Three People in the God head??? It is what the Bible teaches!

[Chemnitz]

Don I asked you the question about Matt 28:19, and you agreed that Father, Son and Holy Ghost was decribeing the one Name of the One God. The I asked for what Name it is Decribeing. You agreed that it was Jesus. Now why is it so hard to see that You should be baptized in the Name of jesus Christ? Again, I challange you to show me where someone was baptized with the Names, Titles, Persons, or what ever you want to call them.

If you are going to pick up this tactic again, I am going to have to challenge you again to prove that anybody was baptized in "Jesus name". But we already know that you can't prove it. Once again I will point out that the grammar of the passage in Mt 28 does not back up your argument Oneness.

I have told you before that I have been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; I have stated that that name is Jesus.

Don you have let him trap you. The Son is not the Father, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. It does not say that the Father died on the cross, nor does it say that the Holy Spirit died on the cross. Therefore, neither the Father or the Holy Spirit are the Son. So to say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are all Jesus is flat out wrong. Jesus is only the Son. It is also for this reason we can not call the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit manifestations. Because while they are of one divine essence they are not the same. Remember, the Father did not become flesh and neither did the Holy Spirit. Only the Son became flesh.

[ June 04, 2002, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Don I asked you the question about Matt 28:19, and you agreed that Father, Son and Holy Ghost was decribeing the one Name of the One God. The I asked for what Name it is Decribeing. You agreed that it was Jesus. Now why is it so hard to see that You should be baptized in the Name of jesus Christ? Again, I challange you to show me where someone was baptized with the Names, Titles, Persons, or what ever you want to call them.

If you are going to pick up this tactic again, I am going to have to challenge you again to prove that anybody was baptized in "Jesus name". But we already know that you can't prove it. Once again I will point out that the grammar of the passage in Mt 28 does not back up your argument Oneness.

I have told you before that I have been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; I have stated that that name is Jesus.

Don you have let him trap you. The Son is not the Father, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. It does not say that the Father died on the cross, nor does it say that the Holy Spirit died on the cross. Therefore, neither the Father or the Holy Spirit are the Son. So to say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are all Jesus is flat out wrong. Jesus is only the Son. It is also for this reason we can not call the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit manifestations. Because while they are of one divine essence they are not the same. Remember, the Father did not become flesh and neither did the Holy Spirit. Only the Son became flesh.</font>[/QUOTE]

If you are going to pick up this tactic again, I am going to have to challenge you again to prove that anybody was baptized in "Jesus name". But we already know that you can't prove it. Once again I will point out that the grammar of the passage in Mt 28 does not back up your argument Oneness.

Chemitz, dont even go there, I have shown you nurmous times where someone was baptized in the Name of Jesus. YOu just fail to see that.

And dont worry about Don, b/c one plants, one waters, but God will give the increase.

So let me ask you the same question. In Matt 28:19, would you see the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as three diffrent Names of three Persons or do you see Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as Decribeing one Name of One God?

Brian

 

[Chemnitz]

Chemitz, dont even go there, I have shown you nurmous times where someone was baptized in the Name of Jesus. YOu just fail to see that.

Hey I ain't the one pushing a false interpretation. I asked you to provide a direct quotation which you failed to provide, plus the fact Acts 8:14-17 says that baptism in Jesus Name is an invalid baptism.

And dont worry about Don, b/c one plants, one waters, but God will give the increase.

I am worried about Don because he is falling for your false theology.

So let me ask you the same question. In Matt 28:19, would you see the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as three diffrent Names of three Persons or do you see Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as Decribeing one Name of One God?

After carrying on this conversation for several months now, I would think this answer would be obvious. The Bible clearly states the names of the three persons of God.

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Chemitz, dont even go there, I have shown you nurmous times where someone was baptized in the Name of Jesus. YOu just fail to see that.

Hey I ain't the one pushing a false interpretation. I asked you to provide a direct quotation which you failed to provide, plus the fact Acts 8:14-17 says that baptism in Jesus Name is an invalid baptism.

And dont worry about Don, b/c one plants, one waters, but God will give the increase.

I am worried about Don because he is falling for your false theology.

So let me ask you the same question. In Matt 28:19, would you see the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as three diffrent Names of three Persons or do you see Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as Decribeing one Name of One God?

After carrying on this conversation for several months now, I would think this answer would be obvious. The Bible clearly states the names of the three persons of God.</font>[/QUOTE]Acts 8 is not an invalid baptisim, just take it for what it says and quit argueing a point that is not even in the bible. They were baptized in the Name of Jesus in Acts 8.

I dont think Don is falling for anything. But it is so weird, I started praying really hard a couple of days before I asked that question. If Don sees something, its not b/c of me. I can guarntee you that.

After carrying on this conversation for several months now, I would think this answer would be obvious. The Bible clearly states the names of the three persons of God.

And what would those Names be. Matthew 28 clearly states that there is only one Name for the Father, Son, And Holy Ghost, and the entire New Testament Gives us that Name.

God bless

 

[Chemnitz]

Acts 8 - They did not recieve the Holy Spirit because the were only baptized in Jesus name. Sounds pretty invalid to me.

I dont think Don is falling for anything. But it is so weird, I started praying really hard a couple of days before I asked that question. If Don sees something, its not b/c of me. I can guarntee you that.

I guess that makes you Satan's tool since Satan is the Father of lies.

And what would those Names be. Matthew 28 clearly states that there is only one Name for the Father, Son, And Holy Ghost, and the entire New Testament Gives us that Name.

I know preschoolers who could answer this question. The Father, the Son, The Holy Ghost are the names of the three persons of God. Jesus is only the name for the Son. The underlying Greek does NOT support your false assertion.

 

[1Peter4:11]

just out of curiosity--so if Don has admitted that he was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, what's the problem?

[ June 05, 2002, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: 1Peter4:11 ]

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Acts 8 - They did not recieve the Holy Spirit because the were only baptized in Jesus name. Sounds pretty invalid to me.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I dont think Don is falling for anything. But it is so weird, I started praying really hard a couple of days before I asked that question. If Don sees something, its not b/c of me. I can guarntee you that.

I guess that makes you Satan's tool since Satan is the Father of lies.

And what would those Names be. Matthew 28 clearly states that there is only one Name for the Father, Son, And Holy Ghost, and the entire New Testament Gives us that Name.

I know preschoolers who could answer this question. The Father, the Son, The Holy Ghost are the names of the three persons of God. Jesus is only the name for the Son. The underlying Greek does NOT support your false assertion.</font>[/QUOTE]The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not the Names of three diffrent Persons. If you have three diffrent Names that would mean that you have three diffrent Gods.

Yea I know preschoolers could tell you if you have three diffrent persons, than y ou have three diffrent Gods.

Acts 8 - They did not recieve the Holy Spirit because the were only baptized in Jesus name. Sounds pretty invalid to me.

Being baptized in the Name of Jesus is not going to give you the Holy Ghost. You are reading way to much into it. All you are trying to do is take something that causes a contridiction in your beliefse and causeing it to say something diffrent for you on concieous

And for that matter you can get baptized 100 times in the Name of Jesus and not believe and still be condemned. Its not just the Baptisim that God wants us to do.

God bless

 

[Chemnitz]

Those people in Acts 8 believed, but the passage clearly states that they did not recieve the Holy Spirit because they were baptized into Jesus name only.

The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not the Names of three diffrent Persons. If you have three diffrent Names that would mean that you have three diffrent Gods.

Yea I know preschoolers could tell you if you have three diffrent persons, than y ou have three diffrent Gods.

Oh come now, must you once again resort to the lies told about the Trinitarian doctrine. When talking of the nature of God three persons does not equal three gods. Of course I am still waiting for you to accept my challenge and actually read materials on the Trinity by Trinitarian theologians not the lies that oneness "theologians" tell. If you forgot the title here it is again The Living God by Thomas Oden.

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Those people in Acts 8 believed, but the passage clearly states that they did not recieve the Holy Spirit because they were baptized into Jesus name only.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not the Names of three diffrent Persons. If you have three diffrent Names that would mean that you have three diffrent Gods.

Yea I know preschoolers could tell you if you have three diffrent persons, than y ou have three diffrent Gods.

Oh come now, must you once again resort to the lies told about the Trinitarian doctrine. When talking of the nature of God three persons does not equal three gods. Of course I am still waiting for you to accept my challenge and actually read materials on the Trinity by Trinitarian theologians not the lies that oneness "theologians" tell. If you forgot the title here it is again The Living God by Thomas Oden.</font>[/QUOTE]Chemitz, Dont take this the wrong way, but I know what trinitarians teach, I know what you teach. And what you teach does not line up with the teaching of One God.

Any time you seperate something you split it or devide it. God is not seperated. He is God. When the bible talks about the Seven Spirits of GOd in Revelation, according to your thinking you would have to say those are seperate spirits.

Im sorry Chemitz, but for you to say there are three seperate persons That means there are three seperate People therefore being three seperate Gods. I dont care how you can explain it but the terms that you use are not scriptural.

There is A Father, There is a Son, and there is a Holy Ghost. And all these three are one. Not that they are seperated, but they are one in the same. God is God which enables him to do more than one thing and be in more than one place at the same time with out stopping to be God or with out being seperated.

So regardless, you can say that the Doctrine of One God is a lie, but the bible says other wise.

 

[1Peter4:11]

do i need to ask my question again, or are you guys here just to argue?

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by 1Peter4:11:
do i need to ask my question again, or are you guys here just to argue?

Being baptized any other way than in the Name of Jesus goes against the teachings of Scripture. Jesus told his deciples to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And that was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost when everyone was baptized in the Name of Jesus.

 

[Chemnitz]

Chemitz, Dont take this the wrong way, but I know what trinitarians teach, I know what you teach. And what you teach does not line up with the teaching of One God

If you know it so well why do you keep missing the point of the Trinitarian doctrine so badly?

The only thing "Oneness theologians" got right was the very basic, there is one God, but when it comes to explaining the revealed nature of God they completely missed the boat. So, to cover their inability to explain certain key passages they completely misrepresent the teaching of the Trinity and spread their seditious lies.

Being baptized any other way than in the Name of Jesus goes against the teachings of Scripture. Jesus told his deciples to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And that was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost when everyone was baptized in the Name of Jesus.

If you want the least bit of credability for this argument you are going to have to provide a direct quote of somebody saying " I baptize you in Jesus name". But like I said earlier you can't provide it because it doesn't exist.

Being baptized any other way than in the Name of Jesus goes against the teachings of Scripture.

So I guess that means Jesus advocated an invalid teaching, because He said to baptize in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and the Greek backs me up on this so you might as well go back to the drawing board and chalk this up to being a losing argument on your part.

so if Don has admitted that he was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, what's the problem?

I don't have a problem with it, that is how Christ instructed us to baptize people. The problem arose with Don saying that the name of all three persons is Jesus, which it is not. I explained this in a previous post.

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Chemitz, Dont take this the wrong way, but I know what trinitarians teach, I know what you teach. And what you teach does not line up with the teaching of One God

If you know it so well why do you keep missing the point of the Trinitarian doctrine so badly?

The only thing "Oneness theologians" got right was the very basic, there is one God, but when it comes to explaining the revealed nature of God they completely missed the boat. So, to cover their inability to explain certain key passages they completely misrepresent the teaching of the Trinity and spread their seditious lies.

Being baptized any other way than in the Name of Jesus goes against the teachings of Scripture. Jesus told his deciples to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And that was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost when everyone was baptized in the Name of Jesus.

If you want the least bit of credability for this argument you are going to have to provide a direct quote of somebody saying " I baptize you in Jesus name". But like I said earlier you can't provide it because it doesn't exist.

Being baptized any other way than in the Name of Jesus goes against the teachings of Scripture.

So I guess that means Jesus advocated an invalid teaching, because He said to baptize in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and the Greek backs me up on this so you might as well go back to the drawing board and chalk this up to being a losing argument on your part.

so if Don has admitted that he was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, what's the problem?

I don't have a problem with it, that is how Christ instructed us to baptize people. The problem arose with Don saying that the name of all three persons is Jesus, which it is not. I explained this in a previous post.</font>[/QUOTE]

The only thing "Oneness theologians" got right was the very basic, there is one God, but when it comes to explaining the revealed nature of God they completely missed the boat. So, to cover their inability to explain certain key passages they completely misrepresent the teaching of the Trinity and spread their seditious lies.

Well I guess the only thing we have to go on is the word of God. We did not travel a few hundred years after the day of Pentecost to decide what we were going to teach. We misrepresent the teaching of the Trinity? We dont even represent it . Why dont you find out where the teaching of a trinity derived? It was from men who thought they knew what they were talking about, and half of them did not belive that Jesus was God. Talk about not being able to find your way out of a paper bag. Why would you even want to follow the teachings of someone who dosent believe that Jesus is God?

If you want the least bit of credability for this argument you are going to have to provide a direct quote of somebody saying " I baptize you in Jesus name". But like I said earlier you can't provide it because it doesn't exist.

What a cop out!!!!! Acts 8. Acts 19. Now unless you show me where someone in the Book of Acts Repented of their sins I am not going to give you any credabiltiy if you say they repentd. And I have provided it dozens of times, you just fail to accept what is written the The Word of God. Verily Verliy I say unto you, you must be born of the Water and the Spirit. You are born of the Water when you are baptized in the Name of Jesus. Why dont you pray in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Why dont you cast out devils in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? The bible says what soever you do in word or in deed do all in the Name of Jesus Christ giveing thanks to the father. So why in Gods name do you Not baptize in the NAME OF JESUS.

So I guess that means Jesus advocated an invalid teaching, because He said to baptize in the names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and the Greek backs me up on this so you might as well go back to the drawing board and chalk this up to being a losing argument on your part.

Bah hahahahahahah. No Jesus did not advocate and invalid teaching. He knew the deciples knew who he was. and Besides that The bible does not say "Names" It says Name. Ill go back to the drawing board only to erase what you put up there. Why study Greek when you are still haveing trouble with the Plurality with english Grammer?

[/QUOTE]I don't have a problem with it, that is how Christ instructed us to baptize people. The problem arose with Don saying that the name of all three persons is Jesus, which it is not. I explained this in a previous post.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Well according to the teaching of the Trinity, The apostles went directly against what he said in Matt 28. You arguement does not hold water Chemitz, The Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is Jesus. Why is that so hard to see? All you have to do is open your bible, quit leaning on what you have been taught, and see what the scriptures have to say for them selves. Its a whole new world I promise you.

I know I seem like I am comeing off a little hard, but that is the only Way that I know how to come off right now. I have tried and tried and tried, and it is really getting frustrateing. But oh well. You can lead a horse to the water but you cant make him drink saying goes in affect here. Well he would if you just put a salt block b/t him and the water. But I dont know what kind of salt you are looking for. I have shown you numorous times in the bible, and if you refuse to drink, than I cant help

God bless

 

[Chemnitz]

I would of died laughing, if it wasn't so sad to see somebody so mired in false doctrine.

Well I guess the only thing we have to go on is the word of God. We did not travel a few hundred years after the day of Pentecost to decide what we were going to teach. We misrepresent the teaching of the Trinity? We dont even represent it . Why dont you find out where the teaching of a trinity derived?

I have studied the historical teachings of the Trinity. I admire those men for standing up in the face of heresy and denouncing it for what it is, a lie.

What a cop out!!!!!

So hows it any different from your little copout saying you would convert if somebody could provide proof of a baptism using the Trinitarian formula.

Why dont you pray in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

Jn 14:6 "... No one comes to the Father except through me."

So why in Gods name do you Not baptize in the NAME OF JESUS.

Because we were commanded to baptize in the names of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

The bible does not say "Names" It says Name. Ill go back to the drawing board only to erase what you put up there. Why study Greek when you are still haveing trouble with the Plurality with english Grammer?

You know I was trying to be nice and not make you look like too much of a fool, but you forced my hand. While it is a literal word for word translation of the greek text it does not accurately reflect english grammer. Greek commonly uses singular tenses to modify multiple items if they are also in the singular. So literally we could translate the greek as "Baptizing in the name of the Father, and the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit" or "Baptizing in the names of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" would also be an accurate reflection of the Greek grammer in correct English grammer.

To learn, understand, and translate Greek one must have a firm grasp on English grammar. So attempts to insult my understanding of English grammar are wasted, particularly coming from somebody who's spelling is worse than mine.

Some five hundred years ago Luther showed to the world the folly of relying on a translation for the formation of doctrine. It seems the oneness people have fallen for the same trick in relying on the English, that the RCC had in relying on the Latin

Well according to the teaching of the Trinity, The apostles went directly against what he said in Matt 28. You arguement does not hold water Chemitz, The Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is Jesus. Why is that so hard to see?

Well since they never actually baptized anybody in Jesus Name that is a hard claim for you to make, still waiting for that direct quote.

know I seem like I am comeing off a little hard, but that is the only Way that I know how to come off right now. I have tried and tried and tried, and it is really getting frustrateing. But oh well. You can lead a horse to the water but you cant make him drink saying goes in affect here

I know I have been trying to get you to see the truth of the Trinitarian doctrine for sometime now, but you keep relying on the teachings of false prophets.

Now unless you show me where someone in the Book of Acts Repented of their sins I am not going to give you any credabiltiy if you say they repentd.

I never said they repented, I said they believed. Acts 19 is that the best you can come up with, boy you must be hard up because there is still nothing that says the apostles said " I baptize you in the name of Jesus. Plus the people in Acts 19 had to have repented because they were baptized in John's baptism previously and that was a baptism of repentance.

 

[1Peter4:11]

&gt;&gt;&gt; Jesus told his deciples to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And that was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost when everyone was baptized in the Name of Jesus. &lt;&lt;&lt;

i see what you're trying to say here, but it begs a question: what's the difference between baptizing in the name of Jesus and teaching in the name of Jesus? or speaking in the name of Jesus? or preaching boldly in the name of Jesus? see Acts 4:18, 5:40, 9:27

are you saying that if i baptize someone and say, "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost," that's not good enough?

if that's true, then must i also start every sermon with "i preach to you in the name of Jesus"? or every time i teach sunday school, i should start with "i teach you in the name of Jesus"? or when i speak about Him, i need to say, "i speak in the name of Jesus"?

let me ask this: does baptism save you?

if yes, then you should really be a catholic or a lutheran, and i completely understand why the words are so important to you.

if no, then why such an emphasis on the importance of the words?

 

[Johnv]

Matthew 3:16 (KJV) - And Jesus, when he was baptized, 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 is an interesting verse, because it's apparantly the only place in the Bible where all three (father, son, and holy spirit) are referenced at same place and time. There are places where Jesus and Father God are referenced, or where Father God and the Spirit are referenced, but not all three.

 

[Eric B]

2 Cor.13:14 May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

There are also other passages as well, sometimes spread over two or three verses.

Much of this problem revolves around the concept of "Persons". People think of separate, self-conscious "people" (or "beings"), and often, the Trinitarians use as proofs things such as "Us" to prove this. Many scholars and apologists, such as even James White are acknowledging that "Persons" did not quite mean what it means to us today, and was in fact close "masks" as a oneness would put it. They now deny that God is a "committee" of separate beings. Yet still, in defending some amount of distinction and "relationship" between the three "members" they do often sound like they are describing a divine committee or council.
What is most interesting is that the pre-Nicene fathers hael a position called "economic trinitarianism". Instead of an eternal [symmetrical] "trio", God was the Father, and the Son or Logos was the physical manifestation of God on earth, and the Spirit was the spiritual manifestation of God in men's hearts. The "communication" between the Father and eternal Logos was compared to a single man's thinking to himself (Hippolytus, Tertullian)
Then of course, the incarnate Son, who had taken on a human nature, became a self-conscious "other" (though still retaining His divine nature) and could pray to the Father, sit down at His right hand after His glorification, etc. "God manifested in the Flesh" (1 Tim.3:16) was the real "mystery", not "three in one".
I think we all should look back into the pre-Nicene position. It seems to answer alot of this dispute.
One of the big problems with the oneness position (modalistic monarchianism) is that when you press them to explain Jesus praying to the Father, they sometimes wind up splitting Jesus into a purely human entity merged with a divine "Son" or "Christ". But now, you've denied Christ's deity and have crossed from modalisitc monarchianism to dynamic monarchianism (the "adoptionism" of the heretic Paul of Samosata and modern goups like the
way International and christadelphians).
The issue of Baptism is so ridiculous because Father, Son and Spirit includes Jesus. It's not like the Father and Spirit were different gods, or you were trying to baptize in Brahma, Jesus, and Osiris to say those so baptized are not in Christ.

[ June 06, 2002, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[1Peter4:11]

&gt;&gt;&gt; The issue of Baptism is so ridiculous because Father, Son and Spirit includes Jesus. It's not like the Father and Spirit were different gods, or you were trying to baptize in Brahma, Jesus, and Osiris to say those so baptized are not in Christ. &lt;&lt;&lt;

yep!

 

[Jerry Moon]

Originally posted by Eric B:

was the real "mystery", not "three in one".
[/QB]

1 Tim 3:16
16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

KJV

It as never intended to be a mystery to the church for we find the scripture goes on to explain this mystery. Jehovah God was manifest in the flesh. The God that created the universe put on flesh and come to this world. No where does the scripture teach that he was co-equal. But it teaches that Jesus, was God manifest in the flesh.

 

[Jerry Moon]

This topic is about the Godhead, if you look up Godhead in your stongs you'll find that it means deity... replace deity when you read Godhead and you'll find a whole new meaning.