The Bible shows God to be a distinct personage from Jesus Christ, who is a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and from the Holy Ghost according to the New Testament. Thus, the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate entities, perfectly distinct and in person independent from each other. This is the doctrine clearly stated by our Saviour. It is the doctrine proclaimed by his disciples in their epistles to the ancient saints. Any doctrine to the contrary contradicts what is plainly written and is a misinterpretation of these teachings. There was no confusion in the minds of Peter, John, and Paul. Consider what is written in the scriptures.

First, we have the occasion of the baptism of our Lord. According to Matthew, when Jesus was baptised he "went up straightway out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him; and lo, a voice from heaven saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." This scene is confirmed by Mark and Luke; but the account given by Luke is even more explicit. He says, "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." I will refer to this event and the conclusions we must draw from it later.

Likewise, Matthew in relating the story of the transfiguration, says that while Jesus and his three disciples were with Moses and Elias on the mount, "There came a voice out of the cloud which said, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." This is also confirmed by Mark and Luke.

On another occasion, as related in the 12th chapter of John, when Jesus was praying to his Father he said,

"Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it and will glorify it again."

Some of the assembled people "said that it thundered; others said an angel spoke to him." The very nature of the answer precludes the thought that it could have been the voice of any other than his Father.

It is impossible to harmonise such statements in the scriptures with the prevailing notion that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are not separate personages. Our Saviour was not a deceiver; he did not resort to ventriloquism to confuse and mislead those who were with him. We must if we use our sense of reason conclude that on each occasion when the Father spoke to the Son he was in some other place, and the voice was not coming in some mysterious way from the Son.

In John 14:28, the Saviour said to his disciples: "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

Naturally his Father would be greater because he is the Father, and this likewise teaches us the separate entities of the Father and the Son.

Then we have the witness of Paul to the Corinthian saints, wherein he says Christ must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet, and when that time comes, he, Christ,

"Shall have delivered up the kingdom to God the Father." Moreover, when the last enemy is destroyed and all things are put under the feet of God the Father, then, said Paul, "When all things are subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."--I Cor. 15:24-28.

Then again, unto whom was Christ praying as recorded in the seventeenth chapter of John, when he said:

"Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee…. And now O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

Surely he was not praying to himself. It is absurd to say that the mysterious essence called the Son was praying to the same mysterious essence called the Father.

In the Garden the Saviour prayed saying, "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." Consistently we cannot say that he would utter such a prayer to himself.

When Mary came to the tomb unaware of the Lord's resurrection, she found the sepulchre empty, but the risen Lord stood by. She thought him the gardener, and said:

Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.

Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Surely if the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are one person, then this remark by our Lord to Mary, is inconsistent. We must conclude, of course, that the Lord is consistent, and that only man is inconsistent.


Christ could not ascend to himself.
He could not be greater than himself.

Said our Redeemer: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

There is not within the covers of the Bible one single passage which can properly be construed to uphold the erroneous doctrine that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are one in substance one, and merely a spirit, or essence, without body or parts or passions, incomprehensible and invisible. To the contrary, throughout the scriptures there is ample evidence in numerous passages, teaching that the Eternal Father and his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are separate entities, perfectly distinct and in person independent from each other. This is the doctrine clearly stated by our Saviour. Any doctrine to the contrary contradicts what is plainly written and is a misinterpretation of these teachings.

When Stephen was being martyred he saw God: "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God." (Acts vii: 55, 56.) Nothing could be plainer and more convincing from the written Scriptures than that Stephen actually saw God, and that He and His Son were in the heavens in the presence of each other.

Paul wrote to the Philippians as follows: "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." (Phillip. ii: 5, 6.) And again in Col. 1.15, Paul said respecting the Saviour: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature." To the Hebrews the same apostle says, concerning Jesus: "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." (Heb. 1: 3.) These writings of Paul fully corroborate in doctrine all the quotations on the subject made from the Old and New Testaments.

The Scriptures referred to show conclusively the personality of the Father, and a portion of the quotations presented, point to the fact that He is a separate personage, and entirely distinct in person from His Son Jesus Christ.




MRGANITE

How can humans discuss this? You rightly point to the distinctness of the persons yet the one-ness of God, or as you called Him elsewhere, the God-head.

Am I reading you wrong to see that you, also, are agreeing to this distinctness within the one-ness?

How can humans discuss this? You rightly point to the distinctness of the persons yet the one-ness of God, or as you called Him elsewhere, the God-head.

Am I reading you wrong to see that you, also, are agreeing to this distinctness within the one-ness?
You do not read me right. The Godhead is God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit, which are three separate and distinct persons acting in the unity of the Godhead but not as explained in the Doctrine of Trinity - which I reject as unbiblical - which has it that there is one God but three 'economies.'

How can humans discuss this? That has never been a problem for humans. Jesus has said that we must not only discuss it, but that we MUST come to know God, and that we must become as he is.

"This, then, is eternal life to know God, and Jesus Christ whom God has sent."

"Be ye, therefore, perfect, even as you Father which is in heaven is perfect."

Theology, is talking about God, and we do talk about God, discuss God, debate God and his nature, characteristics, attributes, being, will, mind, purposes, etc. etc.

You are discussing the very thing you question whether human can discuss and question. Answers prove a little more elusive, but the discussions and debates are always fascinating.



M:)

Indeed. Fascinating and illuminating when done right. I'm glad you point out what I misunderstood.

I don't understand the statement "The Godhead is God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit, which are three separate and distinct persons "acting in the unity of the Godhead".

What other words could you use to describe this unity? What fault do you find in the historic Christian explanation of this unity (which, as you rightly point out, we call the Trinity)?

I am curious, too... if you don't mind disclosing: Are you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

Indeed. Fascinating and illuminating when done right. I'm glad you point out what I misunderstood.

I don't understand the statement "The Godhead is God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit, which are three separate and distinct persons "acting in the unity of the Godhead".

What other words could you use to describe this unity? What fault do you find in the historic Christian explanation of this unity (which, as you rightly point out, we call the Trinity)?

I am curious, too...if you don't mind disclosing: Are you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

When I use the term 'Godhead,' I mean the combination of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost.

The unity to which I refer is of purpose and not persons. There are three persons in the Godhead who act in concert - hence unity of purpose and intent - although each has his separate being, and individual, discrete and independent personality and will, but the three Persons are not merely modes of activity of one indivisible God.

The traditional Christian Trinity holds that there are not three separate distinct and individual persons in the Trinity, but God in one Person who sometimes behaves as God the Father, sometimes as the God the Son of the Father, and sometimes as the God the Holy Spirit, but whatever modality they act in at any given moment they are the one and same person.

My objections to this traditional nonbiblical view is that it is a contradiction, and God is not the author of confusion; that the Trinity per se is not supportable from scripture; and that events recorded in the Bible militate powerfully against God and the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost being the same person or persons. Cogent examples are have provided in the posts divided into three parts on account of its length, and to which your refer in your questions.

While it is sometimes possible to guess from content of posts the leaning or denomination of a poster, it is my experience that such revelations often cloud more important issues and head us into entirely wrong directions.

The name of the church in your question was changed some six or seven years back to "The Community Of Christ" although they were previously styled as you have it.

Please feel free to respond as you think .


M:)RGANITE

My objections to this traditional nonbiblical view is that it is a contradiction, and God is not the author of confusion; that the Trinity per se is not supportable from scripture; and that events recorded in the Bible militate powerfully against God and the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost being the same person or persons. Cogent examples are have provided in the posts divided into three parts on account of its length, and to which your refer in your questions.

Totally agree... What scripture is that from morganite? "God is not a God of confusion" hmmmm :confused: I cannot think of it!

Totally agree... What scripture is that from morganite? "God is not a God of confusion" hmmmm :confused: I cannot think of it!


1 Corinthians 14:33a

33 For God is not [the author*] of confusion [... ]

* the words in brackets are supplied to make sense of the Greek.



M:)

Ah yes.. lol thanks! It was driving me nuts.. I thought is was Corinthians

Not all Christians believe the holy spirit is a person. There are Christians who believe it to be the force God used to create the universe, which he also uses to strengthen, inspire, encourage, enlighten, his worshippers. This is not to say I am seeking debate on this issue since this is not a debating forum and debates rarely are productive and the debators rarely if ever accept the opposing view. Only to say that there are divergeant opinions on this matter.

Example of the opposing viewpoint can be found at the following websites:

Excerpt:
The Scriptures speak of the Holy Spirit in many ways that demonstrate that it is not a divine person. For example, the Holy Spirit is referred to as a gift (Acts 10:45; 1 Timothy 4:14). We are told that it can be quenched (1 Thessalonians 5:19), that it can be poured out (Acts 2:17; 10:45), and that we are baptized with it (Matthew 3:11). It must be stirred up within us (2 Timothy 1:6), and it also renews us (Titus 3:5). These are certainly not attributes of a person.


IS THE HOLY SPIRIT A PERSON?
http://www.ucgportland.org/popups/tl9.html


What Is the Holy Spirit?

http://www.guardian-ministries.org/nholyspirit.htm

The Scriptures speak of the Holy Spirit in many ways that demonstrate that it is not a divine person.

And in some ways that demonstrate that he is:


John 14:26
26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Early Christian art shows a three-faced God, one of whom is the Holy Ghost. This can be found on the front cover of Mircea Eliade's "The Sacred and the Profane," in the softback edition.

I regret I have not time at present to provide further examples, but the creeds describe the Holy Ghost as a 'person' and that must speak for itself.

M:)

The traditional Christian Trinity holds that there are not three separate distinct and individual persons in the Trinity, but God in one Person who sometimes behaves as God the Father, sometimes as the God the Son of the Father, and sometimes as the God the Holy Spirit, but whatever modality they act in at any given moment they are the one and same person.

Absolutely incorrect. The above is not the teaching of the Catholic faith nor of most Protestant groups.

This is one of the problems with debates whereby one asserts knowledge of the other's position.

Thankfully, the doctrine of the Trinity is shared by Catholics and most Protestants.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system." For more, read here (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm).

And for an even deeper understanding of each of the Three - and their relationship, start reading here (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P15.HTM).

And in some ways that demonstrate that he is:


John 14:26
26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Early Christian art shows a three-faced God, one of whom is the Holy Ghost. This can be found on the front cover of Mircea Eliade's "The Sacred and the Profane," in the softback edition.

I regret I have not time at present to provide further examples, but the creeds describe the Holy Ghost as a 'person' and that must speak for itself.

M:)

My computer programs teach me many things and it are just tools.
Nano tech might eventually produce chips which might be implanted into the brain to teach us. Some programs even speaks its instructions as it teaches. My chess program does that.

About the art and creeds, such as the Nicene (325/381) and Athanasian (circa 500), they are viewed as the result of a slow inexorable turning away from Christian original teachings as predicted by the apostle Paul. A warning unheeded.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.


Also, one reason that the three-personed God is rejected it is that it poses an affront to OT and its writers. According to the Trinitarian view Abraham, Moses, Daniel, in short, all major and minor prophets were wrong in their view of who God really is. The viewpoint posits that they were inspired into error. Christians, mind you, have never accused the OT or the writers of the OT of being uninspired which is paradoxical to say the least. So the idea of a triune God creates contradiction which Christendom seems reluctant to face via ignoring it or continuing to accuse the Jews of misunderstanding their own sacred writings to the degree of not really knowing who the God they worshipped really was during all that time prior to Christianity. That viewpoint contradicts both Jesus' and the Apostles' respect the OT as evidenced by the frequency that it is quoted and the and referred to as the inspired Word of God which is part of the light that God shone on the minds of men prior to the coming of Jesus.


BTW
I agree with you that Jesus is not his own father and that Jesus and his Father are two persons and that their unity referred to is that of purpose and mind. The following scriptures along with the OT viewpoint should make that clear. The bolds are mine.


John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."


John 14:28: "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."


1Corinthians 8:5-6: "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, [b]the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."

1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

Absolutely incorrect. The above is not the teaching of the Catholic faith nor of most Protestant groups.

This is one of the problems with debates whereby one asserts knowledge of the other's position.

Thankfully, the doctrine of the Trinity is shared by Catholics and most Protestants.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system." For more, read here (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm).

And for an even deeper understanding of each of the Three - and their relationship, start reading here (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P15.HTM).


You have posted the words, but I have posted their meaning. As the creed stands it is a direct contradiction. It says that there are three separate and distinct iPersons eaxch of which is God, and then contradicts that statement by insisting that these three truly distinct Persons, each of which is God, are not three Gods but One God. Calling a contradiction a 'mystery' does not clear up either the contradiction or the confusion. The implications of the creed are not supported by the Bible, and that is the point we need to come to terms with.

The introduction of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was not the result of a journey arriving at a theological credal statement of belief, but the result of attempts to thwart pagan and Jewish taunts that Christians were polytheistic, while claiming they were monotheistic, because some Christians elevated Jesus to the same level as God, and some said he was the Father as well as the Son. It was a philosophic al destination embraced byChristian theologians in disarray that proceeded toward the compromise of the Holy Trinity. However, as previously stated, it does not rest on a secure scriptural foundation, rather it sits on a foundation of necessity. With the appearance of Konstantin on the scene, the doctrine also took a politoco-philosophical turn.

In respect of this, Clement, he of the 'Clementine Recognitions,' speaking of philosophy's inroads into Christianity in his own time, said:

"Most rightly, I said, has the omnipotent God hidden his will from you, knowing you to be unworthy from the first--as should be clear to any thinking person from your present behavior. For when you see preachers of the will of God coming to you, if their speech displays no familiarity with the grammatic art, but instead they tell you God's commands in simple unpolished phrases, so that anyone who hears them can follow and understand what they say, you make fun of these ministers and messengers of your salvation, forgetting . . . that a knowledge of the truth may be found among rustics and barbarians; yet you won't accept it unless it comes by one of your town and in your vernacular; and that is proof enough that you are not friends of truth and philosophers [seekers after wisdom] at all, but the dupes of men with big mouths, babblers yourselves, who believe that truth must dwell not in simple words but in shrewd and clever language."

Even at this early day, Christianity and philosophy are on opposite sides of the fence, as Roman Catholic scholar Etienne Gilson has incontrovertibly shown. But it was not to be so for long. S. V. McCasland has noted that

"[T]he older unspeculative conception of the creation of man in the image of God" was the original Christian doctrine, as witnessed "by unambiguous passages in the Clementine Homilies," which show how early that doctrine fell into disrepute.

J. Morris has written, [/i]

[Theophilus of Antioch] "altogether avoided mentioning that God had a son, let alone that a Crucifixion was involved."

"With perfect impunity and the greatest of ease they proceeded to do violence to the scriptures," writes Eusebius of the period, "blithely disregarding the original teaching. . . . They never consulted the scriptures, but busily worked out elaborate structures of syllogisms. . . . They deserted the holy scripture for Euclid, Aristotle, and Theophrastus. . . . They cultivated the arts of the unbelievers and took to hair-splitting discussions about the once simple faith of the Holy Writ."

They became imitators of Seneca, whose specialty, as Cochrane describes it, was "clothing in scintillating phrases the commonplaces of a shallow optimism, the beautiful day-dream of human perfectability and brotherhood under the Caesars"--later, we might add, under the imperial church.

Justin Martyr, though he recognized the superiority of prophecy to philosophy, never gave up his philosopher's garb, of which he was very proud, and went all out to show that Plato, after all, taught no differently than Moses and Christ, that Heraclitus taught the same morality as Moses, and even that Plato's areté is nothing other than the Holy Ghost!

At the same time, Irenaeus accused the Gnostics of dragging philosophy into the church. Their works, he says, "read like a patchwork made up from the philosophers as all those call themselves who do not know the true God, piecing together a doctrine from philosophical shreds and tatters with high-sounding eloquence."

All the attributes of God, he notes, they derive from the philosophers, "and they hold forth with hairsplitting subtlety on philosophical questions, introducing, as it were, Aristotle into the faith."

"O miserable Aristotle!" cried Tertullian shortly after, "who taught them [the Christians] dialectic, the art of proving and disproving, the cunning turn of sentences, forced conjectures, tough arguments, contrary even to itself."

All heresies are suborned by philosophy, he says: from the philosophers they get the idea that the flesh is not resurrected - a thing on which all philosophers agree; hence, too, they get the doctrine of the baseness of matter and such set questions as whence is evil and why? - because these are old chestnuts in the Greek schools.

Paul knew philosophy at Athens, Tertullian observes, and was not impressed by it. "What have Athens and Jerusalem in common?" he asks in a famous passage. "What the Academy and the Church?"

But by the next century, Minucius Felix sees no difference between the teaching of the prophets and those of the philosophers and concludes "either that the Christians are now philosophers, or that the ancient philosophers were already Christians." And Clement of Alexandria sees in philosophy God's preparation of the human race for the Jesus' gospel: "Philosophy prepares the work that Christ completes."

Yet that work having been consummated, it is not philosophy but the gospel that bows out of the picture, for Clement himself never mentions the millennium, softpedals the second coming of Christ, and allegorizes the resurrection.

In a book on Clement of Alexandria, Walter Voelker writes:

"In Clement of Alexandria, Stoic, Platonist, Mystic, etc., constantly shove against and overlap on each other and entangle themselves often in a narrow compass into a completely inextricable mess."

Origen was just as bad, completely rejecting the old faith, as Schmidt notes, in favor of philosophy.

"In his way of life," wrote Porphyry of Origen, "he lived like a Christian, which was misleading, since in actual fact and in his teachings about God he was a thoroughgoing Hellenist." It was he who introduced logic and dialectic into the church--those two obsessions of declining antiquity of which the early church had so prided itself of being free. It was he, you may recall, who told the pagan Celsus that all Christians would do nothing but study philosophy if they did not have to take time off to earn a living. Step by step we can trace the infiltration of philosophy into the church and its core beliefs, but freom the beginning it was not so.

What was once a simple truth delivered by Jesus about his dependent and submissive relationship with the Father - "My Father and your Father, My God and Your God!" developed by the fourth Christian century in the crucible of bitter argument into the Trinity. A doctrine that is confusing, contradictory, and contrary to all that is found in the Bible.

Whilst I agree that those not of a particular denomination do not always understand what it teaches, it is far from the truth to say that they cannot understand what it teaches. The issues, whilst far from clear or conscise are suifficiently well and reliably documented by those within and without the Catholic Church. Anyone sufficiently familiar with the history and literature can make valid statements.




M:)RGANITE




.

Thankfully we have Christ's Church - and 2000 years of exposition and discussion - to help us with all of this.

As for me, I am with the historic Christian faith that recognizes in the New Testament the mysterious Trinity: One God in three Persons; separate and distinct yet one.

What you refer to as "Christ's Church" along with the two thousand years of exposition have failed to satisfy the subject of the nature of God. Therefore it is a relevant subject for debate, speculation, discussion, and further exploration, but if your mind is satisfied then I am happy for you, but you will recognise that for some the questions are far from settled.

I am surprised that a supermoderator, a person one expects to be neutral on dogmatic and doctrinal grounds, seeks to limit discussion on a subject of such great importance.

As I write, dissenters have often paid a price for daring to challenge the accepted view of insitutional Christianity. It is not too many years since some of the most brilliant theological minds of our times, massive intellects like Hans Kung and Edward Schillebecx, dared to dissent and were removed.

If the subject embarrasses anyone, they need not respond, but there are many who are interested in the Trinity and its obvious contradictions and who, unless this forum is closed to them, should feel free to express themselves without the persecutions that marked the Inquistions. No one has to agree, but should we not at least expect contributors to the thread to add something to the debate?

Vatican II opened the eyes of ordinary people to study theology, and the Council fathers' recognition of the myriad voices opened many fields of debate that had been closed for centuries. It would be sad indeed if the spirit of Vatican II was buried under slavish devotion to creeds that make no sense to many of the world's people.

The Late pope decided should be a synod on Christian marriage. Why? Hadn't the matter been settled for two-thousand years? Hadn't it been put to the test by theologians and scholars and laid to rest? Apparently not, and the pope recognised this. He could have simply hjeld uyp his hand and said, "No discussion necessary. It is settled!" Instead, he recognised contrary opinions evenwihtin his own ranks. There were dissident theologians - even dissident bishops - who needed to be heard.

Consequently, he calles a Synod, and to his amazement the synod considered views markedly dissimilar to his own. They concluded that the fact that Catholics don't practice birth control was something that must be given consideration. The synod could have said, 'Well these people are all misguided' or 'They're all sinners'; but such a response to what is undeniably a pressing situation would not serve the interests of the Catholic people well. They deserved better. The synod, against papal expectations, began from the real situation of the Catholic people, and tried to understand and help them. They could have said, 'Everything will be solved by your obedience to what had been decreed before. Go home and behave yourselves!" Sadly, despite the urging of the synond, the second was what the pope announced in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor . And this perhaps is one of the most unusual features of the pontificate.

But perhaps the important encouraging thing is that he called the council and set them free to discuss ways and means, and that spirit of free enquiry is too precious to be squashed, whether by decree ex cathedra, or any other means, for it is that spirit that has moved the development of all the doctrines and dogmas of traditional Christianity. and which is yet active within the RCC in movements such as Liberation Theology, and the abandonment of Limbo, and it continues to question whether the Trinity is supported by the Bible.

" ... he that is not against us is on our part."


M:)RGANITE

My computer programs teach me many things and it are just tools.
Nano tech might eventually produce chips which might be implanted into the brain to teach us. Some programs even speaks its instructions as it teaches. My chess program does that.

About the art and creeds, such as the Nicene (325/381) and Athanasian (circa 500), they are viewed as the result of a slow inexorable turning away from Christian original teachings as predicted by the apostle Paul. A warning unheeded.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.


Also, one reason that the three-personed God is rejected it is that it poses an affront to OT and its writers. According to the Trinitarian view Abraham, Moses, Daniel, in short, all major and minor prophets were wrong in their view of who God really is. The viewpoint posits that they were inspired into error. Christians, mind you, have never accused the OT or the writers of the OT of being uninspired which is paradoxical to say the least. So the idea of a triune God creates contradiction which Christendom seems reluctant to face via ignoring it or continuing to accuse the Jews of misunderstanding their own sacred writings to the degree of not really knowing who the God they worshipped really was during all that time prior to Christianity. That viewpoint contradicts both Jesus' and the Apostles' respect the OT as evidenced by the frequency that it is quoted and the and referred to as the inspired Word of God which is part of the light that God shone on the minds of men prior to the coming of Jesus.


BTW
I agree with you that Jesus is not his own father and that Jesus and his Father are two persons and that their unity referred to is that of purpose and mind. The following scriptures along with the OT viewpoint should make that clear. The bolds are mine.


John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."


John 14:28: "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."


1Corinthians 8:5-6: "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, [B]the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."

1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"

The only passage in the Bible that speaks of God, Jesus, and the Spirit as one God is a forgery. It is not found in the oldest manuscripts and modern translations leave it out.


M:)

How can you deny "institutional" Christianity. You yourself are putting forth the teachings of an "institution" aren't you?

Aren't you here putting forth the teachings of the Mormons?

How can you deny "institutional" Christianity. You yourself are putting forth the teachings of an "institution" aren't you?

Aren't you here putting forth the teachings of the Mormons?
I have not 'denied institutional Christianity.' I have commented on it from an historical perspective. If you have arguments against what I have written, why not lay them out and let us discuss them on their merits. Mormons will probably agree with most of what I have set out, here but so will many others.

Although some denominations require their members to profess faith in the trinity, most mainline denominations have taken a "hands-off" policy on the subject of the trinity, realizing that since personal study and free thought have been encouraged for years, it is not surprising that some of the conclusions reached would be nontrinitarian.

The recognition here is that the trinity is tool for pointing to a greater truth. In other words, Christianity has historically sought to look beyond its doctrines to the greater truth they are intended to address, IE God.

It is not uncommon for a Methodist, Presbyterian, or Anglican to profess non-trinitarian views, even among the clergy. The response from the governing bodies of those denominations is usually neutral, so long as the disagreement is voiced in respect.

Non-Trintarian groups - some of which are ancient, not modern objections, to Trinitarian position - include:

* Monarchianism
* Arianism
* Arian Catholic Church
* Socinianism
* Church of the Blessed Hope (Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith)
* Christadelphians
* Jehovah's Witnesses
* Bible Students
* The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)
* Unitarian Christians
* American Unitarian Conference
* Living Church of God
* Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship
* Magi Network
* Church of Christ, Scientist
* Oneness Pentecostals
* Unification Church
* The Way The Church of Yahweh in Christ Jesus
* Church of God General Conference (Abrahamic Faith)
* Polish Brethren
* Doukhobors
* Molokan
* The Way International
* Gospel Assembly Church
* New Church
* The Church of Jesus Christ
* Creation Seventh Day Adventism
* Iglesia ni Cristo
* True Jesus Church


Nontrinitarian people include:

* Natalius[1], ~200
* Sabellius, ~220
* Paul of Samosata, 269
* Arius, 336
* Eusebius of Nicomedia, 341, who baptized Constantine
* Constantius II, Byzantine Emperor, 361
* Antipope Felix II, 365
* Aëtius, 367
* Ulfilas, Apostle to the Goths, 383
* Priscillian, 385
* Muhammad, 632,
* Ludwig Haetzer, 1529
* Juan de Valdés, 1541
* Michael Servetus, 1553, kindly burned at the stake under John Calvin
* Sebastian Castellio, 1563
* Ferenc Dávid, 1579
* Fausto Paolo Sozzini, 1604
* John Biddle, 1662
* John Locke, 1704
* Sir Isaac Newton, 1727
* William Whiston, 1752
* Jonathan Mayhew, 1766
* Emanuel Swedenborg,1772 (The New Church)
* Benjamin Franklin, 1790
* Joseph Priestley, 1804
* Joseph Smith, 1805 (Mormon)
* Thomas Paine, 1809
* Thomas Jefferson, 1826
* James Madison, 1836
* William Ellery Channing, 1842
* Robert Hibbert, 1849
* Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1882
* James Martineau, 1900
* Charles Taze Russell, 1916 (Watchtower Co)
* Neville Chamberlain, 1940
* William Branham, 1965
* Herbert W. Armstrong, 1986 (Church of God)
* &c.


Non-Trintarianism (I prefer that term to anti-Trinitariansim, because rejection does not mean hostility towards Trinitarianism, merely disbelief in it) is not confined to a single denomnation, person, or movement, but has been widespread since non-trinitarianism, the NT view, was overtaken centuries later by Trinitarianism.

I am not, as you appear to believe, trying to start a war. I am openly positing the foundation for respectful and informed discussion by setting before you the non-Trinitatian position supported by cogent historical support, and I regret that you are unwilling to respond in that spirit. Opinions, however passionately and sincerely held, do not contribute to free and frank discussion unless they are supported, and while I am the first to welcome variant opinions, calling to each other across a divide without offering the light of explanation and evidentiary support is nothing but an exchange of heat, and I am not willing to engage in that kind of attack.


M:)RGANITE



.

I don't see any heat or attacking. This sort of engagement is why I've started my own site (http://www.catholictruths.com) that presents things as I see them.

With all respect, if this were just a discussion of what the writers of the NT really meant by their various descriptions of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then that would be one thing... but in your case aren't you arguing from the position of a group that claims special revelation regarding this issue and many others?

With this being the case, then we pretty much have to leave history out of it, don't we?

To get a fuller understanding of your position, I would like to read how your Church presents it. I couldn't find it at lds.org. Can you point me to something?

I do not represent any church or denomination.


M:)

Yes, Jesus is god-the Father.Isaiah 9:6 says that he is the everlasting father.Is this just because he has the same substance as the father, no.If it did, it would be funny how two members of the trinity have the same name, father.Malachi 2:10 states that we have one father.In John 14:9 Jesus said that he was the father.In John 12:44-45, Jesus said again that he was the father.if Jesus is not the father, then we run into many problems.Isaiah 63:16 says that the Lord is our Father.Ephesians 4:4-6 says that there is one Lord.Luke 2:11 says that there would be born a savior that day called christ the Lord.So if you look at all three of these verses, you will see that Jesus is the father.John 1:1 says thaty the word was with god.The meaning of word in the greek is logos.Which means a plan in one's mind.rEVELATIONS 13:8 SAYS THAT THE LAMB WAS SLAIN BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.WELL, HOW could this be he wasn't slain until the new testament.God had this plan in mind before he created man.he knew that man would sin which would separate our communion with him.so he planned on coming down himself in the flesh to save his people.there was no one worth to do it.We needed a sinless man to do it.That man was jesus christ.what about Genesis 1:26.Well, it doesn't say the father, it doesn't say the son, and it doesn't say the Holy Ghost.Jews say that he was communicating with the angels.Job 38:7 staes that the angels were present at creation.Well, I have to go, Ihope this helped you out.God bless.

Jesus said, "I and the Father are One". You can argue the Trinity until the last days. I used to be a Roman Catholic and during a period a time, a United Pentecostal, finally finding home in Assembly of God. I believe in the Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost and it is all God.

The Scriptures referred to show conclusively the personality of the Father, and a portion of the quotations presented, point to the fact that He is a separate personage, and entirely distinct in person from His Son Jesus Christ.


MRGANITE


I totally agree with you on this one. I would also like to commend you the skillful usage of scripture which is the foundation of Christian doctrine. Incidentally, the expression God the Father which is so often brandished about as if it were somewhere in the Bible is nowhere to be found within its pages. So I will assume that the expression began to be used only after the Trinitarian view became predominant within Christendom.

Yes, Jesus is god-the Father.Isaiah 9:6 says that he is the everlasting father.Is this just because he has the same substance as the father, no.If it did, it would be funny how two members of the trinity have the same name, father.Malachi 2:10 states that we have one father.In John 14:9 Jesus said that he was the father.In John 12:44-45, Jesus said again that he was the father.if Jesus is not the father, then we run into many problems.Isaiah 63:16 says that the Lord is our Father.Ephesians 4:4-6 says that there is one Lord.Luke 2:11 says that there would be born a savior that day called christ the Lord.So if you look at all three of these verses, you will see that Jesus is the father.John 1:1 says thaty the word was with god.The meaning of word in the greek is logos.Which means a plan in one's mind.rEVELATIONS 13:8 SAYS THAT THE LAMB WAS SLAIN BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.WELL, HOW could this be he wasn't slain until the new testament.God had this plan in mind before he created man.he knew that man would sin which would seperate our communion with him.so he planned on coming down himself in the flesh to save his people.there was no one worth to do it.We needed a sinless man to do it.That man was jesus christ.what about Genesis 1:26.Well, it doesn't say the father, it doesn't say the son, and it doesn't say the Holy Ghost.Jews say that he was communicating with the angels.Job 38:7 staes that the angels were present at creation.Well, I have to go, Ihope this helped you out.God bless.



Isaiah 9:6

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.


There is nothing in this verse indicative of any trinity.

The Jewish translation of verses 6 (Heb. 5), and 7 (Heb. 6), is:


Chapter 9

(6) 5 For a child has been born to us, A son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders.

He has been named "The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler" —

(7) 6 In token of abundant authority And of peace without limit Upon David's throne and kingdom, That it may be firmly established In justice and in equity Now and evermore.

The zeal of the Lord of Hosts Shall bring this to pass.


The Hebrew version provides an interesting reading, but there is absolutely no trinitarian content whether in the Christian rendition or in the Jewish one.



M:)RGANITE



.

Jesus said, "I and the Father are One". You can argue the Trinity until the last days. I used to be a Roman Catholic and during a period a time, a United Pentecostal, finally finding home in Assembly of God. I believe in the Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost and it is all God.


Jesus also said, "My Father is greater than I," and speaking directly to the Father, he said, "Not my will, but thine be done." etc. etc.

In many other passages Jesus stressed the unity of purpose and intent that exists between himself and the Father, but at the same time made significant differentiation between himself and the Father.

"Why callest thou me good?" he asked the rich young man, adding, "There is no one good except One." Clearly, although he said he was from God, he did not claim to be his own Father.





M:)

Jesus was God in the flesh. That is why the Bible calls this a mystery. He exists as three entities, yet is One.

Jesus was God in the flesh. That is why the Bible calls this a mystery. He exists as three entities, yet is One.

Jesus was [IS] the Son of God, incarnate. The Bible does not promote, speak of, indicate, hint at, or otherwise support a trinitarian godhead.

Of course people believe otherwise, and that is their privilege, but they have to move outside the pages of the Bible to do so. That's all.

M:)

Are we not all the Son of God incarnate? Didn't Jesus himself say that He is no different than you or I?

Are we not all the Son of God incarnate? Didn't Jesus himself say that He is no different than you or I?

Do you have a reference for that?


M:)

Are you saying that you don't?

Hmmm... I bet I can find it first

Are you saying that you dont??

Hmmm... I bet I can find it first



Didn't Jesus himself say that He is no different than you or I?


Where is it? I cannot recall him saying anything like that. "I am no different from any other man, etc"

I look forward to you kindly pointing it out to me.


M:)



.

Ok, most christians in believe in the trinity, I on the other hand am far from believing in the trinity. Jesus is God according to Isaiah 9:6, 1 Timothy 3: 16.

Trinitarians say that God the Son manifested himself in flesh but this is not true. 1 Cor 8: 6 claims the Father is the ONLY ONE God... and God (Father) manifested himself in flesh which is Jesus Christ according to 1 Timothy 3:16 and in Jesus dwells the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Jesus is God but not by the so called God the Son manifesting himself in Jesus. The Father is the Only God, God is the Father.

Many have misinterpreted the bible with their own opinion instead of letting the Holy Spirit give them understanding. Jesus revealed that he was the Father to the apostles in
John 14: 9-10, he told the apostles that he was the Father because they had been with Jesus along time and should have figured it out but they didn't until Philip asked Jesus to "Shew us the Father" Jesus told him "have i not been with you so long Philip? Jesus said "from now on you shall know that the Father is IN me. Some trinitarians ask "If he is the Father, then why didn't he just say so plainly"? The same reason why he never told the public he was "God". Jesus never put himself out as if he knew and could do anything (Philippians 2: 6-8).

John 8: 19, 24-25, 27 ~ The said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also. 24... for if ye believe not that I am HE, ye shall die in your sins. 25 Then they said unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus said to them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. 27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.

Jesus said "when you see me, you see the Father"

When it comes down to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the question is "Who rose Jesus?"

Was it the Father?

Was it the Spirit?

Was it Jesus himself?

Lets search the scriptures:

John 2: 19, 21 ~Jesus said, Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.

21 ... he spoke of the temple of his body.

John 10: 18 ~ No man taketh it from me, but i lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down and i have power to take it up again. This commandment have i recieved from my father.

IN THESE TWO VERSES JESUS IS SAID TO HAVE ROSE HIMSELF.

Gal 1:1 ~ ...but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;

Rom 8: 11 ~ ...that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father

IN THESE TWO VERSES THE FATHER IS SAID TO HAVE ROSE JESUS.

Rom 8: 11 ~ But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead...

IN THIS VERSE THE SPIRIT IS SAID TO HAVE ROSE JESUS.

Now we see that God the Father, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit rose Jesus.
If these three are distinct, why would they need to all raise him at the same time, that seems unnessecary, WE CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT JESUS HAS A LAW FROM THE FATHER TO RAISE HIMSELF BUT YET THE FATHER ROSE HIM BUT YET THE SPIRIT ROSE HIM. This would be confusing to trinitarians but to oneness, this is simple.

The Father and Holy Ghost are the same person. The Holy Spirit gives life, the holy spirit proceeds from the Father. The Holy Ghost is the God in action, notice that in every instance of the Holy Ghost, he is always doing something.

JESUS IS ALSO THE HOLY GHOST

John 14: 17-26 ~ Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot recieve, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 19 Yet in a little while
Verse 26 goes on to say the comforter is the Holy Ghost and the Father will send him.

Notice that the Holy Spirit has many nick names (Spirit of God, Spirit of truth, Spirit of Christ etc. The bible also says that there is only ONE spirit, if the Father has a Spirit and Jesus has the Spirit of Christ and they are three distinct person as trinitarians claim then their would be more than one Spirit, we would have more 3 spirits in us but theirs only ONE. Jesus said in the above verses that " i will come to you yet in a little while" and he also said "the spirit of truth is with the you", now take heed to this "I will not leave you comfortless, i will come to you". The apostles were in comfort because they had the Spirit of Truth but the Spirit was soon to leave this is why Jesus said I will not leave you comfortless, the Holy Spirit is Jesus come back to comfort us. The Holy Ghost was not considered a person of the Trinity until it was decided upon hundreds of years after the death of Christ

If the Trinity is True and God the Son is equal to God the Father then why does God the Father speaks through Jesus rather than God the Son speak? Isn't God the Son all powerful? Isn't God the Son all knowing? Isn't God the Son no less than the Father? God the Son doesn't speak because there is no God the Son, Jesus is the I AM because the FATHER IS SPEAKING and in Jesus (flesh) not a God the son. Doesn't Jesus say only the Father speaks? Does Jesus ever say God the Son speaks through the flesh of Jesus? No

Trinitarians admit that the concept of their belief is hard to comprehend and is a mystery. The bible never says God is a mystery, it only says "The wisdom of God is a mystery" the assets of God is a mystery not the nature of him. The Council of Nicea has messed up everything, its funny how constantine already believe he was God incarnated and was the leader of the council, he also believed in pagan gods. Turtillian and the rest of the Fathers of the Trinity all over a period was never established on the concept of the trinity until many years later others have put the final touches on the belief. Some of the Fathers of the Trinity took their aspects from pagan philosophers and tried to fix it in with the christian belief, the final result was God was three in one which makes no since anyway.

We all need to continue to study the word and study history and not be deceived by philosophy and vain deceit. God bless

Are you saying that you dont??

Hmmm... I bet I can find it first

Have you found it yet, Dr Jizzle? It still eludes me.


M:).

Ok, most christians in believe in the trinity, i on the other hand am far from believing in the trinity. Jesus is God according to Isaiah 9:6, 1 Timothy 3: 16.


How can a Christian not be a Trinitarian? Do you not believe in the Deity of Christ?http://http://www.neirr.org/believeint
rinity.htm (http://www.neirr.org/believeintrinity.htm)

How can a Christian not be a Trinitarian? Do you not believe in the Deity of Christ?http://http://www.neirr.org/believeint
rinity.htm (http://www.neirr.org/believeintrinity.htm)


The Trinity and Trinitarian formulations are not found in the Bible except by the expediency [?}of special pleading and reading back, both of which are unreliable. It comes down to a choice of believing either the creeds or believing the Bible. Which of these is the most reliable?

Being a Christian has nothing to do with the trinity, as the person you responded to indicated clearly that he/she was a Christian but not a trinitarian. It is extremely unlikely that any early Christian even heard of the trinity. God is not, says the scripture, the author of confusion. What is more confusing than the doctrine of the trinity?

Being a Christian has to do with believing that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, the Redeemer and Saviour of mankind. The trinity is a late-comer into the Christian fold compared with the clear teaching of the New Testament writers and the testimony of Jesus himself that he is the Son of God, not the Father, and that he submits his will to the will of the Father when his will differs from that of his Father.

Morganite,
Yes, I can see it is one's choice to believe in the Trinity or not. But if some wanted to claim otherwise, why do they so with established doctrine? Did you read all of my link? I never heard of this Unitarian belief from a Christian. What about the authority Jesus has when you are JUDGED? What about John 5: 19-30?

All these other beliefs do is divide us on doctrine. I know the basic elements for being a Christian, like you said. I just hate to see something like "unitarian" mentioned at all!
Just as there came to be so many denominations of Christianity- God never gave approval to dividing his church. The church is supposed to be one body(Eph.4:3-6) with Christ as its Head (Coloss.1:18)

If you just stick to answering your original question from Scripture- the answer is no. But to go on and say that Jesus was not God in the flesh- oh, I could just pinch someone. La, who do you think is inside you? HINT: the same Spirit!
I don't like the watered-down version of the PEACE & POWER. Amen.

Morganite,
Yes, I can see it is one's choice to believe in the Trinity or not. But if some wanted to claim otherwise, why do they so with established doctrine? Did you read all of my link? I never heard of this Unitarian belief from a Christian. What about the authority Jesus has when you are JUDGED? What about John 5: 19-30?

All these other beliefs do is divide us on doctrine. I know the basic elements for being a Christian, like you said. I just hate to see something like "unitarian" mentioned at all!
Just as there came to be so many denominations of Christianity- God never gave approval to dividing his church. The church is supposed to be one body(Eph.4:3-6) with Christ as its Head (Coloss.1:18)

If you just stick to answering your original question from Scripture- the answer is no. But to go on and say that Jesus was not God in the flesh- oh, I could just pinch someone. La, who do you think is inside you? HINT: the same Spirit!
I don't like the watered-down version of the PEACE & POWER. Amen.

I wrote a whole bunch but it got erased because I went back and then forward and it was erased but I will tell you this. Everyone who is a christian does not believe in a trinity, We believe Jesus is God but not by second person. We believe The Father is the only God (1 Cor 8: 6) who manifested himself in flesh which is Jesus (1 Tim 3: 16) and in Jesus dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Colo 2: 9). There is much to tell you and I would love you to ask me some questions. I am a 20 year old Apostolic man and my name is Troy, I am young but God has blessed me with the gift of knowledge and I have studied hard on both Trinity and Oneness. Please ask me some questions. I will leave you some sites to check out in my next post. God bless

Morganite,
Yes, I can see it is one's choice to believe in the Trinity or not. But if some wanted to claim otherwise, why do they so with established doctrine? Did you read all of my link? I never heard of this Unitarian belief from a Christian. What about the authority Jesus has when you are JUDGED? What about John 5: 19-30?

All these other beliefs do is divide us on doctrine. I know the basic elements for being a Christian, like you said. I just hate to see something like "unitarian" mentioned at all!
Just as there came to be so many denominations of Christianity- God never gave approval to dividing his church. The church is supposed to be one body(Eph.4:3-6) with Christ as its Head (Coloss.1:18)

If you just stick to answering your original question from Scripture- the answer is no. But to go on and say that Jesus was not God in the flesh- oh, I could just pinch someone. La, who do you think is inside you? HINT: the same Spirit!
I don't like the watered-down version of the PEACE & POWER. Amen.

PLEASE CHECK OUT THIS SITE:
226 Questions - Table of Contents (http://www.1lord1faith.org/wm/Oneness/226-toc.htm)

I will talk to you later. God bless

When it comes down to the ressurection of Jesus Christ, the question is "Who rose Jesus?"

Was it the Father?

Was it the Spirit?

Was it Jesus himself?

Lets search the scriptures:

John 2: 19, 21 ~Jesus said, Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.

21 ... he spoke of the temple of his body.

John 10: 18 ~ No man taketh it from me, but i lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down and i have power to take it up again. This commandment have i recieved from my father.

IN THESE TWO VERSES JESUS IS SAID TO HAVE ROSE HIMSELF.

Gal 1:1 ~ ...but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;

Rom 8: 11 ~ ...that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father

IN THESE TWO VERSES THE FATHER IS SAID TO HAVE ROSE JESUS.

Rom 8: 11 ~ But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead...

IN THIS VERSE THE SPIRIT IS SAID TO HAVE ROSE JESUS.

Now we see that God the Father, Jesus, and The Holy Spirit rose Jesus.
If these three are distinct, why would they need to all raise him at the same time, that seems unnessecary, WE CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT JESUS HAS A LAW FROM THE FATHER TO RAISE HIMSELF BUT YET THE FATHER ROSE HIM BUT YET THE SPIRIT ROSE HIM. This would be confusing to trinitarians but to oneness, this is simple.

The Father and Holy Ghost are the same person. the Holy Spirit gives life, the holy spirit proceeds from the Father. The Holy Ghost is the God in action, notice that in every instance of the Holy Ghost, he is always doing somthing.

JESUS IS ALSO THE HOLY GHOST

John 14: 17-26 ~ Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot recieve, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 19 Yet in a little while
verse 26 goes on to say the comforter is the Holy Ghost and the Father will send him.

Notice that the Holy Spirit has many nick names (Spirit of God, Spirit of truth, Spirit of Christ etc. The bible also says that their is only ONE spirit, if the Father has a Spirit and Jesus has the Spirit of Christ and they are three distinct person as trinitarians claim then their would be more than one Spirit, we would have more 3 spirits in us but theirs only ONE. Jesus said in the above verses that " i will come to you yet in a little while" and he also said "the spirit of truth is with the you", now take heed to this "I will not leave you comfortless, i will come to you". The apostles were in comfort because they had the Spirit of Truth but the Spirit was soon to leave this is why Jesus said I will not leave you comfortless, the Holy Spirit is Jesus come back to comfort us. The Holy Ghost was not considered a person of the Trinity until it was decided upon hundreds of years after the death of Christ

If the Trinity is True and God the Son is equal to God the Father then why does God the Father speaks through Jesus rather than God the Son speak? Isn't God the Son all powerful? Isn't God the Son all knowing? Isn't God the Son no less than the Father? God the Son doesn't speak because their is no God the Son, Jesus is the I AM because the FATHER IS SPEAKING and in Jesus (flesh) not a God the son. Doesn't Jesus say only the Father speaks? Does Jesus ever say God the Son speaks through the flesh of Jesus? No

Trinitarians admit that the concept of their belief is hard to comprehend and is a mystery. The bible never says God is a mystery, it only says "The wisdom of God is a mystery" the assets of God is a mystery not the nature of him. The Council of Nicea has messed up everything, its funny how constantine already believe he was God incarnated and was the leader of the council, he also believed in pagan gods. Turtillian and the rest of the Fathers of the Trinity all over a period of time was never established on the concept of the trinity until many years later others have put the final touches on the belief. Some of the Fathers of the Trinity took their aspects from pagan philosophers and tryed to fix it in with the christian belief, the final result was God was three in one which makes no since anyway.

We all need to continue to study the word and study history and not be decieved by philosophy and vain deceit. God bless
Who rose Jesus - that is, who was the engineer of his resurrection - is of less importance than the question of whether Jesus literally rose from the dead and whether others will also rise from the dead to everlasting life.

Who does what in these matter seems to be of much less significance than whether these events have taken and will take place for all mankind at a future time.

Your thoughts on the Trinity or NOT the Trinity are interesting but, and please forgive me for saying this, they appear a little confused and confusing. Although I am not a believer in the Trinity of the creeds, I find your arguments against the credal Trinity less than convincing. Principally because it appears that you interpret your prooftexts in peculiar ways.

M:)RGANITE

Who rose Jesus - that is, who was the engineer of his resurrection - is of less importance than the question of whether Jesus literally rose from the dead and whether others will also rise from the dead to everlasting life.

Who does what in these matter seems to be of much less significance than whether or not these events have taken and will take place for all mankind at a future time.

Your thoughts on the Trinity or NOT the Trinity are interesting but, and please forgive me for saying this, they appear a little confused and confusing. Although I am not a believer in the Trinity of the creeds, I find your arguments against the credal Trinity less than convincing. Principally because it appears that you interpret your prooftexts in peculiar ways.

M:)RGANITE

Sir, Im sorry that I might have confused you, I pray that you forgive me but what is more confusing, Oneness or The Trinity? I am apostolic and my objective is to restore the truth, and I know you will agree with me that the word of God has been distorted and changed from truth. I search the scriptures and research history, I'm just tired of people going by creeds written by people who followed some philosophy and makes God seem like a mystery, the bible never teaches that God is a mystery, what the bible does teach is the mystery of God is a mystery.

I talk to many trinitarians out of love to try to get them to understand, some do and some seem confused, some are torn between the two. They say the Trinity is a concept hard to comprehend but you must believe in faith that God is a Trinity, Ever time there is contradictions that I point out and there are many, trinitarians either make an excuse or they never answer my question. I have more questions to ask that I haven't asked yet. People says that the bible doesn't say the word "Trinity" but its taught in the bible, its funny because if God is three then the devil must be three as well because its also talked about it in scripture, the devil is the FATHER of lies, the antichrist is the SON of perdition (2 Thes 2: 3), and the antichrist also has a SPIRIT, its taugh so why do trinitarian say theirs a trinity of God and not a trinity of the devil, isn't it also taught. Yes, Thus making the Devilhead if the trinity of God is real.

I don't believe God is three. 1 John 5: 7-8 was added to the bible known as The Johannine Comma and is proven that it should not be used to try to prove the trinity. Genesis 1: 26 has also be proven by TRINITARIANS that they shouldn't us it to try to prove the trinity. I am so happy that you don't believe in the trinity creeds. Its just that the Trinity belief is a bit too weary and is wavering on rocky foundation. I pray that many will come to the truth and not fall to philosophy and vain deceit. Along with the holy ghost comes understanding. Just like I told the others, there is much to tell concerning the trinity. If the Trinity was truth, then I would want to believe it but I found that its far from it by prayer and study. This world needs a revival. Sir, if you have any questions to ask me please feel free, I would love that. God bless

Sir, Im sorry that i might have confused you, i pray that you forgive me but what is more confusing, Oneness or The Trinity? I am apostolic and my objective is to restore the truth, and i know you will agree with me that the word of God has been distorted and changed from truth. I search the scriptures and research history, im just tired of people going by creeds written by people who followed some philosophy and makes God seem like a mystery, the bible never teaches that God is a mystery, what the bible does teach is the mystery of God is a mystery.

I talk to many trinitarians out of love to try to get them to understand, some do and some seem confused, some are torn between the two. they say the Trinity is a concept hard to comprehend but you must believe in faith that God is a Trinity, Ever time their is contradictions that i point out and their are many, trinitarians either make an excuse or they never answer my question. I have more questions to ask that i haven't asked yet. People says that the bible doesn't say the word "Trinity" but its taught in the bible, its funny becasue if God is three then the devil must be three aswell because its also talked about it in scripture, the devil is the FATHER of lies, the antichrist is the SON of perdition (2 Thes 2: 3), and the antichrist also has a SPIRIT, its taugh so why do trinitarian say theirs a trinity of God and not a trinity of the devil, isn't it also taught. Yes, Thus making the Devilhead if the trinity of God is real.

I dont believe God is three. 1 John 5: 7-8 was added to the bible known as The Johannine Comma and is proven that it should not be used to try to prove the trinity. Genesis 1: 26 has also be proven by TRINITARIANS that they shouldn't us it to try to prove the trinity. I am so happy that you don't believe in the trinity creeds. Its just that the Trinity belief is a bit too weary and is wavering on rocky foundation. I pray that many will come to the truth and not fall to philosophy and vain deceit. Along with the holy ghost comes understanding. Just like i told the others, their is much to tell concerning the trinity. If the Trinity was truth, then i would want to believe it but i found that its far from it by prayer and study. This world needs a revival. Sir, if you have any questions to ask me please feel free, i would love that. God bless
Trinitarians will agree that the Trinity is also a Oneness. That is, to my mind, a contradiction of whaty the Bible records. I may be simple minded but I believe that simplicity is usually (not always) the key to understanding the scriptures because they were written for simple folks.

Jesus speaks to God as if God was not only a separate person but also as if he enjoys a separate will. The Spirit, says Jesus is sent to comfor the Christians when he, Jesus, has gone to sit on the right hand of God and cannot be longer with them. That makes a count of three persons who are neither the same One (Unitarian) nor One in Three (Trinitarian).

Perhaps one of the most illustrative texts is Acts 7.55-56, where all three persons of the Godhead are discrete and accounted for as separate persons in separate places. 1,2, and 3. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this pasasage.

M:)

Morganite,
Yes, I can see it is one's choice to believe in the Trinity or not. But if some wanted to claim otherwise, why do they so with established doctrine? Did you read all of my link? I never heard of this Unitarian belief from a Christian. What about the authority Jesus has when you are JUDGED? What about John 5: 19-30?

All these other beliefs do is divide us on doctrine. I know the basic elements for being a Christian, like you said. I just hate to see something like "unitarian" mentioned at all!

Just as there came to be so many denominations of Christianity- God never gave approval to dividing his church. The church is supposed to be one body(Eph.4:3-6) with Christ as its Head (Coloss.1:18)

If you just stick to answering your original question from Scripture- the answer is no. But to go on and say that Jesus was not God in the flesh- oh, I could just pinch someone. La, who do you think is inside you? HINT: the same Spirit!
I don't like the watered-down version of the PEACE & POWER. Amen.


I was not defending any particular position, merely expressing the fact that there are some Christians who are not Trinitarians. As it happens I am neither Unitarian nor Trinitarian.

The Bible records that Jesus is God the Son and that he is the Son of God the Father. But he is not to be confused as being the same person or having the same will as God the Father or God the Holy Ghost, as the Bible makes plain. That is my personal position.

I do believe that Jesus is God in the flesh - that is what incarnate means, but he is the Son of God, not God the Father come in the flesh according to the Bible. I will not write on this at length but merely share a couple of Bible passages to illustrate my position.

In Revelation 1.5-6, John writes Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. This is clearly a reference to Jesus AND to His Father as a separate entity.

1 Peter 3:21-22: Jesus Christ [..] is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Paul, in his epistle to the Corinthian saints, says this: As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

Paul knew as well as any man could know it that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost constitute one Godhead of three personages. In the following verses he adds this: For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Here Paul speaks of both the Father and Son as God. Near the close of his epistle to the Roman saints, he said: And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen. The "God of peace," who according to the scriptures is to bruise Satan, is Jesus Christ.

It is surprising that Christians can be confused and believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one substance or entity, in the face of the constant repetition in the New Testament of the evidence which in the plainest possible terms proclaims them separate and distinct [discrete] from each other.

The frequent declarations of the Savior that he and his Father are distinct from each other, but one in thought and action, is so plain that even the most simple soul should understand it. Our Redeemer was constantly addressing his Father in prayer. He taught his disciples to pray to the Father, not to him, and the most touching and tender appeal that was ever recorded is his prayer to his Father in the seventeenth chapter of John.

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent….
And now Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was….
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are….

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are.

Thus from the lips of the Saviour it is plain that the Father and Son are separate Personages, yet one in power, wisdom and unity. Hence they are, with the Holy Spirit which carries out their will one Godhead, but three distinct persons. Jesus was not aksing the Father t make all his disciples into one massive individual person. That would be outrageous. Being one as Jesus and God the Father are one is being one in unity of purpose, etc.

This is some of the foundation for my belief , and, yes, it contradicts what you might call accepted Christian doctrine, but hoary old age is not a guarantee of truth. As an illustration, men have thought the world to be flat for much longer than they have known it to be oblate. Antiquity did not change their wrong belief into truth, and no more does it change anything that is not so into something that is so.

I am ready to be judged by God and his Son for accepting the word of the scripture as grounds for my beliefs. I do not fear the fires of hell, although I don't care to turn myback on those who are too ready to stand in the place of God and declare that believing in such and such that runs counter to ancient wisdom will transport them straight to Hell without any part in the love and mercy of a just and loving God who is our Father. That kind of homiletic pronouncement is antiscriptural codswallop and offensive to God.


M:)


,

Trinitarians will agree that the Trinity is also a Oneness. That is, to my mind, a contradiction of whaty the Bible records. I may be simple minded but I believe that simplicity is usually (not always) the key to understanding the scriptures because they were written for simple folks.

Jesus speaks to God as if God was not only a separate person but also as if he enjoys a separate will. The Spirit, says Jesus is sent to comfor the Christians when he, Jesus, has gone to sit on the right hand of God and cannot be longer with them. That makes a count of three persons who are neither the same One (Unitarian) nor One in Three (Trinitarian).

Perhaps one of the most illustrative texts is Acts 7.55-56, where all three persons of the Godhead are discrete and accounted for as separate persons in separate places. 1,2, and 3. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this pasasage.

M:)

Sir, here are some ways that trinitarians look at their belief, They see God as being three separate persons that are not the same as the other but they are all God, the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Ghost and the son is not the Holy Ghost. How Trinitarians got this concept is by misinterpretation of the bible. In John 1:1,14 ~ John tells the reader that "In the beginning was God and the WORD WAS WITH GOD and the WORD WAS GOD. Trinitarians misuse the LOGOS (word) in this situation. Logos means "Thought, Words spoken, the idea God had, His word was God because the words came from God, does this mean that the word is a Second person of the Godhead? NO,

In John Jesus says "before Abraham "I Am". They take this scripture as to say That Jesus is God the Son. In many scripture Jesus says "the Father is in me" he never said that the Father is in unity with me. Jesus never spoke himself (John 14: 9-12), who spoke through Jesus, God the Son? No, it was The Father. If God the son was all powerful and equal to the Father, then why didnt God the Son speak through Jesus? How come God the son had to listen to the Father? Something doesn't seem right. Jesus is the "I Am" because Jesus was not speaking but the Father in Jesus was speaking, The Father was saying, i am the great "I Am", Jesus never made himself out to be God or the Father because In (Philippians 2: 7-8) it says God made himself of NO REPUTATION, he HUMBLED himself, and was unto like a SERVANT. Servant of who? God.

The question is why was Jesus called the SON? Jesus was known as the son not because the bible refers to him as being God the son who came down in heaven but he is the son because he was born of woman and concieved of the Holy Ghost making him to be a SON, notice that Jesus was concieved by the Holy Ghost. If the Holy Ghost was the third person of the Godhead then Jesus would have two Fathers, Trinitarians have a hard time answering this questions as well but oneness doesn't , we simply say "as you can see, the Father and Holy ghost are the same person, the holy Ghost is God in action and the Father is the only God according to (1 Cor 8: 6) etc. Malicah said "dont we all have but one Father, Jesus was refered to as the Father in Isaiah 9: 6, regardless if people say it meant Father of eternity, Jesus was still the Father but we only have one Father, If the trinity was true, then we would have two Fathers. Trinitarians make an excuse for this scripture. in John 8: 19,24,27 Jesus tryed to tell the people that he was the Father but they still didn't get it. Jesus spoke in proverbs alot and it threw alot of people off but then Jesus said in John 16: 25 ~ their would be a time when i will no longer speak in proverbs but will reveal to you the Father Plainly.

Jesus told the apostles he was the Father in John 14: 9, Jesus also claimed to be the holy ghost in John 14: 17-26, Jesus said i will come to you yet in a little while, he also said the world doesn't see the spirit of truth but you do because he dwells with you, yet the spirit was leaving because Jesus physical body was leaving, they were in comfort when Jesus was there and the spirit was also their. The holy Ghost came in Jesus name, Notice that people in todays world ask Jesus to come into their hearts. Are their two spirits? No, Jesus is the comforter. The comforter could not come until Jesus left, why? wasn't it possible? Jesus physical was leaving but yet he was comming back as the spirit to dwell with the apostles (John 14: 18).

The only distinction that the bible makes and oneness believe is Body and Spirit, Jesus physical body was not a spirit and the Father was not a physical body. The Father dwelt in Jesus and Jesus in the Father. Jesus was the bright expression of his Father and was the express image of the FATHERS PERSON (not God the Son) In the greetings of the new testament, Paul never gave attention to the Holy Spirit but only to God and Jesus. If the holy spirit was another seperate person, then Paul should have given him attention as well but the spirit is the Father in action. Jesus the MAN is our mediator between us and God, he is the only way we can't get to God, its not another person in the Godhead who died on the cross, it was the body that the Father put on who died. the body is the Son not a second person of the Godhead.

Whos sits on the throne of God. you said "Jesus is sitting on the right hand of God". This is true but not in the way some trinitarians thank, when John had a vision, he saw ONE throne not two, The right hand of God symbolizes power. In many cases did the bible refer to the right hand of God as power. In Matthew 28: 18 ~ ...all power is given Jesus in heaven. Thus Jesus is sitting on the right hand of God. Matthew 19: 28 ~ ...the son of man shall sit in the throne of glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Matthew 25: 31 ~...the son of man...then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. Rev 20: 11 ~ And is saw a great white throne and him that sat upon it. Are these scriptures indicating that there are two thrones in heaven? Or One? Are they saying that there are two people sitting on one throne? NO. Sir I hope that I helped you some but I am not finished yet (far from it) lol. I pray that my writing was understandable and not misspelled or anything. God bless.

I was not defending any particular position, merely expressing the fact that there are some Christians who are not Trinitarians. As it happens I am neither Unitarian nor Trinitarian.

The Bible records that Jesus is God the Son and that he is the Son of God the Father. But he is not to be confused as being the same person or having the same will as God the Father or God the Holy Ghost, as the Bible makes plain. That is my personal position.

I do believe that Jesus is God in the flesh - that is what incarnate means, but he is the Son of God, not God the Father come in the flesh according to the Bible. I will not write on this at length but merely share a couple of Bible passages to illustrate my position.

In Revelation 1.5-6, John writes Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. This is clearly a reference to Jesus AND to His Father as a seperate entity.

1 Peter 3:21-22: Jesus Christ [..] is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Paul, in his epistle to the Corinthian saints, says this: As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

Paul knew as well as any man could know it that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost constitute one Godhead of three personages. In the following verses he adds this: For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Here Paul speaks of both the Father and Son as God. Near the close of his epistle to the Roman saints, he said: And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen. The "God of peace," who according to the scriptures is to bruise Satan, is Jesus Christ.

It is surprising that Christians can be confused and believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one substance or entity, in the face of the constant repetition in the New Testament of the evidence which in the plainest possible terms proclaims them separate and distinct [discrete] from each other.

The frequent declarations of the Savior that he and his Father are distinct from each other, but one in thought and action, is so plain that even the most simple soul should understand it. Our Redeemer was constantly addressing his Father in prayer. He taught his disciples to pray to the Father, not to him, and the most touching and tender appeal that was ever recorded is his prayer to his Father in the seventeenth chapter of John.

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent….
And now Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was….
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are….

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are.

Thus from the lips of the Saviour it is plain that the Father and Son are separate Personages, yet one in power, wisdom and unity. Hence they are, with the Holy Spirit which carries out their will one Godhead, but three distinct persons. Jesus was not aksing the Father t make all his disciples into one massive individual person. That would be outrageous. Being one as Jesus and God the Father are one is being one in unity of purpose, etc.

This is some of the foundation for my belief , and, yes, it contradicts what you might call accepted Christian doctrine, but hoary old age is not a guarantee of truth. As an illustration, men have thought the world to be flat for much longer than they have known it to be oblate. Antiquity did not change their wrong belief into truth, and no more does it change anything that is not so into something that is so.

I am ready to be judged by God and his Son for accepting the word of the scripture as grounds for my beliefs. I do not fear the fires of hell, although I don't care to turn myback on those who are too ready to stand in the place of God and declare that believing in such and such that runs counter to ancient wisdom will transport them straight to Hell without any part in the love and mercy of a just and loving God who is our Father. That kind of homiletic pronouncement is antiscriptural codswallop and offensive to God.


M:)


,

PLEASE VISIT THIS SITE: 226 Questions - Table of Contents (http://www.1lord1faith.org/wm/Oneness/226-toc.htm)

Im not finished yet. LOL

That kind of homiletic pronouncement is antiscriptural codswallop and offensive to God.
The word "codswallop" was new to me, so I looked it up:

Cods·wal·lop (kŏdz'wŏl'əp)
n. Chiefly British Slang
Nonsense; rubbish.

Said to be from 19c. (but first attested 1963), perhaps from wallop, British slang for "beer," and cod in one of its various senses, perhaps "testicles."

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

ROFLMAO!

I don't see the need for analyzing the Trinity. What difference does it make in your Christian walk anyway? I have no concern if one is a "unitarian" or vegetarian. Belief in ONE God is what counts. When you pray, do you just say,"God help me with this or that, Amen- or do you say, God (or Lord) help me with that, in Jesus' name--Amen. If you just pray to God & not pray to God through Jesus, then I believe your prayers won't be heard. And if you don't acknowledge the deity of the Holy Spirit, then you may miss the experiences & gifts (or manifestations) of God's Spirit. And according to my notes- from a terrific anointed Pastor, I need to believe in the deity of all 3 persons of the Trinity. Without that belief, the messages in the prophetic cannot be discerned. And much more, which is lengthy & probably personal.
I agree about God's will. BC it all is determined by the Father first (exept whatever power He has allowed Satan to have)
I read your link on the" one" thing & none of it rang true for me. I think it took the scholars & priests a while to analyze what the writings were saying. But I'm glad they came up with the Nicene creed. Holy Trinity Scriptures (http://www.dokimos.org/trinity/main.html)
That's for Godschild especially.

I don't see the need for analyzing the Trinity. What difference does it make in your Christian walk anyway? I have no concern if one is a "unitarian" or vegetarian. Belief in ONE God is what counts. When you pray, do you just say,"God help me with this or that, Amen- or do you say, God (or Lord) help me with that, in Jesus' name--Amen. If you just pray to God & not pray to God through Jesus, then I believe your prayers won't be heard. And if you don't acknowledge the deity of the Holy Spirit, then you may miss the experiences & gifts (or manifestations) of God's Spirit. And according to my notes- from a terrific anointed Pastor, I need to believe in the deity of all 3 persons of the Trinity. Without that belief, the messages in the prophetic cannot be discerned. And much more, which is lengthy & probably personal.
I agree about God's will. BC it all is determined by the Father first (exept whatever power He has allowed Satan to have)
I read your link on the" one" thing & none of it rang true for me. I think it took the scholars & priests a while to analyze what the writings were saying. But I'm glad they came up with the Nicene creed. Holy Trinity Scriptures (http://www.dokimos.org/trinity/main.html)
That's for Godschild especially.

Honestly, There is a reason of analysis of the Trinity. Yes we can all agree that Jesus is God we can all agree that God is One. You seem to misunderstand that Oneness does not deny the deity of anyone. If the Holy Ghere is one of the scriptures that host proceeded from the Father then the holy Ghost is the spirit of the Father, the holy ghost is the Father in action, He is God, Jesus is God but they are all the same person not three separate persons. If you really study history and the bible, you will see that its impossible for God to be 3 separate but One God. I have a question for you. Who is sitting on the white throne in heaven?

Here are some scriptures that conveys that it is important to know if Jesus is the Father or not.

John 8: 19-27 ~ Where is they Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me nor my Father: if ye had known me, YE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN MY FATHER ALSO. 21 Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come. 22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye ye cannot come. 23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: Ye are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in you sins: FOR IF YE BELIEVE NOT THAT I AM HE, ye shall die in your sins. 25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that i said unto you from the beginning. 27 THEY UNDERSTOOD NOT THAT HE SPAKE TO THEM OF THE FATHER. PLEASE CHECK OUT THIS SITE: I AM Who? (http://www.godglorified.com/i%20am%20who.htm)


Jesus was speaking in proverbs and the men didn't understand what Jesus was saying, he wasn't saying he was just God but he was saying he was the Father. Trinitarians don't understand that there is only one God who is the Father (1 Cor 8: 6) Just one, not three that make up one. The subject was about "Where is Jesus Father". Some words in the bible were added for sentence structure and they are in italics, If you take out the "HE" in "I AM HE, then you will get just "I AM". Jesus is the I am of the OT becasue he is not speaking but the Father in him is speaking. Does Jesus have God the son and God the Father in him? No, the bible never mentions anything like that, it only says God the Father is in him. Why does God the Son need the Father if he is equal to him and almighty. The Father in Jesus makes Jesus God, Jesus is the body, the Father is the spirit. The site that you gave me was not a good indicator of the trinity. Trinitarians scholars admit that you should not use Genesis 1: 26 to prove the Trinity, nor 1 John 5: 7-8 because that verse was added to the manuscripts as a note. The Trinity belief is on a rocky foundation. you said "you are happy about the creeds" but you fail to see that they are contradiction to the bible.

John 14: 8-9 ~ Philip saith unto the, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth (will satisfy) us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that has seen me has seen the Father; and how sayest thou, shew us the Father? Jesus asked this question because Philip whould have know when he see's Jesus, he know the Father also. You cannot know Jesus without knowing the Father nor know the Father without knowing Jesus. Jesus is the bright expression of his Fathers person.

John 16: 25 ~ ...the time cometh, when i shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly the Father.

When you pray, do you just say,"God help me with this or that, Amen- or do you say, God (or Lord) help me with that, in Jesus' name--Amen. If you just pray to God & not pray to God through Jesus, then I believe your prayers won't be heard.
So does the Lord's Prayer need to be amended to add "in Jesus' name" before God will hear it? Surely if Jesus himself didn't include it in his specific instruction to his disciples about how to pray, it must not be that crucial. It never ceases to amaze me when someone presumes to know what God will or won't do for someone else.

So does the Lord's Prayer need to be amended to add "in Jesus' name" before God will hear it? Surely if Jesus himself didn't include it in his specific instruction to his disciples about how to pray, it must not be that crucial. It never ceases to amaze me when someone presumes to know what God will or won't do for someone else.

I agree, I pray in the name of Jesus, Jesus THE MAN is the mediator between men and God so we pray in Jesus name, there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.

PLEASE VISIT THIS SITE: 226 Questions - Table of Contents (http://www.1lord1faith.org/wm/Oneness/226-toc.htm)

Im not finished yet. LOL

I regret that I will not be reading the 226 questions. I shall read all your answers etc here with interest, but will not go elsewhere to find out what you mean. If it has two or three questions then I might visit another site, but 226 will take too much time that I need to spend in other pursuits.

M:)

So does the Lord's Prayer need to be amended to add "in Jesus' name" before God will hear it? Surely if Jesus himself didn't include it in his specific instruction to his disciples about how to pray, it must not be that crucial. It never ceases to amaze me when someone presumes to know what God will or won't do for someone else.

You could consider this:

whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do [it].
¶ If ye love me, keep my commandments.


Does that sound all right?

I don't see the need for analyzing the Trinity. What difference does it make in your Christian walk anyway? I have no concern if one is a "unitarian" or vegetarian. Belief in ONE God is what counts. When you pray, do you just say,"God help me with this or that, Amen- or do you say, God (or Lord) help me with that, in Jesus' name--Amen. If you just pray to God & not pray to God through Jesus, then I believe your prayers won't be heard. And if you don't acknowledge the deity of the Holy Spirit, then you may miss the experiences & gifts (or manifestations) of God's Spirit. And according to my notes- from a terrific anointed Pastor, I need to believe in the deity of all 3 persons of the Trinity. Without that belief, the messages in the prophetic cannot be discerned. And much more, which is lengthy & probably personal.
I agree about God's will. BC it all is determined by the Father first (exept whatever power He has allowed Satan to have)
I read your link on the" one" thing & none of it rang true for me. I think it took the scholars & priests a while to analyze what the writings were saying. But I'm glad they came up with the Nicene creed. Holy Trinity Scriptures (http://www.dokimos.org/trinity/main.html)
That's for Godschild especially.


Dei Trinitas:

The current version of the Nicene Creed is called the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and was probably adopted by the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. The following is a literal translation of this version, the parenthesis indicating words altered or added according to modern Roman Catholic liturgical use:

"We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spake by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. We confess (I Confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."
(Source: Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 11, pp. 49-50.)

Of the major creeds, the Athanasian is by far the most incomprehensible and difficult to understand. It has been said "It would be difficult to conceive of a greater number of inconsistencies and contradictions expressed in words as few."

Yet it is the one creed which its defending apologists feel called upon to praise for its clarity, lucidity, and plainness. The official statement describes it as "a short, clear exposition of the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, with a passing reference to several other dogmas." It is promoted as a "summary of Catholic Faith," and as a document that "is approved by the Church as expressing its mind on the fundamental truths with which it deals."

They eulogize "the compactness and lucidity of its statements," which "make it highly prized," and say that it "states in a very plain and precise way what the Catholic Faith is concerning the important doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation."

This is the official Catholic version of the creed:

"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensible but One Uncreated, and One Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

"So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

"So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

"Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

"God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."
(Source: Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 2, pp. 33-34.)

Clear, concise, succinct, understandable?

Judge for yourself.

If you believe in it, then I wish you well and no animosity, but where is this found in the Holy Bible? Fair question?

M:)RGANITE

I regret that I will not be reading the 226 questions. I shall read all your answers etc here with interest, but will not go elsewhere to find out what you mean. If it has two or three questions then I might visit another site, but 226 will take too much time that I need to spend in other pursuits.

M:) Morganite, did you see my writing before this post of the 226 questions? I guess its OK if you won't read all the 226 questios but you don't have to, you can just skim the questions and then click on the question that you are interested in, if you really want to know something, you will study it with all your heart.

I regret that I will not be reading the 226 questions. I shall read all your answers etc here with interest, but will not go elsewhere to find out what you mean. If it has two or three questions then I might visit another site, but 226 will take too much time that I need to spend in other pursuits.

M:)

Sir, here are some ways that trinitarians look at their belief, They see God as being three separate persons that are not the same as the other but they are all God, the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Ghost and the son is not the Holy Ghost. How Trinitarians got this concept is by misinterpretation of the bible. In John 1:1,14 ~ John tells the reader that "In the beginning was God and the WORD WAS WITH GOD and the WORD WAS GOD. Trinitarians misuse the LOGOS (word) in this situation. Logos means "Thought, Words spoken, the idea God had, His word was God because the words came from God, does this mean that the word is a Second person of the Godhead? NO,

In John Jesus says "before Abraham "I Am". They take this scripture as to say That Jesus is God the Son. In many scripture Jesus says "the Father is in me" he never said that the Father is in unity with me. Jesus never spoke himself (John 14: 9-12), who spoke through Jesus, God the Son? No, it was The Father. If God the son was all powerful and equal to the Father, then why didnt God the Son speak through Jesus? How come God the son had to listen to the Father? Something doesn't seem right. Jesus is the "I Am" because Jesus was not speaking but the Father in Jesus was speaking, The Father was saying, i am the great "I Am", Jesus never made himself out to be God or the Father because In (Philippians 2: 7-8) it says God made himself of NO REPUTATION, he HUMBLED himself, and was unto like a SERVANT. Servant of who? God.

The question is why was Jesus called the SON? Jesus was known as the son not because the bible refers to him as being God the son who came down in heaven but he is the son because he was born of woman and concieved of the Holy Ghost making him to be a SON, notice that Jesus was concieved by the Holy Ghost. If the Holy Ghost was the third person of the Godhead then Jesus would have two Fathers, Trinitarians have a hard time answering this questions as well but oneness doesn't , we simply say "as you can see, the Father and Holy ghost are the same person, the holy Ghost is God in action and the Father is the only God according to (1 Cor 8: 6) etc. Malicah said "dont we all have but one Father, Jesus was refered to as the Father in Isaiah 9: 6, regardless if people say it meant Father of eternity, Jesus was still the Father but we only have one Father, If the trinity was true, then we would have two Fathers. Trinitarians make an excuse for this scripture. in John 8: 19,24,27 Jesus tryed to tell the people that he was the Father but they still didn't get it. Jesus spoke in proverbs alot and it threw alot of people off but then Jesus said in John 16: 25 ~ their would be a time when i will no longer speak in proverbs but will reveal to you the Father Plainly.

Jesus told the apostles he was the Father in John 14: 9, Jesus also claimed to be the holy ghost in John 14: 17-26, Jesus said i will come to you yet in a little while, he also said the world doesn't see the spirit of truth but you do because he dwells with you, yet the spirit was leaving because Jesus physical body was leaving, they were in comfort when Jesus was there and the spirit was also their. The holy Ghost came in Jesus name, Notice that people in todays world ask Jesus to come into their hearts. Are their two spirits? No, Jesus is the comforter. The comforter could not come until Jesus left, why? wasn't it possible? Jesus physical was leaving but yet he was comming back as the spirit to dwell with the apostles (John 14: 18).

The only distinction that the bible makes and oneness believe is Body and Spirit, Jesus physical body was not a spirit and the Father was not a physical body. The Father dwelt in Jesus and Jesus in the Father. Jesus was the bright expression of his Father and was the express image of the FATHERS PERSON (not God the Son) In the greetings of the new testament, Paul never gave attention to the Holy Spirit but only to God and Jesus. If the holy spirit was another seperate person, then Paul should have given him attention as well but the spirit is the Father in action. Jesus the MAN is our mediator between us and God, he is the only way we can't get to God, its not another person in the Godhead who died on the cross, it was the body that the Father put on who died. the body is the Son not a second person of the Godhead.

Whos sits on the throne of God. you said "Jesus is sitting on the right hand of God". This is true but not in the way some trinitarians thank, when John had a vision, he saw ONE throne not two, The right hand of God symbolizes power. In many cases did the bible refer to the right hand of God as power. In Matthew 28: 18 ~... all power is given Jesus in heaven. Thus Jesus is sitting on the right hand of God. Matthew 19: 28 ~... the son of man shall sit in the throne of glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Matthew 25: 31 ~... the son of man... then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. Rev 20: 11 ~ And is saw a great white throne and him that sat upon it. Are these scriptures indicating that there are two thrones in heaven? Or One? Are they saying that there are two people sitting on one throne? NO. Sir I hope that I helped you some but I am not finished yet (far from it) lol. I pray that my writing was understandable and not misspelled or anything. God bless.

You could consider this:

whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do [it].
¶ If ye love me, keep my commandments.


Does that sound alright?
I'll ask the question again. Does the Lord's Prayer need to be amended to add "in Jesus' name" before God will hear it? If every prayer must have these words attached to it, why did Jesus leave them out of the model prayer he gave to his disciples?

Sir, here are some ways that trinitarians look at their belief, They see God as being three seperate persons that are not the same as the other but they are all God, the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Ghost and the son is not the Holy Ghost. How Trinitarians got this concept is by misinterpretation of the bible. In John 1:1,14 ~ John tells the reader that "In the beginning was God and the WORD WAS WITH GOD and the WORD WAS GOD. Trinitarians misuse the LOGOS (word) in this situation. Logos means "Thought, Words spoken, the idea God had, His word was God because the words came from God, does this mean that the word is a Second person of the Godhead? NO,

In John Jesus says "before Abraham "I Am". They take this scripture as to say That Jesus is God the Son. In many scripture Jesus says "the Father is in me" he never said that the Father is in unity with me. Jesus never spoke himself (John 14: 9-12), who spoke through Jesus, God the Son? No, it was The Father. If God the son was all powerful and equal to the Father, then why didnt God the Son speak through Jesus? How come God the son had to listen to the Father? Something doesn't seem right. Jesus is the "I Am" because Jesus was not speaking but the Father in Jesus was speaking, The Father was saying, i am the great "I Am", Jesus never made himself out to be God or the Father because In (Philippians 2: 7-8) it says God made himself of NO REPUTATION, he HUMBLED himself, and was unto like a SERVANT. Servant of who? God.

The question is why was Jesus called the SON? Jesus was known as the son not because the bible refers to him as being God the son who came down in heaven but he is the son because he was born of woman and concieved of the Holy Ghost making him to be a SON, notice that Jesus was concieved by the Holy Ghost. If the Holy Ghost was the third person of the Godhead then Jesus would have two Fathers, Trinitarians have a hard time answering this questions as well but oneness doesn't , we simply say "as you can see, the Father and Holy ghost are the same person, the holy Ghost is God in action and the Father is the only God according to (1 Cor 8: 6) etc. Malicah said "dont we all have but one Father, Jesus was refered to as the Father in Isaiah 9: 6, regardless if people say it meant Father of eternity, Jesus was still the Father but we only have one Father, If the trinity was true, then we would have two Fathers. Trinitarians make an excuse for this scripture. in John 8: 19,24,27 Jesus tryed to tell the people that he was the Father but they still didn't get it. Jesus spoke in proverbs alot and it threw alot of people off but then Jesus said in John 16: 25 ~ their would be a time when i will no longer speak in proverbs but will reveal to you the Father Plainly.

Jesus told the apostles he was the Father in John 14: 9, Jesus also claimed to be the holy ghost in John 14: 17-26, Jesus said i will come to you yet in a little while, he also said the world doesn't see the spirit of truth but you do because he dwells with you, yet the spirit was leaving because Jesus physical body was leaving, they were in comfort when Jesus was there and the spirit was also their. The holy Ghost came in Jesus name, Notice that people in todays world ask Jesus to come into their hearts. Are their two spirits? No, Jesus is the comforter. The comforter could not come until Jesus left, why? wasn't it possible? Jesus physical was leaving but yet he was comming back as the spirit to dwell with the apostles (John 14: 18).

The only distinction that the bible makes and oneness believe is Body and Spirit, Jesus physical body was not a spirit and the Father was not a physical body. The Father dwelt in Jesus and Jesus in the Father. Jesus was the bright expression of his Father and was the express image of the FATHERS PERSON (not God the Son) In the greetings of the new testament, Paul never gave attention to the Holy Spirit but only to God and Jesus. If the holy spirit was another seperate person, then Paul should have given him attention as well but the spirit is the Father in action. Jesus the MAN is our mediator between us and God, he is the only way we can't get to God, its not another person in the Godhead who died on the cross, it was the body that the Father put on who died. the body is the Son not a second person of the Godhead.

Whos sits on the throne of God. you said "Jesus is sitting on the right hand of God". This is true but not in the way some trinitarians thank, when John had a vision, he saw ONE throne not two, The right hand of God symbolizes power. In many cases did the bible refer to the right hand of God as power. In Matthew 28: 18 ~ ...all power is given Jesus in heaven. Thus Jesus is sitting on the right hand of God. Matthew 19: 28 ~ ...the son of man shall sit in the throne of glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Matthew 25: 31 ~...the son of man...then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. Rev 20: 11 ~ And is saw a great white throne and him that sat upon it. Are these scriptures indicating that their are two thrones in heaven? or One? are they saying that their are two people sitting on one throne? NO. Sir i hope that i helped you some but i am not finished yet (far from it) lol. I pray that my writing was understandable and not mispelled or anything. God bless.
I am not making a case for Trinitarianism, nor for Oneness that seems to have a lot in common with Trinitarian thinking. My Bible shows that The Son is not the Father, and the Holy Ghost is another, separate, person in a Godhead of three individual persons whose oneness is in purpose and not in substance.

Not all the Bible is allegorical, and the eye witness report of the proto-martyr Stephen (Acts 7.55-57) identifies the separate locations of three persons, and other passages, especially in John, which I believe you misunderstand and wrongly interpret.

The kenotic passage you quote raises significant difficulties both for your position and for the trinitarian view, where Jesus emptied himself in the incarnation. Being thus emptied [of what was he emptied?], immediately prior to his atoning crucifixion we find himself pleading to his Father, not to himself, to restore the glory he had WITH the Father before he emptied himself of it to walk as man-God among men and not be seen to be different, even though he was.

If Jesus the Son of God - emptied or otherwise - was the same person as God the Father, why was it necessary for Jesus to petition the Father to restore his glory, why could he not simply restore it himself by a divine act?

There are passages where Jesus prays to God the Father for wisdom before making momentous decisions, such as choosing the apostles. If he was none other than the father-God what purpose would he have in consulting himself?

Further, the Gospel of John is a delicious feast of passages in which Jesus is showm to be divine but yet dependent upon the Father-God, and, for example, turning away from himself the appellation of 'good,' directing the Rich Youn man to call none good save One, and that was not Jesus himself. John contains many similar passages where Jesus makes a sharp distinction between himself and God the Father that cannot be ignonred nor passed over, but all must be taken into account when we are trying to unravel truths about the Godhead from the pages of scripture.

What is Jesus saying when he tells Mary not to cling to him because he has not yet ascended to his Father in Heaven, but instructs her to tell the disciples that he is going to go to their God and his God, and to their father and to his father? If Jesus was the father himself, his words would be a nonsense. Only iof his Father were a separate operson do they make sense.

In John 14, he identifies the three separate persons of the Godhead. When he goes, he will send 'another comforter.' If his disciples are faithful, then he promises that both he and the Father will abide with them. If Jesus was both the Father and the second comforter, then why didn't he simply say so? He didn't say so because it isn't true. God is not the author of confusion, so we must believe what Jesus says, take into account everything he says about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and not confuse them as being One in Oneness or One in Trinity.

The question of this thread is did Jesus ever say he was God, meaning, I assume, that he was God the father. The answer from his own mouth has to be"No!" He showed himself to be subordinate to the Father:

"Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me. nevertheless NOT MY WILL, BUT THINE BE DONE"

Here, Jesus plainly and without any absence of clarity, differentiates between his own will and the will of the Father, and chooses to subserviate his own will to that of the Father. Nothing could be more plain or incapable of being misunderstood.

I enjoy your posts, but please do not be concerned with spelling etc. As you can see, I often make mistakes. I shall read what you say, and not how you spell it.

M:)RGANITE

I'll ask the question again. Does the Lord's Prayer need to be amended to add "in Jesus' name" before God will hear it? If every prayer must have these words attached to it, why did Jesus leave them out of the model prayer he gave to his disciples?

OG, as far as I am concerned you may do with the Lord's example or prayer as you will. I am not among the number who believe that if you do not ask in the name of Jesus that God will refuse to hear your words or that they will not be carried to his ears. However, I am among the number who consider it appropriate in the light of what Jesus said that I quoted earlier that it is a proper thing to ask the Father in the name of Jesus.

I believe that God hears the pryaers of Jews, Muslims, Hindoos, Jains, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc. and all who raise their voices to Him in acknowledgement of his divinity irresepective of their theological perspective. "The fervent effectual prayer of a righteous person availeth much," It's in the Book and I live by it.



M:)

I believe that God hears the pryaers of Jews, Muslims, Hindoos, Jains, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc., and all who raise their voices to Him in acknowledgement of his divinity irresepective of their theological perspective. "The fervent effectual prayer of a righteous person availeth much," It's in the Book and I live by it.
M:)
I'll say amen to that.

I do have to clarify what I said about prayers maybe not being heard if they are addressed to God, but not using "in the name of Jesus" somewhere in the prayer.
Ordinaryguy gave a good example of the Lord's Prayer to show that that isn't true. In defending the deity of Christ(as what I was responding to) I did forget that the prayers of Christians are not limited to only praying in Jesus' name but to God or Father also.
The Lord's prayer (remember this was Jesus speaking) is always a wholesome prayer. If Jesus would have said "Our God in Heaven" or even "Jesus in Heaven" now, that wouldn't sound right. So I must say from what I know that there is no 'wrong way' to pray- that God hears all that revere Him.

What I disagree with you Morganite on prayer about is- that God doesn't answer prayers when addressed to other gods. It would be against His own 1st commandment. God must know who truly believe in Him.

As far as the Nicene creed is concerned, Morganite... the Trinity in particular seems to say the same thing in definition as what the unitarian view is stating.
You say you believe in the 3 as far as purpose-but not substance-
Well, as soon as I can figure that out (if I can) I guess I'll post it.

Maybe it is inferred that Jesus is God in many passages- Ephes.5:26 says Christ is our sanctifier, yet in Jude1-yet the Father sanctifies us. Jesus does have some limitations (like not knowing the time or hour of His return) so He isn't omniscient as the Father. But does it really matter when God gave us both Christ & Himself? And the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost is a pagan term I found out btw)
Another question I have. I hope I'm not getting away from the original question too much but:
Jesus promises the disciples another comforter will come & to wait for the Spirit(H.S) Spirit of truth (at Pentecost) correct?
But in John 20:22-When Jesus appeared to the disciples after resurrection, he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit." Now, did the disciples get an extra baptism here for the Holy Spirit? Or was Jesus giving the Apostles a jump-start so they could immediately start preaching the Word?
What is the difference in the experience of receiving the H.S. then & then again at Pentecost?

I am not making a case for Trinitarianism, nor for Oneness that seems to have a lot in common with Trinitarian thinking. My Bible shows that The Son is not the Father, and the Holy Ghost is another, seperate, person in a Godhead of three individual persons whose oneness is in purpose and not in substance.

Not all the Bible is allegorical, and the eye witness report of the proto-martyr Stephen (Acts 7.55-57) identifies the seperate locations of three persons, and other passages, especially in John, which I believe you misunderstand and wrongly interpret.

The kenotic passage you quote raises significant difficulties both for your position and for the trinitarian view, where Jesus emptied himself in the incarnation. Being thus emptied [of what was he emptied?], immediately prior to his atoning crucifixion we find himself pleading to his Father, not to himself, to restore the glory he had WITH the Father before he emptied himself of it to walk as man-God among men and not be seen to be different, even though he was.

If Jesus the Son of God - emptied or otherwise - was the exact same person as God the Father, why was it necessary for Jesus to petition the Father to restore his glory, why could he not simply restore it himself by a divine act?

There are passages where Jesus prays to God the Father for wisdom before making momentous decisions, such as choosing the apostles. If he was none other than the father-God what purpose would he have in consulting himself?

Further, the Gospel of John is a delicious feast of passages in which Jesus is showm to be divine but yet dependent upon the Father-God, and, for example, turning away from himself the appellation of 'good,' directing the Rich Youn man to call none good save One, and that was not Jesus himself. John contains many similar passages where Jesus makes a sharp distinction between himself and God the Father that cannot be ignonred nor passed over, but all must be taken into account when we are trying to unravel truths about the Godhead from the pages of scripture.

What is Jesus saying when he tells Mary not to cling to him because he has not yet ascended to his Father in Heaven, but instructs her to tell the disciples that he is going to go to their God and his God, and to their father and to his father? If Jesus was the father himself, his words would be a nonsense. Only iof his Father were a separate operson do they make sense.

In John 14, he identifies the three seperate persons of the Godhead. When he goes, he will send 'another comforter.' If his disciples are faithful, then he promises that both he and the Father will abide with them. If Jesus was both the Father and the second comforter, then why didn't he simply say so? He didn't say so because it isn't true. God is not the author of confusion, so we must believe what Jesus says, take into account everything he says about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and not confuse them as being One in Oneness or One in Trinity.

The question of this thread is did Jesus ever say he was God, meaning, I assume, that he was God the father. The answer from his own mouth has to be"No!" He showed himself to be subordinate to the Father:

"Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me. nevertheless NOT MY WILL, BUT THINE BE DONE"

Here, Jesus plainly and without any absence of clarity, differentiates between his own will and the will of the Father, and chooses to subserviate his own will to that of the Father. Nothing could be more plain or incapable of being misunderstood.

I enjoy your posts, but please do not be concerned with spelling etc. As you can see, I often make mistakes. I shall read what you say, and not how you spell it.

M:)RGANITE

Morganite, you say that I have misinterpreted the scriptures but yet I can say the same about you. There is no scripture in the bible that contradicts another scripture but yet I see many that contradict the Trinity belief, you confuse me by saying that you are not trinitarian but yet you speak as one. You seem to ignore the fact that Jesus in his humanityprayed to God just like all the rest of Gods children, Jesus also had a God, why? Because of his humanity. I see no scripture that points out that there is a Trinity but I do see some scripture that make a distinction as far Spirit and Flesh like I told you in my other post. You asked "If Jesus was the Father and the second comforter, then why didnt he say so?" Didn't Jesus say that he speaks in proverbs for a reason? Yes he did in the Gospel of Mark. You seem to ignore the contradictions that I have written because you never answer for them, you only say that I am wrong and misinterpret, NOBODY ever answers the contradictions that are pointed out or either some make excuses that don't make any since at all and yet their answer contadicts other scripture. Something's wrong here. You seem to forget that Jesus was Human and God so he also prayed. You seem to forget that the trinity is confusing and just like you said, God is not the author of Confusion.

Do you know the truth behind the Trinity? Do you know the truth behind the Fathers of the Trinity? Bro, its really sad that many people don't see that contradictions of their belief, if you try to point out some to me, then I will answer, and believe me there are very very few scriptures that makes since of their being a trinity. I couldn't type that much because I have to go back to work, I was on my lunch break. The things that you write are nothing new because I hear the same thing from trinitarians all the time and when I give them something that contradicts what they give me, they either don't speak anymore or they just say you misinterpret it wrong without even trying to help me to understand, Somthings wrong.

The word "codswallop" was new to me, so I looked it up:

cods·wal·lop (kŏdz'wŏl'əp)
n. Chiefly British Slang
Nonsense; rubbish.

said to be from 19c. (but first attested 1963), perhaps from wallop, British slang for "beer," and cod in one of its various senses, perhaps "testicles."

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper


ROFLMHO!
The dictionary has sidelined you. It has never meant testicles. The confusion of Duggie Harper probably stemmed from the term 'codpiece' that was an inverted triangular pad inserted into the front of the crotch of a gentleman's tights to make him appear masculine when nature had not privileged him. From this pretence, the term 'codding' as in "I'm only codding you," means pretending, or joking, and is closely ralated to 'kidding.'

Codswallop is water, since wallop is ale or beer, however, codfish do not drink ale, but water.

When Codswallop was used to describe ale it was used in a derogatory way to indicate that the beer was as weak as 'witches water' - which I shall not explain - having been diluted with corporation lemonade (ie - tapwater) by an avaricious host, and eventually came to be applied to articles that were inferior or not what they were purported to be. The modern term 'codwallop' meaning 'rubbish' is widely accepted in English speaking countries that have remained faithful to the older - Victorian, Gerogian, et al, forms of common English speech.

I would have been happy to explain that to you.

M:)

I do have to clarify what I said about prayers maybe not being heard if they are addressed to God, but not using "in the name of Jesus" somewhere in the prayer.
Ordinaryguy gave a good example of the Lord's Prayer to show that that isn't true. In defending the deity of Christ(as what I was responding to) I did forget that the prayers of Christians are not limited to only praying in Jesus' name but to God or Father also.

[snipped for length]

I note what you say, but the Bible says that the fervent effectual prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Why argue with it? What did Paul say to the Greek pagans? "Him whom ye ignorantly worship, him do I now declare unto you." They called him "The Unknown God."

I am content to let Jesus and God decide whose prayers they hear and respond to. To do otherwise would be to suggest that I know everything they do, think, feel, say, and do, and I do not. Nor do I know any who do, although some act and speak as if they do. I regard such people with utmost suspicion.

Did God speak to the Centurion? Did Jesus accede to the request of the Jewish non-Christian Jairus? Is God an includer or an excluder? Does he love all his children or only those why know the secret words?

Christians ought to follow the example of Jesus Christ in encouraging encounters with those of other denominations and faiths. Was Jesus wrong to speak to the Samaritan woman as his apostles said, or did he have a broader vision and mission than narrow, exclusivist, Christians are capable of acknowledging? If so, do they really know jesus as they imagine they do, or do they follow a fictional character who behaves like a meanie and refuses to speak kindly to any except his own?

The call to follow Christ is a call to encounter with non-Christians as well as fellow-Christians. It is well to reflect that many of the so-called historic churches were regarded by the more historic churches as interlopers and shcismatics when they originated. This is especially true of the Baptists and Congregationalists in the sixteenth century, as it was of Lutherans and Presbyterians earlier in the same century, and of the hated Methodists and their confounded and disturbing 'enthusiasm' (en-theos = God-in-us) in the eighteenth century.

These denominations were originally hostile towards each other. Now they are seen to be them allies of the older historic churches, and it is a Christian characteristic to anticipate the judgement of history in the case of neweer movements within the Christian household.

It is a very sobering fact that all of Christendom is in fact in schism. En=ven thoughmost denominaitons are unhappy to rem,ain 'separated brethren,' the fact remains that they are separated, and so are members of other religious movements that are Christian in intention. We are allmembers of the same Christian convoy traversing the stormy waters of the rpesent, and even though we interpret the Commander-in-Chief's signals with some differences, none of us intend to flout his authority, although we debate about how faithfully some of our captains have relayed the orders.

We should be aware that the purpose of Christian encounter is to give freely of our convictions and of our doubts and to receive the same. We may pride ourselves on our church order as if it were part and parcel of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but it may be nothing more than the result of our absolutizing and confounding our personal preferences with the divine will for all men. No one has God's authority to do that!

We may rightly treasure our Catholicity, or Protestanticity, or our Whatevericity, and we may be grasteful for our inheritance of centuries - be they many or few - of rich Christian traditions, devotion, rites, practices, liturgies, hymnologies, and music, art,and architecture. But this inheritance is to be spent, shared, not hoarded and jealously kept like a miser's hoard. Our new friends have as much need of it as we had, and they have the same rights as we have to own and enjoy it.

Supremely, we need together to learn the art of speaking and acting the truth in love. This cannot be done without deep and mutual involvement between all those who consider themselves Christians. The language of separation is not Christian, Christlike, Godly, moral, scriptural, or even decently human, and should have no place in the vocabularies of Christians.

If the danger in the past has been speaking the truth dogmatically, as if it were OUR truth and not GOD's truth. The danger of the rpersent could be that we speak not lovingly but sentimentally and achieve only a relationshiop of cordial ambiguity, and thus fall prey to the doctrine of relitavism.

We are more likely to attain the attitude of speaking and acting the truth in love if we remember that it was as the compassionate Servant of God that jesus won his way into the hearts of men, and that he forbade his disciples tolord it over others, but directed them to serve them.

Above all, we should remember thaty Christ has sheep 'not of this fold' who hear his voice (even in strange places), and that HE knows his own - we do not know whom they are, and Christians believe that Jesus will ultimately bring them all into one fold where he will be the shepherd of all.

It is not our calling or task to erect barbed wire fences of suspicion and hostility, but to demolish tham. If we, in whatever tradition we stand, are inclined to consider God's other sheep as black sheep, or worse, wolves in sheep's clothing - a result of the terrible darkening of the inner eye that Pharisaism produces - then we must look to the wolf within us.

We all need the grace which God through Jesus Christ bestows undeservingly on each. This is the best spirit in which to work for Jesus Christ, and is, perhaps, the only way that he ,klniows and will accept at our hands. Holy attitudes must be expressed in holy actions without the hope of an earthly reward. So that we will not consider the most improbable encounter with 'others' to be an exercise in fruitless futiity. That is our charghe. That is the calling of all Christians, whether they know it or not.

Morganite, you say that i have misinterpreted the scriptures but yet i can say the same about you. Their is no scripture in the bible that contradicts another scripture but yet i see many that contradict the Trinity belief, you confuse me by saying that you are not trinitarian but yet you speak as one. You seem to ignore the fact that Jesus in his humanityprayed to God just like all the rest of Gods children, Jesus also had a God, why? because of his humanity. I see no scripture that points out that their is a Trinity but i do see some scripture that make a distinction as far Spirit and Flesh like i told you in my other post. You asked "If Jesus was the Father and the second comforter, then why didnt he say so?" Didn't Jesus say that he speaks in proverbs for a reason? Yes he did in the Gospel of Mark. You seem to ignore the contradictions that i have written because you never answer for them, you only say that i am wrong and misinterpret, NOBODY ever answers the contradictions that are pointed out or either some make excuses that don't make any since at all and yet their answer contadicts other scripture. Somethings wrong here. You seem to forget that Jesus was Human and God so he also prayed. You seem to forget that the trinity is confusing and just like you said, God is not the author of Confusion.

Do you know the truth behind the Trinity? Do you know the truth behind the Fathers of the Trinity? bro, its really sad that many people dont see that contradictions of their belief, if you try to point out some to me, then i will answer, and believe me their are very very few scriptures that makes since of their being a trinity. I couldn't type that much because i have to go back to work, i was on my lunch break. The things that you write are nothing new becasue i hear the same thing from trinitarians all the time and when i give them somthing that contradicts what they give me, they either dont speak anymore or they just say you misinterpret it wrong without even trying to help me to understand, Somthings wrong.

GC. There are many scriptures in the Bible that contradict each other. This is a side issue that you might want to save for a later time. However, I shall be pleased to furnish proof a-plenty if you ever need it.


M:)

Morganite,
James 5:16? I don't read it the way you do. James is speaking to Christians, urging their faith in daily living. It is subtitled-The Prayer Of Faith & the key word is "righteous" anyway.

God has mercy on all but the only prayer I think He hears from the unbelieving is the prayer of repentance.

A little idealistic, your philosophy, but probably better than a lot of things.

Spoiled entry - another case of alien abduction!

Morganite,
James 5:16? I don't read it the way you do. James is speaking to Christians, urging their faith in daily living. It is subtitled-The Prayer Of Faith & the key word is "righteous" anyway.

God has mercy on all but the only prayer I think He hears from the unbelieving is the prayer of repentence.

A little idealistic, your philosophy, but probably better than a lot of things.

I know of nothing calculated to be more idealistic than the gospel of Jesus Christ. You are wise to acknowledge that. As to whose prayers are heard, let me provide you with an example you might be less inclined to dismiss as being irrelevant.

The apostles of Christ, being Jews, appear to have shared the common prejudices of their race against the Gentiles, and treated them for a time as if Gentiles had no lot nor part in the gospel of Christ. It was not the design of the Lord, however, to thus restrict the application of the gospel. Jesus, himself, while he had said that he was "sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," had also said: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."

The commission of the risen Christ to the Apostles sent them to "all nations." (Matt. 28i: 19; Acts 1: 8.) Hence, when Cornelius of Caesarea, a devout man, one that feared God, though a Gentile, sought the Lord by prayer and good works, he found him; for an angel was sent to Cornelius, who told him his prayers and alms were accepted of God, and that he had come to direct him to send men to Joppa for Simon Peter, who would be able to tell him what he ought to do, and the non-Christian Gentile whose prayers were heard and answered by God immediately started the messengers to find the Apostle.

Meanwhile, Saint Peter himself was prepared by a vision to go with the gospel unto one whom both he and all his race regarded as unclean. In vision he thought he beheld a great net let down from heaven, filled with all manner of four-footed beasts, fowls of the air, and creeping things. And a voice said to him, "Rise, Peter, kill and eat." "Not so, Lord," was his reply, "for I have never eaten anything that was common or unclean." "What God hath cleansed," said the voice, "that call not thou common or unclean."

This was done three times, and as he was still pondering what the vision could mean, the messengers of Cornelius were at the gate enquiring for him; and he was commanded by the Spirit to go with them, doubting nothing, for God had sent them. Peter was obedient to the inspired commandment, and went to the house of Cornelius, where he found many of the devout Gentile's friends and kinsmen gathered together in anticipation of his coming.

Cornelius having informed the apostle how he came to send for him, Peter exclaimed: "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him."

He then proceeded to preach the gospel to Cornelius and all present. As he did so the Holy Ghost fell upon them, to the astonishment of all the Jews who had accompanied Peter; for they heard them speak in new tongues and magnify God. Cornelius and his friends were baptized and thus the door of the gospel was opened to the Gentiles.

How anyone can continue to insist that God does not hear the prayers of any except Christians beggars belief. Who, being a Christian, would want to make it appear that God has closed the door on those of his children who seek him from within other traditions to the detriment of their salvations and the intentions and purposes of God and Jesus Christ?

It is Jesus who said, "For God so loved the world that he sent his Only Begotten Son that WHOSOEVER believeth in him should not perish, but should have everlasting life; because God did not send his Son into the world to be the condemner of mankind, but so that through him should all mankind be saved.

Idealistic? Yes, and we have God and Christ to thank that it is idealistic. The purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ is not mto keep men out of the kingdom of heaven, but to gather as many as can be gathered so that they can enter his kingdom, both here on earth and in the heavens where God and Christ dwell together.

Incidentally, the subtitles are late editorial editions supplied by publishers as their explanations and are not part of the original monographs. They should not be considered as having any authority as scripture. They are from secondary and extra-biblical sources and can be misleading. For example, see Canticle.


M:)RGANITE

I am content to let Jesus and God decide whose prayers they hear and respond to.

Is God an includer or an excluder? Does he love all his children or only those why know the secret words?

The language of separation is not Christian, Christlike, Godly, moral, scriptural, or even decently human, and should have no place in the vocabularies of Christians.

Above all, we should remember thaty Christ has sheep 'not of this fold' who hear his voice (even in strange places), and that HE knows his own
Would that all who profess to follow Jesus were as true to his inclusive vision.

God's Child
You confuse me by saying that you are not trinitarian but yet you speak as one.


You seem to forget that Jesus was Human and God so he also prayed. You seem to forget that the trinity is confusing and just like you said, God is not the author of Confusion.

Do you know the truth behind the Trinity? Do you know the truth behind the Fathers of the Trinity?
God's Child,

I don't see where I speak as a trinitarian, because I am not one. I may illustrate what trinitarians believe in some instances, but that must not be taken as acceptance of the teaching.

Neither do I see where you say I forget that Jesus was Man and God. I will put that statement on my mystery shelf.

I believe I do understand how the doctrine or dogma of the Holy Trinity developed and the reasons behind its development. I am reasonably au fait with the Greek and Latin Patrologies, and so have most of the arguments for and against trinitarian teaching close to hand.

I will say again that I am not a Trinitarian, nor a Unitarian of any kind, but that does not preclude me from havging an interest in all forms of belief about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and all forms of creed, theologies, Christilogies, etc, etc. But it is not to be taken that because I talk of them that I necessarily accept them. If I recall correctly, and I could be mistaken, then I did say that the Trinity was confusing. It has been called 'a contradiction' by an eminent theologian and patrologist. He said that to me during a discussion we had some years ago. This same man now lectures at the Union Theological Seminary, and is a Christian minister, formerly a Roman, now an Orthodox, priest.

What I will insist on is that the only person who knows everything about God is God Himself. Unless you are God then it must, perforce, follow that much of what you (or anyone else) thinks about God has to be wrong. Why? Because God is transcendent, and all that humanity can know about God is what God chooses to reveal to us through his involvement inhuman history and in the incarnation of his Only Begotten and Firstborn Son Jesus Christ. For anyone to claim that they have sole access to the truth about God is fulminatingly conceited and has to be wrong, or else God is not transcendent but just one of your pals who tells you everything there is to know.

As to the scriptures being incontrovertible, inerrant, and non-contradictory, it is because they are at times and in divers places all three - controvertible, contradicory, and errant, that the rising tide of sectarianism has shaken Christanity since Jesus first expounded it sprincipls and the apostles proclaimed its basic truths.

How did we get to this pass? Through the inability of sensible (sometimes), sane (sometimes), and informed (sometimes) people to come to simple agreement about that the Book of Books means by what it says. QED!

I wish you well on your journey towards spiritual enlightenemt, but gently remind you that it is a journey you are on, not a destination that you are at.


M:)RGANITE



.

Morganite,
James 5:16? I don't read it the way you do. James is speaking to Christians, urging their faith in daily living. It is subtitled-The Prayer Of Faith & the key word is "righteous" anyway.

God has mercy on all but the only prayer I think He hears from the unbelieving is the prayer of repentence.

A little idealistic, your philosophy, but probably better than a lot of things.
I'm still trying to figure out how an unbeliever comes to repentance without first becoming a believer in which case he is no klobnger an unbeliever. God reac he's out to all - believer and unbeleiver - but if he does not hear the prayers of unbelievers how are they to become believers? That seems skew-wiff.

Whilst I agree that James is whipping the community of believers into line, none of the NT writers seems to want their Christian church to be an exclusiove club that won't take people in or try to help them or enocurage them to pray to God until they are fully converted. They are anxiously engaged in missionary endeavours encouraging pagans and heathens alike to come to know God and Jesus Christ. How can they do this if God will not hear their earnest petitions for light? Is there a back door for unebelievers that doe not involve prayer?

Morganite,
It is known that God hears all because he is not deaf. As far as responding or answering prayer- that may be different when considering "the sinners prayer"/ or conversion from unbeliever to believer. I believe that someone calling out to the Lord, in a prayer or statement-if the Lord knows that that is going to lead them to salvation- then I think He answers those prayers.
So coming to confess & receive Christ IS a prayer that the Lord answers unbelievers. (we all have done that at sometime) It is both a prayer & an action.
The prayers of the unrighteous is what I believe doesn't get answered. That is what it says in the Bible, right?
The Centurion in the Bible wasn't a Christian but he was a righteous man. Jesus gives an example of what is righteous in Matt.25-46. King David was righteous & obeyed God & prayed for forgiveness when he sinned. The Lord heard his prayers.
The question remains to whether God hears the sinner in general (as if they would be inclined to pray!) I'm talking about the unsaved/without Christ.
Since we are in Christ, in these last days, I have to say no. Unless someone be in Christ as an act of their will-much of what is done is lost eventually to this world.
But I didn't come here to play judge or martyr- I'm just saying one should 'come out from them' and be sanctified, repent of their sins, by the blood of Jesus- and renew their soul & spirit, for God's glory!

Morganite,
It is known that God hears all bc he is not deaf. As far as responding or answering prayer- that may be different when considering "the sinners prayer"/ or conversion from unbeliever to believer. I believe that someone calling out to the Lord, in a prayer or statement-if the Lord knows that that is going to lead them to salvation- then I think He answers those prayers.
So coming to confess & receive Christ IS a prayer that the Lord answers unbelievers. (we all have done that at sometime) It is both a prayer & an action.
The prayers of the unrighteous is what I believe doesn't get answered. That is what it says in the Bible, right?
The Centurion in the Bible wasn't a Christian but he was a righteous man. Jesus gives an example of what is righteous in Matt.25-46. King David was righteous & obeyed God & prayed for forgiveness when he sinned. The Lord heard his prayers.
The question remains to whether God hears the sinner in general (as if they would be inclined to pray!) I'm talking about the unsaved/without Christ.
Since we are in Christ, in these last days, I have to say no. Unless someone be in Christ as an act of their will-much of what is done is lost eventually to this world.
But I didn't come here to play judge or martyr- I'm just saying one should 'come out from them' and be sanctified, repent of their sins, by the blood of Jesus- and renew their soul & spirit, for God's glory!
David was righteous right up to the moment he committed adultery and arramged the death of Uriah. After that, we must leave him to God to deal with.

Well, Retrotia, it seems we do have a meeting of the minds in the case of the fervent effectual prayer of a righteous person availing much, huh?

As to the fine points of prayer and whose prayer that you try to deal with, why do you even try to sytematise something that is dealt with by God and which ultimately is known only to God? Are you suggesting that we should dissuade non Christians from praying because God is not listening to them? That advice runs counter to the Bible. We should encourage all to pray and then leave it up to God as to who he hears and how he answers.

As to what you call 'The Sinner' Prayer,' where did it come from, and what was the position of sinners and prayer before it was composed, and who is there that is NOT a sinner, so are not all our prayers the prayers of sinners?

Remember that in judging Cornelius as 'righteous' he cannot have been said to be righteous in the same way that Christians understand righteousness, but he was righteous according to the light that was in him. He was evidently not a cryptochristian, but a pagan in need of help, and God heard him and answered with blessings.

Whom among us will be the arbiter of who God will and who God will not hear or answer? However interesting the discussion might be, the real and pressing problem arises when what is discussed and proffered as a scripturally and spirit inspired notion is then passed off as being Christian doctrine that must be believed or else. Who is it that has the authority to determine what is right and wrong as sanctioned by God and God alone? Isn't it a bit daring (even, possibly, blasphemous?) for anyone to presume to speak on these things and claim them as the mind and will of God?

What you seem to be saying - but surely you cannot mean it as it is written - is that God hears only the prayers of Christians. Tough on Jews, Muslims, Hindoos, Sikhs, Kun Fuchiites, Wiccans, etc, etc, because if God will not hear their prayers and will not answer them even if he does manage to catch a few of their words, how can they be brought into the fold of the Good Shepherd? Your seem to have embraced a strange and errant doctrine quite out of harmony with the teachings of Jesus and the rest of the Bible.

God is good, so good in fact that we can hardly conceive the depth and richness of his goodness. He is just, so just that we simply cannot comprehend the fairness of his justice. I am sure that no mortal will ever fail to receive every blessing and glory which he merits. God is a personal being, the Father of our spirits, and that He loves His children and hears and answers their righteous prayers. But he is not restricted only to answering the prayers of the faithful in his fold. If he is then I have not come across it in God's Word, and I do not believe that it is there.

God is a living God, a God of today, not of yesterday; that he lives and loves his children, he hears and answers prayers, he will not let his children wander in darkness and sin without a light and every man is entitled to that light by which to guide his feet through life. In a changing world is children may still come to him and he will speak to them in the noon-day sun or in the quiet watches of the night, in a language they will understand whether they are in th fold or in need of being brought in from wherever it is that they are at present.

A famous Logion of Jesus, now attested in the Gospel of Thomas, enjoins all to be diligent seekers: "Let not him who seeks the Father cease until he finds him; and having found him, let him be amazed; and being amazed he shall reign, and reigning he shall rest."

In that connection, forestalling any possible objection to the source of the saying, I offer:

"Truth is truth wherever found,
On heathen or on Christian ground."

My recommendation is to encourage all people in every or no religious tradition to cease not to call on God, however he might be perceived, for it is extremely likely that apart from Jesus and the Holy Spirit there is only one God, and if he is on the line when they call on him, he will hear and respond.

Can you agree that we need to be as careful about what we say about access to God's ear through prayer as we are in making a determination of exactly who and what God is, and what he does and does not do, in terms that sound dangerously absolutist and exclusivist.

M:)

Morganite,
I think there is a difference between God's mercy for all and God hearing the prayers of one in a religion that God considers idolatry...
Now that is in the Bible.
You know what the sinner's prayer is don't you? It's the term used to describe when a person understands that he/she is a sinner and is in need of a Savior. Yes, we are all sinners, but not all saved.
Now, I wish I could sugar-coat hell too but it wouldn't true.
I only gave my opinion from my own experiences-otherwise I would be a liar(or someone to oppressed to even mention it)
How are they supposed to come to God/Jesus? That's what Christians are for- to reproduce disciples. There's other avenues too. One might get to the Lord on there own. By reading the Bible and hearing the Word from Christian radio or T.V. and then reciting the sinner's prayer-between them and God.

Christ is" the way" to the Father. Why would our prayers be any different?

If one prays to God to take the darkness away(which can include many things) I'm living testimony to say He did--- and I didn't believe in Jesus then either--but look where it brought me to---Born-again!
So when you say someone should have that light- think about me. wouldya?! :)
God Bless you all.

God's Child,

I don't see where I speak as a trinitarian, because I am not one. I may illustrate what trinitarians believe in some instances, but that must not be taken as acceptance of the teaching.

Neither do I see where you say I forget that Jesus was Man and God. I will put that statement on my mystery shelf.

I believe I do understand how the doctrine or dogma of the Holy Trinity developed and the reasons behind its development. I am reasonably au fait with the Greek and Latin Patrologies, and so have most of the arguments for and against trinitarian teaching close to hand.

I will say again that I am not a Trinitarian, nor a Unitarian of any kind, but that does not preclude me from havging an interest in all forms of belief about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, anmd all forms of creed, theologies, Christilogies, etc, etc. But it is not to be taken that because I talk of them that I necessarily accept them. If I recall correctly, and I could be mistaken, then I did say that the Trinity was confusing. It has been called 'a contradiction' by an eminent theologian and patrologist. He said that to me during a discussion we had some years ago. This same man now lectures at the Union Theological Seminary, and is a Christian minister, formerly a Roman, now an Orthodox, priest.

What I will insist on is that the only person who knows everything about God is God Himself. Unless you are God then it must, perforce, follow that much of what you (or anyone else) thinks about God has to be wrong. Why? Because God is transcendent, and all that humanity can know about God is what God chooses to reveal to us through his involvement inhuman history and in the incarnation of his Only Begotten and Firstborn Son Jesus Christ. For anyone to claim that they have sole access to the truth about God is fulminatingly conceited and has to be wrong, or else God is not transcendent but just one of your pals who tells you everything there is to know.

As to the scriptures being incontrovertible, inerrant, and non-contradictory, it is because they are at times and in divers places all three - controvertible, contradicory, and errant, that the rising tide of sectarianism has shaken Christanity since Jesus first expounded it sprincipls and the apostles proclaimed its basic truths.

How did we get to this pass? Through the inability of sensible (sometimes), sane (sometimes), and informed (sometimes) people to come to simple agreement about that the Book of Books means by what it says. QED!

I wish you well on your journey towards spiritual enlightenemt, but gently remind you that it is a journey you are on, not a destination that you are at.


M:)RGANITE



.

Morganite, I haven't been up here in a while cause I been busy, I am also neither Trinitarian nor Unitarian, I am Oneness and that is different from Unitarians, They don't believe that Jesus is God. The early church Fathers also did not teach a Trinitarian prospective until it was fully established at the Council of Nicea, Justin Martyr is Considered to be one of the greatest of the church Fathers but yet people lack knowledge, Justin was a man who tried to mix Christianity and Philosophy together and he also considered Plato and philio to be pre-Christians before Christ was born. He looked at the concept of the Trinity only because he also believe in more than one God but yet he also said that there is no separate person in the Godhead.

Ireanus a disiple of John the apostle also said that the fulness is only the Father and if their was another then the Father would not be the fulness. This is the Fulness that is in Jesus Christ (Colo 2: 9). Trinitarians look at this scripture to mean that Father, son and Holy ghost dwell in Jesus But this man Ireanus thought otherwise, he only believed the Father to be the One and Only God and he was the Fulness and if their was another then he would not be God nor the Fulness. Although Ireanus was the first to say God was a Mystery, He never believed the Holy Ghost to be a separate person.

Tutillian (a man in the 3rd century) admitted that the "majority of Christians in his day was Oneness" but many trinitarians don't know that he admitted this in the present times because of lack of knowledge, They rather go by faith that God is a Trinity when the bible speaks specifically of who God is. Oneness was dominant in the apostolic days, in modern day Trinitarian belief is dominant, which was dominant first after Jesus ascended? Trinitarian scholars admit to this and they make an excuse as to say "The trinity wasn't taught in the early church days but it was a nessity to to put a trinity into concept". Hmmm,

Jesus once said "My people parish for the lack of Knowledge". We need to study and understand the word for what it is. Their were scriptures added to the bible but with studies we can weed them out and dispose of them. If the Early church Fathers taught the trinity as some claim then they would contadict themselves as well.

Morganite,
I think there is a difference between God's mercy for all and God hearing the prayers of one in a religion that God considers idolatry...
Now that is in the Bible.
You know what the sinner's prayer is don't you? It's the term used to describe when a person understands that he/she is a sinner and is in need of a Savior. Yes, we are all sinners, but not all saved.
Now, I wish I could sugar-coat hell too but it wouldn't true.
I only gave my opinion from my own experiences-otherwise I would be a liar(or someone to oppressed to even mention it)
How are they supposed to come to God/Jesus? That's what Christians are for- to reproduce disciples. There's other avenues too. One might get to the Lord on there own. By reading the Bible and hearing the Word from Christian radio or T.V. and then reciting the sinner's prayer-between them and God.

Christ is" the way" to the Father. Why would our prayers be any different?

If one prays to God to take the darkness away(which can include many things) I'm living testimony to say He did--- and I didn't believe in Jesus then either--but look where it brought me to---Born-again!
So when you say someone should have that light- think about me.,wouldya?!!! :)
God Bless you all.

Amen to that. I agree that we all need to go out a make disiples in Jesus name. Theirs a lot of arguing and debate about who God is but we are suppose to be united and go out a preach. The reason why we debate the trinity and oneness is because a trinitarian might talk to one person one day and then a oneness person might talk to that same person the next day and they might get confused. We all need to continue to study and agree so that we can go out as united and spread the gospel without debate. God bless