What is the Fathers Name?
Jesus Speaking:"I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me" John 17:6
"Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me," John 17:11
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" John 8:58
Saints are all Brothers in Christ, disciples of Christ, CHRISTians. We have one and the same Father namely JESUS CHRIST. To Know the Father Just ask Jesus:
Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip (John 14:8-9)
Add Your Comment(90)
What is the Fathers Name?Posted by Correy Thursday, April 06, 2006
After reading many creeds and belief statements
I decided to stick to my own
90 Comments:
Thanks for bringing in Isaiah 9:6 a great verse about our wonderful Savior Jesus Christ mummyannette :)
God tells Moses that his name is YHWH (Exodus 3:15). Moreover, "This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation" (Exodus 3:15).
Anonymous:
I was hoping people would pick that up :)
When the Pharasees realised whom Jesus was making himself out to be they quickly wanted to stone Him.
I AM HE
In addition, I think it informative to note that the name in Isaiah 9:6 is phonetically "avi-ad" in Hebrew, which could just as easily mean "my Father is everlasting"--a name befitting the Son of God.
It would be helpful if you could explain to us what Jesus' name means, etymologically.
I would rather not distract from the post but I once had a bible college guy give me 5 pages to explain that all word for word translations were wrong for Isaiah 9:6 and that it should NOT be His Name is...EVERLASTING FATHER.
Google gave me this for the titles of Jesus
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/jesustitles.htm
At the end of the day, You have got to know Jesus for yourself not about Him. The creator of the universe has got to make Himself known to you.
Certainly God must reveal himself to his people. Nonetheless, it behooves us to carefully examine the Scriptures, and make sure we are translating and interpreting correctly.
I do not think Isaiah 9:6 provides a prooftext for the oneness position Jesus = the Father. On the contrary, the Isaiah prophecy about Jesus the Son names him "my Father is everlasting." What you might find on Google is the traditional translation, but since when on this post did tradition become trustworthy? Ask a Hebrew speaker if you do not yet know Hebrew yourself.
Moreover, Jesus' name means "YH saves," which explains how it is that Jesus bears the Father's name without being one with the Father.
For instance, if my name is William, and I name my son William Jr., it should not surprise us that we are not actually one person though we bear the same name.
It should also not surprise us that Jesus is "I AM," since he is God the Son, and his name means something like "I AM saves," since YHWH is related to the verb "to be" and God's "I AM who I AM" in Exodus 3:14.
Anonymous:
If you would like to disregard Isaiah 9:6 this is fine.
It isn't even in this post. mummyannette bought it out and I said it was a great verse.
Anonymous please be careful:
Moreover, Jesus' name means "YH saves," which explains how it is that Jesus bears the Father's name without being one with the Father.
John 10:30
I and My Father are one.
----------------
I will not ask Hebrew speakers But Jesus Christ who is alive in me. Hence this post says:
... To Know the Father Just ask Jesus:
Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip (John 14:8-9)
Without being one (the same person) with the Father.
Any Trinitarian will tell you that they are one in essence--One God, Three Persons.
I think your understanding of John 10:30 is mistaken.
What does this text say in Greek?
Oops, I forgot that the Greek always means the opposite.
Since those reading here speak English and all the Christians here have Christ as the Word in them. We will stick to English word for word translations thank you.
For the sake of your readers, I would like to lend you an assist in this matter.
I do think it is responsible to exegete verses carefully before reaching theological conclusions, particular those contradict nearly two-thousand years of Christian scholarship. As MXU mentioned, readers may be led astray if you are wrong. I would have expected you to be more careful in handling your prooftexts.
Instead, your appeal to revelation that no orthodox Christian group has had is suspect at best.
In John 10:30, the Greek text, word-for-word, reads, "I and the Father, one we are."
The explicit plural verb (phonetically: esmen) means "we are." If Jesus and the Father were the same person, one might expect elision of the verb, or perhaps a singular verb.
Moreover, the word "one" is in the accusative neuter singular, although each subject is masculine.
Hence, not one person (masculine), but one essence (neuter).
The framers of Nicaea and Christian Scholars through the ages were not fools (in the kingdom sense), exegeted Scripture carefully, and I think they too had the mind of Christ.
One God in essence
Three in persons.
My mistake--the word "one" is nominative (not accusative) neuter singular. But the essentials of the presentation remains.
Anonymous:
I disagree that the Gospel is lost in translation.
I also say this to many new age believers who claim the same issue as an excuse for unbelief.
Listen to this -
"I and the Father, one we are."
Either God has a multiple personality disorder or each representation is the same Man.
I tend to actually believe Jesus when he claims that He IS the representation of the Father.
Many great men of God have been trinitarians possibly from catholic influence from effects of their Reign.
However any sound mind will tell you that not even a partnership of 3 Gods equals 1 God.
The scribes and pharisees whom study the scriptures in Greek & Hebrew still did not know who Jesus was and crucified Him for claiming to be God the Father.
Riven:
I agree that the gospel is not lost in translation. In fact, I think the gospel is spread through translation, which is why by God's grace I have been blessed to engage in the translation task. God's word does not return to him empty, and may his gospel shine in the darkness among every "nation, tribe, people and language" (Revelation 7:9).
But if one is constructing a theology upon a few central prooftexts, I think it responsible to carefully analyze the texts, particularly if the conclusions run counter to the entire history of the orthodox theological enterprise. I am not saying that tradition is in any way infallible. But neither am I saying that we never have anything to learn from those gifted Christian scholars who have come before. For instance, Augustine was a Catholic. Nonetheless, I don't think any of us would assert that since we are not Catholics today, Augustine had nothing worthwhile to say against Pelagius regarding the matter of the doctrines of grace, or on many other issues. I like to think of past Christian scholars as being among the great cloud of witnesses (technically pre-Christian saints) spurring us onward.
And to be fair to the Catholic Church, both the Hebrew bible and the Greek New Testament were copied and transmitted by their scholars (Dead Sea Scrolls excepted). Surely God could have ordained another way, but at least as history stands, we have our bible today because of the labor of a plethora of Catholic scholars (I am aware that Rome still canonizes the Apocrypha and such, but our streamlined Protestant bibles stem from texts preserved by the Catholic Church).
In addition, appealing to revelation that other Christians lack wholesale concerns me, and I think it should concern us all. Appealing to revelation unbelievers do not have is standard procedure and follows the pattern given in Scripture, but among believers this should be different (I know Peter seemingly received a certain revelation before other disciples, but I think you get the point).
I am sorry that you derive only two options from John 10:30--identical persons or multiple personality disorder.
On the contrary, I like to think of the Trinity intra-acting in its wonderful plans for humankind. I like to think of the Lamb slain from before the Creation of the world, the Trinity reflecting over the Creation of humankind, the Trinity who can swear by itself and provide itself as the two or three witnesses. I like to think of the Triune God intra-acting in the baptism of the Son, and in the salvation of the elect. And I love the image of the throne in Revelation--the throne of the "God and of the Lamb," with "the water of life, as clear as crystal flowing down from the throne" (Revelation 22:1). All of these are biblical images, and I don't think psychopathy quite fits the intra-actions in any of them.
It also seems a bit presumptuous to suggest that Trinitarians impose a controversial human disorder such as MPD upon the eternal God. May his name be glorified.
Certainly the mystery of godliness is great, and I do not presume to know the answers, or much of anything at all.
But why a priori could God not exist as three persons united in one God? Shall we tell God what is permissible for him to do or not to do? Orthodox Trinitarians are merely attempting to interpret Scripture faithfully, and One God--Three Persons is the picture Scripture seems to present, to, well--the entire orthodox church over the past nearly two thousand years and counting.
I am thankful for the point you made about knowing original languages and Scripture. All insights (theological and otherwise) come from God, and there are many people who know much about Hebrew and Greek but cannot understand Scripture because God has not changed their hearts. Nonetheless, for one who is a Christian (and yes, by God's grace I claim to be one, despite the fact that I have never thought Jesus is the same person as the Father), knowing the original text can help when it comes to nuances, or in texts in which the English (or whatever the target language) does not quite have the same idiom or expression, or in the case of John 10:30, a neuter gender inherent in the word "one."
Knowing Hebrew and Greek (and Aramaic) can also help greatly with wordplay, onomotopoeia, rhymes, rhythm, etc., which probably do not concern us here.
Anonymous:
I try to keep my posts and comments small usually 20 seconds with a few verses and one main point. This blog is not for the wise and learned but the very children of God.
There are many scribes and scholars out there to debate translation with. I am not one.
1 Cor 1:27
"Brothers, Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise"
This is who I am Anonymous, I love a simple truth and I have found this in Jesus and will continue to proclaim HIM as the ONE TRUE LORD AND GOD OF HEAVEN and my heart.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
riven said:
"However any sound mind will tell you that not even a partnership of 3 Gods equals 1 God."
This comment is misleading riven and misrepresents the trinity. No trinitarian will tell you there are 3 Gods, ther is only One God who exists eternally as a triunity.
The bible said:
1 Cor 1:27
"Brothers, Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise"
I do not want to revisit the trinity discussion as there has been 140+ comments on that already but this verse should be noted if your only objection is intelectual to the trinity riven.
MDM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
PB while I agree with you (and so does anonymous I believe) that we need spiritual revelation to get the gospel and have Faith in God we cannot rely ONLY on the spirit.
When considdering the language and translation debate may I ask you two things PB.
1. Which Bible translation/s do you most often use?
2. Why?
I will suply may answers here first.
1. While I use the NIV and NASB most often, I also try to consult other translations, especially if I am unclear on an issue.
2. No matter how good the translation is, it is still only an interpretation of scripture. Even though most translations were collaboratively done, the translators were still human and capable of error.
The original languages are very useful tools when studying the word of God.
Let us examine why.
First we must look at where different languages came from. Genesis 11:1-9 tells us that God created the variance in laguage as a punishment for the sin of the people who began to build the Tower of Babel. When God created the world He created it perfect. No sin, no flaw, no blemish. Everything was exactly as God had designed it to be. Including language. In this perfect language God gave the scriptures, and I assume that the Israelites, who were Gods chosen people kept His original language. (this is an assumption but I fell it is a valid one) Now God is Honest, He does not lie, so He means what He says and says what He means. If the best language to describe God's word was English, He would have used that. English isnt the best language, it wasn't even created by Gad at Babel but has evolved over thousands of years. The English language is a construct of Man.
Now what does this tell us.
If God does not lie, He says what He means and means what He says, then It would follow that God chose the most efficient way to communicate His perfect word to Mankind.
This does not mean that we should all go out and learn biblical Hebre and Greek and only read the scriptures in those languages, to suggest that would be legalism and plain silly.
Now Revelation 5:9 tells us that Jesus has purchased salvation for people of "every tribe and language and people and nation." So the gospel being translated is part of God's plan. It must be if it is to reach every tribe and language.
While it is the Spirit which imparts Faith which allows us to understand the wonder of God's Word, by ignoring the perfect form and original language that God's word is we miss out on much.
I am not even close to learning Biblical Hebrew and Greek, no time, desire or motivation to go that far, but I will admit that each and every time I do that little bit of extra study and seek an original root word I am blessed with the new understanding. The extra subtlty and meaning which is found in the Original Greek and Hebrew texts is priceless. However the Pharisees knew the scripture but did not have the Spirit so they lost out too.
While I believe it is foolish to rely on the Spirit alone and ignore God's Word (not suggesting this of anyone just making a point) it is equally foolish to rely only on the Word or original languages and Ignore the Spirit.
The ideal situation for scriptural understanding and insight is a Spiritual revelation using God's intended languages.
sorry about the length I couldnt articulate my point any more quickly.
MDM
"What is the Fathers Name?"
There Is only One God.
God is triune and eternal in nature, yet still is only One God.
When God came to Earth to reveal Himself to mankind His name was Jesus.
Jesus is God.
Now that is out of the way.
Each and every name attributed to God, and there are many in the Old Testament has value and provides insight into God's character. Although there is one God, to ignore all of His names except Jesus would lose many significant and wonderful and awe inspiring names which He also possesses.
Names are important to God.
Visit Whats in a name anyway? to see the significane which can be found in names.
"In the beginning God created heaven and earth" (Genesis 1:1).
God here is Elohim. It's the first of the three primary names of Deity. It is always plural as is backed up in Genesis 1:26 which demonstrates the plurality of the name, "Let US". The following verse, Genesis 1:27 demonstrates the unity of the name.
In Exodus 3:14 we have God, Elohim, saying I AM THAT I AM.
In Exodus 3:15 we have Elohim still speaking and He says his name is Yehowah which means to be, subsist, signifies “He who is”, or “subsists”, i.e., eminently and in a manner superior to all other beings; and is essentially the same with eheyeh, “I AM”, in the preceding verse.
When Elohim speaks saying that He is Yehowah and that it is His Name forever He is saying that He is the Self Exsistant one and that is His postion forever.
This is good stuff. I think I might work this up into a post.
It is truly lovely to be saturated with the word of God and be part of his Holy Name.
Christ Jesus saved us when we weren't looking for him.
That's the Living God.
Simple, true, complete, Abba Father.
I'm curious how you would respond to 1 John 4:12's statements that "No one has ever seen God" if indeed you say that Jesus is the Father is the Spirit.
For a trinitarian, this verse is simple. Though there were people that saw Jesus Christ (as John himself did), John here is refering to God the Father, whom no one has seen. He, once again, draws a distinction between the Father and the Son.
What would you say to that verse?
And it seems you're all hung up about the name thing again, even though everyone else has been clear in their agreement that the Father, Son, and Spirit all share the same name, but they are distinct.
Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, "
The name
of the Father
of the Son
of the Holy Spirit.
Does not the "the" prior to each of the nouns signify a definite article, a uniqueness of person?
if the Father was the Son was the Holy Spirit, the verse should instead by "the name of the father and son and holy spirit." But instead we have a distinction in person, but not a distinction in name.
Once again, no one disagrees with you on this name issue. But having the same name does not imply being the same person!
You seem to attest that Jesus and his Father are the same person.
If this is so, aside from the fact that Jesus on earth teaches his disciples to pray to "our Father in heaven," how do you explain the Father's voice from heaven during Jesus' earthly ministry (at one point in John 12:29 the crowd thought it thundered, so it was audible to others).
If you are correct that Jesus and the Father and the Spirit are the same person, how do you explain the Father's voice from heaven during Jesus' baptism (calling him Son), and the Holy Spirit descending upon him in bodily form like a dove (Luke 3:22). How do you explain that Stephen on earth is filled with the Holy Spirit, and looks into heaven and sees the Son standing at the right hand of the Father (Acts 7:55)?
If Jesus and the Father are the same person, how do you explain Jesus calling upon his Father as a second witness (using the word "person" in John 8:16-17)?
Hey Puritan!
I'm ready for something completely different!
A whole new topic.
Something like....Hmmmm.....this
PLIABLE: Well, my good companion, glad am I to hear of these things: come on, let us mend our pace.
CHRISTIAN: I cannot go as fast as I would, by reason of this burden that is on my back.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
A new topic would be nice, but this one has to be resolved first.
Pb could you address the questions you have missed.
When considdering the language and translation debate may I ask you two things PB.
1. Which Bible translation/s do you most often use?
2. Why?
MXU asked:
I'm curious how you would respond to 1 John 4:12's statements that "No one has ever seen God" if indeed you say that Jesus is the Father is the Spirit.
What would you say to that verse?
Anon. asked"
If you are correct that Jesus and the Father and the Spirit are the same person, how do you explain the Father's voice from heaven during Jesus' baptism (calling him Son), and the Holy Spirit descending upon him in bodily form like a dove (Luke 3:22). How do you explain that Stephen on earth is filled with the Holy Spirit, and looks into heaven and sees the Son standing at the right hand of the Father (Acts 7:55)?
If Jesus and the Father are the same person, how do you explain Jesus calling upon his Father as a second witness (using the word "person" in John 8:16-17)?
Katie asked: (previous post/same topic)
I am curious about which church family upholds your 'spiritually revealed' understanding.?
Pb said:
“Yes I am a heretic to all catholic doctrines including the trinity.”
To whichNathan White asked:
Well then I guess you reject such doctrines as the virgin birth since Catholics affirm this truth.
If you could get to these that would be great PB.
MDM
Magi:
While I believe it is foolish to rely on the Spirit alone and ignore God's Word
Magi Look back at the past 4 posts you will notice that there is more scripture then my words.
By having Christ in you the hope of glory you would ask Jesus what the scripture means. You would regularily close your door, hope on your knees and disregard everything man has said for the sake of Christ. If the Spirit of Christ truly told you that the trinity was False and that He is God Almighty and that there is not 2 other people who are also God would you believe Him?
My Translations:
I have listened to the bible in NIV through a few times (CD). I have read the bible in NASB then KJV. Above all Jesus is my Word.
Best Regards
"Above all Jesus is my Word."
Indeed, Christ Jesus is the very Word of God ...
He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. (Revelation 19:13)
MXU AND 1 John 4:12:
No one has seen God at any time.
Firstly God is Spirit. It is impossible to see God with your Physical eyes.
John Wesley got it right in Hark the Hearld Angel Sing:
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see;
Hail incarnate Deity,
Pleased with us in flesh to dwell,
Jesus our Emmanuel.
This is what it is to see God not with our phsical eyes as the Pharasees/Scribes/scholars couldn't but by the Spirit of God Namely Christ in us.
Nathan White Virgin Birth
No I do not hold the same view as catholics on the virgin birth this is why they have Mary as perfect. A damnable lie.
Katie: Which Church Group holds my spiritual Understanding
The church of the first born (Hebrews 12:23)
Anynomous Second Witness: Been answered. (mrichthus asked it I answered him)
Anynomous Stephen seeing Jesus at the right hand Already Answered
PB in regards to your answers:
"Firstly God is Spirit. It is impossible to see God with your Physical eyes."
Jesus was flesh and many people saw Him, are you now suggesting He is not God?
"No I do not hold the same view as catholics on the virgin birth...
Scripture explicity tells us Mary was a virgin and that the Messiah was to be born of a Virgin. Are you disagreeing with this?
"Which Church Group holds my spiritual Understanding?
The church of the first born.
So not a single organised group of the body of Christ helod your view of no-trinity?
MDM
Magi:
Jesus was flesh and many people saw Him, are you now suggesting He is not God?
1. Scripture says No one has seen God at any time:
2. We can not contradict this scripture.
3. Therefore when Christ was on earth God in Christ is veiled by flesh. To see God in Christ you must see Him by the Spirit of God.
4. Many saw Christ but never saw God . Also in the old testament many people saw God, Moses saw him face to face. It is great when the Lord shows us whose face Moses was looking into. This is why scripture always says... BUT BY MY SPIRIT....
Now that you know this, these words are magnificent:
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see;
Hail incarnate Deity,
Pleased with us in flesh to dwell,
Jesus our Emmanuel.
So not a single organised group of the body of Christ helod your view of no-trinity?
I believe that the church is NOT a business organisation with a building. The Church of the first born are all those who have Jesus revealed in them from heaven.When they remember back to their firstlove they know who the Father is. Jesus Christ our Almighty God.
I remove any comment that is personally vilifying to myself or another at my own discretion. Unfortunately I get a few from many people who troll the internet. Thanks for asking.
when Jesus was on earth teaching his disciples to pray, “Our Father in Heaven,” (Matthew 6:9), was his Father in heaven?
Puritan Belief said...
Yes the Father was in heaven as He was everywhere at once.
Anonymous asks:
Since that is the case, that the Father is in heaven, and since you assert that "when Christ was on earth God in Christ is veiled by flesh," would it be accurate to say that during Jesus' earthly ministry there is a distinction between the Father in heaven (who was not in the flesh) and Christ (who was in the flesh) on earth?
"I believe that the church is NOT a business organisation with a building. The Church of the first born are all those who have Jesus revealed in them from heaven.When they remember back to their firstlove they know who the Father is. Jesus Christ our Almighty God."
Is there a 'church' which you attend regularly whioch holds the same oneness doctorine as you do PB?
When the Father speaks to Jesus from heaven, would you assert that this is figurative and did not really take place?
PB -
For the sake of your readers, could you please rehash some of what we talked about?
Namely: Did God the Father die upon the cross?
When you claim that the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in bodily form (Jesus Christ), what do you mean by that?
Do you mean that the people refered to as "the Father", "the Son", and "the Spirit" are one person and was in Jesus Christ (in bodily form)? Or do you believe something else?
How do you deal with Matthew 28:20 where it states that we are to be baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Don't you think that if the Father was the Son was the Holy Spirit, the whole verse should read "the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" at least? (Though that is ambiguous still). How do you deal with the definite article "the" prior to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, signifying uniqueness and distinction?
As an argument against Trinitarians you would say that the fact that Jesus is eternal contradicts the claim that Jesus is begotten. How do you understand the claim that Jesus is begotten by the Father in Scripture?
How do you understand the Trinity as formulated in the Westminster Confession of Faith (or the LBCF if you're baptist)?
Why do you reject it?
Anonymous:
Would it be accurate to say that during Jesus' earthly ministry there is a distinction between the Father in heaven (who was not in the flesh) and Christ (who was in the flesh) on earth?
This is one of the most commonly asked questions. People want to know the answer to this. This is how I believe it should be answered:
To me Jesus Christ is the perfect man and the only begotten Son of God. As the perfect man His whole desire was to pray continually because that is what he requires of us. Men can only pray to one person. And this is to God.
What we know for sure is. That God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. God and man met in the person of Jesus Christ.
When the Father speaks to Jesus from heaven, would you assert that this is figurative and did not really take place
The bible does answser this "This voice came not for my benefit but for yous" I believe that Jesus as the perfect man had to pray or he could not be my perfect Savior. And the bible tells me clearly that His prayers were heard in that He feared.
It seems as though you assert both that the “Father was in heaven,” and that “God and man met in the person of Jesus Christ” on earth. This seems to describe a distinction between the “person of Jesus Christ” (fully God and perfect man) and the Father (fully God) in heaven that is not much unlike that described by classical Trinitarianism.
In addition, insofar as you seem to assert that the Father spoke audibly to Jesus during Jesus’ earthly ministry (as I think Scripture teaches), this seems to support the description of separate persons (though one God, since “God and man met in the person of Jesus Christ”).
Did God the Father die upon the cross?
The scriptural position is that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the whole world and that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.
When you claim that the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in bodily form (Jesus Christ), what do you mean by that?
The only God in whom we worship and serve and pray to is Jesus Christ. I have no other Father no other Spirit then Jesus. God made himself known in Jesus Christ.
How do you understand the Trinity as formulated in the Westminster Confession of Faith (or the LBCF if you're baptist)?
Why do you reject it?
Because when I am worshipping Jesus I know that I am worshipping the Father in Spirit and in truth no other person. I have no other Father and no other Spirit then Jesus Christ.
I never give testimony to 3 People but one God, One Lord, Jesus Christ.
-----
In relation to the "the" in-front of Father,Son,Holy Spirit proving three different people. I have the same revelation as the disciples when they baptised them into the name of Jesus Christ singular.
Does God being in Jesus imply that God died upon the cross?
Does fullness of God in bodily form mean that Father, Son and Holy Spirit (one person to you) was fully inside of Christ while he lived on earth? What do you make of the "bodily form"?
Does having the same name as someone necessarily mean you are the same person as that someone, as that seems to be what you are claiming.
For the sake of clarity, you should consider changing the name of your blog as this is definitely not the belief of the Puritans and I can't help but think this is the impression given to your readers. This is a serious departure from the biblical trinitarian position; certainly not a position held by the Puritans, Reformers, etc. who were also led by the Spirit.
Would you assert that God was crucified on the cross, or that man was crucified on the cross?
Would you assert that the divine and human natures in Jesus during his earthly ministry were united, or separate?
Would you assert that Jesus in the flesh was the One who was and is and is to come the Almighty?
PB, sometime ago you contacted me, askig me to link to you from my blog. I complied with your request in good faith. You had identified yourself as a fundamentalist in comments left on my blog. You have presented your blog as being Baptist and fundamental.
The fact is, you are neither. You do not even attend a Baptist church, and this heresy concerning the doctrine of the Trinity and of Christ is certainly not qualified of identifying with Baptist. As D.R. Booker said, it is a radical departure from traditional Puritan belief also.
Over the last few days, you have been issued many sound, biblically-based rebukes by several of your readers. You continue to take Scripture out of context, talk in circles, and keep referring to God "revealing" this truth to you as if you share a special relationship with God by which He tells you things that are not consistent with sound doctrine.
I feel that your blog is heretical and most of all, intentionally deceptive. Titus 3:10-11 gives instruction on how I should approach this.
I am removing your link from my blog, and I am requesting that you do the same. I do not wish in any way to be identified with what you are teaching here.
This may seem to be a harsh statement, but after repeated entreaties by able students of God's Word, you are still rejecting the truth. I pray that you will reconsider your position.
PB please read the following articles they do not take long, only a couple of minutes each.
What is the Trinity?
Is the Trinity possible?
The Trinity makes no sense. It isn't logical.
MDM
D.R. Brooker:
The title of this blog is puritan belief because I believe in the purity of the gospel message which is "Jesus Christ" not the purity of mens doctrines.
I do enjoy puritan readings and occasionlly comment on their lives.
I do not hold any doctrines that originated from the catholic church. It is what they say after the but that is the problem.
We are saved by grace BUT....
Jesus is God BUT... so is ... who are different people.
Virgin Birth BUT... Mary is immaculate.
Magi
I am glad you have now done some reading on the trinity.
Gordon:
Certainly (I am a fundamentalist to Jesus, I am not a Baptist I am a Christian)
Anonymous:
Does God being in Jesus imply that God died upon the cross?
The scriptual position is: In the flesh as the Son of Man he bore our sins in the likenes of sinful flesh as an offering for sin. He condemned sin in the flesh.
Would you assert that the divine and human natures in Jesus during his earthly ministry were united, or separate?
1. God in Christ was veiled by flesh.
2. God was joined in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.
Would you assert that Jesus in the flesh was the One who was and is and is to come the Almighty?
To say that Jesus is the one who was and is and is to come and also to say that Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever. Yes I would say even in the flesh Jesus is this one. The Almighty God.
MXU
Does having the same name as someone necessarily mean you are the same person as that someone, as that seems to be what you are claiming.
Let us read the scripture:
"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
John 8:57-59
They didn't want to stone Him for saying he had the same name as God the Father, But for saying He was God the Father.
Does fullness of God in bodily form mean that Father, Son and Holy Spirit (one person to you) was fully inside of Christ while he lived on earth? What do you make of the "bodily form"?
Yes for the fullness of the Father,Son and Holy Spirit was in Jesus when he was a man. This means something to me right now Through the body of Christ I have put off the sinful nature by Christ.
Col 2:12
having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
The body of Christ here is to show that I have not only been buried with him but through faith I also have been raised with him into newness of life.
It is symbolic of what happens to us in the new birth.
Death could not hold him down for he has risen.
The fullness of the Godhead dwells in bodily form in Christ Jesus to this very day.
Modern Day Magi,
I am glad that you have read up on the trinity - Perhaps the Catholics have defined your belief a bit more clear for you now.
If catholics had a donkey and called it a goat - Would you believe it is a goat?
If anyone had 3 gods and called them 1 god - Would you call it one god??
Remove all the organised church rubbish, as there is only one church the Lord is in and ask Him for the "mystery" of the trinity to be revealed to you - That is when you will find that it really is NO mystery any longer. Jesus is God and NOT one God of Three yet called one.
Dr Brooker is right when he said this belief is not one of the "puritans". However what is PURE belief then?
People like Dr Brooker look to what churches document as their belief rather than what Jesus says and his spirit confirms.
If Dr Brooker read the Bible for what it is, then i doubt he would be seeking titles for himself.
Matthew 23:8
"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,'for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
As you can see this verse speaks against the Catholics very strongly and your teacher should NOT be the church - But JESUS.
It really concerns me when i hear titles such as Pastor and reverend. It shows the state of the church once again.
riven -
The church history is a side note.
But the question on hand is "is Oneness Biblical?" The discussion has been clear, it is not. There are large numbers of errors:
A denial of hypostatic union (Jesus was fully man and fully God without losing his identity as God and man).
A denial of the distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and their specific roles.
An explicit denial of Scriptural evidence provided for them.
A claim to personal revelation outside of and in direct contradiction to Scripture.
A refusal to address church history is not as important as the refusal to address Scripture, though when contradicting 2000 years of history, one must be very careful in their claims.
As to teachers in the church, this is a side note, but you are ignoring Ephesians 4 completely. Does it not say that:
And [God] gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ...so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.
Thankfully it seems enough people reading this blog have paid enough attention to their pastors and teachers so that they were able recognize truth from error.
Whatever the case, my firm beliefs in the sovereignty of God in all situation reassures me that God will use even outright heresey for His Glory.
Soli Deo Gloria
riven, clarly you did not read the articles I placed links for. They are all in support of the trinity as being the scriptural and true understanding of the nature of God.
Again I will state it, Trinitarian doctorine is NOT polytheistic, there is only One God and God is triune in nature.
not 1+1+1=3 or 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3=1
But Father + Son + Spirit = God
Father = God
Son = God
Spirit = God
lets look at time as an example.
Past, Present, Future.
All distinct and yet there are not 3 'times' but each are time and all are time.
read the articles riven.
MDM
Riven
How is D.R.Brooker seeking titles for himself? He's not a Dr, those are his first and second initials . . . it's on his blog/website.
PB,
The trinity DID NOT originate in the Catholic church.
Lets consult history for a moment.
The first time the term "catholic church was used was in 110AD when Ignatius of Antioch uses the term catholic church in a letter to the church at Smyrna (Date disputed, some insist it was a forgery written in 250 or later. Others insist he merely meant "catholic", small "c", as in Universal.)
While the Church is obviously traced back to Jesus most historians will agree that the Catholic church as we know it today began in the fourth-century Roman Empire, when Constantine I issued the Edict of Milan in 313. Christianity was the Roman state religion from 380.
Now lets examine where the concept of the trinity comes in. The Trinity was first Officially established in 325 at the first council of Nicea. IF IT BEGINS HERE 300 YEARS AFTER JESUS WE HAVE A PROBLEM.
So we have the Catholic Church officially established in 318 AD and the Trinity offiated in 325 AD
Now lets go back a bit further.
Justin of Caesarea also known as Justin the Martyr is considered the first Christian apologist. He lived and wrote in 100-165AD (200ish years before the Catholic CHurch began)He is the first Christian writer to examine the Trinity. He uses that analogy of Fire to explain it.
God, like a fire in heaven sent His son Jesus as a fire into the world. Now if you have on lite candle and use it to light another, while there are now two location for the flame they are actually the one flame. Look at the olympic torch relay, the whole premis is that transfering the flame from one torch to another does not make new fires but simply transfers the one flame to another location.
Now this analogy is great and while Justin only examined the Father and Son it can easily be seen that on the day of pentocost when the Spirit entered believers, and flames were manifested above their heads, that while the fire entered humanity it was not a whole bunch of 'new flames' but simply the fire of God comming to mankind.
Father, the fire in heaven.
Jesus, the fore of God comming to earth.
The Spirit, the fire of God which is the Fire of Jesus entering believeers. Distinct flames but the one Fire.
Before making claims like "I do not hold any doctrines that originated from the catholic church." you should actually look at the historical origins of a doctorine. The trinity cirtainly did not originate in the Catholic Church.
MDM
MXU
I love that verse you used as it was the only wisdom over what you wrote.
Yes God gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers.
These traits are a natural gifts whom God gives to WHOM he chooses - They are NOT, MAN given church jobs and they are NOT earnt from a degree at Bible college.
In other words a Pastor is NOT the man out of the front of church whom wickedly controls everyone to keep a job.
It is someone whom the lord gives the desire to see how i am - they have no formal self given title and they are NOT paid for their unknowing service.
As i said before I AM A HERETIC....churches are the group that Kill Jesus & Christians for preaching Christ.
This is because the division of Christ separates Christianity from all religions - especially Catholics who never knew him - yet write your belief of the trinity.
I never expect anyone to believe what i say (because you can NOT).
I only challenge you to ask Jesus.
Magi,
Intead of taking up precious space on this blog with point for point arguing, i will merely say:-
I do not hold any of the Catholic prior or current doctines to be true - They are all Lies because they do not know the ONE who is the truth.
Their belief and doctrines of
universalism/trinity/necromancy are lies and if you hold any one of their current doctrines, then please ask yourself why you align yourself with liars instead of the Lord.
I understand how you try and present different 3 people as 1 God, but it is not of sound mind.
Using time as an analogy is un-magi like when it comes to God, ironically He says:-
Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
Good Point Wendy,
I am sorry i have made this possible mistake, although it was enjoyable to bring out those scriptures.
Magi:
The bishops who made up the creed are catholic.
According to the catholic church Peter is their first pope and this is when they began. Its name catholic was derived well before this creed according to catholics who oppose your view of themselves.
Either way it was officially conceived and declared as part of the catholic church.
To quote the history books it was said:
After its conception it was said: 'Thus the Catholic Church believes'
Catholics hold this doctrine as the very highest and exalted doctrine above any other. Anyone who denies this would never be classed as a christian and thus most people on this blog have agreed with them in condemning me.
My salvation is hidden in Christ and when He appears so will I. Jesus is my testimony.
Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
Exactly riven.
God was triune yesterday, is triune today and will be triune forever.
MDM
PB,
The Catholics also believe that the writings of Paul, the golspels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and the Old Testament are scriptures. Granted there are books in the Catholic bible which are not part of the Protestant ones and as such I do not believe the apocrypha is scripture.
This does not change that Catholics ALL believe that the Bible you read and quote so often is scripture.
Do you disagree with this also?
You must since you said
"I do not hold any of the Catholic prior or current doctines to be true - They are all Lies because they do not know the ONE who is the truth."
riven,
"If anyone had 3 gods and called them 1 god - Would you call it one god?"
the Trinity DOES NOT teach more than one God.
If you have nothing more constructive than this statement to contiually add, that drum is off key and worn out. You simply not being able to understand the Trinity does not make it false.
Can you understand the extent of design and planning present in DNA riven, or how to build an aircraft, or exactly how many stars there are? again you seem to be using the same arguement that JW's and Muslims use.
"The Trinity is not logical and cant be understood, so it must be wrong"
Do you side with the JW's and Muslims in this debate?
Magi-
My Bible says:-
Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ, is the same yesterday and today and forever.
The key word is JESUS CHRIST and NOT holy trinity.
MAGI
This is an amazing understanding and the same as I have.
Jesus is triune (Body-Soul-Spirit) Yesterday today and foverever.
As you put it
God[Jesus] was triune yesterday, is triune today and will be triune forever
AMEN AND AMEN
PB,
do you consider Peter the 'first Pope'?
I would assume not
catholics saying something does not make it true. But neither does Catholics saying something make it a lie either.
Catholics all agree that Jesus died and rose again for instance.
MDM
Magi:
You were quoting Rivin and saying I said it must be the coffee hey :)
Catholics believe the word of God. But they add extra books But they invent extra practices (Lent,Eucharist etc)
In actual fact they don't believe a word of the bible hence they have their creeds. So of course I don't stand with the catholics on this or else I would end up in error.
Catholics believe Jeusus died and rose again BUT they believe his blood atones not only for the elect but everyone (Universal or catholic)
The catholic Jesus is not my Jesus. The Jesus they worship is the devil.
May you flee from all forms of catholocism to Jesus.
Magi,
I do NOT side with the Muslims, They have a god called Allah and to them Jesus is NOT God.
I do not side with JW's because to them Jesus is NOT God. (He is only the son of God)
Ill take the liberty of telling you the truth.
Father is Jesus
Spirit is Jesus
Son is Jesus
JESUS IS GOD
This Jesus is my ONE God - Simple Truth.
PB -
I echo Gordon's sentiments and request my link be removed from your blogroll. It is unfortunate that it had to come to this, but I think Gordon's response is appropriate and Biblical. You have been warned repeatedly.
If you are one of the elect, I trust that God will bring you to a full knowledge of His essence and being. I have discharged my obligation as a watchman. Your blood is on your own head.
I will leave with one parting caution and one parting verse, which I came across in Scripture today.
James 3:1 states that "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." Know that you are, in effect, taking a teaching position with this blog. Keep close watch over your words.
My final parting verse
1 Cor. 3
21So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, 22whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future--all are yours, 23and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's.
This verse is telling us not to boast in anything. Not to boast in what we've done, or who is serving us, because they are all gifts. Instead, we are to acknowledge that all things are given to us. They are all ours.
Not only is all things (in this life) ours, we are Christ's.
Not only are we Christ's, but Christ is God's.
Yet, if Christ is the Father is the Holy Spirit, we are unable to understand what it means that "Christ is God's" as we would identify Christ with God and come to the conclusion that "Christ is His own." But then that doesn't match up with the parallelism of the verse. We certainly are not our own, and we certainly are not Christ. No, we belong to Christ. We live to glorify Him.
So a Trinitarian would simply say "Christ lives to glorify His Father, a seperate person than Christ."
Whatever the case, may God make His glory known in all of this, as I know He is working even today.
MXU
Yes I will.
I just nopticed the misquote. You have said something similar though PB. It was an accident that i quoted riven and attributed it to you though.
MDM
MXU,
It is a shame you leaving because you offered such a great a contribution of Scripture.
As iron sharpens iron, i would like the Word of God to stand powerfully against all else and whittle down the doctrine of Man and exalt Jesus.
I wouldn't put my sword down.
riven,
you say
"I understand how you try and present different 3 people as 1 God, but it is not of sound mind."
But 1 Corinthians 2:14 clearly tells us that intellectual understanding alone cannot allow you to arrive to all of God's truth.
The Trinity is a Faith issue not a brain issue, just as Jesus dying to atone for sin is a Faith issue and not a brain one. You will agree that there are many truths of God which can only be understood with the aid of the Spirit.
the Trinity is spiritually discerened but is also backed up by the countless scriptures which have already been mentioned.
MDM
PB,
you said:
"Jesus is triune (Body-Soul-Spirit) Yesterday today and foverever."
Indicating that His triune nature is divided as Body-Soul-Spirit.
Could you please elaborate what you mean when you use the destinctions.
The form
By Body I refer to...
By Soul I refer to...
By Spirit I refer to...
would help me to better and clearly understand you and avoid any miscommunication or misunderstanding.
MDM
Modern Day Magi,
The mystery of 1 Corinthians 2:14 is not about the trinity.
The best answer for you is in scripture:-
Colossians 2:2
"My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, CHRIST"
Elesi,
The Bible also says:
1 Corinthians 2:15
"
The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment."
Its important for a Spiritual person to discern the Truth of the Spirit and divide this from error.
This Jesus is my ONE God - Simple Truth.
I agree wholeheartedly riven.
However, you limit Jesus to only existing in a state in which you are comfortable with and can understand with your mind.
I think Jesus is much more than my understanding. Eternity with Him in paradise will be an eternity of new wonders and depths of His INFINTE glory and majesty being revealed.
Your perception of Jesus is finite, mine is that He is infinite.
Never once have I claimed hat there was any God other than Jesus. I have continually defined the Trinity for you. Your objections should be from scripture or logic, not trying to put false words in my mouth and then say I am wrong because of them.
I'll take the liberty of telling you the truth.
The Father is God.
His son Jesus is God.
His Holy Spirit is God.
There is ONE God.
The Father, Jesus and Spirit are each and all God. Triune in nature, they are Three and yet ONE.
riven, can you answer the following.
Can an Immortal and Eternal God die?
Did Jesus die?
If Jesus did die, where was God when Jesus was dead?
MDM
Riven,
Your willingness to hurl accusations about my alleged "title" before trying to first understand, belies a spirit that is contentious and not open to correction which is so obviously seen in your posts. May the Lord be gracious in opening your eyes.
PB,
I too, sadly, must ask for my link to be removed. This doctrine you are teaching is not a biblical doctrine. Furthermore, every man you list, Spurgeon, Owen, Calvin, etc. held to the biblical doctrine of the trinity and would have most probably been quite harsh in their rebuke of this new doctrine you propose.
Your use of the term 'catholic' to describe certain doctrines shows a misuse of the word. You can tell from my blog (drbrooker.net) I am no friend of the pernicious doctrines of
Rome (see St. Bart's Massacre post and Satirical Medals post).
You have had many try and patiently correct your misunderstanding and you retreat and say that essentially you are the only one that is being led by the Spirit into this truth. I pray the Lord shows you the danger of such a position.
Titus 3:4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared,
5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior...
This is a clear trinitarian passage. To interpret it in any other manner as under your new paradigm would be to make nonsense of the Spirit's words through Paul.
Finally, I will leave you a kind rebuke from one of your favourites, John Bunyan, who also held to the biblical doctrine of the Trinity:
"...it must be then that they exalt themselves against that God as thus and thus revealed in the Word, to wit, against the knowledge of one God, consisting of three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit; for this is the doctrine of the Scriptures of truth: and therefore it is observable these thoughts must be brought captive, and be made subject in particular to the Lord Jesus Christ, as to the second person in the Godhead: for the Father is ever acknowledged by all that profess the least of religion; but the Son is that stumbling-stone and rock of offence, against which thousands dash themselves in pieces; though in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and in him dwells the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
Modern Day Magi,
We both know that i can get many verses to say that we know the mysteries of God.
While my brain is rather limited in comprehension; I certainly know who my Father is.
If the Father,Son,Spirit are God, then wouldn't that make you a "Godist"??
I believe they are all Christ, which is why i am a "Christ"ian.
Your question was a trick question, but i understand what you are trying to get at.
Man can not Kill God, So Jesus parted His own spirit, from His body. Then later He put it back.
And yes, Jesus did hold the universe together from the manger.
If didn't do these things, then he is NOT God.
MDM, I think you actually see the trinity a little different to how the catholics see it. Its clever how you can make it lean though.
D.R. Brooker,
I put it to you that this is Biblical doctrine - Not necessarily a Church doctrine.
While Spurgeon, Owen, Calvin and other great men i have respect seemly have held their denominations influence or belief.
I can name many times in the Bible where every church missed scripture.
An example of this is when the Church believed the Temple would be rebuilt in 3 days and now we know that Christ was talking about Himself.
These same errors are occurring today! .. Be ever Vigilant.
D.R Brooker:
Yes certainly,
I have read Bunyan on the trinity as well as Spurgeon, Edwards, Newton even C.S Lewis and many more.
They all agree it is a mystery to them. Those who understood best did exactly what Bunyan did in your comment. They exalted Jesus and explained the Father and the Holy Ghost according to Jesus.
Bunyan
"but the Son is that stumbling-stone and rock of offence, against which thousands dash themselves in pieces; though in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and in him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily."
AMEN, Bunyan knew where the treasure was.
God is only ever explained and made manifest to believers by Jesus Christ. When Jesus saved me by His Grace all I knew was Jesus, I had everything I ever needed and it was all contained in knowing Him I never needed to say "Show me the Father" Jesus had already done this.
"Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him" Namely Jesus Christ. Jesus is our friend, our brother, our God. We are hidden in Christ and He in us. By Christ our Savior in us we have the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit. All through Jesus Christ.
You assert that “when Christ was on earth God in Christ is veiled by flesh.”
Does this mean that you assert that the flesh of Christ was not divine, but only his spirit?
I do not think John 8:58, in which Jesus says “I AM” (the same name as the Father in Exodus 3:14) provides evidence for the oneness position that Jesus is the Father. Jesus says that he is sent down from heaven by the Father and also that “I have come in my Father’s name” (John 5:43). Consequently, Jesus will have the Father’s name, but the fact that he is sent indicates a different person. Similarly, “Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads” (Revelation 14:1). The Lamb and his Father have the same name, but are distinct persons.
Here is what John Calvin had to say about the Trinity:
But to say nothing more of words, let us now attend to the thing signified. By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the Divine essence, - a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties. By subsistence we wish something else to be understood than essence. For if the Word were God simply and had not some property peculiar to himself, John could not have said correctly that he had always been with God.When he adds immediately after, that the Word was God, he calls us back to the one essence. But because he could not be with God without dwelling in the Father, hence arises that subsistence, which, though connected with the essence by an indissoluble tie, being incapable of separation, yet has a special mark by which it is distinguished from it. Now, I say that each of the three subsistences while related to the others is distinguished by its own properties. Here relation is distinctly expressed, because, when God is mentioned simply and indefinitely the name belongs not less to the Son and Spirit than to the Father. But whenever the Father is compared with the Son, the peculiar property of each distinguishes the one from the other. Again, whatever is proper to each I affirm to be incommunicable, because nothing can apply or be transferred to the Son which is attributed to the Father as a mark of distinction. I have no objections to adopt the definition of Tertullian, provided it is properly understood, "that there is in God a certain arrangement or economy, which makes no change on the unity of essence." - Tertull. Lib. contra Praxeam.
Here is the website:
http://www.reformed.org/books/institutes/books/book1/bk1ch13.html#two.htm
Anonymous
Does this mean that you assert that the flesh of Christ was not divine, but only his spirit?
It is said of the flesh of our wonderful God and Savior Jesus Christ this:
* His flesh did not suffer decay
* It is the likeness of sinful flesh
If in John 8:58 if it was just a symantics about a name. Why did Jesus say "Before Abraham was Born I AM" Doesn't sound like a semantics with names. And if it was then why did they want to stone Him if not because he was making Himself out to be the Great I AM.
Not only this Jesus says "Unless you know that I AM HE you will surely die in your sins." If it is just symantics about having the same name why must we know that HE IS the Great I AM. (I AM HE)
Also if they are different people when Philip was asked directly to be shown the Father why did Jesus say "Don't you know ME, Philip"
If he wasn't the Father why didn't Jesus answer "Don't you know the Father Philip"
PB wrote:
They all agree it is a mystery to them. Those who understood best did exactly what Bunyan did in your comment. They exalted Jesus and explained the Father and the Holy Ghost according to Jesus.
No, they all held to the trinitarian doctrine you are denying. This is pure revisionism and misinterpretation if you think Calvin, Edwards, and Spurgeon would hold to your distinct definition of the Godhead. Trinity no where can be exegeted as body-soul-spirit as you define. (Benny Hinn did something simlar when he proposed his 9 entities in the Godhead theory a while back). The clear testimony of the scriptures and the giants of church history stand in clear contradiction to the particular views expressed here. I beg you to give this matter much consideration.
AMEN, Bunyan knew where the treasure was.
Yes, but that was not the point of the quote. Bunyan appropriately says that those who deny the Trinity are exalting themselves against the knowledge of God. That, indeed, is a rebuke to the doctrine herein proposed on this blog.
Please dear friend, pray and reconsider this serious departure from God's word.
D.R Brooker:
Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father:
I enjoy John Bunyan, I read and re-read His books because he is to me an amazing man of God, I enjoy him more then all the other puritans even Spurgeon.
I don't get my doctrines from Men even John Bunyan although I share many with him. I get them from my wonderful Savior, My friend, My brother who is in me, My Everlasting Father Jesus Christ. I find them all throughout Scripture and if you truly read my posts (Last 3) and comments perhaps you will be pleasantly surprised just how close I have used the scriptures to reveal Jesus. Otherwise you will find accusations against me to tickle your ears.
When we die or Jesus returns and every knee bows to Him. I want to be able to say: I was faithful to you Jesus. I wanted to know nothing else but You and did my utmost to preach You even when all men hated my message of You.
There are many men following the giants of church history and I am not one of them. I am a heretic as was my Lord. They hated him and they hate me because I lift Jesus up as the Lord God Almighty who created all things for Himself.
Colossians 1:16
For by Him all things were created both in the heavens and on the earth....All things have been created through him and for him.
I must side with the other faithful and yet graceful men in this comment section who have served notice that they can no longer advocate the writings of someone who has a heretical view on the doctrine of God -and someone who's pride and 'God told me' attitude is above correction by even the scriptures themselves. It's Benny Hinn all over again. Please remove my link from your site.
I am amazed at you and others who refuse to hold to 'any' catholic doctrine. That is just plain dishonesty. There are at lease a dozen Catholic doctrines that you hold to: The deity of Christ, the virgin birth (which has nothing do do with the doctrine of Mary, but nice try PB), the incarnation of Christ etc. Doctrine just means teaching, and if you ever agree with anything that is affirmed by the Catholic church (like the reality of Jesus' miracles while here on earth), then you agree with a Catholic doctrine. I am disappointed in your dishonesty.
Secondly, I am amazed at the dozens are arguments that you continue to sideswipe in this post. You answer the ones you think you can answer, but the tough ones go ignored. You remind me of an Arminian -always jumping back to their favorite verses and favorite catch-phrases without ever dealing with the real texts. Your above correction (God somehow told you the truth -you might want to get off of that pedastool), your dishonest with your arguments, and you ignore 2000 years worth of faithful men who document your view as heresy. The problem is, you do remind me of the Arminian (especially with the straw-man arguments like asking if we serve three Gods), but the doctrine of God is FAR more important than the doctrines of grace, and your error here is something that should cause you to tremble. An Arminian who just cant quite understand salvation by faith alone is in far better shape than one who is ignorant to the very nature of the God he supposedly serves. You have to get the nature of God right before you can ever begin to understand His work in redemption.
I guess you like being called a heretic -which, funny thing is, most heretics do. I guess you kind of fulfill your desire for superiority by telling yourself your 'dieing' from some kind of good cause. Nevertheless, Jesus was condemned as a heretic by evil, vile, and wicked men. Those who are calling your view heresy are just about every single faitful church father in the last 2000 years. The arrogance in proclaiming your view is correct in the face of 2000 years of history is staggering. That is your fatal flaw.
God opposes the Proud but gives grace to the humble.
So long PB.
SDG
I do not think your identifying Jesus as "I AM" is conclusive for your Jesus = Father position.
Nobody is disputing that Jesus is eternal (the Word was both with God and was God from the beginning; Jesus is the Lamb slain before the creation of the world). Of course Jesus would say that he existed before Abraham.
With regard to the name I AM, Jesus came in his Father's name (John 5:43; and the etymology of Jesus is YHWH saves).
Moreover, Jesus said "Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one" (John 17:11). Notice that Jesus and the Father are one as believers are to be one, and I don't think anyone on this blog will argue that all Christians are one person as the Oneness position argues about God.
And of course Jesus' hearers will respond to the name of God revealed to Moses (the name the Father gave to Jesus).
For the sake of your readers, I think it would be a good exercise for you to provide your Oneness (Jesus = Father) understanding of John 17:11:
Jesus prays, "I will remain the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you, Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you have given me--so they may be one as we are one."
1. please explain how Jesus is "coming" to the Holy Father if he is the same person as the Father.
2. please explain how believers are one as Jesus and his Father are one.
In addition, I think it is unbiblical to suggest that we should not baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19), for this contradicts the very words of Christ.
Your Oneness assertion that the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus alone because this meant the Trinity is shown to be incorrect by Acts 8:15-16: "When [Peter and John] arrived, they prayed for [the Samaritans] that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."
I think the Oneness understanding of Colossians 2:2 is also incorrect:
". . .in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ"
The word "namely" does not occur in Greek.
"Christ" in in apposition to "mystery," not "God."
Hence, the mystery is identified to be Christ. This verse is not stating that Jesus is the Father.
Nathan
Certainly
Anonymous: & John 17:11
The Holy Spirit is defined in John 14:23
"If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."
He comes to us by the Spirit.
John 17:11
"...so that they may be one as we are one."
The Spirit that is in Jesus will be in us. Therefore we will be one with the Father as Christ is. For we will have the Father in us or Holy Spirit as Jesus did. (We are One)
In addition, I think it is unbiblical to suggest that we should not baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19), for this contradicts the very words of Christ.
If this is so each and every disciple was unbilical when they baptised in Acts: (Acts 2:38,Acts 8:12,Acts 8:16,Acts 19:4,Acts 19:5,Rom 6:3)
1. please explain how Jesus is "coming" to the Holy Father if he is the same person as the Father.
Thomas: Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way
Jesus: If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well, From now on, you do know him and have seen him
I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer.
Jesus could not reveal the fullness of his glory to them while he was still with them in the flesh. Therefore He would go to the Father (By the Spirit) and return (By the Spirit)
Hence, the mystery is identified to be Christ.
Amen, I actually like this better. Not just a name the mystery is JESUS
Pb
from your comments I gather that Christ must reveal Himself to the believer so that they may know Him.
This is also scriptural. Calvinism (of which you adhere) teaches that only the elect may have God revealed to them. If indeed God (I mean Jesus) has revealed that the trinity is false and that oneness theology is from Him...it would logically follow that those who hold to the trinity have now had revelation of God and thus are not numbered amoung the elect.
There has been much discussion recently about the church fathers and their belief in the trinity... would it no be logical to conclude that God would not allow his elect to believe in false doctrine. THerefore if the trinity is false and since the church fathers eg Calvin, Bunyan, Spurgeon...hold to the trinity it would demonstrate that they themselves are not of the elect and that they are currently residing in the depths of Hell.
Since you seem to believe that if the Catholic church has incorrect doctrine and therefore all their doctrine is false would it not follow that if the Church fathers held to a wrong doctrine about the very nature of God would it not follow that they cannot be trusted on anything.
It seems strange that God did not reveal this to anyone in recorded history when according to you it is so simple and even a very child can understand it.
PB -
Sorry, some final questions:
I thought you had claimed that Jesus Christ was the Spirit?
Yet you say, "The Spirit that is in Jesus will be in us. Therefore we will be one with the Father as Christ is. For we will have the Father in us or Holy Spirit as Jesus did. (We are One)"
According to you, is Jesus Christ, the man who walked upon earth, God? Didn't you say that He was Father, Spirit, and Son all at once? Or maybe I've completely misunderstood what you're saying. How can Jesus have the Spirit in Him if He is the Spirit? How can Jesus "go" to the Father in any sense if Jesus is the Father?
Allow me to explain the difficulty everyone seems to be having with your claims.
Would you say:
Jesus Christ, the man who walked upon earth, is God the Father, is God the Son, is God the Holy Spirit?
Because from my understanding, that is exactly what you are affirming.
But yet you continue to affirm somehow that God was in Jesus, that the Spirit was in Jesus, that the Son was in Jesus.
Is there, to you, a difference between "God is in Jesus" and "God is Jesus"? What is it? Would you deny that Jesus was God while he walked among earth?
PB,
It appears you have missed this one. (Easy to do as there are so many comments to address)
you said:
"Jesus is triune (Body-Soul-Spirit) Yesterday today and foverever."
Indicating that His triune nature is divided as Body-Soul-Spirit.
Could you please elaborate what you mean when you use the destinctions.
The form
By Body I refer to...
By Soul I refer to...
By Spirit I refer to...
would help me to better and clearly understand you and avoid any miscommunication or misunderstanding.
MDM
Magi:
Soul:
John 12:27:"Now is my soul troubled.."
Acts 2:27: "Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."
Spirit
The Spirit made manifest in Christ is the Holy Spirit. His baptism was to fulfill all righteousness as a man not because he didn't have the Spirit already.
Flesh
Jesus has flesh. "And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1)
Triune:
Jesus is triune in and of himself. Fully man Fully God.
Katie:
Calvinism: We are not saved by doctrine but Jesus.
MXU:
I thought you had claimed that Jesus Christ was the Spirit?
Jesus is the Spirit, God is Spirit, The Lord is the Spirit, The Father is Lord. The scripture uses them interchangeably and so have I.
How can Jesus have the Spirit in Him if He is the Spirit?
Because the Spirit is one and the same with Christ.
He was Father, Spirit, and Son all at once?
Yes even in the manger by His Spirit the omnipresent Spirit that had both manifest itself in Christ and Fathered Him was ruling Jesus as it was the whole world.
Would you deny that Jesus was God while he walked among earth?
No, Jesus is the same Yesterday, Today and Forever
How can Jesus "go" to the Father in any sense if Jesus is the Father?
Please refer to my comment to Anonymous
But yet you continue to affirm somehow that God was in Jesus, that the Spirit was in Jesus/
Scripture tells us
1. God was in Christ: To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself. (2 Cor 5:19)
2. Spirit was in Jesus: "...It is finished!" And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit. " The Spirit of Christ which is everywhere at once was in Jesus and when he gave it up Jesus died.
Would you deny that Jesus was God while he walked among earth?
No, Jesus is the same Yesterday today and forever.
TO ALL
1 Corinthians 2:13
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
Bye For Now
<< Puritan Belief