The Trinitarian Misconception of Echad.

None of my  postings on this  blog are meant to do anything, but to evoke thought and discussion for Trinitarians and Oneness adherents. I do not ever use the blog to make a thesis statement  set in stone of any particular doctrinal issue. I use it as a sounding board for myself and for others who read it. Lately I been discussing the Trinitarian's usage  or misuse of the Hebrew word Echad. The word echad  is the word for one in the Hebrew scriptures used 967 times. Trinitarians whom I have encountered on debate groups on Facebook and Youtube like to argue rigidly, that one only means a unity of one and not a an absolute one. This narrow view would absolutely contradict scriptural teaching for the word and especially in Malachi 2:10. Malachi 2:10 uses the word Echad 2 times once for the word Father and another for the word God. The Trinitarian's are being inconsistent in my opinion and I welcome anyone in the comments to tell me I am wrong? But if  Echad is a oneness of unity only for God in Malachi 2:10 then to be consistent it would have to be a unity of One in relation to the Father in the passage also. Who are the other Father's in the passage? We know already that they believe there are other person of God to maintain their view that one is a unity of God persons, but what about the one for the word Father?

I contend that yes there are gods many, but Only one absolute true God. There are  also father's many, but only one absolute true Father our God. That is the reason for the usage of the compound unity and it has nothing to do with God being a unity of God persons. I do not mean for this to be exhaustive whatsoever because I also do not like to telegraph all of my arguments when discussing these issues with Trinitarian's but would love to hear in the comments of other ideas.

                                          Modalism

Modalism what is it? We should ask ourselves that question often, especially in light of the fact being, that Trinitarian's are more Modalist than any Modalist.

I know there are Trinitarian readers (possibly) scratching their heads think the writer has lost all of his respective marbles. Maybe not, stay with me for just a moment?
Trinitarian's have a weird eternal role playing game of Father and Son throughout all eternity, where one person of God plays the role of the Father, and yet the other eternal person plays the role of the son. 

There is no real "progeny where a child has any parent in the sense of the word." The definition of progeny says the following:"The organism or organisms resulting from sexual or asexual reproduction. b. A child or children of a parent "(thefreedictionary.com/progeny). The Father and Son of the Trinity are in name only and are on equal footing as divine persons so that the roles could be switched up and nobody be the wiser.

The next time trinitarian's want argue over "Modalism," I think it is high time we give them the sobering fact/facts of the matter and show them that they are more Modalist than we Oneness ever thought about being.


 

We Are Still Waiting For The Debate.

https://streamable.com/nl7fy

*Well, I see that Edward Dalcour still views me as a thorn in his side.  In his typically pompous fashion Dalcour charges me with selecting sources "bit and pieces" and then cobbling them together to defend the biblical Oneness doctrine. 

*Of course, this has been pointed out to him ad nauseum, but, this accusation coming from someone (Dalcour) who repeatedly appeals to Dr. Joseph Thayer - who was a unitarian that denied the coming of Jesus, taught baptism for the dead and openly rejected that Jesus was God! 

*Dalcour also often appeals to grammarian Robert Funk who founded the "Jesus Seminar" in which critics would cast beads to vote on which sayings of Jesus in the Bible were legitimate or not. 

*Shall we discuss how Dalcour appeals to the specific theological interpretations of the Aramaic Targums, Jewish Rabbi's and Judaic-Hebrew scholars - all of whom openly deny Dalcour's "Trinity of divine persons!"

*One of many of his quotes that I could marshal shall suffice:

"There has never been a Jewish commentator, Rabbi, or Christian scholar or writer that has interpreted Isaiah 9.6 as Oneness teachers do."  (Dalcour; A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology; Pg. 61)

*Hmm, who is now abusing their sources by grabbing "bit" and "piece" here and there from people who openly - and rightfully - rejected Dalcour's entire "Trinity" doctrine?  Typical Dalcour. 

*Worse, Dalcour is completely wrong in his assertions that Christians have not concluded that the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 9.6 plainly identifies Jesus as the "eternal Father."  Trinitarians might reject the natural sense of this inspired passage, but biblical Christians allow the text to speak for itself and accept it as it's written. 

*Dalcour just never seems to learn and puts his foot in his mouth at virtually every turn.  Of course, all of this could be cleared up in formal 3-hour polemic platform.  In the meantime I am currently working on yet another exegetical rejoinder to Dalcour's painful dodges in his recent article on Acts 2.38.  I am hoping to post it on my blog in the next few weeks (https://apostolicacademics.com/).

*God bless ~ Roger Perkins
https://apostolicacademics.com/

https://streamable.com/s/evi16/rnjypb
The reason I put up this video is because you will notice Dr. White waved his hand and dismissed my argument.He did not even give it a second thought.. He will turn right around and ask his own absurd questions and demand that we answer. One absurd question they frequently ask: "was Jesus talking to himself?" "Was it the Father or the son who hung on the cross?" Etc. It goes on and on.

                                    My New  Absurd Argument.

Here is how trinity divides God: The church is the bride of Jesus, who is the bride-groom. The church is not the bride of the Trinity. You have one person of God married to the church The Son of God and the other two persons of God eternal bachelors.
I know the argument points out absurdity, but I would like to hear in the comments from both Oneness adherents and Trinitarian why or why not the argument does not work or should not be used?

                                       James White Proves What Exactly?                                             
Dr. James White was reviewing the Steven Ritchie versus Edward Dalcour debate that took place on January 6, 2018. While on the Dividing Line program January 11, 2018 and was attempting to explain the Oneness position as two persons for Oneness. You can view the one minute clip that I captured below.
Did James White expose his own position as polytheistic in explaining the Oneness position? You can be the judge?

The relevant portion of the video is where he attempts to explain the Oneness position and begins by saying :  the Father and Son "are having a conversation internally between the human Son and the  divine Father who are one person, but.. Sort, not really, they are sort of two persons because they are talking to each other."  I believe Dr. White was attempting to display an absurdity in the Oneness position when it makes his own trinity doctrine more absurd and is very revealing of what he actually believes if one is being honest. If there is one only God would he not be having an internal discussion? There most certainly could not be another God to have a discussion with. This is where the multiple God persons come about fr the Trinitarian position. This proves the Oneness position and actually highlights the truth of the incarnation. What makes an incarnation? One God and one man make the incarnation.

I have submitted two versions in case some are more interested in what is said the second video actually just highlights Dr. Whites attempts at explaining the Oneness view the first is a little longer.