Oneness Vs. Trinity Debate

[ONENESS]

Whether or not you agree with this explanation is not the issue. The issue is that I have an explanation (A biblical one at that) and you have none.

Yes you have an explanation and yes your explanation comes from the bible. But your explanation out of the bible is your own translation.

That just does not harmonize with the rest of scripture if you read it like that though.

Peace to the brothers, and love with faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ

It is not speaking of two seperate persons, if so why do they for the most part always leave off one of the three

In other words he is saying that God is both the Father and the lord Jesus.

Use my example from previous post to understand what I mean.

Ok another point to show you that the "Us" is not the trinity.

If you look, "God" in Gen 1:26 is referred to as "Elohiym"

This the plural. And according to trinitarians, they try to explain that Elohiym represents three persons. So if this is the way you understand you have to understand that the Trinity was doing the speaking in Gen 1:26. So it could not be one person in the trinity talking to the other persons in the trinity.

So now that we know that the "us" is not three persons, what is it. Who was the trinity talking to?

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
For my next question:

What attributes did the golden calf have?

~Lorelei

get back with you on monday, its past five here, i have to go.

take care and have a good weekend lorelie, Pray for me and i will pray for you

God bless

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by ONENESS:
Yes you have an explanation and yes your explanation comes from the bible.

And you still have no explanation whatsoever.

I will see you Monday, hope you have a nice weekend.

~Lorelei

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ONENESS:
Yes you have an explanation and yes your explanation comes from the bible.

And you still have no explanation whatsoever.

I will see you Monday, hope you have a nice weekend.

~Lorelei</font>[/QUOTE]Go ahead and put the rest of the quote down there Loreile

 

[Lorelei]

Go ahead and answer the question while you have the time!

~Lorelei

 

[susanpet]

Here we go round the mulberry bush .......!
Couldn't resist

The ol' devil even knows about the trinity. He's gonna set up a false one during the tribulation.
Just because our mortal minds can't comprehend something, doesn't make it not real.
The trinity is portrayed many times in the bible.

Susan

 

[Chemnitz]

If you look, "God" in Gen 1:26 is referred to as "Elohiym"

This the plural. And according to trinitarians, they try to explain that Elohiym represents three persons. So if this is the way you understand you have to understand that the Trinity was doing the speaking in Gen 1:26. So it could not be one person in the trinity talking to the other persons in the trinity.

So now that we know that the "us" is not three persons, what is it. Who was the trinity talking to?

If you look closely you will find your argument better supports the Trinity than your own position.

Yes you have an explanation and yes your explanation comes from the bible. But your explanation out of the bible is your own translation.

If it is my own translation that why do so many translations agree with me. I suggest you review my argument.

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
For my next question:

What attributes did the golden calf have?

~Lorelei

What attributes did the Golden calf have?

To me it would not have as many as to the ones who worshiped it.

</font>

• Gold</font>
• Heavy</font>
• symbolic</font>
• Expensive</font>

Now for the ones who worshiped it
</font>

• Gold</font>
• Heavy</font>
• symbolic</font>
• Expensive</font>
• A God</font>
• A redeemer</font>
• Wise</font>
• Great</font>
• Mighty</font>
• And all the other attributes that "a god" would have.</font>

[ September 09, 2002, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: ONENESS ]

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> If you look, "God" in Gen 1:26 is referred to as "Elohiym"

This the plural. And according to trinitarians, they try to explain that Elohiym represents three persons. So if this is the way you understand you have to understand that the Trinity was doing the speaking in Gen 1:26. So it could not be one person in the trinity talking to the other persons in the trinity.

So now that we know that the "us" is not three persons, what is it. Who was the trinity talking to?

If you look closely you will find your argument better supports the Trinity than your own position.

Yes you have an explanation and yes your explanation comes from the bible. But your explanation out of the bible is your own translation.

If it is my own translation that why do so many translations agree with me. I suggest you review my argument.</font>[/QUOTE]Well just b/c there are alot of translations that agree with you does not carry that much weight.

There are alot of scientist out there that do not believe there is a God, and they all agree.

 

[Lorelei]

Oneness,

I was curious because the traits that you attributed to God were goodness and greatness, definately lifebearing attributes. I wondered how you could give such attributes to a golden calf and I don't think that is what the Bible was trying to do.

Now I would have to say that assigning attributes such as gold, heavy, symbolic and expensive wouldn't really fit the arguement. For then any singular object could be referred to in the plural. But that isn't the purpose of plurality now is it?

Do we say I have a brand new desks, when I only have one desk? No, I don't, but isn't my desk heavy and expensive?

This argument just makes no sense. So we must examine why you think the plurality works when speaking of God. You said it speaks of such attributes as his goodness and greatness. Now surely these are more then descriptive, these are lifebearing attributes. If you want to say that the plurality of the word was used to describe God in this way, then you have to assign such lifebearing attributes to false gods, gods that the Bible say are lifeless.

So why then, was the calf referred to in the plural form? Let us look at the text.

When the people cried out to Aaron to make them gods, they did just that. That asked for gods. They didn't ask for a nice shiny calf with many attributes.

32:1 When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him."

Aaron made them the calf to house thier gods. After all, the word calf is never plural, just the word gods.

4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt."

So we end up with a calf (a word used in the singular form) housing what they believed were many gods.

Now, to give this calf attributes such as greatness or goodness, or rather the opposite of such traits, still gives life giving qualities to lifeless gods. I am sure the Bible was not professing that the golden calf had such attributes.

Of course as I mentioned before, that isn't the purpose of plurality now is it? Otherwise we might as well just always speak in the plural form, for you will find few objects that have only one attribute.

~Lorelei

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
Oneness,

I was curious because the traits that you attributed to God were goodness and greatness, definately lifebearing attributes. I wondered how you could give such attributes to a golden calf and I don't think that is what the Bible was trying to do.

Now I would have to say that assigning attributes such as gold, heavy, symbolic and expensive wouldn't really fit the arguement. For then any singular object could be referred to in the plural. But that isn't the purpose of plurality now is it?

Do we say I have a brand new desks, when I only have one desk? No, I don't, but isn't my desk heavy and expensive?

This argument just makes no sense. So we must examine why you think the plurality works when speaking of God. You said it speaks of such attributes as his goodness and greatness. Now surely these are more then descriptive, these are lifebearing attributes. If you want to say that the plurality of the word was used to describe God in this way, then you have to assign such lifebearing attributes to false gods, gods that the Bible say are lifeless.

So why then, was the calf referred to in the plural form? Let us look at the text.

When the people cried out to Aaron to make them gods, they did just that. That asked for gods. They didn't ask for a nice shiny calf with many attributes.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />32:1 When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him."

Aaron made them the calf to house thier gods. After all, the word calf is never plural, just the word gods.

4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt."

So we end up with a calf (a word used in the singular form) housing what they believed were many gods.

Now, to give this calf attributes such as greatness or goodness, or rather the opposite of such traits, still gives life giving qualities to lifeless gods. I am sure the Bible was not professing that the golden calf had such attributes.

Of course as I mentioned before, that isn't the purpose of plurality now is it? Otherwise we might as well just always speak in the plural form, for you will find few objects that have only one attribute.

~Lorelei</font>[/QUOTE]So does this mean you take the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be Seperate Gods. When you use the term seperate Persons, the concept in most trinitarians minds are the seperate "beings".

Here are more examples of Pagan Gods that the Word Elohim is used.

Baalberith (judges 8:33)
Chemosh (Judges 11:24)
Dagon (Judges 16:23)
Baalzebub (II kings 1:2-3)
Nisroch (II Kings 19:37)

Jesus Christ was even referred to as Elohim.

Jesus Christ (Psalm 45:6, Zechariah 12:8-10, 14:5)

What I am trying to point out is that The God head is Not "Seperate Persons"

I know that the golden calf is not great and it is not good save its beauty only, but to those people that worshiped it, it was. I would not give a golden calf life giveing qualities, but the people who worshiped it would. That is why they would have worshiped it in the first place.

[ September 09, 2002, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: ONENESS ]

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by ONENESS:
When you use the term seperate Persons, the concept in most trinitarians minds are the seperate "beings".

See, this is not at all what is in most trinitarians minds at all. When we say persons we mean just that. We are speaking of the persons within that one being.

Your misconception comes when you take our statements about the persons within the Godhead to mean we are speaking of three separate Gods. That is just not true.

Originally posted by ONENESS:
So does this mean you take the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be Seperate Gods.

You know that I do NOT believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate Gods. They are, however, distinct persons within the one being that IS God.

Originally posted by ONENESS:

What I am trying to point out is that The God head is Not "Seperate Persons"

And in doing so you are using arguments that either ignore verses such as the one in Genesis that you still have not answered or you make arguements that when applied to any other object or god makes no sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by ONENESS:
I know that the golden calf is not great and it is not good save its beauty only, but to those people that worshiped it, it was. I would not give a golden calf life giveing qualities, but the people who worshiped it would. That is why they would have worshiped it in the first place.

So, with your obvious expertise in the original Hebrew, please explain why the word god in a plural sense did not really mean plurality, but rather it meant that it had many attributes? What is the actual reasoning for this? Is it simply that there is no other explanation for your oneness belief, or do you have proof?

Why limit the plurality of speach to merely gods, when even pagan gods are allowed to be proclaimed as having such attributes.

What other words in ancient Hebrew will allow for the plural meaning to refer to the attributes of an object rather than meaning actual plurality?

~Lorelei

 

[Lorelei]

To comment on such phrases as: God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.

When using and to separate such statements one must ask themself, is it separating different names or characteristics?

It can be used properly if separating characteristics.

Let me introduce you to John, my friend and collegue.

However, we don't separate His name with a characteristic.

My friend John and the police man

This would be properly stated

My friend John, the police man

It just doesn't make sense to use the word and in front of the. I believe you will be hard pressed to find anyone who truly speaks this way.

You also don't use it to separate a name from the same name.

John Doe is not introduces as:

My friend John and Doe.

So, let us look at this phrase again:

God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Which words are titles and which are descriptive?

You stated:

Originally posted by ONENESS:
This is not a seperation of two people in the God head. It seperate attributes giveing to one God.

In other words he is saying that God is both the Father and the lord Jesus

However throughout our conversations you keep telling us that God's name is now Jesus. So which is the name and which is the attribute?

Let us look at the phrase again:

I would like to introduce you to God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

You have two names: God and Jesus Christ
You have two descriptions: Father and Lord.

Your analogy simply doesn't work unless you declare either God or Jesus Christ as nothing other then a description.

You have already determined God to be the main title in this statement:

Originally posted by ONENESS:
In other words he is saying that God is both the Father and the lord Jesus

So, what is the name of God? Is it God, or is it Jesus? If it is Jesus, why did you determine Jesus to be merely a "seperate attributes giveing to one God"?

Now let us look at one quote directly from Paul:

Galatians 1:1Paul, an apostle sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

Here we have Jesus Christ listed first and then God the Father. Within this sentence it would be impossible to proclaim that one of the two is merely an attribute of the other. For one has died, and the other has raised him from the dead. Attributes can not take such actions now can they?

~Lorelei

 

[Chemnitz]

Well just b/c there are alot of translations that agree with you does not carry that much weight

If they are all wrong then how in your expert opinion should it be translated as?

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ONENESS:
When you use the term seperate Persons, the concept in most trinitarians minds are the seperate "beings".

See, this is not at all what is in most trinitarians minds at all. When we say persons we mean just that. We are speaking of the persons within that one being.

Your misconception comes when you take our statements about the persons within the Godhead to mean we are speaking of three separate Gods. That is just not true.

Originally posted by ONENESS:
So does this mean you take the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be Seperate Gods.

You know that I do NOT believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate Gods. They are, however, distinct persons within the one being that IS God.

Originally posted by ONENESS:

What I am trying to point out is that The God head is Not "Seperate Persons"

And in doing so you are using arguments that either ignore verses such as the one in Genesis that you still have not answered or you make arguements that when applied to any other object or god makes no sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by ONENESS:
I know that the golden calf is not great and it is not good save its beauty only, but to those people that worshiped it, it was. I would not give a golden calf life giveing qualities, but the people who worshiped it would. That is why they would have worshiped it in the first place.

So, with your obvious expertise in the original Hebrew, please explain why the word god in a plural sense did not really mean plurality, but rather it meant that it had many attributes? What is the actual reasoning for this? Is it simply that there is no other explanation for your oneness belief, or do you have proof?

Why limit the plurality of speach to merely gods, when even pagan gods are allowed to be proclaimed as having such attributes.

What other words in ancient Hebrew will allow for the plural meaning to refer to the attributes of an object rather than meaning actual plurality?

~Lorelei</font>[/QUOTE]

See, this is not at all what is in most trinitarians minds at all. When we say persons we mean just that. We are speaking of the persons within that one being.

Ok, so when you pray to the son are you praying to one of the three people or are you praying to the one God?

Your misconception comes when you take our statements about the persons within the Godhead to mean we are speaking of three separate Gods. That is just not true.

Walk up to any Jew and tell him if God is three seperate persons, and after that tell me what they say.

When you speak of seperate Persons you are seperating God into three Seperate parts. Therefore, when you seperate him in three seperate parts you now have three seperate minds, wills, consciences, etc. And that is not so. God only has one center of conscience.

You know that I do NOT believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate Gods. They are, however, distinct persons within the one being that IS God.

Why do you use the term "Persons" to decribe Spirit?

And in doing so you are using arguments that either ignore verses such as the one in Genesis that you still have not answered or you make arguements that when applied to any other object or god makes no sense whatsoever.

I have not given you a sure answer on what Genesis 1:26 is pertaining to, but i have given you definate proof that it excludes the idea of persons, people, etc.

I could write my opinion in stone but what good would that do? My opinion is my opinion and nothing more. But I do know that it is not implying persons.

So, with your obvious expertise in the original Hebrew, please explain why the word god in a plural sense did not really mean plurality, but rather it meant that it had many attributes? What is the actual reasoning for this? Is it simply that there is no other explanation for your oneness belief, or do you have proof?

First of all Lorelie, Im not an expert in Hebrew, nor do I claim to be. You guys are the one who told me to stop telling you what I was taught and find out for my self. So thats what I did with Gens 1:26.

You will have to bare with me until I futher my self with this issue.

But for right now, you still have not told me who the trinity was speaking to. Who was it? Or are you just frustrated b/c your theory is not backed up by the bible?

And please tell me why you follow a doctrine that was established by the Catholic Church. A doctrine that was decided by man? Please feel free to show me at any time where someone was baptized with the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Please feel free to tell my why the bible says to everything in word or in Deed in the Name of Jesus Christ and you still want to baptized with the titles father, son and holy ghost.

Do answer my questions with an answer either. Answer them with proof. Show me in the bible where it speaks of persons of God. Can you do that? And again that is a simple yes no answer. I dont need a written out paper showing why you think there are persons in the God head.

Can you please tell me if Persons (as decribeing the Godhead is a scriptural term?

Good luck

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by ONENESS:
But for right now, you still have not told me who the trinity was speaking to.

Not only have I told you, but you also agreed that my answer was indeed from the Bible.

Yes you have an explanation and yes your explanation comes from the bible. But your explanation out of the bible is your own translation.

So stop trying to pretend like I haven't answered. If you don't agree with my answer fine, but I really don't like being scolded for something that you admit that I have done!

(By the way, I have never translated my own Bible. I can show you the truth in the NIV, KJV and others.)

Originally posted by ONENESS:

Do answer my questions with an answer either.

If you think back, you will find that I have been the one asking you questions. Now why do you expect an answer from me when you still have not answered the questions I have given you?

I have actually answered your questions many times, you just refuse to accept them because you refuse to believe they are true. That is fine, but please don't act like they have been ignored.

~Lorelei

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ONENESS:
But for right now, you still have not told me who the trinity was speaking to.

Not only have I told you, but you also agreed that my answer was indeed from the Bible.

Yes you have an explanation and yes your explanation comes from the bible. But your explanation out of the bible is your own translation.

So stop trying to pretend like I haven't answered. If you don't agree with my answer fine, but I really don't like being scolded for something that you admit that I have done!

(By the way, I have never translated my own Bible. I can show you the truth in the NIV, KJV and others.)

Originally posted by ONENESS:

Do answer my questions with an answer either.

If you think back, you will find that I have been the one asking you questions. Now why do you expect an answer from me when you still have not answered the questions I have given you?

I have actually answered your questions many times, you just refuse to accept them because you refuse to believe they are true. That is fine, but please don't act like they have been ignored.

~Lorelei</font>[/QUOTE]Lorelei, what I meant by saying you have a biblical answer was not what I wanted you to focus on. What I was wanting you to focus on was your translation. The JW's and Mormans also have biblical answers for some questions but they also take them out of context without knowing the full meaning of it.

Ok I forgot you did answer my question but it was a very weak answer that did not hold air. And it just sliped my mind.

If you have asked me any questions and I have not attempted to answer it, please show me so that I can. To my knowledge I have answered everyone of your questions the best I could have at that moment.

Now if you want to answer mine feel free If no than end of discussion. I am sorry if i come on strong, but I'm a little frustrated today. Besides that not once have you guys attempted to see my side of the point. The only thing you guys have done is rebut every little thing i have said, just b/c you dont agree with it.

Not once have you said that you see where I am comeing from and I will study it out further. You guys seem to think you know everything. Not once have you said that I am not sure. Maybe you guys have arrived but I havent. Every day I am learning and every day I can say that there is still alot more that I do not know.

[ September 10, 2002, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: ONENESS ]

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by ONENESS:
Lorelei, what I meant by saying you have a biblical answer was not what I wanted you to focus on.

I can see that. Sorry, but the fact that my answer was biblical and the fact that you had absolutely no answer, still is and will be the focus.

So tell me what did God mean when he said us and our? If you have no answer, then drop it and move on.

Originally posted by ONENESS:
What I was wanting you to focus on was your translation. The JW's and Mormans also have biblical answers for some questions but they also take them out of context without knowing the full meaning of it.

As do the Oneness Pentecostals. They not only take verses out of context, they expect you to ignore important passages in the Bible and just take their word for it.

Don't be so quick to criticize when it is your interpretation that expects us to take your word for it when tough scriptures come into play.

Originally posted by ONENESS:

Ok I forgot you did answer my question but it was a very weak answer that did not hold air. And it just sliped my mind.

That is your opinion, not fact. The fact still remains, I have an answer and you have none.

Originally posted by ONENESS:
If you have asked me any questions and I have not attempted to answer it, please show me so that I can. To my knowledge I have answered everyone of your questions the best I could have at that moment.

Ok, in instance one, you admitted that you had no answer.

I really dont know who the "us" are. But I know that it is not a trinity.

You have not responded at all to the question that asks whether Jesus is the name of God or an attribute of God. Did you miss that post altogether?

Originally posted by ONENESS:
Now if you want to answer mine feel free If no than end of discussion.

What questions are your referring to. The one where you asked me several times when in fact, I had answered it the very first time it was asked?

This conversation is indeed over if this is your attitude. You do this in every conversation. You turn the discussion around always making us defend our view, yet you never answer the questions that really shed light on your theology. If you can't handle the tough questions, then stay out of the discussion. If you are going to start a debate on the topic, then at least have the coutresy to answer as well as ask questions.

Originally posted by ONENESS:
I am sorry if i come on strong, but I'm a little frustrated today. Besides that not once have you guys attempted to see my side of the point.

That is because your side is seriously flawed. The fact that you can not answer many of the tough questions that we ask confirms this very aspect. I am sorry, my Bible doesn't tell me to try and see every man's side. My Bible says there is but one gospel and we are to defend it boldly without shame. If you want me to see your side, then prove it without expecting me to just accept that there are many questions that your belief simply can not answer.

Originally posted by ONENESS:
The only thing you guys have done is rebut every little thing i have said, just b/c you dont agree with it.

In debates, there is usually a time for a rebuttal. If you didn't want it opened up to the public to be able to do so, then why did you ask for it to be done?

The reason we rebut what you have to say is because it needs to be done.

Now do tell me, why do you keep rebutting our statements? Surely it isn't because you agree with us! You are just mad that our rebuttals prove seriously flaws with your theology. To be mad at someone for rebutting something when they are in a debate is just plain silly.

Originally posted by ONENESS:
Not once have you said that you see where I am comeing from and I will study it out further.

So in debates one is expected to admit that he doesn't know the material well enough to even bother debating it in the first place?

Do I understand everything? NO. Do I need to understand everything before I can make a fair judgement that your arguments are lacking and not biblical? NO.

When backed into a corner, it is always the same cry. Well, I don't really know, I will study it further. Then you keep on arguing anyway. The problem is, you really don't study it further. You come back with another thread with the same arguments as before, still not being able to answer the questions you couldn't answer before.

If you need to study it further, then by all means do so. It would be great if the next time you discussed this issue you could show scripturally what Gen 1:26 means. It would be great how if you could explain how there are two witnesses to Christ if Christ and the Father are not separate. We would love to finally hear some answers.

~Lorelei

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by Lorelei:

You have not responded at all to the question that asks whether Jesus is the name of God or an attribute of God. Did you miss that post altogether?

Lorelei, see this helps your understanding of the "NAME." I found it very interesting!

ONENESS, I hope you don't mind me answering this question.

(Just a portion of the topic "The Most Magnificent Name, The Name Jesus" by Robert Sabin.)

VII. The Magnificent Name - The Name Jesus
Rev. 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
How many personal names are written upon the overcoming believer?
If the name Jesus is the highest name, Philippians 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a (the) name which is above every name:
And the Father’s own name, John 17:11 Holy Father, keep them in thy name, the name which thou hast given me. NASB, plus Nestle’s. John 17:12 While I was with them I kept them in thy name which thou hast given me. NASB

And the only saving name, Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Then, what is the new name that Jesus will write upon the overcoming believer?

How many names will the the overcomer have written upon him? The name of my God...my new name, one name or two?
Revelation 14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
RV Revelation 14:1 And I saw, and behold, the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with him one hundred and forty and four thousand, have His Name and The Name of His Father written on their foreheads.

His Name, and The Name of His Father...one name? or two?
Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: 4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. one master, or two? one face, or two? one throne, or two? one name, or two?
The Name? The Father’s Name, YHVH, Jehovah, Jehovah-Oshea, Jehoshua, The Father’s Name which was given to Jesus.
Matthew 28:19 Matt. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
VIII. The Name of The Father Becomes the Name of Jesus
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord (RV Jesus Christ). Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Jesus, according to Paul, was not a mere man.

IX. The name of Jesus, to Peter, to Philip, Paul was the name of the Father and of the son and of the Holy Ghost.
Psalm. 20:5 We will rejoice in thy (Yeshua) salvation, and in the name of our God (parallelism, the name of Yeshua is the name of our God) we will set up our banners: the LORD fulfil all thy petitions.

[ September 10, 2002, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: MEE ]

 

[Chemnitz]

IX. The name of Jesus, to Peter, to Philip, Paul was the name of the Father and of the son and of the Holy Ghost.
Psalm. 20:5 We will rejoice in thy (Yeshua) salvation, and in the name of our God (parallelism, the name of Yeshua is the name of our God) we will set up our banners: the LORD fulfil all thy petitions.

As usual Sabin is grasping at straws. It isn't even the right form of the word. It also means Joshua so which is it? Trying to make that claim particularly in Hebrew poetry is like trying stick together two male connecters it just doesn't work and to claim it supports oneness is even worse.