Debate J N Anderson and Michael Burgos

Debate
Michael Burgos (Trinitarian) vs J N Anderson (Oneness Pentecostal)
Moderated by Chris Date
The thesis: "The Son personally preexisted the incarnation with the Father"

The debate will be held on April 5th on the Theopologetics program (available by podcast via iTunes, Zune Marketplace or @ Theopologetics.com). The format will include a cross examination.

The moderator has offered to entertain questions to either participants via email. If you are interested please email your question to Theopologetics@hotmail.com.


After I have this up for awhile I am going to Post the Baptismal portion of The Perkins Reeves debate.

Debate Roger Perkins and Bruce Reeves

Roger Perkins Evangelist UPC I am proud to say
has done one the best Jobs I have heard in a long time in defending the truth of
God's word. Enjoy...

Monday Night

http://www.evidentialfaith.com/debates/Monday.mp3

Tuesday Night w/ Q n A

http://www.evidentialfaith.com/debates/Tuesday.mp3

Moderators : James Anderson and Jeff Asher

God giveth not the spirit by measure (unto him) John 3:34

There seems to be an upheaval of late on the Carm boards concerning the Oneness view, and the Reformed view of the passage found in (John 3:34) and Jesus being *given the spirit not by measure*(No limits) as was not so of others in the past.

The contention I have is because of Jesus origin in his humanity.(The virgin Birth) His humanity did not eternally exist.(The eternal flesh doctrine.) His deity did however. The question remains between the two sides was that of an "eternal son-ship deity?" The Trinitarian side. Or was the deity that Of God the father? The Oneness view.

Scriptures say: God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. (in the flesh)(2nd Cor.5:19) Which God?

That God was the Father. Jesus said: the father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.(John 14:10)

Jesus said of his son-self: I can of mine own self, do no works or miracles(John 5:30)

The Trinitarain believes an "eternal son deity" separate and/or distinct from the father, solves the problem of adoptionism that they try and put back on Oneness which cannot be done because adding the humanity to the eternal son does away with the origin of the son being born on a certain day. still does not refute a certain day as to his origin.

Unto you is *born this day,* in the city of David, a savour which is Christ the Lord.(Luke 2:11) We do not see from this passage a distinct deity from God the father. if we do, then we see polytheism.

As for John 3:34 and Jesus being given the spirit by no measure or limits.

One can look at (Isaiah 11:2) to see what Jesus was given by no measure. Not one person on the carm boards brought up the passage for consideration.

Seven spirits of completeness(Col.2:9,1st.Tim.3:16) were his upon the incarnation from his mothers womb at the origin of His flesh. (Not his deity)

1.)The Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him(Jesus)

2.)The Spirit of wisdom.(Jesus was given the Spirit of wisdom he was not already wisdom.

3.)And(The Spirit of) understanding.

4.)The Spirit of counsel.

5.)And(The Spirit of) Might.

6.)The Spirit of Knowledge.

7.)and of the (Spirit) of the fear of the LORD.

The Seven Spirits of God(Complete fullness) of the Godhead, or of the state of being deity, of what makes God,God. All In Him.(Eph.4:4-6) God the son did not give his spirit by measure unto him . The son born of Mary is he to whom God gave it by no limits.

Trinity versus Oneness debate

Debate
Roger Perkins and Bruce Reeves


Debate Each Night on Apostolic Doctrine

- Roger Perkins (UPCI) and Bruce Reeves (Church of Christ)


February 28 through March 4
Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and Friday Night!
@ Timberland Drive Church of Christ
912 S. Timberland Drive in Lufkin, TX 75902

A Closed (Lecture) from a trinitarian on Oneness

I came across this rant from a Reformed trinitarian on what the person who claimed to be ex-Oneness thought Oneness was actually saying by their teachings: ( That being that Oneness were too stupid to know they were trinitarain.)

The person writes:

"I was raised Pentecostal (before I was reformed!) They do believe in the trinity, but for some reason their understanding of it is flawed. They in their ignorance then become anti-trinity. They call themselves "Oneness" instead of "Trinitarian". Since they do not understand the trinity they say that there "is only one God .. not Three". They think that trinitarians are worshiping 3 different Gods. I remember hearing sermon after sermon about the "Oneness of the Godhead" like it was a matter of salvation to believe oneness. But if they understood exegesis they would understand that their "Oneness" God has three personalities.. it is all really just semantics. But you ask any of them.. they are anti-trinity".

My comments:
No, we do not believe in the trinity... (of three persons!)

Yes, we do believe in One God.

"If they understood exegesis"???? You mean by exegesis their version of it, where they find a proof text and isolate the so called proof in a vacuum from all other passages on the same subject or even the continued context????

Very good examples of this thinking is when they do it to John 17:5 and exclude Verse 24 Where the Disciples were about to witness the Glory that the father had with the son before the world was(His passion where the son was slain before the foundation of the world... This was the plan of God for the redemption of mankind.)


Yes, The belief in One God is a matter of salvation... Of course, the trinitarain says: by their tradition and creeds that adherence to the trinity is a matter of salvation. Nowhere do scriptures teach this fallacy.

No, our *One God*(What the term "Oneness" means.) Does not have "three personalities". Our one God took to himself humanity in his son and has the lessor will of a man and the all powerful, ultimate will of God, but not three personalities. One real man, and One real God who incarnated the man, by no measure, do not two, or even three persons of God make!

Matt Slick and the Reformed take the truth of God and change it into a lie

Matt Slick who owns the carm boards, an apologetic arm of those who call themselves the Reformed, attempts to deal with Baptismal regenerationism.(Something those who Baptize in Jesus name are not. But since Slick wrongly attributes this doctrine to us I felt the need to deal with some major issues. You can read here:
http://mypersonalramblingsandopinions.blogspot.com/2010/07/does-water-baptism-save-you.html

Those Who Baptize In Jesus name are not "baptismal regenerationist."

The name Jesus literally spoken over the repentant believer, remits the sin and regenerates the believer.

Belief alone does not save if the belief is dead by not going on to the Grace(God has given ie. through preaching, calling, believing, Repentance, baptism in Jesus name and being filled with the Holy Ghost.) God has given through the new birth.

(Notice) *belief the way the Reformed teach * does not get you the Holy Ghost. Paul asked the question in (Acts 19:2) Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? The Reformed say it is fact, the scriptures say the very opposite by Paul asking the question!

You must believe and call the way the scriptures teach you to call and believe( John 17:20,Romans 10:14-17)

The Apostles were able to remit believer's sins. (John 20:23) The Reformed do not believe this fact and try and hide this passage from you with a bunch of nonsense argumentation that skew truth.

They were not Just willy nilly able to remit sins, but through Baptism in Jesus name alone.(Luke 24:47,Acts 2:38,8:16,10:47,19:1-6)

The Reformed have taken letters to believers in established churches where folks already believed and were Baptized and mistaken belief as a mental nod toward salvation apart from the grace of God through preaching, Baptism in Jesus name where they have taken the truth of God and changed it into a lie.

My Audio debate with LimeyBob of the UK

I hope this works, if Not, I will try another time.
I did this debate because the person in question(Limey Bob) was writing a book
against the Oneness view of God. The debate is Good until the 45 minute mark,
at the beginning of the question and answer session when I then lost my
microphone and never recovered.

Enjoy, tell me what you think and be honest. This Mediafire hosting for free. I tried submitting this with other hosts that did not seem to last very long.

Hopefully the link is good.

Manuel

paste the URl in your address bar at the Bottom to listen.

http://www.mediafire.com/?8ydnuutfcpafbj6

John Calvin Fact ?

Did you Know that John Calvin formulated his doctrines and opinions on scripture texts after believing for One Year? Calvinists actually believe the Man is genius for doing so. No wonder the five points of the Tulip are such a mess......

Roger Perkins(UPC )versus Glen Burt(COC)

http://evidentialfaith.webs.com/apps/links/ Listen.

On baptism in the name versus the titles or "silent baptism".Glen Burt is the same Burt that Marvin Hicks debated In the 70's.

Audio Debate Oneness versus Trinity

Download the audio debate between Myself and Robert Skinner of the UK on the Oneness view versus the Trinity.

http://www.zshare.net/download/774082279718bf1e/

James White continues to spread Lies while crying liar

Here of late Dr.James White has waged a personal vendetta against one Ergun Caner, a professor at Liberty College in Virginia a person to whom White has found out to be one who sensationalizes (Lies) his claim of being a former Muslim of his youth and now a convert to Christianity.... It is my opinion Dr. White wishes to be the main authority on Muslim/Islamic Apologetic's. I offer two quotes.

"Those who have taken the time to listen to my debates, or listen to my lectures, or listen to my interactions with Islamic claims on the Dividing Line (such as the current response I am offering to Sheikh Awal) know that I have consistently eschewed the title of "expert on Islam." Honest people know I refer to myself as a student of Islam”


“But let's put the shoe on the other foot: where did either Ergun or Emir Caner do graduate study in Islamic theology or Apologetics? Answer? They didn't. They have been granted "expert" status for one simple reason: Ergun's claims that they were raised in Turkey… . The only reason they have been given the status they have has been due to their self-professed upbringing.”

Now what is my point to offering all of this? It seems, White has now made it a personal vendetta to lie himself about a Reformed Preacher by the name of Harold Camping to whom White debated on the Iron Sharpens Iron radio broadcast. You can listen here for yourself and see that White blatantly lies.
http://mp3.sharpens.org/20090728ISI.mp3 by saying he was a Oneness/"Modalist" for not teaching three persons of God in the way in which White does.(After White blatantly pointed out the lies of Ergun Caners claims he goes headlong and does the same exact thing.)

Camping has set a date for the second coming of Christ and the end of the world and is a Calvinist Reformed Teacher who claims all should leave their places of worship as they are all evil.(Wait now how can Camping teach Calvinism and be deceived?) I would like to point out no Oneness(Modalist) as White calls us would claim God is three persons as can be clearly heard on The Camping
vs.White debate.....

Dr.Whites Quote

I wanted to submit a quote by Dr. James White of (Aomin.org) that I have been submitting on the carm boards of late, that in my opinion, does more harm than good for the trinitarain position whom in trying prove the doctrine is not polytheism, has the exact opposite effect.

Pay very close attention to where Dr. White says; that: "the God and the word are not interchangeable terms"? He makes the statement in defense of his doctrine and states that oneness interchange the term(Which some may do but for the most part, is not true.) However, the trinitarain's do interchange the term as the word is *god the son,* with one caveat he is not *the God* (folks there is only the God)think about that?

http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html

"This phrase, if taken completely alone, would be very confusing, since John has already asserted the eternality of the Word. Now he clearly distinguishes between the Word and God. He asserts that they are distinguishable. "God" and "Word" are not interchange-able terms. Then, is John talking about two "gods?" Can more than one being be fully eternal? John was a monotheistic Jew. He could never believe in more than one Being Who can rightly be called "God." How then is this to be understood?

This phrase must be taken with the one that follows. We read, "and the Word was God." Again, the eternal en. John avoids confusion by telling us that the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jesus, as we know Him as the Word, does not constitute everything that is included in the Godhead. In other words, John is not teaching the ancient heresy known as Sabellianism, which taught that Jesus and the Father and the Spirit are simply three different aspects of one person, i.e., Jesus is the Father, the Father is the Spirit, and so on. Instead, John here asserts the full Deity of Christ, while informing us that He is not the Father, but that they ("God" and the "Word") have eternally co-existed"

The definite article before Logos.

Michael Burgos:
Manuel, it is evident that you have not understood, nor taken the time to examine the Greek. The third clause reads kai Theos en ho Logos. The Logos possesses the article. Therefore, the third clause is a description of the Logos and not an identification of the Logos


Verse 14 is not the identity of the Logos! This is the identity of the son whom John saw and handled. The Logos was not the son!

The word/Logos belongs to God as a possession, Like *the Mules* of John Smith. The definite article shows possession and ownership that is How the word is with God and the word is God (definite article) is not another person which is just plain stupid doctrine!

Michael Burgos:
This clause tells us that the Logos is everything that God is. Secondly, should you reject my assertion and assume that the text is convertable, that is that the Logos is God and God is the Logos, you would have to do that with other texts where the article is present with only one of two subjects. For example, 1John says God is love.


You wrote:
"Secondly, should you reject my assertion and assume that the text is convertable, that is that the Logos is God and God is the Logos,"

Do you not see your blatant contradiction? You are the one who says the word is god jr! Not me! The word is with God as his creative attribute through his spoken word. That is how the word is both with God and is God. I do not have to convert anything back and forth, that is what you do.
You have defeated your own argument and do not even see how you did so..


Michael Burgos
God has the article and love does not. Therefore using your grammatical assumption you would have to agree that love is God is an equal rendering in that the phrase is convertable. Your lack of knowledge about both the original language and basic Greek grammar is evident. So to is the juvenility of your comments.



God would not be God without his creative Power through his word! But he could be God without Love! Love is something he chose to show forth to us. His power he cannot relinquish, thus his spoken creative power through his word, that is the difference between love and the word, or his word as his creative power. You have no argument!

My Debate on paltalk with LimeyBob

http://www.mediafire.com/?8ydnuutfcpafbj6

This debate took place on Paltalk starting from the carm boards with Limey Bob and moved to a discussion on micro-Phone Feb.14 2010 Limey being from UK and graciously hosting the discussion. Enjoy

Part 1 Baptism of grace through faith and not Torah

Micahel Burgos writes

The United Pentecostal Church International, which is the largest of the oneness denominations, contends that baptism in the name of Jesus is a requirement for salvation. From their doctrinal statement: "It is true that water itself does not contain any saving virtue, but God has chosen to include it in His plan of salvation. " (1) David Bernard, the leading UPCI theologian states "Baptism is important only because God has ordained it to be so. God could have chosen to remit sin without baptism, but in the New Testament church He has chosen to do so at the moment of baptism. Our actions at baptism do not provide salvation or earn it from God; God alone remits sins based on Christ's atoning death. When we submit to water baptism according to God's plan, God honors our obedient faith and remits our sin. " (2) In light of these assertions we must ask ourselves does the word of God agree with Bernard and the UPCI?


Firstly, we must acknowledge that the basis upon which we either agree or disagree whether or not baptism is required must be from the entirety of the scriptures. That is, we cannot isolate passages of scripture from their context to support preconceived doctrines. Nor can we ignore the importance of the epistles at the expense of the narrative passages of scripture. This article is not going to be comprehensive by any means, but it will hit on many of the key texts that deal with the subject of baptism and how or if it relates to salvation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely we cannot Isolate passages of scripture from there context but this is exactly what the Trinitarain does continually with every doctrine they have devised and the doctrine of Baptisms id no different.

Notice our friend talks about the Epistles and this is the mistake that the Reformed continually make going there for their salvation plan when these are letters to churches who were already Baptized in Jesus name and filled with the Holy Ghost and every-time Paul talks about belief unto salvation or remission he is not speaking of any Reformed doctrine.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos

Bernard's statement that "when we submit to water baptism...God honors our obedient faith and remits our sin" combines the act of baptism with the act of faith. Baptism is an ordinance instituted by the Lord Jesus (Matt 28:19), and it is therefore a command. A command of God is synonymous with a law of God. Obedience to a law of God cannot under any circumstances cannot save a sinner. Or as the Apostle puts it:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A command is a law of God, but not the Law of God(The Torah) that Paul refutes such works in all of his epistles. That is the great mistake of the Reformed. Baptism in Jesus name is of grace(Given by God himself) If it is of grace, it is not of the law!

There is also the law of love. (A command) Would the Trinitarian say that is a command from the Law? Is it of the law(The Torah?) No, they wrangle to try and maintain their false doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos

Galatians 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.(esv)

Paul places a high priority on faith in the Lord Jesus that is apart from works. This is further emphasized in his discourse on justification in the epistle to the Romans:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This is pure dishonesty no person is justified by the law(The law shows us we cannot do what God required under the law. Baptism in Jesus is not of the law it is of grace and love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Michael Burgos
Romans 4:4-8 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”


Certainly no one can argue that the high point or pinnacle of teaching on justification is Paul's discourse in Romans chapters 2-5. Yet, he does not touch on the topic of baptism until chapter 6. We see that Paul has concluded his writing on the topic of justification by the phrase "what shall we say then?"(Rom 6:1). The Apostle proceeds to address abstinence from sin and baptism without connecting the doctrine of baptism and to the salvithic process. Rather, he points to baptism as the symbol that demonstrates the reality of union with Christ in death burial, resurrection, and the newness of life. His words regarding baptism are relevant to the doctrine of sanctification rather than the remission of sins (Rom 6:1-4). The conclusion that we can draw from Romans is that baptism is the symbolic expression of authentic faith.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isolating one passage from all others as the Reformed do might so teach such nonsesne but we must take all of the word God in the New testament concerning the teaching Jesus himself teaches the apost6les were able to remit and with-hold remission of sins(John 20:23) Whose soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them. That is not even considered by the Reformed nor do they have a valid explanation of the passage , but rather one more contradiction after another one explanation I have heard is that it was preaching but they hold to the doctrine of God saving us before we were born or ever heard a message preached.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Michael Burgos

The demonstration of an individual's allegiance and recognition of the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ is best seen in baptism. It is in baptism that Christians may look back as a reminder of their union with Christ. It is in baptism that we are reminded of the hope of resurrection (Rom 6:5).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baptism In Jesus name is many things and some of the things Michael points out are true but what is absolutely not true is his inference that baptism in Jesus name does not remit(Wash away) sins. Baptism is as much apart of our faith as believing or repentance. Baptism without the name simply gets one wet and does absolutely nothing.

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

Michael Burgos
Typically, we see that there are parallels between the institution of circumcision and baptism (Gen 17:10/Matt 28:19). I would not go as far as to suggest that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, as circumcision is the sign of the Old Covenant. When we examine the way in which the ritual of circumcision is treated in light of the doctrine of justification there are certain parallels that can and should be drawn.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Read Col.2:11-12) The Male Jewish child was circumcised and named on the eighth day after his birth. John The Baptist was. (Luke 1:59) The same is true of the Christian babe. In the new covenant both male, and female, are circumcised(The old man is cut off) and named in a new beginning(The eighth day or first day) Again Baptism without the name does nothing but get one wet and is not of faith, but misplaced because of false doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Micahel Burgos
Romans 4:9-11 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He had no Law of circumcision, he simply followed God of course he would be justified by faith. he stepped out when God told him to he did not say okay God I believe you and stayed put in Ur! That is not faith! Circumcision is not of the new covenant Baptism in Jesus name is God given and is of Grace and is through faith.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos

The Apostles point is this; Abraham's obedience to the ordinance of circumcision was representative of an inward reality; Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first thing God did was call Abraham to come out of UR, he did not say okay I believe you God and stayed where he was at(That is not faith) but that is exactly the Kind of so called faith the Reformed prop up. (The circumcision is the shadow of the true) not the true. Baptism in Jesus name is of grace through faith. Belief is not mental ascent. An inward reality can be misplaced as such is the Reformed doctrine concerning Baptism in Jesus name.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burgos
The obedience to the ordinance did not effect whether or not Abraham was justified.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abraham would not have been Justified if he said:" I believe you God" and stayed in UR, that is not faith but that is the kind of faith the Reformed again prop up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This principal can and should be rightly applied to our own understanding of how we are seen as righteous before God. It is our faith in Christ alone that is counted to us as righteousness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the problem our understanding and trying to make it mesh and not contradict what Paul says the problem is within their teaching of works by the law and their misunderstanding of all things God has given us by Grace such as Baptism in Jesus name which is grace through faith and not by works of the law. This is a false issue the reformed have propped up for years and have taught their masses but it is so easily contradicted when the Light of Gospel is shed upon the doctrine of their teachings.

It was started because of their fights with the Catholics, who Both the Catholics, and the Reformed teachings were wrong, but some great truths sprung from those debates..

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

Michael Burgos
Baptism is the sign of that reality, but not the means of that reality.

It seems as though Acts 2:38 is the resounding mantra of Oneness Pentecostalism. When we examine that text in isolation as it is often presented, it does seem to mean exactly what our oneness friends contend it to mean.

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (esv, bold mine)

The word "for" used in this verse is the Greek word "eis." This word can mean “because” or “on behalf of.” In light of that definition, it seems as though this text is a detractor of oneness soteriology. In addition, there is another interesting dynamic in the verse. The verb for "be baptized" in the Greek (baptizo) is in the singular, whereas the word for "repent" (metanoeo) is in the plural. The manor in which the text goes from a plural ("repent") to a singular ("be baptized") to plural ("your") suggests that "the forgiveness of sins" is a result of repentance and not baptism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the problem and now we are in the heart of the matter Michael is using this argument because it suits his doctrine.

What about Math.26:28 This is my blood of the new testament,which is shed for(because of) many for(Because of)the remission of sins(were already remitted?)

What about Romans 3;25? Jesus Christ whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,to declare his righteousness for(Because of) the remission (because of )sins already past?


a man is not justified by Keeping the Law(Torah) but is justified by faith. (What the Reformed does is make anything we do because of the grace of God through faith and the law of Love) Anytime they see *Law or works* it means any thing we do but not what Paul knew as Law (The Torah) (Abraham could not leave Ur then.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are One, coming from heaven.

One Trinitarain by the name of pluralforonegod writes and asks the following question:

"
Who Came Down From Heaven And Became A Man?
1. God the Father
2. Holy Spirit
3. The WORD (Jesus, Son)
4. All of the above

Please try and explain your choice with some comments...

Thanks
__________________

John 17:22...WE (Jesus + Father) are ONE... "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My answer: Nobody came down from heaven and became a man.


My reasoning that God did not become a man: A dog that becomes a horse, is no longer a dog, but a horse. The Trinitarain or Oneness that makes this claim is using thoughtless imagery. God remained God but indwelt the man who remained a real human being, but it was not at all like a Christian who simply receives the spirit. The son of God was given the spirit by no measure and if it was given him by no measure then it is immeasurably his and to take away in any amount is measuring.

Jesus makes the statement *I came down from heaven*(They say is "God the son") not to do my own will, but the will of him(God the father) that sent me.(John 6:38)



So First off. It was not God's will, but it was God's will. Why would the same one God sent down from heaven have an opposing will within his one God-self? That does not sound like monotheism. And if he were the all, ever- present God, would he not already be there?

The Oneness view is that it is his own real human will submitting as a lessor being to the will of the ultimate being of God in the incarnation.


We see sent and coming language used of Jesus in (John 6:51) In the very same passage and context and explains what Jesus meant.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man shall eat of this bread,he shall live forever, and the bread I will give (which came down from heaven) is my flesh.

We see clearly from John 6:51 and again in verse 62 his coming and being sent was in reference to his flesh being provided as an atonement for our sins and it has nothing to do with "god the son" coming literally as another person from heaven. flesh.


The Word/Logos was not "god the son" in eternity either. A person would be hard pressed to find the term son in that passage and he was not the son until he was born of the virgin(Gal.4:4,Math1:20)

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 Septuagint Greek of the OT.) The Logos was God's spoken, creative, expression and not another person of God.

Tyndale in his translation did not call the word a *he* as another person but rather an *it* likely saw the forcefulness of the psalm passage and applied accordingly.


What did Jesus mean in John 17;22 when he said: "we are one"? *We* does not refer to polytheistic persons in the Godhead but rather a real man incarnated by the real God. The Father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works(John 14:10)

I can of mine own real human self do no works(John 5:30)

Only begotten (sired and born) son, or only begotten eternal son

The Trinitarian's claim from a variant reading of John 1:18 that Jesus was the only begotten God(Eternal son) as opposed to the other two un-begotten gods/Gods the term they say in the variant reading is Monogenes theos(Grk) or only begotten god/God.

This variant reading either teaches Polytheism(Belief in more than one God) because of the term God or it could be viewed in light of the incarnation. The term *person* that is frequently imposed upon scripture for the purpose of stopping queries of Polytheism is not found in the text the same could be said of Philippians 2:6....

The Oneness view is that Jesus was the Only begotten (Miraculously sired and born son of the
father and the virgin) and not eternally begotten in the sense that he pre-existed as another person(A term not even found in the text) but he would be eternally sustained in the sense that he was a a real man given the spirit by no measure as his flesh had a beginning.
The Trinitarian doctrine would make Jesus inferior as he is sustained by another.

Jesus, Just Like Issac was the Only begotten son of the promise even though Abraham had
two sons, one sired/begotten of the promise and the other of the flesh, not of
the promise.

One Trinitarian known as Limey Bob on the CARM boards writes the following concerning his view of the variant.

"In Greek begotten is 'gennao' (verb) and 'only begotten' (adjective) is monogenese. These are two different Greek terms which you are confusing, for you cannot take monogenese and then say that it means begotten as it does not; it means 'only begotten' or 'one and only' or 'one of a kind' and being an adjective implies a relationship and not an act of creation (which only a verb would imply). So when applied to God 'monogense' implies an eternal state just as at John 1:18 (becasue God is eternal), or else it implies a non-eternal state as at Hebrews 11:17 where Isaac is monogenese of Abraham."

Yes monogenes(pronounsed mono- ga- nase) means *only begotten.* Issac was the only sired and born son of the promise Just Like Jesus was the only miraculously sired and born son of god and the virgin birth.

Nothing is said from this writer about the literal virgin birth the writer is trying his hardest to hide in plain site as it does have to do with jesus literal flesh being the only begotten and he inserts his doctrine and actually disproves it or he has two beggetals.

Carm? As I shake my head in disblief at some of the questions of ignorance

Robert S a Trinitarain writes and asks the following question on the Carm boards he thinks is a fool proof argument that refutes the Oneness view because he uses scripture and the grammar, void of any meaningful context found in other passages with the grammar alone :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Can you gratmmically explain what the bible means when it says 1st John 4 vs 10. Herin is love,not that we loved God but that he loved us and
sent his Son into the world that we might live through him."


Explain sent his Son.

Where was the Son before he was sent.

Who sent and who went.

Thanks Bob
The grammar is important.

And some of you wouldnt pass grade 3 grammar.

The Son was sent into the world that means he wasnt in the world before he was sent, he was somewhere eles before someone sent him.

Where was he before he was sent hint it wasnt the world.

And who sent.

And who went.

Can you awnser I know your not stupid.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

If that is not enough, then he answers himself and demeans the Oneness view like he actually has a meaningful argument, all the while ignoring other passages that deal with the same subject and explains what Jesus being *sent and him coming* actually is, which has absolutely nothing to do with pre-existence of "god the son" whatsoever.

What the trinity folk do is ; isolate the passage in a vacuum, ignoring the context and other passages and then ask us about the grammar which would prove their point devoid of anything else (Which is meaningless) without the full context and other passages that speak of the same subject. Actually Jesus being sent has to do with God providing a sacrifice of sinless flesh in his only begotten son. John also wrote (John 6:51)

Jesus is the bread which came down from heaven and the bread that came from heaven was his flesh. What the passage is telling us is that God provided Jesus flesh for us, like he provided manna in the wilderness for the children of Israel.

Then to try and prove this wrong, our trinitarian friends will turn to (John 6:62)that speaks further of His sacrificial flesh by stating what and if you shall see *the son of man*(That born of Mary in his flesh) ascend up where he was before?(They do not get it, "his flesh was not there before!" the key phrase is:* son of man* but they ignore that!)

It is impossible for the son of man to ascend up where he was before and that is the clue Jesus gave us in the sentence as the scriptures teach flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom.(In other words, Jesus flesh was provided for us from heaven) not that he literally came from there anymore than he was literally slain in eternity.(Rev.13:8,1st.Peter 1:19-20)

John 3:5 Baptismal regeneration?????

John 3:1-15 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.


6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.(esv)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Michael Burgos:
Oneness Pentecostalism teaches that a person must repent and be baptized in Jesus name to receive the forgiveness of sins. The oneness doctrine of baptism is commonly known as baptismal regeneration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: This is absolutely untrue, we are very much against "Baptismal regeneration"(Making Baptism the savior.) What Michael failed to tell anyone in truth is; that they refer to our teaching as such, as we deny their view as unscriptural.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burgos:
The regeneration of a person in the oneness view, can only be accomplished by this prescription, and according to the largest oneness denomination, all other forms of baptism are illegitimate and ineffective.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: The regeneration of a person is not up to the Onenenss view or the Reformed View but rather scripture and it is for this reason I am answering Michael as to what scriptures teach.( to do a comparison of the two doctrines) to see who actually contradicts the scriptures and who does not. We have simply gotten a rehashing of their redundant view of *being born of the water is refering to being born.* This will be looked at further down when Michael actually deals with that part of John 3;5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burgos:
The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is not unique to Oneness Pentecostalism; Roman Catholicism teaches a similar view that also includes infants in it's redemptive effects, although the Triune formula is used.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: It is not unique to us at all as Baptism without the name Jesus, literally spoken over the one being Baptized does absolutely nothing but get one wet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:

I do believe that the Jesus name formula is an outright rebellion against the clear teaching of the Lord Himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: As do I believe that using the titles: Father, Son and Spirit are the actual rebellion and not doing what the Lord Jesus actually stated to do in (Math. 28:19) that being: Go and find the One name and Baptize in that name. We get another account fo the great commission from Lukes view(Who wrote the book of Acts) In Luke 24:47 .

And that repentence and remission of sins be preached in HIS NAME among all nations BEGINING at Jerusalem.

(Where The first true message of salvation was preached) The Acts 2:38 message began at Jerusalm by Peter and Jesus sanctioned it in Lukes account... Peter said nothing about Baptizing the titles as he knew jJesus name was the fulfilment of all three titles,the name of the father, and of the son, and of the spirit.
But notice, that Michael makes a statement for the purpose of appealing to the emotions of those who hold to the false view of Math.28:19 as truth instead of appealing to what the text actually says and further reveals in( Luke 24:47) which points to( Acts 2:38) as the truth and ties in the math.28:19 passage and Michael makes an appeal to only a single passage in spite of the others.

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

Michael:
In Matthew 28:19 Jesus uses the definite article before each name, and in doing so, He identified each name to be used respectively (the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell; I know this argument better than that and have heard it many times and he has actually gotten it wrong, but it makes no difference and it does not teach what he is saying as a pat, fool proof ,argument... What he means is the use of the preposition( *of *)before the definite article(*The*) somehow teaches his doctrine of distinct names...

The Apostles only used One name(Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:45,19:1-6 , Paul called on that name: Acts 22;16) as there is only One name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved(Acts 4:12) and it is all inclusive of the titles Father, Son, and Spirit, as there is Only one name of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named(Eph.3:15) And there shall be One LORD(YHWH) and his name One (Zech.14:9) Jesus is the fulfilment of that name.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burgos:

The various cross references employed to defend the oneness position do little to support the Jesus only formula simply because they are all descriptive accounts divorced of context, and not prescriptive commands. There are volumes more that can be said on this subject, but my focus here is to identify the role of baptism , if any, in our Lord's encounter with Nicodemus.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mlculwell: Jesus would leave the detailed teaching of salvation in the new covenant to his disciples which was not the era that Jesus spoke to Nicodemus in John 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:

The Lord Jesus is specifically speaking of the regenerative work of the Spirit of God in this account, and I can think of no better place to affirm or replace our understanding of this pivotal subject.

In verse 5 Jesus issues His emphasis to Nicodemus when He states "Truly, truly, I say to you." This strong Hebraic expression indicates to us that His following teaching is of paramount importance. He follows His emphasis by saying "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." The assumption of water baptism as a requirement for salvation cannot be made at this point since our Lord continues by saying in verse 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." The correlation of water and flesh, and the spirit to the Spirit is undeniable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Here is what Michael and the Reformed are trying to make us swallow: That Jesus was somehow telling Nicodemus he must be born(You must be born of water verse 5) Michael has tried very hard to shirk the fact, as I pointed out to him once before, that this is redundandcy compounded and somehow he refuses that strong argument that reveals his contradictory interpretation to continue in his folly of eisigesis. It is not Jesus contradicting scripture, telling us that :"we must be born of water (* flesh* according to Michael and the Reformed) and then in the same breath refuting it it is Michael's very bad interpretataion so that his doctrine might work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burgos:

Should Jesus had been referring to water baptism at this point, we would assume that He would have provided further instruction since Christian baptism , that is the command and teaching of baptism (as seen in Acts 2:38), had not yet been instituted. Nicodemus would have been ignorant of the ordinance since it had yet to be issued, and John's baptism is no where to be identified as a requirement for salvation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell; I am amazed as Michael is actually right on two points above Christian Baptism was not yet instituted and John's Baptism was not a requirment under the new. But that is all he right about. Jesus revealed the truth to Nicodemus of the coming New will, later to be expounded upon by the disciples .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The importance of this fact is further supported by Jesus' own response to the question Nicodemus asked; " How can these things be?" Jesus responds by issuing a question of His own; "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?" This question Jesus poses indicates that Nicodemus should have already known about the correlation, if any, between water and the Spirit of God. Therefore, we can assume that the Old Testament contained within it enough information to provide Nicodemus with ample understanding about this subject.

If the water Jesus spoke of in verse 5 is the waters of baptism, where is the Old Testament text that identifies it? A careful survey of the Old Testament identifies Ezekial 36:25-27 as one of but a few (the others are Isaiah 32:15, 44:3), that correlate water with regeneration or salvation.

Ezekial 36:25-27 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.(esv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Here we have a fine example of Michael contradicting himself ; in another discussion with Michael on the Godhead(Oneness vs. the false view of the trinity) Michael made a point to tell me:" that the New Testament explains the Old. " I could not agree more! But what he wants his cake and eat too! when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus they were still in the Old covenant as the blood of the testator had not been shed . Jesus simply stared revealing Gems of truth that they could not yet understand. He even opened the disiples understanding.(Luke 24:45)


Michael here in Exekial sets up his very false strawman (An argument he devised for us and sets himself to knock it down.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:

This text detracts from the oneness doctrine of baptism since the use of prophetic metaphor is employed. "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean..." does not support baptismal regeneration because sprinkling is not the oneness method, God Himself is said to be the sprinkler, and should verse 25 be taken literally, God would have to follow His sprinkling with an actual heart transplant; "And I will remove the heart of stone."
John 3:6 correlates water with flesh. Given the context of Jesus' statement, "you must be born again," we can safely assume that the water spoken of is the water released during bearing. "Flesh gives birth to flesh" provides us with the correct context of His reference to water.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mlculwell: The intricacies of Baptism are not at all being taught for New testament salvation here that is done in the New testament and passages abound and I guarantee he does not want to actually go there as it will refute his false doctrine. Not only did Jesus tell Nicodemus that he MUST BE BORN AGAIN. But that he also: MUST BE BORN OF THE WATER (But according to Michael that means:" being Born") Can you imagine Jesus saying such a redundant statement? Again the detail teaching on the subject would be taught by the disciples later to be Apostles and then Nicodemus would recognize those whom Jesus commissioned as truth preachers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos

During a recent debate, a oneness adherent opposed this interpretation by suggesting that since all humans undergo birth, the notion of Jesus referring to the water released during child birth in John 3:5 would be redundant. In light of this assertion, I think it is important to keep in mind who it is that Jesus was actually speaking to. Nicodemus was a Pharisee, a zealous Jew, who like other Jews, might have believed his Judaism or Jewish birth was enough to merit eternal life (Matt 3:7-9, John 5:39). Jesus does not say that being born of water is a simultaneous occurrence as being born of the Spirit, but instead He contrasts the two. Being born again refers purely to spiritual rebirth, whereas Nicodemus mistook Jesus' words to mean a needed additional physical birth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: both Michael and Nicodemus are mistaking being born of the water as child birth! Does anyone see the blatant contradiction Michael is actually doing the same thing Nicodemus is doing this is how we know he has zero truth! It is redundant and a carnal non spiritual interpretation.

Nobody is saying that being born of water is a "simultaneous occurrence as being born of the Spirit." But rather being born again constitutes being born of the water and the spirit. A unity of the two. The only contrast being made is of the flesh and the spirit and being born of the water is not being born of the flesh. The spiritual birth is inclusive of being of being born of the water and of the spirit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burgos:

(vs 4). "That which is born of the flesh is flesh" identifies the spiritual nature of being born again. Therefore, the contention of Jesus is that you must be born not simply physically but spiritually. This spiritual birth is what regenerates, as opposed to the ethnicity or tradition one is born into.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: But Michael goes headlong into his false interpetation and tries to tell us when Jesus said: you MUST be born again of the water , means: being" born of flesh" as opposed to what? It clearly is not at all as he(Michael) says! Certainly the contrast is of being born of flesh and Spirit but being born of the water has nothing to do with that contrast!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Burgos:

In conclusion, the focus of the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit is underscored in verse 8 where the sovereignty and volition of the Spirit is metaphorically compared to the nature of wind. Baptism is a human undertaking,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell:
All of Acts 2:38 taught by the Apostles and sanctioned as truth by the Lord Jesus in Luke 24:47 as the great commission are not excluded from The regenerative work of the spirit because it does not fit your skewed view. It is not a work produced by the Apostles but given by the Lord himself(grace)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micahel Burgos: whereas regeneration is the prerogative of the Spirit alone (Titus 3:5). Obeying a command or baptismal formula can no more regenerate a dead human spirit (Eph 2:1) than the decision of Lazurus could release him from the grave, or bring life to dry bones (Ezk 37). This is exactly why Jesus uses the metaphor of physical birth to explain regeneration.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Obeying is of Grace. We are not talking about something given by men and demanded to be blindly obeyed but by the Lord himself and No matter how you wish to twist that fact does not make your view any less the twisting of scriptures that it is.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Burgos:
To suggest that water baptism regenerates negates the entirety of our Lord's metaphor and puts emphasis not on the sovereign will of God, but the freedom of men to obey an ordinance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell:
Nobody is suggesting "water Baptism regenerates". You better take that up with the Catholics, and the Churches of Christ! We are saying the literal spoken Jesus name in water Baptism is being born of the water and remits sin! Your problem and the biggest weakness of your Reformed(Deformed )view is that God is not all powerful enough to create men with free will and God still be and remain sovereign(That shows me your view of God is weak!)You must attempt to cheapen what God has given through grace to make your pathetic view look somewhat viable.

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

Discussion with Michael who denies Jesus real Humanity, saying: "Jesus does not have a human spirit."

(Hebrews 1:8-9) is about the incarnation Michael(a blogger of trinitarin persuasion) is denying that here. It is clear the text continues in that thought and includes the son as the eternal deity because he was made YHWH. Of course the only part he sees is the YHWH so that he must have always existed as "God the son" but that is not what is being stated at all otherwise God would have fellow God's there(he does not see his inconsistency either in using the passage all the way to verse 10 as the context continues the thought from verses 8-9-10 Also we have a clear denial by Michael concerning Jesus humanity(Which is the doctrine of Antichrist) Michael contends Jesus had no real human spirit(thus it was one third God animating a dead shell) and could not have really died as a shell cannot die neither can God experience death..... Enjoy!



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell:" Maybe you would not mind showing me where the scriptures or any writer of the NT said such a thing?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:Hebrews 1:10 And,(speaking of the SON the Father says) “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: We have already went over this! (Hebrews 1:8-9) But unto the son he saith they throne oh God is forever. It says the same thing as (verse 10) and this is a continuation of the context it is dealing with his deity and is including his son-ship or humanity as God because of the incarnation not as some fictitious nonsense that you misunderstand of "god the son".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micahel:Psalm 102:25 (speaking of YHWH the psalmist says) Of old you laid the foundation of the earth,and the heavens are the work of your hands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I also Believe Jesus is the creator because he was made the creator, as humanity had a beginning. You have proven nothing by repeating your worn-out shallow argument!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:The author of Hebrews clearly identified the SON as YHWH.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell; The son Is YHWH because he was made YHWH I gave the passages that say so but I do not blame you for ignoring them everytime!

(Acts 2:36) Jesus was made both Lord and Christ.

Now the Lord is that spirit(2nd. Cor.3:17)

(John 3;34) Jesus was *given* the spirit by no measure.

Jesus was *made* the Life giving spirit.(1st.Cor.15:45-46)

"Your version of the incarnation is of a god animating a puppet body and God the son went back to the comfort of heaven not dying at all or experiencing death how does God experience death?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:God animating a puppet? That is exactly what you believe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: What other real man can you name that does not have a human spirit as does your ridiculous version of Jesus does? So that you have a god puppet faking everyone out and not a real man!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:So far as the eternal Son going back to heaven, that is exactly what the text says.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: No it does not say any such thing! Your doctrine is foolishness and can be proven nonsense! You deny Jesus was a real man as you have a man with no human spirit but a hybrid Mix you simply deny it! You have a Hercules Demi god! Neither man nor god but a hybird new species.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micahel:He says "Father, into your hands." No, He did die and remember, the atonement was finished on the cross. Your ridiculous question "how does God experience death?" doesn't even deserve an answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Because you cannot answer it! God cannot die so you have a fake atonement also. Your doctrine is a total sham.

By man came sin ad by man came also the resurrection.(1st.Cor.15:21) God the son cannot redeem us as he would not be our kinsmen redeemer! He is not like us but a Hercules hybrid bunch of nonsense.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:As I said, you can affirm the deity in the Son but not the deity of the Son;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I can affirm both because his deity was given him by no measure(John 3:34) so that it was the deity of the son that of God the father(John 14:10) as the real son had no power of his own and could do no works or miracles as a real man(John 5:30)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:which is a denile of the deity of Jesus Christ. Oneness theology is essentially cloaked Arianism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: LOL! We are the Only ones with One God and Jesus is that One God! Arian's do not make that claim. We do deny your false polytheism and denial of Jesus real humanity having only a puppet or shell animated by deity!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell:"natures do not die people die!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:Who died on the cross? Was it not the Son? You contend that the Son is simply the flesh of God indwelt. Would this not be God's real human nature? You are indeed engaging in a little hipocrisy. You have to make Jesus Christ out to be two persons.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I am afraid not! We do not have "two persons of God" as that is false doctrine! We do have one real man with a real human will, and One real God with a superior will and mind but it is not two persons of God, because a real man is not another person of God. That is how I know you do not believe Jesus is a real man and you only think of him in terms of your fake deity known as God the son. A man without a human spirit is no real man at all but dead(James 2:26) You have a dead body animated as a puppet by "god the sons deity spirit" and deity spirit cannot experience death or he would have already!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael: Natures cannot communicate. His flesh could not communicate with the indwelling deity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: LOL! Where I have said such foolishness concerning natures? I believe a real man communicated with his real God that was both indwelling him and in heaven. His real human will mind, will, and emotion communicated as a lessor human being to the deity Given him as the superior being of God it was not two human beings or two God beings but One real man and one real God all in Jesus!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:I do not contend that the dual natures of Christ were mixed. The divine nature and human nature were both real and full, and they were held by one person. Your "hybrid mix" idea has no application with me or any Trinitarian.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Of course it does! that is all I get from you guys is a denial but there is no way for you to deny it as your version of Jesus denies his real humanity in not having a real human spirit the only men that do not have human spirits are dead men per 9James 2:26, and Eccl.3:21 which says all human spirits return to God at death)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael: Our own confesssion (Council of Chalcedon) refutes your accusation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: My Bible refutes your man-made creed! Keep your creed which is on the same level as the book of Mormon!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael: The oneness position and the Trinitarian position, in regards to the hypostatic union are actually very similar (not totally). This is why Bernard said in "the oneness of God" that at some point the oneness churches may adopt Chalcedon. But let us stay on topic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: This Oneness person will not adopt any creed! I could care less What Bernard adopts because I will not adopt any man-made creed that is why and how all your trinity churches fell away from the truth and accepted the false doctrine of the trinity! If Bernard does that, then he has fell into the same false doctrine the same exact way your folks did! I( do not believe he would such a stupid thing!)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell:"The Omni present God went to be with the omni present God"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:Remember, the eternal Son emptied Himself (phil 2) prior to the incarnation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Remember, this is why I said your doctrine was polytheism? because you have God(The son) equal to God. nothing is said in that passage about two persons but rather the term God is used and you have Jesus in that passage as God equal to God(As another God) not person

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell said...

"Jesus soul was not left in hell"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:Oh really? This is rich! So, are you saying that Jesus went to hell, as in the afterlife, or that He went to hell as in the place where the rich man went to?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mlculwell: Your ignorance is showing and has throughout this entire discussion.


"That was his human spirit that went back to God"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:So, Jesus' human spirit eh? Ridiculous. HE WAS GOD! HE DID NOT HAVE A HUMAN SPIRIT.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell; Here again we have a clear denial of his real humanity which is just as bad as denying his real deity(That of God the Father John 14:10, 2nd.Cor.5:19) To not have a human spirit is to deny his real humanity! You do have a fakery and God animating a shell.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael: Human spirits are created, His spirit was not created.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: You have the doctrine of Apollonarinism and I have dealt with you about this before, here on this blog!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:He is God and He took on human flesh. Jesus, as the Son, claimed to be God and eternal: John 8:58.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: Of Course he did! But he was standing before them as a real man claiming to be the I am because of the incarnation... He never made any claim about "God the son" Ancient false prophet made that false doctrine up and you bought into it hook line and sinker you have been duped by false prophets to believe false doctrine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:Heb 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise PARTOOK OF THE SAME THINGS, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I use this same passage and it does not deny the incarnation but rather affirms it and there are only two scriptures that clearly tell us who incarnated the son. You do not have a single passage!

2nd Cor.5:19 God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. Which God?

John 14:10 *The Father* that dwelleth *in me* he doeth the works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:
Nowhere does the scripture speak of a human spirit. That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of in my life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: That is why you have no real human man and your doctrine is antichrist and the old heresy of Apollanarianism.

Michael: You make Jesus Christ out to be TWO people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I explained that above but let's go ahead and say I do! Do (I have two persons of God,) as One real man and one real God? absolutely not! I do not believe God is a person out side the person of the son anyhow! Persons die God does not! when I say the word person am I speaking of God or man? You have forced your false definition for God upon the scriptures
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael: NATURES CANNOT COMMUNICATE. Is this suppost to be comedy? Am I on film? I need an Advil.You have got to be kidding.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I said nothing about natures communicating! You better take that Advil.

"But it was his own eternal deity because it was given him!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:This statement is a contradiction in the most basic way. You should proof read your comments. How could something be eternal, and at the same time have a beginning? The Son is eternal: Heb 7:3, John 8:58, John 17:5, John 1:1-2 etc...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mlculwell: I think you better take your own advice because as you see i will contradict everything you have to say. none of the passages you submit proves anything you have to say!

John 17:5 does not prove anything for you as in verse 24 Jesus says the Apostles or disciples were about to witness the glory he had with the father (Which was his passion) Jesus was no more literally back there with the father then he was literally slain but that is what he was talking about! Read Revelation 13:8 as the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

John 1:1 proves nothing for you either as that is refuted in psalm 33:6 as the word/logos came from the breath of God's mouth as his creative power the day you can make the breath of Gods mouth another person of God known as the son is the day you will have an argument from (John 1:1