New International Version (NIV) 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
can any one explain this to me?pls...need more wisdom..and clarification
@143whatsnew Jesus in the flesh was the Son. But he had the Spirit of God the Father in him. There was only one way there could be a perfect being and that is if God was in him. Look at Jhn 14:9 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], Shew us the Father? Jesus explains to Philip who he was.
you all drive me crazy with your trinity and oneness! which really if you look at the scriptures, you all beleive the same thing. heres something thats sooo simple but definitely not popular among a majority of the church world...John 3 16: For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son. God didnt turn into Jesus, it clearly states that he sent his son to die for us! So therefore lets do some basic math!... God plus Jesus = 2 persons!
Jesus being God says he has a Father, the Jesus has a Father. If Jesus is his own Father, it is role, Jesus is half man/half god, then youtr theology redefines God word. That imply statement would place yours words over God. I know that is wrong.
God only needs truth, so only logical and facts should support truth. God will give you the answers rather than believe a lie. Here are two Messianic Judaism/Christians and one logical Christian. Oneness is half truth.
A Jewish Christian Explains the Holy Trinity... on you tube This is Dr. Michael Brown
The Law of Non-Contradiction and the Trinity ...... on you tube Ravi Zacharias
Three Gods in One?! Donate to Jews for Jesus Rich Robins...
WILLIAM SEYMOUR FOUNDED YOUR CHURCH NOT JESUS THEY THINK JESUS WAS A CREATION JUST LIKE JEHOVA WITNESSES BUT THEY DON'T CALL HIM JEHOVA THEY CALL HIM JESUS
@Musicmusing Im sure I agree with u on a LOT of things. But u were saying that u can't prove that Jesus was the Father from the Bible. Isaiah 9:6 is talking about Jesus and it calls Him "the everlasting Father, the Mighty God," etc., ... how do u explain that? Not saying u r wrong. Just wondering what u understand that verse to mean? How do u interpret it? Just curious ... thanks!
I used to belong to a UPC. A United Pentecostal Church. It was thee absolute WORST experience I have ever had. A NIGHTMARE!!! I believe it is a cult. And, from what I have heard MANY experts in the area of cults say, they AGREE with what I said ... that it IS a cult. My Church even had a curfew on it's people.
@musicmusing Please direct me to these points I missed. I've only been responding to the posts that have me tagged.
I make it a habit of mine to thoroughly address every point, argument, opinion and misconception that is expressed to me, so if I have missed any points that's very unlike me, but even so it can happen. If so, I'm sorry and I'll address them once I know what they are.
@OneTruthFinder to say actually, He IS the father. He is the Son, distinct from the Father, although there is only one God. sorry to agreeably disagree but i find your oneness doctrine absolutely flies against the obvious scriptures, and is never intended whatsoever when you begin to see how God more fully reveals Himself in the new testament. The Son absolutely pre existed with the Father. Otherwise God made up a huge theatrical costume change game that was meaningless in revealing Himself/con
Think of it- if God is truth, cannot lie, there is no shadow of turning in Him, He is the light, the truth , the way, how could there be anything but absolute clarity in the manner He revealed himself? If he was the Father in the flesh, why all the talk of the Son as if He were distinct from/being sent from/having had glory with the Father? Your doctrine reduces this meaninglessness and an unknown God. He is just an invisible spirit appearing in modes faster than you can follow. No disrespect
@musicmusing the bottom line. There is no scriptual reason yo say Jesus is the Father when the bible clearly says He is the Son. He exists with the Father. He is God. There is only one God. Like it or not.
@musicmusing The bottom line is, the Biblical distinction between Father and Son is between God and man. 1 Tim 2:5, 2 Cor 5:19 as just two examples of that. It's the same distinction between you and I and God, and that's how we can relate to Him as our Father and see ourselves as His children. Once you blur that distinction into some higher form of relationship, you worship it, and you lose the beautiful truth of being His son, and so you lose your true identity in life and in God.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Phil 2:6 - Basically, the Trinitatrian interpretation is disingenuous. Check out the first result on Google for "The Trinity Delusion: Philippians 2:6" for an extensive study. While the author is of no particular denomination, I agree with his argument here, and it'll be better for you to read that than me trying to sum it up on a youtube comment.
The are main problems within this article, one of these is the whole examination of the word 'Harpagmos', where he even misapplies English word such as 'grasped' attempting to give it the meaning 'to grab'.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed I disagree. If maintained in the proper context of Phil 2:2-8, the point is of humility, not of a supposed pre-existent divine second person coming down and emptying Himself through some incarnation. You have taken one bad interpretation of "harpagmos" - a Trinitarian-biased one at that - as authoritative. There are numerous other interpretations, as witnessed in different Bible versions.
Oh, I totally agree that the context of Philippians 2:2-8 is to demonstrate humility, but through this demonstration of humility, we are also very clearly presented with Jesus being a distinct person (with cognition of their own) from God, who is also in the form of God. Or are you suggesting that this example is fictitious that Paul just made up for its intent purpose?
@iamTOTALLYredeemed What? A ludicrous claim to think that I'd even entertain the thought that Paul made this up. And who said anything about there not being a distinction between Jesus and God? Jesus is a man, like we are. God dwelt in the man Christ Jesus, but He wasn't God. Of course there is a distinction.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed The man Christ Jesus is the representation of God, He is the Word of God, God's expression. So He is in the form of God, but He is not God.
Philippians 2:6,7 says that Jesus made his form in God of no effect by taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of men... So I I'll ask again: when was Jesus in the form of God before he took the form of a slave coming in the likeness of men?
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Your question is filled with false presuppositions. Phil 2:6 uses the word "morphe," which is in reference to the status of Jesus - ie His role, not His identity. With authority given to Him from God the Father, this man was acting on the behalf of His God. That's why the Pharisees denounced Him for forgiving sins - for only God can forgive sins - but then were found to be wrong when Jesus proved to the crowd that God had indeed given such power to men.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed So basically the verse is telling us that Jesus has the status of God, but He didn't let it get to His head, so to speak. He was never proud or arrogant, but rather humbled Himself, always emptying Himself, even to the point of death on a cross. Jesus is the greatest example of humility for us.
Here is what AT Robinson said about 'Harpagmos' and 'Robbery'
"A prize (harpagmon). Predicate accusative with hēgēsato. Originally words in ̇mos signified the act, not the result (̇ma). The few examples of harpagmos (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to harpagma, like baptismos and baptisma. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”)."
@iamTOTALLYredeemed "Allow it to be understood" is not a rule nor a law that it is to be enforced according to the actual context of the use of the word in the passage.
Philippians 2:6 is in the context of what is said in vs. 7 "...but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." So this is very clearly speaking of the incarnation, but going back to vs. 6 Jesus is very clearly distinguished from God who he was equal with.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed It seems a clever term, doesn't it? But sadly there is no Biblical backing for an "incarnation." The explanation provided by the author of the article of v7 is sound.
Let me pose this question to you to highlight a very real problem: Could Jesus Christ have sinned? Was it at all possible for Him to have sinned?
@iamTOTALLYredeemed That's right, Jesus gave and gave and gave. You seem to like that translation of "being born," but siding with such a pro-Trinitarian rendering of the word won't change the facts.
You twisted my question but very well... May I conclude then that the concept of the incarnation is false, because if Jesus was God incarnated as a man, then Jesus could not have sinned? God cannot sin.
The Greek word γίνομαι simply means to "come into existence" or "come into the existence of". Clear example of these can be found in John 1:3 and John 1:14.
If you don't like the fact I changed your question then in future don't ask question that are loaded with your own theology.
The Father cannot sin. Jesus in the nature of God falsified himself by taking the nature of a slave becoming in the likeness of men. Jesus is not the Father.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed I don't get your point on bringing in the Greek for coming into existence. Maybe you'd like to explain it, because I can't see its relevancy.
Loaded with my theology? Hmm, no it was a fair question. I feel you just didn't like it because you knew where I could take it.
Your theology still says that the Son, regardless of form, is still God. That which is God cannot cease being God. God cannot sin, sorry.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Heb 1:2 - Comes down to the word "through," from the Greek "διά".
Strong's Definition: "(a) gen: through, throughout, by the instrumentality of, (b) acc: through, on account of, by reason of, for the sake of, because of."
To say someone does something through a means does not necessitate that the means is an active, conscious entity.
This is very true, but if the son is just flesh how did were all things created through him when he himself/it was part of creation from the womb of Mary?
@iamTOTALLYredeemed You have to look at this through God's eyes. God foreordained everything to work out for the coming of His Son. God planned all of creation and history to line up perfectly for the day when He would send forth His Son. Jesus Christ was a very reality to the mind of God the Father, but He was not yet a reality to you and I, to our time and space, until He was conceived and born some 2,000 years ago.
You may think this argument is convincing, but you still haven’t actually answered the question: If the son is just the flesh how were all things created through him when he himself/it was part of creation from the womb of Mary?
Keep in mind that διά denotes the CHANNEL of an act. HOW was the Son the channel of the world’s creation?
@iamTOTALLYredeemed I did in fact answer the question, but your presumptions lead you to think otherwise. Consider this scenario: I'm a single man with one thing in my mind - to have a family. This existence of a family in my mind is so convincing that I start to do things for them as if they already existed. I get a good education, career and living because of that family. Then one day they appear into your reality. Similar thing with God. He made creation thru foreknowledge
My preposition is what scripture clearly says. If you wish to try and add to and twist scripture to try and fit in with your theology that's you prerogative. However it still makes no sense, how can God have created the world by the means of "the foreknowledge of the Son". Keep in mind that Heb 1:1 is what is relative to man and there nothing to suggest any transition away from this and into the foreknowledge of God.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed You believe your preposition is that. I don't try "add" anything. You want to talk about adding, I need not look any further to Trinitarian dogma - "persons," "being," "God the Son," "hypostatic union," "incarnation," "eternally begotten" and so on. Greek philosophy and other false notions of men. There's no need for it.
How could God have created the world without foreknowledge of His Son? Honestly, do you think God made a quick escape plan for us?
You have essentially and dogmatically inserted the phrase "the foreknowledge of" into Heb 1:2. You are essentially saying that without that insertion any literally understanding of this verse is false, along with Heb 1:10, Col 1:16, and Rev 3:14.
Words such as: "persons," "being," "God the Son," "hypostatic union," "incarnation," "eternally begotten" are not additions into scripture, they carry concepts found in the scriptures.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed I'm doing no such thing. Heb 1:1-3 has its parallels with God's Word. He spoke a word through the prophets in time past, but later His full Word, the Word, was spoken through His Son in His earthly ministry, and Jesus now continues to do so as the Holy Spirit. God's Word is the very expression of God, and Heb 1:3 alludes to that. God created everything through His spoken word in Genesis, but it wasn't until ~2,000 years ago that His Word became a man.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed None of the terms you mention are Biblically conceptual. Sorry, but I've had enough of using unbiblical terminology to describe the Bible. The last straw for me - and very recent too - was coming to the realization that the traditional incarnation idea is bunk. You're reading them into the scriptures to make them allude to concepts that aren't in there, and were never intended to be in there.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Heb 1:10 is speaking of the Father, and it's clear when you understand the context. Col 1:16 again is no proof of the Son being an active, conscious entity involved in creation. Besides being the reason, (and this goes for Rev 3:14) you could come back to God's Word. To save myself rephrasing, I'll just quote an article from that same author I previously directed you to...
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Yes, I am for real. Heb 1:10 is another point the author is making. He's not referring to the Son, who is a man; He is referring to God, the Father - quite clear when you see it comes from Ps 102. And just as clear is the "He" mentioned in Heb 1:13, which no doubt is the Father: The antecedent of that "He" is "the Lord" of verse 10. The Trinitarian translation of Heb 1 is absolutely absurd - God having a God? If that was true, He'd cease from being God.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed "By reason of" is quite simple, and a quick Google search would have sufficed. Here's what I found to help you: "Because of, owing to, as in By reason of a crop failure, the price of coffee is bound to rise."
So, to draw a parallel, by reason of His Son, God the Father made all things.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed "We are being told where creation begins. It is John who emphasizes that God's creation began at his Word and in his Word not as his Word. God created all things by His spoken Word, that Word became flesh, Jesus. Hence, Jesus is that Word by which God created all things. He is that Word become flesh. Hence, God's Word, which became flesh, is the beginning of creation in a locative sense; God's Word is the PLACE where creation had its beginning."
@iamTOTALLYredeemed And just to further clarify: God's Word never pre-existed as a distinct conscious entity from Himself. Your word doesn't, and neither does God's. But when it comes to construction, His Word are His tools, His materials for creating things and holding everything together. His Word became creation. And His Word became flesh, and we know how to understand that because of Deut 18:18 and Jn 14:10. As Jesus is the Word of God, He speaks the Word of God.
This is certainly not what scripture reveals. God's word is a distinct person from God himself and scripture is very clear on this. Jesus' own claim in John 8:58 is proof that he is an eternal person.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed God's Word is indeed a distinct person from Him! God's Word, His expression, became a man. However, this man is not deity. While there is debate whether or not John 8:58 is really referring to the revelation of God's name to Moses in Exodus 3, it is still not to be confused with Jesus Himself claiming to be God. He is the Word of God because His Words are not His own - they are of His Father's. Refer to Deut 18:18, Acts 7:37 and John 14:10.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed God's Word is indeed a distinct person from Him! God's Word, His expression, became a man. However, this man is not deity. While there is debate whether or not John 8:58 is really referring to the revelation of God's name to Moses in Exodus 3, it is still not to be confused with Jesus Himself claiming to be God. He is the Word of God because His Words are not His own - they are of His Father's. Refer to Deut 18:18, Acts 7:37 and John 14:10.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed God's Word is indeed a distinct person from Him! God's Word, His expression, became a man. However, this man is not deity. While there is debate whether or not John 8:58 is really referring to the revelation of God's name to Moses in Exodus 3, it is still not to be confused with Jesus Himself claiming to be God. He is the Word of God because His Words are not His own - they are of His Father's. Refer to Deut 18:18, Acts 7:37 and John 14:10.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed God's Word is indeed a distinct person from Him! God's Word, His expression, became a man. However, this man is not deity. While there is debate whether or not John 8:58 is really referring to the revelation of God's name to Moses in Exodus 3, it is still not to be confused with Jesus Himself claiming to be God. He is the Word of God because His Words are not His own - they are of His Father's. Refer to Deut 18:18, Acts 7:37 and John 14:10.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed God's Word is indeed a distinct person from Him! God's Word, His expression, is the man Jesus Christ. However, this man is not Deity. While there is debate whether or not John 8:58 is really referring to the revelation of God's name to Moses in Exodus 3, it is still not to be confused with Jesus Himself claiming to be God. He is the Word of God because His Words are not His own - they are of His Father's. Refer to Deut 18:18, Acts 7:37 and John 14:10.
What is being debated here is not whether God had foreknowledge of His Son, as I agree with this. The whole purpose of creation was for Jesus (Col 1:16, Rev 13:8).
The question is: HOW did God create the world BY THE MEANS OF "the foreknowledge of the Son"?
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Well, His Son was the reason for it. Without the reason, God would not have made creation. God doesn't do things without a purpose. By means of, by reason of - the idea is clearly there.
I would definitely agree that the Son was and is the purpose for creation, but being the purpose for doesn't explain how all things were created by means of him.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Here's the problem: The Greek word "dia" used in Heb 1:2 that is commonly translated as "by" gives you a false understanding. While it is correct that one can interpret "dia" as "by," in terms of "by means of" (eg, by love we show people Christ), the English word "by" has a larger scope of meaning, because it of course can also be used to mean that one authored something, like "The Hobbit" is by JRR Tolkien. To interpret "dia" in this latter way is wrong.
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Understand that if God has something planned to happen, it is already a reality. That's why we view the Second Coming as it is a reality, even though it is yet to pass. If God says it, you're guaranteed for it to happen! So for God to create everything "through" or "by reason of" is for the very fact that all of creation was made, and all of history planned, for the reason of His Son coming to redeem humanity to Himself.
@musicmusing Not at all, that's simply your perception of it. God is not some impersonal Spirit with modes.
In John 17:5, Jesus is simply speaking of the glory which He knew He had in the mind of God. He never lost this glory, simply He asked for it to be made manifest to us.
The irony is, as I expressed with the idea of five gods, the Trinity makes God to be unknown, to be all these things that we can not relate to AT ALL.
- Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are "THREE DISTINCT PERSONS"; Is it written? "Gen 19.24" shows God being twice himself. "Pro 30.4" shows that the Son already existed. "Luke 10.22" shows that we receive by 'revelation'; it comes from the Father (Mat 16.17). A child easily understand when God reveals to him (Mat 11.25). Everything is not explained because there are hidden mysteries: "Rom 16.25", "Eph 3.9", "Col 1.26; 2.3". In the same time, the angels saw the Father (Mat 18.10) and the Son (Mat 4.6).c1
- (1) Imagine that you give birth to your son and that he is another yourself, he is a double (copy, duplicate) of your soul and your spirit. There are now 2 distinct persons having each one their own soul and their own spirit, will, feeling, thoughts, etc. But they are twice the same person; there are 2 different persons but it is the unique person twice. The double is the Son resulting from the Father at the beginning of the creation. ...>>>c1
(2) This Son created all things. Later this Son came in flesh through Mary; he became a 100% man while God (the Father) look at (from heaven) his son living on earth.
- In other words, Jesus is an other himself of the ONE who is the only real God; so, Jesus is the One who is the One, the real and the Only True God. 1 John 5.20: "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, ... He (Jésus) is the true God, and eternal life."
-Revelation = everything becomes clear. The best explanation is to assume that your name is Peter. Peter wants to create another himself. This other is his special Son; he is an other yourself. You are now 2 distinct persons. Each one has his own will, his thoughts and feelings. How many persons are there? Three. How many Peter? Only one Peter. These three will always be the same Peter. They can talk and have fun together; Peter begins to create. Jesus= father, Son and Holy Spirit (Mt 28.19).c1
- if God created his wisdom, he would have been without wisdom before it. It's the wisdom of the Son created and born BEFORE the creation of the world (Pro 8.22, 24). The Son was WITH the Father (Pro 8.30, 31; Jn 1.1). The Son has a beginning, but not as himself who is the ONE God who has been doubled (a copy). Father, Son and Holy Spirit have each one their will (Luc 22.42; 1Cor 12.11), spirit (Luc 23.46;Jn 4.24;Mat 18.10; Rom 8.27; 1Cor 2.10) and soul (Mk 14.34;Heb 10.38;Mat 12.18).c1
-3 distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit; each one having his own will, but 3 times the same person. The Son is not the Father, but an OTHER HIMSELF of the ONE who is the Father (a double: Luke 6.12;John 14.9a: “I”, “Me”). The Son has a beginning (Pro8.22-30;Col 1.15). The ONE who is the Son in "Micah 5.2" is an OTHER HIMSELF of the ONE God who never had a beginning. Knowing who is Jesus we know WHO are the Father (Luk 10.22;John14.8-9) and the Holy Spirit (John 14.18; 15.26).
3 persons. The Son had a beginning: Pro 8.22-30 God has never been without wisdom. The Son is not the Father but is an other self of Him who is the Father (double): Luke 6.12; John 14.9a 'I', 'ME', the Holy Spirit too: Ro 8.27; Jn 14.16 'another'.
3 personnes. Le Fils a un début: Pro 8.22-30 Dieu n'a jamais été sans sagesse. Le Fils n'est pas le Père mais est UN AUTRE LUI-MÊME de CELUI qui est le Père (double): Luc 6.12; Jn 14.9a 'JE', 'M'as'; l'Esprit-Saint aussi: Ro 8.27; Jn 14.16 'AUTRE'.c1
There are many instances in the Epistles that Jesus is referred to as a man. Take for instance Col 1:3 - "We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". This is not referring to some complicated concept of a trinity, but rather its drawing focus to the man Jesus Christ, whose God is the one and same God as the Jews. The disciples readily refer to Jesus as a man because that's how they came to first know Him. Only later, when revelation came, did they start seeing Him as God.
There are many instances in the Epistles that Jesus is referred to as a man. Take for instance Col 1:3 - "We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". This is not referring to some complicated concept of a trinity, but rather its drawing focus to the man Jesus Christ, whose God is the one and same God as the Jews. The disciples readily refer to Jesus as a man because that's how they came to first know Him. Only later, when revelation came, did they start seeing Him as God.
@musicmusing Your personal convictions can lead you to be bias. Do you really understand Oneness enough to know what you claim as false as truly false? Anyone who comes here and reads your statement may be persuaded by such an unsupported claim, as silly as that may be (silly for the fact that would outright gullibility). Think twice before posting... How and why is this false doctrine?
@OneTruthFinder Actually I do understand the oneness doctrine. I found it contradicts the relationship between the Father and the Son, which is so clear in scripture, to explain it away is to lose the essence of the gospel, that God so loved the world he gave his only begotten Son that we might have life. it honestly seems to me a real stretch to explain away this relationship, and at the same time leads to denying the deity of the Son as he clearly WAS in the beginning WITH God. God bless
@musicmusing Do you believe I as a trinitarian am lost? I believe in Christ, that by grace thru faith i am saved. i confess Christ is Lord, that Christ died for my sins. I do believe , after being upc for 10 years, that the upc does err , and can be quite abusive and unhealthy to a Christian. but I do not condemn them. They are focused on the wrong things. peace
@musicmusing By you saying that confirms that you do not understand Oneness. It never contradicts the relationship between the Father and the Son. I'm a firm believer in Oneness and I 100% agree with you that God gave His only begotten Son. There is definitely a relationship between the Father and Son. Oneness does NOT deny the deity of the Son. The Bible makes clear that the Son of God was only in the beginning with God as His mighty and glorious plan of salvation for all of mankind. God bless.
@OneTruthFinder In the beginning WAS the Word. The Word WAS WITH God, and the Word WAS GOD. Not a thought. God. Not a plan. God. God is God. How does scripture 'make plain' this Word was a 'plan' and not God, with God, and was God. Your logic is bogus. this is what happens when you say-this is what it MUST mean ( to fit your doctrine} rather than this is what IT REALLY SAYS.
@musicmusing Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it is bogus. Don't come to me with accusations before you have this understanding.
The Word of John 1 is referring to the conception of Jesus in the mind of God. God's reason, which is His Word, is Him. Prov 23:7a: "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he".
You may also want to check the Greek. In John 1:1, "the Word was God" is saying WHAT the Word was, not who. Most Trinitarian scholars agree with this point.
@OneTruthFinder God is not a conception. Again, you bring your theology to the verse, and say, it must mean this because of that( your belief the Son did not exist prior to birth), but the bible says the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It says nothing of being a future plan. I am amazed at the convolutions your doctrine necessitates
@musicmusing Uh, where did I say "God is a conception"? You're reading false ideas into my response. Why is it so hard for you to try to understand rather than draw false conclusions? The Son of God was conceived in the mind of God. John 17:3 and 17:24, 1 Peter 1:19-20 and Revelation 13:8 expresses God's plan from the beginning of time. The birth, life, purpose, death and resurrection of the Son of God was conceived in the mind of God first, before all things.
@OneTruthFinder ok, sorry. I know the John1:1 logos teaching, i just find it doesn't work when you begin to read the rest of John. The way Jesus said i came from the Father and go back to the Father,etc. And person doesn't literally mean another separate being. The Son is God. The Father is God. The Holy Ghost is God. there is 1 God. Yet these 3 seem to relate. So somehow these 3 are 1, even if my mind cannot fully get it, does not mean it is false. i was oneness for many years, yet con,t
@musicmusing after much prayer study I find the general teaching of the trinity more biblical( not the straw man trinity the upc teaches). you must admit the trinity rarely gets a fair hearing in your churches. Like, oh you believe in 3 Gods! You must be careful in how you teach your own people , rather than lying to them about our beliefs( not you specifically). So many oneness believers have such a skewed view of the trinity that comes from the pulpit. anyway, you seem to be more intelligent
@musicmusing I'm not here to support a doctrine. I simply want the truth, and I hope you do too, friend. Everything I share is not simply a teaching from UPC - it is a personal conviction. I actually wasn't taught by my church; I did all my own research. In fact, there are instances where I see a UPC understanding of a verse to not be correct. I hold to my own personal beliefs and revelations, and I love sharing that. I feel so much closer to God now and that's why I like sharing to others.
I'm in agreement that the Trinity is sometimes straw-maned. Not to say that two wrongs make a right, but so is Oneness for those who go to theology colleges. They always come out with a miscontrued idea, and that's why I always have to first iron out the misunderstandings with them before proper discussion can occur.
Regarding that Jesus came from the Father and going back: Can you give me the specific Scripture for that please? I'll be happy to explain
@musicmusing Furthermore, I understand the doctrine of the Trinity, the terms of person and being, how the Godhead is explained and all that. I know of those people who say out of ignorance that the Trinity is three gods. However, and I mean all due respect to you, but when you take an honest look deep down into the doctrine, the Trinity is composed of five gods. I don't say this out of ignorance, so please don't accuse that. (contd)
@musicmusing (contd) Now I know my claim needs evidence to support it. Thing is, I'd have to type a whole paper up to demonstrate it to you. So here's the short version: It's all to do with the definition of "God." The word "God" is changed to suit the situation. In one place (eg John 17:3), the one true God is only one person. In another place (Is 45:5), the one true God is now the triune being. But the Father is not the triune being. He is God but He isn't God. It gets pretty complicated cont
@musicmusing So for me to fully explain what is really being expressed in the Trinity would take a private conversation, if you so wish. Again, I'm not here to rant and yell polytheism, I'm simply presenting the facts that are there, if you would be so kind as to give me the opportunity to share.
I wouldn't personally just tell people that the Trinity is composed of five gods - I always give the understanding first and then the inevitable conclusion that follows.
@musicmusing I have to go out now, but I'll quickly say this: The Biblical distinction between the Father and the Son is between God and man. There are many verses that attest to that, for example 1 Tim 2:5 just being one verse among many.
Now, to recognize this distinction is not to separate God and man. It's the same when it comes to the kenosis of the Son according to Trinitarian understanding. 100% God and 100% man, but not separate. (contd)
@OneTruthFinder (contd) As for the pre-existence of the Son, we need to approach that from God's perspective. The Son of God, which is the man Jesus Christ, simply did not exist to you and I, to the time and space of this Earth until approximately 2000 years ago. However, the Son did exist in the mind of God! He was a very reality to God. I mentioned this earlier. Put it this way: God loved us before the world began. We do not need to be pre-existent conscious persons/beings for that to be true.
@OneTruthFinder i find to many scriptures that speak of the pre existence of the Son. God created the world thru the Son. He came forth from the Father and returns to the Father where He was before! Also the new testament never calls Christ the Father but the Son. it seems like He didn't communicate your view very well. it is hardly a view you would arrive at with just a bible, without someone explaining oneness.
@musicmusing I would say the contrary. No one can see the Trinity in the Bible without it being indoctrinated into them first. Whether you see it or not, you have been conditioned to view it like this. Again, please show me specific Scriptures. For one, Jesus didn't return to where He was before. He was actually "highly exalted" in Phil 2:9, which is the Holy of Holies - a place where He never occupied previously. He had to go there so that His blood would be applied to the mercy seat.
@OneTruthFinder@musicmusing I don't think you've ever had a proper understanding of Oneness, otherwise you wouldn't have been so quick to leave or you wouldn't be asking the questions you are now!
For God to create through the Son does not mean the Son was actively creating! Again, please view this from God's perspective. I'm going to give you a little analogy to help you to understand:
@OneTruthFinder You see a fellow work buddy working his guts out day in, day out. One day you decide to ask him, "Pal, why are you always going flat out? It's no good for you."
To which he replies, "I have a son to support."
But you know he doesn't have a son so you say, "What are you on about?! You don't have a son - you don't even have a woman!"
@OneTruthFinder Your friend grins, points to his head and says, "Yes I do, it's all up here for now. But you'll meet them one day. Give it some time, and you'll see!"
Many years later, your friend has moved up the corporate ladder. He's now earning the big bucks as an important manager. Not only that, but he also has that wife and son that he envisioned all that time ago.
One day, a new guy at work approaches you saying, "Hey, you know that big shot, right? The dude who drives that Ferrari?"
@OneTruthFinder "Yeah," you reply. "We're good mates – I've known him for yonks."
"Well maybe you can tell me why he's so rich then. How did he do it?!"
"He did it through his son."
The newcomer glares at you with a look of bewilderment. "What in the world do you mean? I think I've seen the boy with him - that kid must only be five years-old max!"
@OneTruthFinder You smile and explain, "Look at it from his perspective. He envisioned that child for years before he was an actual reality to you and I. It was because of his genuine desire to give a good life to his yet-to-be conceived son that he worked so hard that he didn't know whether he was coming or going half the time."
-- end --
See how that works? God's reason for everything was because of His Son. That is why He can say He created everything through His Son.The idea is quite simple
@OneTruthFinder but the bible never even hints at this, it merely states facts. it seems like too much thinking and explaining what otherwise is so straightforward. i was not taught the trinity, esp while in the upc, but oneness seemed so contrived and against what was so obvious throughout the new testament, namely the distinction between the Father and Son, the love (natures cannot love) between them. also I would die for my wife. but for a stranger? and to send my son to die for a con't
@musicmusing Friend, it is well-known that there is no single proof-text for the Trinity. Instead, the doctrine is built upon hints and "implied" ideas. My thinking is straightforward as it can be. In any case, you need to go by the Bible and not by your preconceived ideas. For God to say that the world was created through His Son is the saying that the Son is His reason for everything. It absolute sense in the context of the whole Bible.
@musicmusing Who ultimately is the Author of the Bible? So why do you refuse to look at it from God's perspective? You are refusing the evidence in front of you. I doubt you have even looked at the Scriptures I supplied.
"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" Eph 1:4
What does it mean for God to choose us "before the foundation of the world" mean? Must we be pre-existent, conscious persons/beings?
@musicmusing I never said it was "vicariously." Definition of that is this:
"taking the place of another person or thing; acting or serving as a substitute."
Where did I say that God took the place of the Son to create everything?
Creation came to be through the Son is the same as saying that creation came to be because of the Son. Would you deny that everything was created and preordained for the Son? Hopefully not. That's all this verse (Col 1:16) is saying.
@OneTruthFinder I just don't understand why you wouldn't take what John says to mean what is says. i. e. He was in the world and the world was made by Him (the Son). It seems like the Son actually created the world. Which would mean He pre existed His earthly birth. Before abraham was , I am. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. my point is these verses to me mean just what they say, but to you, they must be 'explained' . No offense but big difference.
@musicmusing Please, I urge you to look again. You think my need to "explain" verses is doing away with the actual meaning. I'm simply Biblically explaining them, though - you can't read the Bible without explaining it within the entire context. The irony here is that your doctrine is the one that explains away the true meaning and purpose of these verses. It finds it necessary to insert terms and notions (eg "person", "triune being") that aren't even being expressed.
@musicmusing To you, it's not being inserted because you've been conditioned to always think of a Trinity whenever you read the Bible. It can be very hard for one to read the Bible with fresh eyes when they already have a Trinitarian teaching rooted in their mind - I know that's true because I've experienced that myself. But once you can see that you don't need these extra terms, notions and philosophy and just rely on the Bible alone to know who God is, then you will see otherwise.
@musicmusing Regarding John 1:10: We know Jesus is the Word made flesh. In Genesis we have creation being brought into existence by/through God's spoken word. Creation came about through God's one reason - to love and save us. The "Word" in John 1 comes from the Greek "Logos." It's the word where "logic" is derived from. "Logos" is such a beautiful word, for it incorporates the thoughts, reasoning and speech - each of these of God is found to be involved in the creation of the world. (cont)
@musicmusing (contd) However, none of them is a distinct person from the author of these thoughts, reasoning and speech. They can be personified - that is, given personal attributes - but this technique of literature does not make the subject a person. Your spoken word, your logic, your thoughts are not a distinct person from you; rather your word is you. You say what you think; "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he" (Prov 23:7a). Your thoughts, your spoken word makes you who you are. cont
@musicmusing (contd) It defines you, ie you are your word, just as God is His Word. So yes, of course the Word pre-existed - but certainly not as a distinct person from the Father. I could go on all day about John 1 because I love how John uses "Logos." There's so much beauty and revelation to be had by this one word alone! But I'll move on.
John 8:58 - Jesus is the Word of God, therefore YHWH manifested in the flesh, so of course Jesus can claim to be the Almighty I AM.
@musicmusing Lastly, if you'd like to know where the notion of the Word being a "second person" from the first, it comes from Tertullian's abysmal philosophical approach:
"Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought … Whatever you think, there is a word … You must speak it in your mind … cont
@musicmusing "Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech … The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness you are?" (ibid. 5)
That's an appallingly read-in notion there. For all his supposed grievances against Greek philosophy, he wasn't afraid to resort to it when he wanted.
@OneTruthFinder Ok after more bible study i still completely disagree with you on the Son all just being in the mind and plan of God ( although this is true) rather than actually pre existing. i find no scriptual reason or even hint that John 1:1 and John 17:5 don't mean other than what they rather plainly say; that the Word was WITH God, came into the world; had glory with the Father, and was sent from the Father, and was going back to the father. it seems very very strange after these con't
@musicmusing Correct, natures do not love. But Jesus was 100% MAN - not a nature but FULLY a man - and God is, well, fully God. Jesus prayed with a human psyche. God loved this man. There's no problem here whatsoever.
stranger, i couldn't imagine loving anyone that much. yet John 3:16. it is the whole gospel that he gave His Son. Otherwise why not just say here i am , the Father, dying for you. Why the need at all to speak in riddles of the Son and holy ghost if its really all just the Father anyway. This i could never believe that he would communicate so poorly and obscurely with our very salvation at stake
@musicmusing lol I'm late, but some things to reflect on: God wants us to seek Him, right? If you want to truly seek, you'll find. He's not about luke-warm, wishy-washy believers. Also, if they knew His true identity, they wouldn't have crucified Him.
Jesus spoke in parables all the time. It was to get people thinking, to seek out the gems of meaning in them. He never communicated poorly, He always addressed a person's need by how he spoke to them.
@musicmusing And you're a hypocrite. Firstly, I never said God is a conception. Secondly, it is YOU that brings your theology into the verse. The verse does NOT state that "God is two(/three) persons." It is amazing what the Bible states when you actually read it without also reading your contradictory doctrine into it.
The Son of God is 100% man, no? Obviously flesh and blood did not exist to us prior to His conception in the womb of Mary - but He was a very reality in the mind of God.
@musicmusing Furthermore, you ignored my whole argument and just chose to argue based on some strawman. Please, don't do that. I've had more than my fair share of Trinitarians doing that to me. It's both sad and disappointing. None of you want to listen to reason. All you do is make false accusations or choose to ignore my points. Honestly, you can do better. If you choose to not address my arguments, you're just confirming to me a hard heart full of pride.. So why bother discussing at all?
@musicmusing (cont'd) Thus, the Word was God by nature. It is NOT identifying the Word as another "person." Furthermore, John is using a parallel in John 1 with Genesis 1: We have the light, the darkness, and God's Word. In Genesis 1, the phrase "God said" appears again and again. John is effectively saying that the reason for creation was always for the coming of His Son. He is not saying that we now suddenly have two "persons" in the Godhead. Is your reasoning a second person to you? No.
@sorens70601 So you have some "qualifications". Despite how many times you reiterate that you speak 10 languages, that alone doesn't qualify you to be able to understand the ancient biblical text. Any linguist can tell you that languages change and evolve over time - not just word usage but their very meaning.It's also worth pointing out that there are instances of the definitions of words being skewed, or one particular definition out of many emphasized, just to fit in with trinitarian doctrine
@OneTruthFinder ...The problem here, is actually the oposite, you all have two text passages in Isaiah ,(42:8,
43:11,) that you all do not understand as the "collective Godhead" speaking, but assume it is the "individual God" speaking. Then you all "conveniently ignore" Isa.44:6, in which "Two deities" are referred to, in the words;
"Thus saith the Lord,the King of israel" (that's the first Deity) "and his Redeemer the Lord of Hosts", (that's the second Deity) Also, scripture declares...
...that there is "One mediator between God and Man",(1.Tim.2:5) The word Mediator, by deffinition, posits the "bringing together of two dissenting parties", and indeed the text "demands" such a meaning. Gal.3:19-20, makes it clear, that a "mediator is Not the mediator of One", (as in a singular person) but God Is "united". (Gr.Heis, that's what this word, translated "one" in the KJV, means in the Greek text from which it is taken)
With such compelling "first evidence", still want to go on?
@sorens70601 Nothing compelling about that. Please stop being so full of yourself. I know I have to watch myself too with the sin of pride, so I can clearly see it in you. I do not, and need not, ignore any scripture, so please refrain from your assumptions. Isaiah 44:6 shows absolutely nothing of a "collective Godhead"; rather you're doing nothing more than reading your doctrine into the text. Funny you half-quote 1 Tim 2:5. If you quoted it fully, you'd see where you have misunderstood...
1 Tim 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Notice, it doesn't say that the mediator is "God the Son" - no, it says the MAN Jesus Christ. Isaiah 44:6 proves the divinity of this man, that this man is no other than the one God who we serve. YHWH came in the form of a man to save us; His redeemer is the Lord of Hosts, who is the man Jesus Christ. So you see, the Greek you've presented only agrees with my understanding.You just conclude differently
@OneTruthFinder ...No, it is your False "oneness" position, that leads you to the stupid conclusion you have just affirmed. If God is "a Spirit", as you all keep syaing, (without you all understanding didly squat of what that means) and Jesus is called the "Son of Man",(the first thing you got correct here) then How do you explain Dan.7:13, where "one like unto a Son of Man" is brought before the "Ancient of Days"(a different person, if you did Not notice) Also, Jesus (the son of Man) says ....
...in Jn.5:31-32, that "there is ANOTHER that testifieth of Me", and in verse 37, he says to teh Pharisees, that they "Have NEVER SEEN HIS SHAPE, nor HEARD HIS VOICE at ANY TIME" Yet they Saw Christ and HEARD Him, ALL the TIME. Explain that little one to me , will you ????
@sorens70601 Re: Jn 5:31-32 Have I denied a distinction to you? No, I have not. This is God in the flesh speaking. The "another" is God's Spirit who now dwells in those who have received Him. Cf Jn 14:15-18. Jesus is one Helper, in that He dwelt WITH the disciples, but the other Helper dwelt IN the disciples. That's the key difference, and that's why Jesus could say He personally would come to them (v18).
Jn 5:37 - Refers to God in His natural form - SPIRIT.Different to that of Him in the flesh
@sorens70601 If you need a more thorough explanation of Jn 5:37, Google for the 1st result for "You Have Not Seen the Father"
Putting aside those things for a moment, you've given me absolutely no reason to come around to believe what you believe. You have shown me no fruit of the Spirit. I'm sorry to say this but you have not come across as a follower of Christ; rather just a trinitarian theologian
Jn 13:35 - "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
@sorens70601 Also Matt 7:15-16a - "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits."
sorens, I've seen nothing from you to conclude otherwise that you're not a false prophet. Pride is a deep matter of the heart, so if I can see it, then surely God sees more of it. And if God sees it, then He doesn't know you, because pride is a barrier we build up between us and God.Please, get yourself right with God 1st
@OneTruthFinder ....I have not read so much nonsense in such short space before. Your belief is so messed up, that you cannot even comprehend the plain written Word in English. How Sad. Your whole argument on Jn.5 crumbles in the fact that God said to Moses, that 'every matter' should be established, the "the Mouth' of two or three witnesses Christ even made it clear in Jn.8:17-18 that He "qualified" under this proposal,as there was "another"(mouth) that testified of Him. You just don't get ...
@sorens70601 "nonsense", "messed up", "cannot even comprehend the plain written Word". Again, you're falling back on discriminating labels rather than responding to me out of love. I simply won't be swayed by such an approach. You assume that my argument crumbles on the whim of a scripture. It's clear to me that you're not here to try to help me see what you see is the truth. For if you were, you'd first try to understand where I come from so you could lovingly show where I'm in supposed error.
...it ,do you ? As for Jn.13:35, I have a Love for teh "brethren", but for scoffers and false teachers that "steal sheep", (as the UPC is guilty of all over the world) I have an "axe to grind". Even God "hates false prophets", like you all. Christ speaks about the UPC and Apostolics, ( Mt.7:21-23) who claim to do things "in the Name", and Christ said He "never Knew you". Your accusation of me being proud, is totally misplaced, and Mt.7:15, fits the description of yourself to a Tee.
@sorens70601 So, you love your "brethren" and not your enemies? Do you realize that there's clearly no point in me explaining to you scripture when you'll just find more slander, abuse and false arguments against me? You're not interested in understanding at all. You cannot discern nor refute what you don't understand. Matt 7:21-23 says nothing of the UPC and Apostolics - and if it did, that would mean the original Apostolic church is hell-bound. As for my "accusation", ask God what He sees.
@sorens70601 No matter who it is, a Christian should be concerned, interested and invested in saving someone who they believe is unsaved. I haven't shown you anything but openness and a listening ear, and all you would want to do is judge me instead of understanding me and trying to save me from that doom which you believe where I will be sent. This is anything but being a good steward of the time that God has given you. Why even bother? This is absolutely unproductive and pointless.
@sorens70601 I suppose, to you, because I've come professing love and kindness to you that I'm a wolf in sheep's clothing, according to Matt 7:15? Let's reverse that for a moment: You've professed no love or kindness, yet you believe you have the truth whereas I supposedly am spreading lies... Hmm, so that must make you a sheep in wolf's clothing then.
@sorens70601 Again, I can't help but notice your hardened heart when you talk to me. You're convincing no one but yourself when you call my position false because of it's a "stupid conclusion". You make this claim completely unsupported, as well as your claim that we all understand "didly squat". *sigh* I have noticed Dan 7:13. Please read it in its context, rather than singling it out... Read the first result on Google for "What Is the Significance of "Son of God"", that'll explain it for you.
Matthew 24:37; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1; 2:8; James 5:7 and following; 2 Peter 3:4.)
It must be pointed out that in addition to the physical second coming of Christ, parousia is employed for the presence of Jesus in judgment upon the nation of Israel: See for instance Matthew 24:3, 27. in its application here we should consider the definition of parousia as given by James Strong: “a being near, a key advance (often: return; specifically
Matthew 24:37; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1; 2:8; James 5:7 and following; 2 Peter 3:4.)
It must be pointed out that in addition to the physical second coming of Christ, parousia is employed for the presence of Jesus in judgment upon the nation of Israel: See for instance Matthew 24:3, 27. in its application here we should consider the definition of parousia as given by James Strong: “a being near, a key advance (often: return; specifically
PAROUSIA The word “prousia” (Strong’s #NT3952) is broken down thusly: the prefix “par” means: with or presence; the stem word ousia means: being. Therefore, the presence of one coming; hence the coming, arrival, advance (Joseph Henry Thayer). The word is used in the New Testament especially for the second advent of Christ. (Jesus the Messiah’s future, visible, returned from heaven to raise the dead, hold the final judgment, and formally set up the glorious kingdom of God: Matthew 24:37; 1 Co
The Scripture indicates the physical return of Jesus with the use of the Greek word “parousia.” however, by far, the most common word for the coming of Christ is “erchomai.” The word “erchomai” does not limit itself to a physical return (or coming), but may imply an invisible spiritual coming - depending on its context.
This twenty-second chapter on Kingdom Theology will focus on thesecond coming of Jesus; especially how these two words (i.e. parousiaand erchomai) should shape our understanding
your words "..the "receiver" of that power. The Father is the "sender" of Jesus, and Jesus is the one "sent". THEN YOUR LOGIC WOULD DICTATE THIS--->>>>>>JOHN 1:6 MUST MEAN THAT JOHN WAS ALSO WITH YOUR TRI-UNE god IN SOME TYPE OF ETERNITY?? WHY?? he to was sent by God...Next you will tell me that Jesus is LITERALLY SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER--->>> IF YOU DO GET READY!!!
John 3:16
New International Version (NIV) 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
can any one explain this to me?pls...need more wisdom..and clarification
143whatsnew 1 week ago
@143whatsnew Jesus in the flesh was the Son. But he had the Spirit of God the Father in him. There was only one way there could be a perfect being and that is if God was in him. Look at Jhn 14:9 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], Shew us the Father? Jesus explains to Philip who he was.
Funnypandalonies 2 days ago
you all drive me crazy with your trinity and oneness! which really if you look at the scriptures, you all beleive the same thing. heres something thats sooo simple but definitely not popular among a majority of the church world...John 3 16: For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son. God didnt turn into Jesus, it clearly states that he sent his son to die for us! So therefore lets do some basic math!... God plus Jesus = 2 persons!
81bugman 1 week ago
In the spirit of love.
Jesus being God says he has a Father, the Jesus has a Father. If Jesus is his own Father, it is role, Jesus is half man/half god, then youtr theology redefines God word. That imply statement would place yours words over God. I know that is wrong.
MrHellowwww1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
God only needs truth, so only logical and facts should support truth. God will give you the answers rather than believe a lie. Here are two Messianic Judaism/Christians and one logical Christian. Oneness is half truth.
A Jewish Christian Explains the Holy Trinity... on you tube This is Dr. Michael Brown
The Law of Non-Contradiction and the Trinity ...... on you tube Ravi Zacharias
Three Gods in One?! Donate to Jews for Jesus Rich Robins...
MrHellowwww1 2 weeks ago
WILLIAM SEYMOUR FOUNDED YOUR CHURCH NOT JESUS THEY THINK JESUS WAS A CREATION JUST LIKE JEHOVA WITNESSES BUT THEY DON'T CALL HIM JEHOVA THEY CALL HIM JESUS
james67707 2 months ago
@james67707 No Clue......
MrApostolicdoctrine1 3 weeks ago
@Musicmusing Im sure I agree with u on a LOT of things. But u were saying that u can't prove that Jesus was the Father from the Bible. Isaiah 9:6 is talking about Jesus and it calls Him "the everlasting Father, the Mighty God," etc., ... how do u explain that? Not saying u r wrong. Just wondering what u understand that verse to mean? How do u interpret it? Just curious ... thanks!
David8024667 3 months ago
I used to belong to a UPC. A United Pentecostal Church. It was thee absolute WORST experience I have ever had. A NIGHTMARE!!! I believe it is a cult. And, from what I have heard MANY experts in the area of cults say, they AGREE with what I said ... that it IS a cult. My Church even had a curfew on it's people.
David8024667 3 months ago
@David8024667 How long did you stay? And why did you leave? You can pm me if you want.
musicmusing 3 months ago
you also never answer my points lol
musicmusing 3 months ago
@musicmusing Please direct me to these points I missed. I've only been responding to the posts that have me tagged.
I make it a habit of mine to thoroughly address every point, argument, opinion and misconception that is expressed to me, so if I have missed any points that's very unlike me, but even so it can happen. If so, I'm sorry and I'll address them once I know what they are.
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@OneTruthFinder thanks. these are very interesting . Its 4 a.m. here and i have to go to work but I will be back later. Have a good day.
musicmusing 3 months ago
@OneTruthFinder to say actually, He IS the father. He is the Son, distinct from the Father, although there is only one God. sorry to agreeably disagree but i find your oneness doctrine absolutely flies against the obvious scriptures, and is never intended whatsoever when you begin to see how God more fully reveals Himself in the new testament. The Son absolutely pre existed with the Father. Otherwise God made up a huge theatrical costume change game that was meaningless in revealing Himself/con
musicmusing 3 months ago
Think of it- if God is truth, cannot lie, there is no shadow of turning in Him, He is the light, the truth , the way, how could there be anything but absolute clarity in the manner He revealed himself? If he was the Father in the flesh, why all the talk of the Son as if He were distinct from/being sent from/having had glory with the Father? Your doctrine reduces this meaninglessness and an unknown God. He is just an invisible spirit appearing in modes faster than you can follow. No disrespect
musicmusing 3 months ago
@musicmusing the bottom line. There is no scriptual reason yo say Jesus is the Father when the bible clearly says He is the Son. He exists with the Father. He is God. There is only one God. Like it or not.
musicmusing 3 months ago
@musicmusing The bottom line is, the Biblical distinction between Father and Son is between God and man. 1 Tim 2:5, 2 Cor 5:19 as just two examples of that. It's the same distinction between you and I and God, and that's how we can relate to Him as our Father and see ourselves as His children. Once you blur that distinction into some higher form of relationship, you worship it, and you lose the beautiful truth of being His son, and so you lose your true identity in life and in God.
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@OneTruthFinder
If that is the case and the son is nothing more than flesh, how do you explain Phillippians 2:6?
- "though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"
Or Hebrews 1:2?
- "through whom also he created the world"
iamTOTALLYredeemed 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Phil 2:6 - Basically, the Trinitatrian interpretation is disingenuous. Check out the first result on Google for "The Trinity Delusion: Philippians 2:6" for an extensive study. While the author is of no particular denomination, I agree with his argument here, and it'll be better for you to read that than me trying to sum it up on a youtube comment.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@OneTruthFinder
The are main problems within this article, one of these is the whole examination of the word 'Harpagmos', where he even misapplies English word such as 'grasped' attempting to give it the meaning 'to grab'.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed I disagree. If maintained in the proper context of Phil 2:2-8, the point is of humility, not of a supposed pre-existent divine second person coming down and emptying Himself through some incarnation. You have taken one bad interpretation of "harpagmos" - a Trinitarian-biased one at that - as authoritative. There are numerous other interpretations, as witnessed in different Bible versions.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@OneTruthFinder
Oh, I totally agree that the context of Philippians 2:2-8 is to demonstrate humility, but through this demonstration of humility, we are also very clearly presented with Jesus being a distinct person (with cognition of their own) from God, who is also in the form of God. Or are you suggesting that this example is fictitious that Paul just made up for its intent purpose?
iamTOTALLYredeemed 2 months ago
Comment removed
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iamTOTALLYredeemed What? A ludicrous claim to think that I'd even entertain the thought that Paul made this up. And who said anything about there not being a distinction between Jesus and God? Jesus is a man, like we are. God dwelt in the man Christ Jesus, but He wasn't God. Of course there is a distinction.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@OneTruthFinder
So when was Jesus who is (as we have agreed) distinct from God ever in God's form? (Philippians 2:6)
iamTOTALLYredeemed 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed The man Christ Jesus is the representation of God, He is the Word of God, God's expression. So He is in the form of God, but He is not God.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@OneTruthFinder
Philippians 2:6,7 says that Jesus made his form in God of no effect by taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of men... So I I'll ask again: when was Jesus in the form of God before he took the form of a slave coming in the likeness of men?
iamTOTALLYredeemed 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Your question is filled with false presuppositions. Phil 2:6 uses the word "morphe," which is in reference to the status of Jesus - ie His role, not His identity. With authority given to Him from God the Father, this man was acting on the behalf of His God. That's why the Pharisees denounced Him for forgiving sins - for only God can forgive sins - but then were found to be wrong when Jesus proved to the crowd that God had indeed given such power to men.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed So basically the verse is telling us that Jesus has the status of God, but He didn't let it get to His head, so to speak. He was never proud or arrogant, but rather humbled Himself, always emptying Himself, even to the point of death on a cross. Jesus is the greatest example of humility for us.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@OneTruthFinder
Here is what AT Robinson said about 'Harpagmos' and 'Robbery'
"A prize (harpagmon). Predicate accusative with hēgēsato. Originally words in ̇mos signified the act, not the result (̇ma). The few examples of harpagmos (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to harpagma, like baptismos and baptisma. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won (“robbery”)."
iamTOTALLYredeemed 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed "Allow it to be understood" is not a rule nor a law that it is to be enforced according to the actual context of the use of the word in the passage.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@OneTruthFinder
Philippians 2:6 is in the context of what is said in vs. 7 "...but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." So this is very clearly speaking of the incarnation, but going back to vs. 6 Jesus is very clearly distinguished from God who he was equal with.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed It seems a clever term, doesn't it? But sadly there is no Biblical backing for an "incarnation." The explanation provided by the author of the article of v7 is sound.
Let me pose this question to you to highlight a very real problem: Could Jesus Christ have sinned? Was it at all possible for Him to have sinned?
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@OneTruthFinder
The concept of the incarnation it taken from Philippians 2:7:
…but [Jesus] made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
"Could Jesus [being in the flesh] have sinned?" - Yes, absolutely he was tempted in every way, but he did not sin.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 2 months ago
Comment removed
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iamTOTALLYredeemed That's right, Jesus gave and gave and gave. You seem to like that translation of "being born," but siding with such a pro-Trinitarian rendering of the word won't change the facts.
You twisted my question but very well... May I conclude then that the concept of the incarnation is false, because if Jesus was God incarnated as a man, then Jesus could not have sinned? God cannot sin.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@OneTruthFinder
The Greek word γίνομαι simply means to "come into existence" or "come into the existence of". Clear example of these can be found in John 1:3 and John 1:14.
If you don't like the fact I changed your question then in future don't ask question that are loaded with your own theology.
The Father cannot sin. Jesus in the nature of God falsified himself by taking the nature of a slave becoming in the likeness of men. Jesus is not the Father.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed I don't get your point on bringing in the Greek for coming into existence. Maybe you'd like to explain it, because I can't see its relevancy.
Loaded with my theology? Hmm, no it was a fair question. I feel you just didn't like it because you knew where I could take it.
Your theology still says that the Son, regardless of form, is still God. That which is God cannot cease being God. God cannot sin, sorry.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Heb 1:2 - Comes down to the word "through," from the Greek "διά".
Strong's Definition: "(a) gen: through, throughout, by the instrumentality of, (b) acc: through, on account of, by reason of, for the sake of, because of."
To say someone does something through a means does not necessitate that the means is an active, conscious entity.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@OneTruthFinder
This is very true, but if the son is just flesh how did were all things created through him when he himself/it was part of creation from the womb of Mary?
iamTOTALLYredeemed 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed You have to look at this through God's eyes. God foreordained everything to work out for the coming of His Son. God planned all of creation and history to line up perfectly for the day when He would send forth His Son. Jesus Christ was a very reality to the mind of God the Father, but He was not yet a reality to you and I, to our time and space, until He was conceived and born some 2,000 years ago.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@OneTruthFinder
You may think this argument is convincing, but you still haven’t actually answered the question: If the son is just the flesh how were all things created through him when he himself/it was part of creation from the womb of Mary?
Keep in mind that διά denotes the CHANNEL of an act. HOW was the Son the channel of the world’s creation?
iamTOTALLYredeemed 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed I did in fact answer the question, but your presumptions lead you to think otherwise. Consider this scenario: I'm a single man with one thing in my mind - to have a family. This existence of a family in my mind is so convincing that I start to do things for them as if they already existed. I get a good education, career and living because of that family. Then one day they appear into your reality. Similar thing with God. He made creation thru foreknowledge
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@OneTruthFinder
My preposition is what scripture clearly says. If you wish to try and add to and twist scripture to try and fit in with your theology that's you prerogative. However it still makes no sense, how can God have created the world by the means of "the foreknowledge of the Son". Keep in mind that Heb 1:1 is what is relative to man and there nothing to suggest any transition away from this and into the foreknowledge of God.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed You believe your preposition is that. I don't try "add" anything. You want to talk about adding, I need not look any further to Trinitarian dogma - "persons," "being," "God the Son," "hypostatic union," "incarnation," "eternally begotten" and so on. Greek philosophy and other false notions of men. There's no need for it.
How could God have created the world without foreknowledge of His Son? Honestly, do you think God made a quick escape plan for us?
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@OneTruthFinder
You have essentially and dogmatically inserted the phrase "the foreknowledge of" into Heb 1:2. You are essentially saying that without that insertion any literally understanding of this verse is false, along with Heb 1:10, Col 1:16, and Rev 3:14.
Words such as: "persons," "being," "God the Son," "hypostatic union," "incarnation," "eternally begotten" are not additions into scripture, they carry concepts found in the scriptures.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 2 months ago
Comment removed
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iamTOTALLYredeemed I'm doing no such thing. Heb 1:1-3 has its parallels with God's Word. He spoke a word through the prophets in time past, but later His full Word, the Word, was spoken through His Son in His earthly ministry, and Jesus now continues to do so as the Holy Spirit. God's Word is the very expression of God, and Heb 1:3 alludes to that. God created everything through His spoken word in Genesis, but it wasn't until ~2,000 years ago that His Word became a man.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed None of the terms you mention are Biblically conceptual. Sorry, but I've had enough of using unbiblical terminology to describe the Bible. The last straw for me - and very recent too - was coming to the realization that the traditional incarnation idea is bunk. You're reading them into the scriptures to make them allude to concepts that aren't in there, and were never intended to be in there.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Heb 1:10 is speaking of the Father, and it's clear when you understand the context. Col 1:16 again is no proof of the Son being an active, conscious entity involved in creation. Besides being the reason, (and this goes for Rev 3:14) you could come back to God's Word. To save myself rephrasing, I'll just quote an article from that same author I previously directed you to...
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@OneTruthFinder
Hebrews 1:10 is speaking of the Father? and it's clear when you understand the context?
Are you for real? Hebrews 1:10 is spoken BY the Father TO the Son...
Hebrews 1:8 "But of the Son he says..."
iamTOTALLYredeemed 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Yes, I am for real. Heb 1:10 is another point the author is making. He's not referring to the Son, who is a man; He is referring to God, the Father - quite clear when you see it comes from Ps 102. And just as clear is the "He" mentioned in Heb 1:13, which no doubt is the Father: The antecedent of that "He" is "the Lord" of verse 10. The Trinitarian translation of Heb 1 is absolutely absurd - God having a God? If that was true, He'd cease from being God.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@OneTruthFinder
"The Reason of" ??? What does that even mean?
iamTOTALLYredeemed 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed "By reason of" is quite simple, and a quick Google search would have sufficed. Here's what I found to help you: "Because of, owing to, as in By reason of a crop failure, the price of coffee is bound to rise."
So, to draw a parallel, by reason of His Son, God the Father made all things.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed "We are being told where creation begins. It is John who emphasizes that God's creation began at his Word and in his Word not as his Word. God created all things by His spoken Word, that Word became flesh, Jesus. Hence, Jesus is that Word by which God created all things. He is that Word become flesh. Hence, God's Word, which became flesh, is the beginning of creation in a locative sense; God's Word is the PLACE where creation had its beginning."
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed And just to further clarify: God's Word never pre-existed as a distinct conscious entity from Himself. Your word doesn't, and neither does God's. But when it comes to construction, His Word are His tools, His materials for creating things and holding everything together. His Word became creation. And His Word became flesh, and we know how to understand that because of Deut 18:18 and Jn 14:10. As Jesus is the Word of God, He speaks the Word of God.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@OneTruthFinder
This is certainly not what scripture reveals. God's word is a distinct person from God himself and scripture is very clear on this. Jesus' own claim in John 8:58 is proof that he is an eternal person.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed God's Word is indeed a distinct person from Him! God's Word, His expression, became a man. However, this man is not deity. While there is debate whether or not John 8:58 is really referring to the revelation of God's name to Moses in Exodus 3, it is still not to be confused with Jesus Himself claiming to be God. He is the Word of God because His Words are not His own - they are of His Father's. Refer to Deut 18:18, Acts 7:37 and John 14:10.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iamTOTALLYredeemed God's Word is indeed a distinct person from Him! God's Word, His expression, became a man. However, this man is not deity. While there is debate whether or not John 8:58 is really referring to the revelation of God's name to Moses in Exodus 3, it is still not to be confused with Jesus Himself claiming to be God. He is the Word of God because His Words are not His own - they are of His Father's. Refer to Deut 18:18, Acts 7:37 and John 14:10.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iamTOTALLYredeemed God's Word is indeed a distinct person from Him! God's Word, His expression, became a man. However, this man is not deity. While there is debate whether or not John 8:58 is really referring to the revelation of God's name to Moses in Exodus 3, it is still not to be confused with Jesus Himself claiming to be God. He is the Word of God because His Words are not His own - they are of His Father's. Refer to Deut 18:18, Acts 7:37 and John 14:10.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iamTOTALLYredeemed God's Word is indeed a distinct person from Him! God's Word, His expression, became a man. However, this man is not deity. While there is debate whether or not John 8:58 is really referring to the revelation of God's name to Moses in Exodus 3, it is still not to be confused with Jesus Himself claiming to be God. He is the Word of God because His Words are not His own - they are of His Father's. Refer to Deut 18:18, Acts 7:37 and John 14:10.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iamTOTALLYredeemed God's Word is indeed a distinct person from Him! God's Word, His expression, is the man Jesus Christ. However, this man is not Deity. While there is debate whether or not John 8:58 is really referring to the revelation of God's name to Moses in Exodus 3, it is still not to be confused with Jesus Himself claiming to be God. He is the Word of God because His Words are not His own - they are of His Father's. Refer to Deut 18:18, Acts 7:37 and John 14:10.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@OneTruthFinder
What is being debated here is not whether God had foreknowledge of His Son, as I agree with this. The whole purpose of creation was for Jesus (Col 1:16, Rev 13:8).
The question is: HOW did God create the world BY THE MEANS OF "the foreknowledge of the Son"?
iamTOTALLYredeemed 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Well, His Son was the reason for it. Without the reason, God would not have made creation. God doesn't do things without a purpose. By means of, by reason of - the idea is clearly there.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@OneTruthFinder
I would definitely agree that the Son was and is the purpose for creation, but being the purpose for doesn't explain how all things were created by means of him.
iamTOTALLYredeemed 2 months ago
Comment removed
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Here's the problem: The Greek word "dia" used in Heb 1:2 that is commonly translated as "by" gives you a false understanding. While it is correct that one can interpret "dia" as "by," in terms of "by means of" (eg, by love we show people Christ), the English word "by" has a larger scope of meaning, because it of course can also be used to mean that one authored something, like "The Hobbit" is by JRR Tolkien. To interpret "dia" in this latter way is wrong.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
@iamTOTALLYredeemed As for Heb 1:1, I don't get what you're trying to say.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
Comment removed
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iamTOTALLYredeemed Understand that if God has something planned to happen, it is already a reality. That's why we view the Second Coming as it is a reality, even though it is yet to pass. If God says it, you're guaranteed for it to happen! So for God to create everything "through" or "by reason of" is for the very fact that all of creation was made, and all of history planned, for the reason of His Son coming to redeem humanity to Himself.
OneTruthFinder 2 months ago
Comment removed
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@musicmusing Not at all, that's simply your perception of it. God is not some impersonal Spirit with modes.
In John 17:5, Jesus is simply speaking of the glory which He knew He had in the mind of God. He never lost this glory, simply He asked for it to be made manifest to us.
The irony is, as I expressed with the idea of five gods, the Trinity makes God to be unknown, to be all these things that we can not relate to AT ALL.
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
- Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are "THREE DISTINCT PERSONS"; Is it written? "Gen 19.24" shows God being twice himself. "Pro 30.4" shows that the Son already existed. "Luke 10.22" shows that we receive by 'revelation'; it comes from the Father (Mat 16.17). A child easily understand when God reveals to him (Mat 11.25). Everything is not explained because there are hidden mysteries: "Rom 16.25", "Eph 3.9", "Col 1.26; 2.3". In the same time, the angels saw the Father (Mat 18.10) and the Son (Mat 4.6).c1
BibleFrW 4 months ago
@BibleFrW ????????????
musicmusing 4 months ago
- (1) Imagine that you give birth to your son and that he is another yourself, he is a double (copy, duplicate) of your soul and your spirit. There are now 2 distinct persons having each one their own soul and their own spirit, will, feeling, thoughts, etc. But they are twice the same person; there are 2 different persons but it is the unique person twice. The double is the Son resulting from the Father at the beginning of the creation. ...>>>c1
BibleFrW.net
BibleFrW 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(2) This Son created all things. Later this Son came in flesh through Mary; he became a 100% man while God (the Father) look at (from heaven) his son living on earth.
- In other words, Jesus is an other himself of the ONE who is the only real God; so, Jesus is the One who is the One, the real and the Only True God. 1 John 5.20: "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, ... He (Jésus) is the true God, and eternal life."
- It's a revelation.
BibleFrW 4 months ago
-Revelation = everything becomes clear. The best explanation is to assume that your name is Peter. Peter wants to create another himself. This other is his special Son; he is an other yourself. You are now 2 distinct persons. Each one has his own will, his thoughts and feelings. How many persons are there? Three. How many Peter? Only one Peter. These three will always be the same Peter. They can talk and have fun together; Peter begins to create. Jesus= father, Son and Holy Spirit (Mt 28.19).c1
BibleFrW 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
- if God created his wisdom, he would have been without wisdom before it. It's the wisdom of the Son created and born BEFORE the creation of the world (Pro 8.22, 24). The Son was WITH the Father (Pro 8.30, 31; Jn 1.1). The Son has a beginning, but not as himself who is the ONE God who has been doubled (a copy). Father, Son and Holy Spirit have each one their will (Luc 22.42; 1Cor 12.11), spirit (Luc 23.46;Jn 4.24;Mat 18.10; Rom 8.27; 1Cor 2.10) and soul (Mk 14.34;Heb 10.38;Mat 12.18).c1
BibleFrW 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
-3 distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit; each one having his own will, but 3 times the same person. The Son is not the Father, but an OTHER HIMSELF of the ONE who is the Father (a double: Luke 6.12;John 14.9a: “I”, “Me”). The Son has a beginning (Pro8.22-30;Col 1.15). The ONE who is the Son in "Micah 5.2" is an OTHER HIMSELF of the ONE God who never had a beginning. Knowing who is Jesus we know WHO are the Father (Luk 10.22;John14.8-9) and the Holy Spirit (John 14.18; 15.26).
BibleFrW
BibleFrW 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 persons. The Son had a beginning: Pro 8.22-30 God has never been without wisdom. The Son is not the Father but is an other self of Him who is the Father (double): Luke 6.12; John 14.9a 'I', 'ME', the Holy Spirit too: Ro 8.27; Jn 14.16 'another'.
3 personnes. Le Fils a un début: Pro 8.22-30 Dieu n'a jamais été sans sagesse. Le Fils n'est pas le Père mais est UN AUTRE LUI-MÊME de CELUI qui est le Père (double): Luc 6.12; Jn 14.9a 'JE', 'M'as'; l'Esprit-Saint aussi: Ro 8.27; Jn 14.16 'AUTRE'.c1
BibleFrW 4 months ago
There are many instances in the Epistles that Jesus is referred to as a man. Take for instance Col 1:3 - "We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". This is not referring to some complicated concept of a trinity, but rather its drawing focus to the man Jesus Christ, whose God is the one and same God as the Jews. The disciples readily refer to Jesus as a man because that's how they came to first know Him. Only later, when revelation came, did they start seeing Him as God.
OneTruthFinder 5 months ago
There are many instances in the Epistles that Jesus is referred to as a man. Take for instance Col 1:3 - "We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". This is not referring to some complicated concept of a trinity, but rather its drawing focus to the man Jesus Christ, whose God is the one and same God as the Jews. The disciples readily refer to Jesus as a man because that's how they came to first know Him. Only later, when revelation came, did they start seeing Him as God.
OneTruthFinder 5 months ago
i am convinced of the trinity. this is false doctrine
musicmusing 5 months ago
@musicmusing Your personal convictions can lead you to be bias. Do you really understand Oneness enough to know what you claim as false as truly false? Anyone who comes here and reads your statement may be persuaded by such an unsupported claim, as silly as that may be (silly for the fact that would outright gullibility). Think twice before posting... How and why is this false doctrine?
OneTruthFinder 5 months ago
Comment removed
musicmusing 5 months ago
@OneTruthFinder Actually I do understand the oneness doctrine. I found it contradicts the relationship between the Father and the Son, which is so clear in scripture, to explain it away is to lose the essence of the gospel, that God so loved the world he gave his only begotten Son that we might have life. it honestly seems to me a real stretch to explain away this relationship, and at the same time leads to denying the deity of the Son as he clearly WAS in the beginning WITH God. God bless
musicmusing 5 months ago
@musicmusing Do you believe I as a trinitarian am lost? I believe in Christ, that by grace thru faith i am saved. i confess Christ is Lord, that Christ died for my sins. I do believe , after being upc for 10 years, that the upc does err , and can be quite abusive and unhealthy to a Christian. but I do not condemn them. They are focused on the wrong things. peace
musicmusing 5 months ago
@musicmusing By you saying that confirms that you do not understand Oneness. It never contradicts the relationship between the Father and the Son. I'm a firm believer in Oneness and I 100% agree with you that God gave His only begotten Son. There is definitely a relationship between the Father and Son. Oneness does NOT deny the deity of the Son. The Bible makes clear that the Son of God was only in the beginning with God as His mighty and glorious plan of salvation for all of mankind. God bless.
OneTruthFinder 4 months ago
@OneTruthFinder In the beginning WAS the Word. The Word WAS WITH God, and the Word WAS GOD. Not a thought. God. Not a plan. God. God is God. How does scripture 'make plain' this Word was a 'plan' and not God, with God, and was God. Your logic is bogus. this is what happens when you say-this is what it MUST mean ( to fit your doctrine} rather than this is what IT REALLY SAYS.
musicmusing 3 months ago
@musicmusing Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it is bogus. Don't come to me with accusations before you have this understanding.
The Word of John 1 is referring to the conception of Jesus in the mind of God. God's reason, which is His Word, is Him. Prov 23:7a: "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he".
You may also want to check the Greek. In John 1:1, "the Word was God" is saying WHAT the Word was, not who. Most Trinitarian scholars agree with this point.
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@OneTruthFinder God is not a conception. Again, you bring your theology to the verse, and say, it must mean this because of that( your belief the Son did not exist prior to birth), but the bible says the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It says nothing of being a future plan. I am amazed at the convolutions your doctrine necessitates
musicmusing 3 months ago
@musicmusing Uh, where did I say "God is a conception"? You're reading false ideas into my response. Why is it so hard for you to try to understand rather than draw false conclusions? The Son of God was conceived in the mind of God. John 17:3 and 17:24, 1 Peter 1:19-20 and Revelation 13:8 expresses God's plan from the beginning of time. The birth, life, purpose, death and resurrection of the Son of God was conceived in the mind of God first, before all things.
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@OneTruthFinder ok, sorry. I know the John1:1 logos teaching, i just find it doesn't work when you begin to read the rest of John. The way Jesus said i came from the Father and go back to the Father,etc. And person doesn't literally mean another separate being. The Son is God. The Father is God. The Holy Ghost is God. there is 1 God. Yet these 3 seem to relate. So somehow these 3 are 1, even if my mind cannot fully get it, does not mean it is false. i was oneness for many years, yet con,t
musicmusing 3 months ago
@musicmusing after much prayer study I find the general teaching of the trinity more biblical( not the straw man trinity the upc teaches). you must admit the trinity rarely gets a fair hearing in your churches. Like, oh you believe in 3 Gods! You must be careful in how you teach your own people , rather than lying to them about our beliefs( not you specifically). So many oneness believers have such a skewed view of the trinity that comes from the pulpit. anyway, you seem to be more intelligent
musicmusing 3 months ago
Comment removed
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@musicmusing I'm not here to support a doctrine. I simply want the truth, and I hope you do too, friend. Everything I share is not simply a teaching from UPC - it is a personal conviction. I actually wasn't taught by my church; I did all my own research. In fact, there are instances where I see a UPC understanding of a verse to not be correct. I hold to my own personal beliefs and revelations, and I love sharing that. I feel so much closer to God now and that's why I like sharing to others.
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@musicmusing All's good, between us. :)
I'm in agreement that the Trinity is sometimes straw-maned. Not to say that two wrongs make a right, but so is Oneness for those who go to theology colleges. They always come out with a miscontrued idea, and that's why I always have to first iron out the misunderstandings with them before proper discussion can occur.
Regarding that Jesus came from the Father and going back: Can you give me the specific Scripture for that please? I'll be happy to explain
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@musicmusing Furthermore, I understand the doctrine of the Trinity, the terms of person and being, how the Godhead is explained and all that. I know of those people who say out of ignorance that the Trinity is three gods. However, and I mean all due respect to you, but when you take an honest look deep down into the doctrine, the Trinity is composed of five gods. I don't say this out of ignorance, so please don't accuse that. (contd)
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@musicmusing (contd) Now I know my claim needs evidence to support it. Thing is, I'd have to type a whole paper up to demonstrate it to you. So here's the short version: It's all to do with the definition of "God." The word "God" is changed to suit the situation. In one place (eg John 17:3), the one true God is only one person. In another place (Is 45:5), the one true God is now the triune being. But the Father is not the triune being. He is God but He isn't God. It gets pretty complicated cont
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@musicmusing So for me to fully explain what is really being expressed in the Trinity would take a private conversation, if you so wish. Again, I'm not here to rant and yell polytheism, I'm simply presenting the facts that are there, if you would be so kind as to give me the opportunity to share.
I wouldn't personally just tell people that the Trinity is composed of five gods - I always give the understanding first and then the inevitable conclusion that follows.
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OneTruthFinder you can pm me if you wish. I have never heard the 5 God theory.
musicmusing 3 months ago
@musicmusing my main concern is in denying the full deity of the Son, the pre existence of the son
musicmusing 3 months ago
@musicmusing I have to go out now, but I'll quickly say this: The Biblical distinction between the Father and the Son is between God and man. There are many verses that attest to that, for example 1 Tim 2:5 just being one verse among many.
Now, to recognize this distinction is not to separate God and man. It's the same when it comes to the kenosis of the Son according to Trinitarian understanding. 100% God and 100% man, but not separate. (contd)
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@OneTruthFinder (contd) As for the pre-existence of the Son, we need to approach that from God's perspective. The Son of God, which is the man Jesus Christ, simply did not exist to you and I, to the time and space of this Earth until approximately 2000 years ago. However, the Son did exist in the mind of God! He was a very reality to God. I mentioned this earlier. Put it this way: God loved us before the world began. We do not need to be pre-existent conscious persons/beings for that to be true.
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@OneTruthFinder i find to many scriptures that speak of the pre existence of the Son. God created the world thru the Son. He came forth from the Father and returns to the Father where He was before! Also the new testament never calls Christ the Father but the Son. it seems like He didn't communicate your view very well. it is hardly a view you would arrive at with just a bible, without someone explaining oneness.
musicmusing 3 months ago
@musicmusing I would say the contrary. No one can see the Trinity in the Bible without it being indoctrinated into them first. Whether you see it or not, you have been conditioned to view it like this. Again, please show me specific Scriptures. For one, Jesus didn't return to where He was before. He was actually "highly exalted" in Phil 2:9, which is the Holy of Holies - a place where He never occupied previously. He had to go there so that His blood would be applied to the mercy seat.
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@OneTruthFinder @musicmusing I don't think you've ever had a proper understanding of Oneness, otherwise you wouldn't have been so quick to leave or you wouldn't be asking the questions you are now!
For God to create through the Son does not mean the Son was actively creating! Again, please view this from God's perspective. I'm going to give you a little analogy to help you to understand:
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@OneTruthFinder You see a fellow work buddy working his guts out day in, day out. One day you decide to ask him, "Pal, why are you always going flat out? It's no good for you."
To which he replies, "I have a son to support."
But you know he doesn't have a son so you say, "What are you on about?! You don't have a son - you don't even have a woman!"
contd
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@OneTruthFinder Your friend grins, points to his head and says, "Yes I do, it's all up here for now. But you'll meet them one day. Give it some time, and you'll see!"
Many years later, your friend has moved up the corporate ladder. He's now earning the big bucks as an important manager. Not only that, but he also has that wife and son that he envisioned all that time ago.
One day, a new guy at work approaches you saying, "Hey, you know that big shot, right? The dude who drives that Ferrari?"
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@OneTruthFinder "Yeah," you reply. "We're good mates – I've known him for yonks."
"Well maybe you can tell me why he's so rich then. How did he do it?!"
"He did it through his son."
The newcomer glares at you with a look of bewilderment. "What in the world do you mean? I think I've seen the boy with him - that kid must only be five years-old max!"
contd
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@OneTruthFinder You smile and explain, "Look at it from his perspective. He envisioned that child for years before he was an actual reality to you and I. It was because of his genuine desire to give a good life to his yet-to-be conceived son that he worked so hard that he didn't know whether he was coming or going half the time."
-- end --
See how that works? God's reason for everything was because of His Son. That is why He can say He created everything through His Son.The idea is quite simple
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@OneTruthFinder but the bible never even hints at this, it merely states facts. it seems like too much thinking and explaining what otherwise is so straightforward. i was not taught the trinity, esp while in the upc, but oneness seemed so contrived and against what was so obvious throughout the new testament, namely the distinction between the Father and Son, the love (natures cannot love) between them. also I would die for my wife. but for a stranger? and to send my son to die for a con't
musicmusing 3 months ago
@musicmusing Friend, it is well-known that there is no single proof-text for the Trinity. Instead, the doctrine is built upon hints and "implied" ideas. My thinking is straightforward as it can be. In any case, you need to go by the Bible and not by your preconceived ideas. For God to say that the world was created through His Son is the saying that the Son is His reason for everything. It absolute sense in the context of the whole Bible.
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@OneTruthFinder not really. it says He created the world thru his Son. it doesn't say vicariously
musicmusing 3 months ago
@musicmusing Who ultimately is the Author of the Bible? So why do you refuse to look at it from God's perspective? You are refusing the evidence in front of you. I doubt you have even looked at the Scriptures I supplied.
"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" Eph 1:4
What does it mean for God to choose us "before the foundation of the world" mean? Must we be pre-existent, conscious persons/beings?
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@musicmusing I never said it was "vicariously." Definition of that is this:
"taking the place of another person or thing; acting or serving as a substitute."
Where did I say that God took the place of the Son to create everything?
Creation came to be through the Son is the same as saying that creation came to be because of the Son. Would you deny that everything was created and preordained for the Son? Hopefully not. That's all this verse (Col 1:16) is saying.
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@OneTruthFinder I just don't understand why you wouldn't take what John says to mean what is says. i. e. He was in the world and the world was made by Him (the Son). It seems like the Son actually created the world. Which would mean He pre existed His earthly birth. Before abraham was , I am. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. my point is these verses to me mean just what they say, but to you, they must be 'explained' . No offense but big difference.
musicmusing 3 months ago
@musicmusing Please, I urge you to look again. You think my need to "explain" verses is doing away with the actual meaning. I'm simply Biblically explaining them, though - you can't read the Bible without explaining it within the entire context. The irony here is that your doctrine is the one that explains away the true meaning and purpose of these verses. It finds it necessary to insert terms and notions (eg "person", "triune being") that aren't even being expressed.
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@musicmusing To you, it's not being inserted because you've been conditioned to always think of a Trinity whenever you read the Bible. It can be very hard for one to read the Bible with fresh eyes when they already have a Trinitarian teaching rooted in their mind - I know that's true because I've experienced that myself. But once you can see that you don't need these extra terms, notions and philosophy and just rely on the Bible alone to know who God is, then you will see otherwise.
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@musicmusing Regarding John 1:10: We know Jesus is the Word made flesh. In Genesis we have creation being brought into existence by/through God's spoken word. Creation came about through God's one reason - to love and save us. The "Word" in John 1 comes from the Greek "Logos." It's the word where "logic" is derived from. "Logos" is such a beautiful word, for it incorporates the thoughts, reasoning and speech - each of these of God is found to be involved in the creation of the world. (cont)
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@musicmusing (contd) However, none of them is a distinct person from the author of these thoughts, reasoning and speech. They can be personified - that is, given personal attributes - but this technique of literature does not make the subject a person. Your spoken word, your logic, your thoughts are not a distinct person from you; rather your word is you. You say what you think; "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he" (Prov 23:7a). Your thoughts, your spoken word makes you who you are. cont
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@musicmusing (contd) It defines you, ie you are your word, just as God is His Word. So yes, of course the Word pre-existed - but certainly not as a distinct person from the Father. I could go on all day about John 1 because I love how John uses "Logos." There's so much beauty and revelation to be had by this one word alone! But I'll move on.
John 8:58 - Jesus is the Word of God, therefore YHWH manifested in the flesh, so of course Jesus can claim to be the Almighty I AM.
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@musicmusing Lastly, if you'd like to know where the notion of the Word being a "second person" from the first, it comes from Tertullian's abysmal philosophical approach:
"Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought … Whatever you think, there is a word … You must speak it in your mind … cont
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@musicmusing "Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech … The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness you are?" (ibid. 5)
That's an appallingly read-in notion there. For all his supposed grievances against Greek philosophy, he wasn't afraid to resort to it when he wanted.
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@OneTruthFinder Ok after more bible study i still completely disagree with you on the Son all just being in the mind and plan of God ( although this is true) rather than actually pre existing. i find no scriptual reason or even hint that John 1:1 and John 17:5 don't mean other than what they rather plainly say; that the Word was WITH God, came into the world; had glory with the Father, and was sent from the Father, and was going back to the father. it seems very very strange after these con't
musicmusing 3 months ago
@musicmusing Correct, natures do not love. But Jesus was 100% MAN - not a nature but FULLY a man - and God is, well, fully God. Jesus prayed with a human psyche. God loved this man. There's no problem here whatsoever.
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
stranger, i couldn't imagine loving anyone that much. yet John 3:16. it is the whole gospel that he gave His Son. Otherwise why not just say here i am , the Father, dying for you. Why the need at all to speak in riddles of the Son and holy ghost if its really all just the Father anyway. This i could never believe that he would communicate so poorly and obscurely with our very salvation at stake
musicmusing 3 months ago
@musicmusing lol I'm late, but some things to reflect on: God wants us to seek Him, right? If you want to truly seek, you'll find. He's not about luke-warm, wishy-washy believers. Also, if they knew His true identity, they wouldn't have crucified Him.
Jesus spoke in parables all the time. It was to get people thinking, to seek out the gems of meaning in them. He never communicated poorly, He always addressed a person's need by how he spoke to them.
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
con't but i enjoy discussing it i have to go also
musicmusing 3 months ago
@musicmusing And you're a hypocrite. Firstly, I never said God is a conception. Secondly, it is YOU that brings your theology into the verse. The verse does NOT state that "God is two(/three) persons." It is amazing what the Bible states when you actually read it without also reading your contradictory doctrine into it.
The Son of God is 100% man, no? Obviously flesh and blood did not exist to us prior to His conception in the womb of Mary - but He was a very reality in the mind of God.
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@musicmusing Furthermore, you ignored my whole argument and just chose to argue based on some strawman. Please, don't do that. I've had more than my fair share of Trinitarians doing that to me. It's both sad and disappointing. None of you want to listen to reason. All you do is make false accusations or choose to ignore my points. Honestly, you can do better. If you choose to not address my arguments, you're just confirming to me a hard heart full of pride.. So why bother discussing at all?
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@musicmusing (cont'd) Thus, the Word was God by nature. It is NOT identifying the Word as another "person." Furthermore, John is using a parallel in John 1 with Genesis 1: We have the light, the darkness, and God's Word. In Genesis 1, the phrase "God said" appears again and again. John is effectively saying that the reason for creation was always for the coming of His Son. He is not saying that we now suddenly have two "persons" in the Godhead. Is your reasoning a second person to you? No.
OneTruthFinder 3 months ago
@sorens70601 So you have some "qualifications". Despite how many times you reiterate that you speak 10 languages, that alone doesn't qualify you to be able to understand the ancient biblical text. Any linguist can tell you that languages change and evolve over time - not just word usage but their very meaning.It's also worth pointing out that there are instances of the definitions of words being skewed, or one particular definition out of many emphasized, just to fit in with trinitarian doctrine
OneTruthFinder 5 months ago
@OneTruthFinder ...The problem here, is actually the oposite, you all have two text passages in Isaiah ,(42:8,
43:11,) that you all do not understand as the "collective Godhead" speaking, but assume it is the "individual God" speaking. Then you all "conveniently ignore" Isa.44:6, in which "Two deities" are referred to, in the words;
"Thus saith the Lord,the King of israel" (that's the first Deity) "and his Redeemer the Lord of Hosts", (that's the second Deity) Also, scripture declares...
sorens70601 5 months ago
...that there is "One mediator between God and Man",(1.Tim.2:5) The word Mediator, by deffinition, posits the "bringing together of two dissenting parties", and indeed the text "demands" such a meaning. Gal.3:19-20, makes it clear, that a "mediator is Not the mediator of One", (as in a singular person) but God Is "united". (Gr.Heis, that's what this word, translated "one" in the KJV, means in the Greek text from which it is taken)
With such compelling "first evidence", still want to go on?
sorens70601 5 months ago
@sorens70601 Nothing compelling about that. Please stop being so full of yourself. I know I have to watch myself too with the sin of pride, so I can clearly see it in you. I do not, and need not, ignore any scripture, so please refrain from your assumptions. Isaiah 44:6 shows absolutely nothing of a "collective Godhead"; rather you're doing nothing more than reading your doctrine into the text. Funny you half-quote 1 Tim 2:5. If you quoted it fully, you'd see where you have misunderstood...
OneTruthFinder 5 months ago
1 Tim 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Notice, it doesn't say that the mediator is "God the Son" - no, it says the MAN Jesus Christ. Isaiah 44:6 proves the divinity of this man, that this man is no other than the one God who we serve. YHWH came in the form of a man to save us; His redeemer is the Lord of Hosts, who is the man Jesus Christ. So you see, the Greek you've presented only agrees with my understanding.You just conclude differently
OneTruthFinder 5 months ago
@OneTruthFinder ...No, it is your False "oneness" position, that leads you to the stupid conclusion you have just affirmed. If God is "a Spirit", as you all keep syaing, (without you all understanding didly squat of what that means) and Jesus is called the "Son of Man",(the first thing you got correct here) then How do you explain Dan.7:13, where "one like unto a Son of Man" is brought before the "Ancient of Days"(a different person, if you did Not notice) Also, Jesus (the son of Man) says ....
sorens70601 5 months ago
...in Jn.5:31-32, that "there is ANOTHER that testifieth of Me", and in verse 37, he says to teh Pharisees, that they "Have NEVER SEEN HIS SHAPE, nor HEARD HIS VOICE at ANY TIME" Yet they Saw Christ and HEARD Him, ALL the TIME. Explain that little one to me , will you ????
sorens70601 5 months ago
@sorens70601 Re: Jn 5:31-32 Have I denied a distinction to you? No, I have not. This is God in the flesh speaking. The "another" is God's Spirit who now dwells in those who have received Him. Cf Jn 14:15-18. Jesus is one Helper, in that He dwelt WITH the disciples, but the other Helper dwelt IN the disciples. That's the key difference, and that's why Jesus could say He personally would come to them (v18).
Jn 5:37 - Refers to God in His natural form - SPIRIT.Different to that of Him in the flesh
OneTruthFinder 5 months ago
@sorens70601 If you need a more thorough explanation of Jn 5:37, Google for the 1st result for "You Have Not Seen the Father"
Putting aside those things for a moment, you've given me absolutely no reason to come around to believe what you believe. You have shown me no fruit of the Spirit. I'm sorry to say this but you have not come across as a follower of Christ; rather just a trinitarian theologian
Jn 13:35 - "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
OneTruthFinder 5 months ago
@sorens70601 Also Matt 7:15-16a - "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits."
sorens, I've seen nothing from you to conclude otherwise that you're not a false prophet. Pride is a deep matter of the heart, so if I can see it, then surely God sees more of it. And if God sees it, then He doesn't know you, because pride is a barrier we build up between us and God.Please, get yourself right with God 1st
OneTruthFinder 5 months ago
@OneTruthFinder ....I have not read so much nonsense in such short space before. Your belief is so messed up, that you cannot even comprehend the plain written Word in English. How Sad. Your whole argument on Jn.5 crumbles in the fact that God said to Moses, that 'every matter' should be established, the "the Mouth' of two or three witnesses Christ even made it clear in Jn.8:17-18 that He "qualified" under this proposal,as there was "another"(mouth) that testified of Him. You just don't get ...
sorens70601 5 months ago
@sorens70601 "nonsense", "messed up", "cannot even comprehend the plain written Word". Again, you're falling back on discriminating labels rather than responding to me out of love. I simply won't be swayed by such an approach. You assume that my argument crumbles on the whim of a scripture. It's clear to me that you're not here to try to help me see what you see is the truth. For if you were, you'd first try to understand where I come from so you could lovingly show where I'm in supposed error.
OneTruthFinder 5 months ago
...it ,do you ? As for Jn.13:35, I have a Love for teh "brethren", but for scoffers and false teachers that "steal sheep", (as the UPC is guilty of all over the world) I have an "axe to grind". Even God "hates false prophets", like you all. Christ speaks about the UPC and Apostolics, ( Mt.7:21-23) who claim to do things "in the Name", and Christ said He "never Knew you". Your accusation of me being proud, is totally misplaced, and Mt.7:15, fits the description of yourself to a Tee.
sorens70601 5 months ago
@sorens70601 So, you love your "brethren" and not your enemies? Do you realize that there's clearly no point in me explaining to you scripture when you'll just find more slander, abuse and false arguments against me? You're not interested in understanding at all. You cannot discern nor refute what you don't understand. Matt 7:21-23 says nothing of the UPC and Apostolics - and if it did, that would mean the original Apostolic church is hell-bound. As for my "accusation", ask God what He sees.
OneTruthFinder 5 months ago
@sorens70601 No matter who it is, a Christian should be concerned, interested and invested in saving someone who they believe is unsaved. I haven't shown you anything but openness and a listening ear, and all you would want to do is judge me instead of understanding me and trying to save me from that doom which you believe where I will be sent. This is anything but being a good steward of the time that God has given you. Why even bother? This is absolutely unproductive and pointless.
OneTruthFinder 5 months ago
@sorens70601 I suppose, to you, because I've come professing love and kindness to you that I'm a wolf in sheep's clothing, according to Matt 7:15? Let's reverse that for a moment: You've professed no love or kindness, yet you believe you have the truth whereas I supposedly am spreading lies... Hmm, so that must make you a sheep in wolf's clothing then.
OneTruthFinder 5 months ago
@sorens70601 Again, I can't help but notice your hardened heart when you talk to me. You're convincing no one but yourself when you call my position false because of it's a "stupid conclusion". You make this claim completely unsupported, as well as your claim that we all understand "didly squat". *sigh* I have noticed Dan 7:13. Please read it in its context, rather than singling it out... Read the first result on Google for "What Is the Significance of "Son of God"", that'll explain it for you.
OneTruthFinder 5 months ago
Matthew 24:37; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1; 2:8; James 5:7 and following; 2 Peter 3:4.)
It must be pointed out that in addition to the physical second coming of Christ, parousia is employed for the presence of Jesus in judgment upon the nation of Israel: See for instance Matthew 24:3, 27. in its application here we should consider the definition of parousia as given by James Strong: “a being near, a key advance (often: return; specifically
Jesucristoestodo 6 months ago
Matthew 24:37; 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1; 2:8; James 5:7 and following; 2 Peter 3:4.)
It must be pointed out that in addition to the physical second coming of Christ, parousia is employed for the presence of Jesus in judgment upon the nation of Israel: See for instance Matthew 24:3, 27. in its application here we should consider the definition of parousia as given by James Strong: “a being near, a key advance (often: return; specifically
Jesucristoestodo 6 months ago
PAROUSIA The word “prousia” (Strong’s #NT3952) is broken down thusly: the prefix “par” means: with or presence; the stem word ousia means: being. Therefore, the presence of one coming; hence the coming, arrival, advance (Joseph Henry Thayer). The word is used in the New Testament especially for the second advent of Christ. (Jesus the Messiah’s future, visible, returned from heaven to raise the dead, hold the final judgment, and formally set up the glorious kingdom of God: Matthew 24:37; 1 Co
Jesucristoestodo 6 months ago
The Scripture indicates the physical return of Jesus with the use of the Greek word “parousia.” however, by far, the most common word for the coming of Christ is “erchomai.” The word “erchomai” does not limit itself to a physical return (or coming), but may imply an invisible spiritual coming - depending on its context.
This twenty-second chapter on Kingdom Theology will focus on thesecond coming of Jesus; especially how these two words (i.e. parousiaand erchomai) should shape our understanding
Jesucristoestodo 6 months ago
your words "..the "receiver" of that power. The Father is the "sender" of Jesus, and Jesus is the one "sent". THEN YOUR LOGIC WOULD DICTATE THIS--->>>>>>JOHN 1:6 MUST MEAN THAT JOHN WAS ALSO WITH YOUR TRI-UNE god IN SOME TYPE OF ETERNITY?? WHY?? he to was sent by God...Next you will tell me that Jesus is LITERALLY SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER--->>> IF YOU DO GET READY!!!
Jesucristoestodo 6 months ago