The Human Spirit of Jesus?

This is an exchange between Michael Burgos' and yours truly dated 3/31/11  This discussion was on the subject  of the genuine human spirit of Jesus, and had actually been going on years before with blog comments, and email exchanges where Mr. Burgos  had made the claim:" he did not believe Jesus had a human spirit, and then he later  saw his error and changed to say he did have a human spirit," or so he claimed. Of course the evidence of his own words say otherwise. I write the following:

"I never said anything nor will I ever use the cop-out term: natures so I am not accusing you of mixing natures! I am accusing you of having a mix hybrid person. Do not assume what you cannot prove. Just tell us Jesus had a human spirit.
Did Jesus have two spirits or not?"

Michael Burgos says the following:" :πνεύμα when applied to humans is synonomous with ψυχή 99% of the time. Whichever terminology you would like to couch the immaterial human aspect in, it is clear that I and the vast majority of Trinitarians affirm that the Son has a human spirit.

Your question poses a false dichotomy based upon the assumption that the word spirit has only one meaning. The Son has a human spirit as he is like us in all ways yet without sin. But He is also God who is a spirit. The one person who is the Son possesses two different natures. To say that Jesus had two spirits fails to recognize the range of meaning of the word "spirit."(Carm.org).

So there you have it.  What kind of  mix spirit did Jesus have according to Burgos?  How is that a human spirit? It is my claim that Jesus had both one Human, and one divine spirit in his person as he was both God, and man.  To not have a genuine human spirit would make him something else. (Read Luke 23:46) I would like to know especially since Mr. Burgos has written a new book and has made claim to expertise in these matters and then further criticizes the Oneness view.

The Unconsisdered Error Of Michael Burgos New Book.

This is my second hand critique of a Book written by A person who has frequented  this blog many  times in the past. Having not actually read the book myself, but having heard the boasts on forums about what a "fool proof" argument Burgos has provided toward the Oneness view concerning the Greek word for "with" or the Grk preposition Pros in John 1:1. ( I make the disclaimer: I am no Greek scholar, but I do not have to be to use common sense.)

In Michael R. Burgos’ new Book, "Kiss the Son: A Christological Apology to Response to David K. Bernard’s The Oneness of God?, 2012."

Burgos submits a quote by David Bernard's Book as  the above title promises, and submits his own argument.

"The Greek word pros, here translated as ‘with’, is translated as ‘pertaining to’ in Hebrews 2:17 and 5:1. So the Word was with God in the sense of belonging to God and not in the sense of a separate person beside God."
(Burgos cites, The Oneness of God, 1997, 188-189).

 Burgos submits:“The above assertion is incorrect for a number of reasons” (Ibid. 58).

   Burgos then says:

 "The reason why pros is translated as “pertaining to” in both of the texts in Hebrews is because pros is immediately preceded by the accusative neuter plural article “ta” (trans. “things”).
(Ibid. 59). 

I would also make the bold claim for a number of reasons that  Burgos has ran down a rabbit hole and has given this absolutely no thought for many reasons on many levels.

The first question I would ask Burgos is that why did  William Tyndale( Trinitarian) translate the word/Logos as an it?
 

"The Tyndale New Testament of 1525 was the first English translation based on the Greek and the first English Bible to be printed." 

Tyndale (1494–1536) It was Tyndale's translation of  the Greek "autou" meaning; "he, she, or it." depending upon the context... Tyndale Handling God's word more carefully, and with great care did not with bias read "the Pre-incarnate Christ"  Back into John 1:1-3  and impose his own belief which; leaves something to be said for the Modern Trinitarian.

 "All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men." (John1:1-3 Tyndale)

 " Things." Are things an "it"?  Tyndale thought so. Is this my argument you ask? No, It most certainly is not my argument, but it is one that Burgos should have considered from one of his own. More than Likely he would say that today's scholars have more ancient documents and are better suited to translate. He, she, or it, would be determined by context. John is speaking from a knowing a experience of a person whom he handled and seen.(1st John 1:1-3) That is what Burgos and modern trinitarians read back into the text  of John 1 with the pronoun *he* later. I would say it is just an excuse to read doctrine back into the word of God.

 I always Like to ask the question to the Trinitarian;  "Why was not the  word/Logos with Jesus"? If Jesus were in fact God, would not the word be with him? If not, why not?   what was God, doing with God, if there is only One God. These are questions trinity doctrine ignore. Burgos book simply brings  about more questions and contradictions for his doctrine.

                                     Jesus is the God to whom the word is with.

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

but with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod his mouth. and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.( Isaiah 11:4 KJV)
 (Remember the beatitudes while reading this?)

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

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

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

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

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

 So in summary: I do not believe that Michael Burgos  has submitted anything earth shattering with his argument.. The so called argument is simply an emotional ploy, for those who believe the word/Logos  was the pre-existent son of God. This debate is far from over and i am very happy with the stance we take against the trinity view of John 1:1.

                                                      Works cited

  Michael R. Burgos’ new Book, "Kiss the Son: A Christological Apology  Response to David K. Bernard’s The Oneness of God?, 2012."

• Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform
• Publication date: 10/24/2012
• Pages: 150

The Oneness of God,  David K Bernard 1997, Word Aflame Press (188-189).

  William Tyndale A biography David Daniell Publisher: Yale University Press (March 1, 2001)

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

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

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

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

  

יְהוָה (Modern Hebrew) (YHWH)

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

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

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

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

JW.Mcgarvey's commentary on Acts 13:48

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ML Culwell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God Bless, 

Roger Perkins

Roger Perkins' Response to the Charges of Jeffrey Krause:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b. fig. εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ of a man (cf. Wilcken, Chrest. 109, 11 [III BC] Philopator as εἰκὼν τοῦ Διός; Rosetta Stone=Dit., Or. 90, 3 [196 BC] Ptolemy V as εἰκὼν ζῶσα τοῦ Διός, cf. APF 1, ’01, 483, 11; Plut., Themist. 27, 4; Lucian, Pro Imag. 28 εἰκόνα θεοῦ τ. ἄνθρωπον εἶναι; Diog. L. 6, 51 τ. ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας θεῶν εἰκόνας εἶναι; Sextus 190; Herm. Wr. 1, 12 al.; Apuleius as image of God, Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 43; JHehn, Zum Terminus ‘Bild Gottes’: ESachau-Festschr. ’15, 36-52) 1 Cor 11:7 (on the gradation here cf. Herm. Wr. 11, 15a); OF CHRIST (Helios as εἰκών of deity: Pla., Rep. 6 p. 509; Proclus, Hymni 1, 33f [Orphica p. 277 Abel]; Herm. Wr. 11, 15; Stob. I 293, 21=454, 1ff Sc.; Hierocles 1 p. 418: the rest of the gods are εἰκόνες of the primeval god.--The Logos: Philo, Conf. Ling. 97; 147. Wisdom: Wsd 7:26) 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15 (EPreuschen, ZNW 18, ’18, 243).—εἰ. τοῦ χοϊκοῦ, τοῦ ἐπουρανίου image of the earthly, heavenly (man) 1 Cor 15:49. (S. SVMcCasland, The Image of God Acc. to Paul: JBL 69, ’50, 85-100). The image corresponds to its original (cf. ὁμοίωμα 2 and 3; Doxopatres [XI AD]: Rhet. Gr. II 160, 1 εἰ. καὶ ὁμοίωμα διαφέρει).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Roger Perkins answers a recent AOMIN article.

 This is in answer to a recent article written by Alan Kurschner a contributing writer to Dr. James Whites Aomin.org  titled:

Hebrews 1:3 - A Refutation to Roger Perkins and Other Oneness Advocates


Alan Kurschner's article is red.  Roger Perkins response is in Bold white.

12/23/2011 - Alan Kurschner “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature [kai charaktēr tēs hypostaseōs autou] and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,” (Heb 1:3 ESV)

First, a word about the spiral nature of hermeneutics that most Trinitarians overlook in their "Exegesis". Proper hermeneutics works from the macroscopic to the microscopic. That is, the avid Bible student begins with the overall genre of a book (Macro) and from there funnels down to specific passages (Micro), never forgetting the overall purpose of the book.

The book of Hebrews was addressed to Jewish Christians so wrapped up in OT Judaism that, evidently, some were wanting to return to their old tradition including animal sacrifices (E.G., 10:26). This is the very reason the writer repeatedly appeals to the OT in buttressing his doctrinal posture. Virtually all Trinitarian apologists state that the OT standing alone does not support the Trinity doctrine, and I would argue neither does the NT which was written by Jewish hands (save Luke, who was most likely a proselyte Jew). The overriding point is that if these Jewish-Christians were so wrapped up in OT prescriptions that they were wanting to revert back to animal sacrifices...do we honestly believe they were worshipping a "2nd of 3 divine individuals" never once presented in the same OT the writer appeals to? Me thinks not!

Secondly, who was "the Son" in the immediate context of Heb. 1? None other than the one through whom God spoke in "these last days," clearly referring to the Messiah who traversed this Earth as God manifest in the flesh. Yet, it would be incredible to think that God never spoke through a "second-divine-co-eternal-individual" for all of eternity, but reserved such communication until a mere 2,000 years ago? It is from this premise that the writer begins his entire work. The Son is identified in Hebrews as speaking only in these last days, the express image of God, inherited a superior name, begotten into the world "today," anointed by His "God," has companions, etc. ad nauseum. Clearly, a "Pre-existent 2nd divine individual" is entirely foreign to the writer's notion of "the Son".


Now to the phrase "express image". Moulton & Milligan, pg. 683, concludes this term as "an exact reproduction". Various lexicographers conclude the same general meaning with a few similar variables. More about this definition, as well as the tense used in this passage below.....

The author of Hebrews expands on describing the Son's radiance of the glory of God by ascribing to the Son, "the exact imprint of [God's] nature." The Greek expression used is highly significant: "charaktēr tēs hypostaseōs autou." This statement about the Son being the exact representation of the essence of God tells us two things about the Son: (1) He is divine,

The Son is the one OT Yahweh in flesh, so of course He's Divine in this sense. Problem is, He's NEVER identified in Holy Writ as a "2nd Divine-Individual, apart from 2 other Divine-Individuals, each with their own separate center of consciousness". Secondly, an imprint or reproduction is not the thing that it is a reproduction of...in this case the invisible God. The term translated "exact imprint" connotes that which is tangible and visible....not invisible. Hence, it is clear that some sort of body is in view here, which precisely our position relative to the Son of God and only advances the argument!

and (2) is distinguished from another person (the Father in this case) because he shares in—represents—the same nature as another person.

Ahhh yes, the presuppositions are coming through nicely now aren't they? Here, we have an indirect admission in belief in "distinguished" "divinity," with the modification (& invention) of "persons" in order to circumvent the glaringly obvious lean toward Tritheism. Thankfully, we Oneness folks don't have to add to the Scriptures like this in order to force our doctrine into a text that never acknowledges the same. Interestingly here, it is said that the supposed divine persons "share" the nature of God, which immediately raises questions as to exactly which "person" would be "the Almighty" or "the Supreme Deity" since they all "share" the same nature? Again, thankfully Oneness believers do not have to wrestle with such conundrums inherent within such unbiblical notions.

For if the Son were the Father, it would be strange, if not illogical, to speak of him as the representation of God's nature.

In the first place, I don't know a Oneness believer on Earth who confesses "the Son IS the Father". This is a complete straw-man tactic either ignorantly (at best) or dishonestly (at worst) used to attack the Biblical message of the Mighty God in Christ (2 Cor. 5:19; Jn. 14:10). I will give this writer the benefit of the doubt & assume the former. What is "strange" & "illogical" is the idea that, in His present heavenly state (note the present tense "IS the exact imprint") the supposed "2nd divine individual" is a "reproduction" of the supposed "1st divine individual"? Who is representing the "2nd & 3rd divine individuals" in Heaven?? If co-equal, wouldn't they need a representative as well, especially in light of the Trinitarian doctrine of "Perichoresis" (Intermingling)? Strange this is not at all the notion presented to us in the Revelation 22:3-4. Think I'll stick with the Bible.

There are two persons in view here, not one.

Assumption stated as fact. There are 2 states of existence: The One Yahweh in His Transcendent existence, outside of the Incarnation, and this self-same God within the self-imposed limitations of the Incarnation...as "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His BEING (NIV)". One God, 2 simultaneous offices of existence...not "2 divine-individuals, each with their own separate center of consciousness".

Moreover, the last statement in this verse, "he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high," demonstrates two co-existing persons.

The phrase "sat down" simply connotes the finished work of Christ, the Messiah, in contrast to those priests who "stood daily" (E.G., Heb. 10:11-12). The term "Right Hand" is simply a Jewish idiomatic expression (which the Hebrew believers would readily pick up on) denoting mediatorship, glory and the place of authority....all of which the Messiah occupies. The verse knows nothing of "divine individuals in the Trinity" and the text standing alone will never support such a notion despite the desperate attempts to force it into the Bible.

Therefore the Son cannot be identified as the Father.

Again, we do not confess this, but, whom the Son is equally never identified as is a "2nd of 3 divine-individuals, each with their own separate center of consciousness...entirely unknown throughout 4,000 years of Hebrew revelation". "Illogical" indeed!


Roger Perkins

If Jesus were God( and He is) then the word should have been with him.

The very view of the Trinitarian version and interpretation of John 1:1 makes them suspect and actually contradicts scripture in the worst way, and makes it more of polytheism as God would be with God. Nothing is said of persons in the passage and that view is inserted in the text.

The word was not a pre-existent Jesus in John 1:1-18 but pertains to God, the meaning of the phrase *was with God.* The word/Logos was the spoken plan of God for the coming redemption.

The word/logos was not a person in 2nd Tim.2:17

And their word/logos will eat as doth a canker of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus who concerning the truth have erred.

I have asked this question before and will again; why would the writer, if it were Paul, Then soil the term Logos/logos, whom the trinitarians say was the pre-existent Jesus and use the term in such a common usage of two individuals spreading untruths such as the resurrection was already past?(Verse 18.)

The answer is; Logos/logos was never meant to convey the pre-existent person of the son of God, anymore than the logos of Hymenaeus and Philetus was a person. It was called their word/logos and pertained to their evil false idea and teaching.

Psalm 33:6 By the word/Logos were the heavens made and all the Host of them by the breath of his mouth.( Psalm 33:6 Septuagint, OT Greek.)

Again,The Logos/word is not being used here either anymore than it is in John 1:1-18 as a pre-existent person known as the son of God but is consistent in it's intended meaning and usage.



  Dr.  James White wrongly teaches Reformed Adherents that Oneness actually  teaches the Logos was the father.. A Reformed apologetic writer says the following:

"John 1:1c, which is neither definite nor indefinite (regarding the use of Theos), but rather, qualitative. Meaning, John is telling the reader something about the Logos in 1:1c. He is not telling the reader that the Logos is τὸν θεόν, or, “the God,” as described in John 1:1b of the Father. To do such a thing would mix up the persons already described in 1:1b which would make the Logos the Father (aka Modalism)."

Oneness does not teach the Logos is the father.... Oneness teaches the word is with God as the word pertains to God... Oneness does not teach the word is a person at all! Why was not the word with Jesus?  Jesus was God manifest in the flesh the word was with Jesus! the word was not even applied to Jesus until the word was MADE flesh!

James White Roger Perkins Debate Audio

Here's the audio from the debate. Copy and paste to your address bar to play audio.

Thanks Goes To Craig Ireland the Reformed host Pastor in Brisbane AU. for passing this along.

http://t.co/PUn154ta

http://www.hopechristianchurch.com.au/the-trinity-debate




1.) Opening Statements:


2.)First Rebuttals:


3.)Second Rebuttals:


4.) First Cross-Examination:



5.) Second Cross-Examination:


6.) Audience Questions:



7.) Closing Statements:



Very Good debate. Congratulations goes to Roger Perkins for defending(earnestly contend)for the faith once delivered to the saints. Jude 3

An Open Response From Roger Perkins to James White Part II

An Open Response From Roger Perkins to James White
Part II A response to Dr. White's dividing line Program.

On the October 25th edition of James White’s webcast, The Dividing Line, Mr. White continued in his typical condescending and pompous demeanor of my first rebuttal. I have dictated his remarks below to the best of ability , with my counter-responses. I copied his words in hurried fashion, so every single small term [i.e., vowels, articles, etc.] may not be word-for-word, but in 98% of the cases they are exact. I refer readers to the show for corroboration of the info. below.
_____________________________________________________________

JW: Mr. Perkins chose to be offended at my remarks on the DL of his previous debates, instead of listening, learning and growing.

RP: Again, you posture yourself as the teacher, and we all the “learners”. As I said before, it’s quite hard to “learn” from someone who infers that God did not fully “reveal” His true identity to His OT Covenant people. Not to even mention the “Three-Separate-Centers of Consciousness within each Divine Individual” position you hold to!? Or, your comment in your article John 1:1, Meaning and Translation, Section II, that states “The Logos is not all of God”. Interesting indeed! Let me guess, I’m taking the terms you chose to employ out of context again…right?

JW: In the Oneness camp, if someone says you’re factually wrong, it’s automatically an “Ad Hominem” attack.

RP: As I said to you before, I’ve received numerous emails from all over the country, both Trinitarian and Oneness, who expressed their disdain for your undue polemics. This includes terms such as “Ridiculous,” “Plain Silly,” “Absurd,” and, now add to the mix, “Lying”! “Ridiculous” indeed! If you can dish it out sir, then don’t cry when I return the favor…I can do both.


JW: Perkins did not engage the actual subject

RP: I spent 3 hrs. debating your subjects. I simply did not provide the responses you wanted me to give, thus the ol’ familiar Trinitarian charge, “You’re not answering my questions”. Hmmm, kinda’ like you did when I asked about the natural ramifications of the anthropomorphical language applied to God as possessing one mouth, pair of hands, feet, face, etc. To which you replied, “God having a mouth does not infer He is one person anymore than when the Bible says He has feathers He’s a chicken!” Good for laughs, but also a professional dodge which ignores the point of the question now doesn’t it [I.E., Ignoring the Question!]. Or, when asked why singular personal pronouns in the NT equals one single person, but 9,000 singular personal pronouns applied to God in the OT, the person-hood criteria shifts to being-hood. You said, “The difference is there’s no personal dialogue in the OT (which is quite strange for co-eternal persons now isn‘t it?).” I should have responded by asking if there has to be dialogue for a single-person-pronoun to indicate personhood? But, alas, hindsight is indeed 20/20 vision!

JW: Every time I look up Perkins’ scholarly references, they are in error.

RP: Hmm, did you take the time to look up the various prepositional usages in BAGD for the baptismal accounts in Acts…which expressly reference an oral invocation of the Name [eis (acc. case) to onama, epi (dat. case), en]? BTW, it’s quite strange that the lone witness of Mt. 28:19 necessitates the baptismal “formulae,” while the multiple attestations in Acts and the epistles simply denote Christian ‘authority’?? And you’re teaching me about proper “hermeneutics”??

Did you take the time to look up Louw-Nida’s semantic domain or Thayer’s on para in the dat. case as including “in the judgement of, in the opinion of, or metap., in the mind, Jn. 17:5 [this last reference is Thayer].” Or, how about Zodhiates with dia in the gen. case in Col. 1:16...was that also in “error,” esp. since Zodhiates & Thayer explicitly reference the verses under consideration, and Louw-Nida says para in the dat. Case “includes” the mng. “in the opinion of, in the judgement of”. I referenced everyone of these in the debate, to which you offered no response. BTW, before you call the term “includes” a “weasel word” [as you have charged me before], I’ll simply remind you that you yourself used this word in partially quoting BAGD’s def. of monogenes in the back of your book [pg. 203 or 208 if I’m not mistaken?]. But, this is the typical scholastically hypocrisy I’ve come to expect after studying you for intently for several months now.

JW: Perkins is a sad example of not focusing on the arguments

RP: Hmm, seems the unbiased moderator, as well as several in the crowd did not feel that way. Once again, you set yourself up to be the final authority as to what qualifies as “effective argumentation” and what does not. Sorry Mr. White, we are not at your mercy in these [or any other] areas.

JW: If Perkins really wanted to refute me, all he had to do was offer meaningful exegesis.

RP: Let’s see, I touched on Para in the dat. case, dia in the gen. case, plural vs. singular verbs in regard to the subjects they modify, referenced Louw-Nida, BAGD, Thayer, Friberg, Robertson, Moulton, etc. No, I did not get to offer an in-depth analysis of the Carmen Christie, though I had two pages on it alone. But, this was due to the format THAT WE DISCUSSED PRIOR TO THE DEBATE AND YOU AGREED TO! I was asked to delineate my position in detail to the audience, then begin our rebuttals in the very short time we had left…which I spent handling your charges in your own rebuttal. And, even then I fit in Jn. 17:1-5. So, if it makes you look better, keep singing away, but it’s quite odd the unbiased moderator and several others [Trinitarians] did not feel this way.

JW: Perkins can’t pronounce Greek words, knows nothing about Greek grammar, and can’t even read the Greek alphabet

RP: Ahhh yes…here we go. This is the very reason the moderator had to issue you a warning in the debate, and gave me a few choice words after the debate for you. Understand, he is a judiciary debate judge well trained on critiquing debates, and I was quite shocked when he told me he thought I won the debate and presented the clearer case. Again, I never make such claims, but allow others to be the judge.

Now, you are very, very wrong about my knowledge of the Greek language and I have written entire symposium papers about how to read lexicons. So, here, let me help you out a bit: The lexicographers give the literal definitions of said terms, then from there begin to place the passages in the category that they best feel reflect their understanding of how the word is used is used various contexts. It is at this point that carefulness must be exercised lest one mistakes their commentary as grammatical fact. Thus, the context is the determining factor. And, I wrote this & many other similar points long before I ever heard you say a thing about it!

Regarding my reading the Greek language, you are quite in error here also. Certainly I have a ways to go, but am in the learning process and can indeed read some Greek, but, again, it’s quite an on-going process. Ironically, the participles are what I seem to pick up quite readily. Also, there are entire passages that I can translate & read now, but again it’s quite a learning experience.

However, you do reveal your motives here: If you thought I could not read Greek, then what was your reasoning in asking me IN GREEK what the verbs in Phil. 2 meant? If you thought I didn’t know how to pronounce the words…why did you insist on pronouncing, quoting, and reading from the Greek text. As I was told later, this was to try and loft yourself as the superior, and I as the inferior…which “isn’t an effective form of argumentation.” But, sure fools the crowd [some of them at least] doesn’t it Mr. White?

JW: I quoted Moulton & Milligan exactly in the English language

RP: Now who’s “lying” sir? I challenge any one reading this response to simply reference your article “The Pre-Existence of Christ” from your web-site and look down to about the 5th paragraph on the second page. You expressly state in quotation marks, “unique God” (10), which is a reference to Moulton & Milligan, pp. 416-417. When one consults the reference YOU provided in quotes, the words in quotes appear absolutely nowhere in your footnoted source! Explain it away all you want, it’s right there for the honest in heart. I have written many symposium papers and the editors would hand me my head if I did this. This is NOT proper academical authorship…no matter how you try to rationalize it away. At least have the decency sir to acknowledge you should have written it better and withdraw the quotation and reference source. I have already included the genre of the quote as it appears in my first rebuttal for readers to view for themselves, especially their specific comments regarding Jn. 1:18 [the very verse you were referencing]...which states the entire opposite of what your paper infers. I won’t even take the time to rehash your partial quote from BAGD, or your ‘deception by omission’ tactic you used in your “evidence” for Monogenes Theos selected from UBS-4. Yes, “Abuse” indeed!

JW: Can any rational thinking person think I wasn’t saying Moulton & Milligan was identifying as “Unique God”

RP: Then don’t include it in quotes with a footnote reference right beside it citing your source with page numbers! What does this tell anyone in first year college? I know it’s a novel idea for you, but how about simply acknowledging your poor reference and move on?

JW: Perkins has a horrific lack of scholarship

RP: Said the man who told the world last Fri. night that God exists as “Three-Divine-Individuals, each with their own Separate Center of Consciousness”!? No one knew a thing about such as existence for 4,000 years and 70% [or the remaining 30%] of the Bible…..and I’M THE ONE WITH HORRIFIC SCHOLARSHIP?? If your peculiar idea of a three-minded God constitutes “scholarship,” I think I’ll stay as far away from your brand of “scholarship” as I can, as well as teach others to do the same!


JW: Only Roger Perkins has the ability to misread any scholarly source that’s presented to him

RP: Contrare’ Monfrare’. I actually presented Friberg to you in regard to ‘aykone,’ with their reference to Col. 1:15...& you just ignored it altogether. As well as you did my references to Louw-Nida, Thayer, etc. concerning Para in the dat. case. But, as usual, you simply plod along in your typical ad-hom style, all the while denying the same….a natural out-growth of your “Reformed Theology” [i.e., “Elect”].

JW: He was lying in our debate

RP: Ho-Hum and Big Yawn! If I inadvertently misquoted BAGD, that’s not a “lie” [I suppose my reference to Friberg was also a “lie”?]. Perhaps we should do a home Bible study on the definition of Lying [so typical for reformed theologians BTW]. Concerning Moulton, it was your quotations and resource reference right next to it…not mine.

JW: Perkins key argument in ‘trying to get around Col. 1:16’ was his argument from BAGD, which made no sense.

RP: Actually, I have conceded that I misspoke regarding the passage in the sense that the Son created as to His pre-eminence. As I’ve already said, as soon as I said this I knew it did not at all come out right, nor did the statement accurately reflect my thoughts. But, there was no time to correct it during a fast-paced cross-ex. However, the overriding point remains valid and I have already enunciated this in my last open rebuttal to you. The Son is contextually presented to us in Vss. 14-15 as the one who redeemed us to the forgiveness of our sins, and the visible image of the invisible God. The word ‘aykone’ is where we get the English word ‘Icon’ & invariably defines as a tangible, visible representation [see Amplified, & Dr. W. E. Vine]. Clearly this is not the pre-existent world, but the Human Messiah [God in Flesh] who “redeemed” us. This is who the pronouns in Vss. 16-18 grammatically point back to, as evidenced by the conjunction hotee introducing a dependent causal clause in Vs. 16, further elaborating on Vs. 14-15.

JW: Over and over, Perkins does not know how to read a Lexicon

RP: Funny, even if this were the case [which it’s not at all], you have told us that Lexicons only reflect that particular lexicons understanding….which is PRECISELY the point I have made in my teachings about lexicons [symposium papers, etc.]. And, I wonder if this holds true for your beloved A.T. Robertson, Benjamin Warfield commentary, and the 75 sources you reference in your book??

JW: Perkins has never spent one day taking Greek, and yet he refuses correction…which is a mark of Cultism

RP: Elder David Adams was a Greek professor for 3 yrs. at a Bible college in Parkersburg, WV. He graduated Greek 5 with a 97% and can transliterate the ancient language. WVU has approached him about teaching Greek in their accredited university. He has written an entire translation/commentary on the Revelation. He is an esteemed Elder of mine and he has spent much time with me in the language. I also have Mounce, Wallace, Dana & Mantey, BAGD, Thayer, Vine’s, Moulton, Robertson, Diesmann, etc….which are the same sources YOU refer to sir. Yes, I still have much to learn, as do you with the infinitives, but learning I am! So, your first point above it entirely moot and off-base.

Secondly, if the doctrines of “Reformed Theology” are not “Cultic,” I don’t know what is! By your own definition, if one refuses correction, they are “Cultic”….said the man who argues for a God who exists as “Three-Divine-Individuals, each with their own Separate Center of Consciousness”!? Not one Jewish writer from Gen.-Rev. arrives at such a conclusion and, indeed, would likely rebuke one who taught such. “Cultic” indeed!

JW: Perkins’ accusation that I misrepresented Moulton is a lie and we need to move on to someone who can read a Lexicon. It’s simply reprehensible.

RP: In the first place, I read the Lexicons quite well, though I may have inadvertently looked over the sub-category in BAGD. Regardless, even the listing you mention, “Christ,” is both definitionally and biblically a reference to the Messiah who walked the Earth & redeemed mankind, as opposed to a “2nd of 3 separate divine individuals, each with their own independent center of consciousness”. Thus, the BAGD reference still stands, as well as Friberg, Vine’s, and the Amplified Bible’s translation [and I have several more references].

Concerning “moving on” to someone else, as long as you continue to offer your critiques on the DL, I’ll be here to offer sur-rejoinders. Obviously, I will not continue forever, as I am beginning a church-plant and am shifting my focus to this arena, though I will certainly always continue my studies.

As I said to you earlier, you had a perfect example to clearly enunciate your position to our agnostic moderator who is a professional debate judge and came out of interest. Now, due to your obvious attempts to play the crowd with citations to Australian movie lines, and clear arrogant behavior, if he comes to anyone, it will be us. To God the Glory!

I await your next DL critique, at which time I will respond accordingly.

Roger Perkins