This is a rebuttal to James White's Article entitled: a tale of two debates. First posted on his Aomin.org in response to his recent debate with Roger Perkins In Brisbane Australia. I have Given Roger Perkins this forum for his own rebuttal to Dr. White.
10/22/2011 - James White
"You could not have a stronger contrast between the mindset and behavior of my two debate opponents this week, and, in particular, in their response to how I bent over backwards to try to make these debates as fair, even-handed, and useful as possible. I refer to my taking a tremendous amount of time on the Dividing Line going over their own presentations in recent debates so as to make sure that they would know exactly where I was coming from and exactly what I would be saying. Abdullah Kunde clearly listened, learned, incorporated my comments, accepted correction where necessary, and the result was a very excellent debate that while direct and forthright was likewise respectful and cordial, the very best kind. The issues were clearly presented and debated as a result of Abdullah Kunde's willingness to listen and learn without feigning offense at my refutation of some of his previous statements.
Alas, Roger Perkins chose the exact opposite path. Rather than listening, pondering, considering, learning, and growing, he chose to be deeply offended at what I did in responding to his own statements on the Dividing Line. All through the debate he kept referring to what I had said in the most negative fashion. He was clearly personally offended and chose to interpret my review in the most negative light. The result was to be expected: just as in the debates we reviewed, Mr. Perkins showed himself unwilling, or unable, to "hear" what was being said to him. You could tell he was sitting there, waiting for me to finish my question, just so he could launch into a prepared response, even if that response was not even relevant to the question I was asking. He came with sound clips, for example, from the Dividing Line, as I had predicted. However, he put them together so as to try to forge a contradiction or inconsistency on my part. But to do so he had to obviously violate the context of my statements. He took one statement where, in commenting on 1 John 2:23, I said that you cannot "separate" the Father and the Son. Obviously, to any semi-honest or reasonable person, my meaning was clear. I was saying you cannot have the Son without the Father, and you cannot have the Father without the Son. John's point is that confession of the Father demands confession of the Son, and vice versa, in light of the Father's testimony to the Son (a concept found in John 5, 8, etc. as well). Then he took that specific comment that had a specific context about what was being said in 1 John 2:23, and tried to create a contradiction with other statement I made regarding the distinction that is provided by the actions and attributes of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Hence, I had said that we can distinguish the Father from the Son, and he took this to be a contradiction to what I had said about 1 John 2:23. Does Mr. Perkins really lack the ability to grasp that basic level of human communication and language, or is he just being obtuse in defense of his tradition? I do not know."
Roger Perkins Writes:It is immediately clear you view yourself as the one holding the superior posture, and others in the position of needing to ‘learn’ [ a natural outgrowth of “Reformed Theology“]. This, of course, coming from someone who unashamedly told the world you have no problem acknowledging you worship a God who exists as “three-divine-individuals, each with their own separate center of consciousness.” All right there for the world to see if you don’t edit it. None of God’s covenant people knew a thing about such an existence, nor ever once acknowledge such….and I’m to “listen” and “learn” from you? No thank you sir.
Secondly, "Let's just say I'm aware of some things U aren't Mr. White, & I'll have to leave it at that.". I have received emails from all over the country about your behavior and I have started to post an open letter to you several times, but saved it for the debate.
The sound-bites were your chosen words, not mine. As an Apologist, you of all people should know to chose your words more carefully. If you do not mean them, do not say them. I wanted the folks to hear you refer to the “divine persons” as “separate individuals”…..which I assume was just me taking your words “out of context” also…right? Not hardly.
Dr.White continues:"One mistake I made in hindsight was to not press him to answer a question I had raised in my opening statement. I even ended my second portion of cross-examination almost three minutes early, mainly out of disgust at trying to reason with someone who clearly had no intention of engaging in rational thought. I should have taken that time to press him on the mediatorial role of Jesus today, since he did not make a single comment on the question, and I do not think he has ever considered the question at all. I likewise misspoke once and referred to Mr. Perkins "mistranslating" Rev. 21:22, when I should have said "misinterpreting" or "misreading." My point remained valid, however, as he had attempted to draw a parallel between this text and John 10:30 when there is no valid syntactical relationship whatsoever."
RP responds:I as well made some mistakes in hindsight. I “misspoke” in regards to Col. 1:16 & the Son creating by His “Pre-eminence.” As soon as I said it, I knew it did not at all reflect my thoughts & did not sound coherent, but there would be no opportunity to correct it in a cross-ex. My point was & is, that if it can be shown that Vs’s 14-15 are conclusively referring to the Historical Messiah, then all of the pronouns in Vss. 16-18 are contextually identifying the same as opposed to switching back to the pre-existent world in mid-stream of the Hymn. The preceding passages refer to the Son who redeemed us to the forgiveness of our sins. How and when did this happen Mr. White? In Eternity, or at Calvary? This is the same one who is in view in vs. 16, based upon the conjunction hotee introducing the dependent causal clause.
The point in Rev. 21:22 is that both passages have, as the subject of the verb, the Father and the Son. You adamantly claim that the plural verb in Jn. 10:30 demands plural persons [even though those on the very spot did not reach this conclusion, even after hearing the plural!?], then shift the verb usage identifying the same subject in Rev. 21:22.
Also, when you asked me how I would translate the term Jn. 17:5, I should have responded by telling you that I feel no need to retranslate the term, as you apparently do [& did with Phil. 2 w/ clear insertions unfound in the Greek Text]. But, alas, hindsight is indeed 20/20!
You are quite in error concerning the mediatorial role of Christ. I have studied the issue quite well & a Trinitarian explanation is quite inadequate. From your perspective, you would have the 2nd divine individual in heaven interceding to the 1st (presumably) divine individual. Strange that the Revelation does not at all give us this picture, but rather has Jesus sitting on the Throne [Rev. 3:21; 22:3-4, etc.]. In fact, you apparently were not listening closely enough since I addressed this in my closing statement. Paul expressly identifies the mediator: “…and there is one mediator between God and men, the MAN, Christ Jesus.” Nothing in the text about a “2nd divine person in the Trinity” now is there? This is supplied by the Trinitarian world…not the actual text itself.
Dr. White Writes:"One of the limitations of doing debate like this at the speed we were going was illustrated last evening, but it is also a learning opportunity as well. I found Mr. Perkins is not interested in learning, but others will be, so here we go. At least three times, maybe four, Mr. Perkins insisted that the term εἰκών was defined by Bauer as "a man" or, I think he may have said as well, the form of a man (I have the recording from my LiveScribe pen, and may track down the specifics before the next DL). He used this as his sole defense in trying to avoid the obvious teaching of the text that the Son, as the Son, pre-existed and was, in fact, involved in creation itself. Now, there was no way for me to look up the reference during cross-ex. I suspected that, as we have documented many times, Perkins was engaging in lexical abuse, but I could not speak and open up BDAG and check the small print at the same time. So, during Perkins' closing statement, I checked the reference, and confirmed my suspicions. After the debate I approached Mr. Perkins and asked if he had the reference to Bauer handy. He said he did. He opened his notebook to Colossians 1:15. He had one line, which said Bauer, "of a man…Col. 1:15." No page number, nothing else. So I showed him the actual entry in Bauer on my iPad (in Accordance), and explained that he was mistaken. He refused correction. Let me explain it to those who have a willingness to learn."
Roger Perkins Writes:What you have omitted form your recount of our table-side chat is that I also showed you Friberg’s Analytical definition of Aykone, which expressly references Col. 1:15, even if I did inadvertently misquote Bauer [I’ll be showing you own “abuse” below]. Here’s what it says for those interested in “learning”: “an EMBODIMENT, or living MANIFESTATION of God form, appearance (CO 1.15).“ See also Vine’s on this terms usage in Col. 1:15. Clearly this refers to the human life of the Messiah, or else you have the 2nd divine individual in heaven “embodied,” with the other two invisible. If the “divine individuals” in the Trinity are as separated that one can be distinguished from the others with a body, wherein lies practical Monotheism? To this, you simply responded by correcting my pronunciation of the Lexicon & said you owned the grammar. Not much of a response now is it?
I then asked you if you would accept Bauer’s on the preposition usage in the Baptismal accounts in Acts, to which you just responded with, “You don’t know how to read a Lexicon.” Then, turn there & read it for yourself! Point is you’re highly selective in what you accept from the Lexicons & what you reject in them….all due to your theological preferences.
Dr.White writes:"Below is the relevant entry from BDAG, just as I showed it to Mr. Perkins. I have put what he quoted in bold so you can see how far removed the two portions are:
2. that which has the same form as someth. else (not a crafted object as in 1 above), living image, fig. ext. of 1 εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ (ἄνθρωπος πλάσμα καὶ εἰκὼν αὐτοῦ [God] Theoph. Ant. 1, 4 [p. 64, 17]; w. ὁμοίωσις Did., Gen. 56, 28) of a man (cp. Mitt-Wilck. I/2, 109, 11 [III BC] Philopator as εἰκὼν τοῦ Διός; Rosetta Stone=OGI 90, 3 [196 BC] Ptolemy V as εἰκὼν ζῶσα τοῦ Διός, cp. APF 1, 1901, 483, 11; Plut., Themist. 125 [27, 4]; Lucian, Pro Imag. 28 εἰκόνα θεοῦ τ. ἄνθρωπον εἶναι; Diog. L. 6, 51 τ. ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας θεῶν εἰκόνας εἶναι; Sextus 190; Herm. Wr. 1, 12 al.; Apuleius as image of God, Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 43; JHehn, Zum Terminus ‘Bild Gottes’: ESachau Festschr. 1915, 36–52) 1 Cor 11:7 (on the gradation here cp. Herm. Wr. 11, 15a); of Christ (Helios as εἰκών of deity: Pla., Rep. 509; Proclus, Hymni 1, 33f [Orphica p. 277 Abel]; Herm. Wr. 11, 15; Stob. I 293, 21=454, 1ff Sc.; Hierocles 1, 418: the rest of the gods are εἰκόνες of the primeval god.—The Logos: Philo, Conf. Ling. 97; 147. Wisdom: Wsd 7:26) 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15 (εἰ. τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ὁ μονογενής Did., Gen. 58, 3; cp. εἰκὼν γὰρ τοῦ . . . θεοῦ ὁ λόγος ἐστὶ αὐτοῦ Orig., C. Cels. 4, 85, 24.—EPreuschen, ZNW 18, 1918, 243).—εἰ. τοῦ χοϊκοῦ, τοῦ ἐπουρανίου image of the earthly, heavenly (human being) 1 Cor 15:49. (See SMcCasland, The Image of God Acc. to Paul: JBL 69, ’50, 85–100). The image corresponds to its original (cp. ὁμοίωμα 2ab; Doxopatres [XI AD]: Rhet. Gr. II 160, 1 εἰ. καὶ ὁμοίωμα διαφέρει; Mel., P. 36, 245 διὰ τῆς τυπικῆς εἰκόνος; 38, 262 τοῦ μέλλοντος ἐν αὐτῷ τὴν εἰκόνα βλέπεις and oft. in typological exegesis of the OT).
Now, Mr. Perkins does not read Greek. I do not believe he would even know the Greek alphabet, let alone could he make his way through the text. So portions of this kind of material are simply beyond his comprehension. But you do not have to actually be able to read koine to accurately use a Greek lexicon. The second portion of the entry for εἰκών gives a major semantic domain delimitation; the subcategories are marked various forms of punctuation. Hence, the portion Perkins cited, "of a man," is in the first sub-category, and is followed by examples such as "Philopator as εἰκὼν τοῦ Διός." Another sub category is introduced with "of Christ," and this is in contrast to the preceding category "of a man." The reference to Colossians 1:15 is under the listing of "of Christ" (along with 2 Cor. 4:4) it is not under the listing of "of a man." Mr. Perkins is simply wrong, without question, to have read the entry as he did, yet, when I pointed out his error, he rejected my correction. So I told him to go ask a secular Greek scholar, since clearly he will not believe anything I say. Any scholar of the language will correct him on the matter. To insist, as he did in the debate, that "Bauer says this term refers to a man" and then to build his interpretation of the entire text upon that, is to demonstrate yet once again a clear example of "lexical abuse."
Roger Perkins :I am currently in the process of relocating to begin a church plant & will review this more closely after I get settled in. What I can state immediately is that Bauer above references “Christ,” the term for the historical Messiah [God in flesh], both definitionally as well as biblically. Jesus Himself affirmed that He was the human Messiah to the woman at the well. “I, who am speaking to you am He”. Peter declared to the Human he was speaking to “YOU are the Christ.”
Dr.White:"I was also disappointed that Mr. Perkins decided to accuse me of errors in citation of source, such as Moulton-Milligan, without giving a single example. In fact, at one point, when I challenged him on why he had not offered meaningful exegesis of the key texts (Phil. 2:5-11, John 17:5, John 1:1), his response was that he had pages of exegesis on those texts right there in his notes! Well, that's not much of an argument when you don't present it, is it? Evidently he just wanted us to trust him."
Roger Perkins:In your article “The Pre-existence of Christ,” you reference Moulton in dealing with Monogenes Theos as “more accurately, the unique God”. Moulton says nothing about the “unique God” in his given definition, yet you include it in quotes? Here is the quote you referenced as it appears on pg. 417 of Moulton & Milligan, “…monogenes is used in the NT of only sons and daughters, and is so applied in a special sense to Christ in Jn. 1:18, where the emphasis is on the thought that, as the only Son of God, He has no equal…”.
Before you charge me for the ellipsis, I’ll simply point out your usage of the same in your definition of monogenes in your book, The Forgotten Trinity, in which you only partially quote Bauer’s. Here’s the portion you conveniently omitted: “But some, (e.g., WBauer) prefer to regard monogenes as somewhat heightned in mng. In Jn…to only-begotten or begotten of the only one…”. Readers can see BAGD, pg. 527 for the full quote.
In your book The King James Only Controversy, you introduce evidence for the rendering Theos, as opposed to Heios in Jn. 1:18 from UBS-4. Problem is, you totally omitted the support from UBS-4 to the contrary. Here’s a small sampling of the support for ’Son’ in I:18 you left out from UBS-4:
Uncials: A (5th Century), Seven codices from the 8th & 9th century
Miniscules: Families 1, 13, 28, 157, 180, 205, etc.
Ancient Versions: Several old Latin Mss., Vulgate, the Curetonian version of the Old Syriac (3rd - 4th century), the Harclean and Palestinian Syriac, the Armenian & Ethiopic versions, etc., etc.
Church “Father’s”: Tertullian (200 a.d.), Hippolytus, Letter of Hymenaeus, Alexander, Theodore, Chrysotom, Jerome, etc.
Ironically, you appeal to many of the same “Father’s” on pg. 205 of The Forgotten Trinity in support of Rom. 9:5. Thus, you appeal to these sources when they support you, then conveniently omit from your audiences consideration when they don’t. “Abuse” indeed!
I had a response prepared for every argument you raised, but in countering your charges & attempting to make my own points, they got lost in the mix. Basically, I planned to appeal to Colwell’s Rule in Jn. 1:1 & the various grammarians who say if Colwell’s Rule applies we have “Inadvertent Modalism [a misleading term in itself].” I have numerous quotes from various grammarians arguing for the definitive application of Jn. 1:1c, in stark contrast to the supposed qualitative tag you argue for. Yes, you both reach the same Trinitarian conclusions, but it’s for Theological preferences, not the actual grammar of the text.
In Phil. 2, the present participle huparcho is contingent upon the aorist indicative “consider,” which Wallace defines as “simple past-time.” The participle necessarily derives it’s “time-ness” from the verb & Wallace is clear on this. I then had many references to Trinitarian Grammarians who disagree w/ you on this text….including Robert Reymond.
Dr.White:In any case, the contrast between the two debates is very instructional. In one, my opponent listened to my comments and incorporated them into his preparation and comments, resulting in a clear, cogent, meaningful, and cordial debate. In the other, as the saying goes, "not so much."
05:22:54 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article
Roger Perkins:Finally, you had the perfect opportunity to clearly present your side to our agnostic moderator, who is a judiciary debate judge. He intentionally walked up to me after the debate to tell me he thought I presented the more clear case & won the debate. Personally, I have never stated this in any debate as I leave it to the few unbiased audience members who are in search of truth. He then outright said to me, “He was an arrogant….”. As a Christian, I will not use the language he chose to use [for which he immediately apologized], but he was clearly aggravated with you. This was evident in his calling you down on your repeated “I’m an authority on the Lockman Foundation” assertion. Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with the text in question [Gal. 3:20]. Firstly, you did not work on the translation team of this particular passage (or the entire work to my knowledge); secondly, did the translators faithfully communicate the genre of the Greek text or not? If not, you have a responsibility to correct them (which wouldn’t surprise me at all). My point stands & I was told so by a Trinitarian Pastor who was the audience that night.
In conclusion, I am well able to interact with you on a scholastical level, but will not bow down to your pompous condescension, as well noted by many, many others. I am not a part of your glory-train & have studied you quite thoroughly & reject your presuppositions rife in your arguments. If you begin your usual postings on YouTube, I’ll simply clip you stating to the world that you worship a God who exists as “Three-Divine-Individuals, each with their own center of consciousness.” We shall see what happens!
Roger Perkins
19 comments:
“three-divine-individuals, each with their own separate center of consciousness.”
How can anyone say that the above quote equals One God?
I really do not know. It is beyond me but the trinity is a very Old hand me down tradition.
Just because it is traditional (trinity) doesn't mean it is scriptural. The Bible and the prophets of old taught "One God".
Yes sir they most certainly did. I could not have said it any better...
Thank you Manuel and Roger. I have not listened yet to the debate yet, look forward to doing so.
And I remain surprised that James White was willing to go out on the "three distinct eternal consciousnesses" type of limb .. especially since White studiously avoided this (tiptoes) in the Q & A of the Long Island debate some years back.
And I am hoping to get you the text of that debate, through Kenneth who has a tape somewhere. Maybe it is on the White site too, or elsewhere.
Textual issues with James White are a bit funny. e.g. James White defends the modern version corruption of 1 Timothy 3:16 (because it is in the modern versions contra the AV) yet says he prefers (evidentially, citing Burgon !) the pure reading "God was manifest in the flesh".
Consistency, the jewel.
There is lots of good material on the John 1:18 question from a poster from Athens on the b-greek forum, Scott Jones and the superb Michael Marlowe article.
And I am considering re-opening up the Pure Bible Forum to invite over cordial and respectful ongoing discussion in a web-forum environment. And of course you are welcome onto Messianic_Apologetic where we can discuss in a cordial, moderated but fair, environment.
Shalom,
Steven
I chuckle when Mr Robert Perkins said "there are 2 Yahwehs one in heaven and one one earth". One thing I'd like to say: stupid. This guy is so ready to disregard one verse in the bible just to prove his tradition. According to James 2 the demons also believe in one God, what makes modalism different from it? the answer is Trinity. One but Three, Three but One.
He is not ready disregard anything that is scriptural. 2 Yhwh's is the absurdity of the trinity position. Bedsides that and it is polytheism. Excuse Gio Love? What was your point in bvringing up James 2:19? The Devils do believ inh One God in fact they know there is only one God having served him for a time. So what was the point? The point should be it is either your view(Trinity) or ours(Oneness)The trinity is no answer to anything.... James 2:19 did not say the devils believe the one God is three persons or the trinity. In fact all pagan religions believe in a trinity. 3 persons are 3 gods like the hindu three persons are thre gods. Either you have an argument or you do not? In this case you do not!
mlculwell you dont seem to be a good reader of your bible. sorry to say that. quote "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder."NIV James 2:19. Did you notice the word "one"? yes the demons believe in one God. But we trinitarians believe that there are three in the godhead so are there more than 3 billions of the manhood but these three persons of the godhead are NOT limited in essence so they can be one in being without splitting His persons. In that case, you dont seem to know that there are pagans who also worship their god in oneness(henotheism).
The full revelation of the bible is that the Father did not stop existing when the Son was incarnated or the Son retired when the Spirit was given or else you will come up with a Schizophrenic Jesus praying in the garden of Gethsemane before he was crucified.
Gio Love, Thank you for coming here and destroying your own argument. I did not have to do a thing you did it all yourself! That is how God works and you probably do not even know it. So you are telling me the three persons of the hindu trinity is one? That is what you are telling me. trinity has defence against polytheism becaus it is pagan polytheism. We do not believe the Father stopped existing nor do we believe the son retired..(Your ignornace is showing sir) That comes from your lying apologists lying to you about we teach and believce the bible to say, that does not come from Oneness teaching! Schizophrenic really? So Your god was talking to another god then? Thank you for that also! I have debated these issues more than like;ly before you were born.
Mlculwell you are accusing me of hindu polytheism without even quoting the scriptures to deny my claim. We believe the trinity because it is revealed in the bible. I watched Mr Perkins never answered substantively about colossians 1:15 "who is the God who has the image if He is the image Himself who became a man?". Mr Perkins just gave a blank look to Dr. James about the question. If my apologists are lying about modalistic claims that "the Father stopped existing and that the son retired on the Spirit", then why dont you believe the historical trinity then?, unless you have a problem on some terms YOU ARE IGNORANT about. "So Your god was talking to another god then" really? you have just demoted the omnipotence of God into human limitation. Your statement is an utter misrepresentation of what we trinitarians really believed in. We believe that God exists in Three persons, by virtue of which He was able to carry out His eternal purpose in man, and God is one being in essence so He can dwell in man in His salvation. This revelation is not seen by the oneness apologist so they erred from the truth.
Gio Love:Mlculwell you are accusing me of hindu polytheism without even quoting the scriptures to deny my claim.
mlculwell:Denying the scriptures? There are no scriptures for your doctrine.Yes your doctrine is polytheistic.
Gio Love:We believe the trinity because it is revealed in the bible.
mlculwell: Um No it is not revealed in the bible if it were I would believe and becuase it is not is why I do not. But anyone can make a stement without proof like you just did. You simply believe it is there.
Gio Love: I watched Mr Perkins never answered substantively about colossians 1:15 "who is the God who has the image if He is the image Himself who became a man?".
mlculwell: We did not watch the same debate then! I use that passage aaisnt trinitarains all the time. Jesus is the opnly way anyone will see God because God is invisable as to his Spirit, because jesus is a genuine man that is why you could see Jesus.Jesus is the image of the invisble God. (Col.1:15) That passage said God was invisible. Why could they see Jesus? Because Jesus is genuine man that houses the spirit of the invisible God. You cannot see God every accept in the eyes of Jesus who is God in flesh!
Gio Love:Mr Perkins just gave a blank look to Dr. James about the question. If my apologists are lying about modalistic claims that "the Father stopped existing and that the son retired on the Spirit", then why dont you believe the historical trinity then?,
mlculwell:Your arguments make no sense... We do not teach nor believe those theings because the bible does not teach what your apologiosts lie on us about and that is the same reason we do not believe your old false doctrine from false teachers. The Oneness historical also and Tertullian said Oneness were the majority and were starteled by the new doctrine of the trinity in against Praxease. We do not believe something because of history but beause it is in the bible and trinity is not in the bible.
Gio Love:unless you have a problem on some terms YOU ARE IGNORANT about. "So Your god was talking to another god then" really? you have just demoted the omnipotence of God into human limitation.
mlculwell: Um no, you put that very thing on me and now you are backpeddling?The argument does not work on us because it hurts you more than it does us and it does show your ignornace.
Gio Love:Your statement is an utter misrepresentation of what we trinitarians really believed in.
mlculwell: And yours does also! It shows you have no idea what oneness or the bible teaches.
Gio Love: We believe that God exists in Three persons,
mlculwell: Yeah I know that you believe God is thee persons and that is polytheism just like the hindu three persons who are also three gods. You have no defnce against false doctrine by using it.
Gio Love:by virtue of which He was able to carry out His eternal purpose in man, and God is one being in essence so He can dwell in man in His salvation. This revelation is not seen by the oneness apologist so they erred from the truth.
Mlculwell: Irt is you that errs from the truth and not us and God himself provided the means of the sacrifice himself and came in flesh himself to save us as he required a kinsmen redeemer through Jesus who is both our LORD and our brother. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes Gio Love your trinity doctrine is polytheism and I am not going to post the same ignornat post you already gave. You are just rehashing what I answered above. It is clear to me you have no arguments and you just contradict yourself over and over. We believe Jesus is the image of the invisble God If Roger Perkins was giveing him a blank stare it is probably because he could not believe he was looking as a modern day polytheist In james White who had said God has three seperate centers of conciousness which was a clear admission that he White was a polytheists. We believe jesus is the Only true God and we need no others! trinitarains are blatant polytheists with their false doctrine fo three persons of God which the bible does no teach!
Gio Love:mlculwell he clearly stares at James White blankly more probable that he got schooled.
mlculwell: I know for a fact he did not get schooled ! But that is your opinion.
Gio Love:Anyway, I dont believe in three gods. to deny the trinity is like ripping off verses in the bible like Matthew 3: "16
mlculwell: There are no verses in the bible with any of your man-made terms, not a single one! The one you give concerning Jesus baptism does not have a trinity of three persons. It is your bad interpretation... If a voice and a dove as a manifestation of God are three persons then God is seven persons with the seven spirits of God, which are way more prevalent in scripture. If a voice is a persons them my voice is another persons and by virtue I am two persons then my spirit and my body. Let's add all the other manifestations that God revealed himself by Ballam's donkey that talked. The pillar of fire by night and the cloud by day the man in the fire.
Gio Love: After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, 17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”
mlculwell: You will recall that this was a sign for John the baptist to know who it would be that was going to baptize with the holy Ghost! A voice out of heaven was a manifestation of God along with the voice, these are not multiple persons of God any more that the seven spirits of God are multiple persons of God and are in the bible more times than your failed bad interpretation of the Baptism of Jesus and the multiple manifestations of God's power! Jesus was incarnated with the one Spirit of the Father in him and in heaven at the same time.
Gio Love: The 3 persons are present in these verses and they all coexist at the same time.
Mlculwell:Baloney! That is your false doctrine and it cannot be proven by you or any other trinitarian! I have debated this subject many times and your side always ends contradicting yourself and the bible with it. This is the worst argument you can use to try and prove your failed argument of three persons of God which are three god polytheism.
Gio Love:To insist that their is one person in the godhead is contrary to these verses. The Triune God Co-Exist in His persons but One in Essence as His being. Thank you.
These verses totally prove One God. There is one God and one mediator between God and man, the MAN Christ Jesus(1st Tim. 2:5) That is clearly Oneness and not trinity as it teaches the distinction that oneness and makes and trinity refuses! Why did it not the God Christ Jesus? because Paul is refuting your false doctrine! The man is in the water being baptized who also is incarnated by the one Spirit of God the Father. That is not two persons of God that is one man and one God incarnating that man. You again are confusing the incarnation. That is not "two persons of God" no matter how you try and force your false doctrine. the man prayed hungered and died like all men but he was also the One God in flesh. It is the flesh as son you are confusing.
Gio Love :mlculwell Honestly your response to me are nothing else but polemical speech. It didnt establish any doctrine at all regarding Oneness doctrine. But all pure denial of the trinity.
Mlculwell:The Bible is pure denial of the trinity! You gave me nothing but your biased opinion. You gave nothing Gio Love. You are not capable of defending the trinity here with kind of sound argumentation.
Gio Love:your question: "Why did it not say the God Christ Jesus?" Because Paul is refuting your false doctrine!
mlculwell:ROTFL! Yeah Ok! The man Christ Jesus is the mediator that s Oneness doctrine not trinity doctrine! That would give you four persons Gio Love! You have the three persons of the trinity plus another persons of a man. You do not have that!
Gio Love:My Answer: What???chuckle..It doesnt refute at all the trinity but confirm it on the contrary. Unless you believe Jesus is God, Jesus cannot be that God because He is the mediator separated from the God by the conjunction "and". I hope that makes sense to you.
Mlculwell: I believe Jesus is both the God the man mediates to and the man both are there resident in Jesus! The Bible says he is David's son(Man) and David's LORD(God) The God is not god the son or god jr. But that One God the Father as Malachi 2:10 states and as John 14:10 states: The Father that dwells in me (In the incarnation) it is that does the works and miracles you see me do. I(The son) can do no miracles.(John 5:30) Paul is making the same distinction Oneness makes in 1st Tim 2:5.
Gio Love: Else you have to read my comment again. God is One, yet since Jesus is the mediator the bible says "There is one God and one mediator between God and man, the MAN Christ Jesus (1st Tim. 2:5).
ROTFL! 4 persons is what you have! I have one God(The Father AKA the Holy Spirit who is also the Father of Jesus Matt. 1:20) Does Jesus have two Fathers? I have one genuine man in Jesus!
You really do not make very good arguments Gio Love!
If you believe God is omnipotent how can you honestly not believe the the father is the son and the spirit? Why would he have been name "God with us"? Quoting from the NIV shows your lack of accurate knowledge considering the person who knew the most Greek during the making of that translation only had two years of it and if you read 5 different translations of the same verse the NIV comes up with a translation that will have a completely different meaning than the other translations. I took two years of German but I wouldn't go and become a German translator because I probably couldn't have a full proper conversation with a German speaking person.
I did not watch the debate however just in reading this text it is clear that White seems more concerned with proving Perkins incorrect rather than validating his own argument.
The trinity belief is very unclear and though there may be some verses that do not clearly but hint they may have been separate persons I am no scholar but I can provide you with at least 15 verses that clearly state their is only one God no matter what translation you read out of and without needing to pull out a concordance to interpret it as such. Show me one verse in the bible that clearly states there is a God, there is a son, there is a spirit and all these three are three different people.
Sarah,I have no idea who you are addressing.This is a Oneness site and we believe Jesus is the Father/Spirit/God. Yes the trinity is very confusing and unclear.
I apologize yes it was addessing gio loves comment about our oneness views not believing God is omnipotent which is extremely ironic, a lot of Trinitarian views seem extremely contradicting and support oneness more than their separate persons.
The debate I heard james white contradicts his own doctrine with the use of lexicons. Uses the ones that fits his false doctrines. Picks and choses what he thinks will fits the scripture to try and prop up a three god theory Oh inconsistency thou art a jew.
The debate I heard james white contradicts his own doctrine with the use of lexicons. Uses the ones that fits his false doctrines. Picks and choses what he thinks will fits the scripture to try and prop up a three god theory Oh inconsistency thou art a jew.
Post a Comment