Colossians 1:12-20 Shows after speaking of both a Father and a Son, that by Jesus all things were created in heaven and earth. This puts an interesting spin on the conversation God had in Genesis 1:26-27 and the entire chapter as a whole. Because while we are often taught that the Father was talking to the Son, maybe it was the other way around?
Malachi 2:10 shows us that we have one God who created us and all one Father. Given it was God who created us and we serve one God and Jesus has said he is in the Father and the Father in himself (John 14:7-11) and this is shown to be God dwelling in Jesus in all fullness, we must have 2 entities that work as one. Based on this proof involving our own creation.

Toss in Acts 5:3-4 and suddenly we have a Holy Spirit entity that is also God. Lie to the Holy Spirit and you lie to God. The Holy Spirit is also God.

This is why Luke 3:22 makes so much sense. 3 entities, working in concert that are one God. Each has a role and certain tasks and all are God. One God. Just as my body parts are me, but of course with God it is in a far greater sense.

So the Oneness folks are totally blown out of the water.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are blown out of the water, because we have one God that is acknowledged as God doing all of this, not levels of gods.

And the Mormons, they are just out to lunch! Because their doctrine does not give Jesus right to have created anything. (Neither do the JWs.) And those Mormon sickos think Satan is the brother of Jesus, which certainly can’t be, given Satan is never acknowledged as God.

So Jesus was being exceedingly humble when he spoke in Matthew 19:4-6. While he was fully explaining how 2 can be one flesh. Many understand 2 being one in the flesh, while each has a certain role, one subject to the other and neither is at a higher level of humanity, but many seem to miss how 3 can be one God.

(MN: Amen brother. But a question: Which Christ are we to follow - the one who came into existence at the incarnation or the one who has existed from eternity? They’re not the same, you know. Are we to worship the one who the Father loves or the one who is the Father in Creation and the Christ in salvation? They’re not the same you know.)

(MN: Which Jesus - the one who came into existence at the incarnation or the one who has existed from the beginning of time? )

P-u-h-l-e-a-s-e explain. I’m not too proud to beg.
Beryle

(MN: It’s like this: According to the oneness folks, God is the Son in salvation. Jesus, the flesh guy, only came to be at the incarnation. They limit “the Son” to that which came about at the incarnation. Prior to that, He was simply the Father. And apparently, once the Son died, He reverted back to the Father (since there is only one of them). SO the Son (who died for our sins) is not eternal. Oneness proponents put a great deal of discussion into denying the results, but no matter how much they deny it, there is still only one person playing various roles or presenting various manifestations. And this is not the Jesus or the Son of the Bible. My apologies for the lack of clarity. )

(MN: Which Jesus - the one who came into existence at the incarnation or the one who has existed from the beginning of time? )

(MN: Amen brother. But a question: Which Christ are we to follow - the one who came into existence at the incarnation or the one who has existed from eternity? They’re not the same, you know. Are we to worship the one who the Father loves or the one who is the Father in Creation and the Christ in salvation? They’re not the same you know. )

I can only speak for myself…but when truth (real truth) confronts me. It places me at a divide in the road.

I either choose the wide or narrow road. When an individual delivers truth…there (on the receiving end) can only be one Spirit which would influence an individual to HOLD to that truth (Spirit of truth).

The way it is….is really it doesn’t matter to the specific extent (in tone, etc) the truth confronts me and I am forced to receive or reject it.

My mother used to lay it on me when I was young and didn’t know any better. At the time I despised my self-inflicted punishment. But as I continued on….I realized that in fact that was the best thing for me….so I would know better.

Keep delivering the punches. Truth is not shallow and soft. Being here and conversing has assisted in examining myself (and how I apply truth-in love & that love is not how based on how we feel) and affirming that truth in my own life.

heresy

Pronunciation: ‘her-&-sE, ‘he-r&-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies

1 a : adherence to a religious opinion CONTRARY TO CHURCH DOGMA b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine CONTRARY TO CHURCH DOGMA
2 a : dissent or deviation from a DOMINANT THEORY

Thanks for your reply.

However, I was responding to Melvin’s post, not yours.

(GaryV) It’s an open forum brother……..we all chime in and learn from each other.

(Marlon) Interestingly, I did go back just now and read a portion of your post, and it read a lot like modern English to me.

After all, we know Hebrew is not spelled using Phoenician letters, so to spell it that way is already an act of interpretation.

(Gary) Errrrr………the freaking different LETTERS DON”T CHANGE THE WORD”S MEANING. If I say “cat” in English, then “gotto” in Spanish, does the animal change?? Brother, please……… you have to bring something better than this to the table.

(Marlon)Moreover, there are some who argue passionately about the fixed and determined meaning of the language, hence your assertion that you just said it in English straight out the original language. When was it original?

(Gary) The definitions given in the original languages were arrived at in two primary ways.

1) The word usage and definitions in that language (whether in Hebrew, Greek,Aramaic, etc) are compared to secular and extra-Biblical documents dating to the same time period when they were used in Scripture .

That way, their common and legal usage corresponds EXACTLY with the Scriptural equivalent of that time period and lends CONTEXT (that word you have so much trouble grasping) to their proper definition.

They didn’t take a word written in Scripture in the 3rd century BC, and compare it to the way the Hebrew word was used in the 2nd century AD.

They compared it to the way it was used in the 3rd century BC in other sources outside the Bible.

2) Word definitions are determined by the use of the same words elsewhere within the body of Scripture itself. Thus, we are able to compare its usage and how it was employed previously AND afterwards in the Bible to determine the proper definition. I thought you went to school for this sort of thing??

(Marlon) When was there original English? Is that American English, or British English, or maybe Olde English. What is the original?

(Gary) YOUR use of “original” here is another strawman. By ORIGINAL, I mean the language in which the text ORIGINATED.

You use “original” as a reference point to static and finished language (something which is impossible, BTW. Language constantly evolves).

The answer to this argument of straw lies above…………the words in Scripture are defined by comparing how the word was used in contemporary extra-Biblical (outside the Bible) sources. It doesn’t MATTER that language has evolved, because the definitions are based upon HOW IT WAS USED AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN IN SCRIPTURE, not upon how it is used NOW.

(Marlon) If “English” is indeterminate, fluid, not fixed, why have so much confidence while talking about languages, whose traditions are much older and more complex than our own language. We know many word in Greek, or Hebrew, or even modern German do not adequately translate into “English.”

(GARY) This question is answered above. The words are defined based upon their usage in CONTEMPORARY (to the Bible) sources.The fluidity of language therefore has NO bearing, and your argument is hollow and uninformed.
Were you absent from school the semester they taught this??

(Marlon) Now, I am not even trying to suggest your endeavor is useless, but my point is not pointless because you made some jump from the Mosiac law to the modern world all through some interpretive process in your head. Hooray for you!

I simply don’t buy those hermenuetics.

(Gary) Of course you don’t, because you have demonstrated that you are clueless as to how the definitions from the original languages were determined. You think they just decided to use whatever they plucked out of the air. That is ridiculous, and a slap in the face of these careful linguists and historians.

(Marlon) Now the truthfulness of the Trinity need not be based on whether Deut. 6:4 uses echad which means “unity” or “alone.” Regardless, if I stick with “unity”, it would not imply eternality or equality, or the definite un/original word “person.”

(Gary) Well, we already know that the Bible holds no answers for you Marlon. No need to beat a dead horse. However, if the implied equality of “echad” doesn’t grab you, the OVERT and INARGUABLE exposition of Christ’s absolute equality with the Father is so clear in the Hebrews passage I cited that one can only miss it ON PURPOSE. In other words…….you don’t see it because you don’t WANT to. The text is crystal clear.

(Marlon) In conclusion, I cannot look at the history of the debates about the Trinity, and then simply say, yo it’s in the original autographs. Now, you see something Tertullian, Origen, Anthanasius and Augustine did not clearly and plainly see? You see after using some Lexicons something the ancient translators, who had better autographs than we did, you see something they did not plainly and clearly see?

(Gary) Melvin’s insightful response to your misuse of the term “autograph” stands on its own. I can’t improve upon it, so I’ll just refer you and the readers to it. Its misuse here is particularly telling though, but I’ll let the readers determine its implications for virtually everything else you’ve posted.

Now…… The debates were over how to properly express the orthodox position. Not primarily over whether the orthodox position was correct. That was settled VERY quickly by the weight of the evidence. It took years to try to formulate a creed that was accepted, simply because of the impossibility of arriving at perfect explanations in finite language of eternal Truths. Nothing more.

BTW……….since the councils were gathered to battle HERESY, tell me how you can even HAVE heresy if there is no established orthodoxy to commit heresy against??

I mean……..if there was no authotitative, orthodox position to begin with, how can any doctrine be determined as false to start with?? What standard was used to call the heresies……… heresy??

Let Webster’s Dictionary define “heresy” for you……….

heresy

Pronunciation: ‘her-&-sE, ‘he-r&-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies

1 a : adherence to a religious opinion CONTRARY TO CHURCH DOGMA b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine CONTRARY TO CHURCH DOGMA
2 a : dissent or deviation from a DOMINANT THEORY

Hi GaryV,

Thanks for your reply.

However, I was responding to Melvin’s post, not yours. Interestingly, I did go back just now and read a portion of your post, and it read a lot like modern English to me.

After all, we know Hebrew is not spelled using Phoenician letters, so to spell it that way is already an act of interpretation. (For instance, this is a waste of time and simply fogs whatever point you are trying to make.)

Moreover, there are some who argue passionately about the fixed and determined meaning of the language, hence your assertion that you just said it in English straight out the original language. When was it original? (Again, you keep dismissing the usefullness of Scripture. If that is the case, all you have is opinion. I am not interested in opinion. The folks who use this site can’t use opinion. )

When was there original English? Is that American English, or British English, or maybe Olde English. What is the original? (More rambling and efforts to do who cares what. )

If “English” is indeterminate, fluid, not fixed, why have so much confidence while talking about languages, whose traditions are much older and more complex than our own language. We know many word in Greek, or Hebrew, or even modern German do not adequately translate into “English.” (Why should I give bandwidth to someone who is bashing the Bible, not arguing for or against a particular doctrine. At this point, you are contributing nothing to the discussion. )

Now, I am not even trying to suggest your endeavor is useless, but my point is not pointless because you made some jump from the Mosiac law to the modern world all through some interpretive process in your head. Hooray for you!

I simply don’t buy those hermenuetics. Now the truthfulness of the Trinity need not be based on whether Deut. 6:4 uses echad which means “unity” or “alone.” Regardless, if I stick with “unity”, it would not imply eternality or equality, or the definite un/original word “person.” (Again, a pretty pointless set of words. I wonder why you even bother to comment here. The primary standard on this site is the inspiration of Scripture and its use to determine doctrine, to correct, to train in righteousness. You do not hold this view. For the most part, your comments will not be useful in exposing the pimps. )

In conclusion, I cannot look at the history of the debates about the Trinity, and then simply say, yo it’s in the original autographs. Now, you see something Tertullian, Origen, Anthanasius and Augustine did not clearly and plainly see? You see after using some Lexicons something the ancient translators, who had better autographs than we did, you see something they did not plainly and clearly see?
(And sometimes your attempts at scholasticism trip you up. BETTER autographs? The autographs [which we don’t have] are the autographs. There are not better or worse one. But again you seem bound and determined to strike at Scripture where ever possible. That’s fine if you want to do that. But do it on your own Bandwidth.)

I think that is implied in your whole, “I used the words in the original language,” that you understand it better than the “original hearers and readers,” themselves understood it.

Regards,

Marlon

(Thank you very much for your comments Marlon. But in the future, don’t call us. We’ll call you. )

Just didn’t want anyone to think that I advanced a premise and then failed to defend it.

(MN: In fact, I was so enamored with it, I am converting it to a post. All I have to do is get off my lazy butkus and make it happen. )

Butter and salt……………the heart failure brothers. That’s how I roll too!

First, Gary, your explanation works for me in that I am joyously looking forward to committing the context of the relevant chapter(s) to the spirit of my mind. This will enable my inner man to rejoice and grow day by day. Your answer(s) were precisely why I ask men of God (specifically)—following God’s prescribed order of headship in His Word and the leading of the Holy Spirit together work for me 100% of the time ï?Š.

D. Brown: I make every effort to never take offense or imagine a “personal attack” on anything I post because the pitiful attempts are just t-o-o-o obvious, vain and—mainly—destitute of the Word of God. It’s divine to communicate with you and others who are (1) humble and teachable in spirit (though we may have other differences), and (2) knowledgeable in rightly dividing the Word of Truth, than attempt communication with ones anxious to exhalt themselves with the temporary, perishing wisdom, and false knowledge of this world. As you mentioned, I will compare my NASB, KJV, Phillips, and other translations concerning verses 7 and 8 of the referenced chapter. I truly look forward to this adventure through God’s Word.

D. Brown, as well, be encouraged. Paul the Apostle WAS more than a scholar, but even with having been given the mystery of salvation through the revelation of Jesus Christ, he counted all his edu-ma-cation ï?Š and hobnobbing with the “muckty mucks,” as dung. Continue “to just read/study the Bible and things that are written therein and compare them to the things that I [you] see both in and out of church.” Your recreated spirit will hear the confirmation or rejection by the Holy Spirit of what you see. Additionally, we have each other, including a gracious and benevolent dictator of a web host, MN ï?Š

All of you confirm, inform, correct, educate, and edify me as you share your treasures from earthen vessels. I LOVE IT! Incidentally, I am printing off ALL your replies for further study. If and when I need to reference your words of wisdom in any future publications, I promise to ask for your written permission (giving you sufficient advanced notice), and a final copy of the complete chapter where it is located. Like MN, I do like the analogies very, very much. Will have to use them at the appointed time (with permission, of course). Love, B