United Pentecostals are not Christians

[Sold Out]

United Pentecostal Church

United Pentecostalism, or ‘Oneness Pentecostalism’ began in 1913 at a camp meeting in Arroyo Seco, CA. The Rev. R.E. McAlister was selected to preach on water baptism. That night he baptized new converts in the name of Jesus only, much to the surprise of the audience. This was the introduction of the oneness theology (Jesus Only), of Pentecostalism. Later that same night, Rev. McAlister converted evangelist Frank Ewart to his view on the oneness of God, thus denying the trinity. Later Ewart was convinced by some of his students that the only evidence of the indwelling Holy Spirit, and thus, salvation, was speaking in tongues. The movement quickly spread and now boasts more than 4-5 million members. It is the second largest non-trinitarian church in the US, behind the Mormon church..

United Pentecostals deny the biblical doctrine of the trinity, opting instead for the ‘oneness’ view that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are simply the three ‘modes’ in which God has revealed Himself to humanity. In the Old Testament, God revealed himself as the Father, in the New Testament, He revealed Himself as Jesus, and in the church age, He reveals Himself as the Holy Spirit. This particular view is called ‘modalism’. Actually, this theory originally arose in the 2nd century. Sabellius promoted that God was one numerically and denied the doctrine of the trinity. His claims were dismissed as heresy. The early church continued to formally uphold the doctrine of the trinity. No other orthodox Christian church holds a oneness view of God.

HOW TO BE SAVED IN THE UPC


PROFESSION OF FAITH: One must repent of their sins and place their faith in Jesus as their personal savior. While this appears orthodox and seems to line up with scripture, United Pentecostals do not hold a Trinitarian view of the Godhead, therefore they are placing their faith in an unscriptural belief of who Jesus is.

BAPTISM: Another requirement of salvation is baptism. After professing faith in Jesus, one must be baptized in the name of Jesus only, (baptizing in the Trinitarian formula is deemed ineffective). United Pentecostals rely on Acts 2:38 as scriptural evidence for baptismal regeneration.

SPEAKING IN TONGUES: Also a requirement for salvation. Upon profession of faith and baptism in Jesus’ name, one must speak in tongues to provide evidence of the filling of the Holy Ghost. It is viewed as outward evidence of a person’s salvation. One must continually seek to speak in tongues to ensure their salvation, since United Pentecostals believe the filling of the Holy Spirit enables them to live lives acceptable to God. According to a UPCI doctrinal statement: “The baptism of the Holy Ghost is the birth of the Spirit (John 3:5). This spiritual baptism is necessary to put someone into the kingdom of God (God's church, the bride of Christ) and is evidenced by speaking in other tongues (other languages) as the Spirit of God give utterance.”

HOLINESS & SEPARATION: United Pentecostals also hold many strict views on personal appearance and behaviors. Women and girls are not allowed to cut their hair or wear make-up. They are also not allowed to wear pants or shorts. Men are not allowed to have long hair. United Pentecostal members are also not allowed to own televisions. Their motto is ‘be in the world, not of it’. They believe their standards of holiness and separation from the world will make them more acceptable and holy before God.


According to a UPCI doctrinal statement: “Salvation consists of deliverance from all sin and unrighteousness through the blood of Jesus Christ. The New Testament experience of salvation consists of repentance from sin, water baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost, after which the Christian is to live a godly life (Acts 2:36-41).”

United Pentecostals also believe that they are the one true church and that all other churches are either apostate or un-enlightened. In their view, non-United Pentecostal Christians are either not ‘completely’ saved, or not saved at all. They believe that before the revelation of R.E. McAlister in 1913, God was merciful towards those who sought the truth, even though it was incomplete. As we know, the canon of scripture was closed in AD 96 and there are to be no new revelations.

United Pentecostalism is a works-based religion. Salvation is dependent on baptism, speaking in tongues, and good works. One must also obey all the rules of the church and adhere to standards of holiness and separation in order to be saved.

[godrulz]

UPC is a legalistic, problematic sect. Some counter-cult ministries consider them cults, while others see them as a sect with serious issues within the unbrella of biblical Christianity.

I have dealt with them over the years and find that they are very zealous and waste time trying to convert genuine believers (rebaptize in the name of Jesus only; speak in tongues, etc.). I believe many are brothers in the Lord, but they have gone beyond what the Bible teaches. They are irritating and wrong in many areas, but are passionate about God and His Word. They are deceived in many areas, but also correct in many other areas. One drop of poison in pure water can be fatal. I believe classic cults like JWs and Mormons have fatal heresy. I do not believe UPC is in this category. They are divisive and wrong, but are more of a tangent sect than a true false religion.

I believe it is possible for a Roman Catholic to be saved, though many are not. I believe it is possible to be UPC and be saved, but not necessarily so for all members. This is true of any denomination that has an essential core of truth.

Catholics and UPC strongly affirm the Deity and resurrection of Christ. If they trust Christ alone for salvation, He can save them and lead them into further truth despite the things they add to the simple gospel. Since baptism does not save anyone, groups that baptize, rebaptize, or not baptize can still be saved. Paul dealt with immature believers who were deceived or added things to their faith in Christ. It did not automatically negate their salvation, but was rebuked as heretical. Millions of believers speak in tongues, while millions do not. This is not a salvific issue. Wrongly believing that tongues is essential for salvation is serious heresy, but it is not tantamount to denying Christ or not knowing Him personally. The Trinity is not a condition for salvation. Some godly, capable scholars honestly believe the biblical evidence supports a 'oneness' view. A denial of the Deity of Christ is fatal. Not understanding the intricacies of the Trinity does not mean one does not know Christ and trust Him for salvation. JWs deny the Deity of Christ and are not saved. Mormons believe in a plurality of gods and are not saved. UPC has a high view of monotheism, the Word of God, the person and work of Christ, etc. They build too much on Acts 2:38. There is no end to Christian fads and heresies. Some of these errors put groups outside of biblical Christianity, while others join various expressions of heresies throughout the Church Age that need to be exposed, but are not necessarily a denial of Christ and His salvation (e.g. Word of Faith movement).

The Society for Pentecostal Studies is a credible body of scholars. UPC is represented as well as Classical Pentecostalism, Church of God, etc. etc. There are hundreds of Pentecostal 'denominations' with a spectrum of beliefs. They all affirm the unique person and work of Christ Jesus. This is similar to a variety of Baptists, Lutherans, Reformed, etc. Differing on style of worship or church government, modes of baptism, spiritual gifts, eschatology, etc. are not salvific issues. We should strive for doctrinal purity and unity, but the reality is that we see through a glass darkly.

I am Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, the sister organization of Assemblies of God. In our early history, we deviated for a brief time into 'oneness' heresy. I do not doubt the salvation of the leaders and people coming out of these great revivals, despite being sidetracked into error. A study of the Word and correction of the Holy Spirit returned our fellowship quickly back to a trinitarian belief. McAlister did not originate UPC. The roots go further back in church history. He also returned to a trinitarian position and renounced heresy. I believe he was as much a Christian while misled as when he returned to orthodoxy (right, OSAS people?).

http://www.wod.paoc.org/www/history.cfm



I tell the UPC zealots that they should use their time and energy showing the JWs the truth about the Deity of Christ. This is the reason they are not saved (Jn. 1:1 God vs 'a god'). Their divisive proselytizing of evangelical churches need censure, though many UPC leaders recognize that other denominations are genuinely saved, though lacking the power of God and complete understanding.

UPC is not the only denomination that believes heretical ideas while retaining a core of essential truth.

The Moravian motto is: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, diversity; in all things, charity/love. The nature of God and salvation are essentials. It is a serious heresy to deny aspects of this. We need to fully understand what UPC believes and why. I would not be quick to label them non-Christians (based on my understanding of the Word and talking to their pastors who often have a heart after God and zeal for the Word that is exceptional).

[godrulz]

http://www.upci.org/

We can judge their beliefs firsthand here. Heresy is half truth, not complete falsehood. There is a difference between a cult, false religion, and a sect. Our goal is to believe historical, biblical, orthodox Christianity. There is no end to the divisions within 'Christendom'. There are pseudo-Christian cults like JWs and Mormons. There are genuine believers who differ divisively on many areas. Let us have wisdom, discernment, and fairness as the Spirit of Truth leads us into a greater knowledge of Him who is the Way, Truth, and Life. His Word is the authoritative standard.

More on the history and wrong doctrine of UPC:

http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar75.htm

(note some of the beliefs are very orthodox).




Society for Pentecostal Studies:

http://www.sps-usa.org/

http://www.sps-usa.org/about/history.html

(SPS history might be too inclusive for some...but, note their academic purposes...they are not a Church).

[Sold Out]

Here's the thing though...can someone be saved who rejects the doctrine of the trinity?

Not only that...they believe in works salvation and baptismal regeneration. Those points alone make them non-Christian and go against the fundamentals of Christianity.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sold Out

Here's the thing though...can someone be saved who rejects the doctrine of the trinity?

Not only that...they believe in works salvation and baptismal regeneration. Those points alone make them non-Christian and go against the fundamentals of Christianity.

I concur that these are serious, problematic issues. We are saved by grace through faith in the person and work of Christ, not by theological excellence. The early church did not have a systematic understanding of the Trinity, yet they were saved.

[Sold Out]

Originally posted by godrulz

I concur that these are serious, problematic issues. We are saved by grace through faith in the person and work of Christ, not by theological excellence. The early church did not have a systematic understanding of the Trinity, yet they were saved.

But what about having knowledge of it, and willfully rejecting it?

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sold Out

But what about having knowledge of it, and willfully rejecting it?

They will be held accountable. In my discussions, they sincerely believe that the Trinity is a pagan, Catholic concept and not rooted in Scripture. They proof text (tend to use KJV only) and poorly exegete other passages. Their preconceived theology results in distorted views. Like the rest of us, they believe they are being faithful to God's Word. God will judge all of us based on our hearts, motives, and the light we have. We cannot definitively judge the hearts of those in other denominations. We can examine their beliefs in the light of Scripture and reason with them in the power and wisdom of the Spirit.

Gen. 18:25 "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

You are right to be concerned about false teaching, but we should discern wisely with those who profess to know and love the Lord Jesus Christ, the God-Man. We have to draw the line with what is salvific truth, and what is not. The Deity of Christ is essential. Modalism vs trinitarianism may or may not be essential (given the history of doctrinal development and lack of theological sophistication of many Christians...I am not dogmatic that this is essential, though I am strongly trinitarian based on the biblical evidence).

As I said, various counter-cult ministries take different stands about UPC, Seventh Day Adventist, and the now reformed World Wide Church of God (former Armstrongism that moved more to orthodoxy). JWs, Mormons, Scientology, Moonies, etc. do not have a core of salvific truth and are clearly non-Christian. Other sects may be more controversial and less clear cut.

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by godrulz
As I said, various counter-cult ministries take different stands about UPC, Seventh Day Adventist, and the now reformed World Wide Church of God (former Armstrongism that moved more to orthodoxy). JWs, Mormons, Scientology, Moonies, etc. do not have a core of salvific truth and are clearly non-Christian. Other sects may be more controversial and less clear cut.

Well if the trinity is not a 'core belief' and works as part of salvation is not a core belief. Then what is? Give us the definition of what the absolute essentials are for one to be 'outside' the umbrella of 'Traditional Christianity'.

[Sold Out]

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

Well if the trinity is not a 'core belief' and works as part of salvation is not a core belief. Then what is? Give us the definition of what the absolute essentials are for one to be 'outside' the umbrella of 'Traditional Christianity'.


Concerning the Christian faith, there are only five fundamentals to which we must all agree:

1) The verbal inspiration and authority of the Scriptures (See - II Tim 3:16 & II Pet 1: 20, 21). If the Bible is not true, then we have no proof of the Christian faith.

2) The virgin birth of CHRIST (See - Isa 7:14 & Mt 1: 20-23). If CHRIST was not virgin born, then he was a sinner like us and not able to be our perfect substitute for salvation.

3) The Triune Godhead and thus the deity of CHRIST (See - Gen 1:1, 26 & I Jn 5:7). If CHRIST is not God, then he was a liar and not able to be our sinless sacrifice for salvation.

4) The Gospel of CHRIST (i.e., His death, burial and resurrection) (See - Eph 2:8,9 & I Cor 15:1-4). If CHRIST did not die for our sins and rise again, then there is no salvation.

5) The visible, personal and premillennial Second Coming of CHRIST (See - Dan 7:13 & Acts 1:10,11). If CHRIST does not return like he said he would, then, again, he is a liar and the Bible is not true and many other promises connected with his coming cannot be fulfilled.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

Well if the trinity is not a 'core belief' and works as part of salvation is not a core belief. Then what is? Give us the definition of what the absolute essentials are for one to be 'outside' the umbrella of 'Traditional Christianity'.

It is good you are calling me to task. I do not believe UPC leaders think they teach works salvation. They do not consider water baptism and speaking in tongues 'works'. I agree, just as repentant faith is not a work. Tongues is an outflow of being saved/receiving the Spirit in their minds. I know tongues and baptism are not conditions of salvation. Their view affirms the Deity of Christ and monotheism. LDS teaching technically denies the traditional understanding of both.

So, as a start, the Deity and resurrection of Christ are core/essential as in monotheism. The Trinity and proper understanding of salvation is important. UPC is pushing the envelope of orthodoxy. Mormons are not even a contender for biblical Christianity.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sold Out

Concerning the Christian faith, there are only five fundamentals to which we must all agree:

1) The verbal inspiration and authority of the Scriptures (See - II Tim 3:16 & II Pet 1: 20, 21). If the Bible is not true, then we have no proof of the Christian faith.

2) The virgin birth of CHRIST (See - Isa 7:14 & Mt 1: 20-23). If CHRIST was not virgin born, then he was a sinner like us and not able to be our perfect substitute for salvation.

3) The Triune Godhead and thus the deity of CHRIST (See - Gen 1:1, 26 & I Jn 5:7). If CHRIST is not God, then he was a liar and not able to be our sinless sacrifice for salvation.

4) The Gospel of CHRIST (i.e., His death, burial and resurrection) (See - Eph 2:8,9 & I Cor 15:1-4). If CHRIST did not die for our sins and rise again, then there is no salvation.

5) The visible, personal and premillennial Second Coming of CHRIST (See - Dan 7:13 & Acts 1:10,11). If CHRIST does not return like he said he would, then, again, he is a liar and the Bible is not true and many other promises connected with his coming cannot be fulfilled.

Are you sure you want to make premillennialism essential (I also believe this view)? It is possible to be a or post-millennial and know and love Jesus as Lord and Savior. Eschatoloty is not salvific truth in general (pre/post trib., etc.).

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by Sold Out

Concerning the Christian faith, there are only five fundamentals to which we must all agree:

1) The verbal inspiration and authority of the Scriptures (See - II Tim 3:16 & II Pet 1: 20, 21). If the Bible is not true, then we have no proof of the Christian faith.

Which Bible? When was it put together in it's first inspired and authoritative form? Do you agree with Luther that the Bible ought not contain Revelations and the book of James?


2) The virgin birth of CHRIST (See - Isa 7:14 & Mt 1: 20-23). If CHRIST was not virgin born, then he was a sinner like us and not able to be our perfect substitute for salvation.

I agree there.


3) The Triune Godhead and thus the deity of CHRIST (See - Gen 1:1, 26 & I Jn 5:7). If CHRIST is not God, then he was a liar and not able to be our sinless sacrifice for salvation.

So the pentacostals being discused in this thread are not Christian in your mind despite godrulz objections? If this is such then how can I be sure that either you or godrulz have access and/or knowledge of what is and isn't 'core christian beliefs'?

4) The Gospel of CHRIST (i.e., His death, burial and resurrection) (See - Eph 2:8,9 & I Cor 15:1-4). If CHRIST did not die for our sins and rise again, then there is no salvation.

Amen.

5) The visible, personal and premillennial Second Coming of CHRIST (See - Dan 7:13 & Acts 1:10,11). If CHRIST does not return like he said he would, then, again, he is a liar and the Bible is not true and many other promises connected with his coming cannot be fulfilled.

Amen.

So tell me then what in the infallable Bible (whichever one you see as being THE Bible) delineates these above items as being more key, or the key/core, portions requisite for ones salvation and designation as 'Christian'???

[godrulz]

MS is looking for uniformity among followers of Christ. His authoritative church and leadership does not make room for any deviation from the accepted LDS teaching. Doctrinal disputes were seen in the early church and continue today. Our fellowship is in Christ and the Word. Unfortunately, few believers understand all Scriptures the same though we have tremendous unity on key doctrines. Even LDS scholars through the years have not agreed on everything. Some have been disfellowshipped for not towing the party line.

I am a brother in Christ to Sold Out. I cannot say the same thing about MS. I am sure this is hard for MS to understand. True Christians have diversity within unity. Cults (no offense, just an observation) require uniformity and centralized authority to maintain this uniformity.

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by godrulz

It is good you are calling me to task. I do not believe UPC leaders think they teach works salvation. They do not consider water baptism and speaking in tongues 'works'. I agree, just as repentant faith is not a work. Tongues is an outflow of being saved/receiving the Spirit in their minds. I know tongues and baptism are not conditions of salvation. Their view affirms the Deity of Christ and monotheism. LDS teaching technically denies the traditional understanding of both.

Define then "work(s)" as I'm now quite beside myself trying to discern what definition or whatever it is you're using as a definition.

So, as a start, the Deity and resurrection of Christ are core/essential as in monotheism.

That's hardly a definative statement of 'core beliefs. Could you stop trying to dodge the question. There's your start. Now where's the end and all in between?

With regard to monotheism it seems your pentacostal friends disagree with you on YOUR monotheism. Yet you AND they are still 'Christian'? If you can't even decide on the trinity how will you ever decide onn what is and isn't mono or polytheism? If you can see the trinity as monotheism then why is the idea that we all become one in Christ just AS he is one in the Father as being sufficient to ban Latter-Day Saints from what you term to be 'Christianity'?


The Trinity and proper understanding of salvation is important.

Nice try at evasion.

You say they are important. I get that. The question is, are they 'core' beliefs? Your implicit response in your acceptance of these pentacostals gives me the feeling that your answer is no. Which being in direct disagrement with Sold Out is making my case that none of you really know what is and isn't 'core' to being Christian.

UPC is pushing the envelope of orthodoxy. Mormons are not even a contender for biblical Christianity.

According to UPC you are not a contender for Monotheism. So which side of "Christianity" is one to believe? Especialy when you assert that you and they and Sold Out are all a part of it. How is it that 'rulz manages to trump these others, and on 'core' requisits to boot?

[godrulz]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mustard Seed

MS: Define then "work(s)" as I'm now quite beside myself trying to discern what definition or whatever it is you're using as a definition.

Rulz: Paul established that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ and His finished work alone. He dealt with the Galatian heresy that tried to make salvation contingent on faith + good works or law keeping. Works can be many self-righteous attempts to earn salvation. Faith is not a work. Love is not a work. Baptism is a step of obedience subsequent to salvation. Prayer is not a meritorious work. Spiritual gifts are an outflow of the Spirit's work in our lives. They are not fleshly works.


MS: That's hardly a definative statement of 'core beliefs. Could you stop trying to dodge the question. There's your start. Now where's the end and all in between?

Rulz: I answered your question about core beliefs many moons ago on other threads. You have a root issue that a list of core beliefs will not satisfy nor persuade you. Your indoctrination cannot wrap itself around the fact that godly, capable believers can disagree on biblical interpretation and still retain salvation and relationship with God.

MS: With regard to monotheism it seems your pentacostal friends disagree with you on YOUR monotheism. Yet you AND they are still 'Christian'? If you can't even decide on the trinity how will you ever decide onn what is and isn't mono or polytheism? If you can see the trinity as monotheism then why is the idea that we all become one in Christ just AS he is one in the Father as being sufficient to ban Latter-Day Saints from what you term to be 'Christianity'?

Rulz: JWS and UPC wrongly assume that the Trinity is polytheistic. The JWs even put statues of 3 headed gods on the cover of their magazines. This is a straw man caricature of the Trinity and merely shows their ignorance of the orthodox teaching and the biblical evidence for it. UPC and other Christian denominations are strictly monotheistic. Pentecostal, not Pentacostal. We affirm the Deity of Christ. The Trinity is a compound unity and should not be confused with LDS tritheism. Not understanding the Trinity does not handicap one from understanding the difference between mono vs polytheism (BELIEF in one true God vs belief in many gods= simple, huh?). The unity of believers is not identical to the unity of the Godhead. Ours is relational; God's triunity is relational and metaphysical. Joseph Smith's plurality of gods is extra/contrabiblical. We also affirm the unity of believers. This is ecclesiology/soteriology, not theology of God proper.




MS: You say they are important. I get that. The question is, are they 'core' beliefs? Your implicit response in your acceptance of these pentacostals gives me the feeling that your answer is no. Which being in direct disagrement with Sold Out is making my case that none of you really know what is and isn't 'core' to being Christian.

Rulz: Sold Out and I agree more than we disagree. Whether UPC is Christian or not is controversial. Few evangelicals believe JWs and Mormons are Christian.

MS: According to UPC you are not a contender for Monotheism. So which side of "Christianity" is one to believe? Especialy when you assert that you and they and Sold Out are all a part of it. How is it that 'rulz manages to trump these others, and on 'core' requisits to boot?

Rulz: UPC is wrong and unbiblical on this point. They attack a straw man caricature of the Trinity and are heretical in accepting Sabellianism/modalism/oneness (just as JWs are modern Arians and Mormons are modern polytheists). I think my evaluation of UPC is more balanced than Sold Out. Regardless, it is not a salvific issue for us, but may or may not be for UPC people.

With all the other threads on Mormonism, why distract from the spotlight on UPC?

Do you believe UPC people are heaven bound and saved?

[keypurr]

Sold out quote: Here's the thing though...can someone be saved who rejects the doctrine of the trinity?

Yes, I am. The trinity doctrine is false. There is not equality between GOD the father and his son the LORD Jesus Christ. Christ did the work of his father and has been elevated to a position over all, EXCEPT the father. The Bible does not support the trinity doctrine as you know it.

One can believe that Jesus is the Christ, God's son and not believe in the trinity.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by keypurr

One can believe that Jesus is the Christ, God's son and not believe in the trinity.

Muslims, JWs, Mormons, etc.

One can believe what they want, but sincerity does not create truth. Denying the equality of the Son is tantamount to denying the Father (Jn. 14:9).

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

Denying the equality of the Son is tantamount to denying the Father (Jn. 14:9).

:thumb:

[keypurr]

That is a distorsion of truth my friend. Get out of the pit of tradition and see that the Father is over all, not equal to, but over all. He gave the power to his son, not the son given power to him. The father sends the spirit in Jesus name, but it comes from the father. I am a firm beliver that Jesus Christ has come from God to show us the way. He has been GIVEN all power from the FATHER who he says is greater. As a matter of fact, Jesus call him God.

Ephesians 1
1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: 2Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: .....

At his assention he said "I go to MY GOD and your God"

[godrulz]

Originally posted by keypurr

That is a distorsion of truth my friend. Get out of the pit of tradition and see that the Father is over all, not equal to, but over all. He gave the power to his son, not the son given power to him. The father sends the spirit in Jesus name, but it comes from the father. I am a firm beliver that Jesus Christ has come from God to show us the way. He has been GIVEN all power from the FATHER who he says is greater. As a matter of fact, Jesus call him God.

Ephesians 1
1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: 2Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: .....

At his assention he said "I go to MY GOD and your God"

I have shared alternate understanding of the last verse on other threads. Eph. 1 is not problematic for Trinitarians.

[keypurr]

My friend, we have been down this road before. It is ok to think different from me. But I think you are wrong. You seem to spend more time reading church books than the Bible. You knowledge is heavy but slanted to tradition. I know you love God, but i don't think you understand him as I do.
Yours in Christ

[godrulz]

Originally posted by keypurr

My friend, we have been down this road before. It is ok to think different from me. But I think you are wrong. You seem to spend more time reading church books than the Bible. You knowledge is heavy but slanted to tradition. I know you love God, but i don't think you understand him as I do.
Yours in Christ

How does everybody know what I do or do not do at home? How do people know what I read or how much? Is there a hidden camera somewhere?:shocked:

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by godrulz

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mustard Seed
Paul established that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ and His finished work alone. He dealt with the Galatian heresy that tried to make salvation contingent on faith + good works or law keeping. Works can be many self-righteous attempts to earn salvation. Faith is not a work. Love is not a work. Baptism is a step of obedience subsequent to salvation. Prayer is not a meritorious work. Spiritual gifts are an outflow of the Spirit's work in our lives. They are not fleshly works.

Water baptism seems to involve flesh. Or do the UPC do it some miraculous way?

MS: That's hardly a definative statement of 'core beliefs. Could you stop trying to dodge the question. There's your start. Now where's the end and all in between?

Rulz: I answered your question about core beliefs many moons ago on other threads. You have a root issue that a list of core beliefs will not satisfy nor persuade you. Your indoctrination cannot wrap itself around the fact that godly, capable believers can disagree on biblical interpretation and still retain salvation and relationship with God.

I'm calling you on this because I don't believe you have. If you have then point me to a specific post or restate it. Otherwise my accusation that you are dodging the question stands.


MS: With regard to monotheism it seems your pentacostal friends disagree with you on YOUR monotheism. Yet you AND they are still 'Christian'? If you can't even decide on the trinity how will you ever decide onn what is and isn't mono or polytheism? If you can see the trinity as monotheism then why is the idea that we all become one in Christ just AS he is one in the Father as being sufficient to ban Latter-Day Saints from what you term to be 'Christianity'?

Rulz: JWS and UPC wrongly assume that the Trinity is polytheistic. The JWs even put statues of 3 headed gods on the cover of their magazines. This is a straw man caricature of the Trinity and merely shows their ignorance of the orthodox teaching and the biblical evidence for it. UPC and other Christian denominations are strictly monotheistic. Pentecostal, not Pentacostal. We affirm the Deity of Christ. The Trinity is a compound unity and should not be confused with LDS tritheism. Not understanding the Trinity does not handicap one from understanding the difference between mono vs polytheism (BELIEF in one true God vs belief in many gods= simple, huh?).

So you believe that those accusing you of polytheism are just as saved as you are? Making alot of sense here.

The unity of believers is not identical to the unity of the Godhead.

That's not what Christ prayed for concerning the twelve. He prayed that they would be one in Him as he was one with the Father.

MS: You say they are important. I get that. The question is, are they 'core' beliefs? Your implicit response in your acceptance of these pentacostals gives me the feeling that your answer is no. Which being in direct disagrement with Sold Out is making my case that none of you really know what is and isn't 'core' to being Christian.

Rulz: Sold Out and I agree more than we disagree.

That's beside the point. Volume is not generaly an indicator of adherence to what are seen as core beliefs. Either you agree on core beliefs or you do not share the same core beliefs. It's that simple. And if 'core beliefs' of Christianity are realy core then to disagree on them means someones not there.

MS: According to UPC you are not a contender for Monotheism. So which side of "Christianity" is one to believe? Especialy when you assert that you and they and Sold Out are all a part of it. How is it that 'rulz manages to trump these others, and on 'core' requisits to boot?

Rulz: UPC is wrong and unbiblical on this point. They attack a straw man caricature of the Trinity and are heretical in accepting Sabellianism/modalism/oneness (just as JWs are modern Arians and Mormons are modern polytheists). I think my evaluation of UPC is more balanced than Sold Out. Regardless, it is not a salvific issue for us, but may or may not be for UPC people.

A house divided...

With all the other threads on Mormonism, why distract from the spotlight on UPC?

Contrast and comparison is not intrinsicaly taking the spotlight away. If I shed a new perspective on the realtionship between your beliefs and those of UPC what's wrong with that?

Do you believe UPC people are heaven bound and saved?

Everyone is saved to one degree or another. All will receive a resurected body and a glory proportional to the good they've done here. Do you realy want me to elaborate my views on the afterlife here?

[Sold Out]

Originally posted by Mustard Seed
Everyone is saved to one degree or another. All will receive a resurected body and a glory proportional to the good they've done here. Do you realy want me to elaborate my views on the afterlife here?

That's a dangerous view my friend. Jesus himself said Matthew 7:21, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

What is the will of the Father? John 6:29, " Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

And finally Matthew 7:14, "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

How does everybody know what I do or do not do at home? How do people know what I read or how much? Is there a hidden camera somewhere? Just so you know, we will deny that we had anything to do with any hidden cameras in case you should happen to find one. Oh, and by the way, invest in a treadmill or something dude... geesh! :freak:

[Sold Out]

Originally posted by keypurr

That is a distorsion of truth my friend. Get out of the pit of tradition and see that the Father is over all, not equal to, but over all. He gave the power to his son, not the son given power to him. The father sends the spirit in Jesus name, but it comes from the father. I am a firm beliver that Jesus Christ has come from God to show us the way. He has been GIVEN all power from the FATHER who he says is greater. As a matter of fact, Jesus call him God.

Ephesians 1
1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: 2Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: .....

At his assention he said "I go to MY GOD and your God"

Isaiah 45:21 says, "Declare what is to be, present it- let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD ? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."

I Timothy 4:10, " For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe"

IF GOD IS OUR ONLY SAVIOR, THEN JESUS MUST BE GOD!

Isaiah 43:11, "I, even I, am the LORD , and apart from me there is no savior."

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo

Just so you know, we will deny that we had anything to do with any hidden cameras in case you should happen to find one. Oh, and by the way, invest in a treadmill or something dude... geesh! :freak:

I need to trim up and get more exercise. Thx for the profound advice. Does the camera also have bugging/sound capability?

Nice avatar, BTW. Aslan, the Lion-Lamb:cool:

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

I need to trim up and get more exercise. Thx for the profound advice. Does the camera also have bugging/sound capability?

What camera? And why do you play your Barry Manilow CDs so loud?

Nice avatar, BTW. Aslan, the Lion-Lamb It's not fellowship week yet, so I don't have to respond to that!

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by Sold Out

That's a dangerous view my friend. Jesus himself said Matthew 7:21, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

What is the will of the Father? John 6:29, " Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

And finally Matthew 7:14, "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

Salvation is a process. Not just an end state. In our theology there's a difference between acheiving eternal life and dwelling in the Kingdom of Heaven with the Father and the Son and salvation. All but son's of perdition will receive salvation. Not all that receive salvation and mercy from God will receive Eternal Life and a place in the Kingdom of God.

[godrulz]

Salvation is linked with eternal life by John. If we have the Son, we have eternal life. One is either pregnant or they are not. One is either save, or they are not.

We are fully saved when we receive Christ (Jn. 1:12; 3:16). There is a subsequent working out of this salvation (Eph. 2:8-10). We are justified from past sin, freed from the power of present sin (sanctification), and will ultimately be freed in the future from the presence of sin in this world (glorification).

[Sozo]

Originally posted by godrulz

Salvation is linked with eternal life by John. If we have the Son, we have eternal life. One is either pregnant or they are not. One is either save, or they are not.

We are fully saved when we receive Christ (Jn. 1:12; 3:16).

Wonderful!! :thumb: There is a subsequent working out of this salvation (Eph. 2:8-10). Please explain what you mean by this?

Are you sure that you understand the word "saved"?

Did you know that you can not use the word unsaved when you are speaking of someone who has been saved?

It would be like calling a 2 year old unborn.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo

Wonderful!! :thumb: Please explain what you mean by this?

Are you sure that you understand the word "saved"?

Did you know that you can not use the word unsaved when you are speaking of someone who has been saved?

It would be like calling a 2 year old unborn.

Ephesians was not the best verse for this. Philippians talks about working out our salvation with fear and trembling.

I though Eph. was appropriate for Mormons who believe in faith + works. Faith is the root; works are the fruit. Because we are saved, there will be evidence of good works. We are not saved because we do good works.

Physical birth is not IDENTICAL to spiritual birth. Robert Shank (Life in the Son) cogently deals with the reason why the born/unborn analogy is a weak argument in relation to the new birth (from Scripture of course).

There is a difference chronologically between justification and future glorification at the resurrection of the dead.

[Sozo]

:rolleyes:

:nono:

If you are going to take the time to quote me, the least you could do is answer the questions.

I feel like I'm talking to Rainman :bang:

[keypurr]

godrulz quote: How does everybody know what I do or do not do at home? How do people know what I read or how much? Is there a hidden camera somewhere?
My friend, many time you have quoted from many books and history. You appear to be a very educated person. I envy your wording, not that I agree with it all. But you have shown that you know a lot about church history.

[keypurr]

From Sold Out post
Isaiah 45:21 says, "Declare what is to be, present it- let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD ? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."

I Timothy 4:10, " For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe"

IF GOD IS OUR ONLY SAVIOR, THEN JESUS MUST BE GOD!

Isaiah 43:11, "I, even I, am the LORD , and apart from me there is no savior."
----------------------------------------------------------

I believe that Christ is the LORD, therfor, it is Christ talking.

He has been doing his father's work since the begining.

To us, Christ is a God. He is the ONLY way to his Father.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by keypurr

My friend, many time you have quoted from many books and history. You appear to be a very educated person. I envy your wording, not that I agree with it all. But you have shown that you know a lot about church history.

Wisdom is more important than bits of knowledge. I am a fellow student, not 'very educated'. I have enjoyed reading and recognize that other's thoughts give insight and perspective. No one person has perfect insight due to our limitations and subjectivity.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by keypurr

From Sold Out post
Isaiah 45:21 says, "Declare what is to be, present it- let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD ? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me."

I Timothy 4:10, " For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe"

IF GOD IS OUR ONLY SAVIOR, THEN JESUS MUST BE GOD!

Isaiah 43:11, "I, even I, am the LORD , and apart from me there is no savior."
----------------------------------------------------------

I believe that Christ is the LORD, therfor, it is Christ talking.

He has been doing his father's work since the begining.

To us, Christ is a God. He is the ONLY way to his Father.

Guess what the Hebrew word for 'Lord' is here?

YHWH/Jehovah.

There is only one Savior. Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. Jesus is Jehovah. The Father is Jehovah. Jesus is not the Father.

Jesus is the one true God, equal with the Father.

He is not 'a god'. He is the God.

The Trinity is the only way to explain the revelation.

You will have to back track and say Isaiah is not referring to Christ, or you will have to admit that the one God Isaiah talks about is Jesus, making you a trinitarian, since the Father is clearly Lord, but distinct from Jesus (as you already agree).

[Sold Out]

Awesome Godrulz.....

[keypurr]

You gotta do better than that godrulz.

Jesus is not his Father (GOD)

He is LORD.

They are not equal.

[Sold Out]

Phillipians 2:5,6 " Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: "

[Mustard Seed]

More than one can have the title father. It's also possible for one to act in the name and place of one's father if the father has given a son such authority.

[keypurr]

He said "I go to MY GOD and YOUR GOD"

He said "My Father is greater than me."

He said "I came to do the will of my Father"

He said "Pray like this. Our Father......."

Paul said "Greetings from God the Father and his son the Lord Jesus Christ"

John said "Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the father's son........."

Peter said "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ".....
Notice he said the God and Father of Jesus.

Read Hebrews 5:9-10 He was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek..........A priest is not supreme God

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is ONE God and One mediator between God and Man, The MAN Jesus Christ, who gave himself.......

The scriptures cannot be understood if you hang on to one or two verses along with tradition. I look for the intent of the verses, and some support of any conclusions I make of them.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by keypurr

You gotta do better than that godrulz.

Jesus is not his Father (GOD)

He is LORD.

They are not equal.

I concur that Jesus is not the Father. You confuse the one eternal spirit/essence/substance of God/Lord with the personal distinctions within that one essence (Father, Son, Spirit).

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sold Out

Phillipians 2:5,6 " Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: "

The Word, who is God, became flesh. He did not cease to be God or equal with the Father when He took on the form of a servant:up:

[godrulz]

Originally posted by keypurr

He said "I go to MY GOD and YOUR GOD"

He said "My Father is greater than me."

He said "I came to do the will of my Father"

He said "Pray like this. Our Father......."

Paul said "Greetings from God the Father and his son the Lord Jesus Christ"

John said "Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the father's son........."

Peter said "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ".....
Notice he said the God and Father of Jesus.

Read Hebrews 5:9-10 He was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek..........A priest is not supreme God

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is ONE God and One mediator between God and Man, The MAN Jesus Christ, who gave himself.......

The scriptures cannot be understood if you hang on to one or two verses along with tradition. I look for the intent of the verses, and some support of any conclusions I make of them.

Trinitarians love and quote these verses as much as Arians who twist them as proof texts.

[keypurr]

from godrulz: The Word, who is God, became flesh. He did not cease to be God or equal with the Father when He took on the form of a servant

He did not cease to be God or equal with the Father ??????

He was never equal to the Father.

Questionable to me. I see no evidence of this in scripture.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by keypurr

He did not cease to be God or equal with the Father ??????

He was never equal to the Father.

Questionable to me. I see no evidence of this in scripture.

Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, keypurr? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father '?


"I and the Father are one."

[keypurr]

"I and the Father are one."

They are one in spirit. The spirit of the Father is in the son.

He does the will of his father. Did he not say, "Thy will be done, not mine" It is the Father who elevated Jesus to his high position.

[Ages]

Keypur,
Jesus saidJ John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Whom was the I Am that Jesus was identifing himself with?
As well believers all must have the same spirit Jesus had,
Rom 8 11. "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you " Does that make every believer the father?
Your doctrine is as shallow as the trinitarians. Go by what Jesus said of himself, and not what your denomination teaches.....

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Ages

Keypur,
Jesus saidJ John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Whom was the I Am that Jesus was identifing himself with?
As well believers all must have the same spirit Jesus had,
Rom 8 11. "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you " Does that make every believer the father?
Your doctrine is as shallow as the trinitarians. Go by what Jesus said of himself, and not what your denomination teaches.....

Let me guess...you are 'oneness'? If so, you are a modalistic Sabellian. Keypurr is an Arian. Scripture, not Constantine, affirms the triune nature of God.

[Ages]

Godrulz,
Actually I am neither sabellian nor trinitairian, because neither affirms the truth of scripture. Paul writes that unto us,(that is the church) there is ONE Lord one faith one baptism, How man Lords do trinitarians worship? Is the Father Lord? is the Son?
You are right that scripture ought to define our faith, where does scripture teach that there are 3 people or a family of gods in a god club of some sort? Trinitarians get their doctrine from Anasthisus, and the man was a dolt. While Sabellus did understand the doctrine of the Godhead I think, even his teaching is mis-applied.
Jesus said in John 4 that the Jews understood the Godhead, were the Jews trinitarian? Roman Catholics and protestants accept the trinity doctrine for the same reasons we have the theory of evolution , it's politically correct. Whom did Jesus say that he was, and what does scripture testify about Him? That is the real question.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Ages

Godrulz,
Actually I am neither sabellian nor trinitairian, because neither affirms the truth of scripture. Paul writes that unto us,(that is the church) there is ONE Lord one faith one baptism, How man Lords do trinitarians worship? Is the Father Lord? is the Son?
You are right that scripture ought to define our faith, where does scripture teach that there are 3 people or a family of gods in a god club of some sort? Trinitarians get their doctrine from Anasthisus, and the man was a dolt. While Sabellus did understand the doctrine of the Godhead I think, even his teaching is mis-applied.
Jesus said in John 4 that the Jews understood the Godhead, were the Jews trinitarian? Roman Catholics and protestants accept the trinity doctrine for the same reasons we have the theory of evolution , it's politically correct. Whom did Jesus say that he was, and what does scripture testify about Him? That is the real question.

Please clarify your understanding of the Godhead. Are you UPC, Apostolic, or what?

Trinitarians affirm that there is one God and one Lord. We worship God Almighty. He is not a solitary being, though. He is a compound unity with 3 personal distinctions within the one Godhead. The Father is called Lord, the Son is called Lord, the Spirit is Lord, yet there is only one nature/substance/spirit of God.

Herbert W. Armstrong and Joseph Smith taught a family of gods or plurality of gods. You are doing what the JWs do: they make a straw man caricature of the biblical trinity and thump their chests when they show how absurd it is. They picture the Trinity as a 3-headed god and use pagan statutes or Hinduism to prove their point. This is intellectually dishonest and shows their lack of understanding of what they claim to reject.

Jesus did not say the Jews understood the 'Godhead'. He did contrast the fact that the Jews had revelation that was more accurate than the Samaritans. As the Johannine narrative progresses, we see Jesus claiming equality with the Father. He claimed to be the one true God. The Jews went to stone Him for blasphemy and totally rejected His claims. The Jews knew about monotheism and YHWH, but they rejected the fuller, progressive revelation of the Son and Spirit. In this sense, they did not fully understand the Godhead, though they had foundational truth. The Deity of Christ and the personality of the Spirit did not contradict the monotheism of the OT. It was a complete revelation of who God is that was hinted at in the OT and expanded on in the NT. Jesus also revealed more of the nature of the Father heart of God.

Most Protestants reject evolution. Some Catholics do and some do not. Who cares about political correctness? We are interested in truth. It is not 'politically correct' to believe the Trinity. It might be easier to not believe it. Revelation is greater than reason. Trinitarians through the centuries honestly feel it is an expression of biblical truth. We can refute modalism, polytheism, and Arianism from Scripture. Church history is a factor, but our beliefs are rooted in biblical exegesis.

Other threads, such as the Deity of Christ thread, have touched on these issues.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16468&highlight=Deity+of+Christ

I assume you affirm the unique Deity of Christ and explicit monotheism. This is a good starting point.

[keypurr]

Dear Ages, I have no denomination other than the Bible as I understand it. And I think the spirit is helping me to do that.

I believe that Christ pre-exsisted before the world was created. If fact it was created THROUGH him. He is the I AM. But he has a boss, his father. Man must go through Christ to get to God (the father). I believe that Christ is the Lord God. Working for his father the supreme God. Christ is sitting at the right hand of his father. Angels bow to him, so should we. For he has been given power over all, but his father.
God Bless

[Sold Out]

Chew on this one Keypurr.....Gen 22:8 says, "God will provide Himself a lamb..." God told Abraham that HE (God) would become the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sold Out

Chew on this one Keypurr.....Gen 22:8 says, "God will provide Himself a lamb..." God told Abraham that HE (God) would become the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.

This shadow/type could fit a trinitarian or Arian view. The lamb in Genesis was not God. I do not think it is explicit that God would become the Lamb from Genesis. I do believe it is consistent with NT revelation though.

[keypurr]

After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: 'Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.' Revelation 7:9-10 NIV

Christ is the Lamb of God

[Sozo]

Originally posted by keypurr

After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: 'Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.' Revelation 7:9-10 NIV

Christ is the Lamb of God That is a good point, keypurr!

There is no question that the flesh of Christ Jesus did not pre-exist, but who is in Christ?

Are you discounting that Jesus is God, or that Jesus is not the Father?

[keypurr]

Sozo, I believe that God is the Father, and his son is Lord God. Appointed by the Father. To us Christ is "A" God, but his Father is HIS God. I don't know if that will make any sense to you, but that is my belief.

Keep in mind that Christ was SENT by his Father, He did his Father's work, And he was appointed by his Father over ALL but the Father.

Unlike godrulz, I see no equality in the "Godhead", if that is what you wish to call it. I see the spirit coming from the Father through Christ.

It is the Father Christ told us to worship.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by keypurr

Sozo, I believe that God is the Father, and his son is Lord God. Appointed by the Father. To us Christ is "A" God, but his Father is HIS God. I don't know if that will make any sense to you, but that is my belief.

Keep in mind that Christ was SENT by his Father, He did his Father's work, And he was appointed by his Father over ALL but the Father.

Unlike godrulz, I see no equality in the "Godhead", if that is what you wish to call it. I see the spirit coming from the Father through Christ.

It is the Father Christ told us to worship.

Heresy alert: Arianism and polytheism vs Triune/Deity and monotheism.

[Ages]

keypur, I respectfully suggest that you didn't actually answer my question, Whom was Jesus identfying himself with? If we are talking about whom God is, we need to go to places where he is identifying himself.
Godrulz, I believe as well that God has distinguished himself 3 ways to mankind, but as different people? You say this is a strawman, but my friend, when you say you believe in 3 persons in a godhead, it's not a strawman, a people is a person. God isn't a club he's a singular individual.
And of course the "3 persons of a godhead"is the classic definition of the "trinity.
And when Jesus told the samaritian woman, "We know what we worship"....to say that the Jews really didn't simply is contradicting Christ's plain words. You don't explain, your expaining away the sense of his statement. That's the trouble with trinitarian thinking, You explain away what ought to be plain language.
When Jesus said "If you've seen me you've seen the Father, how much more plain could he have been? The trinity dogma just isn't something you could get from a cold reading of the NT, nor the old, it's part of the RC church, which is of course the first denomination. It's one of the reasons "oneness pentecostals"don't think trinitarians are saved at all.
I didn't for a long time untill I realized that layman do understand whom they worship (by and large), they just have bad termonology, the failure lies in the clergy to properly teach the word.
By the By, from what I've read from Eusebius's ecclesiastical history Arius said that there was a time when the man Jesus was not( in which he was correct of course) which would make him "oneness" wouldn't it?

[godrulz]

Arius believed Christ was a creature. Modalism says that He is uncreated Creator. He preexisted from eternity. He did not have a beginning as Arians would teach.

"Persons" is not perfect terminology. We tend to confuse it with solitary human persons. The key is to differentiate the one essence/substance/nature of the one God, from the personal distinctions within the one God who share the one nature of God.

[keypurr]

Ages quote: keypur, I respectfully suggest that you didn't actually answer my question, Whom was Jesus identfying himself with?
He said he came to do the will of his Father, so I think he identfied himself with his Father. Which he said was HIS GOD. I also think that his FATHER elevated him to the highest position in heaven next to him. He was appointed above all. Does that make him a God? Yes in my book, however he is still in subjection to his Father.

I am sorry I didn't answer it sooner, I have a hard time keeping up with life sometimes.

[Ages]

Keypurr, in the scripture I gave you, he was identfying himself with the Great" I AM," of the Old Testement, go back and read Ex 3 with Jn 8. and then compare the first chapter of Jn with Jn 14, I think your on the right track, but you need to take all the scriptures that testify to whom Christ was. And I know all about the time thing......boy do I ever!
Godrulz, my point was that you shouldn't try to define someone else's theology by what their opponets say they mean. Arius maintained that Jesus was the only begotten son of God, while Anasthius maintained Jesus was the eternal son of God. Despite whose side your on it's pretty easy to see whose side was more scriptural.
And of course if "person" isn't what is meant you shouldn't use the term. Person being defined as a seperate individual, with a seperate and distinct will and intellect or put theologically with a seperate body soul and spirit.
My whole point here is not really to argue the godhead but only to point out that you can study and believe scripture with out all the logical absurdies that keep croping up in trinitarian dogma. Your treatement of Jn 4 is a near classic example. You nearly call Jesus a liar, (which of course you do not mean nor would imply) simply because what He said contradicts standard trinitairan theology. If you'd try to explain Jn 14, you'd have the same problem, where Jesus said if you'd seen me you've seen the father, ect. Aren't we as christians obligated to get our doctrine from scripture, rather than justifying our theology by scripture?
Rationalizing scriptureto fit doctrine is just a bad idea.

[Sold Out]

Originally posted by keypurr

He said he came to do the will of his Father, so I think he identfied himself with his Father. Which he said was HIS GOD. I also think that his FATHER elevated him to the highest position in heaven next to him. He was appointed above all. Does that make him a God? Yes in my book, however he is still in subjection to his Father.

I am sorry I didn't answer it sooner, I have a hard time keeping up with life sometimes.

Jesus voluntarily left eternity and entered time in human body, in which He had human limitations, as we all do. This in no way invalidates the fact that He is God. The creator became the creation to atone for their sins.

You are correct that Jesus is in subjection to the Father, but he did not empty Himself of His deity. Jesus is paying an eternal price for our salvation by being subject (ranking Himself under) God the Father for all eternity. That should speak of how great His love is for us!!!

When Jesus referred to God the Father as 'my Father', he was in fact equating Himself with God, which is why the Jews sought to kill him.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by godrulz

Arius believed Christ was a creature. Part of the difficulty arises from biblical references to the Christ as the "firstborn of every creature" (Col. 1:15). Such terminology clouds the issue of the actual nature of the messiah. It could be reasonable to interpret that as saying that the messiah was a "creature"...

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Ages

Keypurr, in the scripture I gave you, he was identfying himself with the Great" I AM," of the Old Testement, go back and read Ex 3 with Jn 8. and then compare the first chapter of Jn with Jn 14, I think your on the right track, but you need to take all the scriptures that testify to whom Christ was. And I know all about the time thing......boy do I ever!
Godrulz, my point was that you shouldn't try to define someone else's theology by what their opponets say they mean. Arius maintained that Jesus was the only begotten son of God, while Anasthius maintained Jesus was the eternal son of God. Despite whose side your on it's pretty easy to see whose side was more scriptural.
And of course if "person" isn't what is meant you shouldn't use the term. Person being defined as a seperate individual, with a seperate and distinct will and intellect or put theologically with a seperate body soul and spirit.
My whole point here is not really to argue the godhead but only to point out that you can study and believe scripture with out all the logical absurdies that keep croping up in trinitarian dogma. Your treatement of Jn 4 is a near classic example. You nearly call Jesus a liar, (which of course you do not mean nor would imply) simply because what He said contradicts standard trinitairan theology. If you'd try to explain Jn 14, you'd have the same problem, where Jesus said if you'd seen me you've seen the father, ect. Aren't we as christians obligated to get our doctrine from scripture, rather than justifying our theology by scripture?
Rationalizing scriptureto fit doctrine is just a bad idea.

The personal distinctions in the Godhead are not physical persons. They are divine 'persons' so we have to guard against rationalizing their nature based on human reference points.

The Father is clearly distinct from the Son and Spirit. The Spirit is personal (personal pronouns, etc.). The Son prayed to the Father. He did not pray to Himself. The Father spoke from heaven while the Son was on earth. This was not ventriloquism. The Son referred to the Father's will in addition to His own will (not my will, but thy will be done). The Father did not incarnate, die, and rise from the dead. Modalists have to rationalize far more than trinitarians. They take the personal attributes of the Father, Son, Spirit and reduce them to impersonal 'offices' or modes. This is a serious error. We are to honor the Son JUST as we honor the Father. In Revelation, the Lion-Lamb is at the right hand of the Father. This is not an illusion, but a revelation of reality. Jesus sent ANOTHER Comforter/Paraclete (of the same kind as Himself) in the Holy Spirit. The Father, Son, Spirit are each said to create, redeem, etc.

Mt. 28:18-20; 2 Cor. 13:14 reflects the distinctions.

The beauty of the triune God is that love, fellowship, relationship, communication existed from all eternity. God was not a lonely, solitary being until He created angels and man in recent history.

There is only one spirit of God (nature, substance).

The Father is called God; the Son is called God; the Holy Spirit is called God.

The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Spirit; the Spirit is not the Father. Each is shown to be personal with will, intellect, and emotions.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Zakath

Part of the difficulty arises from biblical references to the Christ as the "firstborn of every creature" (Col. 1:15). Such terminology clouds the issue of the actual nature of the messiah. It could be reasonable to interpret that as saying that the messiah was a "creature"...

Classic Arian proof text that is resolved with a word study.

'first born' (prototokos sp?) refers to preeminent. Its use did not indicate the one born first or even the idea of birth (see OT LXX).

The context is that Christ is preeminent over creation, because He is the Creator. All things were created by Him. JWs (Arians) add the word 'other' (not in Gk.) over and over in Col. 1 to make it look like Christ could also be a creature.

Another word would be used to indicate he was first created (ktisis sp?;; gennao, etc.).

Rev. 3:14 is another one of a half dozen texts used. Again, beginning or creation is better translated as 'ruler' of the creation of God (see other uses of arche...root word for architect). He is the architect of God's creation, not the first one created.

[Ages]

Gordrulz you write "The personal distinctions in the Godhead are not physical persons. They are divine 'persons' so we have to guard against rationalizing their nature based on human reference points."..............
... Actually since we are made in the image of God we do have a one to one comparison to deal with, you simply can't acknowledge it bcause it conflicts with your theology
Again you write "The Father is clearly distinct from the Son and Spirit. The Spirit is personal (personal pronouns, etc.). The Son prayed to the Father. He did not pray to Himself. The Father spoke from heaven while the Son was on earth. This was not ventriloquism. The Son referred to the Father's will in addition to His own will (not my will, but thy will be done). The Father did not incarnate, die, and rise from the dead. Modalists have to rationalize far more than trinitarians. They take the personal attributes of the Father, Son, Spirit and reduce them to impersonal 'offices' or modes. This is a serious error. We are to honor the Son JUST as we honor the Father. In Revelation, the Lion-Lamb is at the right hand of the Father. This is not an illusion, but a revelation of reality. Jesus sent ANOTHER Comforter/Paraclete (of the same kind as Himself) in the Holy Spirit. The Father, Son, Spirit are each said to create, redeem, etc.".............
And if Jesus were a "little god" or a" third of God" as your trying to imply you don't see a problem with him praying to the father in the garden? Why would he need to pray at all? Your language is again contradictory, there is either 1 or 3, people, the bible isn't unclear on the subject why are you? Again logical absurdites. Understand this.
............Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. .....Was God being vague here or ambigious? The father didn't screw up on this planet and send his kid down to fix the mess, is that really what you understand about the character of God? If in the natural, a man commited a crime, and allowed his son to go to jail in his stead, what would you think of that man's character? Is this what you've learned of God?
In answer to your question tho, Jesus prayed for the same reason you and I do, communication. Jesus was indeed the father, but not all of what the father was ( ie the Eternal self-existing spiri tproceeding throughout the universe,) and as a man, was subject to all the limitations and weaknesses you and I are. as the scripture makes very clear...................
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil ........ and as well was a perfect example or template for what our lives are intended to become.
He became not only our kinsmen redeemer, but proved what he asked of man in the law was possible. He didn't duck responsibility for his creation he took the most radical step possible, be became man....

.You write.... Mt. 28:18-20; 2 Cor. 13:14 reflects the distinctions.
"The beauty of the triune God is that love, fellowship, relationship, communication existed from all eternity. God was not a lonely, solitary being until He created angels and man in recent history.

There is only one spirit of God (nature, substance).

The Father is called God; the Son is called God; the Holy Spirit is called God.

The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Spirit; the Spirit is not the Father. Each is shown to be personal with will, intellect, and emotions."........

......Again this is simply classic trinitarian dogma without foundation in scriputre. In Matt 28, What is the name of the father son and holy ghost, and were you baptized in it? You'll notice that Jesus said name not names, which pretty much proves my case.
IN 2 Cor 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen .
You can actually claim this is a proof text for the trinity? Do you understand that the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Ghost are used interchangablly through out the New Testement? This is another classic example of logical absurdity the trinitarian dogma is so steeped in.

[Zakath]

Classic Arian proof text that is resolved with a word study.

'first born' (prototokos sp?) refers to preeminent. Its use did not indicate the one born first or even the idea of birth (see OT LXX).Do you honestly think posters here cannot read? :doh:

Unfortunately, a quick look at any greek NT shows your assertion is incorrect.

prototokos is used in Luke 2:7 "... she brought forth her firstborn son..." (... tikto autos prototokos huios...) where it describes both a birth of a human (a creature) and a birth order...

:rolleyes:

[godrulz]

Gordrulz you write "The personal distinctions in the Godhead are not physical persons. They are divine 'persons' so we have to guard against rationalizing their nature based on human reference points."..............
... Actually since we are made in the image of God we do have a one to one comparison to deal with, you simply can't acknowledge it bcause it conflicts with your theology
Again you write "The Father is clearly distinct from the Son and Spirit. The Spirit is personal (personal pronouns, etc.). The Son prayed to the Father. He did not pray to Himself. The Father spoke from heaven while the Son was on earth. This was not ventriloquism. The Son referred to the Father's will in addition to His own will (not my will, but thy will be done). The Father did not incarnate, die, and rise from the dead. Modalists have to rationalize far more than trinitarians. They take the personal attributes of the Father, Son, Spirit and reduce them to impersonal 'offices' or modes. This is a serious error. We are to honor the Son JUST as we honor the Father. In Revelation, the Lion-Lamb is at the right hand of the Father. This is not an illusion, but a revelation of reality. Jesus sent ANOTHER Comforter/Paraclete (of the same kind as Himself) in the Holy Spirit. The Father, Son, Spirit are each said to create, redeem, etc.".............
And if Jesus were a "little god" or a" third of God" as your trying to imply you don't see a problem with him praying to the father in the garden? Why would he need to pray at all? Your language is again contradictory, there is either 1 or 3, people, the bible isn't unclear on the subject why are you? Again logical absurdites. Understand this.
............Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. .....Was God being vague here or ambigious? The father didn't screw up on this planet and send his kid down to fix the mess, is that really what you understand about the character of God? If in the natural, a man commited a crime, and allowed his son to go to jail in his stead, what would you think of that man's character? Is this what you've learned of God?
In answer to your question tho, Jesus prayed for the same reason you and I do, communication. Jesus was indeed the father, but not all of what the father was ( ie the Eternal self-existing spiri tproceeding throughout the universe,) and as a man, was subject to all the limitations and weaknesses you and I are. as the scripture makes very clear...................
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil ........ and as well was a perfect example or template for what our lives are intended to become.
He became not only our kinsmen redeemer, but proved what he asked of man in the law was possible. He didn't duck responsibility for his creation he took the most radical step possible, be became man....

.

We are in the moral, spiritual, and personal image of God. We have will, intellect, and emotions. The Father, Son, Spirit each are shown to have will, intellect, emotions. We are not in the metaphysical image of God. He is uncreated, eternal Spirit. We are finite beings with a beginning. We have a spiritual dimension that is God conscious, but it is not uncreated. We also have physical bodies, unlike God (except the Word incarnating). The divine personal distinctions share some attributes of a personal being with us (will, intellect, emotions). What I meant was that they are not identical to limited, physical, personal beings like man. So, the interaction of the Father, Son, Spirit within the ONE spirit nature/essence/substance of God should not be confused with thinking they are 3 finite, physical 'persons'. The early Fathers reminded us not to confound the substance and 'persons' of God (homoousia, etc.).

Your terminology of 'little god' or a 'third of God' shows you are rejecting a straw man caricature of the triune nature of God. This is classic JW misrepresentation. A little god would be polytheistic like Mormonism. The Bible and the Trinity are explicitly monotheistic. 1/3 of God shows you are still thinking in spatial, human analogies, rather than accepting the revelation of the nature of God. You are dividing the substance of God and confounding the personal distinctions. The early formulations of the doctrine of Trinity were in response to arising heresies such as Arianism and polytheism. The belief preceded formal creeds experientially (the early church worshipped one God, recognized Jesus was God, yet related to the person and work of the Father, Son, Spirit distinctly). Formal, philosophical grappling with the issues was fine tuned as Church history progressed in response to the attacks against orthodoxy.

Triune God= compound vs solitary unity.

There is only one God. There are not 3 gods.

Within the one essence of God are 3 personal distinctions that are co-eternal, co-essential, and co-equal. The Father, Son, Spirit are all called the one God, yet the Father, Son, Spirit are distinct in another personal sense. Revelation > reason.

[Ages]

We are in the moral, spiritual, and personal image of God. We have will, intellect, and emotions. The Father, Son, Spirit each are shown to have will, intellect, emotions. We are not in the metaphysical image of God. He is uncreated, eternal Spirit. We are finite beings with a beginning. We have a spiritual dimension that is God conscious, but it is not uncreated. We also have physical bodies, unlike God (except the Word incarnating). The divine personal distinctions share some attributes of a personal being with us (will, intellect, emotions). What I meant was that they are not identical to limited, physical, personal beings like man. So, the interaction of the Father, Son, Spirit within the ONE spirit nature/essence/substance of God should not be confused with thinking they are 3 finite, physical 'persons'. The early Fathers reminded us not to confound the substance and 'persons' of God (homoousia, etc.).

Your terminology of 'little god' or a 'third of God' shows you are rejecting a straw man caricature of the triune nature of God. This is classic JW misrepresentation. A little god would be polytheistic like Mormonism. The Bible and the Trinity are explicitly monotheistic. 1/3 of God shows you are still thinking in spatial, human analogies, rather than accepting the revelation of the nature of God. You are dividing the substance of God and confounding the personal distinctions. The early formulations of the doctrine of Trinity were in response to arising heresies such as Arianism and polytheism. The belief preceded formal creeds experientially (the early church worshipped one God, recognized Jesus was God, yet related to the person and work of the Father, Son, Spirit distinctly). Formal, philosophical grappling with the issues was fine tuned as Church history progressed in response to the attacks against orthodoxy.

Triune God= compound vs solitary unity.

There is only one God. There are not 3 gods.

Within the one essence of God are 3 personal distinctions that are co-eternal, co-essential, and co-equal. The Father, Son, Spirit are all called the one God, yet the Father, Son, Spirit are distinct in another personal sense. Revelation > reason.
You haven't yet shown it to be a mis-representation or a strawman. We are created in the image of God, are we created one person? Your "explanation that we aren't "really" created in His image is again simply not scripture. Your justification that it is a revelation is a strawman because I don't except the RC council of Nicea, You haven't yet been able to prove your case from scripture, and tend to duck my questions. The historical record is more than a bit ambiguious because of editing, from the RC church. but I tend to believe the main struggle was modelism vs the trinity and your side won, because they were willing to kill off the opposition which all by itself shows me I'd rather not be in their camp.
Tell me tho, you'd call Hindus polytheist because they worship the one God in 2 million or so attributes, while the trinitarians do so in only 3, (excluding the "saints of the RC of course) have you noticed the difference is only a quanitive one and not one of quality?

[godrulz]

You haven't yet shown it to be a mis-representation or a strawman. We are created in the image of God, are we created one person? Your "explanation that we aren't "really" created in His image is again simply not scripture. Your justification that it is a revelation is a strawman because I don't except the RC council of Nicea, You haven't yet been able to prove your case from scripture, and tend to duck my questions. The historical record is more than a bit ambiguious because of editing, from the RC church. but I tend to believe the main struggle was modelism vs the trinity and your side won, because they were willing to kill off the opposition which all by itself shows me I'd rather not be in their camp.
Tell me tho, you'd call Hindus polytheist because they worship the one God in 2 million or so attributes, while the trinitarians do so in only 3, (excluding the "saints of the RC of course) have you noticed the difference is only a quanitive one and not one of quality?

Hinduism is explicitly polytheistic. They worship 3 main gods among millions of gods. Polytheism is the belief in more than one true God. Henotheism is the idea that only one of millions of gods is worshipped. The Trinity is monotheistic because it believes in one true God (compound vs solitary oneness). It does not worship one God (or 3 gods) among millions of other true god. Your view is a straw man because you represent the Trinity as polytheistic or henotheistic, which it absolutely is not, by definition.

We are in the image of God, but that does not mean we are gods. We do not share His absolutes of wonder: eternal, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, uncreated, sovereign, etc. We are personal, moral, and spiritual. We are not identical to the infinite, uncreated spirit of God. He does not have to be triune, but He is, based on His self-revelation. This should not be confused with tritheism (=Mormonism). 1X1X1=1 is a better analogy than 1+1+1=3.

[godrulz]

Do you honestly think posters here cannot read? :doh:

Unfortunately, a quick look at any greek NT shows your assertion is incorrect.

prototokos is used in Luke 2:7 "... she brought forth her firstborn son..." (... tikto autos prototokos huios...) where it describes both a birth of a human (a creature) and a birth order...

:rolleyes:

"Firstborn" is a Jewish concept and can refer to the one born first with a preeminent right and responsibility. It has the idea of heir and rank. The context of Colossians is the supremacy of Christ over creation because He is the Creator, not a creature (cf. Heb. 1). A Prime Minister is preeminent, not the prime or FIRST one born in the nation. Jesus is Lord over all creation, not the first one created.

Ps. 89:27 "I will also APPOINT Him my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth." (Messianic)

Ex. 4:22,23 context determines meaning. Pharaoh's son was first born (firstborn). God also called the nation of Israel 'firstborn'. A nation is not literally born like a baby. The Jewish use of the word is the key, not your confusion between first born and firstborn (prototokos).

Jer. 31:9 "Ephraim is my firstborn son."

Really? Who was born first? Manasseh was born first (Gen. 41:51,52; 48:14). Ephraim was younger. God said Manasseh was the 'firstborn'. This was true literally and with birth right issues. God does not contradict Himself in Jeremiah, since 'firstborn' is not just about being born first (usually), but it is about preeminence which can be lost or transferred to a more worthy son.

A wooden literalism and lack of understanding of the historical roots of the word lead to wrong conclusions. In some contexts, it simply refers to the son who was born first. In other contexts, it has little to do with that, but conveys the idea of preeminence (which is also usually true with the first born son in many cultures). Context is king. Jesus was not a first creature. He is the Creator. The incarnation is another matter, where the Creator became creature in space-time history (God-Man).

[Zakath]

"Firstborn" is a Jewish concept and can refer to the one born first with a preeminent right and responsibility. It has the idea of heir and rank.The concept of firstborn is hardly unique to the Jewish people or culture.
The context of Colossians is the supremacy of Christ over creation because He is the Creator, not a creature (cf. Heb. 1).I never argued against that idea. I merely provided a text that has, over the centuries, contributed to the confusion among you Christians about the alleged nature of Jesus of Nazareth.

A wooden literalism and lack of understanding of the historical roots of the word lead to wrong conclusions. In some contexts, it simply refers to the son who was born first. In other contexts, it has little to do with that, but conveys the idea of preeminence (which is also usually true with the first born son in many cultures). Context is king. Jesus was not a first creature. He is the Creator. The incarnation is another matter, where the Creator became creature in space-time history (God-Man).And you'll find theologians throughout the centuries who have argued otherwise.The fact that it's still being aruged tends to support the idea that the concept is not as clearly delineated as you'd like to insist it is.

[godrulz]

The concept of firstborn is hardly unique to the Jewish people or culture.
I never argued against that idea. I merely provided a text that has, over the centuries, contributed to the confusion among you Christians about the alleged nature of Jesus of Nazareth.

And you'll find theologians throughout the centuries who have argued otherwise.The fact that it's still being aruged tends to support the idea that the concept is not as clearly delineated as you'd like to insist it is.

The Arian view is confined to minority non-Christian cults such as the JWs. Biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity affirms the unique Deity of Christ. No major Christian denomination through the centuries questions His Deity. Arius was condemned as a heretic, and has little theological influence today (a few million JWs vs hundreds of millions of Christians).

[Zakath]

The Arian view is confined to minority non-Christian cults such as the JWs. Biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity affirms the unique Deity of Christ. Agreed.

No major Christian denomination through the centuries questions His Deity.Well, when the established leadership of the Church declared belief in the deity of Jesus as a dogma of the Church, that kind of became a tautology, didn't it? If one cannot be a Christian without believing in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, therefore no one can question it and remain a Christian...

Arius was condemned as a heretic, and has little theological influence today (a few million JWs vs hundreds of millions of Christians).If my experience with Christianity is any indication, there's likely more Arianism skulking around the Church than you'd believe, gr.

[keypurr]

from ages: Keypurr, in the scripture I gave you, he was identfying himself with the Great" I AM," of the Old Testement, go back and read Ex 3 with Jn 8. and then compare the first chapter of Jn with Jn 14, I think your on the right track, but you need to take all the scriptures that testify to whom Christ was. And I know all about the time thing......boy do I ever!
Yes, I think he is the I AM. I will stufy the verses you mentioned and see what I get out of it.
From Sold Out:
When Jesus referred to God the Father as 'my Father', he was in fact equating Himself with God, which is why the Jews sought to kill him.
I don't buy that.

[Sold Out]

Yes, I think he is the I AM. I will stufy the verses you mentioned and see what I get out of it.

I don't buy that.

John 10:33, "We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

[keypurr]

Ages here are some of my thoughts
John 8
13The Pharisees therefore said to Him, “You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true.”
14Jesus answered and said to them, “Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from and where I am going.
He came from God and he knows he is going back to God, but the Pharisees had no clue

15You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. 16And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me.
He came from the father who sent him

25Then they said to Him, “Who are You?”
And Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning. 26I have many things to say and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I heard from Him.”
His words come from his Father

Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.”
42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me.
If you knew the Father (God) you would know him, for he came for his Father
54Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God. 55Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
He knew Abramham
58Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
Christ says he IS the I AM

John 14
9Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.
This tell us that the spirit of the Father is in Christ
. 16And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—17the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
The same spirit can be in us
19“A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. 20At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”
He who keeps his commandments (Love), will be loved by the Father
24He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.
His words are the words of his Father who sent him
25“These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
The Father will send HIS spirit in Christ name to guide us
27Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 28You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because £I said, ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I.
Rejoice, I am returning to the Father, he is GREATER than I

John 17
1Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
He glorified his Father as the only God. Christ is a messanger appointed so by his Father. He existed before all things. He finished the work that his Father gave him to do. All things were given to him.

[godrulz]

John 10:33, "We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

John, under the inspiration of the Spirit, also added commentary to explain to non-Jewish readers what was meant when Jesus made a statement. The Jews correctly understood His claims, but rejected them as blasphemy. Jesus knew who He was.

[keypurr]

The Jews never listened to their God. It is not a question of what they understood, but what Christ said.

[Sold Out]

The Jews never listened to their God. It is not a question of what they understood, but what Christ said.


Keypurr, please stop explaining away the scriptures we are showing you. Jesus claimed to be God because He is GOD. If he is not the 'I AM' of Exo 3:14, then He was a liar, because that's who He said he was.

Your theology is no different than the Muslims. They hold Jesus up in honor, but do not believe he is God.

[Mustard Seed]

Keypurr, please stop explaining away the scriptures we are showing you.

Are you really that dense? Do you know the meaning of 'debate'? To ask the above is like saying 'Please stop trying to refute my arguments. Why can't you just forsake your form of thinking without me having to counter your counter-points? Why must you try and appeal to ration or reason or logic?'

You see, Sold Out, the general idea is that you demonstrate the superiority of your position by systematic refutation of the other sides stances. If that's refuted you refute the other accusations or refutations they've leveled on your stances.

Your view on what this (the debate, that is) concists of is as funny as godrulz constant repetition of previously refuted points.

I haven't been closely following this debate, since no ones really responded to my points, so I'm not taking a side with you or keypurr. It's just I found your statement so funny and tell tale of what is going on. You may very well have the upper hand (or not) but to say something along the lines of what you've said above is NEVER going to help your cause. You can assert your belief, that's fine, but to be in a debate and just seek to end it by stating the above dosen't make any sense. Either say you can't win logicaly, profess your dogma if you still hold to it and bow out. OR demonstrate for all to judge for themselves that your view is superior to that of your contender.

[keypurr]

Keypurr, please stop explaining away the scriptures we are showing you. Jesus claimed to be God because He is GOD. If he is not the 'I AM' of Exo 3:14, then He was a liar, because that's who He said he was.

Your theology is no different than the Muslims. They hold Jesus up in honor, but do not believe he is God.
I think the "I AM is the Lord". I think Jesus is LORD. He has been appointed by his FATHER over everything. Two seperate persons, one spirit. Christ said " I am in the Father and the Father is in me"

[Ages]

Keepur, If Christ is the I am of the Old testement, how can you have to people ? Haven't you ever read " Isa 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images " Nor can you find any record of an "appointment" in Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"....... Look at everything in the scripture concerning the nature of God. Remember in Jn 14 Where Phillip wanted to SEE the father, what did Jesus reply? Just saying Jesus and the Father agreed together makes totally no sense. Think about it.

[Mustard Seed]

Keepur, If Christ is the I am of the Old testement, how can you have to people ? Haven't you ever read " Isa 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images "

He's not giving his glory to Christ. You forget that Isaiah conntains the verse that talks about the Lord and his redeemer as being one God.


Nor can you find any record of an "appointment" in Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"....... Look at everything in the scripture concerning the nature of God. Remember in Jn 14 Where Phillip wanted to SEE the father, what did Jesus reply? Just saying Jesus and the Father agreed together makes totally no sense. Think about it.

What of Stephen that saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Are you saying that God was stepping on his own hand. If not then how do you propose a single being standing beside themself?

[Ages]

We are in the moral, spiritual, and personal image of God. We have will, intellect, and emotions. The Father, Son, Spirit each are shown to have will, intellect, emotions. We are not in the metaphysical image of God. He is uncreated, eternal Spirit. We are finite beings with a beginning. We have a spiritual dimension that is God conscious, but it is not uncreated. We also have physical bodies, unlike God (except the Word incarnating). The divine personal distinctions share some attributes of a personal being with us (will, intellect, emotions). What I meant was that they are not identical to limited, physical, personal beings like man. So, the interaction of the Father, Son, Spirit within the ONE spirit nature/essence/substance of God should not be confused with thinking they are 3 finite, physical 'persons'. The early Fathers reminded us not to confound the substance and 'persons' of God (homoousia, etc.).

Your terminology of 'little god' or a 'third of God' shows you are rejecting a straw man caricature of the triune nature of God. This is classic JW misrepresentation. A little god would be polytheistic like Mormonism. The Bible and the Trinity are explicitly monotheistic. 1/3 of God shows you are still thinking in spatial, human analogies, rather than accepting the revelation of the nature of God. You are dividing the substance of God and confounding the personal distinctions. The early formulations of the doctrine of Trinity were in response to arising heresies such as Arianism and polytheism. The belief preceded formal creeds experientially (the early church worshipped one God, recognized Jesus was God, yet related to the person and work of the Father, Son, Spirit distinctly). Formal, philosophical grappling with the issues was fine tuned as Church history progressed in response to the attacks against orthodoxy.

Triune God= compound vs solitary unity.

There is only one God. There are not 3 gods.

Within the one essence of God are 3 personal distinctions that are co-eternal, co-essential, and co-equal. The Father, Son, Spirit are all called the one God, yet the Father, Son, Spirit are distinct in another personal sense. Revelation > reason.

1 If we are created in the image of God how many person's were we created in?
2. To what scriptural revelation are you refering? None, Oh you mean Nicea. Since I reject Anasthius and Nicea, your case is void. Your not talking my friend about mystical revelation, your talking about logical absurdities. If you can't explain why those 3 disctinctions we both agree are there are 3 persons from scripture, calling them persons is polytheistic plain and simple. that 1 times 1 times 1 doesn't work, your not multiplying God by himself, your trying to show that there are 3 persons in the Godhead.
3. Notice the pattern here. I quote scrpture, you've ignored it, or tried to explain it really doesn't mean what it says. I show that it is morally and ethiclly impossible for the "father" to behave in the fashion which trinitarians describe, you simply have to ignore it because you can't answer it.........
I've read the Nicean creed. I reject it because it simply doesn't line up with scripture. Whether it be better to obey God or man, ye judge. ...Trinitarian dogma sets up a pattern of rejecting the plain truths of scripture simply on the basis of we can't trust the plain meaning of scripture. It's a bad habit to get in to.
Everyone, have a blessed Easter.

[keypurr]

Keypurr, please stop explaining away the scriptures we are showing you. Jesus claimed to be God because He is GOD. If he is not the 'I AM' of Exo 3:14, then He was a liar, because that's who He said he was.

Your theology is no different than the Muslims. They hold Jesus up in honor, but do not believe he is God.
I said I think he IS the I AM
But I also think there is a differance between LORD and GOD. In Ex 3:2 it also uses the them "the angel of the Lord" in the burning bush, then it says the Lord saw Moses getting close to the fire, God called to him from the bush. I have often entertained the idea that Michael" the arch angel could be Christ. It is verses like this that start this old mind spinning. Also if you have a NIV handy, check out the termenlogy futher in Ex 3 using phrases like this "The LORD, God of your fathers........." tells me that the Lord is also a God. Paul refers to both in his letters. However Christ himself said"I go to MY GOD and YOUR GOD" He also said that his Father is greater than he is. So you see I am not like a Muslim, I am a follower of the Lord and I take his example and glorify his father.

[Ages]

He's not giving his glory to Christ. You forget that Isaiah conntains the verse that talks about the Lord and his redeemer as being one God.




What of Stephen that saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Are you saying that God was stepping on his own hand. If not then how do you propose a single being standing beside themself?
Keepurr,
Surely you don't think there was a little god sitting on the hand of a bigger one? That's not the way Stephen meant it. Remember 2 people in a godhead is two Gods, and God also said,
"Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. " Jesus wasn't a person of the Godhead, the Godhead was in Jesus...

[keypurr]

Keepurr,
Surely you don't think there was a little god sitting on the hand of a bigger one? That's not the way Stephen meant it. Remember 2 people in a godhead is two Gods, and God also said,
"Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. " Jesus wasn't a person of the Godhead, the Godhead was in Jesus...
Who is sitting on the right hand of God?
Who is the Lamb of God
Christ assended to HIS God. Who was that?

I think there is a differance between God and Lord. If, and I believe he did, the father gave all power to Christ, then he is a God to every living thing, except his Father who is HIS God.

[Ages]

Who is sitting on the right hand of God?
Who is the Lamb of God
Christ assended to HIS God. Who was that?

I think there is a differance between God and Lord. If, and I believe he did, the father gave all power to Christ, then he is a God to every living thing, except his Father who is HIS God.
Keypurr, I respectfully submit that you have a right to believe whatever you want to. However, when Jesus was trying to explain his relationship with the father to Phillip, he said, "If you've seen me, you've seen the fathe"r. How much plainer could he have said it?

What is the right hand of God?
Of course Jesus is the lamb of God. He was a lot of other things as well.
What you keep missing is that Jesus was a man, it makes that plain in Heb 2.
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil
But it also makes it plain in ,Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Jesus was the express image of his person. Think about that. Jesus brought God down to our level, and people do their best to re-deify him. God expressed himself into humanity for a reason, so that we can understand the person and motives of God. If you would understand God, you have to go to places in scripture where he is explaining his nature .

[godrulz]

Who is sitting on the right hand of God?
Who is the Lamb of God
Christ assended to HIS God. Who was that?

I think there is a differance between God and Lord. If, and I believe he did, the father gave all power to Christ, then he is a God to every living thing, except his Father who is HIS God.

YHWH=LORD in the OT.