Download the audio debate between Myself and Robert Skinner of the UK on the Oneness view versus the Trinity.
http://www.zshare.net/download/774082279718bf1e/
1 comment:
Anonymous
said...
The problem with St. John 1:1, is the distinction of God and the Word, and this distinction is accepted by many as inferring two persons, one person of the Father, and another person of the Son. But notice here, that Word is mentioned and not Son, and this is not something of a co-incidence, for Father is plainly written, yet Son is not. Could it be that the Sonship was the future manifestation of God, which from the beginning only existed as a plan or thought in the mind of God, which explains why Son is never mentioned but Word? I believe this to be the case, and the very meaning of Word establishes this, for Word in the greek is Logos, meaning a thought, plan, concept, idea and sound. Utterance can also be a meaning of Logos, for thought and utterance are the same, for one utters only what is coming from the mind, and this demands a thinker. The distinction therefore is inanimate, for the Word is never a distinct person from God as it appears on the surface. Let us read the same verse in another way and see what we have, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Father, and the Word was the Father. Trinitarian theology will reject such an interpretation, for only one God is brought into view, the Father. But, any other way to see the verse will bring about two Gods, one of the Father and the other of the Son, and this is proven by how they see the verse, where because the Word was God, and God is substantive, they fall in the error of making Word substantive as a person with God, and read the verse in this light, In the beginning was the Word(God-substantive) and the Word(God-substantive) was with God, and the Word was God, and this presents a literal face to face situation with two Gods, for we now have God with God. It is no use trintarian theology accepts person with person as meaning two persons, yet God with God does not mean two Gods, for this is inconsistency. The Word is not substantive, though the last clause did say, And the Word was God, for Logos being a thought demands a character who has the thought, or a thinker, but the fact the Word was God, does not infer the meaning of Word to be God, but rather the Word/Logos, is a thought and nothing more. In the beginning was Wisdom, and Wisdom was with God, and Wisdom was God, but Wisdom being God, and Love being God etc, does not make any attribute of God substantive away from God. Now the mystery of godliness is mentioned in 1Tim 3:16, and infers that everything of God, the man Christ Jesus was the human personification of such, for whereas one cannot touch Wisdom, being an abstract noun, God who possesses this in His nature, when expressing Himself in flesh, becomes this same intangible wisdom in a tangible way, so Jesus became the expressed Wisdom, Power, knowledge etc of God, so Eph 3:9 states it in the way it does, where God created all things by Jesus Christ, and this is where this intangible Wisdom through which God made the world, was expressed in a human and tactile form, so God made man in His foreordained knowledge of the human expression of this Wisdom, which expression was only in His plan, but was made flesh in time. It is the same divine principle with Logos, where the man Jesus was the Logos expressed, and who dwelt with God from before the world was, but only as a plan, where God calleth the things which are not as though they were, but though non-substantive, had a substantive person behind the attribute, so in reality this Word(non-substantive) was with God(substantive), and was God(for He is more than the Word/Logos, He is the very God whose Word was that non-substantive aspect of His own existence, and not another person in the Godhead. Anyone who wishes to have a discourse with me through email may contact me at dgreenja1@hotmail.com. I am also prepared to have a discussion in this forum.
1 comment:
The problem with St. John 1:1, is the distinction of God and the Word, and this distinction is accepted by many as inferring two persons, one person of the Father, and another person of the Son. But notice here, that Word is mentioned and not Son, and this is not something of a co-incidence, for Father is plainly written, yet Son is not. Could it be that the Sonship was the future manifestation of God, which from the beginning only existed as a plan or thought in the mind of God, which explains why Son is never mentioned but Word? I believe this to be the case, and the very meaning of Word establishes this, for Word in the greek is Logos, meaning a thought, plan, concept, idea and sound. Utterance can also be a meaning of Logos, for thought and utterance are the same, for one utters only what is coming from the mind, and this demands a thinker. The distinction therefore is inanimate, for the Word is never a distinct person from God as it appears on the surface. Let us read the same verse in another way and see what we have, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the Father, and the Word was the Father. Trinitarian theology will reject such an interpretation, for only one God is brought into view, the Father. But, any other way to see the verse will bring about two Gods, one of the Father and the other of the Son, and this is proven by how they see the verse, where because the Word was God, and God is substantive, they fall in the error of making Word substantive as a person with God, and read the verse in this light, In the beginning was the Word(God-substantive) and the Word(God-substantive) was with God, and the Word was God, and this presents a literal face to face situation with two Gods, for we now have God with God. It is no use trintarian theology accepts person with person as meaning two persons, yet God with God does not mean two Gods, for this is inconsistency. The Word is not substantive, though the last clause did say, And the Word was God, for Logos being a thought demands a character who has the thought, or a thinker, but the fact the Word was God, does not infer the meaning of Word to be God, but rather the Word/Logos, is a thought and nothing more. In the beginning was Wisdom, and Wisdom was with God, and Wisdom was God, but Wisdom being God, and Love being God etc, does not make any attribute of God substantive away from God. Now the mystery of godliness is mentioned in 1Tim 3:16, and infers that everything of God, the man Christ Jesus was the human personification of such, for whereas one cannot touch Wisdom, being an abstract noun, God who possesses this in His nature, when expressing Himself in flesh, becomes this same intangible wisdom in a tangible way, so Jesus became the expressed Wisdom, Power, knowledge etc of God, so Eph 3:9 states it in the way it does, where God created all things by Jesus Christ, and this is where this intangible Wisdom through which God made the world, was expressed in a human and tactile form, so God made man in His foreordained knowledge of the human expression of this Wisdom, which expression was only in His plan, but was made flesh in time. It is the same divine principle with Logos, where the man Jesus was the Logos expressed, and who dwelt with God from before the world was, but only as a plan, where God calleth the things which are not as though they were, but though non-substantive, had a substantive person behind the attribute, so in reality this Word(non-substantive) was with God(substantive), and was God(for He is more than the Word/Logos, He is the very God whose Word was that non-substantive aspect of His own existence, and not another person in the Godhead. Anyone who wishes to have a discourse with me through email may contact me at dgreenja1@hotmail.com. I am also prepared to have a discussion in this forum.
Post a Comment