God's name in ancient Hebrew points to the Cross.

The first Hebrew was written in Canaanite Hebrew, a type of hieroglyphic distinct from Egyptian.(Early)

 Later refined in The Torah(Old Testament) which  was written in Phoenician Hebrew Alphabet.(Middle)

The Modern Hebrew is not actually Hebrew but Aramaic script.(Late)

  

יְהוָה (Modern Hebrew) (YHWH)

This is the Tetragrammaton, the four letter name of  God , usually pronounced Yahweh. There are many theories that exist concerning the origin and meaning of this name but most likely comes from the verb הוה (hawah) meaning to exist. The yud added to the beginning identifies the object of the verb as first person, masculine, singular, imperfect tense or "he exists".

 (yod)  (heh) (waw)  (heh)   (YHWH) Ancient Hieroglyph symbols  individually mean to: Look, the hand, Look, the nail. God's name In ancient Hebrew Pointed to the work of  Jesus as our  one true God, and redeemer come in flesh.

(From JEFF BENNER  http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/1_linktous.html#alphabet  )

  

Why the Holy Ghost can be blasphemed and you cannot be forgiven. Why you can blaspheme the son of God and be forgiven?

  I wish to ask a tough  question of the Trinitarian,  as to the date of this writing  has not been answered, as to why the Holy Ghost can be blasphemed and you cannot be forgiven, and why you can blaspheme the son of God and be forgiven?

 In asking the question on debate forums such as Carm and other forums, I did have a lot of smoke screen answers in my opinion, trying to cover up the question by making it about the definition of blasphemy, so as to hide the weakness of the doctrine and the forcefulness of the question... If you can blaspheme one of their persons but not the other, then you must have three totally different gods.

 Why would I say god/God instead of person you ask? Because blasphemy is a matter of blaspheming God. If  God is three persons, then you should by Blasphemy of one, blaspheme all of God. But both the father, and the son, are excluded from the unpardonable sin...Either this a problem for them,(Trinitarains) or a problem for us.(Oneness) Which is it?

  As I said  before, scriptures teach: God can be blasphemed, but for some reason Matth.12:31-32 says the son of God cannot! You know why? Let's read the passage in question?

31.Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven  unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32.And whosoever speaketh a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever  speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world or in the world to come.
33.Either make the tree good, and his fruit good: or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.(KJV Matth.:12:31-33)

 Jesus himself raises  a lot of questions with these passages...

 
 Trinity doctrine adherents, of all flavors,  should be able to answer why and how to this passage?

Because the son of God, is not "God the son"!

 The Holy Ghost(God) is that which incarnated Jesus!(The son, or flesh of God) The distinction is being made between his sonship, and his divinity(Which was not God the son) this brings  a very  glaring contradiction and problem for the Trinitarain...  I believe you can blaspheme Jesus and not be forgiven.  As Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. But Jesus was showing us  a clear distinction of the son born of Mary, and his deity, that was both in him, and in heaven at the same time. This is his humanity, and divinity, which distinction trinity doctrine does not  in Jesus make...

The same is seen in Mark 13:32 where the son did not know the time of his own second coming but the father ONLY. The distinction is in the incarnation. The seen (Jesus flesh, as son born of Mary, the son as the image.( Col.1:15) And the invisible spirit of God.( not seen) in him, and in heaven at the same time. That is what is not understood and the reason for the confusion.


The work of the Holy Spirit as spirit is a different work than that of the flesh and person of the son of  God." That is very reason of the incarnation, as both of those workings are found in the one united Spirit and flesh of the son.  This is Oneness doctrine spot on! We cannot have multiple persons of God, as we come to multiple gods, just like the Hindus.... The different work is a matter of spirit and sinless flesh. We needed both for our redemption. Spirit because of God's grace, and sinless flesh, as we needed a kinsmen redeemer. It was not a matter of different persons of God working, it was the selfsame God, all in him(Jesus) we needed no other!


Blasphemy.
It is not a matter of any man, or woman.  As one person of the Calvinist persuasion has claimed: that Just any sinner  is a blasphemer... This causes many problems as already sinners are in this state of no forgiveness, but are able to believe and repent and come to God...   The Calvinist  double condemns the sinner in saying they can  blaspheme the Holy Ghost and not be forgiven? Please? This offends all common sense thinkers! First they are saying they may not be part of the elect and they surely are not by blaspheming the Holy Ghost, insuring it is so? This is one of the Most ignorant arguments ever devised by man to hide the weakness of the two doctrines of the trinity and of the five points of Calvinism on this all five points fall!
Here is the problem. First of all this calling God's word a Liar and contradictory.(Is this blasphemy itself?) Then it places doubt on the word of God by said  doctrine. Paul in 1Tim 1:12-13 said that He was before a blasphemer (Attributing The work of God to the devil) but that he had done this out of ignorance in unbelief and obtained Mercy.

Blasphemy will not be forgiven, not in this world, or in that to come, period! In other words it is impossible.  The so called answer, or solution actually makes it possible to be forgiven of blasphemy if only the person somehow sees the error of their ways. We know that is not true, because the doctrine of Calvinism's Unconditional election and damnation does not allow for that.  (Not scripture) We are elected in and through him.
The scriptures teach that is not possible to be forgiven of the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, as God will not forgive this willing trampling of the Blood of Christ. Hopefully those honest enough will see the problem with this.

JW.Mcgarvey's commentary on Acts 13:48

 John William. McGarvey Born: Hopkinsville, Kentucky, March 1, 1829.
Died: Lexington, Kentucky, October 6, 1911.
McGarvey of the Campbellite Movement: Disciples and Churches of Christ. He entered Bethany College as a non-Christian. However, in a short time he obeyed the gospel under the preaching of Pendleton, one of his professors. He was baptized in Buffalo Creek. McGarvey heard Alexander Campbell preach frequently in the little Bethany congregation. He graduated in a class of 12 and gave the valedictory address in Greek, which was the custom of those commencement exercises.

 Text from Moore, W. T. (editor), Living Pulpit of the Christian Church. Cincinnati: R. W. Carroll & Co., Publishers, 1871. Pages 325-326. This online edition © 1996, James L. McMillan.




   J.W. McGarvey's Commentary on Acts 13:48

"48. In the next paragraph we have a statement, the meaning of which has excited no little controversy. (48) “On hearing this the Gentiles rejoiced, and glorified the word of the Lord, and as many as were determined for eternal life believed.” The controversy turns upon the meaning of the clause osoi eoan tetagmenoi eis zoen aioniou, rendered, in the common version, “as many as were ordained to eternal life.” The Calvinistic writers united in referring it to the eternal election and foreordination taught in their creeds. They contend, therefore, for the rendering “were ordained,” or “were appointed.” If their interpretation were admitted, it would involve the passage in some difficulties which none of them seem to have noticed. If it be true that “as many as were foreordained to eternal life believed,” then there were some of the foreordained left in that community who did not believe. Hence, all those who did not then believe, whether adults or infants, were among the reprobate, who were predestinated to everlasting punishment. Now it is certainly most singular that so complete a separation of the two parties should take place throughout a whole community at one time; and still more singular that Luke should so far depart from the custom of inspired writers as to state the fact. Again, the same statement implies that all who believed on that occasion were of the elect. For, if the parties who believed were those who had been foreordained to eternal life, then none of the non-elect could have been among the number. Here is another anomalous incident: that on this occasion all who believed were of the number who would finally be saved, and that Luke should be informed of the fact and make it known to his readers. Certainly we should not adopt an interpretation involving conclusions so anomalous, unless we are compelled to do so by the obvious force of the words employed.

It is worthy of more that the efforts of Calvinistic writers to prove that this is the meaning of these words consist chiefly in strong assertions to that effect, and in attempts to answer the feebler class of the objections urged against it. Thus Dr. Hackett asserts: “This is the only translation which the philology of the passage allows.” But he makes no effort to prove that the New Testament usage of the principal word involved allows this translation. The word rendered ordained in this passage is tasso—a term which is not employed in a single instance in the New Testament in the sense of foreordained. Where that idea is to be expressed, other words are uniformly employed.

The word in question is a generic term, having no single word in English to fully represent it. Its generic sense is best represented by our phrase, set in order. In its various specific applications, however, we have single terms which accurately represent it. Thus, when Jesus etaxato set in order a certain mountain in Galilee as a place to meet his disciples,²⁹⁸²⁹⁸Matt. xxviii. 16. or the Jews in Rome taxamenoi set in order a day to meet Paul,²⁹⁹²⁹⁹Acts xxviii. 23. we best express the idea by appointed.³⁰⁰³⁰⁰It expresses the same idea in Luke vii. 8; Acts xxii. 10. But when 170Paul says of civil rulers that “the existing authorities tetagmenai eisin were set in order by God,”³⁰¹³⁰¹Rom. xiii. 1. he does not intend to affirm that God had appointed those rulers, but merely asserts his general providence in their existence and arrangement. The idea is best expressed in English by using the phrase set in order, or by saying they were arranged by God. When he asserts of the household of Stephanas, in Corinth, that etaxan eautous they set themselves in order for ministering to the saints,³⁰²³⁰²1 Cor. xvi. 15. we would say they devoted themselves to ministering to the saints. But when the brethren in Antioch had been puzzled by the disputation between Paul and Barnabas and “certain men who came down from Judea,” in reference to circumcision, and they finally etaxan, set in order, to send some of both parties to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for a decision, the common version very correctly renders it, “they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go.”³⁰³³⁰³Acts xv. 2.

In reference to the propriety of this last rendering, Dr. Hackett asserts that this term “was not used to denote an act of the mind;”³⁰⁴³⁰⁴Com. in loco. the awkward translation of this passage to which the assertion forces him is evidence conclusive against it. He renders it, “They appointed that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem.”³⁰⁵³⁰⁵Com. xv. 2. This is an ungrammatical use of the word appointed. When a mission has been determined upon, we appoint the individuals who shall be sent, but we do not appoint that they shall go. Evidently, the state of the case was this: the brethren were at first undetermined what to do in reference to the question in dispute, but finally determined to send to Jerusalem for an authoritative decision of it. When a man is undetermined in reference to a pressing question, his mind is in confusion; but when he determines upon his course, it is no longer confusion, but is set in order. The term in question, therefore, meaning primarily to set in order, is most happily adapted to the expression of such a state of mind. Our English word dispose has a similar usage. It means to arrange in a certain order, and applies primarily to external objects; but when one's mind is found arranged in accordance with a certain line of conduct, we say he is disposed to pursue it.

We scarcely need observe, after the above remarks, that the specific meaning attached to the generic term in question, in any particular passage, is to be determined by the context. In the passage we are now considering, the context has no allusion to any thing like an appointment of one part, and a rejection of the other; but the writer draws a line of distinction between the conduct of certain Gentiles and that of the Jews addressed by Paul in the closing paragraph of his speech. To render the contrast between the two more conspicuous, he throws his words into antithesis with those of Paul. Paul had said to the Jews, “You put the word of God from you;” Luke says of the Gentiles, “They glorified the word of the Lord.” Paul said, “You judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life;” Luke says, many of the Gentiles “were determined for everlasting life.” It is an act of the mind to which Paul objects on the part of the Jews, and it is as clearly an act of mind in the Gentiles which Luke puts in contrast with it. At some previous time in their history, these Gentiles, like 171all others, had been undetermined in reference to everlasting life, either because they were not convinced that there was such a state, or because they hesitated to seek for it. But now their minds were set in order upon the subject, by being determined to labor for the eternal life which Paul preached.

It now remains, in order to full eludication of the passage, that we account for the connection indicated between their being determined for everlasting life, and their believing. The former stands as a cause which led to the latter. Let it be noted that everlasting life is not contemplated as the object of their belief, for, if it was, they would have had to believe in it, before they could determine for it; so that the order of the two mental acts would be reversed. But, in common with the Jews, who had been their religious instructors, they already believed in a future state, and what they now learned to believe by Paul's preaching was the gospel of Christ. Those of them who had, either through previous religious instruction, or through the influence of Paul's preaching, heartily determined for eternal life, were in a better frame of mind to appreciate the evidence in favor of that Christ through whom alone it could be obtained, than the others who were so undetermined upon the subject that they appeared to judge themselves unworthy of such a destiny. Such was the difference between the two classes in the audience, and Luke's object is to declare the result of the difference in the fact that the one class believed, and the other thrust the word of God from them. To say that the difference had been wrought in them exclusively by divine agency would be to rob them of responsibility. Or to say that the favorably-disposed party had become so exclusively by their own self-determining energy would be to deny the influence of divine truth. Neither of these positions can be true; but, while it was an act of their own minds to determine for eternal life, it was God who had induced them to do so; at the same time, the other party determined against eternal life, in despite of the same divine influence exerted upon them."

T.D.Jakes, the Elephant Room, and Roger Perkins thoughts of the DL Program.

 I recently called into the Dividing Line program, an online radio outreach of Reformed Apologist Dr. James White. This weeks program centered around Pastor T.D. Jakes and His position concerning the Oneness versus Trinity  positions and how that both sides felt that he(Jakes) had compromised his own position by not being clear enough in his  defining language. Except for some participating in what is known as the Elephant Room.  (An elite religious club in my opinion. Composed of mostly Trinitarian Preachers.) You can learn more about that here: http://www.theelephantroom.com/about/

I asked Roger Perkins what he had thought about the whole thing in an email conversation, especially the comments made by White concerning the Oneness position and he was Kind enough to allow me to post his thoughts from the email...

ML Culwell

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I Listened to most of it & read through the article he posted on his blog.  White made some interesting comments on his show such as, "I draw the line where the Prophets drew the line (46:00)".  Really, by his own concession the OT prophets never worshipped a Trinity!?  When did he convert to the winning side :-)?  

He also told you that you would have a "hard time proving that 'Theos/God' appeared in the early GK. MSS," yet on pg. 207 of his book he explicitly states that Theos "has more than sufficient support from the Greek manuscripts" & that he "prefer(s) this reading"??   

He also repeatedly appealed to Athanasius & supposed Church Martyr's....heralding them because they were willing to die for their beliefs.  Wonder if that goes for Michael Servetus & other Oneness believers who did the same...& whom also Tertullian referred to as "the majority of believers" during his day?  Some strange "Cult" that comprised the "majority of believer's" the earlier back to the original apostles we go!?  Wonder where so many "believer's" got their staunch monotheistic beliefs & rejection of a "3-Divine-Individual-ed God??

At least he finally properly represented me (for once) when he said that I would label Jakes a 'heretic'!  Indeed I would...as anyone who is "comfortable" worshipping a God of "3-Separate-Divine-Individuals"!  Interestingly, White says that Oneness folks don't like the word "person" as applied to God, but prefer the term "Manifestation". What were we ever thinking rejecting an unbiblical term in favor of a biblical term in relation to God??  White questions whether or not one can truly ever be converted under Oneness teachings @ about the 28 min. mark (?)...& we say that one is not biblically born again as per Jn. 3:5, Acts 2:38, 10:44-48, 19:1-6, 22:16, etc. ad nauseum!  Thus, it's just the opposite from a biblical perspective!  One is not "converted" if they reject the biblical plan of salvation as demonstrated all throughout the book of Acts & epistles to the NT Church.  They simply (& sadly) are not in the NT Church.  Curiously, he chides Jakes for "continuing to baptize in the Name of Jesus only".....Kinda' like the Apostles that Christ commissioned did!?  Funny thing is, the prepositional construct of Mt. 28:19 (eis in the acc. case....What happened to his "Greek"?) denotes an oral invocation of one-singular "Name," which is what:_________?  If the Apostles ALWAYS baptized in this manner & there's ABSOLUTELY NO TEXT demonstrating a "Trinitarian Formulae," then Jesus' true church will mirror the church we see in the Bible.

I was amused at White's emphasis on the necessity of "repentance"....which Scripture explicitly links w/....are we ready for this (?)....."works"!?  "....and also among the Gentiles, that they should REPENT and turn to God, and do WORKS and live lives consistent with and worth of their REPENTANCE." (Amplified, Acts 26:20; See also the ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, etc).  Apparently Dr. White is heading out of "Finished Work" Theology :-)!  Let me guess, more biblical "misuse" right?!  Apparently anytime one quotes a verse that contradicts "Reform" or "Trinitarian" theology....they're automatically "misusing" the Bible that they're simply quoting!?  Ho-Hum.....

Beyond this, I am currently doing a church-plant & I simply am not that interested in White.  I don't mean this to be ugly-spirited, but I am well familiar w/ "Reform" Soteriology (I've heard it ad nauseum) & whole-heartedly reject it as irrational, speculative, & destructive to biblical faith.  I only grieve that some will follow such teachings into Eternity.  May God open their understanding to the Scriptures.  

At least White & I finally agree on something on this Earth!  That is that Jakes has absolutely no business amongst Trinitarians & still claiming to be "Oneness".  Indeed, Jakes does need to "repent."  There is no shared middle-ground betwixt the two camps...other than one recanting false doctrine, at which point we will gladly rejoice!  In this, finally White & I can shake hands!?  2012 MUST BE the end of all things :-)!!

God Bless, 

Roger Perkins

Roger Perkins' Response to the Charges of Jeffrey Krause:

HEREHEREComments by Perkins in orange followed by Krause comments in blue.

While I certainly don't have the time to scurry behind every latest on-line trinitarian "Apologist" who levels charges against me, I came across a recent article of outright erroneous attacks from one "Jeffrey Krause" that I decided to briefly address below. My responses appear beneath his remarks in the ensuing article that I have broken up into pieces in order to dissect his accusations. I would like to thank James Anderson and Manuel Culwell for giving me this venue of response. They are fine gentlemen and I greatly value their friendship.

Firstly, it is immediately clear that perhaps Mr. Krause needs a few lessons in grammatical application. He begins his tirade with, "The DISHONESTLY of Oneness Advocate Roger Perkins". Indeed, it is hard to attend to anything one has to offer regarding ancient languages if they cannot even adequately handle their own native tongue...but we shall try! 

I’m not quite sure how to state this gently, but, Oneness Pentecostal Debater Roger Perkins is either, (1) a very poor student of Scripture and Scriptural aids, or, (2) is completely dishonest.

Ahhh yes....The ol' familiar "dishonesty" charge from the "Reform" camp. Not a few have noted the odd tendency among reform scholars to quickly label anyone who disagrees with them as "dishonest" [in this case "dishonestLy"], which is itself a deceptive and dishonest tactic. Perhaps we should stick to the issues and leave the muddied perceptions out of the loop, since they are entirely irrelevant to the topics under consideration. 

In his recent debate with Dr. James R. White on the doctrine of the Trinity, Mr. Perkins repeatedly referred to Col. 1:15 and stated that “Bauer’s” (as he calls it) Lexicon described the word “image” (εἰκών) as “a human figure.” However, this is simply not the case regarding “Bauer’s” and the use of “image” in Col. 1:15. The Lexicon that Perkins is referring to is “A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature,” more popularly known as the BDAG.

Actually, I wasn't even referring to "BDAG," or I would have stated such! I was referring to the 2nd edition, which is commonly referred to as simply "Bauer's," just as I stated! Perhaps trinitarians would do well to attend to detail before launching into unwarranted attacks. I wasn't even referencing the lexicon Krause charges me with quoting. I was quoting the one I said I was quoting! Concerning my misquote of BAGD, I was going off memory in a fast-paced cross-exam & did not have the actual lexicon in front of me, hence the acknowledged misapplication [albeit not "dishonestLy"]. However, here is the actual quote from BAGD that I was referring to w/ regard to Col. 1:15:

εἰκών, όνος, ἡ (Aeschyl., Hdt.+; inscr., pap., LXX, En., Ep. Arist. 135; Philo; Jos., Ant. 15, 277; Test. 12 Patr.; Sib. Or. 3, 8; loanw. in rabb.).

1. image, likeness—
a. lit. of the emperor’s head on a coin (so Artem. 4, 31; of the emperor’s image Jos., Bell. 2, 169; 194, Ant. 19, 185) Mt 22:20; Mk 12:16; Lk 20:24. Of an image of a god (Diod. S. 2, 8, 7 [Zeus]; Appian, Mithrid. 117 §575 θεῶν εἰκόνες; Lucian, Sacr. 11; 2 Ch 33:7; Is 40:19) Rv 13:14f; 14:9, 11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4.

b. fig. εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ of a man (cf. Wilcken, Chrest. 109, 11 [III BC] Philopator as εἰκὼν τοῦ Διός; Rosetta Stone=Dit., Or. 90, 3 [196 BC] Ptolemy V as εἰκὼν ζῶσα τοῦ Διός, cf. APF 1, ’01, 483, 11; Plut., Themist. 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. ’15, 36-52) 1 Cor 11:7 (on the gradation here cf. Herm. Wr. 11, 15a); OF CHRIST (Helios as εἰκών of deity: Pla., Rep. 6 p. 509; Proclus, Hymni 1, 33f [Orphica p. 277 Abel]; Herm. Wr. 11, 15; Stob. I 293, 21=454, 1ff Sc.; Hierocles 1 p. 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 (EPreuschen, ZNW 18, ’18, 243).—εἰ. τοῦ χοϊκοῦ, τοῦ ἐπουρανίου image of the earthly, heavenly (man) 1 Cor 15:49. (S. SVMcCasland, The Image of God Acc. to Paul: JBL 69, ’50, 85-100). The image corresponds to its original (cf. ὁμοίωμα 2 and 3; Doxopatres [XI AD]: Rhet. Gr. II 160, 1 εἰ. καὶ ὁμοίωμα διαφέρει).

Note the enlarged/bolded above & the category that BAGD places Col. 1:15 under: "Fig...of a man". They then specifically place Col. 1:15 under the subcategory "of Christ"....a clear reference to the historical Messiah (as opposed to a "2nd of 3 divine individuals") both biblically & definitionally, which was my overriding point. Indeed, the Logos who "was God" became flesh & thus, was and presently is the visible image of the invisible God [See The Amplified Bible]...which was my point all along! The general force of the term denotes that which is tangible or corporeal in contrast to that which is intangible. That is, the physical or visible realm, as opposed to the invisible, is inherent w/in this term. Again, this all points us to the visible Messiah who walked this Earth as God enfleshed & was received up into glory. Vs. 16 then introduces a conjunction, which is a dependent causal clause "hotee," further expounding upon the premise of vs. 15, to which all of the 3rd person pronouns relate [See GGBB, pg.460 for the function of this particular form of conjunction (Hotee)]. Thus, my original point remains. 

If you notice, the BDAG correlates its second definition with Col. 1:15 which reads, “that which has the form of something else…living image” and not with its third usage of “a human figure.” Point-in-fact, the only Biblical uses of the third category of “a human figure” are Rom. 1:23, 8:29, 2 Cor. 3:18, Heb. 10:1 and Col. 3:10. Col. 1:15 is never used under the third definition. This is (I believe) simply a cheap debate trick which speaks volumes about the man, Roger Perkins, if he purposely misrepresented the BDAG, as it seems he did. 

In the first place I wasn't even referring to "BDAG"....I was referencing the lexicon I said I was referencing and not the lexicon Krause says I was referencing. Hence, Krause attacks off of a false premise & then takes it upon himself to question my character altogether...par for the course in the trinitarian world, as is well noted. Would it not be more proper to enquire of me personally before assuming the posture of attack? Concerning the misquote, I have provided the reasons above & demonstrated that my original point remains in-tact...all based upon the same grammar that Krause appeals to! 

Interestingly, in this same cross-ex., White charges me w/ claiming that the first portion of Col. 1:16 contains the preposition dia "in the dative." Problem is, I never made such a claim & the case for dia in the latter section of vs. 16 appears in the genitive...not the "dative" as White charges, and yet we're to "listen and learn" from the trinitarians?? As expected, Krause omits all of this from his audiences consideration. Apparently White just gets a free-pass all the while we Oneness folks are held to the line & charged w/ "dishonestLy" when a few simple misquotes occur {even when not "quoting" the source it's claimed we're quoting!?}. 

On many occasions throughout the debate, Perkins “ducked” Dr. White’s questions, not willing to state his own view on the subject matter. He instead turned to the Lexicon’s to create a false impression that the Greek grammar was supportive of his Modalism, all the while dishonestly using them (the Lexicon’s) to advance his heretical position.

Let's see, I spent almost 3 hrs. delineating my position in contrast to the trinitarian position, dealt w/ virtually every passage White raised, and referenced numerous grammatical points [other than BAGD]...yet, somehow this constitutes "ducking"?? Interestingly, White barely touched the masculine singular heis as applied to God [See Mk. 12:29], started talking about "chickens" when asked about the normative implications of the anthropomorphisms applied to God, & on more than one occasion referred to Australian movie lines in order to elicit laughs from the audience...and I'm the one "ducking"?? Moreover, apparently Mr. Krause wasn't listening closely enough since I explicitly stated that everyone of the lexicographers I quoted were trinitarians [save Thayer], but that it was their based upon their theological preferences and not the actual grammar of the these texts...which was the reason I quoted them in the first place as opposed to attempting to "create a false impression". Hence, another character attack based upon Krause's blatantly bias perceptions. At this point, one has to begin questioning Krause's own motivations & intents. 

It always amazes me how trinitarians label those who find their position explicitly stated on the very pages of Scripture, yet one searches in vain to do the same w/ the stated trinitarian position. That is, we can turn straight to the pages of the Bible & read: "God is one person [Gal. 3:20, Amplified]," "the Lord is the Spirit {2 Cor. 3:17}," "God was manifest in the flesh [I Tim. 3:16]," "He that has seen me has seen the Father...for the Father who dwells in me, he does the works [Jn. 14:9-10]," "For in him [Christ] dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and you are complete in him... [Col. 2:9-10]," "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself [2 Cor. 5:19]." Yet, the trinitarians world confesses, & astoundingly claims that one is lost if they deny, "3-separate-divine-co-equal-co-eternal-persons in the Godhead," which we can read in the following book of the Bible:_________? And we're the "heretics"?? Not one Jewish writer in over 1500 yrs. of covenant relationship expressed such an existence...though they knew God on the most personal [note the singular usage!] terms possible for mankind. "Heretical" indeed! 

Please notice usage 2 and 3 in the data below and pay special attention to the red font. After doing so, CLICK HERE and listen to the 2nd Cross Examination between Dr. White and Mr. Perkins (please know, it is painful to listen to). I pray that the Lord grants Mr. Perkins true faith and repentance and I pray that Mr. Perkins represents the Lexicon’s in an honest fashion in future debates.

Krause's reference below is not even from the lexicon I referenced [I have bolded & enlarged his reference at the bottom of his quote], but the one he THOUGHT I was referencing...which I have cleared up above. I can only hope Mr. Krause will represent me "in an honest fashion" in the future, or, at least give me the opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings before taking it upon himself to write on-line ad hom articles attacking my character {which is quite telling about Mr. Krause himself now isn't it?}.

And while you are listening to this particular cross exam, notice how Mr. White erroneously charges me w/ claiming that dia appears in "the dative" in Col. 1:16. In the beginning of this cross-ex. I thought White was still leading into another question [as is his habit], as well as trying to ascertain where he was going, which is why I do not immediately respond. When I realized that WAS his question, I asked him to restate it. After you listen to this, you can click HERE, at the 16:42 section to hear White unashamedly claim he worships a God who exists as "3-divine-individuals, each with their own separate center of consciousness." Tell us Mr. Krause, do you worship this same God as stated by White here?

Regarding "true faith," I sincerely hope & pray you repent of your unbiblical "reform" doctrines [trinity, baptism for babies, unconditional eternal security, etc. ad nauseum] prior to your departure from this life...and will be here to help you in whatever way you need. Exchange your seminary ideas for the NT biblical plan of salvation as demonstrated in Acts 2:38 [the way the first sinners entered into the NT church], receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit just as they did in the Bible by speaking in other tongues, walk in the beauty of holiness & you will be in the same NT church seen in Scripture. Until then, I am sincerely praying for a great revival among trinitarians. May God speed!

 A new response to Jeffery Krause has been added post script as of February 5, 2015 because of  the  request of  a reader who appealed  to Roger Perkins to do so who had found another response other than the one above to whom this blog writer was not even  made aware of the article. You can see krauses' original article here: aomin new link

 Categorical responses below:
JK:
My aim here is not to explain so much the significance of his fallacies, since Dr. White bring that out in the debate. Instead, I will list the fallacies themselves.
Error #1
Perkins claims that in the original language of the Bible there are no terms that distinguishes “being” and “person.”
Contra, Paul makes this distinction, “For in him (autos, denoting a person all the fullness of deity (theotēs, “being God” lives in bodily form,” (Col 2:9 NET)


RP:
*First, the author actually makes my point about the tag of a single-person-pronoun in Col. 2.9.  The pronoun translated "him" (autos) denotes one-single-person - not 3.  It's astounding how on earth Trinitarians stubbornly refuse to concede the natural usage of a single-person-pronoun....until they get to John 17.5 where they make a big fuss over it.  Such double standards reveal a theological agenda.
*Next, here is actual translation of Wallace in the NET, without Kurshner's interpolations above:   For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form.  Here is the actual Greek text, along with parsing & morphology:  http://biblehub.com/text/colossians/2-9.htm
*As anyone can see, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the meaning of the Greek noun translated "deity" (Θεότητος) that even mentions "being" in distinction from "person"...or else Kurshner has a non-personal "diety!"  As usual, we have a case of another Trinitarian attempting to pawn off his theology as supposed "exegesis."
*Also, I would think the Trinitarians would sprint from Col. 2.9 inasmuch as it affirms that "all the fulness" of "the" (note the definite article preceding the noun "deity" indicating specivity) divinity dwells in Christ.  How anyone can allow this "text to speak for itself" & arrive at the Trinitarian position is beyond me? 


JK:
Error #2
Perkins claims a particular distinction between the meaning of two Greek words for “to know,” oida and ginosko. His first problem is that he cites for his authority Vines Dictionary, a source that is deficient for lexical information because of its shallowness in treating lexical analysis.


RP:
*Says whom?  Kurshner?  While I am well aware of the papyri findings of the late 1800's (& actually prefer that line of MSS), still, Vine's differs little from many lexical sources today?  This is merely Kurshner's notion of "deficience."  I well understand there are vetter sources than Vine's, but still, Dr. Vine was a fine grammarian & the quote stands.  Indeed, the fact there there are two different Greek words indicates that there are two different hues in view...of course, always according to context.

JK:
Second, Perkins, citing Vines, says that ginosko frequently means “progress in knowledge” and oida suggest “fullness of knowledge.” These general definitions are patently fallacious and every scholarly Greek lexicon refutes such as notion. BDAG, the most scholarly Greek lexicon, lists their semantic range showing that the two terms overlap in meaning, and that context must determine the specific meaning:



RP:
*Umm, no, these definitions are not "patently fallacious" - & his very own excellent source (BDAG) demonstrates that they are not below!  I have embolden the differences which demonstrate precisely what I pointed out in the debate:

JK:
ginosko
1. to arrive at a knowledge of someone or someth., know, know about, make acquaintance of
2. to acquire information through some means, learn (of), ascertain, find out
3. to grasp the significance or meaning of someth., understand, comprehend
4. to be aware of someth., perceive, notice, realize
5. to have sexual intercourse with, have sex/marital relations with,
6. to have come to the knowledge of, have come to know, know
7. to indicate that one does know, acknowledge, recognize
oida
1. to have information about, know
2. be intimately acquainted with or stand in a close relation to, know
3. to know/understand how, can, be able
4. to grasp the meaning of someth., understand, recognize, come to know, experience
5. to remember, recollect, recall, be aware of
6. to recognize merit, respect, honor

RP: 
*Seeing a trend there?  In BDAG's definition of ginosko we see terms such as "to arrive at, to acquire, to have come to the knowledge of" - all of which indicates a "progressive knowledge."  Conversely, with oida, BDAG does not use such language but once (i.e., "come to know"), indicating that while these terms *can* have some small overlap - that is not the normal tag of these terms....and this is demonstrated in Kurshner's very own source!  Amazing.

JK:
Error #3
Perkins claims that the Greek word heis rendered “one” requires unitarianism when it is applied to God. But he failed in providing a single biblical example of the being of God being shared only by one person.

Rp:
*Fist, Kurshner is correct - I did not give a "single" biblical example...I gave a couple!  I explicitly referenced Mark 12.29 & Galatians 3.20...then stated that the masc. sing. "heis" appears ca. 100 times in the NT & never means more than "one person" (Gal. 3.28 actually proves the opposite of Kurshner's assertions below)!  Apparently Kurshner was not listening very well.
*Second, Kurshner is merely assuming his conclusion above by stating that there is a difference between a "being" & "person"....& there there is a "sharing" of divinity within God (what kind of language are we speaking here??).

JK:
Further, the Greek term heis has a semantic range and context can only determine the meaning. BDAG says:
1. a single pers. or thing, with focus on quantitative aspect, one
2. a single entity, with focus on uniformity or quality, one
3. an unspecified entity, some/one=τὶς,
4. marker of someth. that is first, the first

RP:
*Apparently Kurshner is the one who needs a few lessons on how to use a lexicon...did he overlook the very initial definition provided by BDAG (demonstrating primacy) of "a single person...with focus on [the] quantitative aspect" (i.e., quantity)?  Again, his own excellent source proves my point (not mention how this does not interact with Wuest, Thayer, Robertson, Zodhiates, etc.)!  I would say he needs to take his own advice below,  "This does not mean that if someone knows Greek they will not commit lexical fallacies."  Very good!

JK:
I found it ironic that the one verse that Perkins cites for heis actually demonstrates a multiplicity within heis. He cites, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female–for all of you (multiplicity) are one heis in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28; cf. John 10:30). Perkins want to focus on the fact that only the person of Christ is mentioned here. But the point is that in this case heis contains a multiplicity, in this case, persons.

RP:
*First, the point in Galatians 3.28 is that within the one person of Christ we are NOT "individuals," but rather, as the NEB states, "one person in Christ" (there are also other translations which adopt this rendering)!  Why did these linguists translate the masc. sing. heis as "one person" here if the masc. sing does not naturally denote a "single person"? 
*Second, Kurshner states in this case heis "contains a multiplicity [of] persons," being human person...all of which are equally human BEINGS!  Hence, Kurshner unwittingly makes my point that there is absolutely no difference between a "person" & a "being"....Indeed, every "person" I have ever met is equally a human "being," but not the same human "being," nor "person" as I am!  Once again, Kurshner makes my point.

JK:
So this refutes Perkin’s claim that heis cannot contain multiplicity of persons.

RP:
*No, it actually makes the point & refutes the "multiple persons" theory (since the context & point was just the opposite of what Kurshner claims)!


JK:
In addition, Perkins is making a category error. He is confusing being with person because of his presupposition of unitarianism. It is a non sequitur to state that because heis can refer to God it must mean “one person.”

RP:
*It's not that heis "can refer to God" - it's that it DOES refer to God approximately 100 times in the NT alone (not even including the LXX).  It is Kurshner who is making the "category error" by offering the fanciful notion that there's some sort of a difference between a "person" & a "being"....still waiting on biblical - or even practical - evidence of this hypothesis:_______________?

JK:
Perkins cannot prove that heis contains the meaning of “personhood.”

RP:
*Already did - even from his own source which explicitly states such (as well as Zodhiates, BAGD, Robertson, Thayer, Vincent, Wuest, etc.)!  He simply refuses to accept the lexical data in order to protect a religious tradition.


JK:
In conclusion, Roger Perkins is blusterous in his use of Greek sources. He cannot read Greek, for he would not be using “English-help” Greek sources and very dated Greek sources from a hundred years ago. This does not mean that if someone knows Greek they will not commit lexical fallacies. And it does not mean that if someone who does not know Greek cannot perform competent word studies. But Perkins should not be so confident in his lexical claims because of his lack of Greek knowledge and his dependence on secondary English sources. He may fool those who do not know Greek, but he cannot fool those who do know Greek.

RP:
*First, Kurshner appealed to a "English-help" in BDAG above three separate times!  Using his own criteria here, he "cannot read Greek" inasmuch as he is apparently "dependent on secondary English sources" such as BDAG.  As Dr. Mounce has pointed out, EVERYONE uses some tools or another at some point - even himself (i.e., Dr. Mounce).  Has Kurshner never read through Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Wallace's grammar is replete with English sources...& Wallace is likely one of the most competent Koine' grammarians alive today!  Silly assertion.

*Next, though it is slow going sometimes (when I've been away from it for awhile), I read Greek just fine, can translate whole passages without anything but myself & the NA28 Greek text, understand parsing, many declension-case endings, etc.  So, no, Kurshner is absolutely wrong about this assertion - as he is at virtually every other "point" in the article.
Perkins