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.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)