The Trinity and the Early Church: Debunking the Oneness Myth answering Ed Dalcour Once again

mlculwell:In Dalcour's submitted writings on his Department Of Christian which can be found here http://www.christiandefense.org/

which will, from now on be referred to as; DOCD. Dalcour offers absolutely nothing to disprove the Oneness doctrine from either (so called )church fathers or from scripture. I will deal with every so called church father he has submitted to disprove the Oneness doctrine or passage of scripture he thinks disproves our doctrine. Ed Offers the following passage.

Dalcour submits:
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God,

and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all (2 Cor. 13:14).[1]




mlculwell: Dalcour thinks because three titles are mentioned in the above passage then we most certainly must have "three distinct persons of God". Not so! All three of these titles must be mentioned as they are three different aspects of God in relation to our salvation.


Allow me to explain; The One spirit, God(God the father who is *spirit (John 4:24) and is *Holy (Psalm 99:9 , 1st. Peter 1:15) thus God the father is the Holy Spirit) shows mercy and offers a one time sacrifice for all men (Not just all kinds of men only)through his *only human born son through the virgin birth,*Begotten, sinless son and then gives men, through that sacrifice, his spirit in men ,but it first the spirit must be purchased for that to happen through the sacrifice(There is an orderly way and method to God in his dealings with mankind and that is what the passage Dalcour submitted deals) We would not have salvation if it were not For God giving grace. I heard One preacher explain grace as God's Redemption @ Christ's Expense, GRACE. which I would most certainly agree. Do we have three persons of God with the passage? Most certainly we do not! we only have One god and one person dealing with mankind..God as spirit first
planned this
from the foundation of the world we see this
from many prophecies which I will not offer at this time but I will offer one from (Revelation 13:8 ) which states :the Lamb was slain from and before the foundation. certainly that was not literal but was the plan of God for future redemption.




Ed Dalcour
Virtually all non-Christian cults (esp. Oneness believers and Jehovah’s Witnesses) reject the doctrine of the Trinity and teach that the early church had no such concept of a triune God, but rather they held to a unitarian concept of God (i.e., God existing as one Person). Because of a great lack of study in the area of Patristics (i.e., church Fathers), these groups normally assert that the origins of the doctrine of the Trinity first emerged at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.

mlculwell: First of all Dalcour is being presumptuous to both set himself up as the final authority on who is a "non christian cult" and naming Oneness believers as such without a scriptural pattern for determining and making the unfounded remark, he simply is forcing his trinitarain view and presuming he has truth and that only those who deny the trinity doctrine are those who are cultic.

If in fact he(Dalcour) wants to prove his doctrine is true then it should be no problem for him to do a side by side comparison of the two doctrines according to scripture in a debate. It has been my experience Dalcour will cry foul and say "proper exegesis is not being done" on the part of those that are other than his ilk. This is simply his way of maintaining his self acknowledged expertise while excusing himself from discussion.

Dalcour also makes a fatal mistake in assuming those men from historical writings are preaching "truth" simply because they were closer to the time of the Apostles and Jesus historically If that is so there should have been no person or persons preaching false doctrine what so ever but we see different all through scripture, the first that comes to mind is Hymeneus and Philetus in (2nd. Tim. 2:17) To my knowledge we are not told to look to those men from history salvation is just too important Jesus said he would pray for everyone that would believe on him through their words(The Apostles John 17:17-20)

what is to stop others of doing the same thing? Who determines the historical writings from men as trustworthy to follow? What churches from history or writers are we to look, I say we have the compiled cannon, the intent of this writer is not to go into that debate which writings are the completed cannon as one must start from the idea the 66 books of the bible both Old and New testaments are God's words to mankind


Ed Dalcour
So vast is the evidence that the early church envisaged a tri-personal God and not a unitarian or unipersonal deity to which groups such as Oneness Pentecostals (as well as Muslims, Jews, and JWs) hold, that Oneness writers such as William B. Chalfant make desperate attempts to convince Oneness believes that the early church Fathers were really modalists

mlculwell:There is no "clear evidence" as Dalcour props up as fact, he simply takes writings from History and inserts his doctrine where he thinks a so called tri-personal language is used in reference to God from both history and scripture. One has to remember; he see's father,son and spirit as a" tri personal God" anytime, anywhere in scripture or historical writings where those titles are used it must prove a distinction of "persons of God" where Oneness views the language in relation to a man having different relationship roles to his family but not as three different persons. Even the term "trinity" may not be an exclusive term as to distinctions of God





(Oneness):

the trinity doctrine exists only on paper. . . . No apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ ever taught such a doctrine. . . . None of the immediate disciples of the apostles (e.g., Clement Ignatius, Hermas, or Polycarp) taught such a doctrine . . . Trinities Abound in the ancient, false religions. . . .[2]

mlculwell:Here Dalcour sets up a strawman that he thinks is both meaninful and relevant, it is only meaningful and relevant to Trinitarians who actually believe the writings highlight their view. I Like to ask the question to those who always submit history and "patristic writings" (so called)if we should add those writings to scripture?(What is that I hear?) They a are good read but they are not close to the same level as scripture, it is simply a ploy as there are many other teachings that Trinitarains would not touch with a ten foot pole it is al'a cart historic doctrine pool, take what you think is relevant and reject what ever does not apply.


Dalcour Writes:
With no historic justification, Chalfant (and others Oneness writers) conveniently assumes his conclusion that is meant to be proved, namely—that the early church Fathers were modalists! What I find interesting is that nearly every non-Christian cult uses this same line of reasoning, which is nothing more that patent historical revisionism.

mlculwell: The same charge can be made toward the Triniarian's, that will be more apparent when we actually deal with the historical writings Dalcour submitted.


Dalcour:
It is not surprising that the greatest and most authoritative Christian theologians and church historians[3] objectively disagree with the Oneness historical assumption that the early Christians in the days immediately following the apostolic age were Oneness.

mlculwell: It is not the concern of this writer as to what those (so called) "early Christians" were, immediately following the Apostolic age. The biggest concern is that we should model ourselves after what is written in scripture.

In carpentry you do not take lumber and then measure that one piece of lumber and then compare and cut all other lumber by using the first board, you would end up being way off the original measurement, you use the first measurement that was used on the first board and cut all others to the first measurement.

Jesus said the following; neither pray I for these alone, but for them also that shall believe on me through *their words.*( John 20:17) who were the their words that Jesus referred? Was Jesus referring to the "early church fathers" immediately after the Original? Did Jesus tell us to look for the historical writings immediately following the Apostles? Absolutely not! This would be like ignoring the actual measurement and going straight for something else. To be fair, I think it is Dalcour's point that since they were so close to the original, that they absolutely must have truth and the correct measurement of what a 21st century church should look like. But what about those to whom we read in scripture that were actually there with the Apostles? A good example are Hymeaneus and Philetus in (2nd Tim.2:17-18) the original measurement is found in the New Testament and we are complete and thoroughly equipped (furnished) unto every good work.(2nd. Tim 3:17)
But we are most certainly not from the writings of history and if they are wrong then we are wrong.



Dalcour
Despite the fact that many church Fathers utilized first person plural references in the OT (“Our,” “Us”; cf. Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8) to substantiate that God was multi-personal, it was the Trinitarian baptismal formula (cf. Matt. 28:19) that was used and quoted by many early church Fathers to show that God was Triune. The evidence clearly shows that the early church conceptualized a distinction of Persons in the Godhead—they were not Oneness.

mlculwell: using first person plural in Gen. 1:26, 3:22,11:7,Isa.6:8 does not substantiate God was "multi -personal" from history or anywhere else because Dalcour thinks that is the case.

(Gen.1:26) Seems to be the single most used passage by Trinitarians to force such an interpretation, if this passage were isolated from all other passages then trinitarian's might have an argument but of course there are other passages that deal with creation and one of those creation passages are found in (Romans 5:14)

(Adam) who was the figure of him that was to come. Was it not Adam who was created in God's very image, and Likeness? *Figure* is the very meaning of the word likeness and alludes to God's image and likeness. God when he said; "let us make man in our image, after our Likeness." was referring to creating mankind in the coming incarnation and included the humanity of the son and not "God the son" when he said "let us make man" as there is no such thing in all of scripture. So that is was not three persons of God but that which purchased our redemption the sinless son of God whose deity was God the father)(John 14:10 and not "god the son."




Ed writes the following:
Apostolic Fathers

Some of the earliest writings that have come down to us are those that belong to the category of the “apostolic Fathers.” Many of these men were actual disciples the original apostles and leaders of the original churches. The few citations below (there are massive amounts!) plainly indicate their view of a triune God.

mlculwell: We shall see if this so.

Ed Dalcour:
The Epistle of Barnabas (c. A.D. 70):



Probably not written by the biblical character Barnabas, but whoever the author was the Epistle of Barnabas was written very early when some of the original apostles were still alive. Notice how the plural “Us” in Genesis 1:26 is used differentiating God the Father from Jesus:



And further, my brethren, if the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God [the Father] said at the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,’ understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men (Epistle of Barnabas, 5).

mlculwell: First of all, there is nothing here that refutes the Oneness view. Jesus most certainly is the *Lord of all* and God the father most certainly did say; "Let us make man after our Image, and after our Likeness." I would like to point out though, that none of these so called "pratristic writings" can be claimed exclusive to the Trinitarian group nor can they be used to prove one group over another that is simply pompously begged by Mr. Dalcour..The above says nothing of a trinity doctrine being claimed by the writer Barnabas, when the very unscriptural terms three persons of God and trinity are forced and used by historical writers that is where we take exception, if the writing throws up a flag to do so.


Ed Dalcour
Clement bishop of Rome (c. A.D. 96):



Clement of Rome wrote an epistle to the original Corinthian church. He was perhaps the same Clement who was Paul’s close companion mentioned in Philippians 4:3. In Clement’s salutation, he clearly distinguishes the Father from the Lord Jesus Christ:



The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied (Letter to the Corinthians, 1).

mlculwell: There is nothing in the above either to refute the Christian Monotheism Oneness doctrine. The purpose of the incarnation was to redeem mankind through humanity, because it was humanity that caused the fall from the garden, therefor it was not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away the sins of mankind but the sacrifice of his son through his body once for all.(Hebrews 10:4-10) it was not a fictitious unbiblical "god the son" that was able to do such a great thing otherwise it already would have been done before, but rather, the biblical sinless son of God through the sacrifice of his flesh purchased our redemption when the fullness of Time was(Ga. 4:4 it was God the father who ultimately made this all possible, there most certainly is a biblical distinction between father and son but it is not of multiple "god persons" but rather God who is spirit and flesh of his only begotten son through the virgin birth and for anyone to teach other than this must be held to the standard of the scriptures and not through (so called) patristic writings.




Dalcour writes:
Surely if Jesus as the Father (the Oneness view) was the “apostolic doctrine,” as Oneness teachers would like us to believe, why was Clement, who was perhaps Paul’s associate, clearly distinguishing the Father from the Lord Jesus Christ? Clement then refers to a very Trinitarian passage (Eph. 4:4-6):
Let us cleave, therefore, to the innocent and righteous, since these are the elect of God. Why are there strifes, and tumults, and divisions, and schisms, and wars among you? Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? (ibid., 46).



mlculwell: First of all, there is not one Trinitarian passage in all of the scriptures and Dalcour is being presumptuous again, anyone can do that. Second( Eph.4:4-6) reads there is One Lord (Not three) One faith, One baptism, One God and father of *all* that is above all(Not equal)through all, and in you all. Nothing in the least Triniarian about that passage. Then there is absolutely nothing written by Clement that contradicts Oneness doctrine but even if we(Apostles) or an angel from heaven were to preach any other doctrine than what you have heard (contradict what was being taught and written by those to whom Jesus himself commissioned) we are told to let them be accursed.(Gal. 1:8-9) We are never told in scripture to believe in "multiple persons of god" or in a "trinity "doctrine that is a pompously assumed doctrine and everyone knows what happens when you assume and add to scripture things that are not there. Dalcour assumes that since
"one
God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace mentioned that gives license and green light to the trinity doctrine, the scriptures are filled with such threefold salutations and the Oneness view are not blind to those salutations.
please allow me to take this time to explain way those threefold salutations must always be included and in our remembrance, it is because God(The father) first provided our salvation and redemption as spirit gave mankind his only begotten son through time and not eternity(Gal.4:4) and as the son who did not exist beside, with or ortherwise and God the father came to man himself and robed himself in the flesh of His only begotten sinless son in the incarnation and redeemed mankind and gave all power without measure(John 3:34, Math. 28:18, 1st. Cor.15:45) to that son making him the one and only true God forever more, who also now has the glorified body always and forever. I am neither speaking of *Adoptionisms (*that Jesus was adopted into the sonship by an act of God)nor any other false doctrine.(such as Apollinarianism or Docetism) I will deal with the rest of Dalcour's writings in another post coming soon.

James White and the Forgotten Trinity , Better Forgotten.

James White writes the following from his book The Forgotten Trinity

Chapter 12 pg 171 A Closer Look


James writes: "There are three kinds of beings who are personal:God,
men, and Angels. I have being ,I exist, Yet I am personal.My being is
personal and finite.It is limited to one place geographically
speaking,and one time temporarily speaking."

There are more gems from this book but this is damning enough to ask; where does Jesus
stand in this? Will anyone come to Jame's defense? I cannot wait to dig out more .


Which Being Is Jesus? Is he the being of man, or the being of God, or
the new being of both?

I ask this question because James is Caught in a dilemma with his doctrine He quotes on the same page;" the divine being( God) is One"( being) the divine(God) persons are (shared by) three" (persons.)( parenthesis are mine)


Which Being Is Jesus humanity? Is he the being of man, or the being of God, or
the new being of both? Humanity most definitely is being. This contradicts White in his book.

To be fair I submitted this critique on my debate group and received the following reply from a Trinitarian.

"The content of the quotation you included does not directly deal with this question, as Mr. White's point is not to consider the relation of the human to the divine in Jesus but to demonstrate that there is a 'personal' aspect of God and angels and humans.

Notwithstanding that, there is nothing directly in this quotation that would preclude Jesus from being located within its categories.

If you supplied the surrounding context it would probably present a far better overview of Mr. White's thinking along this particular argument".

I will do just that!

James writes on page 158 -160 How that Jesus is One person with two natures. James continues "he is not two persons nor are his natures somehow mixed together."

Very good, that gives us something to work with. What I do not see in all of Jame's book is an answer to these important question. Natures do not die, people die!

At the outset James stated; "he was one being", is not Jesus real humanity a being? He simply never says in his book, that I can see. (James makes an attempt in pages 66-70) of his book but nothing really meaningful. God is One Being, Jesus is a real human being, thus in my estimation we have two beings, "one of these things are not like the other." to quote the ol Sesame street song. We do not have two beings of God, we also do not have two of the same beings, we have one human being, and one being of God. In the incarnation, if true, we have two beings, but not two persons, God is not a person , persons die...When Jesus died as to his real humanity the being of God did not die, God cannot die. The Trinitarian view of Jesus would be a new being. Just because you equivocate with the copout of natures does not excuse us of answering these questions that are important. I believe the trinitarian view of being and person is weak and showcase those weak areas of thier doctrine especially since Dr. White is the contemporary Authority on the subject.

Beowulf2k8 takes a final swipe.

mlculwell: Sorry Beowulf, I will not allow you to get away without me answering

Beowulf2k8
Culwell replies to the argument from Hebrews 7:3 saying "Argument??? What argument? Jesus did not exist! (Romans 5:14) Adam who was the figure of him that was to come(He was not back there but was coming) Adam came before Jesus.

So Culwell takes the view that Jesus didn't exist back in the beginning when Adam was living on the earth. This does nothing but prove that (as I already pointed out) he does not care one iota about what Scripture says but only about what knot he can twist it into.

mlculwell: We shall see what the scriptures actually teach concerning this subject.

Beowulf2k8:
John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God
and the Word was God.
That is, the Word has always existed as God, and was God but was "with God" because although he is God he is also a distinct person from the Father.

mlculwell: Here is a taste of what Beowulf actually thinks John 1:1 says: In the beginning was the word(God the son) and the word(God the son) was with God(The father) and the word(God the son) was God (the father) To whom the word was with.

There is no way for the trinitarain to get around this glaring contradiction of their doctrine. They mistakenly believe *The word*/Logos is Jesus pre - existing with *God* the Father. The only why they try and get around thier glaring contradiction is by employing a greek grammar rule for the second theos(Oh consistency thou art a Jewel) making the second Theos something else to get around the contradiction, Nothing is in the passage about* God the father* it is assumed by the trinitarain, it is assumed correct of course, but to them The word is God also. How do they get around another God? By making and pompously assuming another person of God so as not to violate the prohibition in scripture of Polytheism.

Actually, The word/Logos was not with God as another person of God.
Paul uses the same term logos/word of two individuals in(2nd. Tim. 2:17)
and their word/logos will eat as doth a canker of whom is Hymeneus and
Philetus who concerning the truth have erred.
Paul uses the term in it's intended meaning and usage and would have
been in agreement with John's usage of the term which was the thought,
plan, concept, Idea, Deity expressed.

The logos of the two individuals was not the Logos of God, but the meaning is consistent, never was the term to be used in the way the Trinitarian's mishandle the Logos/word and add a new meaning that has never before been.

In the Septuagint (the Greek of the Hebrew Old testament) The Logos is used in (Psalm 33:6) in creation. Do we see another person of God from the passage when it is revealed how he actually created by the Logos? No!

By the Word/Logos of the LORD(Jehovah) were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

The day the Trinitarian's can make the word by the breath of God's mouth another person of God , is the day they will have an argument from (John 1:1) God does not draw breath to convey his thoughts but rather this is more in line with the Pneuma(Spirit breathed or Life) Not an intangible breath force as the Jehovah's Witnesses wrongly assume..

The main reason they(the trinitarains as well as the JW's believe the word is another person of God is based on the term :*with*(*Pros,* Greek) (Of course the JW's Believe Jesus pre-existed but not as another person of God) To continue: But in (1st. John 1:1-2) John again speaks of the same word/logos calling the word by two different terms this time. (verse1 the *word of Life*) and (Verse 2 *eternal life* that was* with* the father.)That eternal life with the father was the glory (John 17:5) spoke that trinitarains mistake the Lord Jesus as claiming he literally had pre-existent Glory as another person with the father but when you look closer at( John 17:24) the same continued context from verse 5 the Disciples were to behold his glory(Which is his passion) the same passion (Rev. 13:8 )spoke of as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. John goes on to say in verse 3. that we(the Apostles) have seen and handled the word after he was made flesh and we saw the glory he had with the father before the foundation of the world which was Jesus being slain in the plan for future redemption(Not literally) and our
fellowship is with the father and with his son.

(Side note)
This is not a problem for the Oneness view as Trinitarian's suppose, as the father and son even being after the passion(death, burial, resurrection , and ascension) does not represent two persons of God. But One man, whom God as Omni present spirit (The father)has taken permanent residence. The distinction is seen to remain until he delivers the kingdom to God (1st. Cor.5:24-28)even the father. Or as (Eph. 5:27 ) That Jesus present it to himself a Glorious Ekklisia.

Beowulf2k8:
John 1:2 "The same was in the beginning with God."
Stress being placed on the fact of his being a distinct person from the
Father.

mlculwell: The same Could be said of Hymeneus and Philetus as their evil plan was hatched in the beginner (Whenever the beginning was that it was hatched) but one thing is for sure, beginning does not denote eternality for God's word either as Beginning denotes origin.


Beowulf2k8:
John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
The Father employed the Word in the creation of all things.

mlculwell: Yes Of Course, but I do not believe trinitarians have an understanding as to what is meant by the word/Logos as their doctrine get's in the way of scriptures.


Beowulf2k8:
Now, compare that to Hebrews 1:1-2 "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds" which shows that the Word and the Son are one and the same person, for whereas John says that all things were made by the Word the writer of Hebrews says that the Father employed the Son in the creation of all things.

mlculwell: The word was not a pre-existent Jesus but the word was the plan of God for future redemption. The scriptures teach all things were made by Him and for him the whole creation was predicated upon his coming and he was the creator because of the incarnation not because he pre-existed because he was God manifest in the flesh or that the spirit was given to him without measure his deity was the creator but there is nor was there ever a god the son it was God the father in the son doing the works (John 14:10)



Beowulf2k8:
Now John also indicates that the Word is Jesus Himself, for he says in John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."


mlculwell: If the word had to be made anything then the word was not another person of god, as the other person of God would not have to be made anything. The plan was then put into action when the fullness of time was come(Gal. 44:) God sent forth HIS SON(Not from eternity, But from time.) *Made* of a woman, *MADE under the Law*. (Refutes His son came from eternity)This also refutes Beowulf's God had no father Baloney! Jesus father was the Spirit.(God! Math. 1:20-21)



Beowulf2k8:
He shows then that the Word became man and lived on earth and was the only-begotten of the Father.



mlculwell:
Actually the plan/Logos/word was put into action for our redemption, the word did not change from one thing into another.


Beowulf2k8:
But he goes on in the next verse to say "John (i.e. the Baptist) bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me." (John 1:15)


mlculwell: Yes, John in One breath prophesied because of Jesus deity (John 14:10)in one breath and then doubted when he was in prison John asks: are you the one to whom was Prophesied or do I Look for another?


Beowulf2k8:
Clearly it is Jesus that John the Baptist bore witness of, as we know from all the Synoptic gospels, but here John in his gospel says that it is the Word that John the Baptist bore witness to. This shows that the Word and Jesus are one and the same person.


mlculwell: It again shows no such thing that the word/Logos was the person of Jesus! John bare witness of His deity in the incarnation that which was God , The word could not be separated from God, or he would not be God(The father) this is god's creative Power.


Beowulf2k8:
But he continues in the next verse, "And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." (John 1:16-17)
Now he explicitly identifies the Word who was IN THE BEGINNING, and who was both God and was with God--that is, was God but also was a distinct person from the Father--he explicitly identities this Word as Jesus Christ.



mlculwell: There is no beginning for God, there was only a beginning for his plan for redemption of mankind.



Beowulf2k8:
So then, everywhere in John 1 where we find "the Word" we can legitimately replace that phrase with "Jesus Christ." So, in John 1:1 "In the beginning was [Jesus Christ], and [Jesus Christ] was with God, and [Jesus Christ] was God."



mlculwell: As I have mentioned in passing concerning this issue you raised prior above, the same word/Logos you falsely claim was Jesus and mistakenly claim as with God the father would put the second theos also as the same God the father. Unless you are JW and make the second Theos either "a god" or godlike. The Only option that does no harm to Jesus deity, is that of the Oneness of God and also maintains the monotheism of the scriptures.


Beowulf2k8
So, we find that:
1. Jesus was in the beginning.


mlculwell: The only way for Jesus to be in the beginning and be eternal for Jesus to be God the Father. If he were the word as you claim then beginning would denote and origin.



Beowulf2k8:
2. Jesus was God.


mlculwell: Although I do believe Jesus is God Jesus was not the God being spoken of in John 1:1 as Jesus had a beginning in his earthly life per (Gal. 4:4, Romans 5:14) the Only way Jesus was God, was in the incarnation being made God as His humanity had a beginning M-A-D-E no matter who protests is the term used in scripture(1st. 15:45.Math. 28:18,Acts 2:36,John 3:34)


Beowulf2k8
3. Jesus was with God, that is, he was a distinct person from the Father.



mlculwell: Nothing is said in the passage nor alluded that the word is another person of God in the other two usages I employed of the word/Logos from (2nd.Tim. 2:17 , Nor Psalm 33:6) are there indications of such. Even the two individuals Hymeneus and Philetus's word is *with* them but it is most certainly not another person of God and neither is that being taught in (John 1:1-14)



Beowulf2k8:
Now, Culwell says "Jesus did not exist!" This statement is clearly laughable based on the facts presented above! How can we help but feel sorry for Culwell's blindness?


mlculwell: Feel sorry all you like. But it is I that feels sorry for you, when you will stand before God and give an account for your mishandling of scripture doing a roughshod glossary reading with God's precious word trying to teach when you have need to sit down of be taught.



Beowulf2k8:
Now, we can go further and show all the more the blindness of Culwell's position, and this we will do.
In Colossians 1, Paul speaks of the Son of God into whose kingdom Christians have been translated, saying in Colossians 1:15-20,
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.


mlculwell: This hardly helps you at all Beowulf a matter of fact it contradicts you and helps my position. I have said all along that in the Incarnation Jesus was the image of the invisible God that had a start firstborn denotes a start even if it was was before creation(I believe that was in the plan/Logos of God) As the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.(Rev. 13:8)


Beowulf2k8:
For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross." (Colossians 1:15-20)

Now, if the Father begat the Son before all things and employed the Son to create all things, and more than that, all things consist or hold together by the Son's power, then how can Culwell claim that the Son did not always exist?


mlculwell: Very easily Beowulf, I still maintain the son did not exist! What you term as the incarnation is why and how the son is the creator and him not existing. His deity was the creator. Not his humanity! You most certainly could not make that claim either. you would calim it was his deity in the incarnation all you have to do is present one passage that shows me the God the son was incarnate. there is no such passages! but there are many that show the father was in the son doing the works and made the son The One true God(John 14:10) The father In me he doeth the works! Jesu actually says: I CAN OF MINE OWNSELF DO NOTHING!(John 5:43) Jesus as son did not even know the itme of his own coming as God the father as Gspirit in him and in heaven did not reveal it to his limited humanity.


Beowulf2k8:
How can he say so blindly "Jesus did not exist!"??? Notice also that all things were made not only by the Son but FOR the Son.

mlculwell: Yes Amen! "they were made for the son" everything was predicated on the coming son.


Beowulf2k8:
Note also that in ALL THINGS he is given the preeminence.

mlculwell: Again checkmate as the why would God need to be given pre-eminence? he would already have it! God does not need to be given anything. The limited Human son was given ALL power. That slaps all of you in the face even the New Arians.

Beowulf2k8:
And note that he is explicitely connected with the cross via the expression "through the blood of His cross." It is clearly manifest that Jesus existed, therefore, "BEFORE ALL THINGS" and that he was employed by the Father to make all things and that all things were made not only by him but also FOR him.

mlculwell: His existence was in the plan of god as the lamb slain from the foundation of the world for coming humanity he did not exist as another person of God If I ran roughshod over the scriptures with a glossary study I would come up with the same mess you have come up with.

debate if you want to call it that?

mlculwell:
Beowulf2k8, this looks like an exercise in futility, as you did not afford me the same respect that I gave to you in dealing with your points, I made the point "Jesus was not his own father," but yet you make a false argument for me and expect me to argue from a position I do not take. I wrote: "I am not my own father, nor am I my own son. Neither is Jesus." But you ignored that and proceeded headlong into ignorant Apologetic Lies that have been spread all over the country for years. Why would you do that? I will deal with every point you present when you go off on something you will be ignored otherwise expect me to deal with every point you present that you think is relevant to our discussion and I expect you to do the same.



beowulf2k8 said...

One reason for not wanting a formal debate is that I feel a formal debate requires too much verbosity. Sure the above post is verbose, but that's just because I was bored and felt like typing and because TF turning down the debate was a good opportunity to say some things about Calvinism. And I was "thinking out loud."

mlculwell: the above is what I am talking about that needs to be ignored as it has nothing to do with our discussion but I understand this needs to be addressed.

Beowulf:
Now that you're here, however, I think we ought to keep it simply.

You say "Yes! I am a father, I am a son, and I am a husband."

True. But you are not your own father, your own son, and your own husband. We would have to look at you a little funny if he both fathered yourself, and were fathered by yourself.

mlculwell: I addressed that point right off the bat, but you ignored it and caused us to unnecessarily go where we did not have to go, I understand that trinitarians have ignorantly dealt with this as an issue in Apologetic writings of something they actually believe we teach, which is not true what so ever.


Beowulf:
Also if you were married to yourself that would be strange, although it isn't as odd as the being your own father and own son bit, seeing as how many people love themselves more than all other people!

mlculwell: Have you ever debated before? If you continue to ignore my arguemnts I will leave your blog and never return.Please deal with what has been presented.

Beowulf:
You continue "Those are three relationship titles I have toward my family"
Yes, but not toward yourself. The titles of Father and Son with respect to God relate not to humanity but to the relationship between those two persons of the Godhead.

mlculwell: I have already stated there is no such thing as "God the son" and as (Col. 2:9) states for in him(Jesus) dwells all the fullness of the Godhead BODILY(In his humanity)Jesus is not a member of godhead the God is in him BODILY. Or as You ignored in what I have already presented. The Father in me he doeth the works(John 14:10) Or God(The father) was in Christ(The human son) reconciling the world unto himself.



Beowulf:
Surely Jesus can be called both "Father" and "Son" with repect to humanity in the sense of being "Son of Man" and "Father" of all Christians. HE is called "everlasting father" in Isaiah 9:6. But when the Scriptures speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, these titles are not used in relation to US but in relation to the relationship between the persons of the Godhead.


mlculwell: As I have already pointed out the scriptures do not teach Jesus as a member of Godhead but the Godhead is in him BODILY.

You have ignored what I presented and I have to submit it again Jesus is called the father because of the deity given him without measure(John 3:34) I have not met a Trinitarian as yet that is able to explain that explain passage but rather they simply explain it away where it makes no sense.Jesus as the last Man Adam (Not "God the son") was MADE the Life giving spirit(1st. Cor. 15:45) that Life giving spirit was given to the human son in the womb and made the man God because the man had a beginning



Beowulf:
For example, take Matthew 3:17 "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

The voice speaking is clearly the Father, as I'm sure you will agree. You kinda have to!
Now, the Father says of the Son "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Whose Son is he?

mlculwell: Well let's see? To answer your question; "whose son he"? He is God the father's son! Also known as the Holy Ghost. The son is not "God the son" another person of God. He is a God manifest in the flesh the only person of God as God is not a person otherwise, So we do not have "three persons of God," we have one person of God which is Jesus, the visible manifestation of the invisible God the one who authored the other two manifestations as a dove (not a person) and a voice (also not a person) I do not know about you, but if God chose to manifest a hundred Voices and Doves it still would not make multiple persons of God.


Beowulf:
He is the Father's Son. Therefore the Son is the Son of the Father.

mlculwell:That is profound, is it not? Yes, He is the son of the Father! The son is not another person of God.The holy Ghost overshadowed Mary and caused the conception making the Holy Ghost the father(math. 1:20-21) this of course you also ignored to present these weak arguments.




Beowulf:
You, are your father's son and your sons father, not the father of yourself and son of yourself.

mlculwell: Yeah, and? I assure you, that is not my position. If you continue to argue in this vain then the debate will be over, you should deal with what is presented and not your worn out Lying Apologetics. We do not teach Jesus is his own father! we refer to Jesu as the father because his deity that of God the father was given to the son without measure(John 3:34)The son could do no miracles or works in and of himself (John 5;30) The father in him did the works please show me a passage where God the son is incarnate in human form? I have presented the only passage which states who was incarnate that being (John 14:10 )and it states the father in me(The son) He (the father) doeth the works.


Beowulf:
Do you ever speak about yourself saying "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased"?

mlculwell: No! And you will notice the passage reads this is my beloved son IN WHOM(The father in whom) the son as I have stated in (John 14:10) it was the father doing the miracles and works not the son!The son was simply the body soul and human spirit of God the father of whom God resided.This is why Jesus was God manifested in the flesh(1st. Tim. 3:16)




Beowulf:
Now, we take it a step further. In the three accounts of the voice at the baptism of Jesus, we have different wording in each. I believe the voice spoke all three. I will show why three times in a moment.

mlculwell: Do whatever you like but a voice from heaven, and the spirit in the form of a dove, and Jesus being baptized, in no way teaches anything about "three persons of God," you inserted that man made tradition into the passage! The only person in the passage is Jesus being baptized as God is not a person outside the person of the son, persons die, God does not.


Beowulf:
Here is Mark 1:11 "And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

mlculwell:Nothing here either about three persons. God says this is my beloved son whom I am well pleased. In another passage God says he is pleased to dwell.


Beowulf:
Here the voice speaks to the Son. The Father speaks to the Son saying "You are my beloved Son..." Do you ever say to yourself "You are my beloved son"?

mlculwell: No! You are making me laugh with these elementary arguments.


Beowulf:
The third account is also to the Son. Luke 3:22 "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."

mlculwell: The voice and the spirit descending in the form of a Dove do not make multiple persons of God if Ballam's donkey would have walked to the waters edge along with the dove and said in unison; "this is me beloved son." It still does not teach anything about multiple persons, but rather the awesome way in which God can manifest himself through his omnipresent spirit that is everywhere at the same time. You actually limit God and make him seem small and a liar because he is not one but many according to you.


Beowulf:
Now, the Father says again "Thou art my beloved Son" but he changes the ending part from "in whom I am well pleased" to be more personaly "in thee I am well pleased."

mlculwell:Yep! but you have no proven point in your argument.


Beowulf:
I think the Father spoke three times due to the fact that a voice from heaven being such an amazing event, many might miss the words by being caught up in the novelty of the speaking itself! So, he repeated himself, speaking twice to Jesus and once to the audience as a whole.

mlculwell: I agree this most certainly was an amazing event but it does not prove anything about three persons of God.That is un- scriptural term and doctrine that is mused by trinitarians. we have spent a whole lot of time on nothing.


Beowulf:
But notice that we have the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost all present and accounted for here.

mlculwell: If a Voice from heaven, and a Dove are a person I will print this post out and eat it.We have three manifestations of one and the self same God who is spirit and we have One person being baptized but we do not have three persons of God.

Beowulf:
The Son ascending from the waters of baptism, the Holy Ghost descending from heaven upon the Son, and the Father speaking with a booming voice (so I imagine) from heaven.

mlculwell: The Holy Ghost is the title of God as he deals with mankind in regeneration he also known the omnipresent spirit of God(The father)there are no three persons of God present in the passage we have already spent too much time on this one issue.

Beowulf:
Now, is Jesus coming out of the water, descending upon himself from heaven,

mlculwell: No! Jesus is the real human son of the father who actually existed before the son existed. Jesus is referred to as the creator of all things because he is included in the incarnation. The spirit descending like a dove is a manifestation of the omni-present God Jesus had no power in and of himself to do anything(John 5:30) I CAN OF MINE OWNSELF DO NOTHING. THE FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME HE DOETH THE WORKS.(John 14:10) this is the same reason Jesus did not even know the day or the hour of his own coming but the Father only. Because the Father was the God incarnate doing the works.

Beowulf:
and yet also still in heaven speaking about himself and to himself?

mlculwell: you do understand the concept of an omni present God?

Beowulf:
I reckon you will say he is. And as God, I suppose he has the RAW POWER to do such a paradoxial thing. Yet at the same time, being God he does not have the MORAL POWER to do it.

mlculwell: Moral power??? what are you talking about.he does not have the moral power? he is the ultimate in moral power. LOL!


Beowulf:
This is the stance from which I must oppose your position, being the same stance from which I would oppose Calvinism--a moral stance. It's not that God can't be his own father and son.

mlculwell: God is not his own father and son! You have nothing to oppose with me, as I do not believe this muck you have presented.


Beowulf:
I suppose God can do whatever he wants, SO LONG AS IT ISN'T IMMORAL.

mlculwell: ???? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. It sounds elementary to even think of such a thing as a Holy God even attempting immorality.


Beowulf:
To present yourself as three distinct persons and yet be only one person is to lie.

mlculwell: This has not even been presented in scripture it is your forcing of your interpretation of doctrine that is clearly not there and when looked closer brings about so many contradictions to the scriptures.



Beowulf:
If I stand before you in three bodies and have all three bodies say to you in unison "I am one person" then I am lying to you.

mlculwell: God has never ever done that though that is false interpretation that you have forced upon scripture. you are lying on God and his word.


Beowulf:
But if three persons stand before you saying "We are one Board of Directors who always unanimously agree" they tell you the truth.

mlculwell:Baloney, they being fallible men could not always be in agreement, your analogy is weak. they would also be three separate persons which you would and have denied. stick with the scriptures and not these un- scriptural analogies to try and prove your points.


Beowulf:
So, God to himself in the beginning "Let us make man..." God is more like a very exclusive board of directors in which all the directors owe their being to the first director, rather than a single person. Hence the Trinity is the only thing that makes sense. There is no other way for God to say to himself "Let us make man..." and then also "he made man." The "he" reference there is not to God as one person but to the corporate action of the Board, following the analogy.

mlculwell: No, Your view in my estimation is really very silly and I see that you have given this no thought what so ever. There is another passage in the New testament in (Romans 5:14) that has an awful lot more of information and actually helps understand what God was speaking about in (Genesis 1:26) when he used the plural pronouns in saying: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.(Romans 5:14) also speaks about the creation when Paul writes (Adam)who was the *figure*(*Likeness and image*)OF HIM THAT WAS TO COME.(Meaning Jesus was not back there, he was to come.) Adam was created in the image of God in the coming incarnation and God included the son when he said; "Let Us make man." He created man in the image of the coming incarnation of a Jesus was not back there. God was an invisible spirit who had no image, but that image was coming in the incarnation as Jesus was the image of the invisible God.


Beowulf:
You now say "The son is the humanity, that which is 1oo% man and died, and could do no works in and of himself.(John 5:30) I can of mine own self do nothing. the Father is that which is 100% God and could not die. There is no such thing in scripture anywhere of a 'God the son.'"

Beowulf: You claimed on TF's site that you held to the Oneness position. You lied. You are just an Arian.

mlculwell: No I did not Lie and I am no Arian! you pull this lying garbage again and I will not come back to your site.I believe jesus is the Only supreme God! what do you say? I understand you do not like me presenting the scriptures as they are but that is no reason for you to lie on me.

Beowulf:
That's disappointing. But wait! You are a Oneness Arian, for you actually claim that the Son and the Father are the same person while claiming that the Son is not God at all but only man!

mlculwell: Please find where I claimed Jesus was only a man? See this is how you have come to the conclusion of your three persons you have a comprehension problem in reading.

Is Jesus a real man, or is he a new species? Something we are not, if he is something we are not then he cannot be a real man.



Beowulf:
Wow. What a strange position. The Son and the Father are the same person yet the Son is only man and the Father only God?

mlculwell: I make a real distinction between the man in the incarnation that really died and the God incarnate that did not. You actually have a new species in hybrid mixture.

Beowulf:
You need seriously to go back to the heresy drawing board on this one!

mlculwell: That is calling the kettle black! trinitarians are the actual heresy just because you are in the majority now you think that somehow makes your doctrine biblical.


Beowulf:
You say "The Holy Ghost(Spirit) Is God's(The father's) title as he deals with mankind."

How is it that Jesus says "I send you the Holy Spirit because I go to the Father.

mlculwell:Because Jesus had to purchase our right to have the spirit through his sacrifice.This is why he payed to the father(God does not pray to God,Men pray and so did Jesus as a real man) you have false prayers from god the son to put on a show and actually have that scizo God you were talking about, as you have God talking to himself and praying to himself..Jesus was the first comforter in the flesh and he was made the *another comforter* in the spirit. He was both! I (Jesus) will not Leave you comfortless.I (Jesus) will come to you.(As the spirit) NOW THE LORD IS THAT SPIRIT(2nd.Cor.3:17) who is the Lord? there is One Lord(Eph 4:4-6)

Beowulf:
" If he goes to the Father, and then sends the Holy Spirit, and yet the Holy Spirit is the Father, then he went to the Father then sent him away, so he no longer is with the Father but the Father is now with us, but he changed names?

mlculwell: You are confused because you do not understand what is taking place. God cannot send that which has not been purchased. Think about who the spirit was being sent to? (John 7:38-39) The holy Ghost was not yet given fore Jesus was not yet glorified(Slain)

Beowulf:
Above, "I send you the Holy Spirit because I go to the Father" is a rather weak paraphrase of John 14:12-17 in which Jesus promises (1) to go to the Father (2) to pray to the Father to send "ANOTHER" Comforter (3) that the "ANOTHER" Comforter is the Holy Spirit.

mlculwell: you simply are confused because you see multiple persons of God. Only men are in subjection to God and pray. God does not pray to God unless he is a schizophrenic. God the father is the Holy Ghost Jesus was given the spirit without measure in his humanity making him the one and only true God and not another person of God his sascrifice purchased our right to have the spirit in the new testament in Acts 2:4 we see the first time and not before.


Beowulf:
If the "ANOTHER" Comforter was the Father, Jesus could simply say "I will pray the Father to come to you personally." But this he does no say.

mlculwell:the Holy Ghost is the title of God in action in regenerating mankind. It is a wonder you do not see all kinds of person in scripture.



Beowulf
But not only that! Again I repeat what you claim "The Holy Ghost(Spirit) Is God's(The father's) title as he deals with mankind."

IF this is so, if the Father's title when he deals with men is "Holy Spirit" then why does Jesus teach us to call him "Father" especially in prayer? Matthew 6:9 "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name."

mlculwell: what you want to know Is why do we not call him Holy Ghost? Just as well a question for you Why are we told only to pray to the Father when we pray? There is nothing in that teaching to ask about the son or the spirit. The spirit is God in his title in action as when the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters in creation (Genesis 1:2) The son was standing before them teaching them to pray to the father as he knew the father was the God in him and at the same time in heaven.




Beowulf:
If the Father's "title as he deals with mankind" is "Holy Spirit" then why did Jesus not say "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our **Holy Spirit** which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name"????

mlculwell: The Holy Spirit is not God's name and neither is father God's name, beside that fact god was not dealing man in this instance nor had the spirit been purchased for them to have the purchaser was standing before them. It is not necessary to call God by his title nor is it forbidden. as neither father or spirit God's name.


Beowulf:
What of Romans 8:15, also? "For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father."

mlculwell: I think you slit your own throat with that one! yeah tell us about that according to your view? We have the perfect example of God being called; the spirit of Adoption(father) also when the comforter adoptsthe (orphanos) he becomes their (father) in John 14:16-18)


beowulf:
If the Father's title is "Holy Spirit" when he deals with men, as you heretically claim, then why would the Holy Spirit styled here "the Spirit of adoption" teach us to call the Father by the title "Father" rather than the title "Holy Spirit"?

mlculwell:The spirit adopts us whereby we call him father only the Jews in relationship could call him father not having the spirit of adoption under the Old covenant, the spirit was not purchased while Jesus lived for us to adopt. The Jews at that time did not have the spirit in the way we can have it because Jesus had not yet purchased it for us (John 7:38-39) the Jews had the spirit with them in a different way until it was purchased through the sacrifice.



Beowulf:
But don't forget your claim that Jesus is both the Son and the Father, also! And then you claim that the Father is the Holy Spirit, which means that Jesus would also be the Holy Spirit in your system since he is the Father in your system and the Father is the Holy Spirit in your system.

mlculwell: No, I have not forgotten anything.



Beowulf:
So, Mark 14:36 says "And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt."

mlculwell:why would God need God to take something from him could he not do it himself Jesus was a real man who said never the less not my human will but your will as my God. He prayed a real heart wrenching prayer not as God But as a real human being.



Beowulf:
Why does Jesus speak so to the Father, asking him to take the cup away, if he is himself the Father?

mlculwell: Jesus was a real man in subjection to his God and father that was both in him and in heaven at the same time, not all of the quantity of God the father was in the son, the son was still in subjection to his God and father as a real man. (John 20:17) after his sacrifice and resurrection Jesus said I ascend unto your father and my father unto my God and your God. How is it possible that God can have a god and not undeify the god who has the God. This shows how you really have no understanding of the scriptures.


Beowulf:
Why doesn't he just do it already? Further, again, if Jesus is merely a man and not God

mlculwell: I have never made such a claim! I say Jesus is my only supreme God.i have to make the distinction and a real distinction in speaking with you Trinitarians who confuse his deity and humanity making Jesus a hybrid.


Beowulf:
(for you claim both that Jesus is the Father and Son and Holy Spirit and also that the Son is mere man, which is just an outright weird position)

mlculwell:I make no claim that he was a mere man but rather Jesus was a real man you deny that fact otherwise you would not be now doing what you are doing.



Beowulf:
--if this is so, and if the Son is merely a man why does the Son then not call the "Father" the "Holy Spirit" since you say that the Father's "title as he deals with mankind" is "Holy Spirit"???

Mlculwell: The son is not merely a man, he was a real sinless man, that is not a mere man. but you do not believe that he is a real man you believe he is something else. Jesus is the Holy Spirit. He is Christ in you, hope of Glory! How is he Christ in you unless he is the spirit?(2nd.Cor. 3:17) Jesus was made the spirit(1st. 15:45) THE LAST MAN ADAM WAS M-A-D-E THE LIFE GIVING SPIRIT. there are no three persons of God! there are two titles that you wrongly attribute to two persons in which God is not a person but spirit and one real person whom God was in without measure. There is One God who is spirit and one man not three persons.

Beowulf:
But also, if Jesus is the Father and the Son, why does he say to the Father "not what I will but as you will"

mlculwell: Can you imagine this nonsense? Within the trinitarian schizophrenic God there are opposing wills this is confusion compounded! Jesus was praying as a real man who gave his will over two his God and father. It was not two opposing God wills this is ridiculous doctrine


Beowulf:
thus deferring to the will of another person? For you do not say to your own self "not what I will but as you will." You say this to a distinct person only.

mlculwell: Exactley! The God was not a mixture the God was real the man was not a mixture the man was real and this proves you deny that! and mix the two and make a hybrid view with a new species.


Beowulf:
You say also now that "God is Spirit(John 4:24) God is Holy(Psalm 99:9, 1st. Peter 1:15) Thus God is the Holy Spirit. The father of the Child Jesus.(Math. 1:20-21)That which is conceived in Mary is of the Holy Ghost. This is not exhaustive but enough to get us rolling in a discussion."

Thinking that Jesus being the Son of God relates to his birth via Mary is a common mistake.

mlcuwell: it is not a mistake but you cannot make your false unscriptural doctrine work otherwise as you have no real father and son but in name only a lip service just like every other unscriptural doctrine of the trinity.There is no such doctrine as "God the son" anywhere in scripture.



Beowulf:
It is a mistake easily cleared up by something that I had to explain to TF yesterday or the day before, namely Hebrews 7:3.

Hebrews 7:3 says that Melchisedek was "made like unto the Son of God"

mlculwell:But it does not say that he was the son of god but he was surely *made8 which refutes anything you would have to say or that a son of God referred to such a thing as God the son. the Angels were called the sons of god. You are presenting an ambiguous doctrine .


Beowulf:
by his genealogy being left out of Genesis, for that makes him "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life."

mlculwell: This was a Theophany. God made himself at times a temporary body there is nothing further said of this, nor can you force this as an argument.


Beowulf:
How is Jesus without father?

mlcuwell: Jesus is not without father or is he without mother(Gal. 4:4) Jesus had a beginning.(Romans 5:14)

Beowulf:
Clearly in his human birth. There was NO father involved with his birth via Mary.

mlculwell: of Course there was the Holy Ghost(God) caused the conception making God his father by planting the seed in the womb of the virgin miraculously.(Math. 1:20-21)


Beowulf:
The Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary cannot be Scripturally described as fathering him.

mlculwell: Of course it can because it does not only say the holy ghost overshadowed Mary But it also says: that which is in Mary is conceived of the Holy Ghost. Striking the death Blow to your false doctrine.(math. 1:20-21)


Beowulf:
The Holy Spirit did not put seed in her. He merely caused her to conceive of herself. Notice it does not say the Holy Spirit fathered him! It says "she conceived."

mlculwell: Oh How you would love for it to say that but that is not what the passage says! that which is conceived in Mary is of the Holy Ghost. The spirit caused the conception making the spirit God the father. you are whistling in the graveyard to keep your courage up.



Beowulf:
The Holy Spirit then did not father him, but enabled her to conceive without a father!!!!! So, Jesus is "without father" as pertains to his humanity.

mlculwell: Jesus prayed; Father into your hands I commend my (Human) spirit.(Luke 23:46) was Jesus lying when called god his father? Jesus had no humna father the spirit was his father! god is spirit (John 4:24) God is Holy(Psalm 99:9 1st. peter 1:15)The holy Spirit is Jesus father, Like it, or not!


Beowulf
But how is he "without mother"? He has Mary as his mother, right? He is "without mother" according to his divinity,

mlculwell: his deity that of (God the father) was without mother. (John 14:10) states his deity was the Father in him doing the works. Please find me the passage that says; the son was in the son? which is ridiculous in and of itself.


bewulf:
for he was begotten by the Father alone before the worlds!

mlculwell: There is no way for a fictitous "God the son" a term which is not found in scripture to be both *eternal* and *begotten* those are opposing, diametric, contradictory, terms.

Beowulf:
Colossians 1:15 "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."

mlculwell:This also contradicts your view because you cannot be the *firtborn of all creation* and be eternal unless you change the meaning of firstborn which trinitarians have done.


Beowulf: So, being begotten of the Father alone prior to all creation, he is the Eternal Son of God.

mlculwell: LOL! You cannot be both begotten and eternal! Jesus was the firstborn of all creation because he was planned as our redemption before mankind as all of creation was predicated on the coming son Revelation 13:8 says Jesus as the Lamb was also slain from the foundation of the world. was he literally slain or was that in the plan of god for redemption? Jesus did not exist as god the son as Romans 5:14 says he was coming.



Beowulf:
Being conceived of Mary without a father (after she was enabled by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit to conceive without a father) he is the Son of Man.

mlcuwell:The spirit was the father he had a father! making him the son of God he had His mother making him the son of man.



Beowulf:
The Holy Spirit is not his fahter any more than Joseph is his father.

mlculwell: Joseph most certainly was not his father but the spirit most certainly was his father the spirit caused the conception.



Beowulf:
He also certainly is not his own father. He says not "I must be about my own business" but "I must be about my Father's business." (Luke 2:49)

mlculwell: I do not believe he is his own father as the father existed before he! we refer to him as the father because his deity that was given him without measure had no beginning his humanity did.



Beowulf:
He also says in John 5:19-20 "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth: and he will show him greater works than these, that ye may marvel."

IF he speaks of himself as the Father, then he would be saying "I cannot do anything except what I see myself do.

mlculwell: The father was eternal and existed before the son the distinction between the father and the son is that of spirit and flesh that which dies and that which does not. He would have to say as limited son anything about himself do anything the spirit revealed or withheld that revealing things to him and he was limited as son.


Beowulf:
And I will show myself greater things to do because I love myself and show myself everything that I do so that I will know how to do and be able to do everything that I am able to do, because unless I show myself myself doing it I cannot do it."

mlculwell: This woudld actually be more akin to your silly doctrine with your scizo God as you have god praying fake prayers and such and fake father and son relationships within God who knows what else silly doctrines lurk withing your view





Yet although you claim that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost all 3, yet you at the same time claim only that the Father is the Holy Ghost and deny that Jesus is God at all! I see now why TF did not want to debate you--your position is schizophrenic.

In laudem gloriae gratiae Christi Debate

In laudem gloriae gratiae Christi

"Invitation to Manuel Culwell to debate me instead of TF"

1 Comment - Show Original Post

mlculwell said...

A certain Manuel Culwell has posted a debate challenge to Calvinist blogger Turretinfan in the comment box of this post.

mlculwell: A certain? How many of me are there? LOL!



The debate challenge relates to the topic of the Trinity, and Turretinfan has declined. I have offered to refute whatever critique of the Trinity Culwell posts here.

mlculwell:Yeah, I have a lot actually!


I'm not interested so much in a formal debate, but I will certainly refute his One Person Who Is A Hypocrite Wearing Three Masks doctrine.

mlculwell: What? Without even hearing what I believe the scriptures teach? I have not even begun and you are making arguments that you have heard from your Apologists, If you have invited me here to debate then you should allow me to make my own arguments.I have a regular debate group where it is more free.

We can hash it out right here in the comment box of this post for which reason I will only publish comments on this post by myself and Culwell. If others comment on this post, it will just be like sending me an email.

mlculwell: Okay, that will work for now. I deleted the part concerning Calvinism, I am not interested and I am not a calvinist.


I doubt that Culwell is interested in debating TF on the moral nature of the Trinity, however. Culwell's merely seeks to prove that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all one person, which is a wholly unsupportable position.

mlculwell:That is not my main point or position, I have debated that issue many times and it actually is supported by scripture. The problem lays within the limited term "person" that you want to use for God, we can hash that out but that is not the main issue.



Certainly we agree that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God.

mlculwell: Yes! I am a father, I am a son, and I am a husband. Those are three relationship titles I have toward my family but I am not "three persons" and neither is God. Let us be clear though, I am not my own father, nor am I my own son. Neither is Jesus, we as Oneness people refer to Jesus as the Father because his deity is the Father and his deity was in the human son doing the works and miracles (John 14:10)THE FATHER IN ME HE DOETH THE WORKS.

The son is the humanity, that which is 1oo% man and died, and could do no in and of himself.(John 5:30) I can of mine own self do nothing. the Father is that which is 100% God and could not die. There is no such thing in scripture anywhere of a "God the son."

The Holy Ghost(Spirit) Is God's(The father's) title as he deals with mankind. God is Spirit(John 4:24) God is Holy(Psalm 99:9, 1st. Peter 1:15) Thus God is the Holy Spirit. The father of the Child Jesus.(Math. 1:20-21)That which is conceived in Mary is of the Holy Ghost. This is not exhaustive but enough to get us rolling in a discussion.


But I believe the Scriptural position that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, although three distinct persons (distinct but not separate) are one God.

mlculwell:How many persons are Jesus, since he was both God and man? Was he a new species? was he a being was he two beings? Do persons die?



Another possible difference between myself and TF on the doctrine of the Trinity is that I do not accept the false notion so common among Protestants today that the eternal co-equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost relates to position rather than essence. When Jesus says "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30) he means one in nature, not in position. Otherwise, he could not later say "my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28) What we see then is that the Son is subject to the Father in position (as the very names imply) although they are equal in essence or substance.

mlculwell: Very good! But The son was subject to the Father because he was a real man, Of course, I do not believe Trinitarians believe that, the most I can get from them to admit is; he is 100% man and they refuse to go further... God cannot be subject to God in any way shape or form, otherwise we have two God's and polytheism.



I am not arguing that the Son is not equal in authority to the Father now, but that it has not always been so nor will be so:

mlculwell: "The son" in his humanity was made equal(Philippians 2:6) because he was given the spirit without measure(John 3:34)the last MAN Adam was made the Life giving Spirit(1st. Cor. 15:45) as he was not already, he could not be because his humanity had a beginning...



certainly now that Christ has been glorified, he is equal in position to the Father, for he says after the resurrection in Matthew 28:18 "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth." Yet, 1st Corinthians 15:24 clearly states that at the end of time, Jesus will deliver up the kingdom to God the Father.

mlculwell; Jesus delivers up the kingdom to the father(God)as human son.(Ephesians 5:27) states That he might present it to himself a Glorious Ekklesia. He simply puts down his rule as son and is only known as God, the Only God you or I will ever see of the invisible God(John 1:18,5:37,1st. Tim.1:17,6:14-16) will be beaming through the Eyes of the Lord Jesus Christ.




Eternal co-equality, then, is shown to not relate to position but to essence, which I think disproves some Calvinist creed somewhere because I always hear them confusing essence and position and being false-accusers against those who speak accurately concerning the Trinity.
Posted by beowulf2k8 at 2:06 PM 0 comments

Manuel Culwell: Thank you for the opportunity for the discussion.

November 21, 2008 3:30 PM