The Trinity

[JLB]

I believe as I have stated all along many times.

Does that mean you agree?

 

[JLB]

That's not what's sad in this whole discussion.

Yes it is sad.

Because you have no desire to try and bring a unity of understanding through what the scriptures teach because you are too entrenched in the traditions and denominational teachings on man.

 

[JLB]

That is precisely what I said is fallacious. As I have pointed out to you many times previously, whether or not words or phrases appear in Scripture is irrelevant as to whether or not those words or phrases tell biblical truth. The NT clearly tells us there are three divine persons without actually stating "divine persons."

When you call a person by a heretical name because they are asking you to use scripture to rather than man made words and phrases then you are the one being fallacious.

Then out of the other side of your mouth you claim 1 John 5:7 is not inspired.

Divine persons is ok to use, but the actual scripture 1 John 5:7 is not because some man said so.

 

[Randy]

Does that mean you agree?

I believe as Jesus stated that the person of the Father is the only true Deity and as Paul wrote that all things come from the Father. When that One Deity, (Spirit), conveys the words, will and presence of the Son only then would it be acting as the Spirit of Christ. There is only one Spirit not 3 and it is the Fathers always. Jesus as the Firstborn, a child of His God and Father has His own spirit. (not deity). It is the Deity of the Father without limit that dwells/lives in the Son and they are one in that Deity. In that context Jesus is all that the Father is. (The only begotten God or the only like to like begotten Son of the Father. The Father alone as the true God is unbegotten. His Spirit gives birth to all other spirits. Hence God, our Father and Jesus our Lord.

The Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent in Jesus's name. The Spirit Jesus sends He received from the Father. Jesus would not need to ask for and receive His own spirit from any other nor speak of His own spirit as another advocate.

I have the Spirit of Christ in me, and my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus has been gifted the fullness and has a seat on His Fathers throne.
The point of will of the mind of Christ=>Spirit acts=>(Spirit of Christ)
The point of will of mind of the Father=>Spirit acts=>(Spirit of the Sovereign Lord)

They are One. There is only ONE Spirit.

 

[JLB]

I believe as Jesus stated that the person of the Father is the only true Deity and as Paul wrote that all things come from the Father. When that One Deity, (Spirit), conveys the words, will and presence of the Son only then would it be acting as the Spirit of Christ. There is only one Spirit not 3 and it is the Fathers always. Jesus as the Firstborn, a child of His God and Father has His own spirit. (not deity). It is the Deity of the Father without limit that dwells/lives in the Son and they are one in that Deity. In that context Jesus is all that the Father is. (The only begotten God or the only like to like begotten Son of the Father. The Father alone as the true God is unbegotten. His Spirit gives birth to all other spirits. Hence God, our Father and Jesus our Lord.

The Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent in Jesus's name. The Spirit Jesus sends He received from the Father. Jesus would not need to ask for and receive His own spirit from any other nor speak of His own spirit as another advocate.

I have the Spirit of Christ in me, and my body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus has been gifted the fullness and has a seat on His Fathers throne.
The point of will of the mind of Christ=>Spirit acts=>(Spirit of Christ)
The point of will of mind of the Father=>Spirit acts=>(Spirit of the Sovereign Lord)

They are One. There is only ONE Spirit.

Your response is convoluted and ambiguous.

Do you believe the Spirit of Christ that spoke through the Old Testament prophets is God?

Yes?
No?

 

[Free]

Wrong I am the one who has shown you the fallacy of the doctrine of the trinity on several points.

You haven't shown any fallacy regarding the doctrine of the Trinity. And, I am right--you have continually avoided addressing the simple, plain logic of several passages of Scripture.

He is begotten not eternally begotten and has a beginning at some point in history before the world began.

Then that means he is created. It also means that John 1:1-3, 1 Cor. 8:6, Phil. 2:6-8, Col. 1:16-17, and Heb. 1:2, 10-12 are all false. Again, simple, plain logic shows this to be the case.

The only like to like begotten Son of the Father or the only begotten God. Yet He is not coeternal.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

The Son does have that nature in Him as the fullness of the Deity of God our Father lives in Him and they are one. That Deity is the First and Last.

The Son is of the same nature. That is John's point in John 1:1-18, particularly seen in 1:1c.

Not false in regard to your belief. True, the Son descended that is His spirit.

The Son descended. That is all we should say.

The Spirit of a man did not descend.

The human spirit or soul of a human came from wherever human spirits or souls come from. He was fully and truly human.

Your Jesus was created in Mary's womb.

Of course. Jesus is the name given to the incarnate Son, the second person of the Trinity who "became flesh and dwelt among us." He had a body and it was created in Mary. That goes without saying.

All of Him ascended as well. "Father into your hands I commit "My" spirit"

Act 1:9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. (ESV)

Wrong -His spirit was in that body.
Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

The First born of all creation. The beginning of the creation of God. He is begotten-His spirit

Why do you keep bringing an unbiblical distinction into things, namely, "His spirit." We are only told that the Son pre-existed. To say "His spirit" suggests that the Son also had a pre-existent body or something else. Just leave it at the Son--he pre-existed; that is all we should say.

Jesus calls the person of the Father the only true God. So again your mistaken in your belief.

That Jesus says the Father is the only true God, does not preclude Jesus from also being truly God. That is an error in reasoning that anti-Trinitarians continually make.

How could Paul made it any clearer? One God identified as the Father and One Lord identified as Jesus. From God through the Son. Your seeking a logical away around what is clear is caused by the doctrine of the trinity not by truth. There is only one true Deity and it won't be from that deity and through that deity as stated from God through the Lord.

Indeed, how could Paul have made it any clearer? I am not at all seeking any way around anything, that is you, by failing to address the logical outcomes of what Paul plainly states, outcomes which contradict your position. You're making Paul a liar.

Again, if "from whom are all things" speaks of the eternality of the Father, then "through whom are all things" speaks of the eternality of the Son. It is illogical to argue that the former is true but the latter is false.

That is in full agreement with John 1:3, Col. 1:16-17, and Heb. 1:10-12. But your position says all those passages and what they plainly say, are false.

Also, if "one God, the Father" precludes the Son from being God, then "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from being Lord. Again, it is illogical to argue that the former is true but the latter is false.

HE MADE -GOD's Deity through HIS Son.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Just as God's Deity Spoke to us by His Son. The Father in the Son is how they are one NOT as you stating they are the only true God. I didn't misrepresent anything.

The two things are not mutually exclusive. It is both that the Son is truly God, having existed with the Father for all eternity past, and that the Father is in the Son. But the Son is also in the Father. This, too, is something that your position cannot account for, which is why I suspect you continually focus only on "The Father in the Son."

Joh 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
...
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
Joh 10:37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
Joh 10:38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (ESV)

Note the context. Jesus is pointing out that his mere claim to be the Son of God was the blasphemy that the Jews accused him of, because it was a claim to "make [himself] God."

Joh 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. (ESV)

Remember, the most important context is John 1:1-18. A correct understanding of that is absolutely necessary for a correct understanding of everything else John says about the Son and the Father. We know from 1:1a that the Word was in existence before the beginning began, so the Word cannot be the beginning, as your position states; such an idea is precluded. We know from 1:1b that the Word was in intimate, personal relationship with God. That clearly shows that the Word is a person and a distinct person from God. Based on those two clauses, John firmly and clearly states that "God was the Word," which can only be taken to mean that the Word was God in nature.

And, it all fits perfectly. To have existed for all eternity past (before the beginning began) and to have been in an intimate relationship with God, can only mean that the Word is a person who is truly God, yet in some way distinct from God (the Father).

God is one being, one substance, within which there are three distinct centers of consciousness or "personhood." All that to say that it is only because the Son is also truly God, just as the Father is, being of the same nature, that Jesus can truly say that the Father is in him and he is in the Father.

 

[Free]

It's always been the church of the Firstborn. Clearly the writer understood who the Son was. The Deity in the Son created. God created by His Son. If Jesus wasn't the Fathers Son then whose Son was He?

I not only have never once said that he isn't the Father's Son, I have repeatedly stated that he is.

How is a coeternal person a begotten Son of another and from another person? I have repeatedly shown you the fallacy of such statements to deaf ears.

You haven't shown anything to be fallacious. The issue is that a son is always of the same nature as his father. That means, the Son necessarily has the very same nature as the Father. The Father's nature is that of necessary being, of absolute existence. It follows that the Son must necessarily also be necessary being and have absolute existence. And that is precisely what John 1:1-3, 1 Cor. 8:6, Phil. 2:6-8, Col. 1:16-17, and Heb. 1:2, 10-12 show.

I have pointed out Firstborn can mean first.
He's the Firstborn from the dead.

It can mean that, but that is made clear in that specific context. In Col. 1:15-17, the context of verses 16 and 17 make it impossible that "firstborn" in verse 15 can mean that the Son actually was the first to come into existence; the very idea is precluded, since "all things" came into existence through him. If even one thing came into existence without the Son, as you are claiming by saying the Son himself came into existence, then Paul is lying.

It's the throne of God and the Lamb forever. I know Jesus has been given Sovereign Authority and I know He is one in Deity with the Father who is the First and the Last. But His spirit is begotten. He has His own spirit which is why the person of the Son is not the person of the Father.

Again, the use of "His sprit" is needlessly confusing. I don't see how any of this addresses what I stated, which was:

In Col. 1:15, it is a reference to Christ being sovereign and preeminent over creation. Paul then supports that claim by showing why: because "all things were created through him and for him." Once again, if "all things were created through" the Son, then it is logically impossible that the Son was created; he must necessarily have always existed.

The very basis of the sovereignty of the Son is that he created everything, precluding the idea that he himself was created (or "begotten," in the sense you are using it). He is sovereign because he is also truly God.

My point is He calls the person of the Father the only true God. You don't need to believe my testimony just believe His.

The context of which is that eternal life is found in knowing both the Father and the Son. Then, just two verses later, Jesus says this:

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (ESV)

That is, he existed before creation. This proves he has eternally pre-existed with the Father, sharing in the glory that Yahweh says he would share with no other:

Isa 48:11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.
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.
Isa 48:13 My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together. (ESV)

This is a significant passage in that:

1) Yahweh says he will not give his glory to another; yet Jesus claims he shared the glory of the Father.
2) Yahweh says he is the first and the last, yet Jesus claims to be "the first and the last" in Rev. 1:17, 2:8, and 22:13.
3) Yahweh claims to have "laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens." Yet, the writer of Hebrews, as I have pointed out numerous times (with no response), states that the Father says this about the Son:

Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” (ESV)

Not only is that the very same language as in Isa. 48:13, it is a quote of Ps. 102:25-27, which speaks of Yahweh. More than that, Yahweh also says that it was he alone that created, even using very similar language to Isa. 48:13:

Isa 44:24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, (ESV)

These are things your position simply cannot account for.

 

[Free]

Men assembled the inspired letters and writings into the Bible.

The letters and writings were inspired.

You're conflating the original autographs that were inspired with the copies that weren't inspired. My point clearly was that only the original autographs, the original manuscripts that we no longer have, were inspired, not the copies and copies of copies that we do have. So, yes, men have to make decisions based on what the evidence best points to when they come to discrepancies between manuscripts.

Because you have no desire to try and bring a unity of understanding through what the scriptures teach because you are too entrenched in the traditions and denominational teachings on man.

Not at all. This shows you have no understanding of things I have written, nor of how language is used, either in general or in the Bible. My whole purpose in debating this topic is to "bring a unity of understanding through what the scriptures teach." It is you that has brought your own teachings and poor reasoning into it which is the issue.

When you call a person by a heretical name because they are asking you to use scripture to rather than man made words and phrases then you are the one being fallacious.

I haven't called anyone by a heretical name. I always use Scripture; you would know that if you actually read what I wrote.

Then out of the other side of your mouth you claim 1 John 5:7 is not inspired.

Because it likely isn't. Even basic reasoning and common sense strongly suggest it isn't--because it is far too developed a doctrine of the Trinity that is nowhere seen in Scripture. That strongly suggests a zealous scribe either inserted it, much later after the doctrine was developed, or simply made notes in the margin which the next scribe mistakenly thought were supposed to be in the text.

Divine persons is ok to use, but the actual scripture 1 John 5:7 is not because some man said so.

Divine persons is absolutely fine to use. You're begging the question by first assuming that 1 John 5:7 is actual Scripture. You also seem to be unaware of how Bible translation works--it is far from being "because some man said so."

 

[hawkman]

I found a site on the net and I really like what he wrote .

Encountering Tough Verses in Bible Study

1 Corinthians 15:25-34 Introduction: What do you do when you encounter Bible passages that […]

www.robertjmorgan.com

Clip from article .
When it comes to the Trinity, it’s important to distinguish between substance and station. I can take you through the Bible and show you an abundance of verses that demonstrates that God the Father is God, but He is distinguished from God the Son and from God the Holy Spirit. I can show you an abundance of verses that demonstrate that Jesus Christ is God, but He is distinguished from God the Father and God the Spirit. And I can show you an abundance of verses that demonstrate that God the Spirit is God, but He is different from God the Father and God the Son.

This is the mystery of the Trinity—there is One God who eternally exists in Three Persons, and all Three Persons are equal in their deity. They are all equal in their essence or substance or nature. But for the sake of order and organization and productivity, they voluntarily occupy different stations or obligations. There is an order – an authority structure – within the Trinity. God the Son is functionally submissive to God the Father. He is equal with God in essence, but submissive to God in functional arrangement.

 

[Randy]

I not only have never once said that he isn't the Father's Son, I have repeatedly stated that he is.

Just pointed out your belief of a begotten Son of a Father yet no beginning. How then is He a Son?
The only begotten.

You haven't shown anything to be fallacious. The issue is that a son is always of the same nature as his father. That means, the Son necessarily has the very same nature as the Father. The Father's nature is that of necessary being, of absolute existence. It follows that the Son must necessarily also be necessary being and have absolute existence. And that is precisely what John 1:1-3, 1 Cor. 8:6, Phil. 2:6-8, Col. 1:16-17, and Heb. 1:2, 10-12 show.

Col 1:19 -From the will of another at a point in history. Not coeternal

It can mean that, but that is made clear in that specific context. In Col. 1:15-17, the context of verses 16 and 17 make it impossible that "firstborn" in verse 15 can mean that the Son actually was the first to come into existence; the very idea is precluded, since "all things" came into existence through him. If even one thing came into existence without the Son, as you are claiming by saying the Son himself came into existence, then Paul is lying.

God brought all things through existence through Him.
Note "He made" because its His Deity in the Son.
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

God spoke to us by His Son. The deity in Christ is the Father.

Again, the use of "His sprit" is needlessly confusing. I don't see how any of this addresses what I stated, which was:

It's His spirit descending and ascending. Not a created spirit of a man in Mary's womb.

In Col. 1:15, it is a reference to Christ being sovereign and preeminent over creation. Paul then supports that claim by showing why: because "all things were created through him and for him." Once again, if "all things were created through" the Son, then it is logically impossible that the Son was created; he must necessarily have always existed.

For Him speaks of another. Jesus as Firstborn of all creation and the Firstborn from the dead does note preeminence in the creation and resurrection. "First"

The very basis of the sovereignty of the Son is that he created everything, precluding the idea that he himself was created (or "begotten," in the sense you are using it). He is sovereign because he is also truly God.

He was given authority. He was chosen before the world began. God His Father glorified Him.

The context of which is that eternal life is found in knowing both the Father and the Son. Then, just two verses later, Jesus says this:

The Son lives forever by the Deity of the Father in Him. We live by Him. He never dies so in Him we never die.
The context is not life in the flesh but life with no end.
John 6:57
Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (ESV)

Yes, He is the beginning of the creation of God and predates the world which was brought into existence through Him.

That is, he existed before creation. This proves he has eternally pre-existed with the Father, sharing in the glory that Yahweh says he would share with no other:

He's the beginning of the creation of God and the firstborn of all creation.
He's the beginning of the resurrection and the firstborn from the dead.

Isa 48:11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.
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.
Isa 48:13 My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together. (ESV)

God did not give His glory away. He glorified His Son. Jesus's God and Father still sits on His throne. Jesus sat down with the Father on His Fathers throne.
The Deity in Christ is the First and Last. There is other. It is the Fathers Deity the only true God.
48:13 would have to be read as both the Father and Son in all things. From the Father through the Son.

This is a significant passage in that:

1) Yahweh says he will not give his glory to another; yet Jesus claims he shared the glory of the Father.
2) Yahweh says he is the first and the last, yet Jesus claims to be "the first and the last" in Rev. 1:17, 2:8, and 22:13.
3) Yahweh claims to have "laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens." Yet, the writer of Hebrews, as I have pointed out numerous times (with no response), states that the Father says this about the Son:

Already addressed. Jesus and the Father are one.
Jesus is not coeternal. He does have all the fullness of the Deity of the First and Last in Him. He is before all things except His God and Fathe. I state it's the Fathers Deity gifted.

Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” (ESV)

Yes, God created by His Son. God Spoke to us by His Son. Jesus never dies. We live through Jesus.

Not only is that the very same language as in Isa. 48:13, it is a quote of Ps. 102:25-27, which speaks of Yahweh. More than that, Yahweh also says that it was he alone that created, even using very similar language to Isa. 48:13:

The one on the throne created. (His Deity)
“You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”

In Him all things were created by Him and for Him. That is the Son created by the Deity in Him not on His own. Its the Fathers Deity.

Isa 44:24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, (ESV)

These are things your position simply cannot account for.

I can and did.
All things are from the Father who created by His Son. By the Fathers will and command and Deity.
There is only one Deity no matter how many persons you wish to assign to that Deity and the Father is the only true God. He alone is unbegotten. The Fathers Son is the only begotten. The Firstborn of all creation. He is not coeternal. He is the only begotten God or only like to like begotten Son of the Father. Eternally begotten is not found in the NT. Begotten is found in the NT. There is no historical use of the only begotten Son of a Father to state no beginning. It does not exist. It's made-up doctrine. A coeternal being can't be from any other person in any meaning of the word "from".

You shouldn't need all this anyway. Its clear to me
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

You didn't read this
Now this is eternal life that they know us the only true God.

 

[Randy]

You haven't shown any fallacy regarding the doctrine of the Trinity. And, I am right--you have continually avoided addressing the simple, plain logic of several passages of Scripture.

A coeternal being from another person. A created Son of Man. The Father as the only true God.
What part of Jesus descended into the body prepared for Him if not His own Spirit?

Then that means he is created. It also means that John 1:1-3, 1 Cor. 8:6, Phil. 2:6-8, Col. 1:16-17, and Heb. 1:2, 10-12 are all false. Again, simple, plain logic shows this to be the case.

Repetitive

I don't understand what you're saying here.


The Son is of the same nature. That is John's point in John 1:1-18, particularly seen in 1:1c.

Thats because the Deity of the First and Last in Him is God the Father. He is all that the Father is.

The Son descended. That is all we should say.

You state descended, but you believe created. The Spirit of a man did not descend.
This is an example of things stated so without any reasonable explanation.
What part of Him descended if not His own spirit?
If He had a human body and the spirit of a man what part of Him was God?

The human spirit or soul of a human came from wherever human spirits or souls come from. He was fully and truly human.

God forms our spirit. You believe in a created Son of Man. The spirit of a man did not descend from above.
The Spirit of the Firstborn of God is not Deity and He was the Son of Man. The Deity of the First and Last is the Fathers. The one living in the Son speaking to us by His Son.

Of course. Jesus is the name given to the incarnate Son, the second person of the Trinity who "became flesh and dwelt among us." He had a body and it was created in Mary. That goes without saying.

Jesus has always been the Son. The Son who was, His spirit, was in that body.

Act 1:9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. (ESV)

All the fullness of the Deity dwells in Him bodily. I believe in that bodily resurrection just as I believe alive in the spirit before that resurrection, He preached the gospel message to the imprisoned spirits.

Why do you keep bringing an unbiblical distinction into things, namely, "His spirit." We are only told that the Son pre-existed. To say "His spirit" suggests that the Son also had a pre-existent body or something else. Just leave it at the Son--he pre-existed; that is all we should say.

"Father into your hands I commit "MY" spirit" His spirit never changes. I says His spirit rather than your created spirit of the Son of Man.

That Jesus says the Father is the only true God, does not preclude Jesus from also being truly God. That is an error in reasoning that anti-Trinitarians continually make.

It means the person of the Father is the only true God. It's like you state just because Jesus stated such doesn't have to mean that. I believe it means exactly that. After all His God and Father.

Indeed, how could Paul have made it any clearer? I am not at all seeking any way around anything, that is you, by failing to address the logical outcomes of what Paul plainly states, outcomes which contradict your position. You're making Paul a liar.

To us there is only one true God the Father as Jesus stated but there was no trinity than. It couldn't envision 2000 years later it was a subject of debate or perhaps in some things they would have added more depth.
God is called our Father as well
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Again, if "from whom are all things" speaks of the eternality of the Father, then "through whom are all things" speaks of the eternality of the Son. It is illogical to argue that the former is true but the latter is false.

It states the Father is the source of all things and He choose to bring those things into existence by His Son. Jesus was before the world began, before the heavens were created, before the angels of God. He just not coeternal.
The Father is also the source of truth Jesus testified to. Jesus was clear the message is from the one who sent Him.

That is in full agreement with John 1:3, Col. 1:16-17, and Heb. 1:10-12. But your position says all those passages and what they plainly say, are false.

Thats false. None of that states He is coeternal, and I believe all the fullness of the Deity of the First and Last dwells in Him.

Also, if "one God, the Father" precludes the Son from being God, then "one Lord, Jesus Christ" precludes the Father from being Lord. Again, it is illogical to argue that the former is true but the latter is false.

Jesus the Lord is not our Father. God is. (logic)

I don't understand what you're saying here.


The two things are not mutually exclusive. It is both that the Son is truly God, having existed with the Father for all eternity past, and that the Father is in the Son. But the Son is also in the Father. This, too, is something that your position cannot account for, which is why I suspect you continually focus only on "The Father in the Son."

Jesus calls the person of the Father the only true God. Take it up with Him.

Joh 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?”
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

Jesus and the Father are one as He taught. The Fathers works He performed testify to that truth yet He is not coeternal.

...
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
Joh 10:37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
Joh 10:38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (ESV)

Jesus is in me and I in Him.

Note the context. Jesus is pointing out that his mere claim to be the Son of God was the blasphemy that the Jews accused him of, because it was a claim to "make [himself] God."

Joh 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. (ESV)

Remember, the most important context is John 1:1-18. A correct understanding of that is absolutely necessary for a correct understanding of everything else John says about the Son and the Father. We know from 1:1a that the Word was in existence before the beginning began, so the Word cannot be the beginning, as your position states; such an idea is precluded. We know from 1:1b that the Word was in intimate, personal relationship with God. That clearly shows that the Word is a person and a distinct person from God. Based on those two clauses, John firmly and clearly states that "God was the Word," which can only be taken to mean that the Word was God in nature.

And, it all fits perfectly. To have existed for all eternity past (before the beginning began) and to have been in an intimate relationship with God, can only mean that the Word is a person who is truly God, yet in some way distinct from God (the Father).

God is one being, one substance, within which there are three distinct centers of consciousness or "personhood." All that to say that it is only because the Son is also truly God, just as the Father is, being of the same nature, that Jesus can truly say that the Father is in him and he is in the Father.

I don't think we are ever going to agree.

 

[JLB]

You're conflating the original autographs that were inspired with the copies that weren't inspired. My point clearly was that only the original autographs, the original manuscripts that we no longer have, were inspired, not the copies and copies of copies that we do have. So, yes, men have to make decisions based on what the evidence best points to when they come to discrepancies between manuscripts.

And this word salad is supposed to explain away actual scripture?

very sad.

 

[JLB]

Not at all. This shows you have no understanding of things I have written, nor of how language is used, either in general or in the Bible. My whole purpose in debating this topic is to "bring a unity of understanding through what the scriptures teach." It is you that has brought your own teachings and poor reasoning into it which is the issue.

Your claim that I have no understanding because I desire to use the scripture to bring about a unified common understanding among this community is unbelievably shallow and immature.

 

[JLB]

I haven't called anyone by a heretical name. I always use Scripture; you would know that if you actually read what I wrote.

I read what you write which is why I stated what I said.


You have attempted to label those of us who believe and experience the baptism with the Holy Spirit as “Oneness”.

 

[Free]

And this word salad is supposed to explain away actual scripture?

very sad.

What is sad is your unwillingness to learn to address something respectfully and thoughtfully.

Your claim that I have no understanding because I desire to use the scripture to bring about a unified common understanding among this community is unbelievably shallow and immature.

And that is misrepresenting what I have said. Nowhere did I say that you "have no understanding because [you] desire to use the scripture to bring about a unified common understanding among this community." I said that you have "no understanding of things I have written, nor of how language is used, either in general or in the Bible." Your response above is a case in point.

I read what you write which is why I stated what I said.


You have attempted to label those of us who believe and experience the baptism with the Holy Spirit as “Oneness”.

False. This proves you're either not reading what I write, are intent on misrepresenting what I've said, or haven't understood what I've said. What I have clearly stated is that it has absolutely nothing to do with "those of [you] who believe and experience the baptism with the Holy Spirit." You seem to like to make things about you, but they're not. I have also clearly stated that I haven't labelled anyone; it's some of what has been stated that aligns with Modalism/Oneness teachings. I told you that you should go learn the difference. Apparently you haven't and don't have an interest in doing so.

 

[JLB]

What is sad is your unwillingness to learn to address something respectfully and thoughtfully.

Ok. I will do better.

I could say the same about you, but that is up to you to make that change.

 

[JLB]

And that is misrepresenting what I have said. Nowhere did I say that you "have no understanding because [you] desire to use the scripture to bring about a unified common understanding among this community." I said that you have "no understanding of things I have written, nor of how language is used, either in general or in the Bible." Your response above is a case in point.

Do you desire to bring about a common unified understanding among the people here?

If you truly do, then we must work together to use scripture, not traditional teachings of our denomination to establish sound doctrine.

That’s my point.

 

[JLB]

it's some of what has been stated that aligns with Modalism/Oneness teachings. I told you that you should go learn the difference.

I have repeatedly stated that Oneness teaches there is one member of the Godhead.

That is the main foundational flaw in that teaching.

They teach that this One is three.

When I use 1 John 5:7 to show that error, you try to bring into question the validity of that verse.

Nothing good will come from teaching people that. It only serves to erode people’s confidence in all the scripture.

All because a man said so.


This will only further to deepen the division in the body of Christ.

 

[JLB]

What is sad is your unwillingness to learn to address something respectfully and thoughtfully.


And that is misrepresenting what I have said. Nowhere did I say that you "have no understanding because [you] desire to use the scripture to bring about a unified common understanding among this community." I said that you have "no understanding of things I have written, nor of how language is used, either in general or in the Bible." Your response above is a case in point.


False. This proves you're either not reading what I write, are intent on misrepresenting what I've said, or haven't understood what I've said. What I have clearly stated is that it has absolutely nothing to do with "those of [you] who believe and experience the baptism with the Holy Spirit." You seem to like to make things about you, but they're not. I have also clearly stated that I haven't labelled anyone; it's some of what has been stated that aligns with Modalism/Oneness teachings. I told you that you should go learn the difference. Apparently you haven't and don't have an interest in doing so.

The best way to deal with this subject is to show from the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the LORD of the Old Testament Who became flesh.

Once people have a good understanding of that truth, then many other things will fall into place.

 

[Free]

Do you desire to bring about a common unified understanding among the people here?

Of course I do. I have explicitly stated that, so there is no reason to ask.

If you truly do, then we must work together to use scripture, not traditional teachings of our denomination to establish sound doctrine.


That’s my point.

I know what your point is. My point is that your point is based on poor reasoning.

I have repeatedly stated that Oneness teaches there is one member of the Godhead.

That is the main foundational flaw in that teaching.

They teach that this One is three.

I know, and that isn't relevant to anything I've stated.

When I use 1 John 5:7 to show that error, you try to bring into question the validity of that verse.

Because it likely isn't in the original autographs. That is very important.

Nothing good will come from teaching people that. It only serves to erode people’s confidence in all the scripture.

Only for those who want to remain wilfully ignorant.

All because a man said so.

This is a gross, naive, oversimplification that ignores the issues (which I previously provided).

This will only further to deepen the division in the body of Christ.

The division is caused when believers fail to acknowledge known issues with the manuscripts, which is largely on the part of those who, for all intents and purposes, worship the KJV. But, that too, is based on poor reasoning.

The best way to deal with this subject is to show from the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the LORD of the Old Testament Who became flesh.

Once people have a good understanding of that truth, then many other things will fall into place.

And here is the problem again: your language is that of Oneness/Jesus Only. You cannot simply "show from the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the LORD of the Old Testament Who became flesh," and leave it at that as you have done. That is absolutely a Oneness doctrine; that is, as you explained, "the main foundational flaw." As I have previously stated, and as you should know, "Jesus Only" is another name for Oneness Pentecostalism. This is because they believe Jesus is equated with YHWH; they are one and the same, being only one person. And, to say "Jesus Christ is the LORD of the Old Testament," is to equate all of the LORD with Jesus, which, again, is Oneness.

You must qualify that statement to make clear the triune nature of God. The LORD is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, not just Jesus, not just the Son. If you mean that Jesus is also God, the second person of the Trinity who came in human flesh, that he is the incarnate Son of God, then be clear and say that. Don't just say that "Jesus Christ is the LORD of the Old Testament Who became flesh."

If you're going to believe in the Trinity and want to talk about and teach the Trinity, then use Trinitarian language, not that of Modalism/Oneness/Jesus Only.