Beowulf2k8 takes a final swipe.

mlculwell: Sorry Beowulf, I will not allow you to get away without me answering

Beowulf2k8
Culwell replies to the argument from Hebrews 7:3 saying "Argument??? What argument? Jesus did not exist! (Romans 5:14) Adam who was the figure of him that was to come(He was not back there but was coming) Adam came before Jesus.

So Culwell takes the view that Jesus didn't exist back in the beginning when Adam was living on the earth. This does nothing but prove that (as I already pointed out) he does not care one iota about what Scripture says but only about what knot he can twist it into.

mlculwell: We shall see what the scriptures actually teach concerning this subject.

Beowulf2k8:
John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God
and the Word was God.
That is, the Word has always existed as God, and was God but was "with God" because although he is God he is also a distinct person from the Father.

mlculwell: Here is a taste of what Beowulf actually thinks John 1:1 says: In the beginning was the word(God the son) and the word(God the son) was with God(The father) and the word(God the son) was God (the father) To whom the word was with.

There is no way for the trinitarain to get around this glaring contradiction of their doctrine. They mistakenly believe *The word*/Logos is Jesus pre - existing with *God* the Father. The only why they try and get around thier glaring contradiction is by employing a greek grammar rule for the second theos(Oh consistency thou art a Jewel) making the second Theos something else to get around the contradiction, Nothing is in the passage about* God the father* it is assumed by the trinitarain, it is assumed correct of course, but to them The word is God also. How do they get around another God? By making and pompously assuming another person of God so as not to violate the prohibition in scripture of Polytheism.

Actually, The word/Logos was not with God as another person of God.
Paul uses the same term logos/word of two individuals in(2nd. Tim. 2:17)
and their word/logos will eat as doth a canker of whom is Hymeneus and
Philetus who concerning the truth have erred.
Paul uses the term in it's intended meaning and usage and would have
been in agreement with John's usage of the term which was the thought,
plan, concept, Idea, Deity expressed.

The logos of the two individuals was not the Logos of God, but the meaning is consistent, never was the term to be used in the way the Trinitarian's mishandle the Logos/word and add a new meaning that has never before been.

In the Septuagint (the Greek of the Hebrew Old testament) The Logos is used in (Psalm 33:6) in creation. Do we see another person of God from the passage when it is revealed how he actually created by the Logos? No!

By the Word/Logos of the LORD(Jehovah) were the heavens made and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

The day the Trinitarian's can make the word by the breath of God's mouth another person of God , is the day they will have an argument from (John 1:1) God does not draw breath to convey his thoughts but rather this is more in line with the Pneuma(Spirit breathed or Life) Not an intangible breath force as the Jehovah's Witnesses wrongly assume..

The main reason they(the trinitarains as well as the JW's believe the word is another person of God is based on the term :*with*(*Pros,* Greek) (Of course the JW's Believe Jesus pre-existed but not as another person of God) To continue: But in (1st. John 1:1-2) John again speaks of the same word/logos calling the word by two different terms this time. (verse1 the *word of Life*) and (Verse 2 *eternal life* that was* with* the father.)That eternal life with the father was the glory (John 17:5) spoke that trinitarains mistake the Lord Jesus as claiming he literally had pre-existent Glory as another person with the father but when you look closer at( John 17:24) the same continued context from verse 5 the Disciples were to behold his glory(Which is his passion) the same passion (Rev. 13:8 )spoke of as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. John goes on to say in verse 3. that we(the Apostles) have seen and handled the word after he was made flesh and we saw the glory he had with the father before the foundation of the world which was Jesus being slain in the plan for future redemption(Not literally) and our
fellowship is with the father and with his son.

(Side note)
This is not a problem for the Oneness view as Trinitarian's suppose, as the father and son even being after the passion(death, burial, resurrection , and ascension) does not represent two persons of God. But One man, whom God as Omni present spirit (The father)has taken permanent residence. The distinction is seen to remain until he delivers the kingdom to God (1st. Cor.5:24-28)even the father. Or as (Eph. 5:27 ) That Jesus present it to himself a Glorious Ekklisia.

Beowulf2k8:
John 1:2 "The same was in the beginning with God."
Stress being placed on the fact of his being a distinct person from the
Father.

mlculwell: The same Could be said of Hymeneus and Philetus as their evil plan was hatched in the beginner (Whenever the beginning was that it was hatched) but one thing is for sure, beginning does not denote eternality for God's word either as Beginning denotes origin.


Beowulf2k8:
John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
The Father employed the Word in the creation of all things.

mlculwell: Yes Of Course, but I do not believe trinitarians have an understanding as to what is meant by the word/Logos as their doctrine get's in the way of scriptures.


Beowulf2k8:
Now, compare that to Hebrews 1:1-2 "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds" which shows that the Word and the Son are one and the same person, for whereas John says that all things were made by the Word the writer of Hebrews says that the Father employed the Son in the creation of all things.

mlculwell: The word was not a pre-existent Jesus but the word was the plan of God for future redemption. The scriptures teach all things were made by Him and for him the whole creation was predicated upon his coming and he was the creator because of the incarnation not because he pre-existed because he was God manifest in the flesh or that the spirit was given to him without measure his deity was the creator but there is nor was there ever a god the son it was God the father in the son doing the works (John 14:10)



Beowulf2k8:
Now John also indicates that the Word is Jesus Himself, for he says in John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."


mlculwell: If the word had to be made anything then the word was not another person of god, as the other person of God would not have to be made anything. The plan was then put into action when the fullness of time was come(Gal. 44:) God sent forth HIS SON(Not from eternity, But from time.) *Made* of a woman, *MADE under the Law*. (Refutes His son came from eternity)This also refutes Beowulf's God had no father Baloney! Jesus father was the Spirit.(God! Math. 1:20-21)



Beowulf2k8:
He shows then that the Word became man and lived on earth and was the only-begotten of the Father.



mlculwell:
Actually the plan/Logos/word was put into action for our redemption, the word did not change from one thing into another.


Beowulf2k8:
But he goes on in the next verse to say "John (i.e. the Baptist) bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me." (John 1:15)


mlculwell: Yes, John in One breath prophesied because of Jesus deity (John 14:10)in one breath and then doubted when he was in prison John asks: are you the one to whom was Prophesied or do I Look for another?


Beowulf2k8:
Clearly it is Jesus that John the Baptist bore witness of, as we know from all the Synoptic gospels, but here John in his gospel says that it is the Word that John the Baptist bore witness to. This shows that the Word and Jesus are one and the same person.


mlculwell: It again shows no such thing that the word/Logos was the person of Jesus! John bare witness of His deity in the incarnation that which was God , The word could not be separated from God, or he would not be God(The father) this is god's creative Power.


Beowulf2k8:
But he continues in the next verse, "And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." (John 1:16-17)
Now he explicitly identifies the Word who was IN THE BEGINNING, and who was both God and was with God--that is, was God but also was a distinct person from the Father--he explicitly identities this Word as Jesus Christ.



mlculwell: There is no beginning for God, there was only a beginning for his plan for redemption of mankind.



Beowulf2k8:
So then, everywhere in John 1 where we find "the Word" we can legitimately replace that phrase with "Jesus Christ." So, in John 1:1 "In the beginning was [Jesus Christ], and [Jesus Christ] was with God, and [Jesus Christ] was God."



mlculwell: As I have mentioned in passing concerning this issue you raised prior above, the same word/Logos you falsely claim was Jesus and mistakenly claim as with God the father would put the second theos also as the same God the father. Unless you are JW and make the second Theos either "a god" or godlike. The Only option that does no harm to Jesus deity, is that of the Oneness of God and also maintains the monotheism of the scriptures.


Beowulf2k8
So, we find that:
1. Jesus was in the beginning.


mlculwell: The only way for Jesus to be in the beginning and be eternal for Jesus to be God the Father. If he were the word as you claim then beginning would denote and origin.



Beowulf2k8:
2. Jesus was God.


mlculwell: Although I do believe Jesus is God Jesus was not the God being spoken of in John 1:1 as Jesus had a beginning in his earthly life per (Gal. 4:4, Romans 5:14) the Only way Jesus was God, was in the incarnation being made God as His humanity had a beginning M-A-D-E no matter who protests is the term used in scripture(1st. 15:45.Math. 28:18,Acts 2:36,John 3:34)


Beowulf2k8
3. Jesus was with God, that is, he was a distinct person from the Father.



mlculwell: Nothing is said in the passage nor alluded that the word is another person of God in the other two usages I employed of the word/Logos from (2nd.Tim. 2:17 , Nor Psalm 33:6) are there indications of such. Even the two individuals Hymeneus and Philetus's word is *with* them but it is most certainly not another person of God and neither is that being taught in (John 1:1-14)



Beowulf2k8:
Now, Culwell says "Jesus did not exist!" This statement is clearly laughable based on the facts presented above! How can we help but feel sorry for Culwell's blindness?


mlculwell: Feel sorry all you like. But it is I that feels sorry for you, when you will stand before God and give an account for your mishandling of scripture doing a roughshod glossary reading with God's precious word trying to teach when you have need to sit down of be taught.



Beowulf2k8:
Now, we can go further and show all the more the blindness of Culwell's position, and this we will do.
In Colossians 1, Paul speaks of the Son of God into whose kingdom Christians have been translated, saying in Colossians 1:15-20,
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.


mlculwell: This hardly helps you at all Beowulf a matter of fact it contradicts you and helps my position. I have said all along that in the Incarnation Jesus was the image of the invisible God that had a start firstborn denotes a start even if it was was before creation(I believe that was in the plan/Logos of God) As the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.(Rev. 13:8)


Beowulf2k8:
For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross." (Colossians 1:15-20)

Now, if the Father begat the Son before all things and employed the Son to create all things, and more than that, all things consist or hold together by the Son's power, then how can Culwell claim that the Son did not always exist?


mlculwell: Very easily Beowulf, I still maintain the son did not exist! What you term as the incarnation is why and how the son is the creator and him not existing. His deity was the creator. Not his humanity! You most certainly could not make that claim either. you would calim it was his deity in the incarnation all you have to do is present one passage that shows me the God the son was incarnate. there is no such passages! but there are many that show the father was in the son doing the works and made the son The One true God(John 14:10) The father In me he doeth the works! Jesu actually says: I CAN OF MINE OWNSELF DO NOTHING!(John 5:43) Jesus as son did not even know the itme of his own coming as God the father as Gspirit in him and in heaven did not reveal it to his limited humanity.


Beowulf2k8:
How can he say so blindly "Jesus did not exist!"??? Notice also that all things were made not only by the Son but FOR the Son.

mlculwell: Yes Amen! "they were made for the son" everything was predicated on the coming son.


Beowulf2k8:
Note also that in ALL THINGS he is given the preeminence.

mlculwell: Again checkmate as the why would God need to be given pre-eminence? he would already have it! God does not need to be given anything. The limited Human son was given ALL power. That slaps all of you in the face even the New Arians.

Beowulf2k8:
And note that he is explicitely connected with the cross via the expression "through the blood of His cross." It is clearly manifest that Jesus existed, therefore, "BEFORE ALL THINGS" and that he was employed by the Father to make all things and that all things were made not only by him but also FOR him.

mlculwell: His existence was in the plan of god as the lamb slain from the foundation of the world for coming humanity he did not exist as another person of God If I ran roughshod over the scriptures with a glossary study I would come up with the same mess you have come up with.

Ed Dalcours 10 questions answered

Ed Dalcour:1. where in scripture does it say God is Unitarian(1 person)?

mlculwell:it does not and we do not claim such outside the person of the son(The real humanity that was in subjection to his God) John 20:17



Ed Dalcour: 2. If God is unitarian, how do you explain passages such as Genesis 19:24 where Yahweh ("LORD"), rained brimstone and fire from the Yahweh out of heaven? ------------------------------------------------------

Mlculwell: FIRST I should explain something to those who do not recognize the terminology Ed uses because "Unitarian" is not a term that we use what so ever. Ed Dalcour uses the term in place of "1 person" because of what he assumes we believe the scripture teaches which is not the truth at all ….As Oneness we do not even believe God is a person outside of the person of the son anyhow so before the Incarnation or where God(The father as spirit) before he was in Christ (the Human son) God was not even Unitarian because God is not a person period… Now For the passageThe passage is a "re-emphasis" or as David Bernard says from his book The Oneness of God pg. 154 The restatement as means of emphasis the Bible clearly states there is only One LORD (Deuteronomy 6:4)" Notice what the passage actually says and what Trinitarians are trying to force:Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon GomorrahPlease take note they believe this is one LORD because of the literary restatement wording But this Lord rains down from where I wonder? Heaven maybe? Maybe one is raining on Sodom and the other Gomorrah? Silly, Right? Now the rest of the passage reads? Brimstone and fire from the LORD.Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah Brimstone and fire from the LORD.also be it known Edward Dalcour likes to cry foul with his famous line no exegesis no reply but we have no exegesis from these questions only mere unproven theory for his trinity doctrine.

Ed Writes:Note: there are many places in the OT where God is presented as multi personal (e.g., the person plural personal pronouns used of God, i.e., "Us," "Our," in Gen. 1:26-27; 3:22; 11:7-9; and Isa. 6:8 [also see John 14:23]; Yahweh to Yahweh and Elohim ("God") to Elohim correspondences in passages such as Gen. 19:24; Ps. 45:6-7; Isa. 48:12-16; and Hos. 1:6-7). 3. If God is unitarian, why are there so many plural descriptions in the OT (viz. plural nouns, adjectives, and verbs) to describe God? Example: in Isaiah 54:5, "Maker" is plural in Hebrew, lit., "Makers"; same with Psalm 149:2 where "Maker" is in the plural in Hebrew. The same can be said in Ecclesiastes 12:1, where the Hebrew literally reads, "Remember also your Creators" (plural in Heb.). Thus, because God is tri-personal He can be described as both "Maker" and "Makers" and as "Creator" and "Creators." He is one Being, not one Person—a point that is repeatedly brought to bear by the OT authors.

Mlculwell: As Oneness we should not have a problem with the above to any degree it simply confirms what we already know that the only person of God or the humanity of the son in the incarnation was included in creation before the son existed or the so called incarnation took place all of mankind was predicated on the coming son and the first man Adam was created in the image of God this is again further stated by a much over looked passage in Romans 5:14 one of the greatest creation passages of all in my opinion and very telling of whom is God .. who(Adam) was the Figure(Image) of him who was to come. (Romans 5:14)I tell the truth in God and lie not when I say Adam was not made in the image of a triune anything because there is no such thing in scripture…The plural is used in reference to God because the plural includes not only the spirit of God who is not a person but the coming son in the incarnation as the maker of mankind, the plural does not include "three persons of God" , God is not a person or persons period, something that Mr. Dalcour failed to prove in any kind of exegesis because he will not be able to prove such a ridiculous assumption, persons die, God does not, Jesus as a real human man, as the only person of God died….At the creation of Adam Jesus did not exist as a "God the son" but his deity that of God the father did exist.

Ed Dalcour:4. If God is unitarian, why is it that there are so many places in the Bible where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are clearly distinguished from each other in the same verse? Example, Paul says in 2 Corinthians 13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." Also see passages such as Matthew 28:19; Ephesians 2:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2 where all three Persons of the Godhead are referred—in the same verse.

Mlculwell: (The Love of God)The three titles and manifestations have to be included without which we would have no salvation or redemption, it took a sinless sacrifice By man came sin and by One body we have been reconciled to God (Eph. 2:16) through him we have access to one spirit (Not two spirits or three) without which we shall noptbe saved (Roamns 8:11) it took God's mercy and grace on a lost humanity to provide his only begotten, a plan/Logos he had from the beginning of creation. God did not fail, man did, so God made a way of escape from the beginning… (Jesus Christ)Could the Spirit of God who had no blood or body to sacrifice until the incarnation provide such until his plan actually came to fruition in the incarnation? Thus the reason for his plan of the incarnation before creation for creation in time from eternity.The sinless blood sacrifice that only the son could provide, as a full 100% human being, God did not have a human body until he took the body, blood, and human spirit of the son…The son in his humanity was the first comforter and would be the another comforter in the spirit(John 14:18) I (Jesus) will not leave you comfortless I (Jesus) will come to you(As spirit)(The Comforter) is Christ in you the Hope of Glory the spirit without which no man shall see the Lord Our mortal bodies are made alive by that same spirit that raised the humanity of the son(Romans 8:11) we must have it.

Ed Dalcour: 5. If Jesus is the Father, why is it that Jesus is explicitly referred to as "the Son" over two hundred times in the New Testament, and never once is he called "Father?

Mlculwell: This is what Trinitarians do not get, it is just as important that he (Jesus) was real humanity as to his sonship as it was to his real deity as God the father AKA. The Holy Spirit. And just as important he was never ever referred to as "God the son" anywhere in scripture even though Trinity folk will tell you that is what he is, there is no such thing in scripture, we do find he was called the everlasting father In (Isaiah 9:6) Philip asked Lord show us the father and it will satisfy us? Jesus said:" Have I been so long time with you and thou hast not known me Philip? he that has seen me has seen the father and how sayest thou then show us the father?I and my father are one(John 10:30) How ? The father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works( John 14:10) If there was such a thing as a God the son he was powerless(I can of mine own self do nothing John 5:30) and the scriptures reveal that the holy spirit of the father dwelling in him(Humanity) he did not give up power as a so called "God the son" when a supposed God the son became Human as Trinitarians falsely claim because of their misinterpretation of (Philippians 2:6-11) but rather God the father took upon himself the form of a servant and made himself of no reputation and God the father himself being found in the fashion of a man he humbled himself in subjection as a real man to his God where God in turn exalted His son the real human man(Not another person of God) the passage has to be read that way to get that false interpretation anytime a Trinitarian sees father, son, and spirit, they see three persons what if they saw father son and husband would they also see three persons? Of course not the phrase would need to be clarified further and their bad interpretation of God needs to be clarified further and that is the reason I have chosen to answer these questions.

Edward Dalcour:The preexistence of the Son6. If the "Son" has not eternally existed with (personally distinct from) the Father why then is the Son presented as the Agent of creation, that is, the Creator? (for in Oneness theology only Jesus as the "Father" mode existed prior to Bethlehem). Note: in passages such as John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 1:10, the "Son" is clearly and grammatically presented as Agent of creation, the Creator Himself. Specifically, in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2, the Greek preposition dia ("though") is followed by a pronoun in the *genitive* case (or possessive case). Grammatically, when dia is followed by the genitive (as in these passages), the preposition indicates "agency" (cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 368; J. Harold Greenlee, A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek, 5th ed. 31; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 4:478-79; and cf. also Walter Bauer's, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd ed. [hereafter BDAG], 225). Hence, exegetically these passages do not indicate that the Son was a mere instrument of creation (as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons believe), nor, as Oneness teachers say, do these passages indicate that the Son was only a thought or plan in the Father's mind when the Father (Jesus' divine nature) created all things.

Mlculwell: I will ask you the same question Tom Raddatz asked Gene Cook in response to his debate with David Bernard…Why did God tell Abraham he had( past tense) made him a father of many nations before Abraham even had any children? Your so called method of exegesis is seen to be very flawed in so many respects your doctrine must also be flawed…Rom 4:17 …God… call-eth (continuation process) those things which be not as though they were.It is very scriptural as God, the master builder to have a plan.(Heb 8:5, 1 Cor 3:10)."The voice of him that crieth (continues to cry) in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:" ( Isaiah 40:3-4) The above passage gives no indication of the one crying in the wilderness (in the present tense) that it is a prophecy and we do not even know that until the New Testament from Matthew 17:12 reveals that fulfillment (John the Baptist did not exist when the covenant was in force, neither did the thief on the cross for that matter they actually existed under the Old ) You have just almost explained for us by stating "Jesus divine nature created"… First of all in the incarnation Oneness proponents teach the father and son are one person. Apart from that incarnation God is not a person, The humanity of the son (real humanity that Trinitarians have to deny) to keep up their false view of God in three persons , because God the son would be a hybrid, a new species.(Not all 100% man that could die and be limited) but rather they say God died, what they really mean "a new species" a mixture of God and man, something very different from the supposed other two persons of God. Making one third of God dying and for three days we were short a third of God leaving two thirds of God a partial God if you will.. Why would I bring these major contradictions to light because I just want to throw out supposed straw men argument s as I am sure they would claim I am doing these arguments are relative to this debate in exposing the false doctrine of the trinity they claim is an orthodox doctrine when in fact it is not, it ties right into their problem of another person of God that existed beside God the father in creation….. God speaks of the son as though he created because he was referring to a time coming when he(God) would be in Christ(making the man Christ) and reconciling the world unto himself (2nd Cor.5:19) it does not say "god the son" would do this, but notice it says God would be in Christ distinguishing Christ from God in that the God would be in the man, or son, making the man Christ. Of course there is again a distinction but not at all how the Trinitarian places it unscripturally I might add.

Edward Dalcour:Rather the Son is biblically (exegetically) presented as the Creator of all things Himself. That the Son was the Creator clearly disproves the Oneness position.This is the greatest weakness of the Oneness position: For if the Son created, then, He eternally existed with the Father.


Mlculwell: Let's take a closer look at each passage and see if that is so! The Trinitarian is simply making an unscriptural, unfounded, assumption. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2,10 John 1:3 John refers to the word being with God in verse 3, John calls the word a "he" John is now speaking from a knowing experience from verse 14 where the word/plan was made flesh . did John know the word when the word was the word? No! But he did know, see, and touch., the word made flesh and could speak of the word made flesh as a "he" there is nothing in John 1:3 that says the word pre-existed beside ,with, God the father, in fact, we can get another view from John in 1st John 1:1-2 where he says that which was from the beginning which we have heard and seen with our eyes and handled with our hands of the (word of Life) verse 2 it is called(eternal life) that was "with" God (Pros*Grk* they say means toward God) will Trinitarians now make these two other titles more persons? Ridiculous like their doctrine. So now, just like in (John 1:1 where) the word or plan/Logos is said to be both with God and God but not a separate or distinct person with God, that has to be read into the passage but we can also say(1st.John 1:1-2)in the beginning was (eternal life/ word of Life) and (eternal life/ word of life) was with God, and (eternal life/ word of Life) was God. You can no more separate eternal life from God and make it a person than you can the word of God they are shown to be all the same thing i.e. The plan for future redemption (Rev. 13:8) please tell us all about the lamb being slain from the foundation of the world?Then of all things he brings (Col.1: 16 ) to the table without even quoting (Col. 1:15) where Jesus humanity is the image of the invisible spirit of God. And if that is not enough he forgets that the passage relates that Jesus is the firstborn of every creature. How is that possible if Jesus was eternal? The passage actually refutes the trinity doctrine, another Fine example of Dalcours so called exegesis!To be fair let's see how the Trinitarian wiggles out of this clear passage

Ed Dalcour writes:prôtotokos ("firstborn") in which Paul applies to Jesus. JWs erroneously think "firstborn" means "first created." The assertion, however, would be totally foreign in a first century Jewish context. The word denotes "supremacy" or "first in rank" (see Exod. 4:22; Ps. 89:27) as the context of Colossians indicates. The term translated "firstborn" denotes Jesus as "having special status associated with a firstborn" (Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon, 894). Biblical scholar Robert Reymond extracts the true significance of the term:

mlculwell:Actually The JW's are totally wrong and the Trinitarian half right which is not being right at all And Reymond almost extracted the term! All mankind was created with the son in view and was the image(Romans5:14) that man was created from(Gen. 1:26)when God said let us make man. The firstborn of all creation refers to the son being planned first for our redemption because God already knew man would fail(Not God!)so that he already had our way of escape.

Now let's look at a passage Ed failed to submit with his unfounded assumnption.1st. Cor. 15:45-47 The first man Adam was made a living soul The last Adam wasM-A-D-E a quickening Spirit(Life giving spirit) did you happen to catch that? Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual,(Did you catch that Ed? scripture says he was not first)but that which is natural; and afterward which is spiritual the first man Adam was of the earth earthy the second man Adam was the Lord from heaven (Not a third of three persons but the Lord from heaven. This Goes Right along with( Romans 5:14) (Adam)Who was the Image of Him that was to come. Adam Came first, the Image Adam was created in The Us from (Gen. 1:26) included the coming human son in the incarnation that which was made spiritual came last and was not there but could be spoken of as though he were because in the incarnation he was God in the flesh. That which both had a beginning as man and no beginning as God. We now see the reason he wants to exclude revealing passages, ignoring others that would actually highlight his so called pre-existence passages. The passage in (Col.1: 15) actually reveals to us the correct view of the oneness and the incorrect view of the trinity. Within Jesus existed fully that which was God 100% and Fully that which was man 100% including Body, soul, and human spirit, distinct from the Spirit of God the father so that Jesus actually had two spirits, one Human, and one divine …When the Apostles who personally knew Jesus wrote and spoke from a knowing experience they wrote of His creating from the stand point of His deity, nowhere do find "God the son" Trinitarians simply, as I said before make unfounded assumptions, the Apostles in the way they wrote of Jesus creating would be the same as I would write without the added Trinitarian jargon that has to be added in explanation of an unscriptural doctrine. It should be pointed out that the distinctions of humanity and deity only have to broken down for clarification of their (Trinitarian) demented view of three persons of God.Hebrews 1:2,10 Again, Dalcour makes use of the word "Son" and says; see we have classic trinity doctrine? When we have no such thing! Ed tries to make use of the fact that because we break down the distinction between Jesus humanity and his divinity that we do not believe Jesus was the actual creator, if you talk to any oneness person on the street they would argue Jesus was the creator the same Jesus that walked this earth as a man, the same man God was incarnate but what God? Which God? Oh, you say! I have to qualify my statement, I thought there was only one God? Either it is as trinity folks say," that God the son was incarnate in the son" which is a contradiction in and of itself. Did you happen to catch the next contradiction of the doctrine? When Oneness speaks of the son we speak of the creator he that has the son has the father also




Ed Dalcour:7. If the Son did not eternally exist with the Father as a distinctPerson why is it that the "Son" can say, "Now, Father, glorify Metogether with Yourself, with the glory which I had [eichon,or "shared"] with You before theworld was" (emphasis added)?How did the Son have (literally, actively possessed) glory with(para) the Father before time if the Son did not exist beforeBethlehem?Note: In this beautiful passage (Jesus' high priestly prayer)the "Son" (for Jesus says, "Now, Father") says that He possessed orshared glory with the Father, before time.To avoid the plainness of the passage (namely, the preexistence ofthe Son and His personal distinction from His Father), Oneness teachers argue that the glory that Jesus (the Son) had with theFather, only signified the future glory or "plan" in the Father'smind, thus anticipating the Son's coming at Bethlehem. But the Son,they say, was not really there with the Father "before the worldwas." However, consider the following:Grammatically, when the preposition para ("with") is followed by thedative case (as in this verse: para seautô, "with Yourself" and parasoi, "with You"), especially in reference to persons, itindicates "near," "beside," or "in the presence of" (cf. Wallace,Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 378 and any recognized Greek Grammaror recognized Lexicon of the NT such as BDAG, 757). Noted Greekgrammarian, A. T. Robertson says of the passage thatThis is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and consciousexistence at the Father's side (para soi, "with thee") "which I had"(hçi eichon, imperfect active of echô. . . . (Robertson, WordPictures, 5:275-76)----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mlculwell:The following is what I wrote initially to Ed in a private emailin which he replied and I cannot seem to find that particular emailbut he wrote something to the effect That I violated the wayscripture should be studied and that I should replace my method ofstudy with his so called (flawed) exegesis (Vacuum Isolation) Iwould come to Trinitarian conclusion (No thank you! ) Anyone in theirright mind can see how flawed the method is and the reason we havesuch false teachers such as; A.W. Pink, Robert Morey, James White, F.Turretin, John Calvin, and the Like. And yes I am not afraid to namenames.Ed, do you know how many times I have read thispassage and heard this passage as an argument forpre-existence from you folks? Do you really think youare submitting some earth shattering argument for yourdoctrine?Jesus is not talking at all about pre-existence ofHimself alongside God the father, if I Isolated thepassage in a vacuum and simply went by grammar alone Iwould come up with the same conclusion as you and be stuck in the same false doctrine. Jesus is speaking ofhis slain humanity in the plan/Logos of God for futureredemption.Notice John 7:38-39 The Holy Ghost was Not yet givenfor Jesus was not yet G-l-o-r-i-f-i-e-d. This glory referred to his slain humanity in the plan/Logos ofGod. Did you happen to catch the phrasing NOT YET GLORIFIEDit was the same glory Jesus was saying hehad with the father before the world was, the same thatRev. 13:8 speaks of, as the Lamb slain from thefoundation of the world. Now please tell me about Jesus literally being slain before the world was. Hedid not exist and Romans 5:14 says he did not...Look at (Luke 11:50) where the blood of Prophets which was shed fromthe foundation of the world.Eph. 1:4 he chose us in him BEFORE the foundation of the world.There is your before time! These passages most certainly show thatGod had a plan and they are relevant so you cannot shrug them off asbeing insignificant.as far "the glory he had with the father before "time" as anargument to prove pre-existence? Well, I use that very argumentagainst JW's it no more proves pre-existence than the passage yousubmitted. Monotheism most certainly does not imply three persons.Further; John 17:22-24 is the same context and speaks of the sameglory V.22 speaks of the glory given him . How is that? Notice verse24 the glory given him(Right now from the foundation of the world)waswhat the ("they" the Disciples) were about to witness (They were tobehold his glory he had with the father before the world was, provingexactly what I have said all along.


Ed Dalcour:8. If the Son did not eternally exist with the Father as a distinctPerson why is it that the "Son" is said to be "sent" from theFather "out of heaven"?Scripture presents in plain and normal language that the preexistentPerson of the Son was sent from the Father (e.g., John 3:13; 16-17;6:33, 38, 44, 46, 50-51; 62; 8:23, 38, 42, 57-58; 16:28; Gal. 4:4).Nowhere in the New Testament, however, is it said that Jesus sent theSon.


Mlculwell: Please Ed! What you have said does not even makesense.. How is it that you can write a book and claim to be anauthority on Oneness when you are just trying to be Cute? Why don'tyou have one of your regular Trinitarian church going members ask usa stupid question like the above? The people that hear this tripefrom you think this is what we really believe so Let me explain thisfor you for the tenth time now. And yes, we believe God's name IsJesus! (John 5:43) I am come in my fathers name.(Name is not merelyauthority) it takes the literal name for the Authority the reason weBaptize by immersion in Jesus name.. Jesus received his name byinheritance. Hebrews 1:4 (Psalm 22:22) But his humanity was the sonthat had a beginning, the spirit existed before the son and actuallyfathered the son miraculously, where there is a real father and sonrelationship unlike the trinity doctrine where it is in name only.Yes, we have a relationship with God where he is our father, butJesus was the only begotten(Sired and born) son of God.As for the son being "Sent." How in the world do you exegete the sonwas eternal from him being sent? The very term refers to the sonbeing provided as a sacrifice for the redemption of mankind. (Gal.4:4) When the fullness of TIME was come(Then) God sent forth his son,(How) made of a woman, made under the Law. Nothing said abouteternity!


Ed Dalcour:If Jesus were the Father, as Oneness believers contend, one wouldexpect to find a clear example of this—at least one passage.John 3:13; 6:38, 46, 62; 8:23, 38, 42; 16:28.

Mlculwell:(Isaiah 9:6, John 10:30) Makes no difference if it is the everlastingfather or father everlasting or father of everlasting Age it wasstill God the father in Christ not God the son.ThenI (Humanity)and the father(Spirit) are one. There is only one spirit(Eph.4:4) is that a shared Spirit Ed?Then Ed submits the above passages for what reason?Ed submits (John 3:13) which actually hurts his position actually every passage he submits is damning to his position.. (John 6:38) I came down from heaven not to do mine own will. But the will of himthat sent me. First off why does one God send another person of God?Can't God send himself? But Ed misses the forest for the trees andhere again we see another Fine example of Ed Dalcours exegesis and ifthat is what he learned in his reformed tradition I am glad I didn'tgo!Let's take a look further in the passage where Jesus actuallyteaches how he was sent from heaven and what it actually means lookat verse 51?I am the LIVING BREAD WHICH CAME FROM HEAVEN: if any man eat of thisbread , he shall live for ever :and THE BREAD I WILL GIVE is MY F-L-E-S-H (WHICH CAME FROM HEAVEN) Flesh and blood does not inherit theKingdom! It can neither go, or come from there… Do you now see Ed?God provided (Sent) the Flesh of His only begotten son as oursacrifice from heaven he did not literally come from heaven as beingsent in that respect . your reformed tradition misses the mark completely There is no need to go over the rest of these so called pre-existence passage when Ed has been given the answer to every pre-existence passage (John 6:51) and what they actually mean.

Ed Dalcour writes:"No one has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven [ektou ouranou]: the Son of Man" (John 3:13). Thus, the Person of theSon of Man was in heaven prior to being sent. That the "Son of Man"was in heaven prior to Bethlehem creates a theological problem forOneness doctrine. For the "Son of Man" in Oneness theology was notthe Father, but the human Son who emerged not until Bethlehem, buthere, the Son of Man came from heaven, that is, the Son.


Mlculwell:Ed Talks about "exegesis" but we certainly see a very good exampleHow the Trinitarian glosses over the passage with a lacklusterstudy skipping right over the clear language of this passage withhis Trinitarian blinders to see only what he wants to see, thepassage explains what we have been saying all along and why we sayand teach what we do, this is the clearest passage of all to proveJesus was the plan/Logos in the mind of God for future redemption.The passage does not read:" God the son descended from heaven." The passage reads:" the son of man descended from heaven" it is as plainas the nose on his face! Do you know what the son of man is? I am ason of man,(Born of mankind) Jesus as a real man was the son ofman ,that was what was provided from heaven(Sent) for our redemption(His flesh, THE SON OF MAN!) men are both persons or people(No difference) Both people or persons die, God as spirit does not…. I listened to Dalcours little speech he gave trying to make his sheeplebelieve his hand me down pagan tradition.

Ed Dalcour:Also see Philippians 2:5-11, where we read that the "Son"(see vv. 1:2, 2:9, 11) who, "existed in the form of God"[literally, "always subsisting as God"] . . .

Mlculwell:The form of God was the son(The Humanity) The form Of God the fatherwas the son. The father that dwelleth (Continues to dwell) in me hedoeth the works(John 14:10) I defy the Trinitarian to find me apassage that says "God the son" was in the son? There again is agreat problem with the trinity doctrine of their hybrid God man.(2nd. Cor. 5:19) God was in Christ reconciling the world untohimself. Which God? Does the Trinitarian take note that the passage reads unto himself? Was it "God the son" in the son? Do you see how silly this gets?

Ed Dacour:emptied Himself . . . taking the form of a bond-servant." Note thatthe Apostle Paul indicates that the "Son" was always existing asdeity. Oneness deny that the Son is God, only the "Father" (i.e.,Jesus'' divine nature) is God. However, here the "Son" is presented as fully God.For in verse 6, Paul plainly asserts that Jesus was always subsisting as God: "who . . . existed [huparchôn] in the formof God [morphç theou]" (emphasis added). The word translated "existed" is huparchôn (the present active participle ofhuparchô). The present particle indicates a continuous existence orcontinually subsisting (see BDAG, 1029; Thayer, 638)—the Son wasalways God.

Mlculwell: Oh how Ed would love for the passage to say such. Take acloser look at what Ed is trying to say by looking at the actual passage and consider this? Who being in the form of God thought itnot robbery to be Equal with God. Are you smelling what I am stepping in?(as we would say In Arkansas.) do you see the contradiction of what ed Just said? How Can he exist always as Godand think it not robbery to be what he already exists as ? It is talking about the real humanity of the son as the form of God thinking it not robbery being equal with God not the other way around more of Ed's faulty exegesis.The same form of God is the form of the servant, it is impossible for what Ed has tried to force, he has tried to pull an okie doke.

Ed: Dalcour.Hence, Jesus, the Son (cf. 1:2, 2:9, 11), did not become the very form or nature (morph) of God at a certain point in time,rather He always existed as God. Further the "Son" is said to have voluntarily "made Himself nothing, taking [labôn]1 the nature of aservant" (vv. 7-8).

Mlculwell: It says no such thing as what has been presented They are confusing the humanity of the son with the spirit of God just likethey confuse everything else. What Ed has presented does not make any sense it was God that made himself of no reputation by taking theform of a servant (His only begotten son.) God was in Christ (2nd.Cor. 5:19) Was this the trinity? No… Do they read this, the son was in the son? Do we all see how ridiculous their doctrine is? It wasGod the father in the son.. The father(God as Spirit) that dwellethin* me *(The son) he doeth the works.


Ed Dalcour:Note that the reflexive pronoun heauton, (lit. "Himself Heemptied") indicates a "self-emptying."2 Thus, it was not the Father,as Oneness teachers suppose, but the Son who voluntarily emptied Himself and became obedient to death—"even death on a cross" (v. 8).

Mlculwell:The nearest antecedent to the pronoun (Himself) in (verse 7) showsthat it was God in (verse 6)

Ed Dalcour:9. If Oneness doctrine is biblically true, why then do the biblical authors use grammatical features that personally distinguish between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

Mlculwell:Because they were real distinctions: Spirit, and flesh, and when I say flesh, I am not talking about a mindless puppet, I am talkingabout body, soul, and human spirit distinct from the Spirit of God Iam talking about a human will distinct from the will of the spirit(Not my will but thine be done.) you act like this is the first timeoneness folks ever saw passages that present the distinctions… As Oneness believers we understand that because Jesus says: not my(Human) will, but thine(God as Spirit) be done. We do not have two or three persons of God because we see distinctions in the human willand the will of the Spirit,. Do you remember the Old Sesame Streetsong, one of these things are not like the other? We have Spirit,(God ) and flesh) we don't have two of anything, we have 1 God, and 1man, and all of that was in the Lord Jesus Christ… Please Ed, tell me How God Dies? Tell me How God has a God? (John 20:17) I am going toask you again, we believe Jesus is the only supreme God, what do you say?

Ed Dalcour:Example,First and third person personal pronouns: Throughout chapter 14, Jesus clearly differentiates Himself from theFather by using first person personal pronouns ("I," "Me," "Mine") to refer to Himself and third person personal pronouns("He," "Him," "His") to refer to His Father (e.g., John 14:7, 10,16). This case of marked distinction is also evident when Jesus differentiates Himself from God the Holy Spirit:

Mlculwell: This has been dealt with; Not My will but thine be done.The will of 1God as Spirit and one human man, but we do not have twopersons of God, nor do we even have two persons that will have to beproved by Mr. Dalcour and I welcome him to try or anyone else I have argued this point many times and am confident there is not a Trinitarian anywhere at any time that will be able to prove this failed point of theirs.Oh as a side note, while we are in this area let's talk about howthey historically misrepresent Oneness or "Modalism" as they call it, they believe it is our belief that God somehow changes or Morphsfrom 1 Mode into another as in; Now I am the father and am becoming the son Etc. and that no mode exists simultaneous, I assure MrDalcour this is not our belief and I have heard this misrepresented of By them of Us many times. Our Belief is that Jesus was a real human man that was in subjection to God as a real human man and prayed and hungered and died. It is However their belief that Jesus(And I know I am not misrepresenting them) that Jesus as "God theson" died. This is a real problem for the Trinitarian as it would make Jesus a Hybrid and not like we are I can't wait to hear Mr Dalcour explain himself on this point.


Ed Dalcour:"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another [allon]3 Helper,that He may be with you forever" (John 14:16; also see 14:7, 10, 26;emphasis aded).

Mlculwell:Yessss! Because Jesus was the first comforter(Helper) in his Fleshand would be the other Comforter in the spirit (1st. Cor.15:45) Thesecond man Adam was made a quickening(Life Giving) Spirit. I(Jesus)will not leave you comfortless( as orphans, or fatherless)I(Jesus) will COME TO YOU.( as the father of the fatherless orphans or the Spirit) and yes emphasis added.

Ed Dalcour:Repetition of the article:Specifically, the repetition of the article tou ("the") before eachnoun and the conjunction kai ("and") that connects the nouns clearlydenote a distinction between all three Persons named.4 Note Matthew28:19: "in the name of the [tou] Father and the [kai tou] Son and the[kai tou] Holy Spirit."


Mlculwell: Manuel the father , the son, and the husband, no morepresents three persons than Ed trying to pull the wool over our eyes on this. And even more, the passage reads: Baptizing them in the nameof the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Ghost, as if there is one name for all three titles and when the Apostles actually Baptizethey use the one name of the father and of the son and of the HolyGhost . That being the name Jesus in Acts 2:38, 8:16,10:48 wherethey were COMMANDED TO BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD(Jesus)Acts 19:5, 22:16, James 5:14 Call for the Elders anointing with oil in the name of the Lord. Please note; these folks will make a big deal about the name meaning authority but again, it takes the literal name spoken in covenant relationship for the Authority. The Hindus Baptize in the Ganges, what is the difference between their heathen Baptism and ours? The name being Spoken as the Authority, you cannot say you have authority and say you are Orthodox and cannot be in covenant relationship without having the name spoken over you in Baptism to be contrary to scripture is unorthodox.


Ed Dalcour:Further, Paul clearly presents the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, not as three modes of a unipersonal deity, but rather asthree distinct Persons. The same grammatical distinctions areobserved in 2 Corinthians 13:14:The grace of the [tou] Lord Jesus Christ, and [kai] the love of God[tou theou (lit. "the God")], and [kai] the fellowship of the [tou]Holy Spirit be with you all (emphasis added).


Mlculwell: As I have stated previously to Mr. Dalcour thesemanifestations of existence have to be mentioned always, all three titles of our God have a hand in our salvation .God provided our way of redemption through the shed blood of hisonly begotten,(The sacrifice of his flesh or his life. 1st. Peter2:24) the Flesh or real humanity (Body, soul, and human spirit) Tothe trinitarian he is a Hybrid, He would not be in all point stempted as we are and he would not be what we are. God was in Christ.(2nd. Cor. 5:19) Which God? The passage does not read "One person of God was in a person."

Ed Dalcour:In Revelation 5:13, the Lamb and the Father are presented as twodistinct objects of divine worship, as they are clearly differentiated by the repetition of the article tô:To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honorand glory and dominion for ever and ever (emphasis added)."To Him who sits" (tô kathçmenô [lit. "to the onesitting"—the Father]) "and the Lamb" (kai tô arniô—the Son) aregrammatically differentiated by the repeated article tô ("the"),which precedes both nouns and are connected by the one conjunction kai ("and"). Further, turning to 1 John 1:3, not only does John show that believers have fellowship with both the Father and the Son, butthe Father and the Son are clearly distinguished as two Persons by the repeated article tou ("the") and the repeated preposition meta("with"):we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with[meta]us; and indeed our fellowship is with the [meta tou] Father and with [meta] His Son [tou huiou] Jesus Christ (1 John 1:3; emphasisadded).

Mlculwell:Again this has been explained, (All thre manifestations have to always be mentioned because they are included in our redemption ultimately it is only one God but nothing is ever said of three persons of God ever in scripture no matter how the trinitarain would love to force such a twisted view…But Notice How Mr. Dalcour takes the *Us * in this particularpassage and makes it of a (So called )persons of His Fictitious trinity? The Us refers to the fellowship of the Apostles and other believers, then the passage Focuses on our fellowship with the father and with His son Jesus Christ. (Who was his son?) That which was Born(Sent) when the Fullness of time was come, MADE of a virgin made under the Law. He was sent in time, Not eternity, he was planned as our redemption before time. The same Son made a life giving Spirit(1st. Cor. 15:45-47) Where Adam came First and then the son(Romans5:14, 1st. Cor.15:46) Whenever any passage speaks of the sons pre-existence it is speaking from the standpoint of what the Apostles knew and were taught personally from the Lord that being that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh in other words it was his Deity(That of God the father AKA the Holy Ghost.)

Ed Dalcour:There are many other passages where this construction applies clearly denoting distinction between the Persons in the Trinity (e.g., 1 Thess. 3:11; 2 Thess. 2:16-17; 1 John 2:22-23).

Mlculwell:Now God himself our father, and our Lord Jesus Christ direct our wayunto you.Now God Himself Our Father (Notice who God is?) "Our father" and trinity Folks say Jesus is not the Father. I thought God was atrinity?(This will then be followed by a but, but, but from the Trinitarian) They make distinctions when they think it clearly teaches their false doctrine but when it actually exposes their doctrine it teaches completely opposite. Even with the (The Grk.kai ) which can* mean* even or* and * depending on the context. (For a better understanding of these passages presented By Ed read The God of Two testaments By Robert Brent Graves, who goes into greatdetail explaining all of the passages presented.. a former Church ofChrist Minister.)

2nd. Thess.2:16-17Now the Lord Jesus Christ himself , (kai ) and God, even ourfather, which hath Loved us. If anything, the way the passage readswould be Damning for the Trinitarian. It would either mean thatJesus Christ is not God (Which is not true) or that we have actuallyDitheism(Polytheism) If Jesus is God and in addition we have God even our father then we have Two Gods, nothing is said in the passage about persons of God.The passage could very well read: Now the Lord Jesus Christ even God and our father. Would mean the same either way, that Jesus is God and our father. Still, the distinction between the Spirit of God and the sacrificial humanity has to remain as long as people will be Redeemed.

Ed Dalcour:Different prepositions: Throughout John chapter 14 (and chaps. 15-16), Jesus distinguishes Himself from His Father by using different prepositions. This use of different prepositions "shows a relationship between them,"5 and clearly denotes essential distinction, e.g., "no one comes to [pros] the Father but through[dia] Me" (John 14:6); "he who believes in [eis] Me . . . I am goingto [pros] the Father" (v. 12; cf. also John 15:26; 16:28).

Mlculwell:Of Course he distinguishes himself as the first comforter in the flesh, and as part of Gods plan he is also the other comforter in the spirit. (1st. Cor.15:45-47,2nd. Cor. 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit)The flesh paid for our way to come to God. There is one mediatorbetween God and man *the man *Christ Jesus.(1st. Tim. 2:5) Not a "Godthe son" if that were so we would not have a mediator because it would not be the man Christ Jesus, it would be again a hybrid because Trinity Folks have God dying for our sins and mediating , the reason the prepositions are used are for that distinction not for a distinction between God persons. (God was manifested or revealed in the flesh 1st. Tim 3:16)

Ed Dalcour:Paul, too, regularly uses different prepositions to clearlydifferentiate the Father from the Son. In Ephesians 2:18, Paulteaches that by the agency of the Son, Christians have access to the Father by means of the Spirit:For through Him [di' autou—the Son] we both have our access in [en]one Spirit to the Father [pros ton patera] (Eph. 2:18).

Mlculwell: Amen! Our redemption was Bought and paid for through thesacrifice(Of His flesh) once for all. Of course Paul would use those distinctive prepositions because it was the man Christ Jesus that paid the price and later the spirit of him given him without measure(John 3:34) which he(His humanity) was and was made(1st. Cor.15:45-46)

Ed Dalcour:10. If Oneness doctrine (or modalism) is the so-called doctrine ofthe apostles, then, why was it universally condemned as *heretical*by the early church Fathers (some of who were disciples of the original apostles) and condemned by all the important church councils and creeds?

Mlculwell: actually this whole arguemnt is irellavent! So were Hymenaeus and Philetus Close and lived in their day who taught the resurrection was past,(Oh, I see, he interjects his false Doctrine Of Calvinism) your argument does not hold up to the scriptures because some one from (a so called) Church history is said to be a disciple of the original Apostles,(Here say) this smells of the same false argument the Catholic Church gives for her oral Authority which should simply be accepted there are many doctrines from those so called fathers I could present, you would shrink from! Then this is the same group that speaks of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) andthen presents a so called argument as to why we have been condemned by councils and creeds of men(Not of scripture!) This argument I had a good laugh from… I am not held to your councils or Creeds as final authority on anything if those men you have followed are wrong, youwill die unsaved with them. If not, I will, but I would rather take scripture than your councils and creeds of men with (unscriptual)theories you prop up as truth. We are the only ones that believe in Sola scriptura you on other hand only make the claim when you are in the same boat as the Catholics.But though we (apostles) or an Angel from heaven , preach anyother Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.(Gal. 1:8) Nothing was said from an Apostle of your doctrine of the trinity of multiple persons of God so to me you are accursed until you repent of that false doctrine. I am not even tolisten to your councils creeds of men they must be held to the light of the scriptures and they found wanting for truth.Jesus is the only supreme God..ML Culwell