John 1:1 According to the Oneness position

The following is my response to an artcle written on the countercult
apologetics forum, the trinitarian veiw is highlighted with the
initials ca: for countercult Apologetics my response is my own name
mlculwell.





ca:

Oneness theology (modalism) rejects the eternality of
the Person of God the Son, Jesus Christ. They claim He
had a beginning and He will have an end. Conversely
though, Scripture presents unequivocally that the
Person of the Son eternally existed WITH (pros, para,
meta) the Father (esp. John 1:1; 17:5; Phil. 2:6-11;
Heb. 1:8-10). The Son is said to BE the very Agent of
creation (e.g., John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17: dia + the
gen.). Demonstrating that Jesus Christ, God the Son,
was the actual Creator demolishes Oneness theology.

Mlculwell:
No, Actually it does not! Let's look at some other
passages that are very helpful? What we have above is
( Trinitarian theology.) Excluding other
passages to prove their points, I will never let them
get away with this dishonesty.
Note the first passage that is used above from (John
1:1) The word is said to be with(pros) God.. My
contention has always been, the very word*with* used
from John 1:1 is the main basis for the trinity
doctrine, Why? Because the word is also said to be
God.. To their misunderstanding God is a tri-unity
of persons making one God. Thus the word was with God
and the word was God .(Persons from eternity sharing
creation with each other ) Is this actually what the
scripture teaches? If their thinking is faulty on the
first point and passage then their thinking is faulty
on other passages also.
The first passage I want to bring to our attention is(
2nd.Tim.2:17) where an inspired writer of the New
Testament Possibly the Apostle Paul uses the term :
word(logos) in his writings.
And their word/logos will eat as doth a canker of whom
is Hymenaeus and Philetus. verse 18.Who concerning the
truth have erred.(2nd.Tim 2:17 KJB)
I want to turn our attention to a couple of points in
this one passage.
1st.) This word is said to belong to these two
individuals. The word/logos belongs or is with
Hymenaeus and Philetus.
2nd.) The meaning the inspired writer attributes to
the term: word/logos. As in these two individuals evil
plans/logos/word/thoughts., they are with them but
they are certainly not another person of these two
individuals. Another glaring point is that this term
logos is not the Logos of God but is used in the way
the inspired writers intended both possibly Paul and
John why would they attribute complete opposite
meanings to the word? Of course the answer is they
did not!
I want to go now to another passage as proof that (
John 1:1) is not another person of God but is in fact
God himself in creation.
(Psalm 33:6) By the word of the LORD were the heavens
made and all the host of them by the breath of his
mouth.
Certainly we understand that God does not have to draw
breath to communicate his thoughts to words, but all
throughout the scriptures we have human illustrations
attributed to God for our understanding of his
spiritual workings.
The day the Trinitarian, or the JW, makes the word by
the breath of their mouth another person, is the day
that they will have an argument!
(John 1:1) should never be used by anyone to prove
"coequal person of God" were "with" each other in
creation, the scriptures do not bare this out !
What about the other passages used by the author of
this writing to prove Jesus was another person of God
in creation? The passages cited do not bare this out
at all, but rather teach of another truth with in the
pages of scripture. That at the time of the writing of
the New Testament the writers spoke and wrote from an
actual knowing experience of a Jesus that was both
Human and divine and the same time in the incarnation
we could not say that Jesus humanity (John 5:30) was
back at creation, but his divinity certainly was, that
divinity was none other than God the father himself
(John 14:10) The father that dwelleth in me he doeth
the works. There is not one passage that speaks of
Jesus deity being that of a "God the son" person,
matter of fact, there is no such term in the N.T.

ca:
Thus, Oneness teachers sacrifice many clear biblical
passages that teach the preexistence of the Son at the
expense of their unitarian pre-committed doctrine of
modalism.

Mlculwell:
The "pre-existence of the son" who was both God, and
man at the same time in the incarnation, was that of
God the father. Jesus said I can of Mine own self do
nothing.(John5:30) The father that dwelleth in me, he
doeth the works. (John 14:10)
That was the humanity of the son that was included in
the incarnation.

ca:
Hence, Oneness theology dishonors God by
asserting that (a) the Person of the Son was a mere
creation at Bethlehem and (b) it was the Father who
came down and wrapped Himself in flesh (not becoming
flesh) and that flesh was called "Son"—Jesus' human
nature.

Mlculwell:
The Only dishonoring of God being Done is by the
Trinitarian, twisting scripture to their own devices.
This same Jesus whom ye have crucified was made both
Lord and Christ.(Acts 2:26) His humanity was made both
Lord and Christ in the incarnation.
All power is given unto me in heaven and earth
(Matth.28:18)
This is exactly what was meant when Jesus was said to
have sat, or to stand as one passage said: on "the
right hand of God." The right hand of God is not a
geographic location as the Trinitarian teaches but is
a place of Acceptance of the humanity to receive as
son, all power in heaven and earth, and to be made
both Lord and Christ in the incarnation. We Get a
picture of Jesus sitting on the throne in Judgement
where sheep go to Jesus Right hand (Acceptance) and
goats to his left. (Rejection) (Matth.25:31-34)
"The Word did not become flesh"! The Word (The plan
of God for redemption of mankind from the foundation
of the world) was made flesh. The more modern readings
with their (" older is better" Greek manuscripts)
would love for the scriptures to state such! The fact
of the matter is these folks are selective in their
Greek words to prove points. They employ the word"
became flesh" in (John 1:14) from more modern readings
to teach us all that "God the word" somehow changed
from one of the spiritual God persons, into flesh,
when not more than a few verses back(John 1:10) the
same Greek word is used for the word/ Logos that was
said to have MADE all things. to make it seem as
though the word was another person and became
something else. The Word /Logos/Plan of God was (both)
with God, and was God. God the Father Himself with His
word(Psalm 33:6) created all things by the breath of
His mouth. This was the creative, spoken thoughts of
God, that were both with, and could not be separated
from God. (Rev. 13:8) The Lamb slain from the
foundation of the world. The Lamb was not literally
slain from the foundation of the world but in the
creative thoughts and plan/Logos/Word of God for
future redemption of mankind.

c a:
By Him [en auto] all things [ panta] were created
. . . all things [panta] have been created through Him
[di' autou] and for Him [ eis auton]. He is before all
things [autos estin pro panton], and all things [
panta] in Him [en auto] hold together (Col.
1:16-17; lit. rendering)

Mlculwell:
Yes, all things were created By Him, through him, and
for him. Because what is included in the incarnation
was both God and man. We cannot say his flesh or
perfect humanity created all things but rather his
deity created all things that of God the father.