You believe this to be a theophany rather than Jehovah God?Go look at who spoke to Moses in the burning bush.
You believe this to be a theophany rather than Jehovah God?Go look at who spoke to Moses in the burning bush.
How is the burning bush relevant? I don't see jews afraid of any idolatries there.Yep. CrossReference HATES having that pointed out to him.
How is the burning bush relevant?
No, I believe that the theophany was God.You believe this to be a theophany rather than Jehovah God?
No, I believe that the theophany was God.
SABELLIANISM:
God is a Unity. There are no distinctions in the Divine Being, no trinity of Persons. The one God has revealed Himself in three different forms or modes. Once the purpose of these manifestations is accomplished, the triad will be contacted and become a monad once again. [I take this to be the modalists or Oneness Pentecostals here on TOL, and perhaps others]
ARIANISM:
The Logos, or Word, or Son is divine but not co-equal or co-eternal with the Father. Created before all creatures, yet participating in the work of creation, redemption and government. [JWs, and possibly others...Oatmeal, maybe]
APOLLINARISM:
The only human element in Jesus of Nazareth was His body; the spiritual or immaterial part was altogether divine. [Don't know if anyone here subscribes]
ADOPTIONISM:
Because of His exalted spiritual attainment, the man Jesus was adopted into the Godhead at the time of His baptism in Jordan. [or this]
"This expression of an 'absolute one' is diametrically opposed to the Word of God which teaches with great emphasis that God is not yachid, which means an only one or an absolute one, but 'achid which means a united one."
Then I found this, which describes EXACTLY what's going on in this thread:"Yachid is used forcefully in the Bible as an absolute unity and is found twelve times in the Old Testament but not once is it used to denote the unity of God."
Oneness exponents might expect smooth sailing for their principal doctrine, if the Bible contained only those passages which serve as a basis for their extreme monotheism. Unfortunately for them, they must encounter numerous passages which plainly indicate a plurality in the Godhead.
The good ship Oneness was barely launched when she ran aground on the shoal of plurality. Her crew has striven valiantly to set her afloat again by employing the ingenious methods of Sabellius and even hoping desperately to be towed off by the old ghost ship Arianism. But alas! despite the optimistic reports from the Oneness radio, the vessel is still stuck fast. And despite their feverish efforts to free the ship, the crew strangely insists that no shoal exists.
Why do these Pentecostal Unitarians deny so vigorously that these Biblical passages [demonstrate divine plurality] when their adoption of Sabellianism and Arianism is for the sole purpose of solving the problem of plurality raised in these passages? Consistency demands that, instead of advancing every type of argument to prove that a plurality is not taught, Oneness exponents should acknowledge the plurality, and then attempt to reconcile it with their theological position.
"YHWH the god of Abraham, and the god of Isaac, and the god of Jacob." He was actually naming Bush, addressing it. Name in English seems to have the meaning call, and vice versa call seem to mean name. The bush is not God, though.What did the One speaking from the fire tell Moses to call Him?
Please feel free to show us FROM scripture where spirits reproduce. Reproduction is a physical phenomenon.
"YHWH the god of Abraham, and the god of Isaac, and the god of Jacob." He was actually naming Bush, addressing it. Name in English seems to have the meaning call, and vice versa call seem to mean name. The bush is not God, though.
And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Highest will overshadow you, therefore also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35 NKJV)
The Holy Spirit is God's power, it's an extension of himself.
The following Scriptures reveal a distinction in these three wills [of Father, Son and Holy Spirit]: John 5:30, 6:38. Luke 22:42. Romans 8:27. 1 Cor 12:11.
"[The] higher stages of man's nature are of course absolutly incomprehensible to the animals, birds and insects which can, at best, have only a very vague understanding of his nature, although they fear him and recognize him as their master. Consequently we need not be surprised that the nature of God supasses our comprehension. . .Doubtless we are as incapable of understanding God's nature as the animals and birds are of understanding ours.
"Hence it is admitted that our knowledge of the relationships which subsist between the three Persons of the Trinity extends only to the surface. There must be infinite depths in the conscious being of God to which human thought can never penetrate."
In '75? The very year they blew the return of Christ prediction? You must be a die hard...probably think you're one of the 144,000.
G.O. will not touch the Trinity challenge several pages back, and LA isn't smart enough. It's your turn to take one for your team.
No, the Spirit is himself a person. Read Post 97.
LA does not have to be smart, just a simple person with a pure heart who believes what Jesus tells him.
LA
The name YHWH comes from two causative participles of the Aramaic HYH and HWH verbs. We have Origen's special column thanx to Eusebius copying it from the Hexpla. This is a horrible translation, and there is no person in Hebrew names. All Hebrew names are also made from participles which tend to be shorter than their verbs.Quote the Book.
What did the One speaking from the fire tell Moses to call Him?
Exo 3:13
Exo 3:14-15
Nevertheless, religious leaders insist that you must believe in the trinity to be a Christian! Otherwise, they teach, you must be branded a "cultist." But how can we be expected to agree with something that can neither be explained nor understood??? Answer this: Is it fair to ask Christians to accept the doctrine "on faith"?---A doctrine that is never mentioned by name and never discussed in the pages of the New Testament (or the O.T.)! Isn't it reasonable to expect somewhere in Scripture a precise, clear formulation of the strange proposition that God is "three-in-one"?
:
Christ said through Paul that salvation during the dispensation of grace is completely without works. You reject this as false, so you reject Him.
Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
Jas 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Jas 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
Jas 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
According to the Bible, the only god who is to be worshiped as a god is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.