with Jesus riding on my back.
    I have come crude, plain, open, and to the point.
    Don’t feel like you have to continue mentioning your educational status. I don’t care. They thought Einstien was retarded when he was in the fourth grade so there is still hope for you.

    Charley, once again you have dissapointed me. I come in an apologetic frame of mind and you become a threatening E-Bully.

    Lighten up, Dude. Your already ahead of me. After all, you have three Gods and I only have one. 😉

  126. Eden Hadassah said

    Crimson,
    Now that was a very articulate and well thought out post!🙂
    I really appreciate it. (truly)
    If you were to go to my first post, (I didn’t write the article, and actually, I didn’t even read it) what I saw in Jesusman’s comment’s was over the line as far as looking up to a pastor. Our faith comes from the Lord, it is a gift from Him, and in the post that he put out there, I saw something different. Now, I may not put chapter and verse scriptures in my sentences, but the scriptures are there none the less. They are a part of my soul, and I am not interested in having to constantly put “chapter and verse” in a ( ).
    There is nothing in the word of God that says I must do things in that style. When I am making comments concerning a topic, I do draw attention to the person, and their words, because it is important to keep it real. We are dealing with each other. What I have experienced with people who follow oneness doctrine, is their ability to to make a person into a “subject”, rather than deal with them as humans. Often, this leads to making God a subject rather than divine. Of the latter, I have a short fuse. I can banter back and forth, but from the deepest recesses of my soul dwells the Spirit of the Living God, and a burning wells up when when people try to turn him into a subject of discussion rather than the King Most High. With Jesusman, I explained many times about my unwillingness to discuss God’s position, but he kept on. I can engage others on matters of the bible, but when it comes to the divinity of the Lord, even the word “trinity” can not compare to his Matchless Beauty. Very rarely do I even use the term. I refuse to make Him a doctrine when he is the Living God. This is my position. I can talk about lots of other things scripturally, but I have no desire to go round and round with scriptures trying to prove myself or to try to win converts. It is the Lord who saves, not me. I am just a servant.
    We should hold each other in high regard, loving one another as we love ourselves, but correction, is also a part of loving. So if I see someone with too much adoration for man, regardless of him being a pastor or not, I will call him/her on it. That is not an attack, although it is percieved as one. There are certain things with in the “oneness” movement that I object to. And these are the things that I wish to address. Others may have a passion for debating the divinity of God, I do not, and I have made that clear. But being pushed on the subject shows a true lack of respect or love for my thoughts on the matter, and ends up “dehumanizing” me, making me also just a subject.

  127. Crimson Wolf said

    Eden said:

    “I have a short fuse. I can banter back and forth, but from the deepest recesses of my soul dwells the Spirit of the Living God, and a burning wells up when when people try to turn him into a subject of discussion rather than the King Most High. With Jesusman, I explained many times about my unwillingness to discuss God’s position, but he kept on.”

    We all have short fuses at times and that is OK. We are all human. Just don’t let the sun sit upon your wrath (if that is literal you might get scorched😉 )
    You say you explained to JesusMan that it wasn’t preferable to discuss the position of the Godhead but you must remember the title of this forum that drew him here . He was defending a very malicious attack on his Pastor and in return his defense was maliciously attacked. From there he reverted to scripture. Good choice I think.

    I appreciate your last comment very muc.

    You have alovely spirit.

    That says a lot about you.

    Blessings.

  128. Crimson Wolf said

    Charles,

    If I sent you my email would you come to my birthday party next week?

  129. Eden Hadassah said

    Crimson, my above post was directed at #134.

    Chazman,
    The stockmarket…
    I definately did not let that slip. The other day in a different post, I did comment on it. It was addressed to both you and John about capitalism and redistribution…
    However, it took twenty minutes to write, and when I went to post it, I didn’t realize that I hadn’t filled in the boxes where the name and email goes, and it was erased! I was frustrated to say the least! Anyway, when I have another twenty minutes or more in a row, I will comment again on it.

    Love
    Fruitcake Missy

  130. Crimson Wolf said

    Eden, I knew that. I am a bit perplexed.
    My last post was not meant to be critical.

    Sorry I wasn’t plain enough.

  131. Crimson Wolf said

    I was just thinking about a title for a thread I am starting.
    I just came up with it and wanted to know what everyone thinks about it.
    Here it is:

    “OK Trinity Liars Here Is The Best HISTORICAL Proof That Your Claims Are False”

    What do ya think?
    Is it too negative?

  132. Charles said

    Lets see, now that two My(s) and two Your(s); you’re getting there, though, not yet. Regarding your academic reclama: You said (and this setting the stage is for your benefit): “I finally got off of drugs and had a genuine experience with God and it was YEARS after I got saved that I finally went back and finished college.”

    Okay, you did say “finished,” and never once did you say you graduated. Do you remember our workshop on “implications.” But, probably not, seems that the drugs are still holding you back. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. And regarding your snide remark that: “I came as a donkey (according to you) with Jesus riding on my back.” Yep! You’re still a donkey by self-admission, and, if only Jesus were in your heart, instead of on your back, then, you would recognize the unnecessary ridiculousness and idiocy that escape your lips every time you open your piehole.

    Stop it, please…..you have me in stitches. One more note from you and I’m going to pass it around my office. Shoot, it is senseless that I have all of the fun and not share.

    U-R-O-VER-UR-HEAD!

    Chas

  133. Eden Hadassah said

    Crimson,
    I didn’t maliciously attack him.
    He decided to give the pastor’s credentials instead of staying on topic. As I said earlier I didn’t read the article, and He didn’t refute anything. What I did enjoy though, was seeing Dr. Curis come himself and comment.
    That is where the discussion should have ended on the topic at hand.
    I am not sure if Job wrote the article or if he just posted it, but he also made his position clear. So the parties actually involved, (the one posting the article and the one it was about)
    made their points. I don’t have to defend Job, he is far better at defending his comments, and I would do him an injustice if I even tried to defend his words or position. He is far more knowledgable then I.
    He is not above reproof, and there has been many times that regulars have “called him” on a matter. He has no problem admitting he made a mistake if in fact one was made. The same goes for this thread.

  134. Crimson Wolf said

    Charles,
    Does this mean you’re not coming to my birthday party next week?

  135. Crimson Wolf said

    Charles?

  136. Crimson Wolf said

    I didn’t get anything last year?

  137. Crimson Wolf said

    …Charles?

  138. Crimson Wolf said

    You didn’t go to college did you Charles?

    You put a postriculation before a postuplatory in your sentences.

  139. Eden Hadassah said

    Crimson,
    You can use that title if you wish. It wouldn’t draw me to your site though. Nor would it make it true.
    There was another title that drew me to the site, I gave my thoughts on the matter, and decided to stay. I have enjoyed alot of people that have come on, and the regulars too.
    I am sure that if you wanted to make that your title, I guess in some strange way you would be emulating Job.

  140. Crimson Wolf said

    Now getting back to God…I have changed my stance on the Oneness issue.

    I now blieve, not in one, not in two, but in seven.

    That’s right, seven.

    By divine posticulatry revelation I came upon this scripture:

    Rev. 5:6 “the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.”

    Also that same scripture tells me Christ looks a WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT then the pictures I have seen of him!!!
    That is of course if we are to take all of this literally as has been sugested by some in these postings)

    Seven Gods!
    One problem…am I a Seveness or a Seveninity?

  141. Crimson Wolf said

    I was just kidding, Eden.

    You are sweet.

  142. Eden Hadassah said

    Chaz…
    Chapter 9!😉

  143. Crimson Wolf said

    Charles i am just kidding around with you.
    Your posts are very articulate and you present some very profound yet simple points.

    Forgive me folks if I have offended anyone but when backed into a corner eevn a donkey will kick😉

  144. Charles said

    Hey Missy

    You do realize that my closing comments about the markets and exchanges (in another post) were not critical, nor intended to be critical, in any way. Shucks, who knows, you might even cause me to change my opinion, though, I doubt it cuz I’m as stubborn as -Crimson- I mean a donkey.

    More importantly, you and I are almost at the point where we can now use “one” brass knuckle instead of “two.” Thing is…I don’t see the market as bringing mankind down (at least down further than we’re headed already; in a supped-up downward spiral, and without any help from the markets). AND, it appeared to me that you were more critical towards one exchange more so than others, and it wasn’t the U.S. exchanges. The basis for my contentions are: 1) a majority of the masses do not trust the markets 2) a majority of those do not tinker in the markets and 3) playing the markets is a fairly sophisticated endeavor that require adequate understanding, if, one desire a Los Vegas casino chance of coming out of a market experience without having their underwear ablaze.

    Granted, the fact that many financially well-heeled global companies and institutions,…. well their financial futures are in deed, their market viability are tied to the markets in very meaningful ways. That is not to say that because their financial life’s blood is connected to the market; that they (the companies) will drag the masses into this morass because their 401(k)s and other retirement plans are so deeply entrenched in and influenced by market(s) play. Granted further that this might appear to be the case, however, past financial and economic casebook studies indicate that companies and institutions are more likely to suffer and even fail when market conditions go south. People do not come out of such episodes totally unscathed, as the 1929 and subsequent market crashes have attested.

    Granted further; global markets that have less experience and savvy, often-times becomes more involved in the markets than is advisable for a number of reasons; which suggests that one day, over involvement in the markets may very well come back in ways that are detrimental to their respective populace. But this too, have market corrections mechanisms, if even at the expense (of) other countries, resulting in market stressors irrespective of whether those countries are active and involved in the markets or no.

    You, me and others have reason to be concerned, however, I do not believe the markets, be they bear or bull, will be the instrument by which cataclysmic events,(fore-told in the Bible) will be ushered in. I’m interested in your take.

    In Christ,

    Charles

  145. Eden Hadassah said

    How can anyone be backed into a corner in this place? geez, now I feel like Morpheous!

    I am not offended, yet you continue to mock the divinity of God…why?
    Can you see that you are doing it? What glory does it bring to the Lord? There is no “lighten up” on that matter. But in doing so, you make your own words of no effect, and show me that you have no regard for his word, nor the fact that he is way beyond even the seven spirits of God. How truly grievous it is for you to make a joke of Him, and then to say you were just kidding.

  146. Eden Hadassah said

    Charles,

    I like what you said, and I will respond…I promise.
    I am right in the middle of typing up some things for my husband in preparation of this weekend. I come on when I take a break. As soon as I am done with my task, I will give you my full flavored response. The sweet, the salty, the bitter, the oily and the astringent. (Can you gather that I am typing up something for his cooking preparations?)

    Talk to you soon.

  147. Charles said

    Crimson:

    Reference your 150; I seek neither canonization or beatification, however, you have convinced me that you wouldn’t know the difference.

    Regarding your 146: Nope. Don’t think I will. I have a sneaky suspicion that you would try to serve ME! Had I not served you first, like now.

    Regarding your 152, I think, I loose count; but you asked: “One problem…am I a Seveness or a Seveninity? Nope, just still a donkey.

    Crims, the beatings you take and the lengths you’re willing to go for a beatdown, are truly astounding to say nothing of inhuman. Truly you amaze me.

    Charles

  148. Charles said

    Okay, I look forward but don’t rush. HEY I’M GETTING OFF EARLY BECAUSE OF WEATHER ALERTS🙂

    Check the weather before your husband heads out. Talk with you tonight. Be Blessed

    Charles

  149. Crimson Wolf said

    When I said I was kidding I was referring to your reply about my comment about starting a blog called “OK, Trinity liars.”

    My reference to Seven God’s was sardonic in a literary sense.

    Now I do not consider my comments to be any more irreverent then calling Oneness’ “LIAR”, “DECEIVER”, comments such as “LIKE JEHOVAH”S WITNESSES”, “LIKE MORMONS”, comments about Oneness of the Godhead like “JESUS MUST HAVE BEEN TALKING TO HIMSELF”, “I GUESS JESUS WAS A PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIC WITH MPD”, etc.
    (By the way, Jesus didn’t think that was funny)

    When I criticize the Trinity position I am referring to the two individuals in the Trinity that I honestly feel DO NOT EXIST!!!!
    To me to add these extra “people” which the Roman Catholic Church invented in the fourth century (by borrowing from Plato, Philo, and the Mystery religions) is mockery of God. Why is it OK to attack Oneness but mockery to attack Trinitarianism?

    Are you coming to my birthday party, Eden?

  150. Crimson Wolf said

    Charles,

    It takes two humans to make a donkey.

    I am the head.

    What are you?

  151. Trent said

    Crimson Wolf,

    You are quite sharp, very witty, knowledgeable,and downright brilliant at times. BUT THAT WONT GET YOU INTO HEAVEN!

    A revelation comes by the spirit and NOT by the wisdom of man.
    The wisdom of man is FOOLISHNESS with God.

    What IF you are wrong and the Trinitarians are right? What then?

  152. johnkaniecki said

    Crimson,

    The Seven manifold Spirit of God. 12357 the first five prime numbers. Add up 666. Both sums of digits and you will get eighteen. 4 and 6 are omitted from God’s numbers because they are redundant. The devil chooses all sixes because he likes to be the most powerful. Very, very, very poor strategy.

    Now you have God 1,2,3. Father, Son, Spirit.

    The seven Spirits, 1,2,3,5,7. The two of the three is one of the seven. The three of the three is two of the seven. The two of the seven Spirits has all of the seven in it.

    If your good at music imagine chords and notes.

    Crimson, feel free to ask any question you have of me. Oh and the seven Spirits have names.
    1 Jesus
    2 John
    3 Jack
    4 Joel
    5 Jarvis
    6 Jeff
    7 Jim.

    These are the seven J’s as oppossed to the five L’s.

    Love,

    John

    And please don’t have me lecture everyone about being gentle and polite and nice. Its such a turn off that I don’t feel like blogging. Also Crimson please don’t make successive multiple entries. What that does is put your name up all on the new entries and makes it very difficult to follow other comments.

    Love again,

    John

  153. Charles D. said

    Crimy to answer your question which is: “Charles, It takes two humans to make a donkey. I am the head. What are you?”

    I am the person that first notified you that you were a donkey un the first place. You have accepted that fact with grace, laid claim to it, and have been perfectly happy to demonstrate the fact that you are one. Now, please forgive me if I ignore you until at least Monday. School is out for the weekend.

    Besides, more profitable use of my timr will be made speaking with my sister. You will have your hands full wrestling with Satan. Bye now.

    Be Careful,

    Chas

  154. Crimson Wolf said

    You misunderstand…
    I am a Democrat.

  155. Crimson Wolf said

    If such a doctrine of the Trinity were indeed so important to the early Church one would expect to find plenty of references and teaching in the scripturs about it. Yet NONE exist.
    Yes, I am certainly aware that there are references in scriptures some have in retrospect construed to be “hinting” at the Trinity yet one would expect much more.

    A doctrine such as the Trinity would have raised much commotion with the monotheistic Jews and one would expect to find multiple apologetics in defense of the Trinity from the Apostles. Yet the scriptures are strangely silent of such.
    HOWEVER…there are MANY objections to Christs deity:
    “Thou being a man makest thyself God”
    Thomas said to Christ “My Lord and my God.”
    “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”
    ” A child is born..a son is given..his name shall be called..Mighty God…everlasting Father..Prince of Peace”
    Just as we would expect were Oneness the proper doctrinal stance.

    One last question: Dr. Ward mentioned Karl Barth. Does anyone know anything about him or his teaching on the Godhead.
    Thank you.

  156. Eden Hadassah said

    Crimson,
    #114… This is as far down the road past the second mile that I can go with you.
    And I would love to come to the birthday party, and sit at the kiddie table too! I love puppies!
    I wouldn’t be too much stock in being sardonic…it is one or two degrees worse then sarcastic, which as we all know means to “tear the flesh.” But then again, if you have chosen to use the word “wolf” in your screen name for that purpose, then I guess it suits you.
    Have a good night Crimson.
    Love
    Cupcake

  157. Diane said

    Hello Crimson Wolf, thank you for staying around. I haven’t met many oneness believers, but I must say I appreciate how you treat people who disagree with your beliefs with respect.

    I have a question that may have already been answered in an earlier comment, but I clicked on “recent comments”, and came in towards the end, so I apologize if you’ve already addressed this earlier. My question is, if Jesus and the Father are the same Person/Being then how is it that Jesus asked “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Mark 15:34)

    Thank you

    In Christ

  158. Diane said

    John, 1 is not a prime number.

    love,

    Diane

  159. Jesusman said

    “My question is, if Jesus and the Father are the same Person/Being…”

    Oneness doctrine does not teach this. That is “Jesus Only” doctrine to which neither I nor Dr. Ward adhere. For the umpteenth time THE FATHER IS NOT THE SON; THE FATHER IS IN THE SON

    I must say thank you to all who have participated in this discussion, especially to those who have attacked and slandered the people of God. Bro Ward mentioned y’all in tonight’s very powerful message. He reminded me that you’ve given us a reason to rejoice. We must be doing something right. Matthew 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
    12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

  160. Eden Hadassah said

    Jesusman,
    Your pastor should know better then to gossip in church during a sermon!
    Once again, I think you have gotten the scripture wrong.
    What has happened in this thread resembles nothing of persecution or reviling. You have no concept what so ever of true persecution if you think this was bad.
    If you would like to know what true persecution is, check out
    the website for The Voice of the Martyrs.
    Then you will have some sort of understanding of what the Lord was talking about.

  161. Crimson Wolf said

    On post #163 Trent said :

    “Crimson Wolf,
    You are quite sharp, very witty, knowledgeable,and downright brilliant at times. BUT THAT WONT GET YOU INTO HEAVEN!
    A revelation comes by the spirit and NOT by the wisdom of man.
    The wisdom of man is FOOLISHNESS with God.
    What IF you are wrong and the Trinitarians are right? What then?”

    My answer to Trent is :

    If I am right and YOU are wrong…you are in trouble.

    But if YOU are right and I am wrong…I still win.

    How is that? you ask.

    IJohn 2:23 says “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same HATH NOT THE FATHER; but he that acknowledgeth the Son HATH THE FATHER ALSO.”

  162. Crimson Wolf said

    In response to # 168,

    I was hoping you would get me a puppy for my birthday.
    If you can’t make my party just send it in the mail.

    I was born a wolf, blackened by sin, shapen in iniquity,
    but when I met Christ I was washed clean in his crimson blood.

    I am still a wolf by nature but as long as I am under the blood I will never be able to run with the pack again.

  163. Crimson Wolf said

    Diane asked in post #169″ :
    “My question is, if Jesus and the Father are the same Person/Being then how is it that Jesus asked “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Mark 15:34)”

    My response:

    I never really understood this myself until Dr. Ward taught on it. It is really very simple. Often times when in distress I quote scriptures from the book of Psalms. Many people do since the Psalms are well suited for expressing our deepest griefs. When Christ was on the cross he quoted Psalm 22:1 “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring.”

  164. Crimson Wolf said

    Comment on post # 172

    Eden, It doesn’t sound like gossip to me. It sounds like he responded to a public attack on his character by making a public statement that he was rejoicing when people spoke evil of him.
    Also persecution is persecution whether someone is slandering you or cutting your head off. As a matter of fact the TONGUE can hurt worse and cause more damage then the sword (James 3:6-8)

  165. Crimson Wolf said

    Charles, Please forgive me. You asked me civilly not to make multiple posts and I did it again.

    There were so many Posts I felt need responded to.

    I will try to constrain myself more in the future.

    Ps
    Don’t send me a puppy for my birthday…Eden is getting it for me. Could you give me a Kitty Cat?

  166. Jesusman said

    “If you would like to know what true persecution is, check out
    the website for The Voice of the Martyrs.”—E.H.

    If you would like to know what true persecution is, you should research the history of God’s True Apostolic Church down through the ages. Being burnt alive with green wood for as prolonged and painful a death as possible is what Michael Servetus had to face (by Protestants) for denying the trinity doctrine. This is the most notorious of such incidents but there are untold thousands(millions?) of Oneness believers now wearing Crowns of Life after being faithful unto death at the hands of trinitarians. Before the Lord’s return, such persecution will continue and I hope you don’t find yourself consenting to our death while thinking you are doing God service. Jesus said His True church would be hated and persecuted, not that they would be doing the persecuting. There is much Oneness blood on the hands of Catholics and Protestants. The same cannot be said in reverse. The Oneness Church has never spilled trinitarian blood, because killing heretics was never commanded by our Lord. We just keep praying for them as they seek our lives. So according to Jesus, (in John 16:2
    They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.)
    who are the true believers?

    Acts 24:14
    But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

    Amen, Brother Paul

  167. Eden Hadassah said

    Jesusman and Crimson,

    I have to disagree with you once again. Imagine if I felt that you were attacking me. I don’t. And the both of you have made just as many counter responses to what I have said, yet I feel in no way persecuted. Until you have felt it in your flesh, nothing that the tongue can produce will ever compare. Nothing in this thread was persecution, so you may have to get a thicker skin.
    As far as the pastor rejoicing about being persecuted, nope…
    He wasn’t persecuted, but he did gossip, so even if he felt vindicated in some way, he made it of no effect.
    As far as church history goes, this is the problem that I have with people standing on doctrines. It doesn’t validate anything. There is only one truth present yesterday, today and tomorrow, and that is Christ and him crucified. I live here and now, and I can not build my faith on those of different doctrines. I can only build my faith according the Lord Jesus Christ. I follow him, so to me, as nice as it is to know what other believers went through, I keep my eyes on Yeshua, fixing my gaze on his beauty and majesty. He is worthy to be praised, not martyrs for a particular doctrine.

  168. Crimson Wolf said

    Post #179 said :
    “As far as the pastor rejoicing about being persecuted, nope…
    He wasn’t persecuted, but he did gossip”

    Dr. Ward was called “LIAR”, “DECEIVER”, his religion was mocked as a cult and compared to the following: “LIKE JEHOVAH”S WITNESSES”, “LIKE MORMONS”, comments were made about his precious beief in Oneness of the Godhead with comments such as “JESUS MUST HAVE BEEN TALKING TO HIMSELF”, “I GUESS JESUS WAS A PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIC WITH MPD”, etc.
    Also notice the frequent attacking of other Oneness individuals in this forum calling them “liars”, calling these individuals names, putting them down, and saying things like : Liar, sports club jumping, insanity or reprobate mind, bring glory to yourself, blasphemy, heretic, etc.

    hmmm…publically calling someone a “LIAR” and “DECIEVER”,”REPROBATE”,”CULT”, “HERETIC”,etc……is O.K.

    YET when Dr. Ward publically rejoices because people are speaking ill of him then THAT is gossip.

    What’s wrong with this picture?

  169. johnkaniecki said

    Hello All,

    It seems to me we all got a problem. The rivers of water are in the rapids. Let us agree on the following.

    1. No name calling
    2. Be accepting and diplomatic.
    3. We are all brothers and sisters with the same goal. That goal is to spread the good news of Jesus all around the world. Let us endeavour to that end.
    4. I have learned from you all. The Wolf has a sharp mind and can quote scripture. But we must take an honest and true approach. You can’t have God as one then three and then seven. I don’t think you believe three different things do you? Say what you mean with conviction. I’m trying to learn from you, don’t make my studies a mockery.
    5. Remember some of the people are new to the blog. It took me a few months to fit in and I don’t think I have assimilated one hundred percent. Give the Wolf a little space and don’t attack, attack, attack. Hear what he is saying. Show him good listening techniques by listening to him.

    As it is this blog has digressed and has become adversarial. This is a very bad thing.

    Love,

    John

  170. Charles D. said

    Hey Missy!

    How’s it going Fruitcake? Did you check the weather? It not really bad right now. I will be here until Tuesday.

    I felt like being brave, so I drove here. We did not get the snow that was forecasted, however, they are still fortcasting the same but with ice. I’m not going to cry if I get snowed in; there is a Bar-B-Que joint in front of the Acadamy. Bar-B-Que is my friend. Hate ribs, love sliced and chopped and pulled. Might gain a pound but I will not be disappointed, depressed, or side-tracked. Did I mention Bar-B-Que is my friend?

    I am following your post – continue to defend the faith! Might dose off here and there but will otherwise begin my comments with information I want to provide about why I feel I was almost suckered in by you know who.

    Take care and don;t worry about responding right away. Be Blessed.

    Chaz

  171. Diane said

    Jesusman, I wasn’t aware that there was a differnece between Oneness and Jesus Only. I also want to say that I have admired your patient responses in the past but I just entered this discussion and I certainly didn’t intend any disrespect in my question to Crimson Wolf.

    Crimson and Jesusman, you are correct when you speak about verbal attacks that have no place in a disciple of Christ. We need to be reminded of that.

    Crimson, if I understand you correctly, you believe Jesus was merely quoting scriptures to Himself about how He felt forsaken?

  172. Crimson Wolf said

    Thank you very much, John, and I think your proposal is quite acceptable.

    Diane, I believe that Christ in the most desperate hour of his earthly existence had groanings that a human heart was most incapable of uttering. The scriptural cry of Psalms welled up from the inner resources of his soul as the flesh cried out to the spirit “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” (My God, My God, why hast thou forsken me).

    Christ was intelligent enough to know God had NOT forsaken him. He had already asked the cup to be taken from him and ultimately conceded to drink it as God’s will. He KNEW God had not forsaken him, but the human part of him FELT forsaken (just as we sometimes in our darkest hours do not FEEL saved, but have to stand by faith that we ARE) and this Psalm was his expression of that forlorn experience. He and every other Jew present knew this was from the Psalms.

  173. Diane said

    I agree with you that Christ spoke from the anguish of His soul; I believe the Psalm was prophetic, and not spoken from memory because it was well known.

    Jesus prayed ” I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was….”

    Here Christ reveals their relationship existed before the foundation of the world.

  174. Crimson Wolf said

    Diane, Most people are not aware of the differences between Jesus Only and Oneness. THIS is where much confusion comes in.

    Jesus Only Adherents believe that
    (1) ALL of God was contracted into and poured into the body of Christ. There was no God outside of that anointed one. When the Father spoke to Christ at his baptism they claim Christ was “throwing his voice” like a ventriloquist (no kidding, I have actually heard them say this). They claim when he prayed he was talking to himself. There was NO God outside of this human body of Christ.

    (2) Jesus Only teach that when Jesus died, that God died and ceased to be for three days.

    (3) Jesus Only DO NOT (usually) baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. They baptize saying these words “I baptize you INTO Jesus Only.”

    TRUE people of the name teach:
    (1) ALL of God was not and COULD not have been contracted and poured into the human body of Christ. Had this happened the universe would have exploded into chaos or even ceased to exist. Every demon in hell would have been free to do as he pleased. Jesus name people believe that there are THREE simultaneous manifestations of one God. The Father is an invisible, omnipresent(not pantheistically speaking, however), all powerful being incapable of looking upon. The expressed mind of the Father (which is the WORD) was manifest in flesh and begotton as the Son of God. This Son said “My Father is GREATER then I” (Trinitarian doctrine teaches the Father, Son,& Holy Spirit are CO-EQUAL). Christ wept, was hesitant to continue in the Garden, etc. After this Son was resurrected the Spirit of God returned as the Holy Ghost in order to dwell within and empower the people within his Church. There are THREE simultaneous manifestations of ONE God and one God only.

    (2) God did NOT die. Had God ceased to exist the world would have ceased to function.

    (3) NO man can baptize anyone INTO Jesus. We are baptized INTO the body by the Holy Ghost. We are to be water baptized in his NAME…the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38).

    Not all Jesus name people baptize INTO Jesus. Many baptize in Jesus name, Lord Jesus Christ, etc., (and some baptize “in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost, in the name of Jesus”).

    Many (VERY many) within the Oneness movement are unconsciously Jesus Only. (Please note that in the early days of Pentecost in America that Jesus Only had a WHOLE different meaning then it has come to mean today). There are fewer that are truly “Oneness” in the scriptural sense.

    We believe in one God, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, and receiving the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance.

    Historical records prove time and time again that this was the original teachings of the early Church. Anything outside of this is true heretical doctrine.

  175. Crimson Wolf said

    CORRECTION:
    In post #186 in the fourth paragraph Up from the bottom I MEANT to write:

    “Not all JESUS ONLY people baptize INTO Jesus. Many baptize in Jesus name, Lord Jesus Christ, etc., (and some baptize “in the name of the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost, in the name of Jesus”).”

  176. johnkaniecki said

    Crimson,

    Hello and glad you are well.

    Some thoughts. Jesus said “I go to the Father and the Father is greater than I.” John 14:28. So let us knock off that co equal category on that statement alone. The context makes it clear what Jesus means.

    I look at the Three in One as different manifestations of Love. God is a complex thing.

    Wolf, please give me your view. I have a strong desire to learn and I acknowledge that you have a great knowledge of scripture. But let me warn everyone, the problem in this world is not ‘not knowing scriptures.’ A deeper problem is ‘not understanding scriptures.’ The deepest problem we have is ‘not living the scriptures.’

    Love,

    John

  177. Crimson Wolf said

    John, Dr. Ward’s comments in Post # 47 above is an excellent description of the Godhead. He touches on Church lineage in post # 75.

    Here was the doctrinal difficulty in the first few centuries:

    1) The churches believed Jesus was to be worshipped.
    2) Only God could be worshipped so Jesus must be God.
    3) There can only be one God.

    The churches then began to ask themselves HOW they could reconcile the abovementioned differences.

    First a variant form of Modalism was accepted. Then came Arianism. Gnosticism introduced docetism and various other teachings on the person of God. To combat these heresies the Church began formulating what was to later develop in the fourth century as the Trinity. They said God was a separate person, Jesus was a separate person, and so was the Holy Ghost (The Holy Ghost was not part of the Trias until later . At first there was only debate over Father and Son.) Now here were three persons. The Church believed each should be worshipped..but LO this meant they worshipped three Gods! No problem! Two Eastern Orthodox theologians perfected the theology by keeping the three separate YET they were of one substance. Viola! The Trinity!

    Had they relied more on scripture noting that God was a spirit, invisible, seen only through the image of Christ, they would have arrived back to the Oneness theology of three manifestations of one God.

    Three manifestations is a PERFECT theology. It is scriptural and it bypasses all of the inherent problems involved in trying to explain a convoluted philosophy of how three people can be one. It acknowledges THREE but denies three PERSONS. The Father and the Holy Ghost are SPIRIT and do not fall within the description of “Person.” The only “person” of the Godhead is Christ. He is all you will ever behold of God. However this does not eliminate the Father…it just changes and elevates the ordinary description of him. To call the omnipotent, omnipresent Father a “person” confines him and lowers his true being.
    It makes him a “man in the sky.” It forms a picture of a gray haired old man sitting beside his younger looking son. I believe the true picture I will see when I get to heaven is Jesus Christ sitting upon the throne with the glory of the Father and Holy spirit emanating through his glory as bright as the noon day sun.

    Please review Dr. Ward’s description in Post # 47 above.

  178. Crimson Wolf said

    The omnipotent, omnipresent, SPIRIT which we call the Father is all powerful and all-knowing. The buffer between man and God was the Logos, the Word, the expressed Mind of God. This Logos came in flesh. ALL of the Father was not “squeezed” into this anointed Son. The All-knowing omniscience of the Father was not all within the Christ as he walked the earth. There were things that Christ did not know that the father DID (“But of that day and hour no man knows, not even the angels of heaven, NOR THE SON, but the Father alone.” Mark 13:32. So much for the Trinitarian co-equal)

    As a man Jesus asked for the cup to pass him while in Gethsemene.
    As God he said “I am.”

    As a man he ate fish and bread.
    As God he multiplied the fish and bread.

    As a man he walked along the shores of Galilee.
    As God he walked ON the sea of Galilee.

    As a man he cried for his friend Lazarus.
    As God he said “Lazarus , Come forth!”

    The concept of three simultaneous manifestations of God was well understood by the mid-eastern mind. The Western mind could not comprehend it and tried to work out some mathematical way three could be one.

    The scripture is the final authority.

  179. Diane said

    Crimson, thanks for that explanation. So would the Oneness belief be that Jesus didn’t exist as the Son before Bethlehem?

    Jesus said “And now, O Father, glorify Me (The SON) together with Yourself, with the glory which I (The SON) had with You (The FATHER) before the world was…” (John 17:5)

    Christ reveals their Father Son relationship existed before the world was.

    “For I (The Son) have come down from Heaven, not to do My (The Son) will, but the will of Him (The Father) Who sent Me.” (John 6:38)

    Christ reveals that it was HE and not the FATHER that came down from Heaven.

    Then God said “Let US make man in OUR image according to OUR likeness”

    The Father Son and Holy Spirit are at work in creation and throughout history.

    I do believe all who are convicted of the Holy Spirit, repent, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ have eternal life; the baptism of the Holy Spirit is for empowerment for the spread of the gospel and holy living and is followed by signs, with the gifts and fruit of the Holy Spirit being the evidence. I know we disagree, but you have been a very gracious example to me. Thank you.

  180. johnkaniecki said

    Crimson,

    Hello and thanks for those referrences. I today, two thousand years later, am learning implications and teachings that Jesus has spoken of. I have no new scripture but new knowledge and wisdom. For exmaple with prohphecy I can now understand the time for God to act is now. Why? Nuclear weapons give us the capability for man to destroy himself. While the bubonic plague and other extreme circumstances have pointed to the END, they were not. But now with a cool, rational even scientific mind I can say nuclear weapons are a definite sign that the time prophecized for God to act is near. The state of Isreal coming into existance is another one. I see God’s nature is to allow man to fall into sin and then bring punishment. This punishment causes man to repent. (Look at Isreal and Babylon.) Yet this process can’t be repeated if we all blow ourselves up. We know from scripture that God is going to set up a thousand year reign on Earth, or at least we can agree on that Jesus will come for the saved. If nothing else this delays the events of a nuclear war.

    Saying all this I must reject the lack of historical evidence against the three or one point of view. This is a rejection either way, pro or con. (I would need to reread your blogs to remember your positions. I will reread the blogs as they were excellent and informative. They also cited the necessary blogs by numbers.) Recall the gospels were written years later, as were Paul’s letters and the book of Revelation. If Revelation does as I believe end scripture then it would take some time to learn the implications. You may have historical proof that none of these things weren’t discussed but that lack of discussion is not evidence that its not true.

    Now allow me to ask the most important question. Why are we so concerned about this? What are the implications? How will it change our thinking or our way of life?

    Jesus and the Spirit are very simple for me to understand. The Father is so far beyond my comprehension I can’t imagine Him at all. Sometimes I just have to keep my eyes focused intently on Jesus to weather a storm. If you have ever been locked up in a psychiatric ward then perhaps you could relate to my experience.

    Crimson you have gave me an excellent answer and I see the sincere attribtues in your answers. Notice how some bloggers get the weekends off.

    Love,

    John

  181. Crimson Wolf said

    Obviously Christ could not be a begotten Son until he was begotten. He was conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of a virgin just two thousand years ago.

    This does not mean he did not exist before this because “in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God” Jn 1:1. Christ was not a “human Son” as such BUT he was what theologians call a Theophany This is derived from the Greek theophania, theo (God), and phainein (to show forth), meaning “appearance of God”,

    Read Gen 3:8 and Gen 16:7-14. The scriptures tell us that initially it is an ANGEL which appears to Hagar, however it then says that GOD SPOKE DIRECTLY to her, and that SHE SAW GOD AND LIVED (Gen 16:13).

    In Gen 22:11-15,the scripture states explicitly that it was the ANGEL OF THE LORD speaking to Abraham (Gen 22:11). However, the angel addressing Abraham utters the words of GOD IN FIRST PERSON (Gen 22:12).

    In both of the previous examples, although it is an angelic FORM or IMAGE or MANIFESTATION that is present, the VOICE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD was speaking. This was a manifestation of God Himself.

    A similar case to present would be Moses and the burning bush. Initially Moses saw an ANGEL in the bush, but then proceeds to have a direct conversation with GOD HIMSELF (Ex 3).
    It was an angelic appearance (for want of a better phrase ) of God.

    So God manifested Himself through his Logos as a Theophany in the Old Testament and as A Son, God manifest in the flesh (ITim. 3:16) in the New Testament.

    And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the SON of man which is IN HEAVEN.Jn. 3:13

  182. Crimson Wolf said

    EDEN,

    To answer your question about God being or not being a liar concerning whether or not Moses saw God PLEASE READ THE ABOVE POST # 193

    Thanx

  183. Jesusman said

    Crimson,

    You are a distinguished scholar of the faith and your last few posts illustrate the best explanation of the Nature of the Infinite God that can be given by finite man. Kudos. And BTW, have we met? Do you attend Bro. Ward’s church either in Columbus or Lancaster, OH?

    Diane,
    I apologize, not knowing you hadn’t seen my defense of the Doctrine earlier.
    Your parentheses cannot be inserted into Scripture being intellectually honest. Let’s look at post #191:

    (My comments are in [])

    “So would the Oneness belief be that Jesus didn’t exist as the Son before Bethlehem?”
    [Yes, although He did exist as the WORD before Bethlehem(Actually Nazareth. It was at conception that the Word was made flesh). He existed in the mind of God. The WORD became the SON at the Incarnation.]

    “Jesus said “And now, O Father, glorify Me (The SON)[YES] together with Yourself, with the glory which I (The SON)[NO, THE WORD] had with You (The FATHER) before the world was…” (John 17:5)
    Christ reveals their Father Son relationship[No, God/His Word relationship] existed before the world was.”

    ““For I (The Son)[The Word] have come down from Heaven, not to do My (The Son)[Yes!] will, but the will of Him (The Father) Who sent Me.”)[If the three are one in total unity and agreement, why do the wills of Jesus and His Father disagree in the garden?] (John 6:38)
    Christ reveals that it was HE[The Word] and not the FATHER that came down from Heaven.”

    Then God said “Let US make man in OUR image according to OUR likeness”[God counseling with His own will, like when David says “Bless the Lord, Oh my soul, and all that is within me, Bless His Holy Name” or the rich man who told his soul to “eat drink, and be merry”, or when I’m talking to myself and I say “Let’s(let us) go” or “Let’s do this.”]
    The Father Son[Word(1st John 5:7)] and Holy Spirit are at work in creation and throughout history.

    I appreciate your gentle demeanor and respect you’ve shown to those with whom you disagree. This shows true fruits of the Spirit. There are those on here who claim to be Spiritual, but their fruit is rotten to the core. May the Lord Bless and keep you and open up ALL OUR EYES to His Truth. In Jesus Name, Shalom.

  184. Crimson Wolf said

    It is of supreme importance to understand the nature of God.

    Understanding HIM is more important then understanding anything pertaining to my “self.”

    Most people see him as a “old man in the sky” and TOTALLY miss his majestic omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience. They fail to KNOW the Father (the exact charge they erroneously aim at US). Understanding the Godhead brings understanding of the FATHER.

    Also it solidifies our belief that we worship but ONE God.

    In addition OTHER scriptures become plainer, ie, Christ says to baptize in the NAME of the Father, Son, & Holy Ghost. Peter turns around in Acts 2:38 and tells them to baptize in Jesus name. Contradiction? No. Peter now had the Holy Ghost and could understand the PARABLE of Matthew 28:19. The spirit revealed that Jesus Christ meant Yahweh Savior the Anointed One ( Notice the name of the Father: Yahweh, the Son : Savior, and the Holy Ghost: Anointed, all in one name). The name of the Father (Yahweh) was IN the name of the Son.

    These revelations are the product of learning under Dr. Ward.

    In conclusion it inspires and melts the depth of my heart to know God did not send someone else to die for me…He came Himself!!!

  185. Crimson Wolf said

    JesusMan, these teachings came from Dr. Ward.

    However they actually have little to do with Dr. Ward because they ARE IN THE SCRIPTURES for ANYONE to read.

  186. Diane said

    Jesusman, you believe Messiah is referring to “Logos” and I believe He is referring to Himself as “Son” (John 17:5), you also believe our Heavenly Father is referring to His Word when He said “Let Us make man in Our image” I believe He is referring to His Beloved Son and Holy Spirit.

    Even though we disagree, I respect the time you’ve spent trying to help others understand what you really believe and why. I pray we continue to love one another that the world may know we are His disciples. Shalom

  187. Crimson Wolf said

    Let me clarify this for you , Diane.

    Jesus WAS referring to HIMSELF.

    What we are saying is the HUMAN SON OF MAN did not exist until Bethleham

    Before that He was the Logos, the Word.

    In both instances he is the MANIFESTATION OF ONE GOD.

  188. Crimson Wolf said

    JesusMan is saying that Christ was praying the following:

    “And now, O Father, glorify Me (The SON , born here on earth) together with Yourself, with the glory which I ( when I was the Word, or Logos , BEFORE I ever became a human born Son) had with You (The FATHER) before the world was…” (John 17:5)

  189. Diane said

    Crimson, you believe that Messiah prayed about the time in His relationship with the Father when He was “verbal Words spoken”.
    (John 17:5)

    If that is what you firmly believe, I respect you, though I respectfully disagree. I like what Jesusman suggested – may the Lord open up ALL OUR EYES to His truth.

    I will be pretty busy spending time with my Grandson in the upcoming days and might not have the opportunity to comment, but I feel that I have met 2 friends. I hope you leave this feeling the same way. Shalom (thanks Jesusman… I haven’t said that in a while)

  190. Charles D. said

    Eden, my fruitcake,

    Sometimes I honestly believe God allow two (and even more) people to get different takes of and meaning from a single message or source. Sometimes I believe that the condition of the receivers’ heart have much to do with it; ideally, there are sufficient lessons to be learned by all (edification).

    What I admire about your take is your assessment was somewhat innocent, refreshing, but fair. You act as if you believe “no matter what “her” intentions were, so long as you’re honest and above board, no harm will come as a result of you giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Again, admirable and true. I am from a different school of thought; one that is tempered by experiences, some too difficult to express. But not unlike treating cancer, I believe in cutting it out before it spread.

    I received a email after viewing several different posts with comments by our friend (you may have seen some, but, before the donnybrook she and I had – I had never seen the posts to which I refer). I opinions of our friend was colored by what I consider direct attacks and challenges. Her comments and our running dialogue were none too friendly and often times bordering on mortar attacks. “In your face and I don’t need no stinking, —— well you know her mindset. In some of the other posts I thought I detected a voices crying out and seeking. She stated that she had NO ONE to help her, especially, in answering her questions about the 10 Commandments and that she was honestly seeking answers. She said Job had refused to post her questions regarding the same. I fell for it and gave her my email address. Within hours I received an email
    and when I opened it, it was very apparent why her questions were not posted.

    The tone of the email was not that of one honestly seeking. Rather, it was a contest of spiritual wills and
    by time I got mid way through the email, what I believe to be unclean spirits dominated. It (I am purposely using “it” here) was accusatory, and compellingly void of fact. It had the effect of lifting up man while denying God. It used partially correct quotes made by historical figures; none of which had a single thing to do with the 10 Commandments. It listed the reaffirmation of the 10 Commandments infused with language from Exodus 34; then it made all sorts of allegations against God which I attribute to a total lack of knowledge of the Word of God, then stated the printed word out of context. It was Devlish and I cannot think of another word for my experience that night. If you’ve ever seen the movie Exocist, I felt as though I was on the actual set.

    You may have a different opinion but mine is as follows. At this time I don’t even believe her love of abused children is as she stated. I don’t believe her about the experiences she stated she had witnessed. I believe she KNEW she would capture the hearts of anyone that REALLY love children and that would be her “in.”
    Absolutely no sane person could write what she wrote, in both the posts and email, yet have a beneficent heart towards little. You know, if Satan was as ugly as the pictures man has devised and if he and/or his demon spirits approached mankind with calamity and total destruction in the forefront, then, everybody would run and he’d have a much tougher time getting to people/sinners. NO! He appeal to our (or what we preceive) more sensual appitites, tastes, visions, and even reality. Sex, Money, Instincts (that is our natural inclinations), Power, Greed, etc. Some instincts include a love for children; of course, God has embued mothers and to a degree women in general, a strong material instinct towards children.

    If my beliefs and assumptions are close to being correct, then, she should not be allowed in the same area code as children. And without saying a word directly to children, she pose a present and real danger to them for a number of reasons which I will discuss if you’re interested. My actions were to first pray, then, delete the email and what happened next, I will share with you after I hear back.

    Don’t feel obligated to answer right back. It has began to snow now so it will be day to day until I leave here.

    In Christ,

    Charles

  191. Crimson Wolf said

    Diane, Many times the scripture uses figurative descriptions of God that humans can understand. For instance the scripture which speaks of God covering us with his wings. Certainly we do not believe that God is like a big chicken with wings.
    Gods “Word” is not like my “word”. My word is the expression of my consciousness. God’s Word , as well as EVERY other part of God, IS consciousness.

    There is no denying that Christ IS the Word. John 1:1 says “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was WITH God and the Word WAS God.” It goes on to say concerning the Word “all things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made.” The scriptures continue to say “the Word was MADE FLESH and dwelt among us.”

    If you go to Genesis you find that God spoke and the spoken Word created. The above verses plainly tell us that all things were made by this Word and that this Word became flesh and dwelt among us. This is undeniable scripture.

    This Word is NOT just a verbal, spoken, utterance that is the result of vibrating human vocal cords. THIS WORD IS GOD.
    It is the MANIFESTATION of the omniscient mind of God. It is the divine Logos. “In Him was life and the life was the light of men.”

  192. Crimson Wolf said

    Diane, In conclusion Christ was not a human born SON until he was born of a virgin. HOWEVER, he did indeed exist in the Old Testament and from the beginning as an angelic theophany, as the Word of God, the visible, audible expression of a Spirit that “no man can look upon and live.”

  193. Eden Hadassah said

    Charles,

    Here is what I see in her. I saw a “good” heart. This I say in terms of unregenerated natural love for children. My own paternal grandmother was like her in terms of the viewing the scriptures. My father accepted the Lord, and began to witness to her, and she actually picked up the bible and guess what she started reading? JUDGES! Can you image her discust, as she threw the bible down, and swore never to read that “piece of trash” ever again. This is the same woman, who “loved” her family, adored her friends, and loved the “status quo.” This is also the same woman, with such a “loving heart” that tormented me emotionally until the day she died! When I also accepted the Lord, and would come to visit, she would say things like, “How can you believe that trash, look at what is going on in the world…how can the God of the bible be true? Wouldn’t he be more powerful than that? Why would he allow so much suffering? AND WHY WOULD HE ALLOW ALL THAT FILTH TO BE PUT INTO WHAT IS CALLED “HOLY”? She was unable to even comprehend why God would allow the actions of sinful men and their crimes to be put into a book that is supposed to be “Holy” and yet sin dwells, and almost glorified on the pages. Regardless of her treatment of me, I treated her with love and respect, knowing that she would never again either read the scriptures, nor call on the name of the Lord, even in her distress. All she had left was my father and I, showing the love, grace and mercy of God in the midst of her unbelief. Her eldest son, my uncle, is and was an athiest. She clung to him like a god, and about a year after her death, he died too. He too had a “good heart”, loved his children and his family. He hated me beyond belief, yet loved my children more than life itself. (He started hating me when I refused to have an abortion after being raped. Turns out my aunt was raped as a teen ager, and my grandmother forced her to give the baby up. It was a deep wound that never was allowed to heal, and one that only my uncle and grandmother knew about. So when I refused to have an abortion, and then decided to keep the baby, there was an overwhelming amount of guilt on their part toward the pain that they put my aunt through. Then watching my daughter grow, their hatred towards me and my decisions grew stronger by the year.) As he died of cancer, both my father and I showed the love, grace and mercy of God to him. My father was with him on his death bed, and even as he slipped into death, he refused the Lord.
    A “good heart” is something that almost everyone has, but it never understands the goodness of God. It is natural love, which can be “loving”, cruel, vindictive, selfish, or “spiritual.” It bears no resemblence to the Heart of God. This is the state our friend was in. I have known people with this kind of heart, as with my family, who never accept the Lord or his goodness for their eternal soul, AND, I have known the other camp of people…those who feel that way, and at some point in their lives, the veil is lifted, and they become quite a sight to behold. Beautiful, radiant and full of the Love of God.
    You are right about her, as I have experienced the wrath of the “good heart” in my early years. I will await your other thoughts, I am interested to hear them.
    I need to go right now, but hopefully I will be on in a little while. I didn’t know it was snowing in Annapolis…I live north of Annapolis, and it is just raining here.

    Love,
    fruitcake missy

  194. Charles D. said

    Wow! What a potent piece. For sure it, once again, confirms what I have always known; i.e. that 2 or more people can get different takes from the same source. You might think I am strange by saying yours was somewhat uplifting to me as I read it. But truth be told. it was, and quite so.

    I total believe that God was dealing with you long before you think you accepted Him, one of the fruit of His work appears to me as your most difficult albeit right decision not to have an abortion. God Bless you.

    Now! You’ve said two things that; one I totall agree with and have enough experiences sufficient to write a couple of books and one I somewhat disagree with on first blush. They are:
    “good heart” is something that almost everyone has, but it never understands the goodness of God.” on this one I believ it requires a visitation of the Holy Spirit before they have a “good” heart. There are OT scripture that leads me to believe this, e.g., God s said: “they have hearts of stone, but, I will give them hearts of flesh.” Whereupon He would write the 10 Commandants, give them a natural conscienious, giving them the ability to know what is right and what is wrong.

    The below I totally agree and know to be true from a bevvy of personal experiences. It is a beautiful thing to actually witness someone accept the Lord Jesus Christ. Also, it is very good to be able to comfort a loved one who is worried about a new convert on the verge of death. I have some stories about this one.

    “those who feel that way, and at some point in their lives, the veil is lifted, and they become quite a sight to behold. Beautiful, radiant and full of the Love of God.”

    Have to run to a meeting now, after which I intend to visit church. Thank you for sharing, it has helped me more than you know right now.

    Okay, so the ground is green and brown……SUE me.

    Love,

    Charles

  195. Eden Hadassah said

    Thank you for your kind words…
    By “good heart”, I am pertaining to what the world views as “good” and reference the difference between “the good heart” and “the heart of God.” Of this there is a HUGE difference.
    The heart of God seeks to glorify and magnify all that is God, in holiness and praise, of this the “good heart” knows nothing of. The “good heart” as we have all experienced, is deceptive beyond belief, in that the intentions are always selfish and self serving. It is the “good heart” that will give someone something, but in their heart, resent the fact that they never got a “thank you,” or anything in return. AAAHHH the “good heart” at christmas time that sends christmas cards and keeps a record of who gave them one, so that next year they may send them “good wishes!” AND…heaven forbid that “good heart” be slighted and not recieve a christmas card, then next year one would be on the “bad heart” list and not recieve a card! This is the “good heart” way.
    I understand what you mean by heart of stone and a heart of flesh. Of these “good hearts” are still STONE, and will always be stone…others, are transformed by the love of God, but either way, the heart of God with in me, will continue to display his goodness and love regardless of their actions.
    They get the gospel anyway, with my life.
    However…when someone claims to be regenerated, and filled with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and then decides to blaspheme his holy name…of this I must shake the dust. My grandmother and our friend never claimed to “know Him”, so for me, their offense, I over look. I give no credit to the evil one, although, we both know he is at work to keep them blind. Regardless of whether evil is at work or not, all must still be accountable for their own words and actions. I will not blame “beings” for such things. All must stand before the Lord of Hosts and give account for their lives and actions…this includes the judgment of Satan and his traitorous angels. People do enough evil of their own accord, and this is evidenced by their “good heart.” I am amazed by God, when he lifts that veil, and they proclaim…”I thought I was such a good person, but now I know that nothing I ever did was really good.” A “good heart” is the sickness of man, to which death comes eternal, but the one that would take upon himself the Heart of God, for him/her, they truly know and understand what real goodness is.

  196. Hi, Don’t know If I will get back to this one but I have had many discussions of this passage
    being a Oneness believer myself. Please allow me to give you our take on (John 17:5) The
    keywords to the passage are *Glorify* and *glory,* Some of the folks had the right idea and
    others in my Opinion just simply glossed over the passage.because they feel it highlights
    their doctrine of pre-existance of a so called “god the son” (No such thing in scripture.)
    a simple reading of the passage most(reformed and others) would consider Exagesis when it is
    no more than glossary reading, you can never Isolate a passage in a vaccum to come up with a
    doctrine, take for instance the passage from John 6:62.

    62: What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

    Do you see the above passage? It seemingly goes right along with what you are saying in John
    17:5 does it not? Actually folks that is not the case at all from this passage, just about 11
    verses back Jesus reveals how he came from heaven and how he was “pre-existent”

    47: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
    48: I am that bread of life.
    49: Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
    50: This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
    51: I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall
    live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of
    the world.

    Did you happen to catch from verse 51 what Jesus was saying? Allow me to Highlight it for you?
    Jesus just finished saying that;” he was the bread which came from heaven.” and the bread he
    would give, so that mankind may live was his flesh(Which came from heaven) friend, flesh can
    neither come from, or go there! Jesus was saying God the father provided the sacrifice from
    heaven.That is how he comes from heaven this is the key to every so called passage you believe
    teaches “pre-existence” (so called)…

    Remember what Jesus said in (John 6:62)What and if you shall see the son of man ascend up
    where he was before? The Keyword is “son of man”, friend I am a son of man, you are a son of
    man. But son of men do not go to, or come from heaven. Jesus was speaking of that which was
    spoken of in (Rev. 13:8)the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.He was speaking of
    the plan/Logos God had from the foundation of the world of future redemption.

    Let’s now Go Back to John 17:5
    5: And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with
    thee before the world was.

    The Oneness believers are saying this is speaking about (Rev. 13:8)The lamb slain from the
    foundation of the world. and actually refers to his slain flesh or humanity as a sacrifice for
    sins, The keywords being; Glorify and Glory. There is another passage which reveals his glory
    and what it actually speaks of: John 7:38-39

    38: He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers
    of living water.
    39: (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the
    Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet g-l-o-r-i-f-i-e-d.)

    Did you catch that? the glory is in reference to his passion or as his slain humanity as a
    sacrifice for sins from the foundation of the world.This is what was meant when Jeus said
    Glorify thine own self with the “glory” I had with thee before the world was. He was speaking
    of the plan that was about to come to fruition from the foundation of the world

    1: 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:

    The Hour has come and he speaks of the glory not yet!

    2: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as
    thou hast given him.
    3: And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ,
    whom thou hast sent.
    4: I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

    Actually no, that was yet coming but he speaks of though it did.

  197. johnkaniecki said

    Hello All,

    I have these comments to say on a Sunday in New Jersey where our service of worship was cancelled. The problem wasn’t snow it was ice.
    My wife and I will have worship at home. We will take the Lord’s Supper.

    No it wasn’t obvious to me that Jesus was bogotten only when he became a human being, but I agree with that teaching. Thanks Crimson Wolf.

    Also I feel that scripture can be fufilled more than once. Look at the passover feast. It had a physical fufillment first of all. That was the feast. Then Christ fufilled it in another way by his coming. Some would say that it would be fufilled again. I don’t know but I get two fufillments you can’t deny.

    Love,

    John

  198. Eden Hadassah said

    This is a good link for those who have been harmed by different doctrines…

    http://www.spiritualabuse.org/experiences.html

  199. There might be abuse in the “UPC” But that is the UPC,(An orginization) it still does not make
    the *Oneness of God* False! I can tell you the trinity is false and if anyone would like to
    take me up that you can reach me @ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Trinity_vs_Oneness_Debate/
    If you wish to defend that doctrine.

    Manuel

  200. We have more experiences from former trinitarains of abuse than you do from the UPC
    organization we just don’t go around documenting them they mean absolutely nothing!Not every
    oneness is UPC, I am Not!I came from a Southern Baptist church(Calvinist) Where a coworker
    whom I went to church with Killed his wife and then himself because he wanted to make sure they
    went to heaven together. That is docuemnted in newspapers look it up? Springdale Ark. Pastor
    Cliff Palmer I went there in 1985 the following year I left it in 1986 for the truth of the
    Oneness of God I worked with the Guy Charles(Can’t remember his last name) but it was either
    1989 or 90 he killed himself but this is the Kind of Abuse the false doctrine of calviunsm
    produces it can all be cleared up(All five points ) when you realize the false docrtine is revealed in their veiw of the Godhead which makes their veiw of Jesus Hybrid because of the fales doctrine og original inherited sin.

  201. Charles D. said

    Good Afternoon manuel culwell:

    As I read through your #208, I caould not help but think that with God all things are possible; and the fact that no matter how hard we try, some things are reserved only to the Father and we are just not going to learn of the correct answer until that day.

    Not going to disagree with you on any point, however, I would like your response on two points that you maintain as follows:

    “Jesus just finished saying that;” he was the bread which came from heaven.” and the bread he would give, so that mankind may live was his flesh(Which came from heaven) friend, “flesh can neither come from, or go there!” Jesus was saying God the father provided the sacrifice from”

    How does your above comments reconcile Enoch and Ezekiel?

    “The Keyword is “son of man”, friend I am a son of man, you are a son of
    man. But son of men do not go to, or come from heaven. Jesus was speaking of that which”

    How does the above comment reconcile Enoch and Ezekiel?

    Waiting to hear.

    Charles

  202. Charles D. said

    Hell-o Fruitcake:

    Thanks. I will be on and off between work and eating. After my comments this morning, I thought about two encounters I had with wicca. I was no where near grounded in the faith as I think I am today. One was a lawyer (would you believe it?) and the other was a university professor. Both encounters scared the daylights out of me and I didn’t stay around very long after learning. Talking about looking for love in all the wrong places? That was this personified.

    The one thing that I remember and was the commonality of both experiences, was the fact that neither attempted to conceal what they were or, what they believed in. I remember thinking I could get the prof fired from the university system. HGey! I did not want all of those students exposed to this souless person. Never once did I think about all of the protections under the law that are afforded to even those I do not think deserve such considerations. I learned that I could not get this person fired, but she found out about my efforts and I never heard from her since.

    I’m saying this in response to your telling me about different experiences you’ve had with people like our friend. You will never imagine where my mind went from there. I’m thinking that you might have been endangered because there are folks out there who are not so willing to let go as the witch was.

    Anyway, you are fine now, and I have learned a few things that I had not heretofore thought about in connection with our friend. BUT I bet you she is one of the kind that will not let go easily.

    Take care..speak with you more after Bar-B-Que feast.

    Chaz

  203. The two accounts you speak of have to go the same way everyone else does the scriptures teach we will be like the angels (Spiritual creatures) with the appearance of mankind(Math.22:30) Jesus was made a little lower than the angels but so much better(Which means he was a real human man given the spirit without measure(John 3:34)

  204. Charles, I forgot to add it is not that the burden Of proof is upon me but to those that
    disagree I gave passages for what is stated from scripture on the subject we cannot interject
    what our persoanl beliefs are or impose upon scripture that which is not there.

  205. Charles D. said

    Where we often get into trouble, or, left only holding onto our humanity is when we interject our personal “Roberts Rules of Order” into things of God. It appears that you might be willing to do that before you even read the scripture reference. You say:

    “proof is upon me but to those that disagree I gave passages for what is stated from scripture on the subject we cannot interject
    what our persoanl beliefs are or impose upon scripture that which is not there.”

    I say: Check Genesis 5:18-24 and Heb:11-5 and even Jude 14 regarding Enoch. Then check 2Kings:2-1 regarding Elijah which I meant in my original comments. Then you tell me if it’s scripture or my own interjection. Actually, there is no proof as far as God is concerned, it was a done deal even at the dawn of creation.

    You tell me what it says in connection with your comments whihc I captured the essence at post #213, except I meant Elijah.

    In His name,

    Charles

  206. Charles, How in the world does Jude 14 teach that we will recieve heaven in human bodies?
    Heb. has nothing either! 2nd. Kings 2:1 does not say we recieve such a thing either you
    interjected and imposed your tradition on scripture I gave passages that said we would be like
    the Angels! Enoch was for not for God tokk does not say what you have imposed. I am sorry
    Charles it is not there. I would be willing to look at a clear passage that says we will have
    fleshly bodies you have not provided one.

    Manuel

  207. I will tell you what it means!That they recieve heaven just like scripture says that being they will be like the angels as spiritual creatures not fleshly. Flesh and blood shall not receive the Kingdom That is your flesh crying out there Charles…..

    Manuel

  208. Charles D. said

    manuel culwell:

    Go back to your #208. read what you wrote. Then, read what you added to the scriptures, THEN, start over and look at the subsequent comments. You are unnecessarily confusing the issue. Is your doctrine the same?

    I don’t know what you meant to say, I only know what you said. Now! If you are unwilling to revisit what you have propogated and then review the entire thing; I think we’re done.

    Charles

  209. God cannot trust you with bigger things if cannot gaurd the small things. If you aretrying to
    protect a denomonation you never be blessed with truth of course there are those that think
    they already have it.

    Manuel

  210. Charles, don’t play Games,please point out the error you think you see?

  211. The only adding to the scriptures has been your submission.

  212. I think you have misunderstood something that was said i meant every word I wrote and am not changing it. I STAND BY IT! So now you need to point out my error.

  213. Charles D. said

    We’re done. By so doing we will save time, to say nothing of posting space. Incedently it was John, not me that asked you to curtail usage.

    Further response is unnecessary, certainly not desired.

    Charles

  214. Okay maybe you could send someone my way to debate seems I have never as yet in all the years of Discussion have been able to find a trinitarain willing to follow through and go all the way in defense of his doctrine.

    Thanks

    Manuel

  215. Diane said

    Manuel, I hope your discussion went well with the gentleman that didn’t believe in the New Testament. Besides our differences in our beliefs, do you believe people, who believe in Christ, but are of a different denomination than yours, are born again? That was a question I meant to ask Crimson and Jesusman, but I concluded before asking, so perhaps you could answer.

  216. Of course I believe folks of a differant persuasion can be born again But there is only one
    way to be born again and if it is not through Acts 2:38 then you cannot be born again. In
    other words You must believe to be born again but you must believe on him as the scriptures
    has said…. I will be glad to clrify further.

    Manuel

  217. Diane said

    So are you saying if someone is drawn to repentence by the Holy Spirit and calls on Jesus for the remission of sin, believes on Christ as Lord and Savior, and is baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, according to you, they would not be born again?

    Jesus calls our Heavenly Father “Father”, Jesus’ Name is “Emmanuel” Greek “Iesous”, Jesus calls the Holy Spirit “Holy Spirit” “Helper”…..

  218. Diane said

    Manuel,

    I don’t want to have a debate with you, but I would like to respond to your comments about John 17:5.

    Your belief is that the statement “O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” is speaking of Christ crucifixion.

    Jesus speaks of the crucifixion as a cup that He prays the Father will let pass.

    The “Glory” is being again WITH the Father at His Right Hand.
    After the crucifixion, comes the ascension and RETURN to the Father. Jesus prays we experience that relationship with the Father as well when He says “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.”

    You believe that passage meant crucifixion, I believe it meant being together, alongside at the Right Hand of God.

  219. Diane, that is what I am saying! You have to understand the Gospel and by reading your post you have no idea, you are simply repeating what you have heard from everyone else say and what you have said is not the truth.(It is partially and partially is not truth at all) How is it that you think you can exclude Acts 2;38 from the equation?

    When Peter preached the first message on the pentecost after the ressurection and then was asked men and brethern what must we do? Did he repeat what you did above?

    Do you understand that being baptized in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy Ghost is being baptized Jesus name? Do you understand that it is in order to obtain remission of sins and that you don’t get remission intially any other way? If not then we need to have a little talk about those things to se if they are so…

  220. Diane, How do you get on the Right hand of a God that is omni present? You cannot! Right hand
    all through scriptures is not a geographic area. It is a place of power and acceptance and it
    hand to do with power and acceptance of his humanity both of which were extended without
    limits to the son. Look at( Math. 25:31) Sheep go to Jesus right hand (Metaphor for acceptance)

    (Exodus 15:6-8,12-13 )Right hand of God dashed enemies to pieces by the blast of God’s Nostrils stood up the Red Sea. This was concerning the armies of Pharoa who came after Moses and His people But Nobody saw a right hand come from the sky nor did they see a big giant nose come from heaven Right hand is indicative of Power and acceptance all of which wa given to the son. (Matth. 28:18) all power in heaven and earth is given unto me.

    You can fight this all you like But we will all stand before God with the choices we have made make sure yours are the right ones and you are not hurting yourself because you don’t like the message I bring.

  221. Diane wrote:”you loved me before the foundation of the world”. He was also slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8)that is How God loved him from the foundation of the world he did not exist!

    Blessings!

    Manuel

  222. Crimson Wolf said

    Diane, The positioning of Christ means very little to an omnipresent God. If Christ WAS physically positioned at a spatial right hand of the Father all you would see anyway would be Christ.
    However the scriptures teach that Christ sits ON the throne…NOT beside of it. Let’s lay aside this western culturally influenced biblical mistranslation of “right hand of God” for just a moment. If God is invisible, as the scriptures plainly teach, and Christ is his image, which the scriptures plainly teach (Colossiansl 1:15), then what would we see when we beheld Father and Son? We would see Christ. When I get to Heaven I will see the throne of God and ONE sitting upon that throne. I will see Christ with the effervescent glory of the Father brilliantly illuminating from his person. Now should the invisible power of the Father be represented a bit to the spatial right I will probably never notice. I will be too busy falling on my face in eternal worship.

  223. Charles said

    Okay, today’s Monday, but, I still have few hours to go yet; so hold this thought: Looking through your physical “eyes” that you are now referring, then you would see nothing! Period! Looking through “spiritual eyes,” you cannot at this time describe what you will see (provided you make it to heaven)because the Bible does not provide the characteristics of the spiritual body in sufficient levels of detail to support your thesis.

    I’m baaaackkkk……..

    Charles

  224. Crimson Wolf said

    Excellent point, Charles.

    However the angels in Heaven have never seen God. ITim3:16 says that when God was manifest in the flesh “he was seen of angels”. There are no scriptures indicating they saw God before this manifestation. No one has ever seen God except through a theopahny (Old Testament) or the Son (New Testament).

    Charles….You didn’t come to my party….

  225. Charles said

    Okay Crimy, this time around, I will not allow you to throw up scripture references annotated with your own interpretation without actually providing the actual words of that scripture, so that everyone that happens upon your utterances; this will allow them to discount your cry from the wilderness without a heavy investment of time researching the un-researchable.

    Then, they might not want to kick you in the (you guessed it) for wasting their time. You said:

    “However the angels in Heaven have never seen God. ITim3:16 says that when God was manifest in the flesh “he was seen of angels”. There are no scriptures indicating they saw God before this manifestation. No one has ever seen God except through a theopahny (Old Testament) or the Son (New Testament).”

    In this instant matter, you state right off the bat that: “However the angels in Heaven have never seen God.” Here I think you completely disregard Job 2:1-2 [Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.] [And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.] Verse 7: [So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.]

    Furthermore, 1Timothy 3:16 does not read as you would have one to believe, but rather, (KJV) it reads thusly:

    16. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

    Oh! I didn’t make it to your party because I am allergic to poison and bad jokes, but mostly bad jokes.

    Charles

  226. Crimson Wolf said

    Charles,
    Hmmmm…some very good points…I think I likes it better when you were just calling me “donkey.”

    HOWEVER, you DID overlook one little important piece of information…
    ….I said ” There are no scriptures indicating they saw God before this manifestation. No one has ever seen God except through a theophany (Old Testament) or the Son (New Testament).”

    No one can see the Spirit og God HOWEVER God CAN reveal himself through an angelic theophany (Old Testament) or in the Son (New Testament). Notice in Job when they angels came before God there is no mention of “Three”.

    In I Tim 3:16 when it says God was manifest in the flesh WHY does it go on to say he WAS SEEN OF ANGELS ?!?

  227. Crimson Wolf said

    Charles, Why did the chicken cross the road?

  228. Crimson Wolf said

    To prove to Possums that it could be done.

  229. Crimson Wolf said

    NOW a very serious question:

    If God can do anything could he make a stone so big that he couldn’t move it?

  230. Go get em crimson, Arrrrrrgh!

  231. johnkaniecki said

    Crimson Wolf,

    Are you like into philosophy? Does it really matter what God could or couldn’t do. I know God can not lie because its against his very nature. Other than that God can pretty much do anything he feels like doing. I see auras of colors that don’t exist in this universe. Of course I’ve been in psychiatric hospitals eight times now.

    My question to you is “Could God make a Crimson Wolf who would ask questions that are relevant to life and the benefit of humanity?” If we don’t have a deep love for people we are not going to go very far. Over the past year how many homeless people have you fed. I can’t give you an exact number for myself but I know the answer is over twelve. That is one for each month. God just might take that rock to big to move and smack you right across the head with it. If the rock was too freaking big to move He could move the rest of the entire universe to simulate the rock’s movement.

    And if your the head of the donkey I got no problem being the tale whatsoever. You know why? Because if I was the tail I would have shitted all over long entry number 241 so nobody could read it.

    What is the purpose of the question?
    Do you want to hang with Plato and Buddha and think real deep. God’s message is a simple message. Eighty five percent could be summed up in Love thy neighbour. Read Galatians 5:14. The entire Law is summed up in a simple command, “Love your neighbour as yourself.”

    Why do we make something so simple so hard?

    I certainly hope you meant well by your rock question but somehow I doubt it. Yet still I extend an olive branch with a hand of love. A love that will love my enemies and turn the other cheek. Jesus loved you so much that he died on the cross for your sins. I was there on the cross when He died and it wasn’t a pleasant experience. Consider the fact that he could have stopped the process anytime he wanted to. Try to get a molar removed without any pain killer.

    Love,

    John

  232. You’re not loving your neighbor by not telling them the truth! Trinity is not the truth!

  233. Charles D. said

    Who said (and I’ll give you a hint) I am G___________ and I stand in the presence of God?

    Hey! I have one for you: In what way are you guys like Mormans? Because you come out in pairs (however, since you cannot count nearly as well as Mormans, they’re edjakated. You clowns come out in threes; Crimy, J-Man and Manny), you show up when nice folk least want to see you and you WILL steal doctrines thats not nailed down, without fear of a lawsuit. You rest up a little and try to double-team folks’ but I’m not complaining because that’s close to fair fighting. Bring on the dr.

    Thing is…. in 100 years, the Mormans will claim that they never denied minorities to positions of leadership within their cult (you 3 qualified for exemptions, though). You guys, in 100 years, will still be stuck in start, the good dr. will still be arranging a “televised” debate on MAD TV perhaps,(thats Canadian, right?), or at Cornfield University, and YOU 3 amigos will still be playing scratch and sniff and dumb as ever.

    Okay, pull this again and I will ignore you for a month and it will probably take you that long to figure out what just happened, however, I promise that there is no math invovled here.

    Now, GIT OUTTA HERE!!!!!!!

    I still love the 3 of ya and will still pray for you all. I see what your needs are now.

    Charles

  234. Charles D. said

    God bless you John. You have a good heart and willing attitude. Your Big Brother discerned something long ago about the little 3, plus 1. Hope you’ve notice that they come in one way and leave in severn ways. Just like in the OT. God is the same yesterday, today and forever!

    Love you,

    Charles

  235. charles, I wish you would bring an argument for your doctrine, I have not seen that ever from
    you as of yet! if I look at all of your posts nothing ever. Why is that Charles? I tried to have discussion you said end of discussion before we ever even got started Why? Is it because you really have nothing in the first place?

  236. Charles D. said

    the lil round-headed one says as he rub the wounds from blows that he had just received to his head and his :)blank🙂 whooping. Sorry, guys; Job doesn’t description anatomy parts. If he EVER lift that ban PPOOOOW!!!! right in the darned banned again.

    Bro John: Remember “seven ways?”

    Charles

  237. Charles you call that a blow? A blow would be an actual convincing argument to convince somebody accept for yourselves of whom you have been lying to for years that you are not a
    poltheist. Now that would be a blow.

  238. Charles D. said

    Manny. Be subjected, the three of you; you wicked little she hants. The three of you come on so high and mighty, if you don’t know my Lord, you better ask somebody!!

    “charles I wish” “I tried” “I look” “I have not seen!” Sounds familiar? I’m going to ascend – Get it now?

  239. I care not if I am banned i have my own debate group I have asked you fine folks to come and
    defend your doctrine which you have as usaul refused. The truth is charles of all the years I have had this debate group i have never ever had a trinitarian with a decent argument. I can be as mean and hardheaded as you and if you kick me off this little club of yours it menas absolutely nothing to me. it just figures! I am not going to stand for your snide remarks!

  240. Charles I know of your “lord” very well and it is not the Lord Jesus christ!

  241. That is all we hear from you Charles, is silly little quips but no bible ever! I am starting to think you don’t know the scriptures at all! would you like for me to count up all the times you Said I on this little club of yours? Don’t be petty charles give some actuall meat to back up those snide quips that mena absolutely nothing.

  242. Charles D. said

    Thats it! We’re done! Beating on people can be a felony on my town, idiots not withstanding. When you fail to come to the rescue of your good old dr. then, stick a fork in him, he’s done.

    Please do not expect to to read, respond or otherwise acknowledge you or your twins. We’re done.

  243. rescue what dr? I don’t knoiw ant doctor! good let it be known you could not defend your doctrine but only make quips of no account.

  244. Jesusman said

    “televised” debate on MAD TV perhaps,(thats Canadian, right?), or at Cornfield University, and YOU 3 amigos will still be playing scratch and sniff and dumb as ever.”—-Charles

    Wow. I can’t seem to find the professed “love” spoken about in this little rant. Charles, I believe your ideas about the nature of God are in error, and I have stated my position as such, but I have never and will never resort to such comments against you or your “amigos” personally. This is totally beyond the pale. It’s hard to believe this is the same person who responded to my defense of my Pastor at the beginning. Are you okay? I will pray for you.

    Johnkaniecki,
    I knew it wouldn’t be long before the trinitarians resorted to profanity. Charles has been flirting with it for a while, and you just couldn’t help yourself, could you? I thought this was a Christian site. Oh yeah, you’ve been in a mental institution several times. Thanks be to God that you were able to be released, but, if you honestly believe you were there when Jesus was crucified, I think it’s time for you to go back for further treatment. I will pray for you also.(harder)

    And to think I actually believed I was having a civil discussion with people in their right mind. Lord, help them, please.

  245. Diane said

    Crimson, out of all we discussed, it all comes down to the worship of our Lord. To your last statement in post #234, I say Hallelujah.

    Manuel, the Lord gave us commands and said that if we love Him we would keep them. The Holy Spirit will bare witness to Christ, not to a debase desire to belittle others. I don’t have any desire to enter a discussion with anyone who is not willing to renounce those tendencies, though they are deceitfully masked as “love”. I will respond to your comments, state my beliefs and end our discussion.

    Manuel, you stated
    “you have NO idea (what the Gospel is)” Jesus would take issue with you here. God knows how much I know and don’t know about His salvation.

    “you are simply repeating what you have heard from everyone else say” Will you please give the names of the people who taught me what I know. I know you’re not omniscient, but you don’t seem to realize that you don’t KNOW how I came to these conclusions.

    “what you have said is not the truth”
    “it is partially and partially is not truth at all”
    Do you have complete truth? Or is your knowledge partial and incomplete?

    “How is it that you think you can exclude Acts 2:38”
    Manuel you’re wording your question with an accusation. You are not able to judge intents and motives from my prior comment to you.

    1 Cor 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one?

    Salvation is through Christ not the methods of water baptism.

    All authority has been given to Me in Heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

  246. Jesusman said

    All authority has been given to Me in Heaven and on earth.(I guess God the Father no longer has any authority since He gave it all to Jesus) Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name(singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit(which we believe is the Name “Jesus”), teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

    Did Peter contradict Jesus’ command in Acts 2:38?

  247. Diane said

    Hello Jesusman,

    Your first statement “I guess God the Father no longer has any authority since He gave it all to Jesus”. To clear up some confusion, didn’t you state your belief that people shouldn’t place parentheses in the middle of scripture; and I don’t understand why you’re stating “I guess God the Father no longer has any authority since He gave it all to Jesus” These are the Words of Christ – maybe you could clarify this.

    The Name (singular) of the Father….

    What are the Names (plural) of the Father??
    Jehovah, Elohim….
    Jesus called Him Father. I call Him Father.
    Do you baptize in the Name of the Father?

    and of the Son….
    What is/are the Name/Names of the Son?
    Yeshuah, Emmanuel, Iesous
    Do you baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son?

    and of the Holy Spirit…
    What is/are the Name/Names of the Holy Spirit
    Jesus calls Him the Holy Spirit, Comforter, Helper, Spirit of Truth…

    Do you baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?

    The way that Peter baptized is fine but other gospel MINISTERS who follow Matt 28:19-20 are in obedience to Christ as well.

  248. Diane, I made my judgement Based on what you said and by what is said from scripture. Jesusman
    asked the question “did Peter contradict the Lord or was he doing what the Lord Told him to
    do”? I have no quarell with you ! I think you have honest and sincere questions to what you see
    from scripture but there are things that are hard to understand without proper teaching.

    And that repentance and remission of sins be preached in my name among all nations beggining
    at Jerusalem.(Luke 24:47)The fulfilment of this was in (Acts 2:38) This is Lukes account of
    the great commission of Lords own words. The message was first preached in Jerusalem on the
    first pentecost after the ressurection.

    Blessings

    Manuel,

  249. Crimson Wolf said

    Manuel, The Dr. that Charles is talking about is Dr. Ward (see posts # 37, #47, and # 75 ). Dr. Ward has a Doctorate of Divinity in religious academia and in the secular world he holds a doctorate in Psychology. He worked as a Psychotherapist at several Mental Health centers and a drug rehab in Ohio. He has taught at three or four different colleges. The slur about “Cornfield University” stems from Dr. Ward challenging anyone to a televised or colligate debate and Charles responded with a comment that indicated he felt too inferior to do this. However, I believe the challenge was not to Charles but to Job who, when he discovered Dr. Ward’s educational background, put his tail between his legs, ran, and no one has heard from him since. If you read the beginning of this blog you will find out this whole thing is about Dr. Ward. He was attacked as a “Liar”, “heretic”, Deceiver”, etc. Those of us who have had the honor of sitting under his ministry are coming to his defense. Since he was widely known as an evangelist and now as a Church historian you can expect our “three” to expand to many more as Dr. Wards name comes up in Google searches as a “Liar.”
    Manuel, Please continue to wisely weigh your words. Do not resort to name calling as has our adversaries have. Stick to the scripture. By their fruits ye shall know them.

  250. Crimson Wolf said

    John,
    In response to your post#243.
    In post # 237 Charles slurs about my light hearted attempts to slow down the venomous name calling. He called them Jokes.
    So in post # 239, # 240, and # 241 I responded with REAL jokes to light heartedly oblige him. However, #241 was more of a riddle on the serious side. I was using the “jokes” and “humor” to get him in a conversation about God’s consistency. ie, Can God make a stone so big that he can’t move it? The answer is “No.” God cannot do ALL things. The scriptures say God CAN NOT LIE. God can NOT go against his own law. God is consistant. God has put the universe in motion in such a way as he can move it all, therefore he cannot make anything imoveable for him, because that would break his own law.( This riddle demonstrates the very simplicity you long for.) Next I would have asked Charles if God Knows EVERYTHING. My answer again would have been “No”. God said in his word “Is there a God beside me, no, I KNOW NOT ANY!”

    And John, This gospel is simple enough for the most uneducated ploughboy to understand and yet complex enough to keep the wisest philosopher busy. If some want to keep it simple that is acceptable. If others wish to dig deep into the depths then that too is acceptable. When Newton wanted to know MORE about the construct of the universe, the Roman Church threatened to imprison or even to execute him for not sticking to their “simplicity”. I am so glad he continued to dig deeper for understanding or we would ALL still be stuck in the dark ages. Newton utilized the scriptures as well as rational thought and we are all the better for it. So let those who wish for simplicity have it. Let those who enjoy digging into the depths of scripture do it. Don’t become upset because everyone does not do it your way. God made us all different and we should celebrate that fact.

  251. Crimson Wolf said

    He called us “Three Amigo’s”.

    Maybe we are a Trinity after all.

  252. Crimson Wolf said

    Chucky’s back!

  253. Thanks for the information! Does Dr.Ward have any debates? Are you Independent? Tell me a
    little more about Dr. Ward?

    Blessings!

    Manuel

  254. Crimson Wolf said

    Dr. Ward was well known as an evangelist during the 70’s through the 90’s. He is now Pastoring two Churches in Ohio. I understand he still does some evangelizing. He was educated in the field of Mental Health and worked for some time as a Psychotherapist. Right now he has everyone in a stir over the unbroken lineage of the Apostolic Church.

  255. Crimson Wolf said

    The first instance of a reference to the Christian Godhead as three entities was by Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180 CE) who used the term trias. The term was used where he spoke of the trias of God, His Word and His Wisdom (Theophilus to Autolycus). The next instance of the use of a similar term is by Tertullian (De Pud, c. xxi, P. G., II, 1026). Tertullian was the first to directly assert the essential unity of the three ‘persons’, but his logic and arguments are essentially subordinationist (see Schaff History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, p. 570). Most early references to the “persons” of the Godhead can be quite confusing because the word “person” (persona) properly translated is “mask” so that referring to the “persons” of the Godhead is actually referring to the “masks” or modes of the Godhead. The nearest equivalent to the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity did not occur until proposed by the Roman Bishop Dionysius (CE 262) who was a Greek by birth. His concern was to eliminate the process of reducing the three entities to separate Gods (Schaff, ibid.).
    The assertion that God is an entity comprising two beings and a persona as a spirit or power which emanates from one or both is a later fourth, fifth and sixth century Trinitarian assertion. The assertion was made in modification of an original trias (above) abandoned as inadequate. Both the triune cosmology and the Trinity as it is now understood are biblically unsound.

  256. johnkaniecki said

    Hello All,

    Let me wish all of you a pleasant holiday season. Sorry if what I said was thought to be profanity it was not in my opinion.

    Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ. I take this quite literally. Look at Romans 6 in particular verse 5. I have participated in the death and ressurection of Jesus.

    Wolf, Thanks for the words. Its hard to get the flow of interaction. Yeah the gospel is very deep and I like to explore its depths too. Sorry if I offended you.

    Love,

    John

  257. johnkaniecki said

    Greetings,

    Now that I dropped my wife off at work let me expound on my thoughts.

    God is outside of time. The scripture doesn’t say this but it seems that an all powerful God isn’t bound by the rules of this universe as exhibited by Jesus walking on water and multiplying the loaves.

    What does Paul mean in Galatians 2:20. He is talking about his conversion I believe. This leads directly to Romans 6. I take these things literal not that I was physically up on that tree but I was there in spirit.

    When somebody cheers somebody on to “Go get em” I think the discussion has digressed into something less then a discussion. I hold my beliefs in Jesus and God above anything else in all my life. One should never joke with about Nazis to a person who’s family died in the holocaust.

    I am sorry if I have offended or insulted anyone as it was not my intent or purpose. I only seek a deeper understanding of God.

    More to come.

    Please pray for me as I do a career change.

    Love,

    John

  258. Eden Hadassah said

    John,
    I will be praying for you and your career change.
    I have been watching this thread for sometime now and the merry go round is the proper word for this type of talk. It goes no where. One of the hardest things for gnostic christians to understand is that bible knowledge doesn’t constitute knowing or even understanding the beauty of the Lord. This is clear by their words and how they constantly blaspheme God. Yet they do not see it, nor do they praise him. They just talk about him. There is a huge difference. They have given no glory to the Lord, just to themselves for their “knowledge.” Gnostic christians to be sure.

    Be blessed John.
    Love
    Eden

  259. Crimson Wolf said

    John, I was nor offended. I have suffered much worse offenses.

    Eden, It was quite humble of you to acknowledge that you and your friends do not fully understand the beauty of the Lord (Gnosticism was the root of the Trinity doctrine so I assume you were speaking of yourselves?)

    Shalom

  260. Job said

    Eden Hadassah:

    This is off topic, but I have two Messianic Jewish audio sermons up. They are lengthy (one is 100 minutes and another is 30 minutes) but when you get a chance, please let me know what you think. Of course, all others, including oneness folks, are welcome to listen and comment as well.

    https://healtheland.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/messianic-judaism-when-was-jesus-christ-born/
    https://healtheland.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/messianic-jewish-perspective-on-armageddon/

  261. Job said

    Crimson Wolf:

    According to my Rose Book Of Bible Charts and Timelines (page 181) the first reference to Trinity was made in 90 AD by bishop Clement of Rome. John the Baptist was still alive then (as the most common dates of Revelation was 95 AD) and the Book of Hebrews was not written until around 115 AD, so it is impossible to claim that the church had fallen into gnostic apostasy by then. Also, Irenaeus and Tertullian thoroughly hated Greek pagan philosophy, so it is impossible to claim that their Trinitarian references were in any way influenced by Gnosticism, Aristotelianism, or Platonism. At some point you have to acknowledge that ALL of the oneness people were declared heretics by the early church, and that includes not just the forerunners to the modern oneness pentecostals but also the Arians, adoptionists, Ebionites, Marcionites, docetists, etc. The only Trinitarians that were declared to be heretics were the Montanists, although I do acknowledge that the Origenists should have been.

    The primary reason why the early church rejected oneness was because of what they called patripassionism. The early church refused to accept the notion that God the Father died on the cross. By the way, if anything, the explanations for how God the Father and God the Son are one and the same but only appear as another in modes of existence or relationships: THAT has more to do with Platonic philosophy and gnosticism than Trinitarianism does. Quite frankly, there is nothing in the Bible, the Old Testament or the New Testament, that would support it. As a matter of fact, it is not even part of the Oriental (Near Eastern) mindset. Describing the godhead in terms of modes and relationships is entirely western, and especially Greek philosophical, in terms of its thought. It is near eastern thought that is basically cut and dried, but western thought that takes all of these leaps and speculations. So, it takes a western mindset to come up with stuff like modes of existence to explain how God the Father spoke from heaven while God the Son was being baptized, or how God the Father in heaven turned His Face away from the Son dying on the cross, or how God the Son was presented to God the Father 1) in Daniel’s vision and 2) after His resurrection. It is western thought that uses allegory and word games to explain, contrive, or dismiss such glaring logical contradictions. Trinity was created to try to EXPLAIN why it was not the Father who died on the cross, or how the Father could be in Heaven while the Son was on earth, or How the Son could sit on the Father’s right hand, or how the Son prayed to one another, using the direct evidence of the Bible.

    Incidentally, the story keeps shifting anyway. First the whole notion was that the Roman Catholic Church invented Trinity at Nicea. Now that it has been demonstrated that 1) the first oneness folk were kicked out of the church almost 70 years prior and 2) the Nicea thing was not about oneness versus trinity but rather trinity versus people who were basically an early form of Mormonism and 3) Constantine and the Roman Church itself later rejected Trinity and began to persecute the Trinitarians you have to come up with another line of thinking. So now the notion is that Trinity was created by gnostics. Except that Dan Brown, the Da Vinci Code fellow, is a gnostic, and so is Elaine Pagels, the most prominent theologian at Harvard University. They also reject Trinity (regarding Jesus Christ as a mere man) and claim that the Roman Catholic Church created Trinity at Nicea.

    Incidentally, have you guys ever actually STUDIED gnosticism? Gnosticism does not teach Trinity. Gnosticism is actually a oneness belief. The god of gnosticism is “the one.” Jesus Christ was not part of the gnostic deity, but an emanation from it. Some oneness pentecostal preachers are the ones that teach that Jesus Christ was an emanation. Others teach that the Holy Spirit is an emanation from the God the Father AND God the Son (which again would contradict the events of His baptism). What Trinity does is attempt to reconcile the spatial and temporal separateness of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit that the Bible clearly contains with what is stated in Deuteronomy 6:4. Oneness people either claim that the spatial and temporal separateness A) does not exist or B) can be explained using speech forms and thought processes that exist nowhere in scripture and is not supported by scripture.

    Again, the Bible says regarding Jesus Christ “I and the Father are one.” It does not say “I and the Father are the same.” Further, the scripture says “No one has seen the Father at any time.” Further still, Jesus Christ did not say “I am the Father, come to Me.” He said “No one comes to the Father except THROUGH me.” Christ said “I return to my Father”, not “I return to BEING my Father.” Sorry, but the Bible evidence does not support oneness. The only way that you can support oneness is by claiming that the Bible means something different from what it says.

  262. Eden Hadassah said

    Sorry my puppy, but I was LITERALLY refering to the word “gnostic”, you didn’t get that?
    So many literal and figurative things in this world, which is which?
    I am sure that you understand what the word gnostic means…

    oh, and gnostics didn’t believe in “the trinity.” They believed in “oneness.”
    Throughout the centries, gnostics “morph” in thought and belief so they can’t be “pegged” to any one movement, but it always boils down to “knowledge of oneness” AND “divine revelation.”

    It’s ok though, you, Jesusman, Manuel and the good Dr. have shown everyone in this thread what is really important to you.
    No one will go “doctrine to doctrine” with you guys because it is fruitless. What has happened in this thread is exactly why people like many us don’t go searching for “debate.” Manuel brought up a good point about how he has invited people like us to his site for debate, but no one comes. It has nothing at all to do with not having “scriptures” to back up some doctrinal belief, it has to do with the reverance and sensitivity of many of our hearts towards God himself. As I have said before, He is not simply a topic or subject up for debate…He is God.

  263. Eden Hadassah said

    JOB…my friend!
    Hi…
    I will listen to the audio’s this afternoon. Thank you.

  264. Job said

    Eden Hadassah:

    oh, and gnostics didn’t believe in “the trinity.” They believed in “oneness.”

    Can you believe that you and I were typing the exact same thing at the exact same time? Scary🙂

  265. Eden Hadassah said

    I think that’s being “one” in the spirit!
    It’s beautiful.

  266. Crimson Wolf said

    Ha, Ha, so I have brought Job out into the opening!
    Thought you caught me in an historical error, didn’t you?
    What is not widely known is that Gnostics had a form of the Trinity LONG before there was Christianity.

    “Now it is important to recognize that this earliest Christian use of the term “trinity” identifies the three as “God”, obviously the Father; “His Word” obviously the Son, and “Wisdom” obviously the Holy Spirit. This apparent identification of the Holy Spirit with a personification of Wisdom is very significant.

    “Wisdom” is grammatically feminine in Hebrew and Aramaic (as is Holy Spirit). “Wisdom” is personified as “she” throughout Proverbs 8. “Wisdom” is also one of the members of the Kabbalistic trinity. “Wisdom” (Sophia) was a title of the Heavenly Mother or Holy Spirit in the Gnostic trinity. And finally, Philo identifies “Wisdom” as the “Mother of the Word.” ” Dr. James Trimm

  267. Crimson Wolf said

    Ha, Ha, so I have brought Job out into the opening!
    Thought you caught me in an historical error, didn’t you?
    What is not widely known is that Gnostics had a form of the Trinity LONG before there was Christianity.

    “Now it is important to recognize that this earliest Christian use of the term “trinity” identifies the three as “God”, obviously the Father; “His Word” obviously the Son, and “Wisdom” obviously the Holy Spirit. This apparent identification of the Holy Spirit with a personification of Wisdom is very significant.

    “Wisdom” is grammatically feminine in Hebrew and Aramaic (as is Holy Spirit). “Wisdom” is personified as “she” throughout Proverbs 8. “Wisdom” is also one of the members of the Kabbalistic trinity. “Wisdom” (Sophia) was a title of the Heavenly Mother or Holy Spirit in the Gnostic trinity. And finally, Philo identifies “Wisdom” as the “Mother of the Word.” ” Dr. James Trimm

  268. Crimson Wolf said

    Job, If the Trinity was such an essential doctrine why was it not plainly taught in the scriptures reather then being :hinted at” as Trinitarians claim?

  269. Eden Hadassah said

    By your standards then, my dear sweet pup, then I guess you have made your gnostic beliefs very clear! Literally.😉
    Here is a great link just for you.🙂

    http://www.pfrs.org/oneness/op06.html

  270. Jesusman said

    Job, John the Baptist was dead before Jesus, not still alive in 90AD. It says“I and the Father are one.” It does not say “I and the Father are the same.”(Okay?) Further, the scripture says “No one has seen the Father(God, actually) at any time.” Further still, Jesus Christ did not say “I am the Father, come to Me.” He said “No one comes to the Father except THROUGH me.” Christ said “I return to my Father”, not “I return to BEING my Father.””

    The Bible also says “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” and “In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” and “The Father who dwelleth in me, He doeth the works.” and “His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting FATHER, the Prince of Peace” The Father is not the Son.(yes, it’s the millionth time)The Father dwells in the Son. You’ll have a real trinity when you can give me the answer to this question. “Infinity divided by 3=???????”

  271. Jesusman said

    Eden, Gnostics believe the Bible should be read as allegory. You accuse someone of being a gnostic, then you send them to a link where it tells us a certain “proof text” for Oneness should be read as allegory to make it trinitarian. Nice.

    How about a

  272. Jesusman said

  273. Jesusman said

    Hopefully this link will work. Trinitarian scholars admitting trinity doctrine isn’t scriptural.

  274. Jesusman said

    When I see Jesus, I see the Father. What do you see? (Check John 14:9 before you answer)

    Trinity proven false.

  275. Crimson Wolf said

    CAPTIONED WORDS ARE CRIMSON WOLF…….
    Uncaptioned words are Job…….

    “According to my Rose Book Of Bible Charts and Timelines (page 181) the first reference to Trinity was made in 90 AD by bishop Clement of Rome. ”

    HAVE YOU NOTICED YOU HAVE TO CONTINUALLY GO OUTSIDE OF THE SCRIPTURES IN ORDER TO FIND SUPPORT FOR THE TRINITY? THIS WHOLE BLOG BEGAN WITH YOU CLAIMING THE “HAIL, GLADDENING LIGHT SONG” WAS THE “BEST” PROOF FOR THE TRINITY THAT YOU COULD CONJURE UP.
    AT ANY RATE LET US NOT MISQUOTE CLEMENT WHO SAID “DO WE NOT ALL HAVE ONE GOD AND ONE CHRIST? IS THERE NOT ONE SPIRIT OF GRACE POURED OUT UPON US? (CLEMENT OF ROME, C. 96, W, 1.17)
    THIS IS A FAR CRY FROM THE TRINITY. IF YOU WANT TO CALL “ALL HAVE ONE GOD AND ONE CHRIST” A TWOSOME THEN THE NESTORIANS WERE RIGHT ABOUT THE TWO NATURES OF JESUS BECAUSE PETER SAID JESUS WAS “LORD AND CHRIST.” HE IS ONE GOD, ONE CHRIST, ONE LORD, ETC.
    CLEMENT WAS NOT TRINITARIAN.

    “Also, Irenaeus and Tertullian thoroughly hated Greek pagan philosophy, so it is impossible to claim that their Trinitarian references were in any way influenced by Gnosticism, Aristotelianism, or Platonism. ”

    HAVE YOU EVER READ IRENAUS AND TURTULLIAN? IF EVER HERETICS WALKED THIS EARTH IT WAS CERTAINLY THIS BUNCH.
    BELOW YOU CONDEMN MONTANISTS AS HERETICS AND YET IT IS HISTORICALLY VERIFIABLE THAT TURTULLIAN WAS A MONTANIST!!!!!!!!!!!
    IN ANOTHER POST YOU MENTION TURTULLIAN WAS ONE OF YOUR FAVORITE CHURCH FATHERS. NOW WAS TURTULLIAN A HERETIC OR WAS HE NOT? YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!
    ONCE AGAIN YOU PROVE YOU ARE A SHODDY HISTORIAN.

    “At some point you have to acknowledge that ALL of the oneness people were declared heretics by the early church, and that includes not just the forerunners to the modern oneness pentecostals but also the Arians, adoptionists, Ebionites, Marcionites, docetists, etc. The only Trinitarians that were declared to be heretics were the Montanists, although I do acknowledge that the Origenists should have been.”

    YOU NEED TO DIG A LITTLE DEEPER INTO HISTORY. THE EARLY POST BIBLICAL CHURCH WAS PREDOMINANTLY ONENESS BUT CHANGED DOCTRINAL POSITION IN ORDER TO COMBAT ARIANISM.

    “The primary reason why the early church rejected oneness was because of what they called patripassionism. The early church refused to accept the notion that God the Father died on the cross. By the way, if anything, the explanations for how God the Father and God the Son are one and the same but only appear as another in modes of existence or relationships: THAT has more to do with Platonic philosophy and gnosticism than Trinitarianism does. Quite frankly, there is nothing in the Bible, the Old Testament or the New Testament, that would support it. ”

    TRUE ONENESS DO NOT TEACH “MODALISM” AS DESCRIBED IN THE HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. MODALISM (AS DESCRIBED BY THE R.C.) WAS DISPENSATIONAL MANIFESTATIONS OF GOD. HE WAS FATHER IN THE O.T., SON IN THE N.T., & HOLY GHOST IN THE PRESENT AND IN THE END THESE MODES WILL CEASE TO EXIST. ONENESS TEACH NO SUCH THING (IT IS QUESTIONABLE THAT SABELLIANS EVER TAUGHT SUCH A DOCTRINE. ALL HIS WRITINGS WERE BURNED AND AL WE HAVE TODAY ARE QUOTES FROM THE ROMAN CATHOLICS , THE SAME GROUP THAT RECENTLY WAS EXPOSED FOR LYING ON THE TEMPLARS SAYING THEY WORSHIPPED THE DEVIL, SO THEY COULD EXECUTE THEM)

    “As a matter of fact, it is not even part of the Oriental (Near Eastern) mindset. Describing the godhead in terms of modes and relationships is entirely western, and especially Greek philosophical, in terms of its thought. It is near eastern thought that is basically cut and dried, ”

    JOB, I KNOW YOU ARE SMARTER THEN TO MAKE SUCH AN ABSURD STATEMENT!
    WHILE WE BLAME HINDUISM FOR MULTIPLE GODS , THEY RECOGNIZE AVATARS WHICH ARE THE MANIFESTATION OF BRAHMA. IN EGYPT HORUS AND OSIRIUS WAS THE SAME GOD. PHILO TAUGHT MANIFESTATIONS OF GOD. THIS, MY FRIEND, IS WHY YOU FIND NO IN DEPTH TEACHING ON THE GODHEAD IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. THEY WERE ALREADY AWARE OF MANIFESTATIONS OF GOD. THIS BIT OF TRUTH LEAKED THROUGH FROM THE MIX OF PAGANISM AND TRUTH THAT ORIGINATED FROM THE TOWER OF BABAL.

    “but western thought that takes all of these leaps and speculations.”

    INDEED THE WESTERN MIND HAD TO TAKE LEAPS AND SPECULATIONS…THEY INVENTED THE TRINITY!!!!!!!!
    (HOW DID YOU EVER WALK INTO THAT ONE?)

    ONE SPECULATION WAS TO GO BACK TO BABYLON, IGNORE ANY TRUTH THAT MAY HAVE EXISTED THERE (SUCH AS THE DOCTRINE OF THE IMMORTAL SOUL, EXISTENCE OF A GOD, AN AFTERLIFE, REWARD AND PUNISHMENT IN THE AFTERLIFE, PRAYER, MANIFESTATIONS OF GOD, ETC.) AND CHOSE INSTEAD THE GLARING PREDOMINANT PAGAN ERRORS . ONE SUCH ERROR WAS THE TRINITY OF BRAHMA, SHIVA, AND VISHNU.
    SHOULD YOU WISH TO DEBATE ME ON EASTERN RELIGIONS I HAVE ALL THE MAJOR SCRIPTURES OF HINDUISM, BUDDHISM, MUSLIM, ETC. AND CAN QUOTE WHATEVER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR.

    “So, it takes a western mindset to come up with stuff like modes of existence to explain how God the Father spoke from heaven while God the Son was being baptized, or how God the Father in heaven turned His Face away from the Son dying on the cross, or how God the Son was presented to God the Father 1) in Daniel’s vision and 2) after His resurrection. It is western thought that uses allegory and word games to explain, contrive, or dismiss such glaring logical contradictions. ”

    YEP. TRINITY WAS INVENTED BY THE WESTERN MINDSET.
    DOES YOUR FOOT TASTE GOOD?

    “Trinity was created ”

    AHHHHHHH, JOB….AT LAST YOU AGREE WITH ME…THE TRINITY WAS CREATED !!!!!!!!!!!

    “to try to EXPLAIN why”

    YESS…YES…YES…IT WAS CREATED BY MAN TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING MAN COULD NOT UNDERSTAND DOCTRINALLY!!!!
    MY, JOB, WHAT A GREAT ONENESS WRITER YOU WOULD MAKE!!!

    “it was not the Father who died on the cross, or how the Father could be in Heaven while the Son was on earth, or How the Son could sit on the Father’s right hand, or how the Son prayed to one another, using the direct evidence of the Bible. ”

    IN OTHER WORDS THEY COULDN’T UNDERSTAND THE GODHEAD SO THEY CREATED THE TRINITY TO EXPLAIN IT. i’LL GO WITH THAT!!!

    “Incidentally, the story keeps shifting anyway. First the whole notion was that the Roman Catholic Church invented Trinity at Nicea.”

    DIDN’T YOU JUST SAY THEY CREATED THE TRINITY?

    “Now that it has been demonstrated that 1) the first oneness folk were kicked out of the church almost 70 years prior ”

    THE EARLY PROTOTYPES TO THE TRINITY WERE DEVISED BEFORE NICEA TO COMBAT ARIANISM. THE TRINITY PROPER WAS FORMULATED IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. aCTUALLY IT WASN’T EVEN COMPLETED AT NICEA BUT WAS JUST STARTING TO GEL DURING THAT COUNCIL.

    “and 2) the Nicea thing was not about oneness versus trinity but rather trinity versus people who were basically an early form of Mormonism”

    JOB…ARE YOU TAKING YOUR MEDICATIONS?
    ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT “MORMONISM” AS IN JOSEPH SMITH AND HIS 12 FOOT TALL GOD AND THE OTHER PLANETS ALL GOOD MORMONS WILL ONE DAY RULE ON AS A GOD?

    “and 3) Constantine and the Roman Church itself later rejected Trinity and began to persecute the Trinitarians you have to come up with another line of thinking.”

    ?????WHAT??????

    “So now the notion is that Trinity was created by gnostics. Except that Dan Brown, the Da Vinci Code fellow, is a gnostic, and so is Elaine Pagels, the most prominent theologian at Harvard University. They also reject Trinity (regarding Jesus Christ as a mere man) and claim that the Roman Catholic Church created Trinity at Nicea.”

    GNOSTICS REGARD JESUS AS A “MERE MAN” YOU SAY?
    HOW, PRAY TELL, IS THAT ONENESS?

    “Incidentally, have you guys ever actually STUDIED gnosticism? Gnosticism does not teach Trinity. Gnosticism is actually a oneness belief. The god of gnosticism is “the one.” Jesus Christ was not part of the gnostic deity, but an emanation from it. ”

    AND SO ARE YOU, AND SO AM I, ECT,. THAT SI THERE TEACHING. THEY DO NOT TEACH THE REVELATION OF A SINGULAR “GOD IN CHRIST THE HOPE OF GLORY.”

    “Some oneness pentecostal preachers are the ones that teach that Jesus Christ was an emanation. Others teach that the Holy Spirit is an emanation from the God the Father AND God the Son (which again would contradict the events of His baptism). What Trinity does is attempt to reconcile the spatial and temporal separateness of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit that the Bible clearly contains with what is stated in Deuteronomy 6:4. Oneness people either claim that the spatial and temporal separateness A) does not exist or B) can be explained using speech forms and thought processes that exist nowhere in scripture and is not supported by scripture. ”

    JOB, I DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. EVIDENTLY YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT ONENESS REALLY BELIEVE OR TEACH. IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH YOU ARE CONFUSING US WITH THE JESUS ONLY.

    “Again, the Bible says regarding Jesus Christ “I and the Father are one.” It does not say “I and the Father are the same.”

    “WHEN YOU HAVE SEEN ME YOU HAVE SEEN THE FATHER (NOT ONE LIKE HIM, NOT A SPLITTING IMAGE OF HIM, BUT YOU HAVE SEEN THE FATHER).

    “Further, the scripture says “No one has seen the Father at any time.”

    OH? WAHT DID JESUS SAY IN THE ABOVE VERSE?
    I AGREE NO MAN HAS SEEN THE FATHER, THE SPIRIT, EXCEPT THROUGH CHRIST JESUS!!!!!!

    “Further still, Jesus Christ did not say “I am the Father, come to Me.” He said “No one comes to the Father except THROUGH me.” Christ said “I return to my Father”, not “I return to BEING my Father.” Sorry, but the Bible evidence does not support oneness. The only way that you can support oneness is by claiming that the Bible means something different from what it says.”

    ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE TALKING JESUS ONLY.

    JOB, YOU ARE A VERY INTELLIGENT MAN BUT YOU HAVE RUSHED INTO YOUR CRUSADE AGAINST ONENESS WITHOUT REALLY BOTHERING TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY REALLY BELIEVE.

    BTW, WHILE I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION, I DO NOT THINK IT WAS KOSHER TO CALL DR. WARD A LIAR AND DECEIVER BUT TO EACH HIS OWN.

    HAVE A GOOD DAY.
    i LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU. 😉

  276. Crimson Wolf said

    Job, you have anylized and disected our doctrine on the Godhead.

    Now YOU expalin the Trinity.

    Do not reference Oneness doctrine or try to refute it just EXPLAIN the Godhead of the Trinity.

    Got ta go now!

  277. Crimson Wolf said

    Forgive typo’s..in a hurry…I MEANT:

    Job, you have analyzed and dissected our doctrine on the Godhead.

    Now YOU explain the Trinity.

    Do not reference Oneness doctrine or try to refute it just EXPLAIN the Godhead of the Trinity.

    Got ta go now!

  278. Eden Hadassah said

    Ya still not gettin it huh?🙂

    there is no accusation Jesusman…again, observation…observation. Touchy, touchy. You like that word accuse don’t you? Where does the word “gnostic” come from? Can you please give me the translation of the word?
    What does the WORD LITERALLY MEAN?
    It means “knowledge” doesn’t it?

  279. Jesusman said

    No, “gnosis” means knowledge.

  280. Jesusman said

    When I see Jesus, I see the Father. What do you see?

  281. Eden Hadassah said

    Thats funny, but you understood what I was talking about didn’t you! Yes, gnosis means knowledge.

    Jesusman, our Lord hasn’t returned yet, and personally I have never seen him face to face, so I can not tell you that I have seen Jesus. I have never seen you either, but according to scripture on your terms, if I saw you would you be your mother or your father…taken from the scriptures that says,”The two shall become one flesh.” So who shall I refer to you as? Your father or your mother? They became one flesh, but I am sure that they don’t walk around like that. There are many things with in the scriptures that I do not take for granted. One is that God deserves full honor and glory as does His Son who gave me eternal life and allowed me to reconciled back to His Father, AND, also to give honor to His Holy Spirit who guides me in all truth. I also honor them because at no time, past, present and future, do they ever do anything that is contrary or against each other, because they are united.
    Pagan gods do not, nor will they ever carry this quality, and it is unique to the Hebrew bible and the New Testament.

  282. Jesusman said

    I never claimed to be “one” with either of my parents. I never said you’d see anybody but me if you saw me. But Jesus said something quite different, and answering a disciple’s question to “Show us the Father”, no less. When you see me, you don’t see my wife. My wife does not dwell in me nor does she do my works(though she probably should, more would get done). That’s the difference between “one flesh” and “One God”.
    When I see Jesus, I will see the Father. Who will you see?

  283. yeah I caught that also! Job said: “John the baptist was still alive in 90 A.D.” No John the
    Baptist was not alive 90 A.D. But if you are speaking about John the Revelator who wrote
    John’s gospel and the Epistles he may not have been alive then there some scholars who believe
    all the books(John’s anyhow) were written just before 70 A.D. I understand people make
    mistakes Job but you have been writing articles on Oneness Folk like you are some great
    authority on the matter. friend you need to get your facts somewhat straight.

    Now you gave a passage on Col.2:9 and submitted we (Oneness) believe “Jesus is the father.”
    That is not entirely true, for when the son died, the father did not die. Jesus did say this
    however: the father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works(John 14:10) Sounds pretty close to
    Col. 2:9 does’nt it? For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Jesus also
    said I can of mine ownself do nothing.(John 5:30)That was in reference to his human self the
    same self thsat died. I defy any trinitarain to show me where it wass God the son incarnate? I
    gave passages that show the father was in the son doing the works and the son was powerless
    untill he was gievn power(Math.28:18)God was in christ reconcilling the world unto himself.(2nd. cor. 5:19) The passage does not say Christ was God the son reconcilling the world unto
    himself but rather God through christ was doing the reconcilling! Now don’t get me wrong I
    believe Jesus is the one and only true God Just like every other Oneness believer but his
    humanity as son is just as important as his deity(God the father)and it is because of
    trinitarians we have to make these distinctions and bring emphasis to areas would not normally
    focus our attention.

    Manuel

  284. Jesusman said

    E.H.

    I never claimed to be “one” with either of my parents. I never said you’d see anybody but me if you saw me. But Jesus said something quite different, and answering a disciple’s question to “Show us the Father”, no less. When you see me, you don’t see my wife. My wife does not dwell in me nor does she do my works(though she probably should, more would get done). That’s the difference between “one flesh” and “One God”.
    When I see Jesus, I will see the Father. Who will you see?

  285. Eden Hadassah said

    I know you never claimed to be “one” with your parents…but the bible says “they will be one flesh,” doesn’t it? So do they stop being individuals and become a new person, or is it possible for each of them to have dynamic personalities?
    “One flesh” is a union between two people right? Yet this is how they are fruitful, and children come forth. But we never confuse each of them. They are distinct, with their own function and purpose, yet they are one. We can see traces of them in our own features, and in a way, genetically we are one with them. We carry each of their genetic DNA,in unity, but we have our own personality. My children and grand child look just like me when I was a baby and child, but no one would be so confused as to call them me. I haven’t aged very much either, so apart from my grey thick streaks of hair that grace each side of my face, when my daughter and I go out, we are often asked if we are twins.
    So when do you see Jesus?

  286. Eden Be careful what you say, this can be turned around on you! Now if you are saying a sexual
    union by marriage is what constitutes their(husband and wife’s) oneness then what constitutes
    the persons of the trinity’s Union? Of necessity you are saying something causes the union are
    you not? there is also a union between father(God) and son (humanity). But no persons of “god”
    period!

  287. Jesusman said

    “So when do you see Jesus?”—E.H.

    On resurrection morning, of course.
    One flesh and One God are two different things, which I showed above but you ignored. My wife and I are one flesh, but I could never say “He that hath seen me hath seen my wife.” My son looks like a clone of myself, but if he were to say(in a few more years, when he learns proper English) “He that hath seen me hath seen my father”, he’d be lying. If identical twins said it of each other, they’d be lying. Jesus never lied. Jesus and His Father are One God, so He’s able to say this. So, on resurrection morning, when I see Jesus, I will see the Father. Who will you see?

  288. Jesusman said

    That is, at OUR resurrection on the Day of the Lord, when I see jesus, I will see the Father. Who will you see?

  289. Jesusman said

    Lord, forgive me for the lower case “J”!!

  290. Eden Hadassah said

    Manuel, I am sure I have already spoken to you!

    But I will indulge you this once…

    What I have done was to give you guys back what you bring here.
    That’s all.
    I thought for sure you would catch the “gnostic” twist I threw in for good measure.
    You see, “literal”, “figurative”, “one”, and most scripture can be used to suit almost anyones particular appitite.
    This is gnosis.
    And instead of just respecting the wishes of those who do not want to discuss these things with you, you keep pushing. And pushing, not catching the hints, or even the plain truth that some are just not interested. That’s sad. The only reason I came back to respond was because you clearly up set my dear friends, Charles and John. I can tell you honestly that you guys still have not made your point, some 300 posts later, and if you were to go back and read them all, you would see you guys have been trying to move on a derailed train. We are on another train that’s moving. If you have ever been on a derailed train, and you look out the window and see the other train moving, it has the illusion that you may be going somewhere…but your not. You are still derailed, and until you get on the right track, you will just be watching us moving by.

  291. Jesusman said

    Eden,

    At OUR resurrection on the Day of the Lord, when I see Jesus, I will see the Father. Who will you see?

  292. Sorry EH don’t want any part of your train!

  293. EH, You act like we are here because we want to cause trouble.That is not the truth! The truth
    is Job wrote a bunch of articles equating oneness with the Devil and Mormons, any Dummy can
    slander and that is all he has done! Did some witto Oneness person hurt his witto feelings? He
    sure has wrote alot of articles on the subject! I cannot speak for the Ohter oneness People
    here But I can speak for myself, I am here because of those slanderous articles of the truth.
    untill he gives a public apology and promises Not to write another slanderous article then I
    will leave and not say another word But untill then I will be a monkey on your back.

    Manuel

  294. Hey, this is pretty cool!You can put your cursor over my name and go to my article on John 1:1 and Ed Dalcour’s Ten questions to ask Oneness pentecostals answered by yours truly!

    http://manuelculwell.blogspot.com/

  295. Jesusman said

    Yeah, there sure was a lot of profanity and flirting with profanity for people on a nice steady moving train! Anyway, let’s not give Eden another excuse to duck the question.

    At OUR resurrection on the Day of the Lord, when I see Jesus, I will see the Father. Who will you see?

  296. Jesusman said

    Yeah, there sure was a lot of profanity and flirting with profanity for people on a nice steady moving train! Anyway, let’s not give Eden another excuse to duck the question.

    At OUR resurrection on the Day of the Lord, when I see Jesus, I will see the Father. Who will you see?

  297. Eden Hadassah said

    Manuel,
    Monkey isn’t how I would describe you, and you are not on my back either.
    But you are still derailed, and I never asked if you wanted to be on our train.

    Gee wiz monkey man, you slander trinity doctrine in your blog, yet no one feels the need from here to go and defend it. I wonder why?
    You will be lost in cyberspace along time before you get an apology for someone’s opinion. I am sure that you are not going to apologize for all the comments about trinitarians, (I AM NOT ASKING FOR ONE EITHER.) When you catch hold of your dignity again, maybe I will indulge you again, but as I said before to you…I KNOW YOU.

  298. Jesusman said

    Eden, At OUR resurrection on the Day of the Lord, when I see Jesus, I will see the Father. Who will you see?

  299. Eden Hadassah said

    At our resurrection Jesusman
    I will see Yeshua AND I will also see what Isaiah saw:
    “I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple.”
    AND the Spirit of God which dwells in me will break forth in a song of praise!

  300. No, you Don’t Know me! And I am sure you think you are working some kinda voodoo Psychology,
    Sorry EH, that don’t work with me, I am not interested! You do not have anything I want! Oh,
    and I am not simply “slandering trinity doctrine” I am disputing an article written By
    Edward Dalcour who said we could not answer his Ten questions he also wrote a book about
    Oneness folks he also claims to be a great Authority On Oneness But he waqs silent as a Texas
    Oyster when I submitted those questions back to him.I have had many emails with the man and In
    my opinion he is preying on folks of the trinity persuasion to make money on his book.

    Manuel

  301. Eden Hadassah said

    Voodoo?
    Nope…
    Don’t be so confident…what’s in a name!
    Well with that said, you haven’t done yourself any justice here…it is just more of the same.

    No voodoo psycology…I know you. It will take you a long…long time to figure out how! And I am not willing to spill the beans in this place.😉

  302. Jesusman said

    I will see Yeshua AND I will also see what Isaiah saw:
    “I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple.”

    AND and ALSO being the key words here. See that’s the difference. When I see Yeshua I will see the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. (The Lord Jesus on His throne, high and exalted. The train of Jesus’ robe fills the temple. Jesus is the Lord) And when I behold His Magnificent Majesty, I will be looking at the Father, just like Jesus said.

  303. No Eden, it will not take any time at all Because I don’t care what you think you know! can I be any more clear? You may know of me from another board or Jewish group but you do not know me!

  304. Jesusman said

    I will see Yeshua AND I will also see what Isaiah saw:
    “I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple.”—-EH

    Isaiah saw Jesus!!

  305. Jesusman, you may as well give up what little bit I have seen of EH he will not answer your question for all tea in china he is not Interested in truth only his truth and what he makes it and it does not include reciprocation with anyone Oneness(we are veiwed as scum to them) that is fine as would be hated of all men for His name(we are the people of the name)

    Manuel

  306. Eden Hadassah said

    Gee, Jesusman…he didn’t say he saw Jesus did he?
    No…
    Isaiah said “I see the Lord seated on A throne” not, “I see the Lord Jesus seated on a throne”…
    wanna know why?

    Isaiah didn’t say “the throne” he said “A throne.” This is an important little word too. It means that while you can suggest that it was the Lord Jesus, I can suggest there was more than ONE throne!
    But hey, that’s scripture isn’t…
    While “and” and “also” are rather important to you, “A” and “THE” are equally important to me.
    See the madness?
    Now don’t be misquoting scriptures about what Isaiah said.
    Little words can change the context of any scriptures, and then we end up right where we started from. NOWHERE.

    Oh, and Manuel…🙂

  307. Jesusman said

    I’m pretty sure E.H. is a she. Hadassah is a feminine Hebrew name.

  308. Jesusman said

    he didn’t say he saw Jesus did he?—EH

    He said he saw the Lord. Jesus is the Lord. Every tongue will confess this including yours and those of every trinitarian. Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One Lord. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. One throne in Revelation. Try again.

  309. Jesusman said

    When Philip saw Jesus, He saw the Father. Who did Thomas see?

  310. So when Isaiah saw A throne E.H. Was God AKA the trinity being omni present as they are,were they sitting on each others lap?

  311. Jesusman said

    Eden,

    When Philip saw Jesus, He saw the Father. Who did Thomas see?

    Your argument is with Jesus on this one. Don’t argue with me, argue with the Lord.

  312. Eden Hadassah said

    Maybe, I know they love each another, so, yeah! I say YES! It is possible for Yeshua to sit on God’s lap…because all things are possible with God. Not a problem.

  313. johnkaniecki said

    Greetings All,

    May God bless each and every one.

    Galatians 2:20. “I am crucified with Christ.” Jesusman you never did respond to that scripture after reading Romans 6.

    Okay I’m getting serious now to get involved in fine details. I pray the discussion will become more fruitfull. I for one care not very much about church history but concentrate on the Word of God.

    I Corinthians 15:24-29 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power………. Now when it says everything has been put under Him it is clear that this does not include God Himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put everything under Him, so that God may be all in all.”

    Then Paul talks about baptism which ties in Romans 6.

    Jesus hands over the kingdom to God the Father.

    Can we all agree that Jesus is God.
    Jesus and the Father are seperate, if not permenantly at least temporarily.
    These scriptures exclude mention of the Holy Spirit.
    At the end and at all times Jesus will be subserviant to the Father.
    What the reality is, is something we can never put into words but something we can state definite truths on. Let us then endeavour to create a list of definite truths. This would diminish the bickering and be more edifying.

    I would certainly commend the newcomers zeal. Job or Healtheland produces statements that are controversial to foster discussions like these. I wouldn’t think of it as an attack necessarily but as a challenge. We all are Christians and without Love our talks are meaningless and empty.

    Love,

    John

  314. Jesusman said

    Galatians 2:20. “I am crucified with Christ.” Jesusman you never did respond to that scripture after reading Romans 6.—-Johnkaniecki

    John,
    You’ve got to allow me time to be a Berean on this subject. I guess I haven’t thought about it in the way you have. I have to search the Scriptures to see if these things be so.

    “Jesus and the Father are seperate, if not permenantly at least temporarily.”—-Johnkaniecki

    John, that is a heretical statement according to mainstream trinitarians. You might be losing some friends soon.

  315. we can all agree Jesus is God! But Jesus was Made God! You know How I know the Bible tells me so!He was a temporal man with a begining so he had to be made God(It does sit well with either side ) But it is Bible! 1st. Cor.15:45 The last Man Adam was made a quickening spirit.Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual ….

    (Acts 2:36) this same Jesus whom you have crucified was made both Lord and christ(He was not
    already)or he was not “god the son” there is no such thing in scripture!

    (John 3:34)God giveth not the spirit by measure unto him. Yes therre is a distinction but it is between spirit and flesh God and man Not “God the son” and God the father.

  316. EH Wrote:
    Maybe, I know they love each another, so, yeah! I say YES! It is possible for Yeshua to sit on God’s lap…because all things are possible with God. Not a problem.

    EH, This seems very silly to me and I have a million and one of these contradictions of your trinity doctrine it only gets worse from here. To me I mean no disrespect to you personally but this makes me abhor your doctrine.

  317. Eden Hadassah said

    Jesusman,
    You assume too much to think I am involved in an arguement.
    I am just circumventing now.
    Or didn’t you get the memo?
    I am having fun with you guys…

    Now I must end my indulging you both…
    It has been a hoot!
    Nothing was accomplished, nor was any thing that I said meant to accomplish anything…
    It, I confess, was just plain merry-go-round fun. I bought the ticket this afternoon, picked the pink horsie with the flowers in the bridle, got on, and enjoyed the music, lights and how my horsie goes up and down…
    but the ride has stopped, and I didn’t get another ticket to go around again.😦
    I am sure that someone else will buy a ticket, but if they don’t, you can just get another ticket, sit on the swan (it’s made for more than one) and with a friend, you can rock back and forth until the ride is over. Good thing is that there will always be someone to get on, so chances are, tonight…if you are still on the ride, someone else might enjoy a spin.
    Have a good night boys and girls…
    don’t stay up too late.

  318. Howbeit that was not first which is spirtual but that which is natural does everyone understand what the passage is saying? It is not very good for the pre-existence of the son doctrine!(1st,cor. 15:45-47

  319. Glad you had fun EH, But you have made zero inroads concerning your doctrine of the trintiy
    and zero convincing that such a doctrine exits in scripture.

    Manny the onenenss Guy,

  320. Eden Hadassah said

    THATS THE POINT…🙂

    I did have fun, but trains don’t make inroads, and neither do merry-go-rounds or derailed trains for that matter. Zero convincing is absolutely correct because I wasn’t trying to convince anyone of anything.

    Now you have fun convincing others that you are:

    “MANNY the oneness GUY”

  321. Charles D. said

    Because you come out in pairs (however, since you cannot count nearly as well as Mormans, they’re edjakated. You clowns come out in threes;

    Crimy, J-Man and Manny), you show up when nice folk least want to see you

    and you WILL steal doctrines thats not nailed down, without fear of a lawsuit.

    You rest up a little and try to double-team folks’ but I’m not complaining because that’s close to fair fighting. Bring on the dr.

  322. That is funny that you have not tried to convince anyone because you just finished telling me
    that Jesus was sitting on his daddy’s lap on the throne and because of that you have
    completely convinced me EH that your doctrine a little more than silly.

  323. Eden Hadassah said

    You asked “manny”…
    if I convinced you that I was silly…GOOD! Have a chuckle,
    but that wasn’t “doctrine”, I was just answering your obsurd question. Come on now…you knew that!
    Listen, all silliness aside, I would love to talk with you about other things in scripture, but about the divinity of God…I would like to think at this point you will respect my wishes not to discuss it any further. If you would like to talk about other things in a different thread, I would enjoy it, but none of this is edifying, and as I have shown by my absolute foolishness…it only feeds the flesh. It causes you to “show all your knowledge” and it causes me to show all my gums…(I am sure you have realized by now that I am completely harmless.)

    I now must really go and get some sleep…I again went past 9:00pm, and I am gonna feel it at 4:00am.

    Good night…
    And Chazman…we will talk, Lord willing, tomorrow.

  324. No EH, I did’nt ask if “you convinced me that you were silly” I said your doctrine of Jesus
    sitting on his daddy’s lap on the throne was and is completely silly.

    Manuel

  325. johnkaniecki said

    Hello All,

    May God bless you and keep you and smile upon your lives.

    Jesusman Yes take some time. I just didn’t know if the statement got lost in the shuffle. Sorry to rush you.

    No I think that Jesus and the Father and the Spirit were always seperate as well as one. I’m going to get into scripture more deeply.

    Love,

    John

  326. Crimson Wolf said

    Sabellianism was a widely spread doctrine in the early post new testament Church. A new German study claims it WAS the UNIVERSAL doctrine of the day. Some aspects of Modalism cannot be applied to pure Oneness doctrine, However it cannot be certain whether Sabellius taught a despensational Modalism or taught what is known today as Oneness since all we have of his teaching comes through the writing of his enemies. All of his original works were burned. For example the outrageous doctrines that were purportedly believed by the Templars have recently been shown to be falsifications. Cathari were falsley accused of kissing cat anus’ (Cathari actually means “Pure”). The following excerpts demonstrate some of the known doctrinal characteristics that ancient Sabellians may be seen to compare with the doctrines in the modern Oneness movement:

    Sabellianism was doctrine adhered to by a sect of the Montanists. Cyprian wrote of them “How, when God the Father is not known-nay, is even blasphemed-can they who among the heretics are said to be baptized in the name of Christ only, be judged to have obtained the remission of sins?” (Cyprian, c. 250, W, 5.383,484) In 225AD Hippolytus spoke of them saying “Some of them assent to the heresy of the Noetians, affirming the Father Himself is the Son.” Victorinus had this to say of them “Some had doubts about the baptism of those who appeared to recognize the same Father with the Son with us, yet who received the new prophets.” Saballianism was also referred to by the following Church fathers: Dionysius (c.200-265 AD) wrote “Those baptized in the name of three persons…though baptized by heretics..shall not be rebaptized. But those converted from other heresies shall be perfected by the baptism of the Holy Church.” (St. Diontsius, Letters and Treatises,p.54). “Sabellius…blasphemes in saying that the Son Himself is the Father and vice versa.” (Dionysius of Rome, c.264,W, 6.365) “Jesus commands them to baptize into the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-not into a unipersonal God.” (Turtullian, C. 213,W,3.623) Sabellianism teaching of Modalism and singular name baptism was also accompanied by glossolalia and prophecy among the abovementioned sect of Montanists. In 225 AD Turtullian speaks of “those who would deserve the excellent gifts of the spirit-and who…by means of the Holy Spirit would obtain the gift of language, wisdom, and knowledge.”

    It is reported that Sabellians experienced glossollia and baptized in the”shorter formula” because of their denial of the Trinity. (J.H. Blunt, p.332,Heik,p 150, kelsey, pp. 40,41).

  327. johnkaniecki said

    Crimson Wolf,

    I am so glad that you have returned to the conversation. It has been a while. I hope you are fine and doing well.

    Let me be honest I am quite lost over the point of this extemely long conversation. I direct this to all my fellow bloggers. It is true I joined in late and I found it interesting. Are we (in the general sense) going to get some fruit out of this discussion?

    I will state certain facts. The Bible records the words of Jesus and other men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thus when these men recorded these things the Bible came into existance. These early writers already had many problems in the church themselves. For example the books of Corinthians 1 and Corinthians 2 are admonishments to a straying church. The books of John are to a group turned over to gnosticism. In fact in 2John, Jesus’ disciple condemns Diotrephes who is the congregation’s leader!!

    There is value in considering the issues addressed by those who lived in the third century as you do. Unfortunately they can carry very little authority if any. These men were human beings doing the best they can. It is true they may have been inspired but no more or less than we have been inspired. We certainly can’t go by the popular opinion of the day as “broad and wide” is the way that leads to destruction and many go down it.

    The Bible has a very special place. Recall how Paul rebuked Peter. Peter who was an apostle of Jesus and literally walked some three years with our prescious Lord. Peter himself was in error! Therefore nothing these early church fathers can carry the weight of the words that Jesus spoke, except what we find in the Bible. If Peter could be in error than all the authors of the Bible could be in error at some point, but never in the Word of God.

    I believe in an all powerful, all Loving God. This God has given us a work that He Himself has cowritten with man. It is perfect historically and more importantly theologically.

    Obviously the early church has strayed away because it developed into the perversion we know as Catholicism. I was just talking today with a Jehova Witness over how the Anabaptists were persecuted. I can’t recall who persecuted them but I know some were slain for their beliefs. A true follower of Jesus wouldn’t kill a person over a difference in theology!!!

    The point is we cannot trust anything beyond what is written in the Bible or the Word of God. I will listen to you with respect and consider what you have to say. You are a human being and on that basis alone you are worthy of love and respect. Yet please just don’t quote theologians, they could be in error. It would be more beneficial to me if you included scripture to back up your points. A double punch, a left and a right so to speak.

    Also I am still waiting for Jesusman’s reply to my claim that all Christians were joined in the crucificion of Christ. See Galatians 2 and Romans 6. I have given this matter a little more thought but haven’t thought of anything further. It all ties into baptism and its importance. I had a teacher who said God works outside of time. I don’t understand the implications of this statement but it seems relevant to the conversation. Just because Jesus was crucified two thousand years ago doesn’t mean I wasn’t up there with him. “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his ressurrection. Knowing this that our old man was crucified with Him….” Romans 6:5-6 From this connection we get what it means to be ‘in Christ’.

    What Jesus did on the cross was to quote Woody Guthrie “the biggest thing that man has ever done!” Here the Son of God as the Lamb of God bore our sins and was sacrificed. He became a curse. That statement in Galatians 3:13 holds supreme significance. For if we truly died on the cross Galatians 2:20 then we can participate in the ressurection. We too then became a curse. But it is our faith not the law that saves us. We are all guilty of many many sins, each one enough to condemn us. Yet if we are guilty of the curse of Jesus that is the one way back to life!!!

    Any way like I said I am lost to the point of this conversation. Please fill me in on the significance of it. I realize that somethings that may seem trivial can hold much importance. There have been many entries and it is hard to follow.

    Love,

    John

  328. Charles D. said

    Minors Beware!

  329. Eden Hadassah said

    🙂

  330. John writes to reveal his polytheism:
    “No I think that Jesus and the Father and the Spirit were always *seperate* as well as *one*. I’m going to get into scripture more deeply.”

    Love,

    John

    mlculwell: Folks, did you hear this? How can you be three seperate but one??? I think the argument has been made from the trinity side; “like a husband and wife are one.” One in agreement and Knowledge they say, But the son did not know the time or hour of his return, only the father knew(LOL! Not “God the son”) Did you catch that contradiction of their doctrine? We have a God that does not know all things or 1/3 of that God anyhow and also; if they are like husband and wife are one, then when Jesus died we were 1/3 of God short. things that make ya go hmmm?

  331. Charles D. said

    Hey Eden, my little fruitcake,

    I remember once saying something about a fungus, about what reminded me of MormanS, and finally about three things that are never full. THEEEY’RREE BACCCCK!
    🙂

  332. Charles, what is ten times is worse than Mormanism? I will give you a hint! Sprouls subscribes to this false doctrine and their Leaders entials are JC that’s right(John Calvin) Calvinism! the most evil false doctrine known to man.

  333. Charles D. said

    Okay, you still need to work on your “tense” (conjugation), among other things, but since you’ve quantified the degrees of “worse,” with such specificity, am I to assume that there is a basis upon which your measurement rests?

    Now call your two other amigos, so this can develop into a fair encounter, and the 3s of youse won’t cry child-abuse after your paddling, which you are sure to get.🙂😦 take your pick.

  334. Charles, I have no “amigo’s” they were here before me.(I don’t know them) I happened upon this site because Job was name calling, so I took you folks up on your name calling challenge but allas I have been let down by your lack of knowledge in the scriptures, just a bunch of hot air.

  335. yeah, there is “a basis” all five points of Calvins False Tulip! They all fall by your doctrine
    of the Godhead. You make Jesus a hybrid because of the doctrine of inherited sin Which I can
    prove and when I do inherited sin falss thus all five points fall.

  336. Charles snidley writes:”Okay, you still need to work on your “tense” (conjugation), among other things, but since you’ve quantified the degrees of “worse,” with such specificity, am I to assume that there is a basis upon which your measurement rests?

    the ten times *is* worse was an accident! I don’t proof read what I write as I am not in love with myself or what I write but I am not to concerned with my mistakes as you are.

  337. Charles D. said

    I have no recollection of Job calling you a name. AND, if you don’t know the other two “rubes” and I use the term loosely, why are you defending them?

    To be knowledgable of the scriptures, one must have stumbled across “do unto others,” you’re not doing that now and what you are doing is judging.

    I mean why can’t we have an off day every now and again; just as you have. Unless hot air comes in bunches now, then, it is I who stand corrected.

    “what is ten times is worse” “just a bunch of hot air.”

    Chaz (that means I like you)

  338. Charles D. said

    Manny:
    You are absolutely right!

    “I am not in love with myself or what I write but I am not to concerned with my mistakes as you are.”

    I love you and I am concerned with your mistakes, especially, those that have eternal consequences, of which, the largest one to date is your belief in “oneness Doctrine”

    Charles (I don’t like you as much now)

  339. You “have no recollection?” What is in the title heading at the beggining of this post? How
    did I defend them? I never defended them! I may have come to the defense of my/our doctrine being attacked by one of you “rubes” Butr I have not defended them to my knowledge. Oh yes I am applying the golden rule, it always applies! But when truth is attacked there are no off days! Yes I have a right by scripture to judge your doctrine as false! I don’t have to accept it.You would have never ever heard from me if it were not for the title heading of your beloved Job.

  340. Charles My friend, if that is so and you are so concerned, then you need to show me the error of
    my ways by the truth of your trinity doctrine, but beware, I have a million and one
    contradictions of the trinity doctrine that have to be answered before I can accept such a
    contradictory doctrine.

  341. Charles D. said

    Manny:

    Point of observation. Job was not talking to you personally. In most instances there is a hot-link connected to the title. Anyway, I’ve checked and there is none on this post. Equally, I am not apologizing for what’s there; and certainly not for the butt-beatings issued to you and your fellow doctrineers.

    I know you will probably come back with some smart- – – remark, however, be assured that this is my last comment for the night. I would give you my email, or even my address, but you have sticky fingers and I don’t want this thing to get out of hand (like the way you just clipped me for “rube,” not that I have any sort of exclusivity on the word. But, if I wanted to get nasty, I could infer that Onenessers also clip eclectic parts of other doctrines to come up with their own). But I won’t do that now; it’s too easy – just as you are easy.

    Hey brother, you just don’t know; Job and I have had some knock down-drag outs, but, being mature men, the thing we have in common are the basic tenets of the doctrine that we believe in, fight for, and are understanding to seekers, but do not suffer fools or scoffers at all. So he might have been gruff with your compardrees, but, that is something better taken up with him..as the scriptures say” “he’s of age” “he can speak for himself”

    See ya,

    Charles

  342. I know “Job was not talking to me personally”I am not going to let him get away with taughting
    his false doctrine all the while putting the truth down, he does not even have the Guts to come
    back and defend himself with the major gaff he made in calling the writer of Johns gospel *John
    the Baptist* so we know what degree of scriptual intellect we are dealing with (He’s Infantile)
    in his knowledge of scripture, I would say most of you trinitarians on this board do not know
    as much as Job but you are here anyhow making snide remarks thinking you are doing the Lord’s
    work, That would be my guess since no one of yet has even attempted to debate their cause on
    your side with any degree of Knowledge.

  343. Charles, Job Beat his own butt with his laughable Gaff in calling the witer of John’s gospel
    *John the Baptist* and the only real Butt beating be issued is not by you trinitarains, I will
    issue the Butt beatings and trinitarains will have to like them since there are no arguments in
    defense of said false doctrine, Unless one of you would like to amke me eat my words?

  344. johnkaniecki said

    Manuel,

    Hi hope you are well. May God bless you.
    Thanks to Crimson Wolf I understand this blog better, thank you.

    As regarding Crimson Wolf’s historical debate that is one that I choose not to be involved with.

    However the idea that God is not three seperate but united beings is one that I feel I would like to get involved with. It is important to learn how the whole system of God works. Without that Christians would be crippled slightly.

    Let’s look at two basic things, one from the New Testament and one from the Old.

    The Hebrew word Elohiym for God. It is a plural word. As in Genisis 1:1 In the beginings God created the heavens and the Earth.

    John 1:1 In the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

    Note that John changed the grammatical structure in the Greek language of the first lines of his gospel to immitate Genesis 1:1

    Now if there aren’t seperate personalities of God tell me what’s going on here. It seems to me that there are two distinct personalities one called God and one called the Word.

    Both stories tell the account of the begining of this world so I think a direct comparison is appropriate.

    Later in verse 14 of John the Word becomes flesh. It doesn’t say God becomes flesh.

    I know that God is Love. The three peoples Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three seperate manifestations of that Love.

    I don’t think as you have stated that they were one in agreement and knowledge. Scripture wouldn’t support this because obviously Jesus didn’t know everything the Father knew. I think that fact has been established.

    As far as Jesus dying and leaving one third of God dead I think you have a serious problem understanding death and reality. Its a very hard concept to understand but it may be profitable to look at what that entails. Remember Jesus laid down His own life willingly.

    John 10:17-18 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh from me, but I lay it down myself. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again…..

    Pretty incredable statement isn’t it!?!!!
    God is eternal and Love can never die. Just because Jesus goes some place other than on Earth that don’t mean it ceased to exist.

    The scriptures when Jesus conversed with Elijah and Moses comes to mind. Did Elijah and Moses not exist until they talked things over with Jesus.

    Love,

    John

  345. Manuel,

    Hi hope you are well. May God bless you.
    Thanks to Crimson Wolf I understand this blog better, thank you.

    Mlculwell: Hello John, Nice to talk with you sir!

    John:
    As regarding Crimson Wolf’s historical debate that is one that I choose not to be involved with.

    mlculwell: Nor do I care to get involved with the so called “historical Church” debate, where nothing can really be gained or proved conclusively, But we really can open the scriptures and see if those things are so.

    John:
    However the idea that God is not three seperate but united beings is one that I feel I would like to get involved with. It is important to learn how the whole system of God works. Without that Christians would be crippled slightly.

    Let’s look at two basic things, one from the New Testament and one from the Old.

    The Hebrew word Elohiym for God. It is a plural word. As in Genisis 1:1 In the beginings God created the heavens and the Earth.

    mlculwell: Yes John, I agree it is a “plural word.” I do not agree with you however that Elohim means plural of persons in the Godhead but rather it refers to his plural attributes.

    John:
    John 1:1 In the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

    Note that John changed the grammatical structure in the Greek language of the first lines of his gospel to immitate Genesis 1:1

    mlculwell: John, would you agree that when John wrote this, he was speaking from a knowing experience? That he spoke from knowing the Lord and his teachings personally? Do you think John would be in agreement with other Apostles on this word and it’s usage in scripture? The reason I ask is because we have two other passages maybe three or four we can look at to help us better understand what John is speaking.

    John:
    Now if there aren’t seperate personalities of God tell me what’s going on here. It seems to me that there are two distinct personalities one called God and one called the Word.

    mlculwell: Be glad to John! I do not believe that we are speaking at all of two seperate persons of God, John was not speaking of a person that pre-existed with God the father at all known as “God the son,” he never used the term, nor any other Apostle or writer of the New or old testamnet( The terms *son*, or *Jesus* were not used at all but rather the term word) and was not actually a person untill he was made flesh in John 1:14 and this is where my asking you if you believe John spoke from a knowing experience is relevent because John already knew the word made flesh and is what God had in mind in creation and especially in Gen. 1:26 when he said; “let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” (I will get to that more later.)

    There is a passage in (2nd. Tim.2:17) possibly Pauls writings where the Greek word *word/logos* is used. I believe it will give some insight into the intended usage and meaning of the word and how it was actually used at the time by two Apostles (John in John 1:1-14 and Paul 2nd Tim. 2:17) who were in agreement instead of what we get from the modern Preachers who try and disconnect the term simply to prove a doctrine that is really not in scripture.

    (2nd. Tim. 2:17) And their word/logos will eat as doth a canker of whom is Hymeaneus and Philetus who concerning the truth have erred. Note How the term logos/word is used? It is the evil thought, Plan,concept, idea of these two individuals.

    Now, one would think we would be able to find reference to this term also in the Old Testament and that is the very case!

    (Psalm 33:6) By the *word* of the LORD(Jehovah) were the heavens made and all the host of them
    by the breath of His mouth.

    Not only is is this the plan of God, But the plan of God through the power of his spoken word
    by the breath of His Mouth. Is the above passage speaking of creation John?

    One thing I want to amke clear so you do not misunderstand I am not saying the 2nd. Tim. passage is the Logos of God. I am simply showing you how the term is used from two Apostles who should be in agreement on the term and then I have added the writer of the Psalms, possibly David.

    John:
    Both stories tell the account of the begining of this world so I think a direct comparison is appropriate.

    Later in verse 14 of John the Word becomes flesh. It doesn’t say God becomes flesh.

    mlculwell: Yes, Good observation John! The plan was *made* flesh, not that God became flesh!The plan/Logos of God was made flesh or came to fruition in time from eternity.

    (Gal. 4:4) When the Fullness of time was come God sent forth his son made of a woman made under the Law.

    John:
    I know that God is Love. The three peoples Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three seperate manifestations of that Love.

    mlculwell:yes I have heard of that arguemnt to try and prove nthere are three persons of God but it will not stand when you understand there are other attributes of God.

    God is also a consumming fire but it does not mean two persons existed and neither does God being love means two other persons existed because in 1st.John 4:7 it states Love is of God. In other words God is ther author of Love it does not mean two other persons are there for him to love we were not there and he loved us from the foundation of the world the same is true with the son

    John:
    I don’t think as you have stated that they were one in agreement and knowledge. Scripture wouldn’t support this because obviously Jesus didn’t know everything the Father knew. I think that fact has been established.

    mlculwell: I was not saying that was my belief! I was saying that was yours, but I kind of made light of that by stating; Jesus, if he were “God the son,”did not even know the time of his own coming.

    John:
    As far as Jesus dying and leaving one third of God dead I think you have a serious problem understanding death and reality. Its a very hard concept to understand but it may be profitable to look at what that entails. Remember Jesus laid down His own life willingly.

    John 10:17-18 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh from me, but I lay it down myself. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again…..

    Pretty incredable statement isn’t it!?!!!
    God is eternal and Love can never die. Just because Jesus goes some place other than on Earth that don’t mean it ceased to exist.

    mlculwell: So, is it your position that Jesus did not really Die? I can tell you from the Oneness standpoint we believe Jesus really died as a real limited human man and that the deity did not die, that deity was none other than God the father, as there was no such thing as “God the son.”

    John:
    The scriptures when Jesus conversed with Elijah and Moses comes to mind. Did Elijah and Moses not exist until they talked things over with Jesus.

    Love,

    John

    mlculwell: yes but they were dead men, not dead God’s. God cannot die have you thought about that John? Did Jesus really die as a real human man?

  346. Charles D. said

    The short answer is Yes He did. I don’t in tend to “Ralph Bunche” you and Johns conversation, however, maybe you should stay on this very question and not leave it or expand it until it is fully answered in your mind.

    Charles

    I won’t see your response until well after Church today. Have a good one. Love ya John.

  347. Yes Please stay on this question!

  348. Charles D. said

    Okay, I had no idea you would respond so fast, so, I see your comment above. I tried to catch my comment before posting it, because I meant to include you in my love note; I’m not that kind of cad and I’m sorry.

    I will expound on this later today, but, when Jesus of His own accord, layed down His deity, He became fully man, in order to experience all of the physical and material pain, temptation, and every other experience that are common to man. He died a physical death and conquered it, along with hell and the grave. You will notice that He said to Mary “don’t touch me, I have not yet ascended to my Father” YET, in a little while, He allowed Thomas to place his hands in the scars and handled Him to Thomas’ satisfaction.

    There is much that must be accepted on faith, however, there is power in the Word. Nonbelievers, I cannot speak for, however, just relating the few words above in ” ” you may never know what I experienced JUST NOW in writing the truth. Manny, ever Sunday as I prepare for church, I am a different person, but right now, I am pumped beyond belief. Thank you for asking your original question – I would not have otherwise experience what I just did.

    I don’t expect ANYONE to know what I’m talking about, but then, salvation is a thing every man have to work out for himself.

    Be Blessed,

    Charles

    Continue to followup until YOU are satisfied with an answer to your question.

  349. Charles:
    Okay, I had no idea you would respond so fast, so, I see your comment above. I tried to catch my comment before posting it, because I meant to include you in my love note; I’m not that kind of cad and I’m sorry.

    mlculwell:

    Okay.

    Charles:

    I will expound on this later today, but, when Jesus of His own accord, layed down His deity, He became fully man, in order to experience all of the physical and material pain, temptation, and every other experience that are common to man.

    mlculwell: Charles, Find me where he layed down a deity known as God the son? The scriptures only teach his deity was none other than: “God the father.” I issue a challenge to you trinitarains find me where it states his deity is “God the son,” I can show you passages that his deity was God the father but there are no passages that call Jesus “God the son!”

    I can of mine own self do nothing Jesus said(John 5:30)That ws the son’s self that died and did not even know the time of his own coming.

    Jesus also said: the father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works(John 14:10)this is the son’s deity.

    God was in christ reconcilling the world unto himself(2nd. Cor. 5:19)

    There are no passages for a god the son doctrine trinitarains misinterpret and missapply passages that relate to his deity which is that of god the father and insert God the son where there is no such thing in scripture antwhere.

    He died a physical death and conquered it, along with hell and the grave. You will notice that He said to Mary “don’t touch me, I have not yet ascended to my Father” YET, in a little while, He allowed Thomas to place his hands in the scars and handled Him to Thomas’ satisfaction.

    There is much that must be accepted on faith, however, there is power in the Word. Nonbelievers, I cannot speak for, however, just relating the few words above in ” ” you may never know what I experienced JUST NOW in writing the truth. Manny, ever Sunday as I prepare for church, I am a different person, but right now, I am pumped beyond belief. Thank you for asking your original question – I would not have otherwise experience what I just did.

    I don’t expect ANYONE to know what I’m talking about, but then, salvation is a thing every man have to work out for himself.

    Be Blessed,

    Charles

  350. Charles:
    He died a physical death and conquered it, along with hell and the grave. You will notice that He said to Mary “don’t touch me, I have not yet ascended to my Father” YET, in a little while, He allowed Thomas to place his hands in the scars and handled Him to Thomas’ satisfaction.

    mlculwell: Charles, would you like to see John’s account of what you submitted?

    (John 20:17) Touch me not for I have not yet ascended to my father and your father and unto my God and your God.

    How does God have a God? Anything-one that has a God, is lower than God! do you understand the implication of my arguemnt?

  351. John and charles:
    John 10:17-18 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh from me, but I lay it down myself. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again…..

    Pretty incredable statement isn’t it!?!!!

    mlculwell: Yes, it an incredible statement! We must look at it through the scriptures. The I lay it down has to do with his (humanity) and the raising has to do with his (deity) (The father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works,(Miricles and power) God was in Christ reconcilling the world unto himself.(2nd. cor. 5:19, John 14:10)But if the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortals bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you.(Romans 8:11)

  352. johnkaniecki said

    Manuel,

    Hello I hope you are well and that your worship was pleasant and glorifying to God today.

    As far as the diety of Jesus I have already offered the begining of the gospel of John.

    Another proof is a little more difficult to follow but carries a lot of weight. I use this when I discuss Jesus with Jehova’s Witnesses.

    Look at the examples of worship in the New Testament. I am at my parents house so I don’t have my resources with my, that is my concordance and Bible.

    You will find in the book of Acts that the people wanted to worship Paul and his companion. Paul rebuked them. In another example in the book of Revelation John goes to worship the angel. The angel refuses to be worshipped and says worship only God.

    Now I believe there are eleven circumstances where the gospels exhibit the worshiping of Jesus. I have the scriptures for all of these written in my big white Bible if you would like them.

    Now both Paul and the Angel declined worship. Jesus accepted worship. We are to worship God alone.

    I want the discussion to perhaps shift a bit. I think the most edifying thing we can discuss is the role that each of the characters play in our Christian walk. Fruits of the Spirit, Gifts of the Spirit, The Head of the Church, and so forth.

    Love,

    John

  353. John, Thank you! I hope all is well with you as well and I appreciate your civility.

    I am Oneness, so you do not have to convince me of Jesus (Deity)Him being God, I already believe that! I do not however believe there was anything as “God the son,” there is no such term in scripture! but I believe he was the only person of God , what I mean is; that God is not a person outside the humanity of the son. I only focus on his humanity as I am forced to do so to emphasize the dual nature in the one man humanity(son) and spirit(God, Because trinitarains use unscriptual terms and jargon and ideas foreign to the scriptual Godhead.

  354. johnkaniecki said

    Manuel

    Hello just got back from a little trip. Hope you are doing well. Civility or gentleness and kindness should be exhibited in the Christian walk. After all we are two brothers in search of truth.

    In my log #325 you answered in log #327. Please expound.

    Also how could Jesus be made God? At what point then in His life did He become God. The Bible teaches that He was sinless.

    There is the Father, Son and Spirit. The Father utters the Word. The substance of the Word is the breath or wind. The word translated for wind in the Old Testament can also be translated spirit. Jesus is the alpha and omega.

    If I said God had three different aspects would you think that was correct? I don’t believe it but I am interested in your answer. I am convinced that God has three different personalities just like they have three different roles. Look at John when He discusses the Comforter. I will elaborate later.

    Also in Proverbs there is scripture where Wisdom claims to be there when the foundations of the world were laid down. Once again I lack my concordance.
    This ties into Genesis 1 and John 1 where there is a plural in the one.

    If you believe Jesus was made God how was this accomplished? Was He absorbed into the Allmighty.

    Love,

    John

  355. Hello John,

    To be Clear this is what I wrote in post #327 I gave passages that said so, I just did not grab stuff out of the air and make it up. Jesus was made god because as you and I will both agree Jesus humanity had a beggining his humanity could not be eteranl as he also died as a real man.

    we can all agree Jesus is God! But Jesus was Made God! You know How I know the Bible tells me so!He was a temporal man with a begining so he had to be made God(It does sit well with either side ) But it is Bible! 1st. Cor.15:45 The last Man Adam was made a quickening spirit.Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual ….

    (Acts 2:36) this same Jesus whom you have crucified was made both Lord and christ(He was not
    already)or he was not “god the son” there is no such thing in scripture!

    (John 3:34)God giveth not the spirit by measure unto him. Yes therre is a distinction but it is between spirit and flesh God and man Not “God the son” and God the father.

  356. Coram Deo said

    The best proof in defense of the truth of the eternally existent, self-contained, Triune God of true Christian theism is the simple fact that the concept of the Trinity is so utterly incomprehensible to the mind of man.

    No friends, the mind of sinful man could never have devised a God like the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as revealed in the Holy Writ. He is the Uncaused Cause, the Ultimate Ultimate, the One True Living God Who is, Who was, and Who shall ever be!

    He purposes all things by Himself and for Himself and takes no counsel of anything or anyone outside of Himself. He is the all in all. He is the Great I AM.

    The Arian god is a hellspawned false god worshipped by the Sabellian/Modalist cultists, an abominable modern day Ba’al.

    This much is for certain, the god of the Arians is not the God of the Holy Bible.

  357. John wrote:
    Also how could Jesus be made God?

    mlculwell:
    Please allow me to give you passages again that you will have to reconcille with your doctrine, Take note; I submit passages and your side submits tradition demanding me to answer to an unscriptual tradition.of a pre-existent god the son when there is no such thing.

    1st. Cor.15:45 The last Man Adam was made a quickening spirit.Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual ….

    (Acts 2:36) this same Jesus whom you have crucified was made both Lord and christ(He was not
    already)or he was not “god the son” there is no such thing in scripture!

    (John 3:34)God giveth not the spirit by measure unto him.

    John:
    At what point then in His life did He become God. The Bible teaches that He was sinless.

    mlculwell: John, what differance does it make that he sinless? He was sinless because he did not commit sin, sin is a transgression of the Law by either ommision or commission, it is not inherited! Jesus although I believe he was God in the flesh because the spirit was in him and did the works became the actual spirit of God at his ascension, *flesh and blood does not inherit the kingdom.* Again, it is your problem, not my tradition nor my problem, but yours respectfully!

    John:
    There is the Father, Son and Spirit. The Father utters the Word. The substance of the Word is the breath or wind. The word translated for wind in the Old Testament can also be translated spirit. Jesus is the alpha and omega.

    mlculwell: Yes, Jesus is the alpha and Omega the beggining and the End the root and the *Offspring* of David, both he with no beggining and End, but his offspring did have a beggining and end. Do you understand? The humanity of the son did have a beggining! The deity is what the passage is speaking that of* God the father* that which is the alpha and Omega! Jesus was Both the Root and offspring.

    John:
    If I said God had three different aspects would you think that was correct?

    mlculwell: No! He has even more than that! I can find seven but there is even more!
    (Isa. 11:2,Rev.5:6) and 1.)the spirit the LORD(Jehovah) shall rest upon him,2.) the spirit of WISDOM,3.) and understanding 4.)the spirit of council, 5.)and Might, 6.)the spirit of Knowledge,7)and of the fear of the Lord.

    John:
    I don’t believe it but I am interested in your answer. I am convinced that God has three different personalities just like they have three different roles.

    mlculwell: God does not have three personalities. What you see is the distinction between the Spirit and the flesh and you confuse that with God as three persons because it is God manifesting himself in differant ways. You will even see two wills : Jesus said not my will(Human) but thine be done(God as Spirit)

    John:
    Look at John when He discusses the Comforter. I will elaborate later.

    Let’s elloborate now? Jesus was the first comforter in the Flesh and God was going to give another comforter in the Spirit, Jeuss said I will pray the father and he will give you another comforter after he was Gone(In the flesh) But Jesus revealed further that he would also be that other comforter in the spirit. I (Jesus) will not leave you comforless,I(Jesus) will come to you.(John 14:18) Verse 26 reveals he would be the Holy ghost In other words Jesu would be the Holy Ghost or Christ in you the Hope of Glory. The holy Ghost is Not another person of gods seperate from God or the Son it is simply God’s title in emination or as he deals with mankind in regeneration God is Spirit( John 4:24 Which God?) God is Holy(Psalm 99:9,1st.Peter 1:15)Thus God is the Holy Spirit.It is very difficult to explain this to someone with a preconceived notion and then to top it off being called every name in the book when this is revealed for the first time because it does not jive with said preconceived but unscriptual notion.

    John:
    Also in Proverbs there is scripture where Wisdom claims to be there when the foundations of the world were laid down. Once again I lack my concordance.
    This ties into Genesis 1 and John 1 where there is a plural in the one.

    mlculwell: Yes and wisdom is in the feminine like a ship is a she But you will also note Jeuss was Given this wisdom or one of God’s many attributes in (Isa.11;2) and the spirit shall rest upon him the Spirit of Wisdom. given to the Son friend.

    Blessings,

    Manuel

    If you believe Jesus was made God how was this accomplished? Was He absorbed into the Allmighty.

    Love,

  358. Job said

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3109416234662093338&hl=en

  359. Coram Deo said

    Click here to see Oneness Pentecostal lies exposed.

    Among the most encouraging things about trusting the Word of God is how its light exposes the deceitful works of darkness and like a two-edged sword it cleaves and separates with unmatched efficiency and effectiveness.

  360. Coram Deo Says:
    December 30, 2007 at 3:20 pm
    The best proof in defense of the truth of the eternally existent, self-contained, Triune God of true Christian theism is the simple fact that the concept of the Trinity is so utterly incomprehensible to the mind of man.

    mlculwell: I am afraid I had a pretty good laugh at that one Coram!
    So are you saying you don’t believe what the Scriptures says about undertsanding God?(Romans 1:20) For the Invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

    Coram:
    No friends, the mind of sinful man could never have devised a God like the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as revealed in the Holy Writ. He is the Uncaused Cause, the Ultimate Ultimate, the One True Living God Who is, Who was, and Who shall ever be!

    mlculwell The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob aqnd Peter Paul and John is not the trinity and is not at all revealed in holy Writ but is an unscriptual tradition of mankind. I say Jesus is the Only Supreme God what do you say?

    Coram:
    He purposes all things by Himself and for Himself and takes no counsel of anything or anyone outside of Himself. He is the all in all. He is the Great I AM.

    The Arian god is a hellspawned false god worshipped by the Sabellian/Modalist cultists, an abominable modern day Ba’al.

    Mlculwell: yes you are correct!”The Arian god is a hellspawned false god ” But you are not correct when you falsely claim that Sabillus or Modalists were Arian they were Not! Nor were they Cultists the real cultists are the trinitarians.

    Coram:
    This much is for certain, the god of the Arians is not the God of the Holy Bible.

    Mlculwell: again ytou are correct but you are wrong in trying to claim Oneness are arians they are not! they have the truth!

  361. Coram says:
    “Among the most encouraging things about trusting the Word of God is how its light exposes the deceitful works of darkness and like a two-edged sword it cleaves and separates with unmatched efficiency and effectiveness.”

    Yes that is true and I Have exposed the false doctrine today!

    Click here to hear the Trinity exposed as False doctrine!

    http://www.goodpreaching.com/media/index.php?q=f&f=%2FDebates%2FMarvin+Hicks+Debates

  362. Coram Deo said

    Manual Culwell (and other likeminded Oneness Pentecostals),

    I’m sorry you feel so threatened by the truth, but please understand that the source of your fear is the rejection of the truth of God. The Oneness Pentecostal cult teaches that it has the only truth, just like the other cults of Christianity such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. Like the other cults it also teaches falsehoods about true Christians and their beliefs.

    I’m not angry with those who have been deceived by Oneness Pentecostal doctrines, I hate the sin, not the sinner. The devil has done a wonderful job of twisting God’s truth since his first deception in the garden, and his deceptions always follow the same methodology.

    Anyway, contrary to what you may have been taught by the Oneness Pentecostal cult true Christians rely and believe upon the unconditional love and acceptance of Jesus Christ.

    You’ve probably been taught lies such as 1)”Trinitarian Christians” are not saved, 2)”Trinitarians” worship three separate gods, and that 3) “Trinitarians” don’t REALLY believe that Jesus Christ was Himself the Lord God Almighty.

    I make these assumptions based on the fact that this is how most Oneness Pentecostals are indoctrinated to perceive “Trinitarians”.

    The truth is that I am a Bible believing Christian theist and I believe that there is ONLY ONE GOD – not three – and that Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the One True Living God. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.

    The early church’s creedal language about God existing in “three persons” does not mean – and has NEVER meant – that there are three “people” or three “beings” who are God. The “three persons” language is simply a way of stating that God eternally exists in three personally distinct ways, however these three personally distinct ways are not to be understood simply as “manifestations” of the One True Living God.

    Look, Jesus Christ is the very center of my faith and life. Sadly it seems that Oneness Pentecostals tend to subscribe to some sort of elitist theology on this point by falsely believing that only they are the ones for whom this is true.

    Oneness Pentecostalism also subscribes to an authoritarian doctrinal system which in fact results in a form of spiritual bondage which is against the will of Christ.

    Among the erroneous beliefs held by Oneness Pentecostals are 1) the belief that tongues is a necessary sign of salvation, 2) the denial of the pre-existence of Christ, 3) the belief that Jesus was (or is) somehow Himself the Father, and 4) the belief that baptism is Jesus name is necessary for salvation.

    If you believe any of the four points listed above then you have believed a lie.

    Do Oneness Pentecostals ever wonder why there is no biblical precedent for demanding speaking in tongues as a pre-condition for salvation?

    Faith and sanctification are portrayed in the New Testament as the result, not the basis of receiving the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3; Romans 15:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:13)

    Another peculiarity of Oneness Pentecostals is the unfounded belief that the book of Acts is a blueprint for all church history. If this is true then where in the book of Acts does one find individuals seeking for the Holy Spirit and expecting to receive tongues as the sign that He’s come?

    I can save you some time searching by telling you it isn’t there. On the contrary in Acts the Holy Spirit falls on entire groups who are not expecting tongues or any other sign. In the light of infallible, inspired scripture do Oneness Pentecostals really “alone do it just like the Bible says”? The scriptures testify that they do not.

    Oneness Pentecostals also reject the truth that Jesus existed as the Son of God from all eternity. Since Jesus is God this means prior to His incarnation Jesus must have existed as the Father or as an idea in the Father’s mind. Yet there are numerous scriptures that clearly teach that Jesus has always existed WITH (not as) God the Father prior to His earthly incarnation. (John 1:1 & 10-14). An idea can’t be the Creator so we’re left with One Who came to His own world and was rejected by it, now did the Father come to the world or did Jesus Christ – the Son – come to the world?

    We also have John the Baptist testifying to Jesus Christ’s real pre-existence in John 1:15,31 as well as the Lord Himself making reference to the same thing noting how He will ascend up to the Father where He was “before” (6:62). The Lord also testifies numerous times how he has COME FORTH FROM THE FATHER and is GOING BACK TO THE FATHER.

    You might also consider 1 Corinthians 8:6, Hebrews 1:2-10, and Colossians 1:16-17 which speak expressly of Jesus as the Son of God creating the world.

    The New Testament itself teaches over and over that Jesus is the Son of God and Son of man, but He is NEVER ONCE called the Father. In fact the Father is referred to as distinct from Jesus over 200 times in the NT and over 50 times Jesus the Son and the Father are juxtaposed in the same verse.

    Why is there such overwhelming emphasis on Jesus being the Son of God and being distinct from the Father if in fact Scripture wants to teach us that Jesus is Himself the Father? Why would scripture be so clear on the first point and so silent on the second point?

    Let me again reiterate at this point that I believe Jesus Christ is God Almighty, yet this in no way proves or even hints that He is also the Father.

    Finally there’s the issue of the Oneness belief that baptism must be “in Jesus name for the remission of sins”. First, at least 60 times the New Testament speaks of salvation by faith alone without mentioning baptism. If baptism is in fact necessary for salvation, why is there this emphasis on faith for salvation but not on baptism in Scripture? Second, the phrase “for the remission of sins,” used by Peter in Acts 2:38, is also used to describe John the Baptist’s baptism (Luke 3:3; Mark 1:4), but no one supposes that his baptism literally washed away people’s sins (why would they need to later be rebaptized? Cf. Acts 19:1-6). The word “for”; in the Greek (eis) need only mean “with a view toward,” for we know that the Jews baptized people for such things as freedom, God’s justice, etc.

    Third, the Oneness insistence that the words “in Jesus name” have to be said over a person while he or she is being baptized is also without scriptural justification. When this phrase is used in Acts (e.g., 10:45-48), it only means “in the authority of” or “for the sake of.” It is not a formula (which is why it never occurs the exact same way twice in Acts). We are commanded to do all things “in the name of Jesus,” but this obviously does not mean we have to say “in Jesus name”; before we do anything (Colossians 3:17). Again, the Jews baptized people “in the name of”; many things (Mt. Gerizim, a rabbi, etc.), but they placed no significance on saying these words while performing the ceremony.

    Finally, Jesus tells us to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19), and there is simply no reason to think that Jesus was here cryptically referring to Himself. The fact that next to no one throughout history has understood Jesus to be doing this itself shows that either the Oneness interpretation is wrong, or Jesus is a very poor communicator (and on a point which supposedly affects our salvation!).

    I pray that you’ll search the scriptures on these matters and that the One True Living God might lead you out of the religious bondage of the Oneness Pentecosal cult by His Holy Spirit and into the glorious light of a personal relationship with Him through the shed blood His blessed Son Jesus Christ.

    (HAT TIP: Gospel Outreach).

  363. Look Coram, why don’t you debate your cause instead of regurgitating your churches faulty
    Apologetic Lies? I can prove my doctrine is of God by the scriptures you have made a bunch of
    statements that mean nothing to me! You went to some site to see what we believe because you
    never eally knew in the first place that was clear when you called Arians we are not now you
    know! But Just like you did’nt know then you don’t know now what we believe!

  364. johnkaniecki said

    Manuel,

    Hi hope you are well. I am back home and I have some tools to work with.

    Let’s look first at I Corinthians 15:45. …The last Adam was made a quickening spirit. I would presume that you interpret this scripture that somehow Jesus became God. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    I don’t see it that way. Jesus was made into something that brought life to others. Just as Adam brought death through sin to all mankind Jesus brought the possibility of life. Yet Jesus could not bring this life until He did what He had done on the cross. Thus He didn’t become God he became a redeemer or a life giving spirit. The sacrifice of the Lamb of God had to be made. That is why I bring up the point that Jesus was sinless. Do you think anyone could be twenty years old and not sin without supernatural help. Without being God?

    Look closely at 1 Corinthians 15:28, And when all things shall be subdued unto Him then shall the son be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”
    Act 2:36 says “…that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Go back to ICorinthians 15 for this one. In particular verse 25 “For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.” Christ is another word from saviour or redeemer. As it is today not all things are under Christ’s feet but it will come to that. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. I Cor 15:26. This will occur at the Great Judgement. You see Jesus went through a process but was always God. Yet the task of reconciling us to God and removing the barrier of sin took action on God’s part.

    The son is under somebody. Who is that?

    John 14:28 …I go unto the Father; for my Father is greater than I.

    Again two seperate entities one greater than the other.

    John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I shall send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.

    Comforter, Father, and me (Jesus since Jesus is speaking.)

    Back to John 1. If Jesus was alone God which I presume is your stance why didn’t scripture just say the Word was God. No it says the “Word was with God and the Word was God.” The inclusion of the word with means more than one party. Nobody can be with themselves it just isn’t how language works. Manuel was with Manuel does that make sense in the singular. But Manuel was a worker and Manuel was with the workers makes sense. And notice the arrangement is given. First it says the Word was with God, that I would believe for greater emphasis. If there is only one personality in God than explain this.

    One more for now John 17:5 And now O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee bofre the world was.

    Jesus was with the Father before the world began.

    Any way I’d like to comment that I do present scriptures to you. Yes, you may disagree with how I see everyone but to be honest I disagree with the way you look at yours. To be quite honest if I din’t know better I would think you had a problem with the English language. Saying that John 14:18 is the best proof for what I think you propose. Yet I do not deny the oneness of God. I just say there is three that are one. But just go down five verse to number 23 and the scripture says “we will come unto him”. Notice the plural there.

    In concluding I must say that the Father, Son and Spirit are three themes in the New Testament that are very prevalent. Further examination of scripture would show that each personality serves a different function.

    I have never made fun of anyone on the blog and wouldn’t do it. When to Crimson Wolf is presented my donkey comment it was because I saw more mockery between the particpants than dialouge. Christians should never digress into name calling. Unfortunately that is how it works around here sometimes.

    Love,

    John

  365. Eden Hadassah said

    Puff the majic dragon lived by the sea, and frolicked in the autumn midst, in a land called manni-lee…😉

    JACK IS BACK! Chazman! 😉

    I told you guys there would be others to buy a ticket to ride the merry-go-round.
    Have fun boys and girls. 🙂

  366. johnkaniecki said

    Eden,

    All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

    All play and no work makes John a jerk.

    Don’t tell me I don’t know Jack, cause I did. He was a very nice man.

    Try to stay on top of those Rock and Roll lyrics you never know what we’ll be singing. Maybe “Purple Haze” is in order.

    How do you make those smiley faces?

    Why can’t anybody accept Jack is really dead.

    Love,

    John

  367. Fran said

    It’ sad to see followers of Christ name calling, puns , riddles, and the likes of this going on because of disagreements. These are the things that children do. Put away the childish behaviors and act like adults. Beleivers and non-beleivers alike.

    It’s evident that what ever you beleive, that both are standing firm in their beliefs. Stop being provoked into ill behavior. If it’s about being right, look whos gaining ground when it comes to all the name calling.

  368. Fran said

    Eden

    Did you buy a ticket for the merry-go-round yourself?

  369. Eden Hadassah said

    Hi John!

    Different Jack!
    Ok! Smilie faces… I gave them in another post to you some time back, but the comments probably moved too quick see my post.
    I only know a few faces.
    If you put a : and a ) together you get a 🙂
    If you put a ; and a ) together you get a 😉
    If you put a : and a ( together you get a 😦

    I hope this makes sense!
    I love you John. How are you guys doing? Are you and your wife well?

  370. Coram,
    Let’s start with this because you are an easy target, then I will give you a real good whooping on the rest of it!

    coram writes:
    Finally there’s the issue of the Oneness belief that baptism must be “in Jesus name for the remission of sins”. First, at least 60 times the New Testament speaks of salvation by faith alone without mentioning baptism.

    mlculwell: Baptism is a part of faith, if it is left out then you do not believe scripture
    Just like repentence is a part of faith and just like confession to leave any part out is a
    fundamental lack of faith by being decieved!

    Coram:
    If baptism is in fact necessary for salvation, why is there this emphasis on faith for salvation but not on baptism in Scripture?

    mlculwell:L
    Because faith encompasses all that is of faith which includes repentance, and confession, as
    well as Baptism. Faith includes Baptism and repentence it does not exclude it!

    Coram:
    Second, the phrase “for the remission of sins,” used by Peter in Acts 2:38, is also used to describe John the Baptist’s baptism (Luke 3:3; Mark 1:4), but no one supposes that his baptism literally washed away people’s sins (why would they need to later be rebaptized?
    Cf. Acts 19:1-6)

    mlculwell: Yes, his(John’s)Baptism was to wash sins. Only those who try and twist the scriptures to make it fit your reformed messy veiw of salvation would not. The difference now between John’s baptism and New testement Baptism is that remission or washing of sins no longer comes through Baptism, but baptism in the name, without the name Jesus you are meerly getting wet, for it is the name in Baptism that washes sins! John ‘s Baptism was under the Old covenant so everyone would need to be rebaptised under the New even the theives on the cross who died under the Old Covenenat.

    Coram:
    The word “for”; in the Greek (eis) need only mean “with a view toward,” for we know that the Jews baptized people for such things as freedom, God’s justice, etc.

    mlculwell:This does not even make sense! I understand that eis is the greek word *for* But don’t be trying to pull the wool over my eyes because I will not stand for your deceit! Eis is recorded in KJV as following:

    Into – 571 times, To — 282 times,Unto — 208 times,In — 131 times,For — 91 times,On — 57 times,Toward — 32 times,That — 30 times,Against — 25 times,Upon — 25 times,At — 20 times
    Among — 16 times,Concerning — 5 times,“because of” – 0 times

    According to Thayer’s lexigon, eis means “entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, towards, for, among.” The majority of the words listed above are consistent with that meaning. Many wish to believe/teach that Peter said repent and be baptized “because of” the remission of sins. There is, however, not a single instance of the Greek word eis in the KJV ever translated as “because of.” Nor is there apparently any version of the Bible that translates Acts 2:38, “Repent, and be baptized . . . because of the remission of sins.”

    Coram:
    Third, the Oneness insistence that the words “in Jesus name” have to be said over a person while he or she is being baptized is also without scriptural justification.

    mlculwell:
    What you are trying to do is discredit the menaing of scriptures to force your veiw… yes we will get on the subject of the name!

    Coram:
    When this phrase is used in Acts (e.g., 10:45-48), it only means “in the authority of” or “for the sake of.” It is not a formula (which is why it never occurs the exact same way twice in Acts).

    mlculwell: Being used the same way has nothing to do with it! it shows us we can call out any title such as Lord or Christ or Lord and Christ any number of ways in the usage as long as that name is there that remitts sin!

    Coram:
    We are commanded to do all things “in the name of Jesus,” but this obviously does not mean we have to say “in Jesus name”; before we do anything (Colossians 3:17). Again, the Jews baptized people “in the name of”; many things (Mt. Gerizim, a rabbi, etc.), but they placed no significance on saying these words while performing the ceremony.

    What ever words they chose to speak in Baptism under the Old covenant they were under has no baring on the new! We now have scriptual command! (Acts 10:48) and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

    Coram:
    Finally, Jesus tells us to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19),

    mlculwell: Do you realize that you defeat your own argument by saying in the name means Authority only and that you would not have to speak anything in Baptism if that were so? I don’t think you were smart enough to catch that though! So that you even make void and Null baptism in the Titles: Father,Son and, Holy Ghost! But Oneness understand that the one name should be used for all three titles, the name Jesus, the Hindus Baptize in the Ganges saying Nothing, whats the differance between their Heathen Baptism and ours? I will tell you! Name grk *Onama* does mean authority but it takes tha name for the Authority otherwise you are validating the hindus Baptism.

    Coram:
    and there is simply no reason to think that Jesus was here cryptically referring to Himself. The fact that next to no one throughout history has understood Jesus to be doing this itself shows that either the Oneness interpretation is wrong, or Jesus is a very poor communicator (and on a point which supposedly affects our salvation!).

    Mlculwell: Nobody can help that trinitarains were not smart enough to understand the scriptures That is your fault.

  371. Eden Hadassah said

    Hello Miss Fran!

    OH YES! I bought a ticket last week. If you haven’t read through all the posts, (I wouldn’t recommend it…it’s quite silly, I must say) but if you must, you will see the good, the bad and the ugly.

  372. Eden Hadassah said

    Have a good night all!

  373. Coram Deo said

    Manuel,

    I don’t understand your protest. I simply posted some very clear and well known Oneness Pentecostal beliefs and then I posted some very clear scriptures that refute those beliefs.

    Do you (and/or your church’s teachings) agree with the beliefs I listed, or do you agree with the scriptures that refute those beliefs?

    It’s impossible to overemphasize how important the consequences of our beliefs truly are, for the consequences are eternal. That’s why all our beliefs must be filtered through and founded upon the Word of God which is uniquely revealed in the Holy Bible alone.

    Also as a side note, over time the term “Arianism” has become broadly understood to encompass a number of anti-Trinitarian heresies. Maybe neo-Arian would have been a better description, but I also narrowed the broad scope of the charge of heresy by zeroing in on the well known Sabellian/Modalist underpinnings of the Oneness Pentecostal cult in particular so your cry of “foul” is unfounded.

    At any rate the originally intended point wasn’t the theological precision of the heresy involved, but rather to point out the obvious fact that Oneness Pentecostalism is heretical and antithetical to the revealed truth of scripture.

    Furthermore I’ve been reading and writing about the Sabellian/Modalist heresies for some time so your charge about “not knowing what you believe” is baseless.

    For your reference I’ve linked a few of my prior posts regarding the Oneness Pentecostal Sabellian/Modalist error below. Most of these missives focus on the well known Oneness Pentecostal, Trinity denying, word-faith guru, heretic-deceiver and arch-fiend “Bishop” T.D. Jakes:

    T.D. Jakes is a Sabellian/Modalist Heretic

    Deceivers

    Striking a Nerve

    Heretics of a Feather

    Here are a couple more noteworthy links that you might find useful:

    The Trinity Refused or Confused

    Oneness Pentecostals

    Again, I pray that the Lord will open your eyes to His truth and lead you out of the Oneness Pentecostal cult.

  374. Fran said

    Eden,

    I have read every comment, everyday they were posted. I don’t need to catch up on things that were said. That’s why I made the comment that I made.

    As far as the good, the bad, and the ugly, I’d rather read truths than name calling. It is childish. If anyone is provoked to name calling, etc., then ignore my comment, and carry on. Seems like whats in the heart is coming out in comments made.

  375. Coram Deo said

    Manuel,

    Again I’m sorry that you are so upset and angered by God’s truth. Your reply was a case study in fear and hatred which simply dripped with venom. It’s also representative of classic cult mind control.

    Did you notice how you ripped some of my comments out of context and simply made up an all new meaning? For example consider your treatment of my comment about Christ’s admonition to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and look at how you completely misrepresented my statement. Can you see it or are you blind to your own willful refusal to accept the truth?

    I also wonder why you can’t see that the sort of attitude you’ve put on display here isn’t godly, but is in fact Satanic. Is this the way the Oneness Pentecostal church teaches its members to behave? I feel so very sorry for you.

    Friend, you’ve been deceived by a slick message and a false theology packaged as the truth by the Oneness Pentecostal cult. Nearly everything you wrote was clear-cut works righteousness designed by hell to deceive men into believing that they can add something to the finished work of the cross. Whether it’s reciting the right name, baptizing the right way, or desperately seeking for tongues the end result is a vain effort to add human works to God’s completed work of perfect righteousness on the cross.

    You’re never going to earn God’s favor or attain unto salvation by your filthy and wicked works that emanate from a depraved and sinful heart. Salvation is 100% a sovereign work of a sovereign God and not of works, lest any man should boast.

    You speak of the new covenant and the old covenant but your own words betray the sad fact that you practice a 100% law soteriology which is a slap in the face of the Risen Savior Jesus Christ and an outright rejection of his offer of grace.

    Please know that I’ll be praying to the Lord Jesus Christ that He’ll free your mind by His Holy Spirit that you might receive true saving faith by His grace alone, and not of the religious works of the man-centered false gospel of the Oneness Pentecostal cult.

  376. John:

    Manuel,

    Hi hope you are well. I am back home and I have some tools to work with.

    Let’s look first at I Corinthians 15:45. …The last Adam was made a quickening spirit. I would presume that you interpret this scripture that somehow Jesus became God. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    I don’t see it that way. Jesus was made into something that brought life to others.

    mlculwell: John, why and how does God need to be made anything? have thought about this at all?

    John:
    Just as Adam brought death through sin to all mankind Jesus brought the possibility of life. Yet Jesus could not bring this life until He did what He had done on the cross. Thus He didn’t become God he became a redeemer or a life giving spirit. The sacrifice of the Lamb of God had to be made. That is why I bring up the point that Jesus was sinless. Do you think anyone could be twenty years old and not sin without supernatural help. Without being God?

    mlculwell: I understand that he was the sinless sacrifice for sins! Yes He became a redeemer through the sacrifice of his flesh (not his deity!) he was made God the scriptres say so, you cannot say:” no they don’t” and expect me to accept that now do you?

    John”
    Look closely at 1 Corinthians 15:28, And when all things shall be subdued unto Him then shall the son be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”

    mlculwell: John that has to do with his sonship handing over the Kingdom to God even the father, the sonship was his *humanity* not a deity known as “God the son” another passage says he hands it (The Kingdom Ekklesia to himself) eph. 5:27 that he might present it to himself a glorious church without spot or wrinkle or any such thing. God is subject to no one do you understand how contradictory this makes your doctrine sound?

    John:
    Act 2:36 says “…that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Go back to I Corinthians 15 for this one. In particular verse 25 “For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.” Christ is another word from saviour or redeemer. As it is today not all things are under Christ’s feet but it will come to that. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. I Cor 15:26. This will occur at the Great Judgement. You see Jesus went through a process but was always God. Yet the task of reconciling us to God and removing the barrier of sin took action on God’s part.

    The son is under somebody. Who is that?

    mlculwell: Exactely! “The son was under somebody” God! God cannot be under God, or he would not
    be God! The son or humanity puts down the rule and God is all in all 1st. Cor. 15: 28 says and jesu is only known as God. who is that you say that is found in John 20:17 I ascend unto my father and your father unto my God and your God . God cannot have a God! it was the ressurected son speaking.

    John:
    John 14:28 …I go unto the Father; for my Father is greater than I.

    Again two seperate entities one greater than the other.

    mlculwell: Would you like to know what those are John? Spirit(The father God) and son or flesh that died or he that was less than the father because he was not “god the son” But a man that died and was made God because he was temporal limited flesh that could die.

    John:
    John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I shall send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.

    mlculwell:I have already explained this and you ignored it. The first comforter was Jesus in the flesh. the other comforter was jesus in the Spirit because Jesu paid the price through his sacrifce of his flesh for us to have him in us. Jeus said In John 14: I(Jesus( will not leave you comfortless I (Jesus) will come to you. revealing he would be the comforter in the spirit that God would give and testify of the sacrice of the slain humanity.

    John:
    Comforter, Father, and me (Jesus since Jesus is speaking.)

    Mlculwell: all you are seeing are of each title so you make each another person when it is all the same. Like I am a father, son, and husband.

    John:
    Back to John 1. If Jesus was alone God which I presume is your stance why didn’t scripture just say the Word was God. No it says the “Word was with God and the Word was God.” The inclusion of the word with means more than one party.

    mlculwell: No, I am afraid there are other passages that prove just the opposite. a parrallel to John in 1st. John 1:1-2

    That which was from the beggining we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled, of *the word of Life*; for the Life was manifested and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that *eternal life* which was *with* the father.

    This passage says eternal life or the word of Life was *with* Grk *Pros* the father. This eteranl life, the word of Life, the word, the word by the breath of His mouth with him cannot be and was not an other person beside or with God as a person but only with God as His all powerful word. (Psalm 33:6) By the word of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth it is to bad i have to repeat my arguemnts that are being ignore this trumps your with passage as person when the passage clearly say the word by the breath of his mouth was with him and created and was called both the eternal word or the word of Life!

    John:
    Nobody can be with themselves it just isn’t how language works. Manuel was with Manuel does that make sense in the singular.

    mlculwell: No it does not make sense but that is not what John 1:1 is saying! The word was with God and God cannot be with God! Does that make sense? That is the same argument you are using! God'[s all powerful creative word eternal was with him and created by the breath of his mouth now if you can make the bretath of your mouth another person then you might have an argument.

    john:
    But Manuel was a worker and Manuel was with the workers makes sense. And notice the arrangement is given. First it says the Word was with God, that I would believe for greater emphasis. If there is only one personality in God than explain this.

    There is only one God there with his all powerful word by the breath of his mouth you are making the word saomething the scriptures do not teach!

    John:
    One more for now John 17:5 And now O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee bofre the world was.

    Jesus was with the Father before the world began.

    mlculwell: No he was not! John I don’t know How many times I have had to explain this passage for you folks probably a million and one times, but okay I will explain it again! I know I have expalined it on this group before with total ignoring of the facts, Jesus is not talking at all about pre-existence of Himself alongside God the father, if I Isolated the passage in a vacuum and simply went by grammar alone I would come up with the same conclusion as you and be stuck in the same false doctrine. Jesus is speaking of his slain humanity in the plan/Logos of God for future redemption. Notice John 7:38-39 The Holy Ghost was Not yet given for Jesus was not yet G-l-o-r-i-f-i-e-d. This glory referred to his slain humanity in the plan/Logos of God. Did you happen to catch the phrasing NOT YET GLORIFIED it was the same glory Jesus was saying he had with the father before the world was, the same that Rev. 13:8 speaks of, as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Now please tell me about Jesus literally being slain before the world was. He did not exist and (Romans 5:14) says he did not…Look at (Luke 11:50) where the blood of Prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world. (Eph. 1:4) he chose us in him BEFORE the foundation of the world. These passages most certainly show that God had a plan and they are relevant so you cannot shrug them off as being insignificant.

    Monotheism most certainly does not imply three persons.Further; (John 17:22-24) is the same context and speaks of the same glory V.22 speaks of the glory given him . How is that? Notice verse 24 the glory given him(Right now from the foundation of the world)was what the (“they” the Disciples) were about to witness (They were to behold his glory he had with the father before the world was, proving exactly what I have said all along.

    jOHN:
    Any way I’d like to comment that I do present scriptures to you. Yes, you may disagree with how I see everyone but to be honest I disagree with the way you look at yours. To be quite honest if I din’t know better I would think you had a problem with the English language. Saying that John 14:18 is the best proof for what I think you propose. Yet I do not deny the oneness of God. I just say there is three that are one. But just go down five verse to number 23 and the scripture says “we will come unto him”. Notice the plural there. Yes,

    Mlculwell: Yes, I have explained this also! The passaage does not prove two persons of God the “we” in the plural is what Jesus will become as he is now the spirit of God, At the time he spoke in (John 14:23) he was a human man and would be Christ in you the Hope of glory he was not yet that spirit in you and had not payed the ultimate price for us to have said spirit when he spoke their was a distinction between spirit and flesh thus the we! but the we was not at anytime time two persons of God but One God and one man! Do you remeber the Old seseme street song onew of these things are not like the other! mSo yes The Passage I submitted from John 14:18 still stands I (Jesus) will not leave you comfortless I(Jesus) will come to you.(as the spirit not as the human person that he was at the time he said: we will come to you!

    In concluding I must say that the Father, Son and Spirit are three themes in the New Testament that are very prevalent. Further examination of scripture would show that each personality serves a different function.

    I have never made fun of anyone on the blog and wouldn’t do it. When to Crimson Wolf is presented my donkey comment it was because I saw more mockery between the particpants than dialouge. Christians should never digress into name calling. Unfortunately that is how it works around here sometimes.

    Love,

    John

  377. Oh I see Coram, I am supposed to let you call the truth a cult and not defend the truth other wise I am “dripping with Venom” and I am full of “fear and hatred” the scriptures allow me to be angry at false doctrine and sin not! and it even allows me to hate your falkse doctrine as God Hates your false doctrine, The scriptures allow me to have rightreous indignation!

    I see that you have not even attempted to argue any of my points except to use the classic calvinistic soverign God argument that I am being of that Murderer John Calvin. Not God’s truth at all! I used what you gave me according to your twisted Veiw Of Matthew 28:19 you said in the name meant authority only Math. 28:19 says to Baptize in the name of the authority only according to you! You did the only twisting scripture!

    If anyone is Satanic it is you coram not me and your evil doctrine of Calvinism which I can easily defeat in a debat which I knw you will not have with me. you talk nice little twisted talk but everything you accuse me of you are doing as you can see I have to talk this way with john he is nice and wants to have a civil discussion you don’t you want to spew your evil hatred and vitriol so I will give you whatr you give contradicting your doctrine is not a personal attack nor is it hatred.

    If anyone has been decieved it is you and your evil Calvinism Coram! I don’t practise any Law! You have been lied to so much by calvinism you don’t have any idea what the bible says you only submit slick memorized Calvin phrases that have been passed from the devil to Calvin, to you.

  378. Coram Deo said

    Manuel,

    I’ve done what little I can to try to plainly show you God’s Word, but only the One True Living God can remove the scales from your eyes that you might see the truth, until then you’ll remain deceived and in bondage to your trespass and sin.

    And I don’t make the aforementioned charge lightly, yet by your own words you have clearly stated that you believe sinful man must add to the perfected work of Jesus Christ on the cross in order to be saved since you’ve professed that human works are required for one to be truly born again and enter into heaven (baptismal regeneration, using the “correct” name, etc.)

    This belief is breathtakingly unbiblical and is in fact an ancient and damnable lie and a direct affront, insult, and assault on the nature of the atoning work of Christ. If you are itching to be angry at false teaching and to demonstrate a hatred of false doctrine then you need to set your sights on the Oneness Pentecostal cult that is responsible for teaching you so many lies which have been spawned from the pit of hell.

    Now, the rest of this post is primarily for true Christian believers out there, but the Oneness Pentecostal cultists and everyone else is welcome to read the material since it’s quite relevant to the matter at hand.

    The Oneness Pentecostal cultists that have shown up and posted in this thread thus far have demonstrated a consistent approach in their (false) hermeneutic, which is somewhat of a blessing to the true Christian believer as it allows for Biblical truth to be juxtaposed against the cult’s errors, which are legion.

    Nearly all the cults and their adherents are alike in the manner in which they twist and wrest the truth of scripture into a mockery of the One True Living God and His eternal purposes which He has revealed to mankind in the Holy Bible. Of course it’s of paramount importance to prayerfully try to lovingly correct and rebuke these unrepentant and wicked servants of the Devil, but it’s also valuable to learn from each apologetic endeavor since, if you’re blessed, the Lord will place many such deceived people into your life that some might be snatched from the fires of hell by His boundless pity, love, mercy, and grace.

    With this in mind I hope you’ll consider the following material from the “Department of Christian Defense” which irrefutably demonstrates the falsehood of the Oneness Pentecostal cult:

    1. Where in the Scripture does it say that God is Unitarian? (or that God exists as one Person?)

    Note: Nowhere in Scripture is God defined as one Person, but rather as one Being: mono (from monos, meaning, alone or only one) and theism (from theos, meaning, God). Oneness adherents wrongly assume that the word one when referring to God (e.g., Deut. 6:4) has the strict denotative meaning of absolute solitude.

    2. If God is Unitarian, how do you explain passages such as Genesis 19:24 where Yahweh (“LORD”), rained brimstone and fire from the Yahweh out of heaven?

    Note: there are many places in the OT where God is presented as multi personal (e.g., the person plural personal pronouns used of God, i.e., “Us,” “Our,” in Gen. 1:26-27; 3:22; 11:7-9; and Isa. 6:8 [also see John 14:23]; Yahweh to Yahweh and Elohim (“God”) to Elohim correspondences in passages such as Gen. 19:24; Ps. 45:6-7; Isa. 48:12-16; and Hos. 1:6-7).

    3. If God is Unitarian, why are there so many plural descriptions in the OT (viz. plural nouns, adjectives, and verbs) to describe God?

    Example: in Isaiah 54:5, “Maker” is plural in Hebrew, lit., “Makers”; same with Psalm 149:2 where “Maker” is in the plural in Hebrew. The same can be said in Ecclesiastes 12:1, where the Hebrew literally reads, “Remember also your Creators” (plural in Heb.). Thus, because God is tri-personal He can be described as both “Maker” and “Makers” and as “Creator” and “Creators.” He is one Being, not one Person—a point that is repeatedly brought to bear by the OT authors.

    4. If God is Unitarian, why is it that there are so many places in the Bible where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are clearly distinguished from each other in the same verse?

    Example, Paul says in 2 Corinthians 13:14, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” Also see passages such as Matthew 28:19; Ephesians 2:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2 where all three Persons of the Godhead are referred—in the same verse.

    5. If Jesus is the Father, why is it that Jesus is explicitly referred to as “the Son” over two hundred times in the New Testament, and never once is he called “Father?

    6. If the “Son” has not eternally existed with (personally distinct from) the Father why then is the Son presented as the Agent of creation, that is, the Creator? (for in Oneness theology only Jesus as the “Father” mode existed prior to Bethlehem).

    Note: in passages such as John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 1:10, the “Son” is clearly and grammatically presented as Agent of creation, the Creator Himself. Specifically, in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2, the Greek preposition dia (“though”) is followed by a pronoun in the *genitive* case (or possessive case). Grammatically, when dia is followed by the genitive (as in these passages), the preposition indicates “agency” (cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 368; J. Harold Greenlee, A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek, 5th ed. 31; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 4:478-79; and cf. also Walter Bauer’s, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd ed. [hereafter BDAG], 225).

    Hence, exegetically these passages do not indicate that the Son was a mere instrument of creation (as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons believe), nor, as Oneness teachers say, do these passages indicate that the Son was only a thought or plan in the Father’s mind when the Father (Jesus’ divine nature) created all things. Rather the Son is biblically (exegetically) presented as the Creator of all things Himself. That the Son was the Creator clearly disproves the Oneness position.

    This is the greatest weakness of the Oneness position: For if the Son created, then, He eternally existed with the Father.

    7. If the Son did not eternally exist with the Father as a distinct Person why is it that the “Son” can say, “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had [eichon, or “shared”] with You before the world was”?

    How did the Son have (literally, actively possessed) glory with (para) the Father before time if the Son did not exist before Bethlehem?

    Note: In this beautiful passage (Jesus’ high priestly prayer) the “Son” (for Jesus says, “Now, Father”) says that He possessed or shared glory with the Father, before time.

    To avoid the plainness of the passage (namely, the preexistence of the Son and His personal distinction from His Father), Oneness teachers argue that the glory that Jesus (the Son) had with the Father, only signified the future glory or “plan” in the Father’s mind, thus anticipating the Son’s coming at Bethlehem. But the Son, they say, was not really there with the Father “before the world was.” However, consider the following:

    Grammatically, when the preposition para (“with”) is followed by the dative case (as in this verse: para seautō, “with Yourself” and para soi, “with You”), especially in reference to persons, it indicates “near,” “beside,” or “in the presence of” (cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 378 and any recognized Greek Grammar or recognized Lexicon of the NT such as BDAG, 757). Noted Greek grammarian, A. T. Robertson says of the passage that

    This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father’s side (para soi, “with thee”) “which I had” (hēi eichon, imperfect active of echō. . . . (Robertson, Word Pictures, 5:275-76).

    8. If the Son did not eternally exist with the Father as a distinct Person why is it that the “Son” is said to be “sent” from the Father “out of heaven”?

    Scripture presents in plain and normal language that the preexistent Person of the Son was sent from the Father (e.g., John 3:13; 16-17; 6:33, 38, 44, 46, 50-51; 62; 8:23, 38, 42, 57-58; 16:28; Gal. 4:4). Nowhere in the New Testament, however, is it said that Jesus sent the Son. If Jesus were the Father, as Oneness believers contend, one would expect to find a clear example of this—at least one passage.

    John 3:13; 6:38, 46, 62; 8:23, 38, 42; 16:28.

    “No one has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven [ek tou ouranou]: the Son of Man” (John 3:13). Thus, the Person of the Son of Man was in heaven prior to being sent. That the “Son of Man” was in heaven prior to Bethlehem creates a theological problem for Oneness doctrine. For the “Son of Man” in Oneness theology was not the Father, but the human Son who emerged not until Bethlehem, but here, the Son of Man came from heaven, that is, the Son.

    Also see Philippians 2:5-11, where we read that the “Son” (see vv. 1:2, 2:9, 11) who, “existed in the form of God” [literally, “always subsisting as God”] . . . emptied Himself . . . taking the form of a bond-servant.” Note that the Apostle Paul indicates that the “Son” was always existing as deity. Oneness deny that the Son is God, only the “Father” (i.e., Jesus’’ divine nature) is God. However, here the “Son” is presented as fully God.

    For in verse 6, Paul plainly asserts that Jesus was always subsisting as God: “who . . . existed [huparchōn] in the form of God [morphē theou]” (emphasis added). The word translated “existed” is huparchōn (the present active participle of huparchō). The present particle indicates a continuous existence or continually subsisting (see BDAG, 1029; Thayer, 638)—the Son was always God.

    Hence, Jesus, the Son (cf. 1:2, 2:9, 11), did not become the very form or nature (morphē) of God at a certain point in time, rather He always existed as God. Further the “Son” is said to have voluntarily “made Himself nothing, taking [labōn]1 the nature of a servant” (vv. 7-8).

    Note that the reflexive pronoun heauton, (lit. “Himself He emptied”) indicates a “self-emptying.”2 Thus, it was not the Father, as Oneness teachers suppose, but the Son who voluntarily emptied Himself and became obedient to death—“even death on a cross” (v. 8).

    9. If Oneness doctrine is biblically true, why then do the biblical authors use grammatical features that personally distinguish between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

    Example, First and third person personal pronouns:

    Throughout chapter 14, Jesus clearly differentiates Himself from the Father by using first person personal pronouns (“I,” “Me,” “Mine”) to refer to Himself and third person personal pronouns (“He,” “Him,” “His”) to refer to His Father (e.g., John 14:7, 10, 16). This case of marked distinction is also evident when Jesus differentiates Himself from God the Holy Spirit:

    “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another [allon]3 Helper, that He may be with you forever” (John 14:16; also see 14:7, 10, 26;).

    Repetition of the article:

    Specifically, the repetition of the article tou (“the”) before each noun and the conjunction kai (“and”) that connects the nouns clearly denote a distinction between all three Persons named.4 Note Matthew 28:19: “in the name of the [tou] Father and the [kai tou] Son and the [kai tou] Holy Spirit.” Further, Paul clearly presents the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, not as three modes of a unipersonal deity, but rather as three distinct Persons. The same grammatical distinctions are observed in 2 Corinthians 13:14:

    The grace of the [tou] Lord Jesus Christ, and [kai] the love of God [tou theou (lit. “the God”)], and [kai] the fellowship of the [tou] Holy Spirit be with you all (emphasis added).

    In Revelation 5:13, the Lamb and the Father are presented as two distinct objects of divine worship, as they are clearly differentiated by the repetition of the article tō:

    To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion for ever and ever (emphasis added).

    “To Him who sits” (tō kathēmenō [lit. “to the one sitting”—the Father]) “and the Lamb” (kai tō arniō—the Son) are grammatically differentiated by the repeated article tō (“the”), which precedes both nouns and are connected by the one conjunction kai (“and”). Further, turning to 1 John 1:3, not only does John show that believers have fellowship with both the Father and the Son, but the Father and the Son are clearly distinguished as two Persons by the repeated article tou (“the”) and the repeated preposition meta (“with”): e proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with [meta] us; and indeed our fellowship is with the [meta tou] Father and with [meta] His Son [tou huiou] Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3; emphasis added).

    There are many other passages where this construction applies clearly denoting distinction between the Persons in the Trinity (e.g., 1 Thess. 3:11; 2 Thess. 2:16-17; 1 John 2:22-23).

    Different prepositions: Throughout John chapter 14 (and chaps. 15-16), Jesus distinguishes Himself from His Father by using different prepositions. This use of different prepositions “shows a relationship between them,”5 and clearly denotes essential distinction, e.g., “no one comes to [pros] the Father but through [dia] Me” (John 14:6); “he who believes in [eis] Me . . . I am going to [pros] the Father” (v. 12; cf. also John 15:26; 16:28). Paul, too, regularly uses different prepositions to clearly differentiate the Father from the Son. In Ephesians 2:18, Paul teaches that by the agency of the Son, Christians have access to the Father by means of the Spirit:

    For through Him [di’ autou—the Son] we both have our access in [en] one Spirit to the Father [pros ton patera] (Eph. 2:18).

    10. If Oneness doctrine (or modalism) is the so-called doctrine of the apostles, then, why was it universally condemned as *heretical* by the early church Fathers (some of who were disciples of the original apostles) and condemned by all the important church councils and creeds?

    Example, Theodotus (the first known dynamic monarchianist) was excommunicated by Victor, the bishop of Rome, around A.D. 190; Noetus (the first known modalist) was condemned by Hippolytus and by the presbyters around the same time; Praxeas was marked as a heretic by Tertullian; Paul of Samosata was condemned at the Third Council in Antioch (A.D. 268); Dionysius of Alexandria and Dionysius bishop of Rome along with many important church Fathers condemned Sabellius and his teachings as Christological heresy. Moreover, significant Christian church councils affirmed the Trinity and explicitly rejected Oneness doctrine: e.g., Council of Nicea (325); Chalcedon Creed (A.D. 451); Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381); etc.

    Consider this, Trinitarians, not Oneness believers, conducted all of the major revivals worldwide. Virtually all of the great biblical scholars, theologians, and Greek grammarians, historically have been and presently are Trinitarian, not Oneness—for obvious reasons. The church has branded Oneness theology as heretical since the days of Noetus at the end of the second century. Moreover, when it found its way in the twentieth century, departing from the Trinitarian Pentecostals, it was again rejected by the church.

    Modalism rips the heart out of Christianity—it denies Christ by misrepresenting Him. To be sure, modalism embraces another Jesus, another Gospel, and another Spirit. There is only one true God. The Apostle John was very concerned as to the false beliefs and teachings of Jesus Christ, as he gives this warning:

    Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also (1 John 2:23).

    By promoting the Son as a temporary mode or a role of the Unitarian deity whose life started in Bethlehem, denies the Son, as well as the Father.

  379. You are messing with the wrong guy there coram as i have already answered Ed Dalcours 10 Questions to ask Oneness believers

    Ed Dalcour:1. where in scripture does it say God is Unitarian(1 person)?

    mlculwell:it does not and we do not claim such outside the person of the son(The real humanity that was in subjection to his God) John 20:17

    Ed Dalcour: 2. If God is unitarian, how do you explain passages such as Genesis 19:24 where Yahweh (“LORD”), rained brimstone and fire from the Yahweh out of heaven? ——————————————————

    Mlculwell: FIRST I should explain something to those who do not recognize the terminology Ed uses because “Unitarian” is not a term that we use what so ever. Ed Dalcour uses the term in place of “1 person” because of what he assumes we believe the scripture teaches which is not the truth at all ….As Oneness we do not even believe God is a person outside of the person of the son anyhow so before the Incarnation or where God(The father as spirit) before he was in Christ (the Human son) God was not even Unitarian because God is not a person period… Now For the passageThe passage is a “re-emphasis” or as David Bernard says from his book The Oneness of God pg. 154 The restatement as means of emphasis the Bible clearly states there is only One LORD (Deuteronomy 6:4)” Notice what the passage actually says and what Trinitarians are trying to force:Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon GomorrahPlease take note they believe this is one LORD because of the literary restatement wording But this Lord rains down from where I wonder? Heaven maybe? Maybe one is raining on Sodom and the other Gomorrah? Silly, Right? Now the rest of the passage reads? Brimstone and fire from the LORD.Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah Brimstone and fire from the LORD.also be it known Edward Dalcour likes to cry foul with his famous line no exegesis no reply but we have no exegesis from these questions only mere unproven theory for his trinity doctrine.

    Ed Writes:Note: there are many places in the OT where God is presented as multi personal (e.g., the person plural personal pronouns used of God, i.e., “Us,” “Our,” in Gen. 1:26-27; 3:22; 11:7-9; and Isa. 6:8 [also see John 14:23]; Yahweh to Yahweh and Elohim (“God”) to Elohim correspondences in passages such as Gen. 19:24; Ps. 45:6-7; Isa. 48:12-16; and Hos. 1:6-7). 3. If God is unitarian, why are there so many plural descriptions in the OT (viz. plural nouns, adjectives, and verbs) to describe God? Example: in Isaiah 54:5, “Maker” is plural in Hebrew, lit., “Makers”; same with Psalm 149:2 where “Maker” is in the plural in Hebrew. The same can be said in Ecclesiastes 12:1, where the Hebrew literally reads, “Remember also your Creators” (plural in Heb.). Thus, because God is tri-personal He can be described as both “Maker” and “Makers” and as “Creator” and “Creators.” He is one Being, not one Person—a point that is repeatedly brought to bear by the OT authors.

    Mlculwell: As Oneness we should not have a problem with the above to any degree it simply confirms what we already know that the only person of God or the humanity of the son in the incarnation was included in creation before the son existed or the so called incarnation took place all of mankind was predicated on the coming son and the first man Adam was created in the image of God this is again further stated by a much over looked passage in Romans 5:14 one of the greatest creation passages of all in my opinion and very telling of whom is God .. who(Adam) was the Figure(Image) of him who was to come. (Romans 5:14)I tell the truth in God and lie not when I say Adam was not made in the image of a triune anything because there is no such thing in scripture…The plural is used in reference to God because the plural includes not only the spirit of God who is not a person but the coming son in the incarnation as the maker of mankind, the plural does not include “three persons of God” , God is not a person or persons period, something that Mr. Dalcour failed to prove in any kind of exegesis because he will not be able to prove such a ridiculous assumption, persons die, God does not, Jesus as a real human man, as the only person of God died….At the creation of Adam Jesus did not exist as a “God the son” but his deity that of God the father did exist.

    Ed Dalcour:4. If God is unitarian, why is it that there are so many places in the Bible where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are clearly distinguished from each other in the same verse? Example, Paul says in 2 Corinthians 13:14, “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” Also see passages such as Matthew 28:19; Ephesians 2:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2 where all three Persons of the Godhead are referred—in the same verse.

    Mlculwell: (The Love of God)The three titles and manifestations have to be included without which we would have no salvation or redemption, it took a sinless sacrifice By man came sin and by One body we have been reconciled to God (Eph. 2:16) through him we have access to one spirit (Not two spirits or three) without which we shall noptbe saved (Roamns 8:11) it took God’s mercy and grace on a lost humanity to provide his only begotten, a plan/Logos he had from the beginning of creation. God did not fail, man did, so God made a way of escape from the beginning… (Jesus Christ)Could the Spirit of God who had no blood or body to sacrifice until the incarnation provide such until his plan actually came to fruition in the incarnation? Thus the reason for his plan of the incarnation before creation for creation in time from eternity.The sinless blood sacrifice that only the son could provide, as a full 100% human being, God did not have a human body until he took the body, blood, and human spirit of the son…The son in his humanity was the first comforter and would be the another comforter in the spirit(John 14:18) I (Jesus) will not leave you comfortless I (Jesus) will come to you(As spirit)(The Comforter) is Christ in you the Hope of Glory the spirit without which no man shall see the Lord Our mortal bodies are made alive by that same spirit that raised the humanity of the son(Romans 8:11) we must have it.

    Ed Dalcour: 5. If Jesus is the Father, why is it that Jesus is explicitly referred to as “the Son” over two hundred times in the New Testament, and never once is he called “Father?

    Mlculwell: This is what Trinitarians do not get, it is just as important that he (Jesus) was real humanity as to his sonship as it was to his real deity as God the father AKA. The Holy Spirit. And just as important he was never ever referred to as “God the son” anywhere in scripture even though Trinity folk will tell you that is what he is, there is no such thing in scripture, we do find he was called the everlasting father In (Isaiah 9:6) Philip asked Lord show us the father and it will satisfy us? Jesus said:” Have I been so long time with you and thou hast not known me Philip? he that has seen me has seen the father and how sayest thou then show us the father?I and my father are one(John 10:30) How ? The father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works( John 14:10) If there was such a thing as a God the son he was powerless(I can of mine own self do nothing John 5:30) and the scriptures reveal that the holy spirit of the father dwelling in him(Humanity) he did not give up power as a so called “God the son” when a supposed God the son became Human as Trinitarians falsely claim because of their misinterpretation of (Philippians 2:6-11) but rather God the father took upon himself the form of a servant and made himself of no reputation and God the father himself being found in the fashion of a man he humbled himself in subjection as a real man to his God where God in turn exalted His son the real human man(Not another person of God) the passage has to be read that way to get that false interpretation anytime a Trinitarian sees father, son, and spirit, they see three persons what if they saw father son and husband would they also see three persons? Of course not the phrase would need to be clarified further and their bad interpretation of God needs to be clarified further and that is the reason I have chosen to answer these questions.

    Edward Dalcour:The preexistence of the Son6. If the “Son” has not eternally existed with (personally distinct from) the Father why then is the Son presented as the Agent of creation, that is, the Creator? (for in Oneness theology only Jesus as the “Father” mode existed prior to Bethlehem). Note: in passages such as John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 1:10, the “Son” is clearly and grammatically presented as Agent of creation, the Creator Himself. Specifically, in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2, the Greek preposition dia (“though”) is followed by a pronoun in the *genitive* case (or possessive case). Grammatically, when dia is followed by the genitive (as in these passages), the preposition indicates “agency” (cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 368; J. Harold Greenlee, A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek, 5th ed. 31; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 4:478-79; and cf. also Walter Bauer’s, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd ed. [hereafter BDAG], 225). Hence, exegetically these passages do not indicate that the Son was a mere instrument of creation (as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons believe), nor, as Oneness teachers say, do these passages indicate that the Son was only a thought or plan in the Father’s mind when the Father (Jesus’ divine nature) created all things.

    Mlculwell: I will ask you the same question Tom Raddatz asked Gene Cook in response to his debate with David Bernard…Why did God tell Abraham he had( past tense) made him a father of many nations before Abraham even had any children? Your so called method of exegesis is seen to be very flawed in so many respects your doctrine must also be flawed…Rom 4:17 …God… call-eth (continuation process) those things which be not as though they were.It is very scriptural as God, the master builder to have a plan.(Heb 8:5, 1 Cor 3:10).”The voice of him that crieth (continues to cry) in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:” ( Isaiah 40:3-4) The above passage gives no indication of the one crying in the wilderness (in the present tense) that it is a prophecy and we do not even know that until the New Testament from Matthew 17:12 reveals that fulfillment (John the Baptist did not exist when the covenant was in force, neither did the thief on the cross for that matter they actually existed under the Old ) You have just almost explained for us by stating “Jesus divine nature created”… First of all in the incarnation Oneness proponents teach the father and son are one person. Apart from that incarnation God is not a person, The humanity of the son (real humanity that Trinitarians have to deny) to keep up their false view of God in three persons , because God the son would be a hybrid, a new species.(Not all 100% man that could die and be limited) but rather they say God died, what they really mean “a new species” a mixture of God and man, something very different from the supposed other two persons of God. Making one third of God dying and for three days we were short a third of God leaving two thirds of God a partial God if you will.. Why would I bring these major contradictions to light because I just want to throw out supposed straw men argument s as I am sure they would claim I am doing these arguments are relative to this debate in exposing the false doctrine of the trinity they claim is an orthodox doctrine when in fact it is not, it ties right into their problem of another person of God that existed beside God the father in creation….. God speaks of the son as though he created because he was referring to a time coming when he(God) would be in Christ(making the man Christ) and reconciling the world unto himself (2nd Cor.5:19) it does not say “god the son” would do this, but notice it says God would be in Christ distinguishing Christ from God in that the God would be in the man, or son, making the man Christ. Of course there is again a distinction but not at all how the Trinitarian places it unscripturally I might add.

    Edward Dalcour:Rather the Son is biblically (exegetically) presented as the Creator of all things Himself. That the Son was the Creator clearly disproves the Oneness position.This is the greatest weakness of the Oneness position: For if the Son created, then, He eternally existed with the Father.

    Mlculwell: Let’s take a closer look at each passage and see if that is so! The Trinitarian is simply making an unscriptural, unfounded, assumption. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2,10 John 1:3 John refers to the word being with God in verse 3, John calls the word a “he” John is now speaking from a knowing experience from verse 14 where the word/plan was made flesh . did John know the word when the word was the word? No! But he did know, see, and touch., the word made flesh and could speak of the word made flesh as a “he” there is nothing in John 1:3 that says the word pre-existed beside ,with, God the father, in fact, we can get another view from John in 1st John 1:1-2 where he says that which was from the beginning which we have heard and seen with our eyes and handled with our hands of the (word of Life) verse 2 it is called(eternal life) that was “with” God (Pros*Grk* they say means toward God) will Trinitarians now make these two other titles more persons? Ridiculous like their doctrine. So now, just like in (John 1:1 where) the word or plan/Logos is said to be both with God and God but not a separate or distinct person with God, that has to be read into the passage but we can also say(1st.John 1:1-2)in the beginning was (eternal life/ word of Life) and (eternal life/ word of life) was with God, and (eternal life/ word of Life) was God. You can no more separate eternal life from God and make it a person than you can the word of God they are shown to be all the same thing i.e. The plan for future redemption (Rev. 13:8) please tell us all about the lamb being slain from the foundation of the world?Then of all things he brings (Col.1: 16 ) to the table without even quoting (Col. 1:15) where Jesus humanity is the image of the invisible spirit of God. And if that is not enough he forgets that the passage relates that Jesus is the firstborn of every creature. How is that possible if Jesus was eternal? The passage actually refutes the trinity doctrine, another Fine example of Dalcours so called exegesis!To be fair let’s see how the Trinitarian wiggles out of this clear passage

    Ed Dalcour writes:prôtotokos (“firstborn”) in which Paul applies to Jesus. JWs erroneously think “firstborn” means “first created.” The assertion, however, would be totally foreign in a first century Jewish context. The word denotes “supremacy” or “first in rank” (see Exod. 4:22; Ps. 89:27) as the context of Colossians indicates. The term translated “firstborn” denotes Jesus as “having special status associated with a firstborn” (Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon, 894). Biblical scholar Robert Reymond extracts the true significance of the term:

    mlculwell:Actually The JW’s are totally wrong and the Trinitarian half right which is not being right at all And Reymond almost extracted the term! All mankind was created with the son in view and was the image(Romans5:14) that man was created from(Gen. 1:26)when God said let us make man. The firstborn of all creation refers to the son being planned first for our redemption because God already knew man would fail(Not God!)so that he already had our way of escape.

    Now let’s look at a passage Ed failed to submit with his unfounded assumnption.1st. Cor. 15:45-47 The first man Adam was made a living soul The last Adam wasM-A-D-E a quickening Spirit(Life giving spirit) did you happen to catch that? Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual,(Did you catch that Ed? scripture says he was not first)but that which is natural; and afterward which is spiritual the first man Adam was of the earth earthy the second man Adam was the Lord from heaven (Not a third of three persons but the Lord from heaven. This Goes Right along with( Romans 5:14) (Adam)Who was the Image of Him that was to come. Adam Came first, the Image Adam was created in The Us from (Gen. 1:26) included the coming human son in the incarnation that which was made spiritual came last and was not there but could be spoken of as though he were because in the incarnation he was God in the flesh. That which both had a beginning as man and no beginning as God. We now see the reason he wants to exclude revealing passages, ignoring others that would actually highlight his so called pre-existence passages. The passage in (Col.1: 15) actually reveals to us the correct view of the oneness and the incorrect view of the trinity. Within Jesus existed fully that which was God 100% and Fully that which was man 100% including Body, soul, and human spirit, distinct from the Spirit of God the father so that Jesus actually had two spirits, one Human, and one divine …When the Apostles who personally knew Jesus wrote and spoke from a knowing experience they wrote of His creating from the stand point of His deity, nowhere do find “God the son” Trinitarians simply, as I said before make unfounded assumptions, the Apostles in the way they wrote of Jesus creating would be the same as I would write without the added Trinitarian jargon that has to be added in explanation of an unscriptural doctrine. It should be pointed out that the distinctions of humanity and deity only have to broken down for clarification of their (Trinitarian) demented view of three persons of God.Hebrews 1:2,10 Again, Dalcour makes use of the word “Son” and says; see we have classic trinity doctrine? When we have no such thing! Ed tries to make use of the fact that because we break down the distinction between Jesus humanity and his divinity that we do not believe Jesus was the actual creator, if you talk to any oneness person on the street they would argue Jesus was the creator the same Jesus that walked this earth as a man, the same man God was incarnate but what God? Which God? Oh, you say! I have to qualify my statement, I thought there was only one God? Either it is as trinity folks say,” that God the son was incarnate in the son” which is a contradiction in and of itself. Did you happen to catch the next contradiction of the doctrine? When Oneness speaks of the son we speak of the creator he that has the son has the father also

    Ed Dalcour:7. If the Son did not eternally exist with the Father as a distinctPerson why is it that the “Son” can say, “Now, Father, glorify Metogether with Yourself, with the glory which I had [eichon,or “shared”] with You before theworld was” (emphasis added)?How did the Son have (literally, actively possessed) glory with(para) the Father before time if the Son did not exist beforeBethlehem?Note: In this beautiful passage (Jesus’ high priestly prayer)the “Son” (for Jesus says, “Now, Father”) says that He possessed orshared glory with the Father, before time.To avoid the plainness of the passage (namely, the preexistence ofthe Son and His personal distinction from His Father), Oneness teachers argue that the glory that Jesus (the Son) had with theFather, only signified the future glory or “plan” in the Father’smind, thus anticipating the Son’s coming at Bethlehem. But the Son,they say, was not really there with the Father “before the worldwas.” However, consider the following:Grammatically, when the preposition para (“with”) is followed by thedative case (as in this verse: para seautô, “with Yourself” and parasoi, “with You”), especially in reference to persons, itindicates “near,” “beside,” or “in the presence of” (cf. Wallace,Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 378 and any recognized Greek Grammaror recognized Lexicon of the NT such as BDAG, 757). Noted Greekgrammarian, A. T. Robertson says of the passage thatThis is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and consciousexistence at the Father’s side (para soi, “with thee”) “which I had”(hçi eichon, imperfect active of echô. . . . (Robertson, WordPictures, 5:275-76)———————————————————————-

    Mlculwell:The following is what I wrote initially to Ed in a private emailin which he replied and I cannot seem to find that particular emailbut he wrote something to the effect That I violated the wayscripture should be studied and that I should replace my method ofstudy with his so called (flawed) exegesis (Vacuum Isolation) Iwould come to Trinitarian conclusion (No thank you! ) Anyone in theirright mind can see how flawed the method is and the reason we havesuch false teachers such as; A.W. Pink, Robert Morey, James White, F.Turretin, John Calvin, and the Like. And yes I am not afraid to namenames.Ed, do you know how many times I have read thispassage and heard this passage as an argument forpre-existence from you folks? Do you really think youare submitting some earth shattering argument for yourdoctrine?Jesus is not talking at all about pre-existence ofHimself alongside God the father, if I Isolated thepassage in a vacuum and simply went by grammar alone Iwould come up with the same conclusion as you and be stuck in the same false doctrine. Jesus is speaking ofhis slain humanity in the plan/Logos of God for futureredemption.Notice John 7:38-39 The Holy Ghost was Not yet givenfor Jesus was not yet G-l-o-r-i-f-i-e-d. This glory referred to his slain humanity in the plan/Logos ofGod. Did you happen to catch the phrasing NOT YET GLORIFIEDit was the same glory Jesus was saying hehad with the father before the world was, the same thatRev. 13:8 speaks of, as the Lamb slain from thefoundation of the world. Now please tell me about Jesus literally being slain before the world was. Hedid not exist and Romans 5:14 says he did not…Look at (Luke 11:50) where the blood of Prophets which was shed fromthe foundation of the world.Eph. 1:4 he chose us in him BEFORE the foundation of the world.There is your before time! These passages most certainly show thatGod had a plan and they are relevant so you cannot shrug them off asbeing insignificant.as far “the glory he had with the father before “time” as anargument to prove pre-existence? Well, I use that very argumentagainst JW’s it no more proves pre-existence than the passage yousubmitted. Monotheism most certainly does not imply three persons.Further; John 17:22-24 is the same context and speaks of the sameglory V.22 speaks of the glory given him . How is that? Notice verse24 the glory given him(Right now from the foundation of the world)waswhat the (“they” the Disciples) were about to witness (They were tobehold his glory he had with the father before the world was, provingexactly what I have said all along.

    Ed Dalcour:8. If the Son did not eternally exist with the Father as a distinctPerson why is it that the “Son” is said to be “sent” from theFather “out of heaven”?Scripture presents in plain and normal language that the preexistentPerson of the Son was sent from the Father (e.g., John 3:13; 16-17;6:33, 38, 44, 46, 50-51; 62; 8:23, 38, 42, 57-58; 16:28; Gal. 4:4).Nowhere in the New Testament, however, is it said that Jesus sent theSon.

    Mlculwell: Please Ed! What you have said does not even makesense.. How is it that you can write a book and claim to be anauthority on Oneness when you are just trying to be Cute? Why don’tyou have one of your regular Trinitarian church going members ask usa stupid question like the above? The people that hear this tripefrom you think this is what we really believe so Let me explain thisfor you for the tenth time now. And yes, we believe God’s name IsJesus! (John 5:43) I am come in my fathers name.(Name is not merelyauthority) it takes the literal name for the Authority the reason weBaptize by immersion in Jesus name.. Jesus received his name byinheritance. Hebrews 1:4 (Psalm 22:22) But his humanity was the sonthat had a beginning, the spirit existed before the son and actuallyfathered the son miraculously, where there is a real father and sonrelationship unlike the trinity doctrine where it is in name only.Yes, we have a relationship with God where he is our father, butJesus was the only begotten(Sired and born) son of God.As for the son being “Sent.” How in the world do you exegete the sonwas eternal from him being sent? The very term refers to the sonbeing provided as a sacrifice for the redemption of mankind. (Gal.4:4) When the fullness of TIME was come(Then) God sent forth his son,(How) made of a woman, made under the Law. Nothing said abouteternity!

    Ed Dalcour:If Jesus were the Father, as Oneness believers contend, one wouldexpect to find a clear example of this—at least one passage.John 3:13; 6:38, 46, 62; 8:23, 38, 42; 16:28.

    Mlculwell:(Isaiah 9:6, John 10:30) Makes no difference if it is the everlastingfather or father everlasting or father of everlasting Age it wasstill God the father in Christ not God the son.ThenI (Humanity)and the father(Spirit) are one. There is only one spirit(Eph.4:4) is that a shared Spirit Ed?Then Ed submits the above passages for what reason?Ed submits (John 3:13) which actually hurts his position actually every passage he submits is damning to his position.. (John 6:38) I came down from heaven not to do mine own will. But the will of himthat sent me. First off why does one God send another person of God?Can’t God send himself? But Ed misses the forest for the trees andhere again we see another Fine example of Ed Dalcours exegesis and ifthat is what he learned in his reformed tradition I am glad I didn’tgo!Let’s take a look further in the passage where Jesus actuallyteaches how he was sent from heaven and what it actually means lookat verse 51?I am the LIVING BREAD WHICH CAME FROM HEAVEN: if any man eat of thisbread , he shall live for ever :and THE BREAD I WILL GIVE is MY F-L-E-S-H (WHICH CAME FROM HEAVEN) Flesh and blood does not inherit theKingdom! It can neither go, or come from there… Do you now see Ed?God provided (Sent) the Flesh of His only begotten son as oursacrifice from heaven he did not literally come from heaven as beingsent in that respect . your reformed tradition misses the mark completely There is no need to go over the rest of these so called pre-existence passage when Ed has been given the answer to every pre-existence passage (John 6:51) and what they actually mean.

    Ed Dalcour writes:”No one has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven [ektou ouranou]: the Son of Man” (John 3:13). Thus, the Person of theSon of Man was in heaven prior to being sent. That the “Son of Man”was in heaven prior to Bethlehem creates a theological problem forOneness doctrine. For the “Son of Man” in Oneness theology was notthe Father, but the human Son who emerged not until Bethlehem, buthere, the Son of Man came from heaven, that is, the Son.

    Mlculwell:Ed Talks about “exegesis” but we certainly see a very good exampleHow the Trinitarian glosses over the passage with a lacklusterstudy skipping right over the clear language of this passage withhis Trinitarian blinders to see only what he wants to see, thepassage explains what we have been saying all along and why we sayand teach what we do, this is the clearest passage of all to proveJesus was the plan/Logos in the mind of God for future redemption.The passage does not read:” God the son descended from heaven.” The passage reads:” the son of man descended from heaven” it is as plainas the nose on his face! Do you know what the son of man is? I am ason of man,(Born of mankind) Jesus as a real man was the son ofman ,that was what was provided from heaven(Sent) for our redemption(His flesh, THE SON OF MAN!) men are both persons or people(No difference) Both people or persons die, God as spirit does not…. I listened to Dalcours little speech he gave trying to make his sheeplebelieve his hand me down pagan tradition.

    Ed Dalcour:Also see Philippians 2:5-11, where we read that the “Son”(see vv. 1:2, 2:9, 11) who, “existed in the form of God”[literally, “always subsisting as God”] . . .

    Mlculwell:The form of God was the son(The Humanity) The form Of God the fatherwas the son. The father that dwelleth (Continues to dwell) in me hedoeth the works(John 14:10) I defy the Trinitarian to find me apassage that says “God the son” was in the son? There again is agreat problem with the trinity doctrine of their hybrid God man.(2nd. Cor. 5:19) God was in Christ reconciling the world untohimself. Which God? Does the Trinitarian take note that the passage reads unto himself? Was it “God the son” in the son? Do you see how silly this gets?

    Ed Dacour:emptied Himself . . . taking the form of a bond-servant.” Note thatthe Apostle Paul indicates that the “Son” was always existing asdeity. Oneness deny that the Son is God, only the “Father” (i.e.,Jesus” divine nature) is God. However, here the “Son” is presented as fully God.For in verse 6, Paul plainly asserts that Jesus was always subsisting as God: “who . . . existed [huparchôn] in the formof God [morphç theou]” (emphasis added). The word translated “existed” is huparchôn (the present active participle ofhuparchô). The present particle indicates a continuous existence orcontinually subsisting (see BDAG, 1029; Thayer, 638)—the Son wasalways God.

    Mlculwell: Oh how Ed would love for the passage to say such. Take acloser look at what Ed is trying to say by looking at the actual passage and consider this? Who being in the form of God thought itnot robbery to be Equal with God. Are you smelling what I am stepping in?(as we would say In Arkansas.) do you see the contradiction of what ed Just said? How Can he exist always as Godand think it not robbery to be what he already exists as ? It is talking about the real humanity of the son as the form of God thinking it not robbery being equal with God not the other way around more of Ed’s faulty exegesis.The same form of God is the form of the servant, it is impossible for what Ed has tried to force, he has tried to pull an okie doke.

    Ed: Dalcour.Hence, Jesus, the Son (cf. 1:2, 2:9, 11), did not become the very form or nature (morph) of God at a certain point in time,rather He always existed as God. Further the “Son” is said to have voluntarily “made Himself nothing, taking [labôn]1 the nature of aservant” (vv. 7-8).

    Mlculwell: It says no such thing as what has been presented They are confusing the humanity of the son with the spirit of God just likethey confuse everything else. What Ed has presented does not make any sense it was God that made himself of no reputation by taking theform of a servant (His only begotten son.) God was in Christ (2nd.Cor. 5:19) Was this the trinity? No… Do they read this, the son was in the son? Do we all see how ridiculous their doctrine is? It wasGod the father in the son.. The father(God as Spirit) that dwellethin* me *(The son) he doeth the works.

    Ed Dalcour:Note that the reflexive pronoun heauton, (lit. “Himself Heemptied”) indicates a “self-emptying.”2 Thus, it was not the Father,as Oneness teachers suppose, but the Son who voluntarily emptied Himself and became obedient to death—”even death on a cross” (v. 8).

    Mlculwell:The nearest antecedent to the pronoun (Himself) in (verse 7) showsthat it was God in (verse 6)

    Ed Dalcour:9. If Oneness doctrine is biblically true, why then do the biblical authors use grammatical features that personally distinguish between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

    Mlculwell:Because they were real distinctions: Spirit, and flesh, and when I say flesh, I am not talking about a mindless puppet, I am talkingabout body, soul, and human spirit distinct from the Spirit of God Iam talking about a human will distinct from the will of the spirit(Not my will but thine be done.) you act like this is the first timeoneness folks ever saw passages that present the distinctions… As Oneness believers we understand that because Jesus says: not my(Human) will, but thine(God as Spirit) be done. We do not have two or three persons of God because we see distinctions in the human willand the will of the Spirit,. Do you remember the Old Sesame Streetsong, one of these things are not like the other? We have Spirit,(God ) and flesh) we don’t have two of anything, we have 1 God, and 1man, and all of that was in the Lord Jesus Christ… Please Ed, tell me How God Dies? Tell me How God has a God? (John 20:17) I am going toask you again, we believe Jesus is the only supreme God, what do you say?

    Ed Dalcour:Example,First and third person personal pronouns: Throughout chapter 14, Jesus clearly differentiates Himself from theFather by using first person personal pronouns (“I,” “Me,” “Mine”) to refer to Himself and third person personal pronouns(“He,” “Him,” “His”) to refer to His Father (e.g., John 14:7, 10,16). This case of marked distinction is also evident when Jesus differentiates Himself from God the Holy Spirit:

    Mlculwell: This has been dealt with; Not My will but thine be done.The will of 1God as Spirit and one human man, but we do not have twopersons of God, nor do we even have two persons that will have to beproved by Mr. Dalcour and I welcome him to try or anyone else I have argued this point many times and am confident there is not a Trinitarian anywhere at any time that will be able to prove this failed point of theirs.Oh as a side note, while we are in this area let’s talk about howthey historically misrepresent Oneness or “Modalism” as they call it, they believe it is our belief that God somehow changes or Morphsfrom 1 Mode into another as in; Now I am the father and am becoming the son Etc. and that no mode exists simultaneous, I assure MrDalcour this is not our belief and I have heard this misrepresented of By them of Us many times. Our Belief is that Jesus was a real human man that was in subjection to God as a real human man and prayed and hungered and died. It is However their belief that Jesus(And I know I am not misrepresenting them) that Jesus as “God theson” died. This is a real problem for the Trinitarian as it would make Jesus a Hybrid and not like we are I can’t wait to hear Mr Dalcour explain himself on this point.

    Ed Dalcour:”I will ask the Father, and He will give you another [allon]3 Helper,that He may be with you forever” (John 14:16; also see 14:7, 10, 26;emphasis aded).

    Mlculwell:Yessss! Because Jesus was the first comforter(Helper) in his Fleshand would be the other Comforter in the spirit (1st. Cor.15:45) Thesecond man Adam was made a quickening(Life Giving) Spirit. I(Jesus)will not leave you comfortless( as orphans, or fatherless)I(Jesus) will COME TO YOU.( as the father of the fatherless orphans or the Spirit) and yes emphasis added.

    Ed Dalcour:Repetition of the article:Specifically, the repetition of the article tou (“the”) before eachnoun and the conjunction kai (“and”) that connects the nouns clearlydenote a distinction between all three Persons named.4 Note Matthew28:19: “in the name of the [tou] Father and the [kai tou] Son and the[kai tou] Holy Spirit.”

    Mlculwell: Manuel the father , the son, and the husband, no morepresents three persons than Ed trying to pull the wool over our eyes on this. And even more, the passage reads: Baptizing them in the nameof the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost, as if there is one name for all three titles and when the Apostles actually Baptizethey use the one name of the father and of the son and of the HolyGhost . That being the name Jesus in Acts 2:38, 8:16,10:48 wherethey were COMMANDED TO BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD(Jesus)Acts 19:5, 22:16, James 5:14 Call for the Elders anointing with oil in the name of the Lord. Please note; these folks will make a big deal about the name meaning authority but again, it takes the literal name spoken in covenant relationship for the Authority. The Hindus Baptize in the Ganges, what is the difference between their heathen Baptism and ours? The name being Spoken as the Authority, you cannot say you have authority and say you are Orthodox and cannot be in covenant relationship without having the name spoken over you in Baptism to be contrary to scripture is unorthodox.

    Ed Dalcour:Further, Paul clearly presents the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, not as three modes of a unipersonal deity, but rather asthree distinct Persons. The same grammatical distinctions areobserved in 2 Corinthians 13:14:The grace of the [tou] Lord Jesus Christ, and [kai] the love of God[tou theou (lit. “the God”)], and [kai] the fellowship of the [tou]Holy Spirit be with you all (emphasis added).

    Mlculwell: As I have stated previously to Mr. Dalcour thesemanifestations of existence have to be mentioned always, all three titles of our God have a hand in our salvation .God provided our way of redemption through the shed blood of hisonly begotten,(The sacrifice of his flesh or his life. 1st. Peter2:24) the Flesh or real humanity (Body, soul, and human spirit) Tothe trinitarian he is a Hybrid, He would not be in all point stempted as we are and he would not be what we are. God was in Christ.(2nd. Cor. 5:19) Which God? The passage does not read “One person of God was in a person.”

    Ed Dalcour:In Revelation 5:13, the Lamb and the Father are presented as twodistinct objects of divine worship, as they are clearly differentiated by the repetition of the article tô:To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honorand glory and dominion for ever and ever (emphasis added).”To Him who sits” (tô kathçmenô [lit. “to the onesitting”—the Father]) “and the Lamb” (kai tô arniô—the Son) aregrammatically differentiated by the repeated article tô (“the”),which precedes both nouns and are connected by the one conjunction kai (“and”). Further, turning to 1 John 1:3, not only does John show that believers have fellowship with both the Father and the Son, butthe Father and the Son are clearly distinguished as two Persons by the repeated article tou (“the”) and the repeated preposition meta(“with”):we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with[meta]us; and indeed our fellowship is with the [meta tou] Father and with [meta] His Son [tou huiou] Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3; emphasisadded).

    Mlculwell:Again this has been explained, (All thre manifestations have to always be mentioned because they are included in our redemption ultimately it is only one God but nothing is ever said of three persons of God ever in scripture no matter how the trinitarain would love to force such a twisted view…But Notice How Mr. Dalcour takes the *Us * in this particularpassage and makes it of a (So called )persons of His Fictitious trinity? The Us refers to the fellowship of the Apostles and other believers, then the passage Focuses on our fellowship with the father and with His son Jesus Christ. (Who was his son?) That which was Born(Sent) when the Fullness of time was come, MADE of a virgin made under the Law. He was sent in time, Not eternity, he was planned as our redemption before time. The same Son made a life giving Spirit(1st. Cor. 15:45-47) Where Adam came First and then the son(Romans5:14, 1st. Cor.15:46) Whenever any passage speaks of the sons pre-existence it is speaking from the standpoint of what the Apostles knew and were taught personally from the Lord that being that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh in other words it was his Deity(That of God the father AKA the Holy Ghost.)

    Ed Dalcour:There are many other passages where this construction applies clearly denoting distinction between the Persons in the Trinity (e.g., 1 Thess. 3:11; 2 Thess. 2:16-17; 1 John 2:22-23).

    Mlculwell:Now God himself our father, and our Lord Jesus Christ direct our wayunto you.Now God Himself Our Father (Notice who God is?) “Our father” and trinity Folks say Jesus is not the Father. I thought God was atrinity?(This will then be followed by a but, but, but from the Trinitarian) They make distinctions when they think it clearly teaches their false doctrine but when it actually exposes their doctrine it teaches completely opposite. Even with the (The Grk.kai ) which can* mean* even or* and * depending on the context. (For a better understanding of these passages presented By Ed read The God of Two testaments By Robert Brent Graves, who goes into greatdetail explaining all of the passages presented.. a former Church ofChrist Minister.)

    2nd. Thess.2:16-17Now the Lord Jesus Christ himself , (kai ) and God, even ourfather, which hath Loved us. If anything, the way the passage readswould be Damning for the Trinitarian. It would either mean thatJesus Christ is not God (Which is not true) or that we have actuallyDitheism(Polytheism) If Jesus is God and in addition we have God even our father then we have Two Gods, nothing is said in the passage about persons of God.The passage could very well read: Now the Lord Jesus Christ even God and our father. Would mean the same either way, that Jesus is God and our father. Still, the distinction between the Spirit of God and the sacrificial humanity has to remain as long as people will be Redeemed.

    Ed Dalcour:Different prepositions: Throughout John chapter 14 (and chaps. 15-16), Jesus distinguishes Himself from His Father by using different prepositions. This use of different prepositions “shows a relationship between them,”5 and clearly denotes essential distinction, e.g., “no one comes to [pros] the Father but through[dia] Me” (John 14:6); “he who believes in [eis] Me . . . I am goingto [pros] the Father” (v. 12; cf. also John 15:26; 16:28).

    Mlculwell:Of Course he distinguishes himself as the first comforter in the flesh, and as part of Gods plan he is also the other comforter in the spirit. (1st. Cor.15:45-47,2nd. Cor. 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit)The flesh paid for our way to come to God. There is one mediatorbetween God and man *the man *Christ Jesus.(1st. Tim. 2:5) Not a “Godthe son” if that were so we would not have a mediator because it would not be the man Christ Jesus, it would be again a hybrid because Trinity Folks have God dying for our sins and mediating , the reason the prepositions are used are for that distinction not for a distinction between God persons. (God was manifested or revealed in the flesh 1st. Tim 3:16)

    Ed Dalcour:Paul, too, regularly uses different prepositions to clearlydifferentiate the Father from the Son. In Ephesians 2:18, Paulteaches that by the agency of the Son, Christians have access to the Father by means of the Spirit:For through Him [di’ autou—the Son] we both have our access in [en]one Spirit to the Father [pros ton patera] (Eph. 2:18).

    Mlculwell: Amen! Our redemption was Bought and paid for through thesacrifice(Of His flesh) once for all. Of course Paul would use those distinctive prepositions because it was the man Christ Jesus that paid the price and later the spirit of him given him without measure(John 3:34) which he(His humanity) was and was made(1st. Cor.15:45-46)

    Ed Dalcour:10. If Oneness doctrine (or modalism) is the so-called doctrine ofthe apostles, then, why was it universally condemned as *heretical*by the early church Fathers (some of who were disciples of the original apostles) and condemned by all the important church councils and creeds?

    Mlculwell: actually this whole arguemnt is irellavent! So were Hymenaeus and Philetus Close and lived in their day who taught the resurrection was past,(Oh, I see, he interjects his false Doctrine Of Calvinism) your argument does not hold up to the scriptures because some one from (a so called) Church history is said to be a disciple of the original Apostles,(Here say) this smells of the same false argument the Catholic Church gives for her oral Authority which should simply be accepted there are many doctrines from those so called fathers I could present, you would shrink from! Then this is the same group that speaks of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) andthen presents a so called argument as to why we have been condemned by councils and creeds of men(Not of scripture!) This argument I had a good laugh from… I am not held to your councils or Creeds as final authority on anything if those men you have followed are wrong, youwill die unsaved with them. If not, I will, but I would rather take scripture than your councils and creeds of men with (unscriptual)theories you prop up as truth. We are the only ones that believe in Sola scriptura you on other hand only make the claim when you are in the same boat as the Catholics.But though we (apostles) or an Angel from heaven , preach anyother Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.(Gal. 1:8) Nothing was said from an Apostle of your doctrine of the trinity of multiple persons of God so to me you are accursed until you repent of that false doctrine. I am not even tolisten to your councils creeds of men they must be held to the light of the scriptures and they found wanting for truth.Jesus is the only supreme God..ML Culwell

  380. Trinitarainism did not exist in it’s present form untill the Fourth century!

  381. so whatever existed was not your church! My belief was there Arianism was there but you were not some other false doctrine form was emerging untill the new testamnt church has alkways existed and yours was not there! You cannot reform God’s church.

  382. johnkaniecki said

    Coram Deo,

    Nice to have you with us.

    I’d like to compliment you on your thoroughness in your last comment.

    I recall when I met two ‘believers’ in Oklahoma. We got into an elevated discussion over riches in Christan as found in Ephesians. They said the scripture promises a lot of money. I said otherwise. Neither side left the other satisfied.

    Love,

    John

  383. johnkaniecki said

    ;( 🙂

  384. John are you now going to resort to Corma evilness? What “thoroughness” Nothing he has said has been thorough! I have been civil with you because of your civility.

  385. It was not his corma’s Comments he plagerized Ed Dalcour In whom I amswered I know Ed Dalcour from Emailds and discussion and personally answered his ten question which I submitted here.

  386. Coram Deo said

    Manuel,

    You use many words but like your father the devil you spew nothing but twisted half-truths and outright lies in your vain efforts to defend your cultist teachings.

    And don’t think that it escaped my notice that in your closing potshot above you accused me of plagiarism even though I clearly gave credit to the “Department of Christian Defense” when I cited the 10 questions.

    Of course this is a minor thing, but after reading through the web of deceit you’ve attempted to weave in this metal I find myself wondering if your duplicity knows no bounds.

    Why can’t you be a man and admit that you believe sinful man must add to the finished work of Christ’s cross through meritorious works? Is it because admitting this truth will provide yet more evidence that you and the Oneness Pentecostal mind control cultists adhere to a man-made works righteousness soteriology in contradistinction to the Biblical truth of salvation by faith through grace alone?

    Salvation is strictly a work of God, not of the work of sinful man. You clearly have fallen for Satan’s oldest trick – idolatry of the heart – by setting man upon the throne of God and making man the true and final author of his own salvation by the works of his hands.

    I would ask every true, Bible believing Christian and every Oneness Pentecostal cultist to take a few moments to follow the link below and learn the truth about the aberrant, heretical Oneness Pentecostal movement. The Oneness Pentecostals, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons are all cut from the same cloth, although they each emphasize and manifest unique aberrations of the faith once and for all delivered unto the saints. God help them all!

    Oneness Pentecostals: They deny the Trinity, require baptism for salvation, are legalistic, and do not preach the true gospel.

  387. JOY to the World! said

    in response to post #357-crimson wolf.

    Nor will you receive one from me! I too am oneness for 24 yrs.now. when i came to the Lord I challenged Him to show me who He was and then i promised i would serve Him alone. i had seen way too much junk in all the other churches i had been invited to and had totally stopped believing that God was real. i was raised in the Jehovah Witnesses way and have never to this day been able to comprehend how in the world anyone could swallow this stuff. i went to many churches that believed in trinity and never swallowed that 3-headed god stuff no matter how i crossed my eyes. to hear someone explain it made no sense at all. i know through my own experience that when you really want to know Him and willing to hear His voice then He will show you who He IS. the word teaches that there are many (gods)and that there are many voices. however Jesus said that His sheep would know (intimatly) His voice. He said there are many (meaning the majority) would say LORD LORD. the saddest thing is that He would have to say I NEVER KNEW YOU. to defend a doctrine that is implied is foolishness in the time we are living in. all should be crying out to the Lord to know more truth and to receive more revelation. to see all of Jesus’s promises coming forth in such a fast and consistant force all over the Earth should cause everyone to be willing to be wrong for the Messiah’s sake. Matthew 24 is as the reaper overtaking the sower. truly the time is at hand. the TRUE church that was begun at Pentecost has never been lost but continues today. it’s even coming back to house churches. i just wanted you three guys to know or as your have been ever so callously called, “Three Amigos”, are not alone on this site. CrimsonWolf you are not only very knowledgable in historical facts, you are also extremely quickwitted and hilarious. thank you for the answer to the chicken mystery. i have shared it with many people and we all agree its hilarious! Manual, you are not only very learned but you are excellent at quoting the misinformed souls. As are you Jesusman. i also recognize flirting on this site. 0_-
    i would be very interested in the book Dr. Ward is writing and would like to have his email address and be informed when the book is published. i have studied many of the things you guys spoke of and they are in history for ANYONE willing to lay down their own opinion and stop believing what man has told them, and begin to study to show themselves approved of God. the truth of the matter is that the only opinion that will count is HIS. may he show all that are thirsty and are willing to drink of HIM THE WAY. LOVE IN HIM!
    Joye

  388. Why can’t you be a man and admit that you believe sinful man must add to the finished work of Christ’s cross through meritorious works? Is it because admitting this truth will provide yet more evidence that you and the Oneness Pentecostal mind control cultists adhere to a man-made works righteousness soteriology in contradistinction to the Biblical truth of salvation by faith through grace alone?

    mlculwell:
    Hey Corma, you try and blame your deceiful Evilness on me, but when we look at your actual doctrine you have to twist every scripture to make your calvinism work, all five points are evil and false! (Acts 5:32) says God gives the Holy Ghost to them that OBEY HIM you have to twist that to make your unscriptual battle cry half truth work by stating “must add to the finished work of Christ’s cross through meritorious works?” to have some sort of believabilty. you make that fit your calvinism obedience wortk by coming up with a fairy tale garbage doctrine that is not in scripture you totally have to ignore half the New testament to make your unscriptual Calvinism work How People actually believe that garbage I will never know! They just must be real gullable airheads.

    Salvation is strictly a work of God, not of the work of sinful man. You clearly have fallen for Satan’s oldest trick – idolatry of the heart – by setting man upon the throne of God and making man the true and final author of his own salvation by the works of his hands.

    I would ask every true, Bible believing Christian and every Oneness Pentecostal cultist to take a few moments to follow the link below and learn the truth about the aberrant, heretical Oneness Pentecostal movement. The Oneness Pentecostals, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons are all cut from the same cloth, although they each emphasize and manifest unique aberrations of the faith once and for all delivered unto the saints. God help them all!

  389. You better believe we deny the trinity tell ya what Finfd me “god the son” in scripture.
    and we Baptize in Jesus name like the Bible teaches not How men teach!

  390. Satans greatest Hoax 226 questions totally disproving the trinity By Tom Raddattz

    http://www.1lord1faith.org/wm/Oneness/226-toc.htm

    I urge every trinitarain to read what they are being duped by their preachers who have them
    brainwashed.

  391. Charles D. said

    Manny;

    To be honest with you, I did not followup on our comments from this morning because for whatever reason the discussion deteriorated into exactly what I asked not be done. I asked that we limit the discussion to that one issue raised between John, you and myself. I know others jumped in and the attacks were and are still going hot and heavy. BTW that was through no fault of your own, though you did followup.

    In my minds’ eye; and whether you agree with me or not: you seem like a nice enough fellow, although you and I almost came to nasty, nasty in prior discussions. I feel I know you a little better now, at least, you have cooled way down from those days not too long ago. I believe you are not settled and are seeking. I believe you seek to be sure about what you stake your eternal soul on. I don’t blame you for that. You might dispute what I have said and I expect you will; however, please know that I read you better than you might know. Please further know that I don’t agree with every single thing that has been said to you, about you, or about what you and “all of them” have said. I will tell you why:

    The God that I believe in, is big enough, strong enough, and holds ALL power in His hands. I would not serve a god that would be offended or want me to slay you with my tongue, emotions, or energies, to the extent that I have seen on these pages and I am chief among them; but no more! That’s one of the main things I hold against extremist, wanting to kill someone that will not convert. How stupid is that? My God doesn’t want me to kill anyone, or, even denigrade them or otherwise try through brow-beating to get them to come around. I should simply tell them the Truth, aka the Gospel, then, the Holy Spirit takes over. If they accept the Word and my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and Him crucified – thats good. No, it’s better than good. Salvation is a individual thing, NO ONE CAN SAVE ANYONE. Furthermore, NO ONE SHOULD HATE ANYONE BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY BELIEVE! God does not need theatrics, false emotions, over amplification of what He has already said and put in place. Period!

    One thing I could help but notice is the fact that you, Crimson, and the other guy have in common is that you have a tremendous focus on “debating the issue” of Oneness,” to be truthful with you, I have yet to see the word “Oneness” in the scriptures, at least not in the way it is used here. Have you seen that word in scripture. You often say you’ve not seen certain things having to do with the Trinity in the Bible.

    Please know these truths: anyone willing to debate must first have an open mind; be willing to accept fatcs that he cannot disprove. Suppose you are wrong – and suppose everything that you have spoken in these pages about Oneness is wrong? What would you do and what would your actions be? Okay, you cannot answer a question(s) with a question(s). Equally, it is neither fair or right that I should ask you a question that I am not willing to answer myself; therefore, answer my questions and I will answer the same or other questions that you pose to me. Fair enough? If you think not, then, just disregard.

    What I have written so far, is simple enough and does not attack you in any way. I look forward to your response.

    Be Blessed,

    Charles

  392. Coram Deo said

    Manuel,

    I can’t tell if you’re merely deceived or if you are an active deceiver, but at a bare minimum you and Tom Raddattz seem to be badly misinformed about the nature of the One True Living God and the Biblical concept of His nature.

    It seems the Oneness cult keeps coming back to the false belief that the “evil Trinitarians” seem to worship more than the One True Living God. I’ve noticed “three headed god” sneers and similar nonsense laced through several comments here as well as in Tom Raddattz’s fevered high-noon fantasy screed.

    The fact of the matter is that I’ve never met or even heard of a true born-again Christian theist who believed in anything other than the One True Living God. The affirmation of a monotheistic faith the God of the Holy Bible is the very foundation of Christianity! There is one God Who is eternally existent as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

    I can only assume that the Oneness Pentecostal mind-control zombie masters are busily making up scary stories about the big bad “Trinitarians” and feeding it to their deceived flocks in order to maintain and tighten their grip on their deceived congregants and ratchet up the fear factor in order to keep them from discovering the truth. In fact most of what I’ve seen posted in this thread by the Oneness Pentecostal cultists has been a nonstop litany of fear and loathing of something they apparently don’t even understand. Again this is a classic cult tactic.

    Sadly like all unregenerate men you’ve been blinded to the truth about God by your sinful fallen nature and in your search for meaning and fulfillment have fallen into a satanic trap called false religion.

    You can put lipstick, perfume, and a beautiful dress on a pig and call it Margaret, but it’s still just a pig. I sincerely recommend that you abandon the false religious cult of Oneness Pentecostalism because that pig is just going to keep you wallowing in the odious excrement of your own sin and trespass until you die in your unbelief and are then judged and condemned to hell by the real Jesus Christ as opposed to the false christ of the Oneness Pentecostal cult.

    The Jesus Christ of the Holy Bible is my Lord and Savior. He gave His all for the sins of His people when we were yet ungodly sinners with nothing to offer but empty hands of shame and sin.

    But praise be to His name forevermore that thanks to His infinitely perfect sacrifice I am made a new creature in Christ to whom He has imputed His perfect righteousness, forgiveness, and justification because through His gift of faith by grace alone I am able to lift hands of praise to His name now, and in the world to come! He is my Kinsman Redeemer and my God! He is my all in all!

    Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty Who was, and is, and is to come!

  393. Charles D. said

    Hey My Fruitcake (Eden):

    I just saw your love note to me. Thanks. I’m still steaming that you’ve igged me the whole weekend🙂

    I had a tremendous time in church this morning. Today was the day that they read all of the names of members that died during the year, totaling 17 saints. A member of each family came forward and received a candle, then, after all names had been called they blewout the flames and smoke ascended upwards. It was a nice acknowledgement. The sermon was taken from Job 1:1-5 and 13-22.

    Looking back from the day I first joined through the preaent, I can see many changes in my life as well as the growth in new members, I better understand the inner workings and what we are doing for others. I guess there are maybe 30-35 Deaconess and I would say the youngest is 55. We have the same or slightly more Deacons and maybe the same age group. But my Deaconess. I absolutely love them all and are known to them all. I love the Deacons also, and maybe 7-8 are very close to me and maybe 4 are super close and are “best friend sort of relationship. Almost from the second month after joining I was asked to enter Deacons training; however, I was ordained in another church during 1989-90. Here, I feel that is not what God wants me to do so they were absolutely amazed that I did not jump at the chance because there are some who have asked years ago and have not been chosen yet for whatever reason. I can and I do perform the same services as an active deacon but I don’t need the officialdom to do what God directs me to do. I just pray that my church continue to have what I can see through my spiritual eyes. Some time later on I will tell you about it.

    The only thingI started out to write about to you was my childhood experience of having a Jewish lady who took an interest in me at the age of 6 and continued through my formative years. You might imagine (going back that many years) what thing might have been like given the social fabric of our society during those days. She was the president of the school board, very influential, and she insisted that I attend an out of state school, which she underwrote. I am going to stop here to answer any questions that comes to your mind. Oh yes, her last name was O’dell by marriage, (I assume).

    Talk with you later.

    Chaz

  394. Let me ask this again Coram? Where did you get the term God the Son? Did you get that from the Bible can you show me the passage that reads God the son? there is no such thing and your trinity doctrine does not existe it is pagan! It is a painted up pig to look like truth but it is nowher found in scripture does not even say there are three persosn of god there is absolutely nothing scriptual to your doctrine.

  395. Coram, I say Jesus is the Only supreme God, what do you say? whats that? you have two more of
    them. Your trinity is Pagan polytheism. It does not matter that Good people believe that false
    doctrine, they still believe in a false doctrine and believeing a faslse doctrine will not get
    you saved…

  396. charles, “You feel I am not settled and seeking” LOL! I am seeking alright but nothing you
    have! I am not seeking to lower myself in worshiping a false god of a fictitious trinity!
    n Nor do I want your fictitous Gospel message of Calvinism, you shall know them by their fruits Calvin was a murderer.I am sorry to hurt your feelings Charles But I am not seeking anything you have, I only seek the Lord so you are almost right.

  397. Coram Deo said

    Manuel,

    Sadly I once again find you following Satan’s garden tactics.

    You sure do like to quibble about every picayune detail that you hope might bolster the false claims of the Oneness Pentecostal cult don’t you?

    The word “Bible” isn’t in the Bible, so can you be sure it exists? Or how about the word “Oneness”, is that in there? Can you see the utter absurdity of your position yet?

    It’s always like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall with you cultists! But if you’re willing to keep asking for the truth then by God’s grace I’ll keep providing the meat of scripture along with real prayers to the real God that He might open your eyes to His truth.

    But at some point you need to take this issue up with God Himself if you don’t like what He says in His Word.

    From Reformation Theology:

    The Triunity of God – The Basis for the Ontological Trinity

    The dividing line between true Christianity and all other world religions is the Trinitarian conception of God. No religion that denies the doctrine of one God eternally existing in three persons can rightfully claim to be Christian. Islam believes in one eternal God, the God who revealed himself to Abraham; but because it denies that this one God exists in three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, it is no more Christian than Hinduism. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in one God who, they claim, is the God of the Bible. But they reject that Jesus Christ is an eternal person of the Godhead, and therefore, they are no more Christian than the Greek pagans. The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be denied without Christianity itself being rejected. Here is a good, simple explanation of the trinity, formulated by Athanasius, a man of God who opposed the heretical Arian teaching, which denied that Jesus is truly God:

    We worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit still another. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal. What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Yet there are not three gods; there is but one God.

    This is the historic, orthodox teaching on the trinity. A careful examination of it will eliminate many possible misunderstands of its nature, such as these:

    We worship three gods

    Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different names for God

    Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different parts of God

    God shows up at different times as either Father, Son, or Holy Spirit

    Jesus is a lesser god than the Father or a created god

    Jesus is fully God, but he was not fully man

    The Holy Spirit is an impersonal force from God

    Following are some scripture passages which support the assertions of Athanasius’ creed.

    There is one God
    Deu 6:4; 1Ki 8:60; Isa 42:8; John 17:3; 1Cor 8:4; Gal 3:20; 1Tim 2:5; Jam 2:19

    The Father is God
    Rom 1:7; Rom 15:6; 1Cor 1:3; Eph 4:6; 1Cor 8:6; 1Pet 1:3

    The Son is God
    Isa 7:14; Isa 9:6-7; John 1:1-3; John 8:58-59; John 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; Rom 10:9-13; Phi 2:9-11; Col 1:15-16; Col 2:9; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:3; Heb 1:8; 2Pet 1:1; 1John 5:20

    The Holy Spirit is God
    Acts 5:3-4; 2Cor 3:16-18

    The Father is one with the Son
    John 10:30; John 17:22

    The Holy Spirit is one with the Father and the Son
    1Cor 2:11; Rom 8:9

    The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are viewed as equally God, yet personally distinct
    Mat 3:16-17; Mat 28:19; Eph 1:3-14; Eph 4:4-6; 2Cor 13:14; Jude 1:20-21

  398. Coram, You noticed “three headed God Sneers”? Wow that’s amazing, did you also notice all of
    your own sneers? but that’s okay, is it not? since you think you have the truth it is okay
    for you to call us all those Cult names?
    I always heard anything with three heads was a monster!

  399. Hey Coram, Should I staple the creeds to the Scritpures? The creeds are garbage! I gave passages that said he was made God he was human with a beggining his humanity was not eternal now was it Coram? Did his humanity have a begginig How Can God with no Beggining be man with a beggining he had to be made that way you give no thought to anything but that is the hallmark of trinitarainism.

  400. Coram Deo said

    Manuel,

    Again you have intentionally misrepresented what I have plainly stated in several posts now, I believe in the One True Living God of the Holy Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Almighty. There is ONE GOD, no more and no less.

    If it’s in your nature to flatly and unrepentantly make false statement after false statement and purposefully twist and lie about my beliefs which are plainly on display and visible in this very thread then how can you expect ANYONE to trust you to properly handle the Word of God? How can you even trust yourself in such a weighty matter if you’re so easily confused or confounded by the plain and simple language of blog comments?

    You’ve been blinded by hate and fear to the point that you apparently don’t even realize it. Doesn’t that strike you as a bit of a spiritual problem in the light of inspired scripture?

  401. what Have I misrepresented? Point it out Coram, instead of making unfounded accusations!

  402. Coram Deo said

    Manuel,

    Did you really read all those scriptures so quickly, or did you just reject all the passages cited outright like a well trained cultist?

    Oneness Pentacostalism is a cult, that’s not a sneer, that’s a statement of fact. If you adhere to Oneness Pentacostalism then you are a cultist! You may not like the truth, but it’s still the truth.

    And I don’t know why any Bible believing Christian would have a problem with Christ’s incarnation having a beginning, that’s plain and straightforward Bible teaching right there.

    The eternal Son stepped into time and took the form of a human being (Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ) in order to be our propitiation for sin just as He covenanted and purposed to do before the foundations of the world. Time isn’t anything complicated or tricky for God, He created time and is outside time, yet the Son stepped into time and humbled Himself unto death to the glory of the Father.

    Halleleujah to the Lamb of God!

  403. There is no such thing as an “eternal son” it is load of garbage false doctrine, stepping out of eternity? where did you get that from the fifteenth chapter of your imagination? I know every doctrine you teach and it is all false doctrine, every bit! Now we can go back and forth all night and we can go sneer for sneer or we can debate and see which one has truth and I can tell you it aint you who has any truth because a little truth is no truth at all. the Cultist are you trinis. I don’t have to look up those scriptures, I know them and believe them, I don’t however believe your twisting of them! Find me God the son? I will give you passages that say the father was in the son but you will never ever find that it was God the son incarnate there is no such thing!

  404. Coram Deo said

    manuel culwell Says: what Have I misrepresented? Point it out Coram, instead of making unfounded accusations!

    You said this in post# 409 after I had clearly affirmed my belief in the One True Living God of the Holy Bible in post #370, 376, 392 & 406.
    Coram, I say Jesus is the Only supreme God, what do you say? whats that? you have two more of
    them.

    Maybe you’re just prone to shoot off at the mouth (or keyboard in this case) without any understanding. This behavior is fairly typical of cultists when they’ve painted themselves into a theological corner and are becoming desperate to defend their crumbling worldview. I think the technical term for the experience is called cognitive dissonance.

    And if anyone here is making “unfounded accusations” it’s certainly and demonstrably you.

    Would you say that you’re born-again Manuel?

  405. I can submit passages to this is from Eddie Jones:

    The Lord God is the Creator. Is. 42:5.

    The Lord Jesus is the Creator. John 1:3, 10.

    The Lord God said, “I am He.” Is. 43:10.

    The Lord Jesus said, “I am He.” John 8:24.

    The Lord God is the only Saviour. Is. 43:10, 11.

    The Lord Jesus is the Saviour. Titus 1:4.

    The Lord God shall reign forever. P5. 146:10.

    The Lord Jesus reign forever. Luke 1 :33.

    The Lord God is the King of Israel. Is. 43:15.

    The Lord Jesus is the King of Israel. Matt. 27:37.

    The Lord God is the First and the Lost. Is. 44:6.

    The Lord Jesus is the First and the Last. Rev. 1:8.

    The Lord God is Almighty. Gen. 17:1.

    The Lord Jesus is Almighty. Rev. 1:8.

    There is only one Lord. Eph. 4:5. When Paul was struck down on the road to Damascus, he cried, “Who art thou, Lord?” And the Lord said, “I AM JESUS.” Acts 9:5. Beyond a shadow of a doubt the Lord God Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Lord Jesus Christ of the New Testament!

    Jesus confirmed that He was not a separate Person, but God manifested in the flesh. Jesus said unto Philip, “.. .He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.. .The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the father that DWELLETH IN ME, He doeth the works…Believe me that I am in the Father, and the FATHER IN ME…” John 14:9-11. Jesus simply stated, “I and My Father are ONE (not two).” John 10:30.

    Jesus emphasized the importance of His identity as He taught the people in the temple. He said, “…For if ye believe not that I AM HE, ye shall die in your sins.. .They understood not that He spake to them of the FATHER.” John 8:24-27.

    When Jesus was baptized by John in Jordan River, the voice of God spoke, “This is my beloved Son, IN WHOM I am well pleased.”

    Matt. 3:17. Notice, God said, “IN WHOM” – not with whom! “To wit, that GOD WAS IN CHRIST, reconciling the world unto

    Himself…” II Cor. 5:19.

    As Stephen was facing death, he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Acts 7:55. The term “right hand” does not form a part of another Person or Deity. It is symbolic of the power and authority of God. Jesus said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” Matt. 28:18. Paul said that Christ is the power and the wisdom of God. I Cor. 1:24. Note the following symbolical uses of the term “right hand” as correlated to power and authority:

    My right hand hath spanned the heavens. Is. 48:13.

    The Lord is at the right hand of the poor. Ps. 109:31.

    God led Israel by the right hand of Moses. Is. 63:12.

    The Lord was at David’s right hand. PS. 16:8.

    The question may be asked, “Is Jesus in the Godhead, or is the Godhead in Jesus?” If the Godhead is in Jesus, there can only be one Person. The Bible clearly states, “For IN HIM (Christ) DWELLETH all the FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY. And ye are COMPLETE IN HIM, which is the HEAD OF ALL PRINCIPALITY AND POWER.” Col. 2:9, 10. So there is only ONE PERSON in which the Godhead is manifested, because the GODHEAD IS IN JESUS!

    In Jesus Christ, two wills or natures are portrayed: a human will and a Divine will. He was man (flesh) and He was God (Spirit). As man He prayed in the garden of Gethsemane, “O my Father.. not as I WILL, but as THOU WILT.” Matt. 26:39. Also He cried out on the cross, “My God, my God. Why host thou forsaken me?” Matt. 27:46. Certainly these Scriptures do not imply that Jesus Christ is a separate Person or Deity with the Father. Far Deity does not pray to Deity! Futhermore, Deity cannot die! So as man, Jesus Christ prayed in His human nature to His Divine nature. Because, in His human nature, the flesh did not want to die, but He knew the will of the Spirit must be done. Also at Calvary He cried out in His human nature to His Divine nature; and when the Spirit left the body, He fulfilled His human role of death. As man, He was hungry, He slept, He became weary, He wept, He increased in wisdom and stature, He prayed, and He died. (See Matt. 4:2, Matt. 8:24, John 4:6, John 11,35, Luke 2:52, Matt. 26:39, Matt. 27:50.) As God, He healed the sick, He cast out devils, He raised the dead, He calmed the sea. He forgave sins, He answered prayer, and He arose from the grave. (See Matt. 4,23, Luke 8:35, John 11:43,44, Mark 4:39, Mark 2:5, John 14:14, John 2:19-21.) Jesus Christ said, “I can of mine own self (human nature) do nothing.. (John 5:30). ..but the FATHER that DWELLETH IN ME (Divine nature), HE doeth the works (John 14:10).” As man, He even expressed His limited knowledge (Mark

    13:32); but as God, He knew all things (John 21:17). Compare the following titles which also portray the dual nature of Jesus Christ:

    DIVINE

    Everlasting Father – Is. 9:6

    Chief Shepherd – I Pet. 5:4

    King of Kings – Rev. 17,14

    Lord God – John 20:28

    The Almighty – Rev. 1:8

    HUMAN

    Son of Man – Luke 9:22

    Lamb – I Pet. 1:19

    Servant – Phil. 2:7

    High Priest – Heb. 2:17

    Mediator – I Tim. 2:5

    “Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” I Tim. 3:16. How clearly brought out is this glorious truth that Jesus Christ was God manifested in the flesh. He became Spirit in body to bring redemption to man.

    GOD MANIFESTED AS THE HOLY GHOST IN EMANATION

    God, the eternal Spirit, is “Omni-present” – everywhere at the same time; therefore, His Substance fills the universe. The only way God can manifest Himself in the hearts of people today is by the process of emanation. To emanate is to issue forth from a source. As the Holy Spirit, God is issuing forth from His Substance to fill the hearts of people today.

    The Holy Spirit cannot be separated from the Father, for it is a part of His Substance. That which was conceived in the virgin Mary was of the Holy Ghost. Matt. 1:20. The truth becomes evident that the Holy Spirit is the Father of the Son. To try to separate the Father and the Holy Spirit and form two Persons, would give the Son two Fathers, which is impossible. Definitely the Father and the Holy Spirit would have to be the same Spirit.

    There is only ONE SPIRIT. Eph. 4:4. “For by ONE SPIRIT are we all baptized into one body…” 1 Cor. 12:13. The Bible proves that the ONE Spirit is the Holy Ghost. “This spake He (Jesus) of the SPIRIT, which they that believe on Him should receive: far the HOLY GHOST was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.” John 7:39.

    The Bible proves that the ONE Spirit is the Father. “There is but ONE GOD, the FATHER…” I Cor. 8:6. “GOD (the Father) is a SPIRIT…” John 4:24.

    The Bible proves that the ONE Spirit is Jesus. There is ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST. I Cor. 8:6. “Now the LORD (Jesus) is that SPIRIT…” II Cor. 3:17.

    “There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are ONE.” I John 5:7.

    By no means did Jesus teach that the Holy Ghost was another Person. Jesus said, “The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things…” John 14:26. Again Jesus said, “…if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you. John 16:7. Also John said, “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” John 14:18. Compare John 14:26 with John 16:7; Jesus spoke of the Father and Himself as ONE. Compare John 14:26 with John 14:18. Jesus spoke of the Holy Ghost and Himself as ONE. If the Father and Jesus are one, and Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one: then the Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit are ONE. (Also compare the following Scriptures which show that the Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are ONE: Matt. 10:20, Mark 13:11, Luke 21:15.)

    A Trinitarion concept contends that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in holiness, love, glory, wisdom and eternal power; but, three in Person. No Scripture can be found to support such a concept. Note the following:

    His holiness (not their holiness) – Ps. 47:8

    His love (not their love) – Ram. 5:8

    My glory (not our glory) – Is. 42:8

    The only wise God (not the wise three) – I Tim. 1:17

  406. Okay, let me ask you this question, is jesus the only supreme God?

  407. Coram Deo said

    Look Manuel, I’m not harboring any delusions that I can convince you of anything. I’m just doing what God commands His servants to do which is to faithfully represent Him and be always ready with an answer for the hope that lies within me.

    It’s my sincere prayer that God will save you and that we will meet in heaven as redeemed children of God. But the current situation is that you are under the bondage of a false religion and thus are an unbeliever in desperate need of salvation.

    Obviously you don’t realize it and it’s clear that you really and sincerely think you believe the truth, but hell will be full of sincere people just like you.

    Thus in closing you can rest assured that it is with the utmost gravity and honesty that I tell you I will pray to my Heavenly Father tonight that he might snatch your soul from the fire before it’s too late.

    Good night, and may the Lord bless you and keep you and make His face to shine upon you.

    And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. (Romans 5:5).

    In Christ,
    CD

  408. I am not letting you get away without answering my question you have been silent as a Texas Oyster I will never accept your false doctrine ever! Now is Jeus the only Supreme God or Not I say he is what do you say?

  409. Charles D. said

    Why not. You got away without answering my question.

  410. Charles D. said

    Manuel,

    I thought I was rather civil with you; at least I did not attempt to offend you. If that is the way of your God; then, it is I who know you by the fruit that you bare.

    You porport to be in a “save your soul” posture and you are deceived. You’re going to hell. You don’t have to defend Oneness as a guise of showing your evil fruit. In fact, you need not do anything further or utter another word, you’re going to hell with butane drawers on. Not only that, but, you cannot be a recruiter of that lapped-legged sub-doctrine that even you don’t believe in. You are beyond help, the devil is your father and jezebell your she-creator.

    I know you for what you are now. Job was absolutely right, Oneness believers are liars, but, even you don’t believe in it yourself. You hang around for a reason, but you lack the smarts to accomplish what it is you are after.

    John: I would encourage you to ignore this entity, he has a wicked spirit, you can’t convert him, so why waste your time? This person, his co-hort Crimmy and the absent-minded professor are all hell bound and you cannot save them.

    Manny, be cursed.

    Charles

  411. Charles D. said

    Of coutrse, I meant “bear,” however, bare is not wrong in this instance because you have indeed bared what would otherwise be a “soul,” but I doubt you have one. Afterall spirituals do not have souls and you are a semi-literate, foul spirit, lurking around various bloglogs, seeking and searching.

    No one want to debate you. If you were secured in your position, debating would be totally unnecessary. I have no idea where you get the blasphemous dogma you and your idiot friends have tried to spread here, however, there are ample Trinity Christians, armed with the whole armour of God, sufficient to beat Oneness cultists into submission.

    Can you say P=r=e=d=i=t=i=o=n? If not, you will know soon enough.

  412. Eden Hadassah said

    Good morning Charles,
    My lovely brother, I definately wasn’t ignoring you! Weekends are usually designated to my husband and family, and every now and again during those times, I get a sneak peek at the boards. I was on during the time when me hubbie was enjoying time with our grandbaby. My son’s birthday was yesterday, and we threw him a surprise party last night. While he was down stairs with his friends, I jumped on to see what was going on in the blasphemy thread. At this point I don’t even need to read any posts because they are all the same. I rode the pink pony with the flowers in the bridle and I was in my Sunday purple dress with the little poka-dots and white brimmed girlie hat, you rode the blue one all dressed in your cowboy hat, boots equiped with spirs, chaps and cap gun (quite adorable), and John rode the white one dressed in the beauty of God!
    The best advise I could give to anyone coming into this thread is to not buy a ticket to the merry-go-round. It goes nowhere fast, and there are lots of other topics that would be glorifying to the Lord. The blasphemy that continues to go on is horrendous, starting with “knowledge” as the key identifying factor. God becomes a subject and is reduced to mere words, instead of us being reduced to sinful humans saved by grace and subject to Him. The whole thing wreaks of satanic craftiness, with misrepresenting of scriptures and taking people’s word’s out of context. It is a shame that they can’t be satisfied with their own beliefs, but must constantly defend their beliefs to try to convince themselves that they are right. It has nothing to do with saving souls from “the pit of hell,” or from “trinitarian doctrine”, but it is straight up satanic activity. See post #401 to understand the type of individual that is drawn to this type doctrine. Yet they will alway’s deny it. Cults like Jehovah Witness and Mormons are drawn to oneness doctrine because it is like walking from one room to another in the same house. It’s familiar. The characteristics of such individuals is the need to “know” everything. Jehovah Witness have a pat answer for everything as do the Mormons. The witness of the Holy Spirit is absent from them, and there is a lack of the quiet witness that is overwhelming to a believer. It is fleshly at best, and there is never at anytime, any personal discussion about their relationship with the Lord they claim to worship. If they can get you to defend “your doctrine”, then you are defending yourself in the end, and defending flesh.
    There is nothing more beautiful than the witness of the Holy Spirit! It is a treasure and a beauty beyond compare. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth of our Heavenly Father and sends forth praise and adoration, love and respect for all that He has done for us in sending His Son. His Holy Spirit also reveals the truth of Yeshua our Messiah, and sends forth praise and adoration, love and respect for all that He has done becoming a sin offering for us. How marvelous and joyous is the faith that has been given to us by His Spirit that we may praise the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
    May He be forever praised and lifted up!

  413. Charles with no knowledge of scripture writes:
    “If you were secure in your position, debating would be totally unnecessary.”

    ( Acts 19:8-9) Paul did so disputing one time boldly for three months and another time in the
    school of one Tyranus for three years. Paul and other disciples did not find it “unnecessary.” You call the way of truth Evil, I defend that and have every right. You all are not in the truth but only seekers of truth you are not in christ but in your sins there are no reformed anywhere in Christ.

  414. “there is never at anytime, any personal discussion about their relationship with the Lord they claim to worship.”

    mlculwell: It would do no good, you would trample it under foot and call it of the devil. so I have to resort to showing you we do not contradict the scriptures as does the trinity doctrine. I would rather talk to my wife and kids about the precious beauty of The Lord or with someone who knows absolutely nothing, than with someone like the reformed.

  415. Eden Hadassah said

    Wife and kids?😉
    You wouldn’t be asking me to buy a ticket right now would you?
    I am standing on line right now, and if I buy a ticket, my circumventing will just be more of the same. I would hope that I won’t have to become personal and go to the next level with you. I have held back a lot, and if it gets personal, I have to warn you that it won’t shed a favorable light upon you. My suggestion is that you leave well enough alone with me.
    I told you, and this is the last time I will say it…
    I KNOW YOU.
    Enough said.

  416. You don’t know me! Yeah my wife Edie and my Kid’s at home Nathan and Amanda do you know them
    also? So bring your bad self on? You sound like you escaped the Mental ward with you always
    riding the merry go round witrh silly pink outfits

  417. you don’t have any idea what you are talking about! there are other manuel culwello’s my uncles name is Manuel Ray culwell my name is manuel Lee culwell

  418. Eden Hadassah said

    My references have to do with personal matters, and bringing family into it should have been a “no no” for you my friend. Don’t be so confident!

  419. Bring it on, pink outfit Merry go round rider!

  420. Angie said

    Here’s a way I get understanding about the trinity at work. When you read the Old Testament, you read mostly about the Father’s works. When you read the four gospels, you read about Jesus works, and when you read Acts, the works of the Holy Spirit is working through the apostles. All are three different manifestations working as one whole.

  421. Eden Hadassah said

    My outfit was PURPLE WITH LITTLE POKA-DOTS, young one!
    Once again, you have proven that you can not even get something as simple as the color of my make-believe dress correct, how much more the eternal Holy Scriptures? Changing my dress from clearly purple with poka-dots to pink is a HUGE misrepresentation of what I am wearing on the merry-go-round, and only shows that you have only been too willing to deny the obvious!
    Pink…geez.😉

  422. I stand corrected then, Purple polka dots it is!!!LOL!

  423. Purple w/ polka dots

  424. Eden Hadassah said

    Oh boy, my time to buy a ticket is almost here…will I buy one?
    Probably not! I forgot to mention that while the kiddies last week were wearing their cute outfits, the other “ones” chose to ride in the emperor’s new clothes!

    (blush)

  425. That’s a good story the Emporer’s New clothes, and it is fitting, for most of religiondom,
    they are naked and do not know it, but it takes someone to tell them they are naked.

  426. The Reformed are the Naked ones or wearing the emporers new clothes.

  427. Charles D. said

    Hope you’re having a good day my sister;

    Maybe we should hook-up Manny with Kate. She’s interested in the welfare of kids and Manny says he has some; which to my way of thinking is child endangerment. It is not very often that I run into someone that can’t write, but, love the attention of trying to write. He is soooo pitiful. Each time he writes something I can picture flames and sulphur singeing what little brains matter he certainly cannot afford to loose.

    I just flat refuse to speak with him on any spiritual matters, so, he can get ready for school. As unlearned as he is, I bet he will (like a stubborn mule) stick his neck in this noose.

    With minimal effort I could XXXXXXX I better not go there.

  428. Charles D. said

    Hey My Lil Fruitcake:

    I do not want to contaminate my well wishes and thank you for sharing yesterday with me, so, I will be on later, certainly on another thread. Chaz

  429. Eden Hadassah said

    Here is a great video for anyone who enjoys the merry-go-round:

    (I hope it’s the right one…my computer froze for a moment…if it is enjoy, if it isn’t, I will repost it.)

  430. No charles, for now I will not cast my pearls before you pigs(swine)

  431. johnkaniecki said

    Greetings all,

    Manuel please don’t take it as an attack that I complimented Coram’s thouroughness as it cites many passages that I would have liked to bring up.

    Charles it was once asked if God loved the devil in a Bible study. The man in the pulpit said “no” but I knew the answer was “yes”. Loving others is the mission of God to all believers.

    Manuel means well, look at it from his point of view. He has a great many number of scriptures to back up his assertation. I humbley and respectively disagree with his use of them but that doesn’t make him our enemy or make him less sincere.

    Certain things aren’t critical for the faith. Yes we would like perfect harmony in all points but we won’t until we are in heaven with Jesus.

    My friend who believes in the pre tribulation rapture jokes that they’ll “explain it to the rest of us on the way up.”

    There are people who will tell you something and not be able to defend it at all in scripture. The most dangerous of these in my opinion are those who claim that America is God’s kingdom on Earth. These evil , wicked men peddle hatred, violence and oppression all while claiming to do God’s will.

    Lets all look at Mathew 25 and the seperation of the sheepss and the goats. What the criteria to be judged on is whether they did service unto men, for whatever we have done to the least we have done to God Himself.

    Mathew 25 doesn’t mention whether we are oneness or the trinity. We can’t guage people by this blog alone and one disputed issue. I could figure out if a person is a real, sincere, Christian by spending a day with them. But I can’t do this with Manuel.

    I recall Jesus’s words. He who isn’t against us is with us.

    Love,

    John

  432. John, Once Again I appreciate your civility! So that I have nothing Bad to say about you…. You have a level Head and are more christian-like and spiritual in your walk toward God, I only give these other folks a taste of what they give to make them know how it feels. You Give respect John, so you will get respect from me sir!

    God Bless!

    Manuel

  433. Eden Hadassah said

    Manny doesn’t get it John!🙂

  434. Fran said

    Manuel,

    Regardless if a person agrees or disagrees, we should have respect for one another. If you’ve come to a conclusion about different persons on this site, then why would you expect anything more. Right or wrong, don’t be provoked to name calling.

    The name calling does not bring glory to God. Those that follow Yeshusa, should stop the name calling. It’ not about our feelings. When you name call as what has been going on, it shows that you are not walking in Spirit.

    We all need to restrain the flesh.

  435. Why don’t you tell the other side, That started the name calling? I will give respect to John and anyone else who shows respect, but if your side wants to continue to act like heathen I will give them what they give. Give respect, and you will get respect you will not get it from otherwise.

  436. Eden Hadassah said

    Manny is just upset because he still can’t get anyone to argue with him on his own blog site…
    click his name and you will see the same stuff there. He thinks he gets more action here, or that he is “giving us what we give”, but we didn’t go looking for a fight, or come onto his blogroll insulting his “doctrine.”
    That is all manny…all the time.

  437. John disagreed respectfulling in our discussion, willing to submit the passages and arguments
    that he felt helped his cause, you all should take a lesson from him and see that this can be
    done civil, but it can be nothing more than a fight if you are not willing to honestly submit
    your arguments with respect, you will get what you give.

  438. No, you can just look at the name calling in the title to see how nice you all are, calling out *Oneness Liars* in the very title heading to proke a fight in the first place, the reason I came here is because of that title heading, I don’t need the Blog! I have three Yahoo debate groups where I am the Owner/Moderator I get plenty from there I just keep myself busy teaching you folks what your apologests have been telling to you about us for so many years that are jst not true. I only need One person at a time to clear up all the misconceptions

  439. You don’t have to think me very nice but you will know your arguments don’t stand up to the Oneness of God like you thought. Everything is sugar and spice when your doctrine has not been tried , you go about your business thinking all is well untill some comes along to shake things up.

  440. Fran said

    Manuel,

    I said what I said because you had refraimed from name calling until you decided to do the same as others were doing. This is not an attack Manuel coming from me. You have the right to defend what you believe, be it right or wrong.

    About the name calling, when did two wrongs ever make anything right other than in a persons mind.

    There are people visiting the site that disagree with you and there are people visiting the site that agree with you. They are being silent, both groups, don’t care to get into the conversation because of the name calling agruemeents.They are searching the scriptures for both sides of the dicussion. Let the Holy Spirit do His job.

    Some folks can be civil and some folks can’t. If being civil matters, then why not conversate with only those that are being civil to you. It’s always a better way, than resorting to name calling.

    You mention the title of the post. You state yourself that it provokes a fight. Did you come to fight or did you come to defend your belief?

    Those

  441. Eden Hadassah said

    John disagreed respectfully because he is willing to talk to you about doctrine…for him this is good in this arena. But you have NOT been respectful, and it started all the way back at your invitation in #208 (or there abouts), inviting anyone to “debate.” Yet did anyone come? Probably not. So you stuck around. It was you that decided to debate, because you are never satisfied with anyone’s comments. So you just keep going on and on. You haven’t even given what you think we gave! You have given nothing at all.

  442. Fran said

    Manuel,

    Who are you talking to in comments#451,452,453?

  443. Fran, I came to defend my belief. The title heading is why I came!

  444. I am talking to Eden, and anyone else who will Listen.

  445. Eden wrote:
    “it started all the way back at your invitation in #208 (or there abouts), inviting anyone to “debate.” Yet did anyone come? Probably not. So you stuck around. It was you that decided to debate, because you are never satisfied”

    No Eden, the Title heading already provoked a debate by calling all *oneness Liars* and you are here for what reason?

  446. Fran said

    Manuel,

    If that be the case, then fight with scripture and not with the emotions of the flesh. You said the heading was provoking a fight, so in other words, I know that you should have known what you were in for.

  447. Fran, I defend My belief, I am not crying !I am waiting for valid arguments, Why would I want to fight with scripture? there is nothing in scripture that says one God is a lie? I said “provoked a debate” there is a difference between Fighting and debating! I would hope you would know that?

  448. Iyou are the ones who I said provked the fight with the title heading, I want to debate not fight!

  449. Fran said

    Manuel,

    My mistake, I should say debate using scripture. I wasn’t trying to change what you said.

  450. Fran, Okay friend ,if no one wants to debate at this time then fine, I can come back later, I
    don’t mind at all having a converstation with someone like you or John.

    Manuel

  451. Charles D. said

    Manny:

    John, Once Again[,] I appreciate your civility! So[,] [that[unnecessary] I have nothing B[b]ad to say about you[again, unnecessary]…. You have a level H[h]ead and [you]are more christian-like and[you are] spiritual in your walk [toward[just bad grammar] God,[.] I only give[gave] these other folk[s] a taste of what they give[gave] to make[let] them know how it feels. You G[g]ive [me]respect John, so you will get respect [in return]. [unnecessary and country] from me sir!

    Manny, I want to give you an “A” and I would: IF THE ASSIGNMENT WAS TO THROW AS MANY STUPID RANDOM WORDS TOGETHER, THEN, EXPECT THE READERS TO KNOW WHAT THE HECK YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT; HOWEVER, SINCE THAT IS NOT THE ASSIGNMENT………………………………………………………………”F”

    :0 :0🙂🙂🙂 RUBE🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂 YOU LIKE THAT WORD “RUBE” FOR SOME REASON, BET YOU USE IT WITHIN THE NEXT 12 COMMENTS

  452. Charles D. said

    Manny:

    Now how mature is this”
    “Why don’t you tell the other side, That started the name calling? I will give respect to John and anyone else who shows respect, but if your side wants to continue to act like heathen I will give them what they give. Give respect, and you will get respect you will not get it from otherwise”

    And don’t expect me to correct all of your blundering. Otherwise, I would have precious little time to do anything else and I have a job! Actually, you do to but you refuse to do it (GROW UP)🙂

  453. Charles D. said

    Thanks Fruitcake:

    We owe Manny a very apology and huge proprs. I mean it, too! We should get him a gift. If you haven’t noticed there are some excellent “baby coupns” on his webpage🙂

    I should have known and how it escaped me I will never know, but, Manny is from mizzoori, the “show me” state. AND he has shown me! Seems that had he not gotten a post in Sept 07, the next most recent one is Oct 06. People are really beating down the doors over there! Shows how interested sensible people are in Oneness and Manny.

    :

  454. LOL! That is My Blog there Charlie, That is not my debate group. I hvae three and more discussion than I need there have been no other posts because I am the one posting those blogs I don’t have all the time in the world. I am not Originally from Missouri, I am from Arkansas. (God’s country)

  455. Eden Hadassah said

    Chazman,
    Did you see the video I posted? It’s a good one.
    I was looking for good merry-go-round video’s and came across this christian music group’s music video. I thought it was very appropriate and expressed my views pretty clearly.

    Love
    Fruitcake

  456. Eden Hadassah said

    #443 if you are looking for the link…

  457. I am done with you Charlie, There is no way to fix what is wrong with you, so you can correct
    my puntuation tell you are blue in the face, it does not mean you are going to heaven, your
    doctrine is correct, or that you are even a Christian. (I doubt you are!) Just my two cents…

    Hasta La Bye Bye

    Manuel

  458. Charles D. said

    Manny:

    Just look at what you’ve just scribbled! Now, take your time, write something that makes sense to somebody, anybody, and leave well enough alone.

    I saw your contribution on the Ron Paul thread and the person there told you the same thing I have been telling you, only he say it in a “back-hand” complimentary way. But like you said, you’re “done with me.”

    Sunshine, that makes me happy🙂

    Chazster

  459. Charles D. said

    Thanks Eden,

    But I’m still laughing at the comment made to Manny on the Ron Paul thread. Why that man is such a glutton for punishment, I will never know.

    He says: “I am not Originally from Missouri, I am from Arkansas. (God’s country)” Well that cleared it up! Hee-Haw mah friend.🙂 Now I know you that you view politics as a verb.

    Chazster

  460. Fran said

    When we fail tests, we better know that we will take the test again and again until we pass. Now that’s a merry-go-round.lol

  461. Boo Hoo Charlie, The only thing you can harp on is my bad puntuation and spelling. LOL! Charlies interpretaion, It means; Manuel is not a Christian and not going to heaven.The gospel According to Charlie! Just everyone take a look at how many scriptual arguemnts Little charlie has brought to the tableprobably three or at the most, How many names has he called probaly every Post he wrote.

  462. Charlie, you are not capable of debating the scriptures what are you doing here? Are you here
    to witness? Your witness has been very Good, has it not? LOL!

  463. Charles D. said

    Manny, truly, between this thread and the Ron Paul whopping that the gentleman there gave you, I haven;t laughed so much in many, many days. Point of fact, I’m not even angry with you and have no desire to rise against you in rightous indignation in the spirit, or, further humiliate you in the flesh.

    Regarding my knowledge of the scriptures: suffice it to say that I have not committed a sin upto death, not by the words that I have directed to you personally. I am as secured in my eternal salvation as I was before I even knew that a Manny existed. Now! Because I do not discuss scriptures with you (now would be the proper place to interject “casting pearls before swine” that you unknowingly used earlier. You on the other hand, are well on your way to predition on doctrine alone.

    Furthermore, the scriptures were not inspired by God for purposes of debate, rather, they are instructive, for edifying the soul, body, and spirit; but then, given your doctrine, that;s something you would know nothing about.

    Also, far be it from me to debate scripture, doing so, is foolish, ignorant, serves no legitimate purpose, EXCEPT between God fearing Christians. It is not my job, in deed, my place to hate you or send you to hell. It is you that hate yourself and sending yourself to hell via your lack of doctrine. In the overall scheme of things, Arkansas may very well be your only saving grace (and, I know you will not understand that. You will do well to remember that).

    Charles

  464. Charles D. said

    Manny every time I start to signoff, like some kind of goat, you continue to butt your head. Now, you say:

    “The only thing you can harp on is my bad puntuation and spelling.” Truthfully, I could go for snytax, grammar, mechanics, and sentence structure for starters. Instead, I say Manny, let it go! Leave well enough alone. I am signing off for now.

  465. JOY to the World! said

    This site has become a joke. Name calling, A person who is talking crazy as if its funny has made no sense talking about merrygorounds and purple dresses. She seems to be an instigater who hardly seems worthy of any attention. Very little if any thing that has been written by her has anything to do with scripture. I believe that all of you have been tricked by the enemy, that any of this is glorifying God. It seems to be more about defending self and opinion than anything else. Argueing is a waste of time. Manuel, you are well studied and have history behind you. My experience with most people is this. If I think I have it all, I will never seek more. Seek means study and very few are willing to put any more into their knowledge to prove whether they are right or wrong. This is disobedince to the scripture to Study to show ourselves approved unto God. Paul said when we think we know we know nothing. Therefore no study means we know less than nothing. I hope that you will take you knowledge and see if you can’t find a person that hasn’t been indoctrinated. There are many more now than ever before. Few teenagers are going to church and in the times we are getting ready to have, hardship is going to open many new doors doors for Gods way. Give NO place to the devil. This site has become such a place. Now attack me! Your true colors be revealed in Jesus name!

  466. Charlie:
    “Also, far be it from me to debate scripture, doing so, is foolish, ignorant, serves no legitimate purpose, EXCEPT between God fearing Christians. It is not my job, in deed, my place to hate you or send you to hell. It is you that hate yourself and sending yourself to hell via your lack of doctrine. In the overall scheme of things, Arkansas may very well be your only saving grace (and, I know you will not understand that. You will do well to remember that).”

    I had a real good laughg at this one!
    Yeah Charlie It is your Job as a christian that you are to call names instead of debate you donb’t know anything you are as Ignorant as they come concerning scripture you have proved over and over you have no knowledge or wisdom no wonder you are stuck in your false doctrine.

  467. Eden Hadassah said

    Manny said:
    “No Eden, the Title heading already provoked a debate by calling all *oneness Liars* and you are here for what reason?”

    Manny, I told you! Weren’t you listening? I am having FUN. Pure unadulterated, down to earth, diversion.🙂
    I enjoy the non-sense…it breaks up the monotany of the research I do all day!
    I like coming on here, and just like you have your debate, I have my non-debate, non-sense! Silly to the core. Not ashamed to admit it.
    And you shouldn’t be so bent out of shape in other posts, you might spoil that “sterling witness” you prize so highly, but rarely come through on. I see that you like to go back on your own words concerning “name calling” in other threads. That is interesting to me. I won’t engage you in the divinity of God, but I will engage you in conversation on other topics, in other threads. You talk a good game, but you don’t really deliver.
    You have thrown words like “respect” around, yet in other threads, you have none. I guess you aren’t really a man of your word after all, huh?😉

  468. Yeah Joy to the world, I have really gotten to a low point here, I feel very dirty Just rubbing shoulders with this bunch, it is pure evil. I say the best thing for us to do is just get away and allow them to continue in the mire. They don’t want truth they think they have it and they can have just what they have….

  469. Eden, you are having Fun by being Provoking a fight that is all you do. How is that any kind
    of witness? I try to be nice and then you come back with more provacation.

  470. Charles D. said

    JOY to the World:

    “Paul said when we think we know we know nothing.” Then those words apply to you equally. You first of all, come in attacking, yes, talking about the “merrygo-round” which you know nothing about. Secondly, it could be said that you’re just being plain nosey.

    Get lost.

  471. Eden,you have no idea what you are talking about! If a name was called by me it was for a
    reason, you don’t have your facts staraight! Things are not always as they seem, there was a
    reason and it is usaully because someone else called a name, I do it, you have seen it done by
    me. But usaully it started somewhere else you no nothing about wether in an email or a debate
    group but I don’t let folks much get away with it.

  472. Eden Hadassah said

    Joy,
    You are right! I have nothing of value to say. No attack. You got the point. My purple dress and the merry-go-round is as obsurd as the circular doctinal discourse that has taken place in this thread. It brings absolutely no glory to God what so ever. My posts are meant to be this way for a reason…and most people see the stupidness of my actions, yet do not see the doctrinal cat and mouse and insults, no matter how subtle concerning the Lord, and blaspheming Him.
    I won’t defend myself on this issue…I AM A FOOL. TAKE MY WHITE HAT OFF AND GIVE ME A DUNCE CAP and CLOWN NOSE.

  473. The Apostle Paul Debated the scriptures debating your cause gives more glory to God and it is scriptual to do so than you acting a fool for no Good reason Eden, .

  474. Joy to the world is right! I will leave this site.

  475. Joy to the world is right! I will leave this site.

  476. Eden Hadassah said

    Manuel,
    Debating for the sake of debating is the problem. It must be done in the correct spirit. The attitude of many people who support oneness doctrine is fruitless. Name calling is just the tip of the iceburg…there are other nuances of the debate that I can do with out.
    Paul was trying to reason with jews who had left the observance of Torah in favor of their laws of oral tradition.
    Torah and Talmud are two different things.

    Have a great night all! And HAPPY NEW YEAR!

  477. Coram Deo said

    Here are few Oneness Pentecostal cult beliefs for those who are unaware of some of the specifics of their false religion of works righteousness:

    1. Denies the doctrine of the Trinity.
    2. Denies justification by faith alone by stating that baptism is also required for salvation.
    3. Jesus is God the Father.
    4. Jesus is the Holy Spirit.
    5. The name of God is “Jesus.”
    6. Baptism is necessary for salvation.
    7. Denies pre-existence of the Word as the Son. Teaches that the He existed as the Father.
    8. Being born again means repentance, baptism, and speaking in tongues.
    9. Baptism must be administered by an ordained Oneness minister to be valid.
    10. Baptism must be administered with the phrase, “In the name of Jesus” instead of the phrase, “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19).
    11. Speaking in tongues is a necessary requirement to demonstrate that a person has been baptized in the Holy Spirit, and is, therefore, saved. It is claimed to be the initial sign of the infilling of the Holy Ghost.
    12. Restitution of all things, though the devil and the angels will not be restored.
    13. Women may be pastors.3
    14. Only Oneness people will go to heaven.

    As any fair minded, intellectually honest person can see the traits above are, as I’ve pointed out before, representative of classic cult mind control.

    Just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons who are the Oneness Pentecostal’s spiritual kissing cousins these blind leaders of the blind, these wolves in sheep’s clothing, these rank deceivers believe that ONLY THEY will go to heaven because ONLY THEY are “doing things according to the Bible” as taught by THEIR cult leaders.

    But notice that “doing things according to the Bible” includes all manner of religious bondage and fleshly works of men in order to be valid.

    So according to the Oneness Pentecostal cult (and the JW’s and the Mormons) if you have not met THEIR PARTICULAR CULT’s requirements for salvation then you’re going to go to hell. I wonder which of these three cults is really telling the truth? If you guessed none of them then you are correct!

    But don’t their claims sound familiar? They really should since false religion is among Satan’s oldest traps and cults of Christianity are clearly his favorites.

    The Jesus Christ of the Holy Bible is able to fully save all those who come to Him by faith through grace alone, but the Jesus Christ of Oneness Pentecostalism is unable to fully save apart from certain ordinances being performed by ordained Oneness Pentecostal ministers. As is commonplace among the cults they use these ordinances as a form of religious bondage in order to control their confused flocks and keep them in line by using fear tactics.

    The Jesus Christ of the Holy Bible Himself claimed to have come from the Father and claimed He would return to the Father, but the Jesus Christ of the Oneness Pentecostals is the Father.

    The Jesus Christ of the Holy Bible prayed fervently to His Father in the garden of Gethsemane desiring that the cup might pass from Him, and prayed that not His (Jesus Christ’s) will be done, but His Father’s will be done (“nevertheless not My will, but Thy will be done”). Since according to the Oneness cultists since Christ IS THE FATHER then the Lord was actually praying “not My will, but My will be done”.

    Friends, the Oneness Cultists need the same loving but firm rebuke as the JW’s and Mormons in order that some might be saved from the judgment to come. They’ve believed another gospel and have invented another Jesus and they seek after converts in order to make them twice the sons of hell that they are themselves.

    Finally – and tellingly – I’ve utterly failed to see any evidence or fruit of the love of God being demonstrated by the adherents of the legalistic, unbiblical, authoritarian mind-control cult of the Oneness Pentecostal church who have commented here. On the contrary it’s been very clear that most of their comments simply drip with fear, loathing, and outright blind hatred. Such hearts are not filled with the love of Jesus Christ, but rather are filled with the twisted hatred of their father the devil.

    May we who are called by His holy name pray for those who are in bondage to this cult system that the Lord of Glory, the Risen Savior, our Kinsman Redeemer and Eternal God, the Lord Jesus Christ might save them from their sin and trespass and translate them from spiritual death unto life by His Spirit of boundless mercy, pity, and love.

    In Christ,
    CD

  478. Eden Hadassah said

    Amen CD…

  479. :) said

    wow coram deo u actually know about us! about 97% of that is true! BUT…. even we don’t believe that ALL oneness people are going to Heaven, and we don’t have to be baptized by a ordained minister! the guy just has to do it like the Bible says to. so lets see: 1-8 and 10-13 is true

  480. HearOIsrael said

    Charles said “This person, his co-hort Crimmy and the absent-minded professor are all hell bound and you cannot save them.”

    But Jesus said “Judge not, that ye be not judged, for with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

    Charles said “Manny, be cursed.”

    But Paul said “Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.”

    Charles said “Get lost”
    But Jesus wants us to get saved!!

    I’m going with Jesus!

  481. Charles said

    HearOIsrael

    The originality train has left the station; you missed it!

    Charles cannot send anyone to hell; they send themselves. Charles was absolutely right, Manny cannot save Crimmy, the absent-minded professor, or YOU! Manny never presecuted me, nor can he, for that matter! Insaying get lost, what Charles meant was Get outta my face!

    My question to you is, since you obviously have comprehension issues: just where are you going with Jesus?

    Charles

  482. Jesusman said

    Another typical misrepresentation by a tritheist. My comments will be in “[]” “The Jesus Christ of the Holy Bible prayed fervently to His Father in the garden of Gethsemane desiring that the cup might pass from Him, and prayed that not His (Jesus Christ’s) will be done, but His Father’s will be done (“nevertheless not My will, but Thy will be done”).[Since they have two different wills, how can they be One God in unity and harmony and purpose, as you believe? The answer is that Jesus’ human will was in conflict with the will of God the Father who dwelled within Him] Since according to the Oneness cultists since Christ IS THE FATHER[This is an absolute lie, a fabrication, a deception. Satan is the father of lies, my friend. ONENESS BELIEVERS DO NOT BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS HIS OWN FATHER. THE FATHER DWELLED WITHIN THE SON, AND IF YOU DISAGREE, YOUR ARGUMENT IS WITH THE LORD JESUS, NOT WITH ME OR ANY ONENESS BELIEVER.] then the Lord was actually praying “not My will, but My will be done”.”[Ha ha ha, so witty. He was praying, not my flawed human will(if it was “God the Son”‘s will, it would have been perfect and in lockstep with the Father’s) but the perfect will of the Almighty God, the Father who dwells within me.]

  483. Jesusman said

    If Jesus was “God the Son”, doesn’t that make Mary the mother of God, as Catholicism affirms? And if not, why not?

  484. Crimson Wolf said

    I am Baaaaack!!!!!

    Coram,
    You accuse Oneness of being bigoted because they do not believe Trinitarians are going to Heaven.

    Please answer the following question with a simple “Yes” or “No”:

    Do you believe the Oneness are going to Heaven?

    Now should you answer “No” then you are exactly what you are accusing Oneness people of being…bigoted.

    Should you answer “Yes” then why waste your time fruitlessly trying to convince Oneness they are wrong if they are going to Heaven anyway?

    Checkmate

  485. Charles D. said

    Jesusman, Crimmy and all Oneness followers:

    Jesusman: Only you will know this, but, I will put my money on: You must have repeated the first grade several times and each subsequent grade more than oncec. You don’t have to barass yoself here, except for the ignorance you’ve sprouted in your #496. After reading it, I have thus concluded that among other things, one of our (Trinty believing Christians) duties are to explain simple sentences and words association to you, not only sinful; not only clueless (when it comes to things of Christ), but you unbelievably innately slow wannabes.

    Crimmy: can you say ORIGINALITY? Man! You oneness peeps will steal anything that is not tied down. “I’m back.” Actaully, you never left. Wish you would but you won’t because you’re still learning and stealing.

    To answer your question: NO! You are going to hell with gasoline underwear on. UNLESS You repent of all of the satanism you are responsible for doing, saying, and dispensing. YOU are all you have to worry about, you cannot take the whole oneness on your back (lucky them)!

    You are worried right now and that’s what prompted your question in the first place. And, you have a right to be. You are GOING to account for every foul word, every single syllable that you have ever uttered while under condemnation!

    Thank about it!

    Repent before it is too late,

    Charles

  486. Crimson Wolf said

    HA HA HA HA !!!!!

    Chucky said (I have capitalized all of his misspellings):

    “Jesusman, Crimmy and all Oneness followers,
    Jesusman, Only you will know this, but, I will put my money on, You must have repeated the first grade several times and each subsequent grade more than ONCEC. You don’t have to BARASS YOSELF here, except for the ignorance you’ve SPROUTED in your #496. After reading it, I have thus concluded that among other things, one of our (Trinty believing Christians) duties are to explain simple sentences and words association..”

    HA HA HA , Chucky must live in a glass house!!!!

    Please learn to spell before you call the kettle black.
    Your parsimonious vocabulary disposition betrays your academic definciency. Not that it matters…I knew more BEFORE I went to college and it took me twenty years to UNLEARN a lot of the garbage they tried to force feed me.

    And Chucky…for oncec in yo life try not to barass yoself by sprouting off yo mouth before yo think.

  487. Crimson Wolf said

    Chucky…you missed my birthday party on purpose didn’t you?

  488. Crimson Wolf said

    Heeey Coram…in answer to your post #491 :

    Here are few Trinitarian cult beliefs for those who are unaware of some of the specifics of their false religion of works righteousness:

    1. Denies the doctrine of the Oneness of God.
    2. Teaches justification by faith alone by stating that baptism is unimportant and has no part in repentance or salvation.
    3. Jesus is God the Son and not a Father (Isa. 9:6).
    4. Jesus is God the Son and not a Holy Spirit (1 Cor.12:4-13).
    5. The tetragrammatal name of God is not contained within the name “Jesus.”
    6. Baptism is not important and Christ’s command to do it is not necessary for salvation.
    7. Denies pre-existence of the Word as a theophany. Teaches that He did not exist God.
    8. Teaches against being born again according to Acts 2:38 through repentance, baptism, and speaking in tongues.
    9. Baptism must be administered by an ordained Trinitarian minister to be valid.
    10. Baptism must be administered with the phrase, “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” instead of “in the name of Jesus Christ.” (Acts 2:38, Acts 19:5, etc)
    11. Denies that speaking in tongues is a necessary requirement to demonstrate that a person has been baptized in the Holy Spirit, and is, therefore, a sign the person has totally repented, baptized, and filled with the Holy ghost (been saved). They deny that tongues are the initial sign of the infilling of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:4).
    12. Doubts the restitution of all things, though the devil and the angels will not be restored.
    13. Brazenly spout their bigotry and male chauvinism by denying women may be pastors or ministers even though the Bible says that your daughters will be prophetesses and that in Christ “there is neither male nor female.”
    14. Only Trinitarian people will go to heaven.

    As any fair minded, intellectually honest person can see the traits above are, as I’ve pointed out before, representative of classic cult mind control.

    Just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons who are the Trinitarians spiritual kissing cousins these blind leaders of the blind, these wolves in sheep’s clothing, these rank deceivers believe that ONLY THEY will go to heaven because ONLY THEY are “doing things according to the Bible” as taught by THEIR cult leaders.

  489. Crimson Wolf said

    CORRECTION: the first line in my above post should read:

    Here are few Trinitarian cult beliefs for those who are unaware of some of the specifics of their false religion of Easy Believism and Greasy Gracey Slide on Through Salvation.

  490. Charles D. said

    Oh No! Not a correction, from you! Not THE but a differencec between us is: I can spell every word spoken and feel secure. Whereas you on the otherhand, rightfully feels insecure, prone to make aditional errors because Oneness’es, and you by default, copy (steals) everything, both, from myself and others.

    As I said earlier: “Crimmy: can you say ORIGINALITY? Man! You oneness peeps will steal anything that is not tied down. “I’m back.” Actaully, you never left. Wish you would but you won’t because you’re still learning and stealing.”

  491. Coram Deo said

    Oneness Pentecostalism
    By Tal Davis

    Official Names and Membership (estimates):
    Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God (AOHCG)-13,000;
    Assemblies of the Lord Jesus, Inc. (ALJI)-50,000;
    Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ World Wide, Inc. (Bible Way)-250,000;
    Church of Our Lord Jesus of the Apostolic Faith (COLJF)-30,000;
    Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (PAW)-1,000,000 reported;
    Pentecostal Church of Apostolic Faith (PCAF)-25,000;
    United Church of Jesus Christ (Apostolic) (UCJC-A)-100,000;
    United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI)-500,000 (1.5 million worldwide)

    Other Designations: “Jesus Only” churches; “Apostolic Pentecostals”; The “Oneness Movement”; The “Jesus Name” Movement

    Key Publications:
    Pentecostal Herald (UPCI),
    The Global Witness (UPCI),
    The Bible Way News Voice (Bible Way),
    The People’s Mouthpiece (AOHCG),
    The Contender for the Faith (COLJF),
    Christian Outlook (PAW)

    Educational Institutions:
    AOHCG: Berean Christian Bible College-Birmingham, Ala.
    PAW: Aenon Bible School-Indianapolis, Ind.
    UCJC: Institute of Biblical Studies-Baltimore, Md.
    UPCI: Apostolic Bible Institute-St. Paul, Minn.
    Apostolic Missionary Institute-Oshawa, Ont.
    Christian Life College-Stockton, Calif.
    Indiana Bible College-Seymour, Ind.
    Texas Bible College-Houston, Texas

    This Belief Bulletin presents basic Oneness Pentecostal history and doctrines and provides a biblical analysis and response.

    History:
    The modern Pentecostal movement is generally regarded to have begun in 1901 in a chapel prayer meeting in Topeka, Kan., led by Charles Parham, a teacher at Bethel Bible College.

    In 1906, the Pentecostal experience of “speaking in tongues” burst on the scene during a revival in an African-American Baptist church on Azuza Street in Los Angeles, Calif. Following these beginnings, Pentecostal preachers and churches spread rapidly coalescing into various denominations and factions.

    In 1913, one popular teacher, R.E. McAlister of Toronto, Ont., began teaching that the Trinity doctrine was untrue and that baptism should be done correctly in Jesus’ name only-not in the traditional trinitarian formula. Other preachers, such as Frank J. Ewart and John G. Scheppe, joined McAlister in his non-trinitarian perspective.

    By 1916, “oneness” views were being expounded by some ministers in the Assemblies of God (AOG) denomination. They were strongly rejected by the denomination’s council that year, and the AOG adopted a strong trinitarian stance in its statement of faith. More than 160 oneness ministers who were expelled from the AOG quickly formed their own alliances to promote their doctrines.

    After that time, a number of oneness sects formed, most of which were predominately African-American. The largest oneness movements today are the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) and the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (PAW). The UPCI was organized in 1945 with the union of two predominately white groups started earlier in the century. Its headquarters and publishing firm, the Pentecostal Publishing House, is located at 8855 Dunn Road, Hazelwood, MO 63042.

    The PAW formed in 1918, but split along racial lines in 1924. Today it is predominately African-American and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.

    Doctrinal Beliefs:
    Oneness Pentecostal Sources of Authority: Oneness Pentecostals of all branches affirm the authority of the Bible for doctrine. Many, however, utilize only the King James Version to proof text their unique doctrines. In addition, many Oneness advocates rely on the unbiblical revelations received by various Oneness leaders whom they regard as divinely inspired or anointed interpreters of the Bible. For example, many in UPCI consider the writings of Frank Ewart and John G. Scheppe as authoritative.

    Biblical Response: The Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God (see 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). It is the final authority for the Christian on all matters of faith and doctrine. No single translation or human interpretation can be regarded as infallible. All modern writings or “revelations” must be analyzed in light of sound principles of biblical interpretation.

    Only One God:
    Oneness Pentecostals declare that the Godhead consists of only one Person and deny the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. They maintain that the only real “person” in the Godhead is Jesus. Thus, they are often referred to as the “Jesus Only” Movement. They maintain that God exists in two modes, as the Father in heaven, and as Jesus the Son on earth. Nevertheless, they are the same person, not two separate persons. The Holy Spirit is not regarded as a person at all, merely a manifestation of Jesus’ power or a synonym for Him. Several verses are quoted to establish this view, such as Colossians 2:9 (NKJV), “For in Him (Jesus) dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Oneness theologians would argue that if the Father and the Son were separate, then the Godhead could not fully dwell in Christ. Matthew 28:19 also affirms their views that Jesus commanded His disciples to baptize in the “name” (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

    Jesus is said to have two natures: human and divine. Thus, when He died, only His human nature died. Also, when Jesus prayed, it was His human nature praying to His divine nature-not to a separate Father in heaven.

    Biblical Response: The Oneness Pentecostal view of God is similar to the ancient heresy of Modalism. Modalism is the belief that one God existed in time in three distinct modes of being: first as the Father in heaven; second, bodily as the Son on earth; and finally as the Holy Spirit.

    The Bible indeed teaches the existence of only one God (Deut. 6:4). Nonetheless, historic Christianity maintains that the doctrine of the Trinity (or tri-unity of God) is taught in Scripture. The Bible teaches that the one God exists eternally in three separate and distinct Persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    Colossians 2:9 does not teach that the totality of the Godhead was in the body of Jesus, but rather that Jesus embodied the totality of the divine nature and God is totally revealed in Him. If the Father and the Son are the same person, then the Oneness teachers have a difficult job explaining how the Father and the Son can love each other (See Matt. 3:17; 17:5; John 3:35; 5:20; 2 Pet. 1:17), talk to each other (see John 11:41-42; 12:28; 17:1-26), and know each other (see Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; John 7:29).

    Matthew 28:19 clearly reflects the trinitarian concept that the “name” (authority and characteristics) of the one God is incorporated in the three Persons of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (see 1 Cor. 8:6; 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:2). (See the following verses affirming the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit: Luke 12:12; John 15:26; Acts 5:3-10; 13:2-4; 1 Cor. 12:11; Eph. 4:30; Heb. 3:7.)

    Salvation:
    Four-fold Legal Requirement: The Oneness Pentecostal movements generally teach that to receive and maintain salvation, a person must adhere to four essential requirements.

    1. Faith in Jesus Only
    Oneness teachers would agree that salvation requires putting one’s full faith in the Jesus of Oneness doctrine, that is the Jesus who is the totality of the Godhead, who died on the cross as an atonement for sin, and who rose again from the dead.

    2. Repentance and Baptism in the “Name of Jesus”
    Acts 2:38 is used as evidence that the early church baptized only in the name of Jesus. They maintain that baptism in the trinitarian formula is invalid since it implies belief in three gods. They claim Matthew 28:19 is not to be taken as a command to baptize in that formula.

    3. Speaking in Tongues
    Like most traditional Pentecostals and charismatics, Oneness Pentecostals teach that speaking in tongues is a gift to be exercised today. However, unlike most traditionalists, the Oneness movements maintain that speaking in tongues is not just a post-conversion indicator of the filling or baptism of the Holy Spirit, but an essential ingredient in the salvation experience itself.

    4. Adherence to Holiness Standards
    Most Oneness Pentecostals teach that once salvation is gained initially by the preceding ingredients, it must be maintained by daily adherence to legalistic codes of personal behavior. Alcohol and tobacco are prohibited. Women are not allowed to cut their hair, wear short dresses or slacks, use make-up, or wear jewelry. Men are expected to dress conservatively (white shirts and dark slacks), be clean shaven, and have short haircuts. Violations of these codes may result in a loss of salvation and exclusion from church fellowship.

    Some small Oneness groups also practice handling poisonous snakes or drinking poison to demonstrate their faith and holiness based on Mark 16:18 in the King James Version.

    Biblical Response: Salvation is “by grace through faith” in Jesus Christ alone (see Rom. 4:4-5; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).

    Baptism is not essential to one’s reception of salvation. It is a symbol of one’s identification with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The proper mode is immersion in the triune name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38 must be read in context and in light of Jesus’ clear command in Matthew 28:19.

    Speaking in tongues, like all other gifts, is distributed sovereignly by the Holy Spirit to those He wills for the equipping and edification of the whole body of Christ (see 1 Cor. 12-14). There is no indication that it, or any other spiritual gift, is required to receive God’s gift of salvation by grace or to be filled with His Holy Spirit (see Eph. 5:18).

    Oneness movements’ emphases on personal holiness and healthy lifestyles are commendable. Nevertheless, the requirements for outward adherence to a strict moral code in order to maintain salvation inevitably leads to legalism and a lack of assurance of eternal life.

    No amount of good works, moral living, or church membership guarantees salvation. Salvation is entirely based on grace through faith in Christ. Good works and holy living are the natural responses of salvation already received-not its cause (see Eph. 2:10). Salvation is eternally assured for those who have accepted Christ as personal Lord and Savior (see John 1:12; 5:24; 1 John 5:13).

    Mark 16:18 is part of a disputed portion of Mark’s text. Regardless, handling snakes or drinking poison is a misuse of that Scripture and has resulted in the deaths of many practitioners.

    Conclusions:
    Oneness Pentecostals have an anti-trinitarian view of God, an unbiblical doctrine of Jesus Christ, and unbiblical requirements for salvation (speaking in tongues, water baptism in “Jesus’ name,” and a legalistic moral code). Thus, those churches adhering to its basic doctrines cannot be regarded as authentically Christian. Any group or church that claims to be Christian yet deviates at any point from historical Christian faith is, by definition, a cult. Oneness Pentecostal churches are, therefore, cultic in nature and outside the theological parameters of historic Christianity.

  492. Crimson Wolf said

    MY RESPONSE TO CORAM”S POST #505 above:

    Trinitarianism
    By Sivad Lat

    Official Names and Membership (estimates):
    Trinitarian Churches Membership: A lot. Fashioned after her larger Mother, the Whore of Babylon.

    Other Designations: “Three God” churches; “Polytheists”; The “Tri-theistic Movement”; The “Anti-Sabellians” Movement

    This Belief Bulletin presents basic Trinitarian history and doctrines and provides a biblical analysis and response.

    History:
    The modern Trinitarian movement is generally regarded to have begun in 429 Ad at the Council of Nicea and later completely formulized in the fourth century by Roman Catholic theologians.

    After Arians began to dominate the Trinitarian doctrine was contrived to protect the mainstream Churches (which were previously Modalists.) Following these beginnings, Trinitarian preachers and churches spread rapidly coalescing into various denominations and factions.

    In 429 AD, one popular teacher began teaching that the Oneness doctrine was untrue and that baptism should be done correctly in the name of the Pagan Triad of ancient Greece. Other preachers joined in this trinitarian perspective.

    By 429 AD views were being expounded by some ministers in the young Roman Catholic denomination. They were strongly rejected by the denomination’s council that year, and the Roman Catholics adopted a strong trinitarian stance in its statement of faith. Remaining Oneness ministers who were expelled from the Catholic Church quickly formed their own alliances to promote their doctrines and fled to the mountains of Armenia and the Alps of Italy.

    After that time, a number of Trinitarian sects formed.

    The Protestant Reformation formed little whores fashioned after Mamma whore , but split along racial lines snd doctrinal lines various times throughout history.The leader of the Protestant Movement, Martin Luther, had anyone who disagreed with him killed. He said “Kill, stab, and destroy!.” He was a vulger man who loved his beer.

    Doctrinal Beliefs:
    Trinitarian Sources of Authority: Trinitarians of all branches affirm the authority of the Nicene and other Councils of the Catholic Church for doctrine. Many, however, utilize only the Priest to proof text their unique doctrines. In addition, many Trinitarian advocates rely on the unbiblical revelations received by various Popes or other leaders whom they regard as divinely inspired or anointed interpreters of the Bible. For example many believe the Pope is infallable and Protestants believe their little Popes are pops of pop doctrines that happen to poke it’s way down the Protestant path.

    Biblical Response: The Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God (see 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). It is the final authority for the Christian on all matters of faith and doctrine. No single translation or human interpretation can be regarded as infallible. All modern writings or “revelations” must be analyzed in light of sound principles of biblical interpretation.

    Only One God:
    Trinitarians declare that the Godhead consists of only three Persons and deny the ancient historical and biblical doctrine of Oneness. They maintain that there are three people in the Godhead ; A Father with a big white beard, a son with a little dark beard, and a little birdy.. Thus, they are often referred to as the “Three God” Movement. They maintain that God exists somehow as three different people. , as the Father in heaven, and as Jesus the Son on earth, and the Holy Ghost as a dove flying over Jordon River. Nevertheless they somehow make up one being that is undivided in will and purpose. All three people are Co-equal, co-powerful, and co-eternal. They fail to explain if this is so how Jesus was able to say “My Father is greater than I” or why he prayed in the Garden to the Father to spare him IF they both had ONE wil and were BOTH co-powerful. Matthew 28:19, which has since been shown to have been an interpolation added by Catholic scribes,also affirms their views that Jesus commanded His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

    Jesus is said to have a nature co-equal with the Father. Thus, when He died, God must have also died. Also, when Jesus prayed, it was a co-equal, co-powerful Father he prayed to , but didnt really NEED too, since they were both co-powerful with the same will, therefore Christ was only kidding us..

    Biblical Response: The Trinitarian view of God is similar to the ancient heresy of Polytheism and Tritheism. Polytheism is the belief in more then one God and Tritheism is the belief in three Gods.

    The Bible indeed teaches the existence of only one God (Deut. 6:4). Nonetheless, historic Christianity maintains that the doctrine of the Onenss (or Neo-tri-unity of God) is taught in Scripture. The Bible teaches that the one God exists eternally in three separate and distinct manifestations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    Colossians 2:9 does not teach that the totality of the Godhead was in the body of Jesus, but rather that Jesus embodied the totality of the divine nature and God is totally revealed in Him. If the Father and the Son are not the same substance, then the Trinitarian teachers have a difficult job explaining how they believe there is but one God.

    Matthew 28:19 clearly reflects the Neo-Oneness concept that the “name” (authority and characteristics and person) is incorporated in the three manifestations of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ,(see 1 Cor. 8:6; 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:2). (See the following verses affirming the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit which is a personal manifestation of God: Luke 12:12; John 15:26; Acts 5:3-10; 13:2-4; 1 Cor. 12:11; Eph. 4:30; Heb. 3:7.)

    Salvation:
    The Trinitarian movements generally teach that to receive and maintain salvation, there are no personal essential requirements. Anything goes. Once in grace always in grace. Smoke, get stoned, lay with your neibors wife on Saturday night and go to confession on Sunday (or if your Protestant just go to Church and “believe” and Jesus will look over all your stench until next Sunday.)

    1. Faith Only
    Trinitarian teachers would agree that salvation requires being “Faith Only.” They criticise the “Jesus Only” and yet they themselves are “Faith Only” with no personal action or requirements or change in the recipients life.

    2. Repentance and Baptism in the Pagon Three God Triad
    They claim Jesus is not the same substance as the Father and yet they baptized into the death, burial, and resurrection of the Father WHOM THEY SAY NEVER DIED OR RESURRECTED!

    3. Speaking in Tongues
    Like most traditional Trinitarians, They teach that speaking in tongues is a gift of yesterday and not for today. Those that DO say the baptism of the Holy Gjhost is just “extra baggage” and is just a mere post-conversion indicator of the filling or baptism of the Holy Spirit, and is in no way an essential ingredient in the salvation experience itself.

    4. Adherence to Holiness Standards
    Alcohol and tobacco are usually not prohibited. Women are not allowed to preach, Pastor, use make-up, nor evangelize. Men and women can dress any ole way they like , lay half naked on the beach, etc, and grace covers it all. Violations of these codes will NOT result in a loss of salvation and exclusion from church fellowship.

    Some small Trinitarian groups also practice handling poisonous snakes or drinking poison to demonstrate their faith and holiness based on Mark 16:18 in the King James Version. Most snake handlers ARE Trinitarian.

    Biblical Response: Salvation is “by grace through faith” in Jesus Christ AND OBEYING HIS WORD (see Rom. 4:4-5; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).

    Baptism is essential to one’s reception of salvation. It is a symbol of one’s identification with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The proper mode is immersion in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38). M