[Dormin]

Well, I'm hoping for someone with a Unitarian view kicks it off. Like I said in my previous post, I'm playing devils advocate; which would mean I don't believe what I'm fixing to apolgoize for. Therefore, I need a bit of help in starting. I guess I will start with this.

I guess I didn't make myself clear. Yes, I am of a Unitarian view.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Daniel21TX

Cadence, do you believe that Jesus is YHWH? Who do you believe YHWH is speaking to in Psalm 110:1 ? Exactly.

Yes. He's speaking with the Father.

Let me pose this, and tell me if these verses still make sense under your veiw:

"Jesus says to Jesus 'sit at my right hand" -ps 110:1

"All Jesus has is Jesus', and all Jesus has is Jesus'" - john 17:10

"I (Jesus) in them and Jesus in Jesus. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that Jesus sent Jesus and have loved them even as Jesus has loved Jesus" - John 17:23

I hope you get the point. If the Father and Holy Spirit are in fact Jesus, then you should be able to substitute Jesus' name for the Father and Holy Spirit without it sounding insane.

This is all just to highlight how we see more than one person interacting within the Godhead.

[Daniel21TX]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Yes. He's speaking with the Father.

Your answer doesn't make sense to me. I asked you "Cadence, do you believe that Jesus is YHWH? Who do you believe YHWH is speaking to in Psalm 110:1 ? "

Are you saying that YHWH is telling the Father to sit at YHWH's right hand? If you believe that Jesus is YHWH, and that the Lord, YHWH is speaking to is Jesus, then we can result in the same thing you posed in your post to represent your beliefs.


Would the following be what you ultimately end up with, logically, according to trinitarian belief? :

Jesus (since Jesus is YHWH) said to Jesus (since Jesus is The Lord) sit at My right hand.

So again, it is not very different from what you posed me. I hope you get the point. If you disagree with what I posed above as being the ultimate end to your trinitarian belief, then please again answer the following two questions.

Do you believe Jesus is YHWH?

Who do you believe YHWH is speaking to in Psalm 110:1?





I understand that this verse is prophetic however, and can understand it in light of the incarnation, as God saying to God incarnate (The man Christ Jesus), sit at my right hand.

This is all just to highlight how we see more than one person interacting within the Godhead.

This isn't communication within the Godhead. It is a prophecy with God saying to the man Christ Jesus, God incarnate, sit at my right hand. The communication is between God and God incarnate.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Daniel21TX

Your answer doesn't make sense to me. I asked you "Cadence, do you believe that Jesus is YHWH? Who do you believe YHWH is speaking to in Psalm 110:1 ? "

Are you saying that YHWH is telling the Father to sit at YHWH's right hand?

I meant that the Father is speaking to Jesus.

If you believe that Jesus is YHWH, and that the Lord, YHWH is speaking to is Jesus, then we can result in the same thing you posed in your post to represent your beliefs.

I believe that the Father is speaking to the Son...so no you cannot pose the samething that I did.

Would you care to deal with my point that I brought with those verses?

Would the following be what you ultimately end up with, logically, according to trinitarian belief? :

Jesus (since Jesus is YHWH) said to Jesus (since Jesus is The Lord) sit at My right hand.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are all YHWH. The name can be used for all 3.

What we believe is 3 persons exsisting under the name YHWH, so again...it's no problem for us to see one person talking to another.

Unitarians, however, have to reconcile why one person is talking to himself as if there were another person involved.

Would you please do so?

So again, it is not very different from what you posed me.

Yes it's very different. You believe in one person. We believe in 3. It's really simple rather.

Do you believe Jesus is YHWH?

Who do you believe YHWH is speaking to in Psalm 110:1?

I already answered these.

I understand that this verse is prophetic however, and can understand it in light of the incarnation, as God saying to God incarnate (The man Christ Jesus), sit at my right hand.

but under your view he's still one person. Wether incarnate or not. So you have the dilema of God speaking to himself as though there was a 2nd person.

This isn't communication within the Godhead.

The verses I posted are.

It is a prophecy with God saying to the man Christ Jesus, God incarnate, sit at my right hand. The communication is between God and God incarnate.

I wasn't talking about that verse.

[HermionePower]

Wow. That post was amazing! I'm starting to get it more! Thank you! I don't think I'll ever FULLY comprehend it, though.

[Daniel21TX]

Originally Posted by Cadence

I meant that the Father is speaking to Jesus.

Thank you for the clarification.

I believe that the Father is speaking to the Son...so no you cannot pose the samething that I did.

But it doesn't say The Father said unto my Lord. It says YHWH did, and you believe Jesus is YHWH. Do you believe that the YHWH that was speaking to the Lord, in Psalm 110:1, was a different YHWH from Jesus? If you are going to use God's name so inconsistantly, can you please clarify who exactly you are talking about when mentioning His name?

Would you care to deal with my point that I brought with those verses?

I did when I said "I understand that this verse is prophetic however, and can understand it in light of the incarnation, as God saying to God incarnate (The man Christ Jesus), sit at my right hand. "

I see it as God speaking to God incarnate, a genuine human being, Christ Jesus.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are all YHWH. The name can be used for all 3.

It doesn't say, and part of YHWH said... It says "YHWH said unto my Lord". Are you going to resort to incosistancy with the use of the name YHWH, and who it applies to as well as inconsistancy with the noun "God", like many trinitarians do, when forcing their belief into Scripture?

Do you believe the YHWH speaking in Psalm 110:1 is a different YHWH then the YHWH that Jesus is, or the same YHWH?

Unitarians, however, have to reconcile why one person is talking to himself as if there were another person involved.


Would you please do so?

I have already, if you choose to ignore it, then what can I do? God is speaking to God incarnate. Again, I believe in one uni-personal God who truely became incarnate, as a genuine human being, The man Christ Jesus, yet continued to exist beyond the incarnation as The Eternal Spirit He has always been, at the same time.

God truely became incarnate, a genuine human being, The man Christ Jesus. As a genuine human being, The Son could distinguish Himself from God at times even though He Himself was/is that one true God incarnate. This can be seen when The Son makes statements like "My God, my God" and also "My God and your God". I think you would agree that Jesus was not calling out or reffering to a different God then Himself, yet, He spoke of God as if He Himself was not this one true God. The reason being due to the incarnation, and the fact that God truely became a genuine human being.

Yes it's very different. You believe in one person. We believe in 3. It's really simple rather.

Yes, I believe God is one, numerically, in a similar sense that I am one person.

I believe this one true God, became incarnate, yet continued to exist beyond the incarnation, at the same time. I don't believe 1/3 of the persons, in the Godhead, as if the Godhead consisted of multiple persons, became incarnate.

Cadence, do you believe Jesus is YHWH?

Do you believe the Lord that YHWH was speaking to in psalm 110:1 was Jesus?

Do you believe the YHWH speaking in Psalm 110:1 is a different YHWH then the YHWH that Jesus is, or the same YHWH?

but under your view he's still one person. Wether incarnate or not. So you have the dilema of God speaking to himself as though there was a 2nd person.

Please do not straw man my view. You obviously don't know what you are talking about, and it might be well for you to take your own advice you gave to the guy debating mormons. Try reading sources that aren't biased and don't have a agenda against Oneness.

I believe in one uni-personal God who truely became incarnate, as a genuine human being, The man Christ Jesus, yet continued to exist beyond the incarnation as The Eternal Spirit He has always been, at the same time.

I don't believe that God pretended to become a man, started talking to Himself, and then faked His death. Nor do I believe that Jesus came out of His mother's womb doing calculus and healing the sick at 3 months old.

If you would imagine what it would be like, if when you were around 10 years old, that God made it irrefutably clear to you, that you were the one true God (don't start thinking crazy, this hypothetical cant apply to any of us, as we have all sinned), then you might have a idea of the reality of the incarnation. The man Christ Jesus was a genuine human being, that died on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins. That genuine man, Christ Jesus, however, was and is the one true God incarnate.

The verses I posted are.

Are you serious?

John 17 shows communication between God and a genuine human being, God incarnate. That is not communication within the Godhead. God has no need to pray, as He can fufill any prayer He would ever have. God incarnate, however, being a genuine human being, the one true God manifested in the flesh, could not do everything on His own, and hence, prayed.

I wasn't talking about that verse.

Then please correct me by giving me the verse you were talking about.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Daniel21TX

But it doesn't say The Father said unto my Lord. It says YHWH did, and you believe Jesus is YHWH. Do you believe that the YHWH that was speaking to the Lord, in Psalm 110:1, was a different YHWH from Jesus? If you are going to use God's name so inconsistantly, can you please clarify who exactly you are talking about when mentioning His name?

I don't know what's so hard for you understand what I'm saying.

I believe the Father is YHWH....so...like you said "YHWH did" talk to Jesus (who is also YHWH). Trinitarians believe that all 3 persons are indeed YHWH.

I'll say it again...the Father (YHWH) is speaking to Jesus (YHWH).

You might not agree with it or believe it, but is it really that hard to understand what I'm saying?

I did when I said "I understand that this verse is prophetic however, and can understand it in light of the incarnation, as God saying to God incarnate (The man Christ Jesus), sit at my right hand. "

I see it as God speaking to God incarnate, a genuine human being, Christ Jesus.

Again...i wasn't refering to your Psalm verse, solely. I was refering to the John verses as well.

Does this make sense to you:

"All Jesus has is Jesus', and all Jesus has is Jesus'" - john 17:10

"I (Jesus) in them and Jesus in Jesus. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that Jesus sent Jesus and have loved them even as Jesus has loved Jesus" - John 17:23

If Jesus is the only person in the Godhead then would these verses make sense for him to talk to himself as though there were another person involved?

It doesn't say, and part of YHWH said... It says "YHWH said unto my Lord".

I never said PART of YHWH.

Are you going to resort to incosistancy with the use of the name YHWH, and who it applies to as well as inconsistancy with the noun "God", like many trinitarians do, when forcing their belief into Scripture?

no.

Do you believe the YHWH speaking in Psalm 110:1 is a different YHWH then the YHWH that Jesus is, or the same YHWH?

The same in regards to being one God

Different in regards to persons.

I have already, if you choose to ignore it, then what can I do? God is speaking to God incarnate.

Why is it God can speak to himself, but, as you say, he can't pray to himself?

I think you would agree that Jesus was not calling out or reffering to a different God then Himself,

Of course I agree. But I believe he was calling out the person who is the Father.

yet, He spoke of God as if He Himself was not this one true God.

Which leads us to believe that there are more than one persons in the Godhead.

I believe this one true God, became incarnate, yet continued to exist beyond the incarnation, at the same time. I don't believe 1/3 of the persons, in the Godhead, as if the Godhead consisted of multiple persons, became incarnate.

I already know what you believe. I don't know why you keep stating it.

Cadence, do you believe Jesus is YHWH?

Do you believe the Lord that YHWH was speaking to in psalm 110:1 was Jesus?

And you say I'M ignoring YOU? I've already answered this.

Please do not straw man my view.

How is that a strawman? I said that you believe in one person...and you've stated that (quite liberally) throughout this whole thread.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about, and it might be well for you to take your own advice you gave to the guy debating mormons.

Watch your tone. I've been debating unitarians for a few years now. I think I know what I'm talking about.

Try reading sources that aren't biased and don't have a agenda against Oneness.

I'm sorry you feel the Bible is biased against Oneness.

I take it you always read sources that aren't biased against the trinity?

I believe in one uni-personal God who truely became incarnate, as a genuine human being, The man Christ Jesus, yet continued to exist beyond the incarnation as The Eternal Spirit He has always been, at the same time.

Would you like to state this ONE more time?

I don't believe that God pretended to become a man, started talking to Himself, and then faked His death. Nor do I believe that Jesus came out of His mother's womb doing calculus and healing the sick at 3 months old.

Who said you did? And where?

Are you serious?

Yes

John 17 shows communication between God and a genuine human being, God incarnate.

So...God is talking to God incarnate....and HOW is that NOT communication within the Godhead?

What would communication within the Godhead look like?

That is not communication within the Godhead. God has no need to pray, as He can fufill any prayer He would ever have.

But our view is that Jesus emptied himself of his godly attributes (phil 2) to the point where he needed to rely on the Father.

God incarnate, however, being a genuine human being, the one true God manifested in the flesh, could not do everything on His own, and hence, prayed.

What the heck is the difference from what I'm saying? The only difference I can tell is that you believe in one person, and I three...but that's it.

I believe jesus is the son - God incarnate. You believe that too.
I believe Jesus isn't the same person as the Father - You do.
I believe that Jesus was a genuine human and needed the Father's help - You do too....though you believe jesus is the father as well (which then doesn't make any sense)

Your arguements aren't really arguing for Oneness.

Then please correct me by giving me the verse you were talking about.

I was talking about the john verses where I substituted Jesus' name in place of "father" or "God"

[Daniel21TX]

Originally Posted by Cadence

I don't know what's so hard for you understand what I'm saying.

I believe the Father is YHWH....so...like you said "YHWH did" talk to Jesus (who is also YHWH). Trinitarians believe that all 3 persons are indeed YHWH.

So whenever you see it say YHWH, you believe it could be reffering to the Father and at other times maybe all 3 of the persons you believe in, etc? Inconsistancy.

I'll say it again...the Father (YHWH) is speaking to Jesus (YHWH).

Okay, so you believe YHWH was speaking to Himself?

You might not agree with it or believe it, but is it really that hard to understand what I'm saying?

What I see is inconsistancy, but you seem to be denying that you do this. That makes it a little hard to understand.

Again...i wasn't refering to your Psalm verse, solely. I was refering to the John verses as well.

Does this make sense to you:

"All Jesus has is Jesus', and all Jesus has is Jesus'" - john 17:10

"I (Jesus) in them and Jesus in Jesus. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that Jesus sent Jesus and have loved them even as Jesus has loved Jesus" - John 17:23

Does this make more sense to you?

"All YHWH has is YHWH's, and all YHWH has is YHWH's"

"I (YHWH) in them and YHWH in YHWH. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that YHWH sent YHWH and have loved them even as YHWH has loved YHWH"

If Jesus is the only person in the Godhead then would these verses make sense for him to talk to himself as though there were another person involved?

I have already explained the prayers and communication. If you want to continue attacking straw men then go on ahead. God incarnate, a genuine human being, prayed to God.

Again, I believe in one uni-personal God who truely became incarnate, as a genuine human being, The man Christ Jesus, yet continued to exist beyond the incarnation as The Eternal Spirit He has always been, at the same time.

I never said PART of YHWH.

Do you believe YHWH is 3 persons?

Do you believe that only 1 of the persons, or 1/3 of the persons that YHWH is, was speaking in Psalm 110:1?

I wrote:
Are you going to resort to incosistancy with the use of the name YHWH, and who it applies to as well as inconsistancy with the noun "God", like many trinitarians do, when forcing their belief into Scripture?

You replied:
no.

Then do you believe that all 3 persons, including Jesus, were speaking to the Lord, in Psalm 110:1? How can you possibly say no, when you seem to believe it refer to different people at different times, or a different number of people at different times. Right now you seem to want where it says YHWH in Psalm 110:1 to refer to only 1 person, specifically The Father. At other times (for instance some verses in Isaiah) I am pretty sure you would want it to refer to all 3 persons you believe in. That is inconsistant.

Why is it God can speak to himself, but, as you say, he can't pray to himself?

I said that God has no need to pray. He can fufill His own prayers. Man has a need to pray. We can not fufill our own prayers. Hence, God incarnate, a genuine human being, prayed to God.

Of course I agree. But I believe he was calling out the person who is the Father.

That still doesn't explain Luke..

Luke 18:19
And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

Here Jesus speaks as if He is not God. Why? Because the reality of the incarnation. He could distinguish Himself from being God even though He was God, because He was a genuine human being, the one true God incarnate.
Why do you think I have no problem with the prayers, communication, love between The Father and The Son?

Which leads us to believe that there are more than one persons in the Godhead.

Does the following verse in Luke lead you to believe that Jesus is not God?

Luke 18:19
And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.


After all, it is pretty clear that Jesus is distinquishing Himself from God, to the point to where His language makes it appear as if He isn't the one true God.

Why do you believe that Jesus is God then? Is it because the bible makes it clear in other places that Jesus is God? Then why do you deny that Jesus is The Father, because the bible makes it clear that despite the distinctions which are due to the incarnation, that Jesus is The Father incarnate, the only true God (John 17:1-3).

If I have seen Jesus, I have seen The Father (John 14:7, 9; John 12:45). If I know Jesus, I know The Father (John 14:7, 9; John 8:19). If I believe in Jesus, I believe in The Father (John 12:44). If I love The Father, I love Jesus (1 John 5:1). His name shall be called, Eternal Father (Isaiah 9:6).

I already know what you believe. I don't know why you keep stating it.

I am not sure you do. You seem to think (based on statements you make) that I believe The Son of God was God pretending to be a man, who was putting on a show praying to Himself, and faked His death. I don't believe that though.

I believe in one uni-personal God who truely became incarnate, as a genuine human being, The man Christ Jesus, yet continued to exist beyond the incarnation as The Eternal Spirit He has always been, at the same time.

How is that a strawman? I said that you believe in one person...and you've stated that (quite liberally) throughout this whole thread.

I believe that The Godhead consists of one person. I believe, however, that the one uni-personal God truely became incarnate, as a genuine human being, The man Christ Jesus, yet continued to exist beyond the incarnation as The Eternal Spirit He has always been, at the same time.

That is why your statement was a strawman.

Watch your tone. I've been debating unitarians for a few years now. I think I know what I'm talking about.

I don't think you do, because you are attacking a straw man of my beliefs.

I'm sorry you feel the Bible is biased against Oneness.

I don't feel that way.

I take it you always read sources that aren't biased against the trinity?

I was a trinitarian at one time. I was raised one. I do however run across people that strawman the trinity. Do I believe all trinitarians are tritheist however, because I come across people who speak about their beliefs as if they are tritheist? No.

So...God is talking to God incarnate....and HOW is that NOT communication within the Godhead?

That is communication between The man Christ Jesus, and God.

What would communication within the Godhead look like?

One person that is God, in the form of God, speaking to another person that is that same God, in the form of God.

I believe jesus is the son - God incarnate. You believe that too.

Yes.

I believe Jesus isn't the same person as the Father - You do.

I believe that Jesus is the only true God(The Father, John 17:1-3) incarnate. It follows that since Jesus is God incarnate, that He is God.

I believe that Jesus was a genuine human and needed the Father's help - You do too....though you believe jesus is the father as well

Jesus being a genuine human being, God incarnate, needed help from God. God incarnate, needed God's help.
The help He needed was not from a different God then the God that He is, that is correct, I don't believe in polytheism.

(which then doesn't make any sense)

It makes sense in light of the incarnation. The one uni-personal God truely became incarnate, as a genuine human being, The man Christ Jesus, yet continued to exist beyond the incarnation as The Eternal Spirit He has always been, at the same time. So we have God, and the genuine human being, Christ Jesus. God and God incarnate.

What doesn't make sense is 1+1+1= 1

Your arguements aren't really arguing for Oneness.

I am, you apparently just don't know what Oneness is.

I was talking about the john verses where I substituted Jesus' name in place of "father" or "God"

Oh okay, I changed it all to the tetragrammaton, to show how what you believe isn't that different, ultimately, unless of course you believe in some form of polytheism.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Daniel21TX

So whenever you see it say YHWH, you believe it could be reffering to the Father and at other times maybe all 3 of the persons you believe in, etc? Inconsistancy.

Given the context of a verse I believe that the Son could be talking to the Father or vice versa.

Okay, so you believe YHWH was speaking to Himself?

I believe that the Father is speaking to Jesus. (I'm going to keep saying the same thing each time you ask this tired question....so don't expect to get a different answer by asking it again and again and again)

Does this make more sense to you?

"All YHWH has is YHWH's, and all YHWH has is YHWH's"

"I (YHWH) in them and YHWH in YHWH. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that YHWH sent YHWH and have loved them even as YHWH has loved YHWH"

it's awfully rude to avoid answering my question before asking another one. but i'll humor you and answer it anyway. Perhaps after I do so you'll answer me?

Those verses make sense like this:

- "All YHWH (the Father) has is YHWH's (the Sons), and all YWHW (the Son) has is YWHW's (the Father's)"

Notice it makes more sense to that there are two persons involved here rather than:

"All Jesus has is Jesus', and all Jesus has is Jesus'"

If you believe in ONE person in the Godhead then that's essentially what the verse logically concludes to.

- "I (YHWH/Jesus) in them and YWHW (the Father) in YHWH(the Son). May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that YHWH (the Father) sent YHWH (the Son) and have loved them even as YHWH (the Father has loved YHWH (the Son)

rather than:

I (YHWH/Jesus) in them and YHWH (Jesus) in YHWH (Jesus). May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that YHWH (Jesus) sent YHWH (Jesus) and have loved them even as YHWH (Jesus) has loved YHWH (Jesus)

I have already explained the prayers and communication. If you want to continue attacking straw men then go on ahead.

Could you please quote where I've strawmanned your position?

Do you believe YHWH is 3 persons?

3 persons who are all YHWH.

Do you believe that only 1 of the persons, or 1/3 of the persons that YHWH is, was speaking in Psalm 110:1?

Yes. But i never said "part"

The point is....that verse has two seperate entities conversing. And both of them are the LORD.

Then do you believe that all 3 persons, including Jesus, were speaking to the Lord, in Psalm 110:1?

Aren't getting tired of hearing the same answer?

I'll put it in caps for you (this isn't yelling):

I BELIEVE THE FATHER IS TALKING TO JESUS IN THE BOOK OF PSALMS, CHAPTER ONE HUNDRED AND TEN, VERSE ONE.

Right now you seem to want where it says YHWH in Psalm 110:1 to refer to only 1 person, specifically The Father. At other times (for instance some verses in Isaiah) I am pretty sure you would want it to refer to all 3 persons you believe in. That is inconsistant.

What on earth are you talking about?

I said that God has no need to pray. He can fufill His own prayers.

Man has a need to pray.

So if Jesus needed to pray (like you said he did here: "God incarnate, however, being a genuine human being, the one true God manifested in the flesh, could not do everything on His own, and hence, prayed.") then are you saying that Jesus isn't God?

I'm not trying to strawman you here, so you can just put that little term away for now, but by what you're saying "God has no need to pray" and the quote about Jesus needing to pray - it sounds like your argument suggests that Jesus isn't God.

Now I know you don't believe that. So...inconsistancy.

That still doesn't explain Luke..

Luke 18:19
And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

Here Jesus speaks as if He is not God.

That isn't necessarily what He's saying. I think he's trying to get the questioner to acknowledge that he's calling Jesus God.

Are you saying that Jesus was trying to tell the man not to call him good because he's not God?

If this is so, you've got more theological problems than just Unitarianism.

Why? Because the reality of the incarnation. He could distinguish Himself from being God even though He was God, because He was a genuine human being, the one true God incarnate.

What do you mean "distinguish himself from being God"?

Why do you think I have no problem with the prayers, communication, love between The Father and The Son?

I don't care if you don't have problems with it. You can convince yourself of whatever you'd like.

Does the following verse in Luke lead you to believe that Jesus is not God?

Luke 18:19
And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.

No it doesn't.

Are you saying that Jesus was denying Godhood?

Why do you believe that Jesus is God then? Is it because the bible makes it clear in other places that Jesus is God? Then why do you deny that Jesus is The Father, because the bible makes it clear that despite the distinctions which are due to the incarnation, that Jesus is The Father incarnate, the only true God (John 17:1-3).

The Bible (and especially that verse) nevers says that the Son is the Father incarnate.

If I have seen Jesus, I have seen The Father (John 14:7, 9; John 12:45). If I know Jesus, I know The Father (John 14:7, 9; John 8:19). If I believe in Jesus, I believe in The Father (John 12:44). If I love The Father, I love Jesus (1 John 5:1). His name shall be called, Eternal Father (Isaiah 9:6).

None of these verses say they're the same person.

I am not sure you do. You seem to think (based on statements you make) that I believe The Son of God was God pretending to be a man, who was putting on a show praying to Himself, and faked His death.

When did I EVER say that? I want to see my exact quotes saying that.

Then you can accuse me of attacking all you'd like.

I believe in one uni-personal God who truely became incarnate, as a genuine human being, The man Christ Jesus, yet continued to exist beyond the incarnation as The Eternal Spirit He has always been, at the same time.

Don't worry...you've writen it enough that I've got it memorized.

I believe that The Godhead consists of one person.

Which is what I said you believed. Here:

"under your view he's still one person"

I believe, however, that the one uni-personal God truely became incarnate, as a genuine human being,

Where have I denied that you believe that?

That is why your statement was a strawman.

Because all I've done is restate what you've SAID and argued against it?

I'm sorry, but refutation isn't strawmanning.

I don't think you do, because you are attacking a straw man of my beliefs.

I'm not going to sit here in your game of "yes you did - no i didn't"

I was a trinitarian at one time. I was raised one. I do however run across people that strawman the trinity. Do I believe all trinitarians are tritheist however, because I come across people who speak about their beliefs as if they are tritheist? No.

And that pertained to my question how? My question was asking if all your sources about this subject were completely unbiased about Oneness and the trinity.

I never asked if you believe trinitarians are trithiests.

That is communication between The man Christ Jesus, and God.

So...the man Christ is not God? because if the man Christ is God then him talking to God would indeed be communication within the Godhead.

One person that is God, in the form of God, speaking to another person that is that same God, in the form of God.

So do you believe this happens? I would think not since you believe in one person.

I believe that Jesus is the only true God(The Father, John 17:1-3) incarnate. It follows that since Jesus is God incarnate, that He is God.

So Jesus prayed to Jesus then?

What doesn't make sense is 1+1+1= 1

1 God + 1 God + 1 God =\= 1 God

but

1 person + 1 person + 1 person can = 1 God.

I am, you apparently just don't know what Oneness is.

You believe in 1 person as YWHW and that one person is Jesus who became incarnate as a man.

Is that not Oneness?

hmm...i wonder how i knew all that without understanding Oneness.

Oh okay, I changed it all to the tetragrammaton, to show how what you believe isn't that different, ultimately, unless of course you believe in some form of polytheism.

No I believe in 3 persons.....once again.

[Daniel21TX]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Given the context of a verse I believe that the Son could be talking to the Father or vice versa.

Inconsistancy.

Those verses make sense like this:

- "All YHWH (the Father) has is YHWH's (the Sons), and all YWHW (the Son) has is YWHW's (the Father's)"

And those verses make sense like this

"All Jesus (God) has is Jesus' (God incarnates), and all Jesus (God incarnate) has is Jesus' (God's)"

Notice it makes more sense to that there are two persons involved here rather than:

"All Jesus has is Jesus', and all Jesus has is Jesus'"

If you believe in ONE person in the Godhead then that's essentially what the verse logically concludes to.

You seem to ignore the fact that I believe that God truely became a genuine human being, the man Christ Jesus, yet continued to exist as He always had, as The Eternal God, at the same time. You really don't know what you are argueing against, do you?

- "I (YHWH/Jesus) in them and YWHW (the Father) in YHWH(the Son). May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that YHWH (the Father) sent YHWH (the Son) and have loved them even as YHWH (the Father has loved YHWH (the Son)

Every where you put The Father, I can simply put God as I did above, and where you put The Son I can put God incarnate.

Could you please quote where I've strawmanned your position?

"If Jesus is the only person in the Godhead then would these verses make sense for him to talk to himself as though there were another person involved?"

You seem to be ignoring the fact that I believe God truely became incarnate, a genuine human being, yet continued existing beyond the incarnation, at the same time. So you would have a genuine human being, God incarnate, talking to God. Your comments make it out as if I believe that God was pretending to be a man.

Yes. But i never said "part"

I never said you said "part".
You don't have to say "part". That is the logical conclusion of your statements.

The point is....that verse has two seperate entities conversing. And both of them are the LORD.

It doesn't say "The LORD said to my LORD". It says "The LORD said to my Lord". One of the entities is YHWH while the other is YHWH incarnate.

I BELIEVE THE FATHER IS TALKING TO JESUS IN THE BOOK OF PSALMS, CHAPTER ONE HUNDRED AND TEN, VERSE ONE.

Then you are inconsistant with your use of the tetragrammaton. Similar to the inconsistancy many trinitarians use with the word God, in order to force their beliefs into Scripture. Please do not deny the inconsistancy, when you are in fact, inconsistant.

What on earth are you talking about?

You denied the inconsistancy that you so blatantly have. I am simply pointing it out.

So if Jesus needed to pray (like you said he did here: "God incarnate, however, being a genuine human being, the one true God manifested in the flesh, could not do everything on His own, and hence, prayed.") then are you saying that Jesus isn't God?

Jesus is God, but not in the form of God. Jesus is God existing as a genuine human being.
We can also ask, Can God die? No. But the genuine human being, Jesus Christ, could die. But wait, isn't Jesus God? Yes, but Jesus is that one true God incarnate in the flesh.
If I tell you I believe that Jesus is the one true God incarnate, and that I believe God still exists beyond the incarnation, then the logical conclusion to this, is Yes, Jesus is God.

I'm not trying to strawman you here, so you can just put that little term away for now, but by what you're saying "God has no need to pray" and the quote about Jesus needing to pray - it sounds like your argument suggests that Jesus isn't God.

Do you believe that God can die? But Jesus did.

Do you believe God doesn't know things? But Jesus didn't know things.

Do you believe Mary is the Mother of God?

Do you get my point?

That isn't necessarily what He's saying. I think he's trying to get the questioner to acknowledge that he's calling Jesus God.

Are you saying that Jesus was trying to tell the man not to call him good because he's not God?

If this is so, you've got more theological problems than just Unitarianism.

I believe God incarnate was giving glory to God rather then to Himself. He certainly doesn't seem to be saying No one is good, except Me alone. He seems to be acknowledging that it is His Father within Him, doing the work.

What do you mean "distinguish himself from being God"?

Exactly what I just said. This can also be seen when Jesus cries out "My God, My God", and also in John 17:1-3.

John 17:1-3 1When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, 2since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Here, God incarnate states that The Father is the only true God.

Notice also that there is only two mentioned here in verse 3 which is eternal life that we know, Father (God) and Son (God incarnate). Lamb of God and The One who sits on the throne.

No it doesn't.

Are you saying that Jesus was denying Godhood?

Does Jesus deny His Godhood in that verse? No. He certainly doesn't seem to be declaring it in this one verse either, though. It seems to me, as if He (God incarnate) is glorifying The Father (God) who is in Him reconciling the world unto Himself.

John 14:10
"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.

The Bible (and especially that verse) nevers says that the Son is the Father incarnate.

John 17:1-3 was to show who the only true God is, and that is, The Father.

None of these verses say they're the same person.

Yeah, no verse in the bible says they are 3 different eternally distinct persons either.

Those verses do say however, that if I have seen Jesus, I have seen The Father. If I believe in Jesus I believe in The Father. That If I know Jesus I know The Father. That if I love The Father that I love Jesus. That His name shall be called Eternal Father.

When did I EVER say that? I want to see my exact quotes saying that.

Then you can accuse me of attacking all you'd like.

Cadence, I never said you said that. I said you seem to think that based off of statements you have made through out this thread. I am not accusing you, simply stating what seems to be the case, in my opinion.

Which is what I said you believed. Here:

"under your view he's still one person"

One uni-personal God existing as God (beyond the incarnation) and a genuine human being (in the incarnation).

Where have I denied that you believe that?

When you make statements like "If Jesus is the only person in the Godhead then would these verses make sense for him to talk to himself as though there were another person involved?"
It seems as if you are denying my belief in the reality of the incarnation. I believe that when Jesus Christ prayed, it was a man praying to God. God incarnate, praying to God.

And that pertained to my question how? My question was asking if all your sources about this subject were completely unbiased about Oneness and the trinity.

No, they are not all unbiased, unfortunately.

I never asked if you believe trinitarians are trithiests.

The reason I mentioned this, was because you seem to be holding a strawmanned view of oneness belief, which may have been received from biased sources. I was letting you know that I don't hold you as a tritheist, even though I have heard people represent your belief as tritheism.

So...the man Christ is not God? because if the man Christ is God then him talking to God would indeed be communication within the Godhead.

The man Christ Jesus is God incarnate. God existing as a genuine human being, not in the form of God.

Is Mary the mother of God according to you?

Can God die?

I hope you get the point.

So do you believe this happens? I would think not since you believe in one person.

You guessed right.

So Jesus prayed to Jesus then?

That would be it, ultimately. Kinda like it would be "So YHWH prayed to YHWH then?"

It makes sense like this though..

Jesus (God incarnate) prayed to Jesus (God).

1 God + 1 God + 1 God =\= 1 God

but

1 person + 1 person + 1 person can = 1 God.

But Cadence, you don't believe every person is 1/3 of God, do you? You believe every person is fully God, so your belief doesn't make sense logically.

Please do not try to act like it does.

You believe in 1 person as YWHW and that one person is Jesus who became incarnate as a man.

Is that not Oneness?

As long as you believe that He continued existing beyond the incarnation, after the incarnation, at the same time, yes.

hmm...i wonder how i knew all that without understanding Oneness.

maybe you are starting to catch on?

[Novan_Leon]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Not in any logically coherent sense, no.

Are you saying paradoxes are possible? If so, you've just eliminated every apologetic tool you have against other religions. (Or are they only possible in Christianity?)

Actually, there are no paradoxes where God is concerned. Scratch that, I mean there are no paradoxes where Yahweh is concerned.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Novan_Leon

Actually, there are no paradoxes where God is concerned. Scratch that, I mean there are no paradoxes where Yahweh is concerned.

So the Trinity isn't a parodox?

How can Jesus be fully God if God consists of 2 people other than Jesus?

[Daniel21TX]

Originally Posted by Qingu

So the Trinity isn't a parodox?

How can Jesus be fully God if God consists of 2 people other than Jesus?

Sometimes I am not sure it even helps to show it is illogical. You can show it doesn't make any logical sense. You can show it doesn't line up with Scripture. Etc. And some people will still believe what they were raised to believe. I think I might take a break from debating this subject, I am not sure yet though. You all have a good lunch..

[Novan_Leon]

Originally Posted by Qingu

So the Trinity isn't a parodox?

How can Jesus be fully God if God consists of 2 people other than Jesus?

I was refering to the scripture in reference to a camel going through the eye of a needle:

And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26)

What is the difference between a being and a persona?

What it all boils down to is that we, being human, can try to understand it the best we can, but I'm not sure it's possible for us to understand it fully, the same way we know there is a spiritual realm but it's not possible for us to understand the existence of such a realm using anything in THIS world as a basis (much less prove it in the traditional sense). A black hole would seem to suggest a paradox as well but as we learn more and more things seem to make more sense.

EDIT: Also realize that many of our ideas are limited by language; I think you'd be suprised just how large a barrier the English language can be especially when it comes to explaining the abstract.