Do We Believe in "Three Gods" as the Rabbis Claim?!

[dwight92070]

The same can be said about you.




See above.

I'll admit that I have been guilty of that at times, but please explain how I am doing that here. Have you ever done that? I do not believe the accusation that the article puts on the Oneness doctrine - i.e. "that Jesus is His own Father". Undoubtedly, they would say the same of my belief, but that is NOT stated in the Bible at all, so they are factoring an unBiblical idea into their conclusion that Oneness is false. It may be false, but NOT because of that unBiblical statement.

 

[Fred]

I'll admit that I have been guilty of that at times, but please explain how I am doing that here. Have you ever done that?

Unless the Bible is quoted verbatim then every person here is using the word's of men (people, humanity, etc.).

I do not believe the accusation that the article puts on the Oneness doctrine - i.e. "that Jesus is His own Father".

I do.

"so clearly from the OT JESUS is the Father..."

"the same one person"

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/jesus-and-the-father-are-the-same-person.1358/#post-54512

this is the Lord Jesus in Amalgamation of the Spirit/Father/First and the Flesh/Son/Last, the same one Person.

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/jesus-and-the-father-are-the-same-person.1358/#post-54535

See also here:

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/fundamentals-of-the-christian-faith.1489/page-4#post-67444

 

[dwight92070]

They are not each other for plural pronouns are used in description of God.

Where in the Bible do you see that? If you're referring to "Let US make man in OUR image" and "Let US go down and confuse their language", yes, plural pronouns are used, but neither of these passages are describing God. They ARE giving us a clue or hint, however, that He is more than one Person.
Also, I'm sure you know that the Bible has a gazillion verses where God is referred to using a singular pronoun. And a ton of verses where He refers to Himself using a singular pronoun.

 

[Fred]

Where in the Bible do you see that?

John 14:23
Jesus is not the Father.

If you're referring to "Let US make man in OUR image" and "Let US go down and confuse their language", yes, plural pronouns are used, but neither of these passages are describing God.

Then who or what is being described?

They ARE giving us a clue or hint, however, that He is more than one Person.
Also, I'm sure you know that the Bible has a gazillion verses where God is referred to using a singular pronoun.

One truth does not negate another truth.
Both are true.

And a ton of verses where He refers to Himself using a singular pronoun.

Jesus is referred to as the Son of Man many more times than He is referred to as the Son of David.
Would this mean that Him being the Son of Man would cancel out that He is also the Son of David?
No.

 

[dwight92070]

Fred -"Unless the Bible is quoted verbatim then every person here is using the word's of men (people, humanity, etc.)."

Obviously that's true but that's not what I was referring to. You're getting pretty nitpicky. Whenever a verse or passage is quoted and then an interpretation is given, which adds an idea to the original verse/passage, that is not there, then they are giving a man-made interpretation, not one based solely on the scripture. The article ADDS "Jesus is His own Father", which is not seen anywhere in scripture, yet they use that to bolster their "Biblical" interpretation. The same could be said if they subtract an idea from the scripture and then claim to have a "Biblical interpretation".

 

[Fred]

You're getting pretty nitpicky.

Because it is necessary to do so in order to avoid confusion.

Whenever a verse or passage is quoted and then an interpretation is given, which adds an idea to the original verse/passage, that is not there, then they are giving a man-made interpretation, not one based solely on the scripture. The article ADDS "Jesus is His own Father", which is not seen anywhere in scripture, yet they use that to bolster their "Biblical" interpretation.

The article I gave the link to opposes the false belief that "Jesus is His own Father."

 

[dwight92070]

John 14:23
Jesus is not the Father.

Dwight - Again this is not a description of God, but yes, plural pronouns are used. So what? Didn't I say that I believe that they ARE DISTINCT from each other? Here is one example where that is clear. Look at John 1:1 Here we see BOTH a distinction from each other AND the equal truth that they ARE each other.



Then who or what is being described?

Dwight - God is not describing Himself here. He is simple making a statement about "Us" making man in OUR image, and about "Us" going down to confuse their language.




One truth does not negate another truth.
Both are true.

Dwight - I agree. God is BOTH plural AND singular.




Jesus is referred to as the Son of Man many more times than He is referred to as the Son of David.
Would this mean that Him being the Son of Man would cancel out that He is also the Son of David?
No.

Dwight - Again, I agree. Jesus is NOT called the Father many more times than He is called the Father or equated to the Father.
Would this mean that He, not being called the Father, would cancel out the times that He is called the Father or equated to the Father?
NO

 

[dwight92070]

Because it is necessary to do so in order to avoid confusion.




The article I gave the link to opposes the false belief that "Jesus is His own Father."

Dwight - Yeah, I know that and part of their argument was to use that unBiblical phrase to ridicule Oneness saying, "This is what your belief leads to." But that's not true. Their argument does NOT lead to that, nor does mine - because the Bible nowhere says such a thing.

 

[101G]

That can be your jesus, but my Jesus is a Person.

LOL, you didn't even understand what 101G said,,,, lol, oh my. the Lord Jesus said God is a "HE" ... one person. now did the Lord Jesus lie? yes or no.

now answer that....... (smile).

101G.

 

[101G]

This current reality, is based upon a will, a consciousness... which Spoke it. And that was not God. Just as the acts of those around you reflect their kind of thinking...and desires and that is not always perfect.

the bible does not agree with you there. God the ONLY consciousness spoke this creation into existence

Consider the features of this world - that will that created it - based on causality as proposed by the Greeks... Its type of nature is based on forces.

was this before the fall of man into sin, or afterward. because God made all things "GOOD".

Nothing of this nature here (except for God's Souls) has God's signature... for it is a type of nature that is based on death (=Entropy).

101G agree, but as said, is this before or after the entrance of sin?
if you answer this all of your question will be answered.

101G.

.

 

[101G]

Sorry I asked. I need an explanation for your explanation. Actually, forget it. No offense meant, but I don't believe truth requires such a confused and complex mix of words to understand it.

(smile), but you can agree with a trinity doctrine which no one can understand, or explain?

101G.

 

[101G]

only in a certain way is that true.

ok, but your next statement is in disagreement

The son is His male attribute just as His Spirit is His female attribute. And both are IN Him and in that sense they are together, one. But each is a being.

disagree.

These are the two witnesses.

disagree again

The son represents, leads, all the soon to be restored sons of Him who fell.

not saying that you're right or wrong, but consider this, Isaiah 66:22 "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain."

101G

 

[101G]

His feminine spirit is His core of love.

His feminine spirit? ....... well WISDOM is the Spirit, (who is the Lord Jesus), but it's only in FUNCTION, and not in NATURE.

worship means to adore and to love.

yes, and reverence, praise, and also Respect..... 101G agree,

101G.

 

[Fred]

LOL, you didn't even understand what 101G said,,,, l

Because your spelling, just like your theology and grammar, is a train wreck.

 

[101G]

Because your spelling, just like your theology and grammar, is a train wreck.

101G has no problem if you want to correct the spelling..... have at it..... 101G want to to get the understanding of what he is saying about the Scriptures.

so instead of criticizing 101G's spelling, just make any necessary corrections in any misspelled words..... (smile)..... 101G give you the permission to do this..... (smile).

101G.

 

[Fred]

101G has no problem if you want to correct the spelling..... have at it..... 101G want to to get the understanding of what he is saying about the Scriptures.

Which is far too laborious to try to decipher what you are talking about.

 

[101G]

Which is far too laborious to try to decipher what you are talking about.

well at least do something constructive, because the scriptures is foreign to you in understanding.

101G.

 

[e v e]

well at least do something constructive, because the scriptures is foreign to you in understanding.

101G.

the problem is that it's corrupt...
a written down version when the OT fathers having cursed themselves, and that corruption continuing on in kjv.

 

[101G]

the problem is that it's corrupt...
a written down version when the OT fathers having cursed themselves, and that corruption continuing on in kjv.

thanks for the reply. but do you have proof of this?

101G.

 

[dwight92070]

Listening to 101G and Eve makes me feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.