The Biblical ONENESS of God

[theWind]

The apostles that did baptism in jesus's name is also found no where in the bible.

What is found is a commandment from jesus in mathew on how to do baptism and the apostles did follow that commandment.

I think you said they never followed that commandment.

You're confused.

Show me one verse from the Bible where baptism is done in the name of the father, the son and the holy ghost.

 

[JasonLickliter]

You're confused.

Show me one verse from the Bible where baptism is done in the name of the father, the son and the holy ghost.

Show me where its not. Show me where the apostles did a baptist cause jesus was wrong.

If jesus said to do it like this, then they went and did it like that. im sure the apostles did as jesus commanded. That old chuch doctrine supports that. Its not scripture but baptism was being performed in early churches setup up by the 12 apostles to do baptism in running water in the father, son, and holy ghost.

They did it in no other way. To say they did is to say they didnt obey jesus commandment and i think thats a lie.

 

[JasonLickliter]

Im done with this thread. Later.

 

[Free]

There is no "teaching" of God being three persons anywhere in the Bible.

The term trinity is not as important as the fact that the concept is "taught" nowhere in Scripture.

As Free stated, it would be one of the most important concepts in all of the Bible.

It is found nowhere.

Pieces of the doctrine are found everywhere in the Bible and, like a good puzzle or murder mystery, need to be assembled to see the true picture. You have brushed several of the hard pieces into the garbage and yet still think you have a complete picture.

You know what isn't found anywhere? A clear or direct statement that God is an absolute unity, that he is only a single person.

 

[theWind]

Show me where its not. Show me where the apostles did a baptist cause jesus was wrong.

If jesus said to do it like this, then they went and did it like that. im sure the apostles did as jesus commanded. That old chuch doctrine supports that. Its not scripture but baptism was being performed in early churches setup up by the 12 apostles to do baptism in running water in the father, son, and holy ghost.

They did it in no other way. To say they did is to say they didnt obey jesus commandment and i think thats a lie.

Im done with this thread. Later.

Lol.

What was the point in even having this conversation then?

You take your time searching for a single example in the Bible of a baptism performed as stated in Matt. 28:19. When you find it, you win.

Until then, you are ignoring the Truth of Scripture.

How funny.

 

[Free]

Lol.

What was the point in even having this conversation then?

You take your time searching for a single example in the Bible of a baptism performed as stated in Matt. 28:19. When you find it, you win.

Until then, you are ignoring the Truth of Scripture.

How funny.

Something about a pot and kettle come to mind...

 

[JasonLickliter]

Lol.

What was the point in even having this conversation then?

You take your time searching for a single example in the Bible of a baptism performed as stated in Matt. 28:19. When you find it, you win.

Until then, you are ignoring the Truth of Scripture.

How funny.

another lie. I even presented way more than 1 single thing. I dont think i won.

The point of the conversation was to support the trinity against your view of the oneness of god and nothing else.

Im not going to change how I see it, neither will you. After you said I was confused then I wanted to point out where i think there is a lie.

I dont think your view is truthful. So at this point im done. I see nothing else I need to add. Others like free also has some good points in supporting the trinity. I see no reason why I need to continue any further.

 

[Highway54]

Does a son have a father who is in authority over him, even though they are both human?

God can only beget God.




JLB

More accurately sir, God begat god. Any idea what beget means JLB?

 

[Highway54]

It's more logical that God IS that God, but logic has nothing to do with it.

Does it seem logical that an unseen God created everything you have ever experienced as reality, including you yourself?

Does it seem logical that there is an entire unseen world where God and angels and demons exist and interact with mankind at times?

There's nothing logical about God, the Holy Bible or faith.

The Truth is silliness to the natural (logical) man.

"... the natural (logical) man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
1 Cor. 2:14

Every single Truth of the Bible is spiritual, not logical.

Jesus IS the Father makes more sense than God has a God.

Jesus said it, so I believe it Jn 20:17.

Since it is not logical to you to believe we can know God, do you think Him unreasonable when His son returns to destroy those who do not know Him sir?

He gives everyone the opportunity to know Him, yet most choose not to, makes no sense to me.

 

[Free]

More accurately sir, God begat god. Any idea what beget means JLB?

What does it mean in relation to the Son and the Father?

 

[JLB]

More accurately sir, God begat god. Any idea what beget means JLB?

Where in scripture do you see the idea of Jesus being a ”god”?


The Son created the heavens and the earth.

The Son created all things.



Are you trying to convince this community of believers that a “god” created all things?






JLB

 

[Highway54]

What does it mean in relation to the Son and the Father?

Yes sir, I was basiclly asking for the general meaning, but that is the real question, were you asking me or asking if that was what I was asking Free?

 

[Highway54]

Where in scripture do you see the idea of Jesus being a ”god”?


The Son created the heavens and the earth.

The Son created all things.



Are you trying to convince this community of believers that a “god” created all things?






JLB

Jn 1:1
Jehovah is the creator JLB, not Jesus, but with the exception of himself, all things were created through him.

 

[Free]

Yes sir, I was basiclly asking for the general meaning, but that is the real question, were you asking me or asking if that was what I was asking Free?

I am asking you.

 

[Highway54]

I am asking you.

Oh, thanks for clarifying that Free. Begat/beget means to have offspring. In relation to the Father and son it means that Jehovah had Jesus as His son. Although God has many sons, Jesus exclusively was called His only begotten son, because he was the first and only creation exclusively created by Jehovah alone.

 

[Free]

Oh, thanks for clarifying that Free. Begat/beget means to have offspring. In relation to the Father and son it means that Jehovah had Jesus as His son. Although God has many sons, Jesus exclusively was called His only begotten son, because he was the first and only creation exclusively created by Jehovah alone.

"Only begotten" is the Greek word monogenes, and is used only nine times in the NT. It means "unique," "only," or “one and only.” It is used of Jesus five times--John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, and 1 John 4:9--and is translated as "only begotten" in each instance (in the KJV). The other four times--Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38, and Heb 11:17--it is translated as "only."

It is very important to note that each instance of monogenes is speaking of the relationship of parents to the their child.

So, what “only begotten” does not mean is that Jesus was literally begotten or that there was a time when he did not exist. It speaks of his unique relationship to the Father as his only Son. And this fits perfectly with John 1:1-3 which precludes the idea that there was ever a time when the Word, the pre-incarnate Son, did not exist.

Here is M. R. Vincent on John 1:14's use of monogenes:

"Μονογενής distinguishes between Christ as the only Son, and the many children (τέκνα) of God; and further, in that the only Son did not become (γενέσθαι) such by receiving power, by adoption, or by moral generation, but was (ἦν) such in the beginning with God. The fact set forth does not belong to the sphere of His incarnation, but of His eternal being. The statement is anthropomorphic, and therefore cannot fully express the metaphysical relation."

 

[Highway54]

"Only begotten" is the Greek word monogenes, and is used only nine times in the NT. It means "unique," "only," or “one and only.” It is used of Jesus five times--John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, and 1 John 4:9--and is translated as "only begotten" in each instance (in the KJV). The other four times--Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38, and Heb 11:17--it is translated as "only."

It is very important to note that each instance of monogenes is speaking of the relationship of parents to the their child.

So, what “only begotten” does not mean is that Jesus was literally begotten or that there was a time when he did not exist. It speaks of his unique relationship to the Father as his only Son. And this fits perfectly with John 1:1-3 which precludes the idea that there was ever a time when the Word, the pre-incarnate Son, did not exist.

Here is M. R. Vincent on John 1:14's use of monogenes:

"Μονογενής distinguishes between Christ as the only Son, and the many children (τέκνα) of God; and further, in that the only Son did not become (γενέσθαι) such by receiving power, by adoption, or by moral generation, but was (ἦν) such in the beginning with God. The fact set forth does not belong to the sphere of His incarnation, but of His eternal being. The statement is anthropomorphic, and therefore cannot fully express the metaphysical relation."

And this fits perfectly with John 1:1-3 which precludes the idea that there was ever a time when the Word, the pre-incarnate Son, did not exist.

In the beginning was speaking about the beginning of creation sir. Who is the faithful witness that was the beginning of the creation of God recorded for us at Rev 3:14? Is it the same one whom Col 1:15 says is the firstborn of all creation?

 

[Free]

In the beginning was speaking about the beginning of creation sir.

Yes, that is the whole point. John’s grammar is such that when the beginning began, the Word, the pre-incarnate Son, was already in existence. That means the Word always existed, just as the Father always existed.

Who is the faithful witness that was the beginning of the creation of God recorded for us at Rev 3:14? Is it the same one whom Col 1:15 says is the firstborn of all creation?

It is the same one spoken of in John 1:1-3 who has always existed. The same who in Revelation refers to himself as "the first and the last" (Rev 1:17) and "the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" (ESV, Rev 22:13). Notice how that mirrors what God says of himself in Rev 1:8--"I am the Alpha and the Omega" and 21:6, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end."

But more than that, it also mirrors what God says of himself in the OT:

Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. (ESV)

Isa 48:12 “Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last. (ESV)

It is abundantly clear that whatever is meant by the language in Rev 3:14 and Col 1:15, that we simply cannot ignore the larger context of both those verses. When it comes to Col 1:15 and "firstborn," it logically cannot mean that Jesus was "born" or "created" or "begotten," as that would completely contradict verses 16-17 and other passages such as John 1:1-18 and Rev 1:17 and 22:13.

How do we then understand "firstborn" as it relates to the Son? We look to its other uses in Scripture.

Exo 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, (ESV)

Psa 89:20 I have found David, my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him,
...
Psa 89:27 And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. (ESV)

Jer 31:9 With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn. (ESV)

We see then that "firstborn" has meanings which are not literal. We know from reading the Bible that the firstborn had certain rights and privileges but we also see in the verses above that it seemed those whom God loved he called his firstborn, even though they were not in any literal sense his firstborn.

The use of firstborn can mean preeminence without the referent having actually been born. Looking at the significance of Psalms 89:27, it is a messianic Psalm where God says of David, "I will make him the firstborn." Here, firstborn clearly means that God will put him in a position of preeminence, "the highest of the kings of the earth." David is here the prototype of the coming Messiah, the "firstborn," and has nothing to do with David's being born or coming into being. This is almost certainly what Paul had in mind, and we see something similar in Romans:

Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (ESV)

Here it means the same--that Jesus would be the head of all believers. In relation to the Son then, we can understand that Col. 1:15 is speaking of Jesus's place of preeminence, his sovereignty, and his lordship, over all creation.

A similar idea applies to Rev 3:14. Again, such a verse logically cannot mean that Jesus was the first created thing, as that would ignore much context of Scripture. What it refers to is that Jesus was the beginner or author of creation, the one through whom the Father created (1 Cor 8:6). That is in full agreement with John 1:1-3 and Col 1:16-17, among others.

 

[Highway54]

Yes, that is the whole point. John’s grammar is such that when the beginning began, the Word, the pre-incarnate Son, was already in existence. That means the Word always existed, just as the Father always existed.


It is the same one spoken of in John 1:1-3 who has always existed. The same who in Revelation refers to himself as "the first and the last" (Rev 1:17) and "the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" (ESV, Rev 22:13). Notice how that mirrors what God says of himself in Rev 1:8--"I am the Alpha and the Omega" and 21:6, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end."

But more than that, it also mirrors what God says of himself in the OT:

Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. (ESV)

Isa 48:12 “Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called! I am he; I am the first, and I am the last. (ESV)

It is abundantly clear that whatever is meant by the language in Rev 3:14 and Col 1:15, that we simply cannot ignore the larger context of both those verses. When it comes to Col 1:15 and "firstborn," it logically cannot mean that Jesus was "born" or "created" or "begotten," as that would completely contradict verses 16-17 and other passages such as John 1:1-18 and Rev 1:17 and 22:13.

How do we then understand "firstborn" as it relates to the Son? We look to its other uses in Scripture.

Exo 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, (ESV)

Psa 89:20 I have found David, my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him,
...
Psa 89:27 And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. (ESV)

Jer 31:9 With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn. (ESV)

We see then that "firstborn" has meanings which are not literal. We know from reading the Bible that the firstborn had certain rights and privileges but we also see in the verses above that it seemed those whom God loved he called his firstborn, even though they were not in any literal sense his firstborn.

The use of firstborn can mean preeminence without the referent having actually been born. Looking at the significance of Psalms 89:27, it is a messianic Psalm where God says of David, "I will make him the firstborn." Here, firstborn clearly means that God will put him in a position of preeminence, "the highest of the kings of the earth." David is here the prototype of the coming Messiah, the "firstborn," and has nothing to do with David's being born or coming into being. This is almost certainly what Paul had in mind, and we see something similar in Romans:

Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (ESV)

Here it means the same--that Jesus would be the head of all believers. In relation to the Son then, we can understand that Col. 1:15 is speaking of Jesus's place of preeminence, his sovereignty, and his lordship, over all creation.

A similar idea applies to Rev 3:14. Again, such a verse logically cannot mean that Jesus was the first created thing, as that would ignore much context of Scripture. What it refers to is that Jesus was the beginner or author of creation, the one through whom the Father created (1 Cor 8:6). That is in full agreement with John 1:1-3 and Col 1:16-17, among others.

That faithful and true witness was in fact the beginning of the creation of God sir. Col 1:15 He was begotten. No need to continue, as I believe we disagree.

 

[Free]

That faithful and true witness was in fact the beginning of the creation of God sir. Col 1:15 He was begotten. No need to continue, as I believe we disagree.

You can believe what you want, but I have given a few arguments which prove very difficult for your position. Are you not even going to try and address them?