Steven Anderson Says Jesus is the Father.

This is short clip of Steven Anderson preaching that Jesus is the Father from John 14:8 in 2008. This is a supplement to the other videos of Elliot Ray's own videos where pastor Anderson excoriates four men who were removed from the church for teaching Oneness instead of the Trinity.

                                                      More Video From Elliot Ray.

https://youtu.be/ybCqZs-KuF0?t=1 4 guys who left Steven Anderson's church for truth of One God.




https://youtu.be/lymVuNU-ny4

        An Answer To Reformed Cultist Edward Dalcour on Biblical Baptism versus Dalcour's          Trinitarian Baptism.

                                              Biblical Baptism applied by the Apostles.
Not once do we find a triune announcement called over any person being water baptized used by any Apostle in the pages of the scriptures.  For this very reason  this writer will attempt to show what is wrong with Edward Dalcour's assertions and misapplication that every single Trinitarian who writes on the subject gets wrong. Dalcour's words will be in blue. My answers will be in orange. 

Trinitarian Baptismal Formula

 

"The anti-Trinitarian Oneness Pentecostals, especially the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI), assert that the so-called “apostolic” baptismal formula was “in the name of Jesus” only, recorded in Acts and not in the Trinitarian formula expressed in Matthew 28:19. This position is based on the following assertions (not exegetical ones) made by Oneness advocates:"

1) Unitarian Assumption. In order to circumvent and deny the clear Trinitarian teaching of Matthew 28:19 and Trinitarian implications found in the entirety of the NT content, Oneness believers start with their unitarian/unipersonal premise (viz. God existing as one person) and thus interpret the Bible through those lenses (as Muslims and JWs do).

Edward Dalcour by writing " Unitarian assumption" is showing his own bias which he is trying to highlight as absurd, he actually shows his own  bias with only one single obscure passage versus the six clear passages and let's us know he has a "Trinitarian  assumption." Well, we all know that we all have some bias, but in studying God's word it should the concern of anyone studying it to be thus saith the Lord.. Our bias  should go out the window in light of the truth of scripture. Jesus said  sanctify them(The Disciples later to become the Apostles) through thy truth, thy word is truth.(John 17:17)  It is the word that informs us concerning truth and has the final say. It is not councils or creeds or men whom some think were the so called "church" in history, but rather the word of God, the completed cannon of the New Testament.
Response: First, there is no place in the OT or NT where God is denoted as “one person.” Instead, Scripture clearly defines God as “one Being.” Monotheism is the teaching that God is one Being, not one person. Thus, passages that speak of one God (e.g., Deut. 6:4; Isa. 43:10; 1 Tim. 2:5), Oneness advocates radically re-define monotheism to mean unipersonalism (one person).

There is no place in scripture denoted where "God is three persons" either! The bible says God is one! One what? Here we go again with  the age old debate of what constitutes a being and a person? Well, if Dalcour wants to argue or debate that premise he and all Trinitarian's would lose that debate! There is no word in the New Testament Greek for the word person in the way in which he uses it for God's Spirit. The word either means the mask on the face of an actor or substance there are many words in our English that means substance, one of which means  goo. Neither of those words in the English helps Edward Dalcour in a Greek meaning or an English meaning.

The word "Person" for God forced upon the scriptures in the way that it is used by Trinitarian's would contradict everything they teach about the word "person" especially when it comes to the word nature.(Read 2 Peter 1:4) or being.
One would have to use the dictionary to find the meaning for the word person which says the following:   Merriam Webster.
Webster says one of three modes of being. Are you really going to use that Mr. Dalcour? since the word person does not exist in the way he forces it upon the pages of scripture for his dogma? Person and being are indistinguishable. The Trinity has three persons and three beings according to the dictionary meaning of the word person or three modes of being, neither of which helps in this discussion.

Second, in the OT there are many plural words describing the one true Yahweh (such as Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8; 54:5 [Heb. “Makers, Husbands”]; Eccl. 12:1 [Heb. “Creators”]; etc.). Further, there are places in the OT, where Yahweh interacts with another Yahweh. Note for example, Genesis 19:24: “Then the LORD [Yahweh] rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD [Yahweh] out of heaven” (cf. also Dan. 7:9-14; Hosea 1:7).Even more, the NT clearly presents three distinct divine persons, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit who share the nature of the one God (cf. Matt. 28:19; Luke 10:21-22; John 1:1; Gal. 1:3; 2 Cor. 13:14; Heb. 1:3, 6, 8-10; 1 Pet. 1:2; 1 John 1:3; Jude 1:20-21; etc.). These passages are only consistent with biblical monotheism in the context of Trinitarianism.

As usual we see that Edward Dalcour is not actually exegeting the subject to which he claims expertise at all, he is simply taking a very obscure (hard to explain) passage and uses it  for his trinity dogma  and nothing  about baptism at all.

Admittedly if one did not take the time to try and understand the text for which Dalcour forces his argument where supposedly  one YHWH  on earth rained down fire and brimstone from another YHWH out of heaven, it would be easy to be fooled by his doctrine. The rest of the passages are easily explained, but this one needs a little more time to do so.

I believe this was to help the Jewish people to understand the coming incarnation and was the temporary manifestation of God as a man on earth and at the same time  still remain in heaven as an omnipresent Spirit. It is no different than what modern Oneness teach and believe today about the incarnation or as God manifested or revealed  in flesh.  The Jews in their strict monotheism could never accept the dogma of the trinity and rightly so!
God did not give his glory to another, he did it himself as a man and this was a glimpse into it and Jesus himself said Abraham rejoiced to see my day. Literally! Only one day into a short glimpse when he bargained (not with another person of god) but God himself in flesh and yet still in heaven at the same time. This was only as a temporary manifestation not as something Trinitarians say existed as three persons of God.

2) In the “Name,” not “Names.” Oneness advocates argue that because the “name” in the passage is singular, the “name” then is Jesus who is the single unipersonal deity behind the masks or roles of the “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit.”

The mask or role of the Father? The Father is who God is in relation to his covenant people. There is no "role or manifestation. God was revealed or manifested in the man Jesus who is the image or the seen of the unseen invisible God.(John 1:18,5:37,Col. 1:15) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not masks or roles anymore than I am a mask or role
.

Response: Grammatically, if the term onoma (“name”) had been written in the plural (onomata, i.e., “in the names”), it would have clearly indicated three separate beings—which is not Trinitarianism, but Tritheism (three separate Gods). In point of fact, never in church history has any church father interpreted Matthew 28:19 in this way. That the singularity of a word necessarily implies absolute solitude is refuted by such passages as Genesis 11:4. Here we read of the people of Babel saying: “Come let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name….” The “name” appears in the singular in both the Hebrew (shem) and in the LXX (onoma) being applied to a whole multitude of people—not to one person. Hence, in Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands the apostles to baptize their converts “in the name [not ‘names’] of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost”—the triune God.

Nobody here is arguing for names or onomata. One wonders why Dalcour is throwing up such a smokescreen diversion from the actual point that Oneness try and make? Dalcour actually contradicts himself, there were hundreds of thousands of human beings with thousands upon thousands of names. They were making for themselves a name in the sense of reputation. Onoma/name, as much as Dalcour wants to hide the fact, does not only mean reputation or authority or any other word that can be attached to it, but just means a person's name.Of course with Jesus as a historic figure as to his life and ministry  would be a person to hold all of those meanings to his actual name, reputation, power authority, with the actual name Jesus. .When you say the name Jesus, everyone knows who is being spoken of as to his reputation and authority all by saying the one name.Thousands gather together because of the name Jesus.

3) “Name”= Power/Authority. In the OT, the term “name” in the Hebrew mindset did not merely serve as a designation of a person (unless the context says otherwise), but rather referred to the essence of the person himself.[1] Thus, the phrase, eis to onoma (“in the name”) was predominantly used to signify “authority, power, on behalf of.” The NT import extends back to the OT in such places as the David and Goliath narrative: “You come to me with a sword, a spear and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the LORD [Yahweh] of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted” (1 Sam. 17:45; cf. Acts 4:7). Thus, Christian baptism symbolizes the unification of the new convert into (cf. eis at 1 Cor. 10:2) the “name,” that is, in the power/authority of the one and only true triune God, Yahweh—the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
 

This is the very thing Oneness people  concerning the name Jesus believe. Scriptures teaches that it takes the actual spoken literal name Jesus for the power and authority to remit sin and belong to the Lord's body. It is above every single name that is named not only in this world, but that also to come.(Eph. 1:21) I would hope Dalcour would not mistake named in the passage as anything lesson than the name being said or mentioned.

Oneness adherents believe from scripture no less, that without the literal spoken name Jesus being said over a person being baptized; which gives to us many things in types and shadows. The Jews themselves would understand such that a male Jewish child was named and circumcised on the eighth day after their birth.(Luke 1:59) The child was not considered even born until this was done.  Baptism in Jesus name is a type of the Old circumcision of the Jews.(Col. 2:11-14) It is a type  and we are named at out new birth

Another type for Jesus name baptism is as a  marriage. The woman takes the name of her one husband. The church is the body and bride of Jesus not the trinity! It seems they( 2 persons of the Trinity) are doomed to eternal bachelorhood. In Oneness we understand that it is our God himself in the Lord Jesus Christ is the husband and we take his name in marriage.(2 Cor.11:2, Eph. 5:22-23, Rev. 21:9)

The Trinity church has no authority because it  has no name as a mere institution and has no real husband in a trinity.
English Standard Version
From whom every family in heaven and on earth is named(Eph. 3:15).
Yes we as Oneness know it says I bow my knees unto the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Jesus the man would have nothing without the only true God giving those things to him as a genuine man and not another person of God in the incarnation.( Matth. 28:18,John 3:34,1st Tim. 2:5)


4) Distinct Persons. There are also grammatical reasons refuting the Oneness position of Matthew 28:19. First, the text does not read, “In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” which would give some grammatical (but not contextual) merit to the Oneness position, since the reading contains only article (“the”) preceding “Father.” Nor is the preposition eis (“in,” or “into”) repeated as, “In the name of the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit,” which can be construed as three separate Beings. Rather, as Matthew wrote: “In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (eis to onoma tou patros kai tou hiou kai tou hagiou).

Edward Dalcour is so dishonest in this supposed argument and sets up a strawman and then proceeds to knock it down. Why would Oneness even make the argument for three separate beings from scripture? That would not help either Oneness or Trinity positions.This is simply more of the same misdirection that Dalcour is known for to dishonestly make a false case.
One thing that Dalcour never mentions is that their is only one scripture and only one  in all of the bible never to be used, ever again, nor spoken of as a triune name in baptism. Peter and the Apostles Understanding was opened after the resurrection that they might understand the scripture.(Luke 24:45) Never ever is the three titles ever mentioned again by any Apostle in relation to baptism. No example not even one honorable mention.


It is because they knew what the one authoritative name was! All other names of the past used for God were below this name Jesus in authority and power! That is why God was known by so many. It all leads up to the crescendo in the name Jesus/Iseous.(Read Acts 2:38, 4:12, 8:16,10:48 *he commanded them to be Baptized in Jesus name.Acts 19:1-6, 22;16, 1st Cor. 6:11,15:29 *One is still dead in their sin before baptism at mere belief on Jesus.)

Second, as established by grammarians and biblical scholars (e.g., Sharp,[2] Warfield, Robertson, Greenlee, Wallace et al), Matthew 28:19 clearly denotes three distinct persons obliterating the “non-distinction of persons” assertion made by Oneness advocates. For the text reads: “In the name of the [tou] Father, and [kai] of the [tou] Son, and [kai] of the [tou] Holy Spirit.”[3] Note that in the Greek, the definite article tou (“the”) precedes each singular personal noun (“Father,” “Son,” “Holy Spirit”) and each noun is connected by the conjunction, kai (“and”). 2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace of the [tou] Lord Jesus Christ and [kai] the love of the [tou] God and [kai] the fellowship of the [tou] Holy Spirit with all of you.”

 

  1 John 1:3: “indeed our fellowship is with the [tou] Father and [kai] with the [tou] Son of Him Jesus Christ.”

 

 Revelation 5:13: “the [tō] One sitting upon the throne and [kai] to the [tō] Lamb, the blessing and the honor and the glory and the dominion into the ages of the ages.”

 

See also 1 Thessalonians 3:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:16; and 1 John 2:22-23, which also fall under this construction clearly differentiating Jesus and the Father as two distinct persons. Alongside the aforementioned, there are many passages where all three persons of the Trinity are in apposition (cf. Matt. 3:16-17; Luke 10:21-22; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 2:18; 1 Thess. 1:3-6; 2 Thess. 2:13; Titus 3:5-7; 1 Peter 1:2-3; Jude 1:20-21; etc.).

 

                         Which Formula Matthew 28:19 or Acts?

All of these can be lumped together for this point. If the other titles of God were added to the list of those three titles would we have more persons if I made my own list Example: In the name of the Lord, and of the consuming Fire,and of the Rose of Sharon? I highly doubt it. These three titles of God are in relation to his redemptive work toward mankind. They are not  three persons of God. God first loved his creation and provided redemption through a kinsmen redeemer our brother the Lord Jesus Christ.(1st Tim. 2:5) there is one mediator between (two parties) God and mankind, THE MAN Christ Jesus. Why? because he is the mediator by the means of death. God was both parties. Man and God, Father and Son, Spirit and Flesh, Visible and invisible, corruptible and incorruptible. A walking contradiction if you will He to whom both died and can never die.
This construction clearly distinguishes the three persons. There are passages in the NT that also fall under Sharp’s rule #6 distinguishing the persons in the Trinity. Note the literal rendering of these passages below:

 This construction of titles does no such thing as distinguishes  three persons of God any more than the other multiple titles of God that can be given distinguishes multiple persons of God. God's Spirit  in  completeness is sometimes described more times in the bible as seven Spirits of God(Isa. 11:2, Rev. 5:6, 13:8) That completeness was given to Jesus in the incarnation and is exactly what Isa. 11:2 speaks of. If Sharps rule proves persons then all the other titles used the same way prove more persons and the Seven Spirits of God prove more than three persons.

 

Because the few recorded baptisms in the Acts narrative were "in the name of Jesus" (or a variation), and not in the Trinitarian formula, Oneness advocates argue that the "correct" apostolic "verbal" formula was "in the name of Jesus," and not in the Trinitarian formula. However, even assuming that “in the name of Jesus” was a “verbal” formula utilized in Acts, there is a plausible explanation removing a “Matthew vs. Acts” conflict. Consider that when Jesus gives His disciples the so-called Great Commission in Matthew 28:19, He instructs them to go out into panta ta ethnē (“all the nations”). Many nations were pagan and were involved in worshiping creatures, things in creation, and not the true Creator (cf. Rom. 1:18ff.). Hence, the full revelation of the triune God was at issue.

Edward Dalcour if the Trinity were at issue, then the Apostles should expounded upon such a great issue, but no such thing was ever expounded upon and I would be helping you with your side of the issue because it was expounded upon. This is your bad theory that we do not see in scripture what soever. As was pointed out earlier Jesus opened their understanding that they might understand the scriptures, but no such issue was ever taught once more no more mention of a Trinitarain baptism whatsoever.

On the other hand, in Acts, the new converts who were baptized were Jews (cf. 2:5; 22:16), God-fearing Gentiles (cf. 10:1-2, 22, 48) and disciples of John the Baptist (cf. 19:1-5). The new converts that were baptized as recorded in Acts had a prior conception (although incomplete and inaccurate) of God. Thus, in Acts, the emphasis of the baptism was on Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 10:43), and through Him, “there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Lastly, consider for a moment what the recorded baptisms in Acts actually say. There are at least three “Jesus’ name” formulas stated in Acts: “on [epi + dative] the name of Jesus Christ” (2:38); “into [eis + accusative] the name of the Lord Jesus” (8:16; 19:5); and “in [en + dative] the name of Jesus Christ” (10:48). If in fact these baptisms recorded in Acts were performed by means of a “verbal” baptismal formula (which will be argued against shortly) and thus mandated to the church, as is supposed, then according to the record, the early Christians did not utilize any “exact” verbal formula by which they baptized.

 
That is right! Give that man a prize! That is what Oneness teaches the only thing that matters is that Jesus name be pronounced at the baptism to remit ones sins as the only authority under heaven and earth backed by the Lord. One is not told what to preach word for word anymore than one is told the exact fluff to say given a short teaching moment at a baptismal for a repentant sinner. Who is not saved  at belief.(Read Acts 19;2 and 1st Cor. 15:29) Thank you for making this point Dalcour! We make the same point.

Although both views (the Matthean Trinitarian formula and the so-called “Jesus’ name” verbal formula in Acts) are both theologically possible, the Oneness inept hermeneutic of Matthew 28:19, along with their hyper-dogmatic strict “name" formula, which is required for salvation, sharply opposes the entire theology of both the OT and NT.

         Mere opinion from Dalcour who is reaching for something here but has absolutely nothing in the way of a valid argument. There is not one single passage for a triune formula for salvation.

                    Manuscripts and the Early Church: The Trinitarian Formula

 

Of all the extant Greek manuscripts that contain the ending of Matthew, not one omits the Trinitarian formula and no variant reading exists. Church history is utterly a throne in the flesh to Oneness theology. Even more, today there exists massive amounts of patristic writings (esp. the apostolic church fathers) and early documents that quote the full Trinitarian clause of Matthew 28:19 in a Trinitarian context. Within these writings, not one of these early fathers taught or even implied that a “Jesus’ name” baptismal formula was the “correct” formula and thus essential to one’s salvation, nor did any assert a Oneness interpretation of Matthew 28:19. For example, the early church instructional manual, the Didache (“teaching,” formally called The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, c. A.D. 90-120), speaking of water baptism, provides clear instructions in a Trinitarian context alluding to Matthew 28:19:

This is more opinion. The scriptures teach the word is truth.(John 17:17) Until Trinitarains add the Diadache to the closed cannon or any of the supposed men  that Dalcour has also submitted as truth tellers to the scriptures those men have no place in any scriptural discussion concerning truth. When one builds a house they have a st of plans called the blueprints to build the house. When one wants instructions for an understanding of the  New Testament church and how it operates, you look to the scriptures not to men in history. The point is made very often by the men who prop up these fallacious kinds of arguments that well they were closer in history to the Apostles and that may very well be , but we are not told to look to anyone in history close to the Apostles for the instructions of the church. There were men who sat directly under Paul who did not teach truth and Paul  told us about those men when he wrote: And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;who concerning the truth have erred.
Being closer to the Apostles time and sitting under the Apostles directly does not automatically make one a truth teller concerning the word of God. If they are wrong and we follow them then we are wrong. One cannot be wrong following the bible.

Many more examples can be cited clearly demonstrating the fact that the baptismal formulaic norm of the early church was decidedly Trinitarian, not modalistic/Oneness. No Christian writings from the first several centuries insisted on a “Jesus’ name” formula or specifically discussed what baptismal formula should be used. The early church embraced the concept of the Trinity, as patristic authority J. D. N. Kelly points out:

 

But the Apostles in the scriptures did! Which should be to those concerned with truth everything.If you are looking for other than truth you will look somewhere else. history should not be trusted for truth but rather the truth the word of God.

Oneness-unitarianism is unequivocally non-Christian rejecting the biblical revelation of Jesus Christ. Oneness theology rejects the deity and unipersonality of the Son, it rejects the unipersonality of both the Father and the Holy Spirit, and it rejects the personal distinctions between Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit. These rejections constitute a rejection of the very nature of God Himself (cf. Hosea 6:6; John 4:24; 17:3; 1 John 2:22-23).

The same could be said of Trinitarainism and it looks exactly like paganism.(Tritheism) there is no biblical revelation of Jesus Christ as a third person of a Trinity, this is simply a very biased  opinion of a large number of people which is meaningless as far as truth should be concerned. The masses do not always follow truth.  It absolutely does not reject the clear distinctions between the Spirit and the man, those are very real distinctions what we reject is trinity dogma of three persons of God. One could ask what makes three gods? Well three persons does it not? Those who hold to that doctrine when asked that question will try to make every excuse they can to not answer it knowing it will incriminate them. The debate rages on and on and there should be more debates not just words written.

                  Roger Perkins  Answers a recent attack from Edward Dalcour .
                  Links to Roger Perkins blog. Enjoy.

https://apostolicacademics.com/2017/07/16/exegetical-surrejoinder-%cf%80%cf%81%e1%bd%b8%cf%82-edward-dalcour-i/

https://apostolicacademics.com/2017/07/18/exegetical-surrejoinder-%cf%80%cf%81%e1%bd%b8%cf%82-edward-dalcour-ii/

https://apostolicacademics.com/2017/07/19/exegetical-surrejoinder-%cf%80%cf%81%e1%bd%b8%cf%82-edward-dalcour-iii/

                                            Youtube Questions.

This question comes from a  youtube video on Facebook and I have actually heard it more than once in different and various iterations. This titled:"Questions for Oneness Pentecostals." Here are the four questions;Original Questions;
1. God the father put on a physical body and "THE SON" is ONLY the flesh of The Father
2. God the Father manifested IN The Son in the same way he manifested IN the burning bush, cloud by day, or the fire by night.
3. God The Father manifested AS the son (part of him changed from spirit to flesh)
4. God The Father added a human nature to his divine nature in what is usually referred to as the hypostatic union?

Number 4 would be the closest understanding, but still none of them are really what we believe.

Jesus was a genuine man(1st Tim. 2:5)

⁵ For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

(You will notice from this passage How Paul emphasizes the genuine humanity of Jesus the same way Oneness Pentecostals do and that Trinitarian's never do) It is always  the word:" nature." This is done so that they do not have to many persons. If Jesus is only a nature and not a human person that God the son turned into, then they do not have a problem. The fact is that Paul does say the man Christ Jesus and does not  say:" the God" because the son is not another person of God. The son was born of Mary(Gal. 4:4) and he was sent the exact same way as the Disciples who did not pre-exist their birth.(John 17:18) and it was his flesh as humanity with genuine lower mind, will, and intellect, distinct from that of God the Father's(Mark 13:32) that was sent from God out of heaven through the virgin birth, like God supplied the manna from heaven.(John 6:51)

Jesus  divinity was  the only true God the Father(John 17:3) and incarnated him from the womb.(John 3:34, Matthew 1:21) Jesus said I and my Father are one.(John 10:30) even using the plural pronoun we does no harm to the Oneness of God because it is of one genuine man and one genuine God. The incarnation is not of a God person pretending to be a man like Trinitarian's  teach. The Incarnation is One God incarnating the one man given  who was  given the Spirit of the Father without measure (John 3:34).

God was In Christ reconciling the world unto himself.( Not themselves 2nd Cor. 5:19).The  true incarnation is not what Trinitarian's teach. It is Trinity doctrine.
Jesus did not pre-exist as the word/Logos and change from one thing into another.
If Jesus is God then the word is with Jesus as God!
Jesus is the God to whom the word is with.

The incarnation makes Jesus God in flesh; to whom the word is with.
We read a prophecy of the coming Jesus in judgment: The word/Logos is the spoken creative power of God to heal, judge, and create. God cannot be separated from that power.

but with righteousness shall he(Jesus) judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod his mouth(The word). and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.( Isaiah 11:4 KJV)

And out of his(Jesus) mouth(The word) proceedeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God, the Almighty.(Revelation 19:15 American Standard Version)

And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth(The word) and destroy by the splendor of his coming.(ii Thessalonians 2:8 NIV)

At the breath of God(The word) they are destroyed; at the blast of his anger they perish(Job 4:9 NIV)

The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth(The word) of the rider on the horse, (Jesus)and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh. (Revelation 19:21 NIV)

By the word/Logos of the LORD were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.(Psalm 33:6 Grk Septuagint))

here is the link to the original video:Oneness question.

 Clayton Killion (Sounds like a good Irish name.) Wrote an interesting article on Elohim. I will put a link here Lectionary These Are The Gods  back to his blog and the original article. https://lectionary.blog/

And the Philistines were afraid, for they said, God is come into the camp. And they said…Woe unto us! who shall deliver us out of the hands of these mighty Gods? these are the Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness (1 Samuel 4:7-8).

The casual reader of these verses will probably be confused as to why the word “Gods” is capitalized. I know I was! Anyone who studies the Bible knows that monotheism is taught time and again in the scriptures. After all, there is “one God and Father of all” (Ephesians 4:6); “there is but one God, the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:6). It doesn’t make sense to refer to Jehovah as “Gods”; Jehovah himself said “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD” (Deuteronomy 6:4). So why is the word “Gods” capitalized in this passage?
The answer lies with the Philistines. You see, the Philistines were trying to refer to the God “that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues”. We know that this God was the LORD Jehovah: “Thus saith the LORD…I will smite” (Exodus 7:17). But the Philistines were confused about Jehovah’s nature. For some reason they saw him as multiple beings, or persons. “Gods” is capitalized because the Philistines were referring to the LORD; and it is plural (as “Gods” instead of “God”) because they saw the LORD as more than one being (as “them” instead of “him”).
I believe I know why the Philistines were confused. Unfortunately the same thing that gave the Philistines trouble is confusing the modern church world. It is a simple misunderstanding of one word (and a few scriptures); but the effects of this error are multiple and massive doctrinal issues.
The central element of confusion is the word Elohim (אֶלהִים), the Hebrew word for “God”. Denominations that teach trinitarianism (the doctrine that the Godhead is made of three persons) or binitarianism (the doctrine that the Godhead is made of two persons) usually use the word Elohim (אֶלהִים) to support their doctrine. “Elohim is a plural word” they will tell us “and therefore God must have a plural nature”. Technically, Elohim (אֶלהִים) is the plural form of the Hebrew word El, which also means “God”. But, plural forms in the Hebrew language behave differently than in English; as a result, people holding to a pluralist view of the Godhead are confused by the nature of the word Elohim (אֶלהִים). The grammatical issues surrounding this Hebrew word have been described quite adequately by Rabbi Tovia Singer in a Q&A article he wrote for Outreach Judaism:

The word Elohim possesses a plural intensive syntax and is singular in meaning. In Hebrew, the suffix ים (im), mainly indicates a masculine plural. However with Elohim the construction is grammatically singular, (i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective) when referring to the God of Israel, but grammatically plural elohim (i.e. taking a plural verb or adjective) when used of pagan divinities (Psalms 96:5; 97:7).

For readers who may not be familiar with some of these grammatical terms, let me explain what Rabbi Singer is saying. When Elohim (אֶלהִים) refers to Jehovah, it has a plural form but a singular meaning. It has a plural form ONLY to intensify the meaning, not to state any sort of multiplicity in nature. It refers to only one being. When this word refers to pagan gods it has a plural form and a plural meaning. It refers to multiple beings. And lest anyone think that Rabbi Singer is twisting the facts because of his strict Jewish monotheism, we have abundant proof to bear out what he is saying.
Firstly, the word Elohim (אֶלהִים), when referring to Jehovah, takes a singular verb (1 Samuel 4:7-8 is an exception I will explain in just a bit). A perfect example of this phenomenon (which occurs nearly 2350 times in the scriptures) is Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God [Elohim (אֶלהִים)] created [bara’ (בָּרָ֣א)] the heaven and the earth.” The word for God is a plural form, yet the verb “created” is singular. The verse is saying something on the order of “In the beginning Elohim created—he singularly/alone created—the heaven and the earth”. This concept harmonizes perfectly with Isaiah 44:24, “Thus saith the LORD…I am the LORD that maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself” (emphasis added). If God were comprised of multiple beings then we would expect these verses to say something like “In the beginning…they created” and “we spread abroad the earth by ourselves”. But these verses, and countless others, speak of God/Elohim (אֶלהִים) as ONLY one person.
Secondly, the word Elohim (אֶלהִים) on occasion refers to people. For example, in Exodus 7:1 “the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god [elohim (אֶלהִים)] to Pharaoh”. This reference is especially significant to people who say that the Godhead is composed of multiple people. Here we see the word applied to Moses. Is Moses multiple people? Of course not! The Septuagint translates the word singularly here as θεος (theos). The idea that Moses is comprised of multiple people is preposterous; and so is the idea of a multi-personal God.
Lastly, the word Elohim (אֶלהִים) can refer to pagan false gods. This is the word that the psalmist used when he said that “all the gods [elohim (אֶלהִים)] of the nations are idols”. When this word refers to Jehovah it takes singular verbs, nouns, and adjectives. When it refers to pagan gods it takes plural verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Notice how the word “idols” is plural?
Knowing what we know, let’s have a look back at what the Philistines said in 1 Samuel 4:7-8: “And the Philistines were afraid, for they said God [Elohim (אֶלהִים)] is come into the camp. And they said…Woe unto us! who shall deliver us out of the hands of these mighty Gods [Elohim (אֶלהִים)]? these are the Gods [Elohim (אֶלהִים)] that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness.” Now we see the confusion. To the Philistines, the word Elohim looked plural; so they naturally assumed that the nation of Israel worshiped multiple gods that were somehow united as one god. That is why the Philistines used the word Elohim as singular and plural: “Elohim is come into the camp…these are the Elohim”.
Modern trinitarians and binitarians are making the same mistake as the Philistines. They see the word Elohim and assume it is plural, though simple study of the facts demonstrates overwhelmingly otherwise. Unwittingly they adopt the king of polytheism that the Philistines were assuming about the nation of Israel. Isn’t it interesting that a pluralistic interpretation of God/Elohim (אֶלהִים) comes from a pagan nation that was always the enemy of God and his people? God identifies the source of any pluralistic, multi-personal view of himself: it comes straight from pagan Philistine confusion. It is time to get back to the strict Oneness monotheism that the Bible teaches! ~CJK

Interesting Video On John 17:5.
This is a Jehovah Witness that is making videos on Youtube by the name of Georg Kaplin. I am pretty sure that might not be his real name.I will not be commenting on the video but I want to put it out there for everyone to see. Georg is a member of my debate group. I will just leave it at that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EngbHs4MHk

                        Against Dalcour

By Roger Perkins, Original Article found here.

 

Feb9

*Below we continue with excerpts from our exegetical refutation(s) of the charges of Edward Dalcour toward Oneness Pentecostal believers.  As before, I have simply copied Dalcour’s assertions from his website in *black with categorical and textual rebuttals immediately following in *blue.  This particular post specifically targets Dalcour’s claims regarding the ancient hymn found in Colossians 1.15-16.  Corroboration of Dalcour’s quotes can be located HERE.  Enjoy!

Colossians 1:16-17:  “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.  He is before all things and in Him all things hold together.”

*Not surprisingly, Dalcour here violates his own criteria of exegesis and analytical discourse by overlooking the introduction of the dependent “hoti” (ὅτι) clause of v. 16, which is hinged on the independent clause of v. 15.  That is, vv. 16-17 hang upon v. 15, which, as we shall see, is crucial to understanding what Paul was naturally communicating if this text is allowed to stand uninterrupted on its own strength.

Despite the biblical simplicity, Bernard (1983: 116-17) attempts to circumvent the biblical truth that the Son is the Creator of all things:

Perhaps these scriptural passages have a deeper meaning that can be expressed as follows: Although the Son did not exist at the time of creation except as the word in the mind of God, God used His foreknowledge of the Son when He created the world …The plan of the Son was in God’s mind at creation and was necessary for the creation to be successful. Therefore, He created the world by the Son (emphasis added).

This is an obvious case of eisegesis.  Bernard’s assertion is clear: passages that speak of the Son as the Creator mean that when the Father created all things, He had the “plan of the Son” in mind or in view, that is, “God used His foreknowledge of the Son when He created the world.”  Bernard’s conclusion assumes unitarianism and disallows normal exegesis.

*“Normal exegesis” does not completely ignore the all-important explicating-subordinate conjunction translated “for” (ὅτι) at the beginning of a passage. Ironically, it is Dalcour who is “disallowing normal exegesis” and “assuming” his predisposed Trinitarian theology.

*Further, this passage does not “speak of the Son as the Creator” – this is supplied by Dalcour contra the inspired biblical data standing alone.  By contrast, it is Dalcour who shows an “obvious case of eisegesis” by imposing his theology upon the God-breathed (θεόπνευστος) text—a text that never states the same as we shall demonstrate below.

In the first place, Colossians 1:13-15 clearly differentiates Jesus from the Father. These verses contextually prohibit the Oneness notion that Jesus is both the Father and the Son:

*It is not “the Oneness notion” that teaches that Jesus is simultaneously the Father and the Son of God—it’s the forced conclusion and plain statements of Scripture itself.  Moreover, it was Christ’s “notion” as well!  When asked about the location of the Father, Jesus responds by expressing surprise in exclaiming, “Am I with you so long a time, and you have not known Me, Philip?  The one having seen Me has seen the Father.  How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (John 14.9).

*If Jesus is someone other than the One inquired about, His response is entirely non-sensical.  “Am I with you so long a time, and you have not known Me, Philip?” Dalcour’s usual dodge of this clear passage is to appeal to v. 6 in an effort to somehow circumvent and disallow Jesus’s self-declaration in order to protect his religious (Trinitarian) tradition—of course, operating under the guise of “context.”  

*Trinitarianism is both a denial and an insult to the plain self-identifications of Christ – and it’s painful to watch them attempt to spin away from such passages.  There are many other similar verses that Trinitarians like Dalcour labor long and hard to explain away (e.g., Isaiah 9.6; John 14.16-18; 2 Corinthians 3.17; et al.).

*Moreover, Oneness believers gladly acknowledge that there’s a distinction between the Father and the Son of God.  Indeed, such a distinction is decidedly paramount to understanding Christ’s biblical identity.  However, Dalcour assumes that this “differentiation” demands “co-equal, co-eternal, divine, persons”—it does not.  Ironically, the very verses to which Dalcour appeals below actually militates against his doctrinal posturing, and that on the grammatical level.

“For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.  He [the Son] is the image of the invisible God [the Father].”  Consider also, as we have shown (cf. Chapter 2, 2.4.4), that Paul’s main purpose for writing the book of Colossians was to provide a meaningful refutation of the proto-Gnostic ideology concerning spirit versus matter.

*Note above that Paul defines God’s Son as the One in whom we have “redemption” and “the forgiveness of sins.”  Specifically whom “redeemed” us—a “pre-existent 2^nd of 3 co-equal, divine persons” or the “God-Man?”  This is both the grammar and context of this ancient hymn, as Dalcour accurately points out.

The Gnostic system did not allow Jesus to be the Creator of something so inherently evil as “matter.”  In light of this, Paul provides a clear anti-Gnostic polemic by firmly demonstrating that Jesus the Son of God did in fact create all things. Note the clear and forceful (and even redundant) way he presents this:  “By Him [en autō] all things [panta] were created … all things [panta] have been created through Him [di’ autou] and for Him [eis auton].  He is before all things [autos estin pro pantōn], and in Him [en autō] all things [panta] hold together” (emphasis added).

*Both above and below we have exegetically demonstrated that the force of these prepositional constructs and pronouns used by Paul do not teach a “pre-existent Son of God” as a “second divine person in the Trinity” if the inspired text itself is allowed to stand alone.

The following grammatical aspects pointedly codify Paul’s argument:

1.  Along with John 1:3, Paul employs the neuter panta, which indicate that the Son was the actual Creator of all things.  White (1998: 213) remarks on the theological implication of Paul’s use of the neuter:   

It is significant that Paul does not use the more popular terms pas or pan, both of which had meanings in Greek philosophy that allowed the creation to be a part of God or God a part of creation (as in pantheism).  Instead, he uses a term that makes the creation a concrete, separate entity with the real existence.

*We are rather puzzled how Dalcour thinks Paul’s usage of πάντα (panta) in this text vindicates the Son of God as a supposed collateral co-existent divine person?  The Greek adjective πάντα (panta) here is merely the nominative neuter plural form of πᾶς (pas).  There is absolutely no theological significance relative to the Godhead in this form of the adjective—and is but another case of a fertile Trinitarian imagination.

2.  Paul utilizes four different prepositions to magnify his affirmation that the Son was the Agent of creation:  All things were created “by/in Him” (en + dative; vv. 16, 17); “through Him” (dia + genitive; v. 16); and “for Him” (eis + accusative; v. 16); and, He is “before all things” (pro + genitive; v. 17).  To say again, Paul is speaking here of the Son, not the Father (cf. v. 14).

*Here’s the actual Greek text of Colossians 1.16 (NA28):

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα

ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,

τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα,

εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες

εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι·

τὰ πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·

“because in Him were created all things in the heavens and upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through Him and unto Him.” (Colossians 1.16; BLB)

*Note the prepositional construct above translated “in Him” (ἐν αὐτῷ + dative) in the opening (ὅτι) dependent-causal clause.  Though there are at least ten different forms for ἐν + dative, the most straightforward meaning of this particular preposition governing a dative case pronoun (αὐτῷ) is:  “properly, in (inside, within); (figuratively) ‘in the realm (sphere) of,’ as in the condition (state) in which something operates from the inside (within)” (cf. Greek prepositional chart online [http://www.chioulaoshi.org/BG/Lessons/lesson05.html]; also see http://biblehub.com/greek/1722.htm).  This is quite different in both translation and meaning from Dalcour’s theologically preferred “by Him” rendering above.  

*Significantly, Dalcour apparently fails to realize above that the verb translated “were created” appears in the aorist tense, passive—contra the active—voice.  Exegetically, a passive voice verb generally denotes the subject (in this case the Son of God) as the recipient of the action whereas the active voice denotes the subject as the actual doer of the action.  If – as Dalcour repeatedly asserts – the Son of God is presented as the “actual Creator” in this hymnal context, the active voice would have been employed as consistently done elsewhere in Scripture when the subject is the confirmed doer of the verb.

*Indeed, in 3.10 (of the same book) Paul readily uses the aorist active form of this selfsame verb (κτίσαντος, contra ἐκτίσθη of 1.16).  Hence, the routine “deponent verb” dodge of this exegetical fact from Trinitarians will not do at this point.  Deponent verbs are typically verbs for which no active form is found in the Greek New Testament.  And, as demonstrated above, that is not the case with this particular verb.

*That is, when Paul wanted to state that the subject is “active,” as Dalcour inflicts into the text above, he precisely uses the active voice in Colossians—but does not do so at 1.16 as he does in 3.10.  To somehow shift the meaning of a passive voice verb in this text betrays an over-eager theological rush that negates even 1^st year Greek grammar.

*Neither can Trinitarians appeal to the supposed “divine passive” of the verb translated “were created” in Colossians 1.16 since this is merely another theological assertion and not a direct exegesis of the actual inspired data itself.  See here renowned Greek grammarian Dr. William Mounce: “Divine passive” is more of a theological category than grammatical.  In form and basic meaning, it is simply a passive, but when God is the author of the verb, we call it a “divine passive.” (https://billmounce.com/blog/divine-passives-and-seminary-education-eph-3-19)  

*{Note: The (perfect) passive ἔκτισται is equally employed in the final clause of this hymnal text.  Indeed, in no portion of this entire context is the active voice used for “created” relative to the Son of God.  This is nothing more than Dalcour’s intrusion into the biblical data.}

*This does not even delve into the depths of (i) the specific psalm context of these passages, and (ii) the pronouns translated “Him” that modify their antecedent noun translated “image” (εἰκὼν), which is lexically defined as “an embodiment or living manifestation of God form, appearance (CO 1.15)” (Analytical Lexicon of the Greek NT).  Clearly “God the Son” did not posses an “embodiment” (a synonym for “incarnation” [cf. Oxford’s Dict.]) in eternity-past, unless Dalcour is now advocating bodily separation for each “divine person in the Trinity?”

*Renowned exegete Dr. Murray J. Harris comments on v. 15 (cf. Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament; Colossians and Philemon; p. 39):

Εἰκὼν (-όνος, ἡ, image) is nom. after the vb. εἰμί, and is anar. because a pred. noun after εἰμί sometimes lacks the article (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4).  It is definite (“the image,” “the visible image [NLT], “the visible representation” [Cassirer]) although anar.  An εἰκὼν is a “likeness” or a “visible expression.”  The degree of resemblance between the archetype and the copy must be determined by the word’s context but could range from a partial or superficial resemblance to a complete or essential likeness.  Given 1:9 and 2:9, εἰκὼν here signifies that Jesus is an exact, as well as a visible, representation of God…The invisible God, who dwells in unapproachable light (I Tim. 6:16), is visibly expressed in his Son (cf. John 1:18; 12:45; 14:9).

*Just for good measure – see here the New International Greek Testament Commentary quote concerning Colossians 1.15:

As the sequence of parallels with motifs characteristically used of Jewish Wisdom in these verses will confirm, the writer here is taking over language used of divine Wisdom and reusing it to express the significance of Christ, if not, indeed, taking over a pre-Christian hymn to Wisdom.  That is to say, he is identifying this divine Wisdom with Christ, just as ben Sira and Baruch identified divine Wisdom with the Torah (so also Heb. 1:3; cf. particularly Davies, Paul 168-75; Weiss, Untersuchungen 306-8).  The effect is the same:  not to predicate the actual (pre)existence of either Torah or Christ prior to and in creation itself, but to affirm that Torah and Christ are to be understood as the climactic manifestations of the preexistent divine wisdom, by which the world was created.  

It is Christ in his revelatory and redemptive significance who is the subject of praise here; “the description is revelatory, more than ontological” (Martin, Colossians and Philemon 57).  And the praise is that his redemptive work (1:14: “in whom we have the redemption”) is entirely continuous and of a piece with God’s work in creation.  It is the same God who comes to expression in creation and definitively in Christ; “he who speaks of Christ speaks of God” (Gnilka, Kolosserbrief 61).  In short, there is no dualism here.  Quite the contrary:  this is Christology set within Jewish monotheism and predicated on the Jewish theological axiom that the one God has chosen to reveal himself in and through his creative power (cf. Hegermann 101: “Dynamic Monism”; Wright, “Poetry” 114: “Christological Monotheism”).

*I ask the honest reader, does careful language such as “visible expression,” “representation,” and “copy” naturally communicate the eternal-heavenly realm—or is such grammar innately descriptive of the Incarnation?  I will simply allow the integrity and privacy of your conscience be the guide!

*In footnote 1 (quoted immediately below), Dalcour suggests three distinct methods of agency contingent upon various prepositional constructs.  He argues that the Son of God was the “intermediate agent” of creation in that He actually “carried out the act for the ultimate Agent,” viz. the Father:

In the New Testament, agency is commonly expressed in three ways:  ultimate agency (the ultimate source of the action; the one directly responsible for the action—apo, hupo, para, + the genitive); intermediate agency (that which the ultimate Agent uses to carry out the action—dia + the genitive); and impersonal agency (that which the ultimate Agent uses to perform the action—en, ek + the dative; cf. Wallace, 1996: 431-32).  Biblically, then, the Father was the source (ultimate Agent) of creation, the Son being the intermediate Agent in that He carried out the act for the ultimate Agent (cf. ibid, 431).  That the Son is the intermediate Agent of creation does not mean that He was a mere “helper” of sorts, or a secondary agent of God, but rather, He was the actual Agent of creation—namely, that which the ultimate Agent (the Father) used to carry out the action—namely, the Creator of all things.

*As is obvious, there’s absolutely no “Biblical” distinction to be made between Dalcour’s superficial intermediate agency versus impersonal agency, for which he offers zero scriptural support – while feigning that this distinction is actually “Biblical?”  That is, neither a logical nor a Biblical contrast is to be made between that which is used to carry out the action (i.e., intermediate agency) versus that which is used to perform the action (i.e., impersonal agency)—these obviously describe one and the same verbal activity.

*Further, Dalcour again demonstrates his eisegesis (masquerading as exegesis) in asserting that God the Father “used” God the Son to “carry out the act” of creation—then somehow translates this into, “namely, the [Son is] Creator of all things.”  To reemphasize, this is nothing more than usual Trinitarian theology pawned off as supposed exegesis.  

*Stay tuned for more to come!   

    

Refutation to Edward Dalcour By Roger Perkins.
Read the original post Here.

Dec20

*Below is an excerpt from a lengthy exegetical rejoinder I’ve been (slowly) working on in response to the contentions of Edward Dalcour toward Oneness Pentecostal beliefs.  Of course, I have repeatedly challenged Dalcour to a formal-public debate where his attacks can be openly scrutinized in the format of polemic platform.  After initially accepting my debate invitation (almost 8 months ago now) Dalcour has subsequently refused to follow through in committing to any such arrangements – all the while agreeing to meet other Oneness defenders.  The one-on-one debate offer to Mr. Dalcour is an open and standing challenge.  

*In the meantime, below I have copied from Dalcour’s website and offered categorical rebuttals immediately following his assertions with regard to the prologue of Hebrews.  Dalcour’s charges appear in *black – with my textual negations below in *blue (as here).  In some instances I have *emboldened certain points for highlight purposes.  Corroboration of Dalcour’s claims can be located HERE.  Enjoy!

(Dalcour):  Hebrews 1:2, 10:  “In these last days [God the Father] has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world…And, ‘YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS.’”  The prologue of Hebrews annihilates the Oneness position regarding its rejection of the preexistence of the Person of the Son.

*Actually, the polar opposite is true as we shall demonstrate below.  I am always perplexed when Trinitarians appeal to these powerful texts.  I actually employ the same passages in teaching on the errors of Trinitarianism!  The prologue of Hebrews annihilates the Trinitarian hypothesis that the Son of God is a “preexistent, co-eternal, divine person.”  Not surprisingly, Dalcour omits the textual evidence in his partial quotation above that militates against his eisegesis (presented as “exegesis” of course).

(Dalcour):  In this prologue the full deity and unipersonality of the Son is cogently expressed (esp. vv. 3, 8).  Relative to the preexistence and creatorship of the Son, verses 2 and 10 more than adequately communicate both truths.  As with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16-17 (and 1 Cor. 8:6), verse 2 affirms that the Son was the Creator.

*First, neither Hebrews 1.2 nor v. 10 state one thing about “the preexistence and creatorship of the Son.”  As we demonstrate below, such a construct is supplied exclusively by yet another overeager Trinitarian seeking to validate his predisposed theology—not by the actual exegesis of the text(s) itself (and certainly not “more than adequately”).  We have already exposed Dalcour’s faulty (mis)handling of the Greek text above relative to Colossians 1.16, John 1.3, etc.—and he’s back at it again with the prologue of Hebrews!

(Dalcour):  In this passage we find again the preposition dia, followed by the genitive:  “In these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom [di’ hou] also He made the world” (emphasis added).

*Note that this text specifically states that God has spoken to His creation in the “last days,” indicating that He has not spoken “in His Son” (ἐν υἱῷ + dative) prior to this same time-era.  It would be incredible to imagine that God never spoke in His “coeternal” Son from all of eternity?  Especially since Dalcour argues elsewhere that OT references to “the Angel of the LORD” is actually the Son of God speaking (even though the Hebrews prologue directly refutes this notion [cf. 1.5-6]).

(Dalcour):  Contextually, the core line of evidence that the author presents, which promptly affirms the Son’s creatorship, is the well-defined contrast between created things (viz., angels and the heavens and the earth) and the eternality of the divine Son (cf. vv. 2-3, 8-10).  In verses 10-12, the author (quoting the Father) applies Psalm 102:25-27 (101:25-27 in the LXX) to the Son.

*Contextually, the Son of God in this prologue is presented as:

(Vs. 1)  Speaking only in the “last days.”

*This is obviously language that, if allowed to speak for itself, hardly leads the honest reader to “co-eternal preexistence”—unless Dalcour is suggesting that “God the Son” was entirely mute from all of eternity (which he cannot do since he suggests that the Angel of the Lord in the OT was actually Christ [of course, with no textual support])?

(Vs. 2)  “Appointed heir of all things.”

*Would not a “co-eternal God the Son” already be “heir of all things?”  That is, what sense would it make for the writer of Hebrews to assert that a pre-existent God the Son was “appointed” (note the aorist indicative ἔθηκεν) as heir of all things?  And, which divine person did the “appointing?”  Can the first or third divine person in the Trinity “appoint” the supposed second divine person in the Trinity in eternity-past?  Such a construct is esp. problematic for Trinitarians since they teach that Christ “volunteered” in Heaven to become incarnate based upon a misunderstanding of Philippians 2.5-8 (i.e., The Carmen Christi).  

*Of course, such a theological construct naturally demands independent thought processes by each divine person within the Godhead—the very definition of polytheism (which would’ve been rejected out of hand by Hebrew believers soaked in OT concepts).

(Vs. 3)  The “exact imprint of his (i.e., the Father’s) nature.”

*Since when does an “imprint” (χαρακτὴρ) naturally carry the same time-continuum as the original from which the imprint derives?  Such a construct is a gross perversion of the literal meaning of this Greek noun in an attempt to force-feed predisposed theology into the biblical data.

*Trinitarian apologists typically state that the Greek noun χαρακτὴρ means “nature” in this text.  However, regarding this particular noun the highly exhaustive NIDNTTE (a defining work in exegetical lexicography) states:

In addition, we are told that the Son is ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (1:3a; see αὐγάζω G878; δόξα G1518).  The same idea is expressed with different language when Paul describes Christ as εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ, “the image of God” (2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15; see εἰκών G1635), and when Jesus himself says, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

The context of Heb. 1 makes clear that the writer’s purpose was to stress the glory of the Son and the uniqueness of his revelation.  The Son who controls the beginning and the end stands in a unique relationship (a) to God, whose effulgence and image he is; (b) to the universe, which he upholds; and (c) to the church, which he has purified from sins. F. F. Bruce writes: “Just as the image and superscription on a coin exactly correspond to the device on the die, so the Son of God ‘bears the very stamp of his nature’ (RSV).  The Greek word charaktēr, occurring only here in the New Testament, expresses this truth even more emphatically than eikōn. . . . Just as the glory is really in the effulgence, so the substance (Gk. hypostasis) of God is really in Christ, who is its impress, its exact representation and embodiment.  What God essentially is, is made manifest in Christ.  To see Christ is to see what the Father is like” (Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews [1964], 6).

*BDAG:  2 someth. produced as a representation, reproduction, representation, fig., of God ἄνθρωπον ἔπλασεν τῆς ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος χαρακτῆρα (God) formed a human being as reproduction of his own identity/reality (s. εἰκών 2) 1 Cl 33:4 (cp. OGI 383, 60 of a picture χ. μορφῆς ἐμῆς; 404, 25; Philo, Det. Pot. Ins. 83 calls the soul τύπον τινὰ καὶ χαρακτῆρα θείας δυνάμεως).  Christ is χαρ. τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ an exact representation of (God’s) real being Hb 1:3 (ὑπόστασις 1a).

 *Friberg’s Analytical Lexicon on the Greek NT:  χαρακτήρ, ῆρος, ὁ. originally engraver or engraving tool; used figuratively in the NT of Christ in relation to God exact representation, precise reproduction, impress (HE 1.3).

 *Louw-Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon Based upon Semantic Domain:  58.62 χαρακτήρ η̂ρος m: a representation as an exact reproduction of a particular form or structure – exact representation. ὅς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τη̂ς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τη̂ς ὑποστάσεως αὐτου̂ who is the reflection of his glory and the exact representation of his being HEB. 1:3.

*Again, to seek an illegitimate transfer of the same time-age continuum to the “reproduction” or “stamp” as the original that initially caused the “impress” aborts all linguistic norms in a desperate attempt to protect a religious tradition (masquerading as “exegesis” of course).  Are the “divine persons in the Trinity” so radically separated that they can be distinguished via “embodiment” (cf. Bruce above)?  If so, what has suddenly happened to their “ontological equality?”

(Vs. 3d)  (The Son of God) sat down at the right hand of God only “when he had accomplished cleansing for sins,” indicating that the Son of God was not in a position of power (i.e., the Jewish idiom right hand) from eternity.  Was a “co-eternal God the Son” not in the position of authority and power in Heaven from all the days of eternity?

(Vs. 4)  He (the Son of God) both “became” and “inherited a name” better than the angels?  If, as Trinitarians demand in these texts, God the Son is being presented as “co-eternal”—why does this text explicitly state that the Son of God “became” (literally, “having become” [aorist participial tag γενόμενος]) better than the angels?  Wouldn’t God the Son have already been better than angels from all of eternity?

*Similarly, if the Son “inherited” or “obtained” a name superior to the angels, how would this square with the Trinitarian notion that “the Son” has been His name from all of eternity (esp. since Trinitarians inform us that “the Son” is the name being described in Matthew 28.19)?  A “co-equal, co-eternal, divine person” could not “inherit” a name that He already possessed from all of eternity!

(Vs. 5)  The Son is said to be “fathered” (perfect active indicative γεγέννηκά) in a particular day and “I will be (future indicative ἔσομαι) his father and he will (future indicative verb) be my son” (Messianic prophecies from Psalm 2.7; 2 Samuel 7.14).  Can you imagine the look on my son’s face if I told him that someday I “will be” his father?  Does this even remotely sound like the normal rules of linguistics at this point (ironically, this is the same vehicle to which Dalcour appeals [i.e., normative linguistics])?

*That is, who, allowing such language to stand on its own strength, would naturally conclude that these texts present the Son of God as possessive of the same “eternality” as the One who is doing the “fathering?”  No one who allows the inspired data to speak for itself—but it even gets worse for Trinitarians in this prologue!

(Vs. 6)  The angels of God are commanded to worship the Son when the Father “brings his firstborn into the world.”  This is but another textual demolition of the supposed “eternal God the Son” eisegesis.  Clearly the angels were not worshiping the Son from all of eternity or else they would not have been commanded to do what they were already doing—there would have been a seamless transition!

*It will do no good for Trinitarians to appeal to John 12.41 in connection with Isaiah 6 to argue that angels were worshiping the Son in the OT since Hebrews 1.6 directly refutes this notion—not to mention how such an interpretation would teach bodily separation within the Godhead (something Dalcour unwittingly argues for).

*Isaiah saw a vision of Yahveh, whom John describes as Jesus.  Since John presents Jesus as fully God in his gospel (cf. 1.1, 14; 20.28), it presents no problem for him to take words originally spoken by Isaiah of Yahveh Himself and apply them to Jesus.  Indeed, Paul attributed Isaiah’s words to “the Holy Spirit” (Acts 28.25).  Will Trinitarians now demand that Isaiah also saw the Holy Spirit in the OT?  In keeping with the macro-witness of Isaiah’s corpus, to the extent that the prophet “saw” Jesus denotes a prophetical-prolepsis of the coming Messiah, who would be the very Yahveh of the OT.  This is precisely the Oneness position!  

(Vs. 8)  The Son is called God who has a throne.  Since Dalcour informs us that this is God the Father directly addressing “God the Son” (viz. the vocative case ὁ θεὸς) in distinction from Himself from all of eternity (below Dalcour says, “the Father is speaking to the Son differentiating Himself from the Son [esp. in light of vv. 8-9])”—we should expect to see multiple thrones in the biblical depictions of Heaven.  Not only do we not see such imagery presented in Heaven—John saw one throne in heaven, with one person sitting on it—whom he explicitly identified as both God and His Son (Revelation 3.20-21; 4.2; 22.3-4)!  Indeed, Jesus is explicitly worshiped as the one God of Heaven in Revelation (cf. 1.8; 3.20-21; 4.2).  Think we’ll stick with the actual inspired eyewitnesses and leave later Trinitarian formulations to their own wild-eyed speculations.

*Further, if “God directly addresses God (the Son)” then Dalcour necessarily advocates such a pronounced separation within the Godhead that each divine person is possessive of divine centers of cognition, mental faculties or minds that they can address one another in identical fashion as human beings.  I ask the honest-sincere reader, does such imagery denote “one God” in any practical or logical sense of the phrase?  That is, how many divinity’s does such imagery naturally illuminate in your mind, one or two?

(Vs. 9)  The Son is said to have “loved righteousness and hated lawlessness.  So God, your God, has anointed you over your companions with the oil of rejoicing.”  When did the Son of God “love righteousness,” “hate lawlessness,” have “your God,” (was) “anointed,” and possess “companions?”

*When did all of this take place?  In “pre-existent eternity” or during the Incarnation?  Did “God the Son” need “anointing” by “God the Father” in eternity over His “companions?”  Shouldn’t He have already been “anointed” as God-proper?  That is, can one co-equal, co-eternal divine person literally “anoint” another God-person in eternity?  If so, as stated above, how can Trinitarians such as Dalcour speak of “ontological co-equality?”

*The context and inspired grammar in these texts openly and rigorously militates against Dalcour’s wild-eyed interpolations.  Though not surprising at this point, it’s mind-boggling how Dalcour can appeal to the “context” of the Hebrew prologue—when this is the very thing that refutes his “co-eternal Son” impositions upon the text!

(Dalcour):  This is so heavily significant because (a) the Psalm is a reference to Yahweh and (b) the Father is speaking to the Son differentiating Himself from the Son (esp. in light of vv. 8-9).

*See above—this simply proves too much for Dalcour and the longer he is forced to chew on his dilemma the bigger it grows!

(Dalcour):  The referent to the pronoun su, “You” at the beginning of verse 10 (kai su) is back in verse 8: pros de ton huion— “but of the Son He [the Father] says.”  Irrefutably, it is God the Father directly addressing the Son.  In verse 8, the nominative for the vocative of address^[6] is used, whereas in verse 10, the actual vocative of kurios (kurie) is used, which strengthens the author’s argument even more: “YOU, LORD [kurie], IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS.”

*First, we are rather perplexed at what Dalcour thinks the vocative case demands in this text?  The vocative is the case of direct address, but the texts being cited as addressing the Son of God here are respectively the LXX of Psalm 45.6 (v. 8) and Psalm 102.25-27 (v. 10).  More importantly, “he says” in Hebrews 1.8 is in italics indicating a conjecture by translators not found in the Greek text itself.  For this reason many exegetes have surmised that v. 8 has God “directly addressing” His Son through this Messianic prophecy of the Psalmist (cf. Acts 28.25-27, etc.).

*See here Oneness writer, Dr. Daniel Segraves (Note: It will do no good for Dalcour to object to my appeal to a Oneness academic since he appeals to Trinitarians at virtually every turn of his book—and we have equally marshaled Trinitarian scholars in this rejoinder.):

Hebrews 1.8:  In this case, the words “he says” are not in the Greek text; they are supplied by the translators.  An examination of Psalm 45:6, from which this verse is quoted, reveals immediately that the speaker is the human author of the psalm.  He declares, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Messiah’s deity.  (Hebrews, Better Things; Vol. 1, p. 51; Dr. Daniel L. Segraves)

*After a lengthy textual address of Hebrews 1.10, Segraves concludes (ibid.; pp. 54-58):  Since the immediate context of the quote from Psalm 102:25-27 does not suggest God is the speaker, and since the actual Hebrew text of Psalm 102 has the psalmist as the speaker throughout, it seems best to view the speaker in verses 10-12 as the psalmist.  If the writer of Hebrews intended to suggest that God was the speaker, it seems he would have begun his quote from the Septuagint at Psalm 102:23 so as to remove any question.

The point of verse 10, then, is that the Son is better than the angels because He laid the foundation of the earth and the heavens are the work of His hands.  It is interesting, though, that when the writer of Hebrews addressed the Creator, he identified Him—from the Septuagint—as Lord.  The Jewish readers of Hebrews would have understood this as a reference to Yahweh (“Jehovah,” KJV).  Why did the author not address Him as “Son,” as in verses 5 and 8?

It seems significant that, in speaking directly of creation, the writer of Hebrews did not use the term “Son,” but Lord”…Although the Son, as God manifest in flesh, is the Creator, when discussing the creation of all things, the author identified Himself as “Lord” (Yahweh). Creation preexisted the Incarnation, and the term “Son” can be used only in conjunction with the Incarnation.  Every reference to the Son in Hebrews has to do with the Incarnation…the word “Son” is not used of preincarnate deity…The Son is better than the angels because He is Yahweh who created all things, including the angels.

 *As pointed out above, the entire context of this prologue is irrefutably describing the Incarnation—and does absolutely nothing to advance Trinitarian theology.

*However, if Dalcour stubbornly persists in forcing his “God-speaking-to-God” eisegesis, will he equally claim that the Son of God has “hands” (v. 10) and a “throne” (v. 8) apart from God the Father?  That is, since Dalcour asserts that these texts teach “distinct co-eternal divine persons,” will he correspondingly demand bodily separation within the Godhead—each with independent “hands” and “thrones” in Heaven?  How far is he willing to push his interpolations contra allowing the context to define the text?  Or, will he now limit his applications to conform to his predisposed theology?  We await with great anxiety!  

*Simply put, it is hardly “irrefutable” that one Yahveh was addressing another Yahveh in eternity past, each with separate (or “distinct” as Dalcour likes to modify) divine centers of consciousness.  Such a tritheistic interpretation of the Hebrew prologue is especially problematic since the “most important commandment” is to confess that God is “one Lord [LXX, Yahveh]” (Mark 12.29) where Christ carefully employed the 3-3 masculine singular adjective “heis” (εἷς).  Since Dalcour is fond of appealing to consistent Greek usage, this adjective is used over 100 times in the NT and in no instance does it denote more than “one person”—and certainly not multiple Yahveh’s as Dalcour repeatedly postulates.

*Or, as the NIDNTTE states of the neuter form of this adjective:  From a different perspective, this truth is expressed clearly in Jesus’ claim, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).  We should not interpret these words to mean that the oneness of Jesus with the Father consists of the joining of two persons or beings who were formerly separated.  We must understand it rather in the light of John 14:9:  “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.”  In a Christian sense no one can speak of God without speaking concretely of Jesus.

(Dalcour):  Conclusively, the prologue of Hebrews is one of the most theologically devastating prologues in all of the New Testament for Oneness defenders.  Not only does the prologue affirm the deity and eternality of the Son as well as the distinction between the Father and the Son, but also it clearly presents the Son as the actual Agent of creation, the Creator Himself.

*Actually, as demonstrated above, the diametrical opposite is true.  In fact, I would turn Dalcour’s assertion here completely around:  The prologue of Hebrews is one of the most theologically devastating prologues in all of the New Testament for Trinitarian defenders.  Unless, Trinitarian scholars wish to inform us that a “co-eternal God the Son person” had the following done to Him in eternity-past:

*Spoke only in “these last days” (v. 2, [this will not do for Dalcour since he suggests that “the Angel of the Lord” was the supposed “preincarnate Son”]), “appointed” heir of all things (v. 2), “became” better than angels (v. 4), inherited a name superior to the angels (v. 4), was told by God the Father that one “day” He would be His “Father” and He would be His “Son” (v. 5), angels had to be commanded to “worship” God the Son (v. 6), possesses a “throne” apart from the Father and the Holy Spirit (v. 8), has a “God” (v. 9), was “anointed” by another divine, co-equal God-person (v. 9), and had “companions” in eternity-past?

*Clearly the Hebrew prologue describes the Incarnation and does not switch midstream of this ancient hymn in supposedly presenting more than one “God-person”—to the embarrassment of Trinitarian apologists like Dalcour.  In sum, as we have demonstrated above, Dalcour’s “devastating” arguments against biblical Christianity and monotheism destroys nothing other than the biblical data itself.  

*Interestingly, it is noteworthy that the passages used by Trinitarians to teach Christ as a “distinct pre-existent God the Son person” appear in a celebratory psalm context (cf. http://1024project.com/2013/10/25/the-hymns-of-the-bible/).  That is, segments of the NT such as Philippians 2.5-11, Colossians 1.15-20, Hebrews 1, John 1, I Corinthians 8.6, et al. were used in context to laud the Messiah’s coming as God enfleshed and to commemorate His efficacious cross-work, which was foreordained before the creation of the ages (e.g., Revelation 13.8, John 1.1-14; 17.1-6).  

*In this biblical context, let us join in with the inspired writers of Scripture in glorifying Christ as the “only God” (I Timothy 1.17) revealed in the flesh—predestined prior to very creation itself!

*Thank you for reading!