Friday, February 18, 2011

"Revelatory Expressions?" Does Bishop Noel Jones Deny "Oneness"?

Review these enlightening audio podcasts and hear Bishop Jones in his own words
Noel Jones. Trinity Pt. 2
In what can only be deemed as a highly confused if not even down right deceptive, radio interview, former (current) PAW (Pentecostal Assemblies of the World) Bishop Noel Jones appears to have denied the teaching of Oneness. Oneness, is a doctrine mostly prevalent in organizational Apostolic circles and is normally called "Jesus Only" teaching. This doctrine primarily centers around the thought that Jesus is the Father in creation, the Son in redemption and the Holy Ghost within the the church. This is called modalism. In this teaching we observe Jesus in three "modes" or roles as God. To be more specific, the emphasis is that God (more specifically Jesus) has "manifested" himself as the Father, "manifested" himself as the Son and "manifests" himself today as the Holy Ghost. Please keep this in mind as you will see it later in new clothes.

Early in church history, modalism was rejected as a description of God not contained or found within scripture. It was considered to be a heretical doctrine and those that believed it were considered to be heretics. It was hailed as an ascription or imposition upon the nature of God and an inaccurate portrayal of the person of Jesus. One of the reasons that this is a heresy is because under the modalistic construct, Jesus cannot be truly eternal. He (as son) "begins" or starts "to be" as it pertains to the redemption of man and mankind and more specifically when he puts on flesh. Trinitarians hold however that Jesus exists eternally, from the beginning with God, is God and is a participant within creation itself as scripture describes:

John 1:1-3:~"1-In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2-The same was in the beginning with God. 3-All things were made by him; and without him was
not any thing made that was made."

In addition, the "person-hood" of God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost, according to scripture, is based and established upon relationship. Not based or established upon role or method of operation. Thus is the distinction between a trinitarian understanding of God and a oneness and modalistic view of God.

As a side note, while there is a hint of Arianism in modalism, Arianism is pretty much dispelled from the argument under the weight of the fact that Jesus claimed to share the same nature of God, as opposed to a lesser nature as found within Arianism. Paul dispelled the myth of Arianism by stating that Jesus thought it not robbery to be claimed as being equal with God.

John 5:18 ~"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."

Phil 2:5-11 ~"5-Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6-Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7-But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8-And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9-Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10-That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11-And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

In Paul's own words on the subject there is a clear subject object distinction that comes through clearly and does not make sense under a modalistic view. The blog Jesus Christ Is Lord goes into much greater detail regarding the historical nature of this issue than I will in this article.

The Bishop's Heretical "Revelatory Expressions" Variation Revealed

The problem is that Bishop Noel Jones has redefined and created new terms associated with the trinity and taken the argument to an new heretical level. This is how he now describes the trinity:
"Three manifestations is what I call it, but I don't even use manifestations, I don't want to use persons...Here's what I use: I use three "revelatory expressions". I think "revelatory expressions" is a better word than persons, and is a better word than manifestations. One God, three "revelatory expressions". He reveals himself as Father, reveals himself as Son, reveals himself as Holy Spirit. Even though they all are one, they have three distinct functions, that separate them in the Godhead and allows God to perform the task of salvation. The Father thought it, the Son executed it, and the Holy Spirit brings it."
What we see here wrapped up in the term "revelatory expression" is the same understanding of "manifestation" as previously taught under modalism. His distinction of God within the Godhead is yet based on functionality, not relationship. He clearly points to the three distinct "functions" of God to distinguish the "revelatory expression" ie: manifestation. In other words he dresses up Oneness teaching in new clothes and redefines it. However, we should ask, does he claim that what he teaches is no longer oneness doctrine or teaching? It's really quite a move and one that is only revealed when he begins to deliver  a more complete understanding of his view of God. For Bishop Jones God is defined both by properties and operation or function. Defining God by operation is modalism 101. However, Jones adds the dimension of properties or physical makeup to the argument to further muddy the waters. Look at the following statement in which one is made to believe that he is a trinitarian...however, pay very close attention:
"I wanna go on record, The Father, in the Godhead, the Father, is nothing but Spirit, He is all Spirit. There is no flesh with the Father. The Son is Spirit and flesh. That's why the scripture says the Spirit was given to him without measure, because the Spirit that runs through Jesus Christ is the Father. There is only one Spirit in the Godhead, there ain't three of 'em. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God that functions within human beings, draws human beings, overshadows human beings,  and operates in human beings, and that is why the Spirit overshadowed Mary, the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary"
Be careful here, because once again, we have a revised and renewed expression of the trinity and the nature of God. His statement is simply modalism repackaged. In fact for many believers in modalism Jones's statements are an insult and aren't appealing. They are murky at best. Bishop Jones hails that the physical makeup of God is pure Spirit. However the physical makeup of Jesus is Spirit and "flesh". This Spirit/flesh mixture (which is nowhere taught within scripture as a characteristic or identification of Christ) is hailed by Jones as what distinguishes him from the Father. Further, his teaching is that the operation or purpose of the Holy Ghost within the life of the individual believer is how the Holy Ghost is identifiably different from the Father and the Son. In other words the distinction of the Godhead based on a combination of modes or "operation" and physical packaging.  Once again, this isn't a biblical description of God the Father, the Son, nor of the Holy Ghost.

The biblical fact is that Jesus appeared in the Old Testament. In Genesis he was the "Voice of God" (קוֹל or Qol) (Gen.3:8)[some have interpreted this to mean the sound of God walking] in the garden. However, when superimposed upon John 1, which is a personification of the "Word" or "voice", one can better understand the distinction and relationship between God and His Word was clearly displayed even from the most early scriptures. In Exodus 3:2 the "servant" or (מַלְאָך malak) of the Lord appeared to Moses from the fire of the burning bush. v4 states that when Moses came aside, it was then that God spoke to Moses from the midst of the burning bush. From there the word "God" is used 19 times to describe who is speaking to Moses out of the bush. This is what is called a theophany or an appearance of Jesus in the Old Testament in his preincarnate form in a distinct role as "servant", but also as God.   In other words scripture teaches the distinction between the Father and the son is an eternal distinction, not a distinction that appears in time whether flesh is involved or not. Flesh is not a distinction of the eternal Son for he was in existence before he took upon himself the limitations of humanity and flesh. Understanding this reveals the fallacious nature of what Jones espouses and teaches.   

This is where it gets even more murky. Based on what Jones sets forth, he would claim that there is a distinction between the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. Here is what he says when asked directly:

When asked if the Father was Jesus he emphatically responds "No"
When asked if the Holy Ghost was Jesus he emphatically responds: "No"

But then he breaks down once again when trying to define his statements:
Noel Jones: "Jesus is the Son of God, but the name that is common to all three is the name Jesus because that's what Matthew 28:19 says and that's what the scripture says. But Jesus is not the Holy Spirit and Jesus is not the Father. Jesus is the Son of God when Jesus prayed to the Father (inaudible) he was praying to Spirit alone."
This is very creative. The name that is common to all three is JESUS. Yet neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost is Jesus. Therefore simply attribute the name Jesus to all three even though you acknowledge that at least two of the three are not Jesus??? Not only is this deceptive, it is further heresy against the orthodox understanding of the nature of God as revealed within scripture.

Jones says this because he believes that the names "The Father, The Son" and "The Holy Ghost" are simply titles or ascriptions to God. There is nothing further from the truth. The phrases describes the personification of God. In other words God is "The Father" forever, God is "The Son" forever and God is "The Holy Ghost" forever without being three God's. Scripture aptly indicates that the Father has "will" and spatial awareness and distinct relationship to the Son and the Holy Ghost. The Son has "will" and spatial awareness and distinct relationship with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost also has "will" and distinct relationship and spatial awareness with the Father and The Son. What Jones asserts simply bypasses the biblical relationship and distinctions found within scripture and is therefore not a scriptural truth. [Further information regarding why the Bishops assertion is wrong, can be found HERE.]  

Defense of Oneness Baptism And The Oneness Baptismal Formula
"Well if they were baptized in the name of the Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost, it can't be a contradiction"...."It' can't be a contradiction or Jesus would have started the biggest revolution in the whole Christian matrix"...In Matthew 28:19: the name of Jesus was implicit, it was implied. In Acts 2:38 the name is not implied, it's explicated. Now, my word to anybody who would call me a heretic, is, if something is implicit and something is explicit, it can't be contradictory"..."Matthew 28:19 does not contradict Acts 2:38, neither does Acts 2:38 contradict Matthew 28:19." 
This is standard oneness baptismal understanding covered up in two words..."implicit" and "explicit". This is utter nonsense.

From a scriptural standpoint Matthew 28:19 was describing authority, not outlining a baptismal formula. Jesus gave the church the AUTHORITY by the power of all heaven, (ie: the Father, Son & Holy Ghost) to do the work which he was commissioning them to do. The whole and complete object of this discourse was to provide a basis for the authority in which the Apostles would move and the establishment of a heavenly witness without two or three of which no word of God would be established. (Deut. 17:6, 2 Cor. 13:1) Jones continues in the misapplication of scripture that a formula is outlined or contained within both discourses.  

Is This A Marketing Scheme Or An Appeal To The Masses?

I would say yes. I believe this whole position is about making Bishop Noel Jones, more palatable to a wider audience of believers. [See the comments section for information regarding this especially comments 15-17] I also believe that this discourse is about redefining terms under which trinitarianism and oneness has normally been understood, taught, accepted and rejected. For many there seems to be somewhat of an undue sense of fatalism as it pertains to understanding the nature of God and the doctrine of Trinity in particularly. True, the Trinity is a concept to be apprehended, however God's nature is not hidden. God's nature has been revealed through scripture, and should be ingratiated whether one likes the nature revealed or not.

The following video outlines the marketing scheme and it's all about selling Noel Jones:

Along with his marketing and business partner Scott Chaplan with whom has co-authored the book,  "A Vow Of Prosperity", Jones has also undertaken the task of realigning and marketing himself to a new generation of believers. This marketing crosses and includes all Christian circles. The video talks about many things but one thing that it doesn't talk about is the controversial move that Bishop Jones undertook in being the founding partner of a Christian singles and dating service called FaithMate Dating Service. Here is their purpose:
"We handle the "big things", so you can focus on fun. Why spend time getting to know someone only to later discover that you don't see eye-to-eye on the major issues like faith, values, or beliefs? At Faithmate, we strive to bring together the community of black Christian singles so you can feel at home with like-minded, spiritually focused individuals.

Leaders, including Faithmate founding partner Bishop Noel Jones, have devoted their combined energies to aid faithful followers in finding suitable matches: mates that will bring them lifetimes f love, laughter, and loyalty to their faith."
Did FaithMate have anything to do with recent rumors that the bishop was dating or engaged to LisaRaye McCoy???

This Is Business, Sales And Capitalism At Work.

While I'm certainly not trying to buck entrepreneurship, I think the audience deserves to be informed when they are being played. In light of the teaching that Jones delivers, we must examine all things. Is this Jones's effort to redefine the trinity and appeal to a mass market of believers? Is this merely  a marketing scheme or plan? Is this a ploy to create a new amalgamated Trinitarian/Oneness nature of God doctrine?   There are many Christians within traditional circles that out of hand reject him because of oneness belief. Then there are many more that will say, he no longer believes in oneness, so we'll accept him. The persona is larger than life of most stars, and the same follows suit with Bishop Jones.

One thing is for sure, the host of the show was inept in dealing with any of these issues and was thoroughly convinced that Jones was now a believer in trinitarian doctrine and not a heretic. Jones continues to teach and exemplify all the signs and teachings of Oneness Pentecostalism even using the name of Jesus to describe God the Father and the Holy Ghost, even continuing to baptize imploring the formula "In Jesus Name". Believing in Oneness doctrine is not the problem, going to great lengths and psychological manipulation and obfuscation to cover what one believes is a problem. What a sham and what a shame!



  1. Now some may ask, "why is this important?"

    Well it's important because if you can't trust that a leader will interpret the nature of God correctly as he has revealed within scripture, then how can one trust what else he claims has been revealed to him?

    The nature of God is not as obscure as both Jakes and he claims it to be. They claim a certain mysticism, and that we'll never really know the mind of God, nor his character or identity and to a small degree I agree. Man cannot fully comprehend God because he is far beyond us, however we can apprehend him even if we cannot comprehend him. We can seetle the fact that God has revealed himself a certain way and we do not understand what he has revealed YET he has done so.

    Unfortunately the host of this show was so interested in making certain individuals that called in wrong, and was so focused on Jones affirming the unique identity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, that he failed to listen to what was really being said. This is called zeal, but not according to knowledge.

  2. A second point...many people think it was the church Fathers who meesed up the understanding of God and his personage by rejecting modalism.

    Nicea PROTECTED the church from heresy such as that of Arius. the Jehova's Witness and Mormons adopted the Arius "lesser god" mentality and now they don't consider Jesus to be eternally divine with the Father.

    Oneness doctrine was a misinterpretation of the truth. It was not foundational to the church.

    When you see Jesus coming out of the waters of Jordan, the heavens opened and the father speaking and the Spirit descending like a have all 3 right wasn't a trick...but YET there is only ONE God...I can only apprehend that. I can't fully comprehend it.

    1. You have very distorted view about the Council of Nicea. You are also wrong about the Church.. Oneness has always been the Character of God the Father. The Lord Jesus Christ

  3. Supt Burnett, what we are witnessing ala Jones and others one the church stage of our times is a merging of doctrinal beliefs. I personally think it is modalist inclusion. It serves the needs of those who needs maintain their place on the stage and hold open doors on other stages. Jones is more than likely aware of the grumbling among both Trinitarians and Apostolics about the mixing of the two.

    These remarks signal that he is willing to merge the two at some juncture to placate both sides, thus securing for himself limitless preaching engagements (read:money). I mean as incredulous as his beliefs were prior to these "revelations" look at how frequently he was the star at COGIC conventions.

    Ive written before on this emerging phenomena within the Christian context called diaprax. It is unity sans doctrinal standards. Some eschew holding on to doctrinal standards because they see it in the new reality of church as divisive. In order to do communal good works, all doctrinal differences must be neutralized.

    Don't be surprised when this same type of madness by some previously identified Trinitarians do the same thing with a pro-modalist slant.

    Personally Jones did a terribly sloppy job of redefining the trinity. As clear as it is in scripture (literally embedded from beginning to end) he thinks that he can just play switcheroo with a phrase and call it a day? As you stated, any tinkering with the nature, personhood and divinity of the Godhead is a recipe for heresy. Unfortunately, the act of heresy seems to waned in negative weight in the contemporary church.

    He has never appealed to me theologically because he preaches philosophy *vain* not the gospel and his psuedo religious intellectuallism bores me.

  4. Elder,

    Pentecostalism is the fastest growing brand of Christianity but I believe doctrines and false teachings such as this will be the death of it.

    Like you I see a "unity" or a mixture of positions at all costs in effort to make it taste and sell better to the masses. Then all is needed is inept idiots to promote it and whhhhaaaalaa...there you have it, people falling into the flames left and right because they follow lunacy like this.

    This is how they "creep" in and deliver strange doctrines. Things that they have thought through, simply dressed in new clothes.

    Yes. COGIC is ripe and ready hook, line and sinker. Too many leaders feel that they "need" persons like this to feel like they have "arrived"..."I is somebody now"...

    Truth is, real TRUTH need no agreement from humanity of mankind. Only real truth will help us, everything else is only Nero fiddling as he watches Rome burn.

  5. I wish Bishop Jones was more explicit in his declarations of Oneness if indeed he believes this. He seemed to be playing the "middle". His claims are not totally Oneness. There is nothing to fear if he believes this though IMHO. Oneness Pentecostals have the Word of God on their side. The marketing schemes are embarrassing here as well. I know this is frustrating, however, if you are NOT Oneness. I only pray that other Trinitarian's also look closely at this issue.

  6. A friend of mine, who may be wrong, says that Bishop Jones is still PAW. Can you confirm this Pastor Burnett?

  7. JN,

    Best apostolic resources that I have available say that he chanced and left the PAW. He an the late Dr. Brazier around a similar time.

    Since I know you don't have "the word" that encourages your belief, I won't spend time on that...but So far as "marketing" of the Dunamis Word...let's see...

    Sites are ...FREE...
    Podcasts are ...FREE
    No Advertising (except for my business which unless you live in Illinois and Tx are pretty much closed to you)
    Any other resources are...FREE

    Y'u-know what...I've got the absolute WORST marketing plan in history...maybe I should take a page from Jones and Jakes and create a brand huh???

    btw: That Jones is straddling the fence is the point of the article. I'll stand behind what I believe firmly no matter who likes me or it in the process. He seems to not want to do that so the creation of things like "revelatory expressions" come into place.

  8. Ok, thank you. When you have the time we can spend some time on those thoughts about the "word" Pastor Burnett. I would see it exactly opposite concerning the Trinity and Oneness. The Trinitarian interpretation is not certain nor necessary in any particular text of Scripture.

    Yes, I agreed with you about riding the fence. Just because I am Oneness doesn't mean we can't agree sometimes.

  9. Uh,JN why not discuss the lengthy article Pastor Burnett took the time to write? Its full of The Word, just pick something and go for it.

    In fact most everything he writes is about the Word or lack of adherence to the Word, just like this article.

    Why do we need to discuss something on a side bar he has already clearly laid out?

    SMH @ people who want side roads.

  10. Gcmwatch,

    4-real...JN is a nice Oneness Pentecostal I met on the COGIC site during the Convocation I believe. He and I share sentiments about the modern condition of teh church but, like you, there's no need to be gun shy...I would like to know this "secret knowledge' that affirms Oneness as I can't see it in the OT or the New. certainly we seem monotheism, but when we look at detail such as the wording...Elohim for instance in the Hebrew National declaration, the Schema in Deut. 6:4-9, 11:13-21and Numbers 15:37-41 it is best translated as "Hear O Israel the Lord Our Gods is one" Elohim is plural, however the nation held to monotheism rightfully so...

    Secondly, who could the "Let us" be in Genesis 1:26...God needs no accord with angels and other heavenly host to decalre and compleete a work...There is much more here than meets the eye. Aside from all that you got a great big ole problem in Revelation with the one who proceeds from the throne who is worshipped by all heaven as God and teh one who sits upon the throne who is worshipped by all heaven as God...I believe Revelation 4 and 5.

    So from Genesis to revelation I see no substantive case for oneness althoug I see significant case for monotheism.

    Anyway JN is a nice guy and has some very good insights at Creedo House. I've been blessed by some of teh material...(some of the trinitarian neutral material-LOL)

    I believe Janes does BOTH sides of the issue and injustice however. Have you listened to my podcast on it yet? Hear jones in his own words, it's the most confusing thing I've heard.

  11. Jones is still PAW.
    He initially was going to leave with Braizer, but decided to stay in PAW.

  12. Now, I'll research the Jones/PAW angle a little more through some of my Apostolic friends.

    A 2007 post in Apostolic Friends Forum confirms what Thad said in the meantime however.

    All I know is that Jones seems to be proud of his association with COGIC. Everytime I've heard him speak publically invariably his relationship and friendship with Bishop Blake surfaces for one reason or another.

    Now it is interesting that on the
    COGIC web site advertisng him for last Convocation it says:

    "He has served on the Board of Directors as a resident Bishop for the California District Council 16th Episcopal District of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc.,..."

    Why not say that he "serves", or that he "currently serves" as opposed to "he has served"? I would be proud to display the credentials and position of an official within another organization. If he is still PAW why not say so? Why does COGIC seem to place this in the past tense? I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of, but this seems to be obfuscation.

    I guess it's more of this, appeal to the masses, stand for nothing type mentality on both sides of teh issues. Like I said mass marketing and public appeal...

    And Gcmwatch, JN did throw a dig at me with his initial comment didn't he? I've been nice to him and first chance he gets, he talks about my website "marketing" and throws a dig...why is that? - LOL!!!

  13. Now, JN you always advertise for Credo House Ministries on Facebook. Have you checked out their Trinitarianism resources?

    Here they are:

    How Did The Early Church Understand the Trinity?

    Does the Bible teach The Trinity?

    Early Trinitarian Heresies pt. 1

    Early Trinitarian Heresies Pt. 2

    Difficulties In Communicating The Trinity

    They clearly affirm the trinitarian belief system.

    Now noone assumes that this is easy and the more I hear the more I realize what I don't know, so this is amazing.

  14. I'm from Calif. I was just at at PAW fellowship a few weeks ago.
    He's still a Bishop in PAW

  15. I gotchya Thad...thanks for the 411...tell me this though...

    What is he doing trying to convince people that he's a trinitiarian believer now? He's got some people in Cleveland head over heels convinced that he is no longer Oneness...They are thoroughly convinced because he said that the father is not Jesus and the holy Ghost is not Jesus.

    What is he saying in your meetings? Is anyone making him justify his posturing? i men he did this just last week...

  16. I'M not PAW myself but I was invited by a Pastor friend to attend this event. Jones was not the speaker at this meeting. Another preacher from Chicago spoke. I have rarely heard Jones' talk about doctrine personally except at the Centennial gathering. I am told (only told) that he and other well known pastors in L.A have met togehter and had round table discusions exploring ways to bring the 2 theologies to some sort of agreement. There have been several joint events and services between these churches in recent years.

  17. Thad,

    That's it then...that's what we've all been feeling anyway...there has been a steady progrosession of integration at the expense fo any biblical standard or truth...whatever truth on both sides of the issue that exists is being sacrificed adn thrown out of the window for popularity and ungodly associations...

    This is utterly amazing!

  18. Pastor Burnett, I must confess. I think I was misunderstood. I was mostly agreeing with everything you said. I was challenging the doctrine of the Trinity though. I was not trying to make a dig at your marketing either. I blog, have a website, and do podcasts as well! lol I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. I was talking about the way in which they were using marketing to blur the distinctions. We need to do a podcast together and discuss or dialog about the Trinity. It would be useful.

  19. JN,

    That's fine my friend, I took it kinda lightly. You're a good guy and one thing I sense that both of us are sick of is compromise and the worldliness that is coming into the church in general. It seems that the leaders are unchecked and bent on destroying everything that we all hold sacred.

    When I hear that basically an "amalgamation" of the nature of God is in the works, I cringe. Not because my view can't be perfected or that the Onesse view can't be perfected, but because the approach, sound bites and things such as this are down right deceitful. I don't care who it is. It could be Jones or do what Thad has suggested that may be underway does not strike me well.

    For sure, we agree without doubt that holiness is right...their actions don not display the holiness of God.

    Well that's my little ole take anyway...

  20. Supt Burnett,
    I appreciate your article. I have much respect and admiration for the late Bishop G.E. Patterson of the COGIC. Is it not true that he left the COGIC for a time and was indeed baptized in Jesus name? He seemed to want to work towards some kinds of understanding and working relationship between Oneness and Trinitarians.

    1. He did. Notice when he came back in The late 80s and early 90s what great power he had in the revelation of the word. Oh I loved Bishop. I grew up COGIC. But found what bishop went looking for. The fullness

    2. Bishop Patterson taught the trinity, as scripture teaches more clearly than almost any other teacher I know. He also taught the distinction at the PAW and UPC conferences to which he was invited, making the clear delineation of both history and scripture. So what G E Patterson had was NOT because of some baptismal formula, it was because of God himself. This is what happens when one adopts and holds forth that a magical formula saves or has some sort of supernatural get IDOLATRY!

    3. Your not suggesting that the name of Jesus holds no power? That's blasphemy my friend.
      The original formula is JESUS. The power of the blood, authority, sanctification and healing are all in the name. Is it magical when you pray?
      Or are you talking about the water? No, water alone does not cleanse. But immersion by water upon the name of Jesus being invoked or called over upon an individual does according to scripture. The bible says the water, blood, and Spirit agree in can't be washed in the blood without the water. To deny the death (repentance), burial (baptism), and resurrection( newness of life, the Holy Spirit) is a denial of truth which is Heresy and VAIN WORSHIP.. Even if you genuine about it. The truth is the truth.

    4. Ramel,

      There is no "magic potion" nor "magic phrase" that says, do such and such in a combination and you will be saved. THAT'S heresy! In fact that is is closer to gnosticism and other forms of meta-spiritual manipulation than anything else.

      You interpret that "in the name of Jesus" is a formula or phrase that was supposed to be said. SOLID scriptural evidence and the use of language refutes that idea. "In the name of Jesus" was a designation of AUTHORITY. It was the AUTHORITY under which the Church was to operate. It was not to be condensed to some magical formula as you and many other oneness believes have so ineptly reduced it to.. The phrase or combination of words has no power. The Apostles knew this. Jesus knew this. They did not practice magic, formulas and incantations. The power of God IS the power that saves moves and cleanses.

      In addition, and to make the point crystal clear, when we say things such as "power in the blood" we ALL know that we are not talking about the corpuscles , plasma, read and white blood cells of Jesus. We are indicating what that blood represents and what the shedding of that blood accomplished for us. To say the phrase, "in the blood of Jesus" is not magic. It is an invocation of what the shed blood has done and accomplished as was shed by Jesus.

      So your literal interpretation is full of fundamental flaws and fallacies and I can only pray that God opens your eyes to the fact that there are no secret phrases, incantations, divinations that can move the Spirit of God or save men's souls.

  21. You bring up an interesting point Pastor Tony. Bishop Mason was also rebaptized in Jesus name in his latter years by Bishop Hancock in Detroit, MI.

  22. Pastor Tony,

    Thanks for stopping and commenting my friend.

    Yes, it is true that Bishop G.E. left COGIC and took more of an independent path for a number of years. So far as baptism is concerned I'm really quite unsure about that because of his teachings as I knew his teachings regarding baptism in the church.

    He was one of the only one's that reconciled history among fellow Apostolic believers even going into detail as to when and why Bishop G.T. Haywood left and outlining the circumstances under which the PAw and UPC were established.

    I think a council or an effort should be made to reconcile the scriptures. but it shouldn't be headed by the elite in the church solely. A large church has no greater vested interest in the issue than a smaller church. It seems that this is an boule move...the "elite" do what they do for everyone without consulting or even letting anyone know what's happening. i don't know what values they are sacrificing at the expense of what they might consider unity. I mean look at Jone's commentary...flat out confusing and an insult to both Oneness and trinitarian believers IF his effort was to redefine an understanding of God's nature. However you can believe that his views have been thoroughly discussed at some level or else he never would have went "on record".

    Anyway, thanks and keep us up on what you are hearing also.


  23. I will check with a couple of historians on the issue however.

    Thad, when was this rebaptism?

    Thanks again.

  24. Don't know the exact year but I believe it was in the 1950s, Greater Bethlehem Temple (or just bethlehem temple), Bishop Hancock.

  25. Supt Burnett,
    Thank you for your response!

    I know men that came out of Bishop Patterson's ministry before he came back into fellowship with the COGIC who said that at that time he was baptizing in "Jesus name".

    I will write more after the weekend. I appreciate the dialogue.

    Blessings to you this weekend.

  26. Bishop Jones was just in San Antonio, Texas about two weeks ago trying to bridge the gap between oneness and trinitarian believers. Unfortunately he like many other oneness believers do not have a grasp on who God is.

    Even in Psalm 40 David phophesies a conversation between God and Jesus under the anointing of the spirit of God.

    6Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

    7Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

    8I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

    9I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest.

    10I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation.

    This is one of many examples of a triune God head wherein the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as one God eternally existent in three persons.

  27. Brdavison,

    You said it right brother preacher. As I see it, there are 4 issues at stake:

    1- Salvation- at what point and what is the method and process of salvation? With subcategory a: Is it faith in the cross PLUS baptism?

    2- Nature of God...Is there on GOd who exists eternally as three persons, or is it one God who manifests himself for three specific purposes or functions?

    There is a big differeence and that difference is not so hard to pull from scripture as some make it seem in my opinion.

    3- Baptism. Does the bible teach a baptismal formula? As a sub to that linked to the sub in the first question a: If there is a formula does that formula provide some sort of regenerative effect spiritually or is it for identification?

    4- When is a person saved? Is it when faith is exercised or when they speak in tongues or are filled with the gift of the Holy Ghost?

    There may be some more issues, but most of the confusion centers around these. These are some of the issues I think, if we're going to try to bridge the gap need to be addressed in an open and forthright manner, not in some back closet or under a redefinition of terms. Let's work with what we have and where we are now.

  28. Can you please quote and address Col 2:8,2:9 and is not majesty always referred to in 'third person'...I just wonder if this is even worth the time because God is revealed, not discovered; It is based upon you delight in Truth! Jesus declares this personification:I am the way, truth, n life... I hear there are division among you.... signed bad P.R

  29. brdavison, where do you see a Trinity of persons in the Ps. 40 reference you cited? As far as I can tell there is no Trinity there, at all.

  30. My type-o's and construction was so horrendous in the previous post I had to redo. I'm sorry:

    bad P.R.

    The verse that you reference states:

    Col. 2:8-9 ~"8-Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9-For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    Now, I won't deal with what you believe it means because I already I'll just deal with what the best historical and biblical studies say its context is and apply it to what we know that the bible teaches about Jesus. To answer your point...first, it is a false premise to think that this has to be "revealed" in some sort of mystical or extra biblical fashion. The nature of God is revealed through scripture and can be apprehended if not comprehended. Listen to the Jones series Pt. 1, and I also say the same thing in the I don't buy into the thought that we need a special revelation to see it.

    The Colossians were dealing with an early form of Gnosticism. Since these were gentiles there was also an element of paganism that they were dealing with. In addition theyy were being confronted by the proselytizing of Judaizers which were Christ believing Jews who sought to turn these new Christians followers into adherants of the law.

    There was a developed "philosophy" that stripped Jesus of his deity including his atoning death and physical resurrection. Paul called this the "philosophy" and "vain deceit of men". v.8

    v.9 built upon this premise and stood in defense of the deity of Christ. This verse was rendered to refute that thought that Jesus was not God. The "For in him" was the introduction to directly refute the heresy that had been raised in v.8. The rest of the chapter deals with the whole issue of a real Christ who's death provided atonement for our sins, died and was raised by God v.12

    So what does "the fullness of the Godhead bodily" mean? It is simply an affirmation of the deity of Christ. It is confirmation that contrary to what these gnostics and heretics were teaching, that Jesus was God. It certainly does NOT mean that Jesus is the Father or the Holy Ghost.

    The eternality of the Son is affirmed by assessing the complete volume of the NT, not one "magical" text or smoking gun. John 1 reveals that he "is" and is "with" displaying a duality of relationship of Jesus with the Father. Jesus prayed to whom? Not a manifestation nor an expression. Expression and manifestations do not answer prayer. Jesus prayed to the Father and the Father sent the Holy Ghost (John 14:16) A manifestation or expression has no "will", Jesus had a will and the Father had one also (John 4:34) Further the Holy Ghost has a "mind" (Rom. 8:27).

    Mind, will, and intellect constitutes person-hood and comprises personality. A manifestation has neither and none of those things.

    So you feel it's a waste of time, it's never a waste of time to share the truth, it's only a waste of time to spread a lie.

    Now the real question is what do you interpret Colossians 2:8-9 to mean. I would like to know that.

  31. EnochWalked said,

    Pastor Burnett,
    The Bible clearly speaks of GOD being THREE who are ONE! Simple understanding, GOD said that a man and a woman when they become husband and wife, they are no longer twain as the KJV says (TWO) but ONE FLESH...

    Many Apostolics or Oneness Pentecostals or "JESUS Only" sects use this argument that the Trinity means THREE "GODS". They will argue that there are not "THREE GODS" They always quote, Deuteronomy 6:4 KJV & JESUS speaking in Mark 12:29 KJR "Hear O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

    The Oneness interpretation is not correct. I WILL NOT SAY that Oneness are not saved. I truly believe and know that they(the sincere fruit bearers) are saved and that they are believers. I have always been one to question things and prove them for my own understanding. A lot of sincere people are following the traditions of men or hold the denominational line or church creed over what the SPIRIT of the LORD says or what the actual Bible, the Written Word of GOD says, and when it comes to the Bible, Which Bible? KJV, NKJV, NIV, Amplified, etc, etc. Another discussion, LOL!

    Common sense would tell us that the LORD JESUS CHRIST...WAS NOT PRAYING...To HIMSELF! WHO was HE praying to? Come On! How delusional or schizophrenic would that be? We obviously see THE FATHER speaking at THE SON's Baptism and when JESUS asked THE FATHER to glorify thy NAME(THE FATHER's), an AUDIBLE VOICE thundered and spoke to JESUS and the people present. We even have in the Bible written account of where the HOLY GHOST spoke.

    Lastly, about 10 years ago I used to sit under an old oneness bishop who taught JESUS only. He was truly a sincere man of GOD who loved the LORD. It did not sit well with me. I heard another well-known pentecostal preacher, Bishop William L. Bonner say on a radio broadcast that the LORD JESUS CHRIST is the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST. Still did not sit well with me. I was a pretty much new convert to pentecostalism at the time, 1999 to 2001, I was single and living in my own apartment. I sincerely went in prayer and asked the LORD JESUS CHRIST the following question. "LORD JESUS, are YOU the FATHER?" About 30 days later, I woke up...correction it was really GOD WHO woke me up... in my apartment on a weekday morning and I heard an audible voice say to me..."JESUS is not THE FATHER. JESUS is ONE with THE FATHER in power and in might."

    Case closed and settled ever since.

  32. Being a Oneness Pentecostal or any other type of oneness believer must be a terrible flight of fanciful biblical interpretation... for example How does one explain what God said of Jesus in Hebrews 1:5-6

    "5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6-And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

    Manifestations don't talk to one another or exalt one another like this.

    Then there's Revelation that really must be a gerrymandering task for a oneness believer:

    Revelation 4:2-4~"2-And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. 3-And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. 4-And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.

    Now We all know that's God the Father of that there is no doubt, but if that's God teh Father, then who is this?

    Revelation 5:6-10~"6-And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. 7-And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne. 8-And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. 9-And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; 10-And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

    Now who is this? If this is Jesus which we know that it is, whose hand is he taking the book out of while that one yet sits on the throne?

    If the one on the throne is not God then how is he worshipped by all heaven? If the one who takes the book is not Jesus, then how is he worshipped and said to have been "slain" and is the "redeemer"?

    I tell you what, I can't comprehend how the Trinity works, but it is much easier to believe in the Trinity as it is clearly taught within scripture than some tremendous leap of speculative and subjective revelation that one has to implore to make the scriptures say something that they don't.

  33. Enochwalked said,

    I wish to clarify that a husband and wife are ONE FLESH, but still two person. LOL!

    I don't want that to misconstrued or misinterpreted. Amen.

  34. Enochwalked,

    That is a good observation. If God can see two people and call us one flesh in marriage...Are we two manifestations? Are we two revelatory expressions? No we are two people but yet one flesh.

    Now, in our case we don't share the same essence. There is one essence and nature with GOd yet he adequately describes himself and reveals himself within scripture as three persons each with mind, will, and intellect.

    Like you, I don't throw my Oneness brothers out of the kingdom. can one go to hell calling on Jesus? One might say, if it's not the Jesus of the bible. There is some merit to that argument but i am not nor have I been convicted to do so...but one thing I am convicted to do is share the truth and seek to persuade my Apostolic friends to acquiesce to the biblical description of GOd.

    Now, it doesn't work the other way around unfortunately. By the time they get finished preaching that everyone has to experience baptismal regeneration in a baptismal pool using the formula "in the name of Jesus" in order to be saved...then they consign everyone to hell that doesn't follow that...That's nothing but WRONG!

    If you believe that the cross PLUS baptism makes you clean you're preaching another gospel.

    The gospel was of Jesus and his work on the cross, not what happened in a baptismal pool. Ceremonial washings and baptisms were straight out of the OT. After the death of Jesus only ONE thing could make us clean and free from sin and that was repentant faith in Jesus and his atoning work on the cross.

    Ephesians 5:26 says that the glorious church was cleansed "through the washing of the water by the word" that was the water referenced by John 3. The WATER of the word that cleanses and makes us whole. What did Jesus say in John 15:3 ~ "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you"

    The ONLY cleansing agent is the WORD of God that's why Paul is not ashamed of the Gospel for IT is the power of God unto salvation. Rom. 1:16

    There is no intimation that baptism was the power of God unto salvation in any manner. Paul himself declares that he wasn't sent to baptize but to preach the gospel. (1 Cor. 1:17) So even he separates the idea of baptism from the gospel for those who say that the gospel IS baptism...that can't even be supported within scripture.

    So what do we do in acts when we see people receiving the Holy Ghost then being baptized?

    Easy when we know the method of salvation. When we know that in each case those people were saved through repentant faith then we can easily see that baptism was for those individuals to be outwardly identified with Christ and his physical church.

    A literalistic and fundamental interpretation of the word instead of a contextual interpretation will mess one up along with the help of a few friends every time...

  35. I recently finished a lengthy old series from John Ankerberg on this topic with Dr. Walter Martin and the head of the UPC Church.

    It can be found HERE

    The UPC's thought they were attacked but just count how many questions they asked without giving an answer or even justifying their position. Then what I noticed is that they took the arrangement of the Greek rather cavalierly and paid no attention at all to the Granville-Sharp rule of Greek interpretive rules when it came to Matt. 28:18 that Noel Jones said noone could challenge him on...well it looks like he doesn't have a clue as to Granville-Sharp either, according to the mistakes he perpetuates in the same text.

    One thing I find that I can better do is communicate the eternality of the son better. When I say "eternal son" I make no distinction that Jesus is somehow subservient or an after thought of teh Father or GOd. I hold that they are One God, but yet two persons. There is a doctrine of the "eternal son" that holds that Jesus (the son) came into existence at some point after eternity. I certainly don't mean that at all. That sounds like Arianism to me.

    What a better phrase that I could use is "eternal Word". Jesus is the Eternal Word that existed with the Father and Was the Father according to John 1:1.

    For many Son could take on a distinction of offspring or one that is "lower than" or a "shoot off from". Jesus is in no way a "shoot off" or offspring of God even though the term "only begotten of the Father" is used.

    I believe this "only begotten" is further distinguished on the basis of how Jesus relates to US in this realm of existence.

    In Hebrews he says and "again when he bringeth the only begotten into the world" then he goes on to say "thy throne O God" indicated that we (humanity) recognize Jesus as the "only begotten", but GOd recognizes him as "God" with no distinction. So to communicate the concept scripturally we must be aware of what Jesus is not...He is NOT lower than the Father. He is NOT a secondary thought or lower being. He is NOT a son in the sense of a man being the son of his Father. The bible describes him as the one who was born unto Mary (Mt. 1:16) and the "seed of the woman" (Gen. 3:15)

  36. and I see I didn't finish my comment from last time...

    But also GOd and of course that would make him eternal.

    So we identify Jesus as 'son' as it relates to the order of GOd. GOd says this is my "beloved son", but we see him as God as it pertains to his nature and essence.

    Again he is further distingushed as a "person" based on all the attributes I mentioned earlier and cannot be a mere, "manifestation", "revelation", or "revelatory expression" although Jesus's function is to reveal and makes manifest God and his plan of salvation to the world.

  37. BTW,

    I received some information on the "supposed" baptism of Bishop G.E. Patterson and Bishop C.H. Mason under the "Jesus name" baptismal formula.

    Best sources I was able to find say that the rebaptism of Bishop Mason didn't occur.

    Bishop Hancock and Bishop Mason were good friends and remained friends throughout their lives. In the later 1920's Bishop Hancock wanted to become a part of the COGIC and came to Memphis to make his appeal. He wanted to, of course, get the brethern to accept Oneness and the baptismal formula. Bishop Mason then proceeded to blast him scripturally in front of the Saints in Memphis and he received no support.

    Bishop Mason also left a solid trail of preaching and works have been documented where he staunchly was against both the baptismal formula and Oneness theology in general. There are some works out of print that yet circulate that speak to this issue in Mason's own words. I know of one particular part of a message myself that I will deliver later.

    Some have also informed me that IF such an event occured Bishop Hancock would have also been required to get rebaptized in the trinitarian formula. They say Bishop Mason was one to do this sort of thing..."you do this and I'll do that" as long as holiness wasn't threatened. So that was in his character but noone can place where he would have even intimated to come to Hancock for a baptism at all.

    Secondly, Bishop G.E. Patterson spoke strongly and staunchly against oneness doctrine and the "Jesus name" baptismal formula. The evidence for him lies in his vast amount of videos, in which he denounced both elements as scriptural error and heresy. Those videos are available for all to see today and there are many in which he deals with what he called the "scriptural error" of the Oneness teaching. He maintained that up until death so I don't see whether there was any softening in his position as was suggested.

    The question more specifically was whether he was rebaptized when he left COGIC for about a 13 year period of time. Once again there is no substantiation or confirmation available of that through members that were there both before, during and after his return. ie: From best sources, there was NEVER a time that Bishop G.E. Patterson taught or affirmed either Oneness doctrine on the nature of God or "Jesus name" only baptism.

    Now, I didn't think that was the case as I kept up with Bishop G.E.'s message pretty regularly. There appears to be an overwhelming amount of documentation from him on the issue not to mention that he preached such and set the modern pentecostalism record straight even during a PAW national meeting to which he was invited to speak. Many PAW members didn't know the history as he laid out and he preached against the error at that time. From what I also understand and am told, Bishop Patterson was also instrumental to opening the dialogue that exists at this time between Pentecostal oneness and trinitarian believers.

  38. Bishop Mason told a story of an lover that went like this:

    A married brother in the church had a girlfriend in the church. She sat in the front and he in the back. To get a message to her he would drop a note on the floor when he came up to place his offering in the tray.

    One day his wife noticed that he dropped a note and retrieved it before his girlfriend could get to it. It had instructions on where and what time to meet him that evening.

    He left according to the time on the note and immediately his wife got dressed, put on some makeup, new perfume and a wig and arrived at the appointed place.

    It was very dim and when the man perceived the woman was his church girlfriend he grabbed her and began to grope and kiss her.

    After a while, his wife responded, "Is it better in the dark, than it is in the light?"

    Immediately the man, startled and shamed, realizing that it was his wife, responded "I had what I wanted at home all the time and just didn't know it."

    Bishop Mason would then go on to preach that the oneness believers that had left trinitarian doctrine didn't have anything that they didn't have AT HOME in the COGIC.

    His statement: "We already knew that Jesus was God, you didn't have to go off and establish another church to preach that. That was nothing new."

    Unfortunately, what was added was the concept of baptismal regeneration which was also a product of the Stone-Campbell restorationist movement and a further developed misunderstanding of the nature of God.

  39. Beloved Pastor,

    Once again a thought provoking blog, we know that we becomes sons' of God when we accept Christ and upon that receive the Holy Spirit. We know that the Master didn't become the Son, because he always was the Son (the term begotten). We see all three in creation; God created, the Holy Spirit moved and God said, let there be LIGHT (I am the Light of the world).

    We see God say, let US make man in our own image and likeness. Jesus name alone means, "God is salvation or Yahweh saves." We see there unity as God places Moses in the clift of the mountain and walks past simultaneously. We hear Christ saying continously "I AM", before Abraham was, "I AM." He says, I and the Father are one and the same. His name Immanuel meaning "God w/us."

    He says to us, "I go away, and I will SEND (meaning the Holy Spirit is distinct in person and not a force) another like me, for if I do not go away the Comforter cannot come." We see humility in the Godhead, for the Holy Spirit doesn't speak of himself, but of Christ. Even the hebrew word "Elohim" means plural because of the last (2) ltrs "im." The Godhead is not subordinate to one another, but one in the same. It reminds me when Phillip said to Christ, "show us the Father" and Christ said to hime, "have I been w/you all this time Phillip and you ask me show me the Father, do you not believe I am in the Father and the Father in me."

    We see Thomas upon seeing the resurrected Christ say, "my Lord and my God." We know the Jewish hierarchy had issues w/Christ, for every time he called himself the "Son" he was identifying w/the "Father" in a distinct way. For they knew in calling himself the Son of God, he was initially calling himself God. Pastor didn't mean to ramble, hope I spoke w/some clarity regarding this issue. And I believe Bishop Jones is just trying to come up w/something new and calling it revelatory.

  40. No matter how you agree or disagree with Bishop Jones, the important thing is that you know God's Word for yourself. Pastor's, Bishop's & others in position have a responsibility to get a message across to those of us in the seats. But it is also our responsibility to know God's word for yourselves. This is why in Hosea 4:6, it is says "my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge...", but His Word also says in 2 Timothy 2:15 "Study to show yourself approved to God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." This said, in the comments posted, I have yet to see a response with any validity. I've only seen personal opinions & bashing. This is ridiculous! Know your Word. If you truly desire to know what oneness really means, then do a personal Bible Study. I have been Pentecostal, aka Apostolic my entire life and this has always been a dispute. That said, oneness is: Father (God), Son (Christ) & Holy Ghost/Spirit are all one in the same! I am personally an Auntie, Sister, & I have a few more names/titles. But the point is, I hold all of those positions and I am one person. Oneness. If your thoughts are so limited that you are unable to fathom how this can be, then your thinking is miniature & you need to really get to know my God! The Alpha & Omega, the Beginning & The end! The bright & Moring Star. Before I go, I have another question; please show me in the Bible where the name "Oneness" is used to describe God, Christ or the Holy Spirit. This title is "Man Made". If you know your Word, not only is He the Father, Son & Holy Spirit, but He too is the "Word as explained in John 1:1...”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", and this isn't even the beginning. I pray God gives you all wisdom & understanding to get it right and to really have a firm foundation in the Word and not just an opinion or a pre conceived bias because of opinion or upbringing. His Word makes it plain...take a moment to read it. This isnt just about Bishop Jones or any other leader, this is about salvation! Lastly, rather it is liked or not, Bishop Jones is a man of God, and in His Word, God’s Word, He gives an explicit warning to us ALL in 1 Chronicles 16:22 “Saying , Touch not mine anointed ones, And do my prophets no harm”. Now I ask, are your arms big enough to box with God or are you equipped to argue His Word to Him?! Miracles, Blessings to you all!

    Matthew 6:33. “But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you”

  41. April,

    Thanks for your commentary and I won't go point by point with you because you are entitled to your opinion on the issue and your opinion and insight is valuable.

    I will make 2 notes however:

    1- My views in retort are certainly much more than "personal opinions and bashing" If you can't identify the word that provides a solid foundation for my commentary, then I can't do any more to illuminate you than I've already done on this blog in the few podcasts as well as other posts specifically outling the arguments.

    2- In addition, the description of God that Oneness adherents have is not how the bible describes. For example, you describe yourself as "an Auntie, Sister, & I have a few more names/titles." While that's good, that's noplace close to how the bible describes Jesus relationship to the Father or the Holy Ghost.

    John 4:34 destroys your premise (since we should study the WORD to understand it) In that verse Jesus describes himself as having a "will" and submitting that will to the Father. In fact he says that his "meat" (aka: will) is to do the "will" of the Father and to finish his work.

    This is what is called a distinction based on will. You as an "auntie" DO NOT have a different will than you as a "daughter" to say so is a ridiculous notion. However Jesus makes the distinction.

    Further,Jesus prays to the Father. You don't ask yourself as auntie anything do you? When you are auntie, speak to your daughter (you) as say...this is ridiculous. Nonetheless, this is the relationship between teh Father and son as outlined in scripture.

    In addition, the Holy Ghost can be lied to as we see in Acts 5 and also searches God's will Rome. 8:27 and also has a will.

    Once again, this is a distinction as confirmed all the way through teh WORD of God that you miss in reading the scripture for whatever reason.

    So there are is solid and sound biblical support for my opinion and what I conclude in this article.

    So thanks and I appreciate your comments, but stay around you may add a new dimension to your current biblical understanding.

  42. Supt. Burnett My apologies....I forgot all about this post. But you presented a great deal of sound doctrine teaching that is so necessary in refuting the lies of men and the doctrine of demons. I will be using this info to refute the oneness error in the future.

    Keep Preaching the truth sir!

    In response to JN Anderson: Read the bible without your pre-conceived erroneous oneness "man-ology" that you have and you will have your answer. Or if you can check out my article on the error of the Apostolic Doctrine here:

    Another church gives in to Homosexual lie/Error of Apostolic Doctrine

  43. Min. Davision,

    That was an EXCELLENT article. The application of language has changed and when you were talking about the "express image" that is exactly how many Apostolic brethern describe Jesus. That if he himself is the father he can be no more than the image of God in Jesus...Whereas the original language of the text indicated that Jesus IS God, but there is an ontologocial distinction made, not soelely based on role as is often taught, but based on person, mind, will and intellect.

    So from a scriptural standpoint the "express image" would have to indicate more than a mere reflection of God. It would have to indicate that the person of Jesus is God!

    This is a distinction that Apostolic doctrine does not make...we have a Jesus who somehow changes the nature of his hypostatic union when he prays in the garden...when he says "Father into thine hand I commend my Spirit", who says that he will pray to the Father and the Father shall send ANOTHER comforter...

    In those instances God must somehow leave Jesus the son to do something as the Father???

    This misses everything that scripture teaches about the nature of the Father and Son. I don't care how it's dressed up, at the end of the day the Apostolic believer, has an issue and a big problem addressing how the Father can speak from heaven, the son stand on the shore and the Holy Ghost descend like a dove at the same time and in the same epoch and they say something like he is the Father in creation, the Son in redemption and the Holy Ghost in the church...those are THREE DIFFERNT EPOCS, not ONE in which we see the Father act, the Son act and the Holy Ghost act as the same time...

    So for those reasoning from the scriptures and the more layers are lifted, it becomes more easy to understand that there is only ONE God, but HE eternally exists as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, NOT as Father, Son and Holy Ghost. That is a unscriptural ascription no matter how one's tries to shake it.

  44. This comment has been removed by the author.

  45. Elder Jeffrey,

    Thanks for the Facebook contact also...

    You asked a few things one making the observation that under the trinitarian concept that there were three God's no matter how we look at it...

    First there's nothing further from the truth and I address this in the article. Fact is that both of us agree that there is only ONE God and that he is incomprehensible. He is beyond our understanding. With that said, how can we rationalize to fully be able to know or understand his nature? What we do know is how he describes himself within scripture and how he interacts. We know that God NEVER leaves Jesus to go someplace and have a conversation with him. So at a minimum we see God the Father speaking to Jesus (God the Son) after his baptism by John and God the Holy Spirit descending upon him like a dove. Now, who left where to do this all at the same time??? No, there is a distinction based on relationship not merely based on role as oneness pentecostals claim.

    Additionally,what we see from scripture is Jesus IDENTIFYING that he has a mission and will and that it is SUBJECT, by his will to the Father's mission and will. (Jn. 4:34) We also see this in the garden with the passion struggle.

    Once again, there is a distinction and will or mind of the Spirit also and we see that the Spirit also has a relationship with the Father and Son as being "sent" by the Father, "sent" by the Son and coming to "glorify" Jesus. In addition that Spirit can be lied to as Peter says in Acts 5.

    There is a distinction based on being, but not based on essence. One God is clear. This is clear throught the gospels, Acts and described within the epistles.

    So ONE God eternally exists in 3 duistinct persons who have will, mind, intellect and relationship of one another. This DOES NOT mean three Gods. It means that ONE GOd exists in a manner that exceeds our ability to comprehend the relationship. If God were God as he says that he is, why would we think that we could fully comprehend his nature? He is NOT a man...We can apprehend HIS truth based on his description of himself.

    OK, you say there is no such word as "trinity" therefore its not biblical...That is NOT even an argument. There is no such word as "incarnation" but we know that God put on flesh and dwelt among men do we not? That is incarnation.

    So there is no requirement for a word to be found in the bible before it is considered to be a biblical concept. Trinity is CLEARLY a biblical concept and we see shades of it throughout the Old Testament and a revelation of it fully in the New.

    This is exactly what we would expect if it were true.

    Then you ask another question but the distinction is in your own writing...Jesus never said he IS the Father... He sadi that teh Father was IN addition he says I "go to" my Father, not got to myself.

    What I see is a problem with the understanding of the hypostatic union in oneness circles. God NEVER leves Jesus although he never dies on the cross. God doesn't die, but yet Jesus humanity does. And he fulfills scripture by reciting, "my God, my GOd why hast thou forsaken me?"

    But one has to understand Lev. 16 before one can begin to put that together and teh oneness crowd is a little tied up there also believing that water from a pool can wash away sins...That's NEVER been the case throughout scripture.

  46. By the way...if a person doesn't care what the answer or response is...then why make the inquiry???

    If one doesn't care about TRUTH and how God has revealed himself through scripture then there can be no dialogue.

  47. Elder Jeffrey responded to me in the following manner:

    Jesus Christ is not #2, He is # 1 the Holy One.

    2 Peter 3:18 Grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ to “him” be glory both now and forever.

    (If you can’t purchase the books now the article is free online to read right now just click.)

    Let’s just for an example: look at the Lamb in Revelation chapters 4 and 5 especially 5. This is Symbolism or a vision etc. This is Not one God taking the scroll out of another God’s hand this is (God manifesting as a Man). God created the (heavens and the earth) Jesus Christ is God/ Man; and some miss his Humanity. God humbled himself coming in flesh. When Jesus was on earth the deity did not always over shadow his humanity-he went to sleep etc.


    To which I responded:

    Now to show how off your commentary go to probably the most devestating scripture Revelations 4 and 5, for a oneness position and try to explain that the one who takes the scoll out of the hand of the one who sits on the throne is a man...

    Not only is what you say rank HERESY...when is scripture do you EVER see all of heaven worshippiing a man??? You correctly assert that Jesus is God/man but this is not a 50/50 as you describe...You don't even understand that that is EXACTLY what you describe a hybrid!

    Jesus is 100% GOd and 100% Man and that UNION is never seperated, disolved, altered or amended!!!

    Heaven doesn't worship MEN or a MAN...That is RIDICULOUS AND THERE IS no bible to support that figment of your imagination.

    What this is is a lack of understanding and a minimization of the scripture. Scripture isn't your tool in deciphering the argument, it's only a means to make and support your assumptions and ALL OF SCRIPTURE flies in the face of what you assert...So sorry...bad argument and even worse conclusion IF you are true!!!!


    In addition, at times Jesus veiled his Godship. He never ceased to being God. He only veiled it at times. So whatever limitations that he displayed were voluntary aspects of his nature where he intentionally veiled himself, not where GOd left him and he was just a man...that was never the case and never will be the case

  48. Like the Pharisee we all spend to much time in Debate of the way we see religious things, instead of Loving God with all , and your neighbor as yourself. WHICH IS MORE THAN ENOUGH FOR US ALL...That is much more important than the biblical semantics of hermeneutical exegesis and denominational divide about interpretation of certain Scripture Bro! All what our tiny minds could ever concieve is but a spec of who GOD really is. Revelation, knowledges and the like will pass away. 1st Cor. 13 PEACE

  49. Christlover,

    Your commentary if it were over some practice such as wearing a hat or not wearing a hat or a dark suit or something to that matter would be understood as harmless and loving sentiment and encouragement to find common ground and move forward.

    Unfortunately, your commentary displays a total lack of understanding for the importance of the subject, the gospel, the essentials of the faith and ultimately what people gave their life for by way of martyrdom and what we are encouraged by Jude to "earnestly contend";s called the FAITH once delivered to the church!

    This is NOT an argument of semantics as you put it. This is an argument of quintessential importance. It has to do with either acknowledging the God that has revealed himself through scripture as an ETERNAL Father, and ETERNAL Son and the Eternal Holy Ghost, or "constructing" a God to suit our understanding IN SPITE OF what scripture says.

    So this is an issue of great importance and one that cannot simply be sloughed over in language or claiming that language is the prohibitor from understanding or that an understanding hasn't been given. An understanding HAS been delivered and GOD IS TRUE and men are liars!

    The revelation of God through his word is not hidden from those that humble themselves to that revelation. God has REVEALED clearly through scripture that he has both relationship with and spatial awareness of the Son and The Holy Ghost. The Son, IS the Son eternally, not just when a hat comes on for him to work within the church. We see him ion the OT described and acting in many ways. Ex. 3 gives great light into that.

    So your commentary lacks depth and I feel that a careful and succinct review of information on the subject on your behalf is in order.

    To wit we all agree to love him is to obey him, but to love him is to acquiesce to how he has revealed himself within his word and teach that to the highest degree at all costs, because only that truth will stand and only that truth will change the hearts of men and mankind. A counterfeit won't do!

  50. Waste of Time overall. This is a nat in the total walk with the one True Undivided God. The weightier things are Love and Peace with all men. Not flesh fighting over Dogma. I've heard BOTH sides of this argument for YEARS, both sides waste time accusing the other side of blatant misinterpretation of obvious scriptures and truth blah blah blah. Serve Christ. The Gospel is CHRIST AND HIM CRUSIFIED. Contending for the Faith is about Proclaiming Christ as messiah in contexts bro. And u know it. GO HELP A SINNER FIND CHRIST. Cease dogma debate. It grieves me to see us fight other Christians in the name of the so called Faith we Divide. Many men like yourself have come and gone and the two (more similar than not) Views remain. in the mean time millions of people that never pick a bible up at all maybe lost while YOU fight another believer. WASTE OF YOUR CALLING my brother.

  51. Christlover,

    FIRST, you didn't call me so you have no idea what is a "waste of my time" nor do you know what God has called me to do....Obviously not....

    Since YOU are not God then, you can only respond to the subject matter and not to those who espouse views of scripture and doctrine if it is not that YOU are "wasting time"...

    Secondly, you say the following:The Gospel is CHRIST AND HIM CRUSIFIED.

    Now which Christ are you referring to? The Christ that did not exist as Jesus until he was born of a woman, or the Christ that was preexistent with God (John. 1:1) and that proceeded FROM God (Jn. 1:14) as the only BEGOTTEN (monogenes ~ of the same nature and essence or seed) of God?

    Which Christ is it, the one that wears three hats, moves in three modes or roles or the one that has a distinct will from the Father, has a spacial awareness of the location and identity of the Father and a mind and will that he subjects to the Father's and prays to?

    You said this also: Contending for the Faith is about Proclaiming Christ as messiah in contexts

    Well sir, that's EXACTLY what the post is about now isn't it...It;s not about you trying to slip in your "semantic lie" argument to minimize the importance of the issue now is fact my "contending for the faith" has this as a biblical basis:

    Galations 1:6-9~"6-I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7-Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9-As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

    If your description of the Christ of the gospel IS NOT what is contained within scripture, then YOU are teaching another gospel (as you are) and it is the Saints job to stand against what you espouse and try to promote.

    If you can't believe the scripture for who Jesus is as it is laid out within scripture, then why should ANYONE listen to you and how do you feel that you are representing the Jesus of the bible???

    To persist is a subjective fantasy of mind, not the objective truth of God's word by which we are all constrained.

    So your opinion on the issue is good, but if you don't want to address issues, your commentary should be confined to the material at hand, not trying to be an overseer of my work or mission. As you can see the subject yields plenty to discuss and plenty to which you should give heed from your prior comments.

  52. All parts of the word of God is important and demands our attention...

    We can't simply kick the parts we don't like or what we can't understand and call it "dogma" as if it has no essential importance...The early church would slap all these charlatans in the face two times over for that type of childish application of scripture...They DIED for this belief and they articulated what they believed and stood for it...

    This modern church is so bogged down in itself and hi-fivin' for what it "thinks" about the word, until it doesn't even know the word!

    The WORD is far from it...they have compromised essential truths. If one can't read from history why Sabellianism was rejected and how IT WAS NOT, what the disciples taught and or believed...then what game are people trying to play???

    Be honest, at least admit that the understanding of modalism was not biblical and was rejected early on. Claim it as a progression taught again in the early 1900's but don't try to hijack the faith with some erroneous understanding and claim it's only a "semantic"...

    That's called a deceit and a LIE! God is NOT the Father or author of either of those!

  53. I will say this and move on, since I perceive this is your spiritual aim in life. JOHN 9:49 And John answered and said , Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. JESUS TELLS US NOT TO FIGHT WITH THOSE WHo LIVE FOR HIM. HE IS THERE JUDGE ALONE....You were raised to be dogmatic by your Leaders so you continue in their footsteps. funny how you didnt want me to tell you about your calling BUT YOU TRYING TO TELL EVERYONE ELSE YOUR VIEWS OR HELL...LOL...What arrogance and Pride I sense. It seems you Always want to make the path of Christ (love) about strife and debate within the body, Your own emotions make this the big issue of the world with all it's sin and trouble. YOUR BIG CALLING IS ( God's particular or many manifestations and titles or positions of spactial Whatevers) Give me a break. THAT WONT SAVE ANYONE DUDE...LOL..Im trying to help really...of course You will say no one is right about their Ernest interpretations of God's Word but You and what your Pastor taught glad I dont live under that bondage anymore. If someone doesnt agree with me or you doesnt mean they are not Saved man. Most Christians (Ive actually shut up to listen to them for a change), sincerely Love him like the rest of us Trithiest/Monothiest CHRISTIANS..(but you are so entrenched in Biblical Debate) you forget God's intent for it Just like PHARISEE...I really believe THAT IS GOD.S Business in the end, not mine.....but you're right about only one thing....This is a waste of time for me. I just so happen to pass this site looking for something else. While u fight your little Internet war, I hope you find REAL PEOPLE to direct to The only Saviour JESUS CHRIST someday. But I'm sure this is more important To You right now. I'm Glad JESUS never preached Dogma/Modes/Spatial relations whatever's but Love and repentance from sin unto Him.....PEACE TO ALL CHRISTIANS

  54. Christ"embarrasser",

    Thanks for wasting ALL of our time with such ineffective arguments...what are you trying to do criticize me into accepting your position???

    With all that LOVE, you have it simply seethes through your commentary as you have not ceased insults and arrogance since you've commented...

    Listen, thanks for leaving, but dialogue with real people will be much better for you IF you stick to your opinions on the SUBJECT and not revert to personal rants and ad homonym's as you do...

    So far as what Jesus preached...your commentary only PROVES that you've never read the bible...that ALL that Jesus did was attack and debunk the dogmas of the day...from washing of hands for purification to teachings on divorce and remarriage, to teachings on heaven, HELL and who was going...that's what he taught in the company of opposition. So once again the Jesus you describe IS NOT the Jesus of scripture!

    So thanks for nothing because you haven't addressed any issues and what you have asserted so far doesn't hold up to scrutiny....You don't have to address the issues raised, but I don't have to field your commentary soooo long!

  55. I suppose Bishop Jones is dating Lisa Raye the actress who played the stripper in The Players Club.

    Now, from what I understand, Lisa was confessing to Jakes on her TV reality show that she HAD to have sex. So I don't know, Jones must have kept that FaithMate profile for himself, but he better be careful-LOL!!!


  56. I have never read so much supidity on the subject of One God and the Trinity in my life. God himself says that he is One and created by Himself. I am not going to quote scriptures you all claim to ministers of God. It is amazing how mankind beleives what others say about God more than what God say's about Himself. Shame on all of you. Forget Nicea and the so-called church Fathers, READ THE WORD AND STOP TRYING TO BE SPIRITUAL KNOW IT ALLS, APOLOGETICS -PLEASE! THERE IS ONE GOD PERIOD!!!!!

    Brother King,
    T.H.U.G.S Ministries, Inc
    (True Heroes Under God's Sovereignty)

  57. What a was of time an so-called intellect. God says that He is One and created alone and by himself. All the books, councils and man made doctrines in the world want change that. GOD IS ONE, period!

  58. THUG KING,

    Get a LIFE and read for a change, just maybe you'll learn SOMETHING...I don't know that seems like it may be a pretty challenging proposition...

    No need to quote scriptures like an out of control geiser, just deal with the arguments as established, that's how one communicates.

  59. There is no argument, again God is One. Do you geniuses really think God needs you to count for Him, or defend Him? I agree yea, read!

  60. THUG King,

    What does this mean?

    Jude 1:3 ~ "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

    Also explain this:

    Titus 1:9~"Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers."

    And do this one too while you're at it:

    Galations 1:9~"As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

    I'd like to have your general summary of what these passages mean and why they are there.

  61. Fight for the faith, not a faith nor a doctrine invented by man. For us there is but one God the Father and one Lord JESUS Christ. The gospel does not need Bishop Jone's, Jakes' or any otlher man's approval. The word was with God, the word was God, not a god or the second god(person) in the Trinity. Who was given authority over the Apostles and God to determine this so-called basic foundation for belief. Maybe it's for Christians who got their name from people but not for Sons who are called so by God.

  62. Thug King,

    Now it's easy to say anything, but communication is not about saying things, it's about saying things that people understand. It's not communication when I pour my reference into what you are saying because you could be saying something different that what I understand. For example, If I go to an airport and say Hi-Jack real loud, what will probably happen? Some people, including security will probably arrest me...But Jack, with whom, I'm speaking will wonder what's going on.

    I will have to clarify what my meaning, intent and understanding is and based on that, I can either be set free or further inconvenienced.

    That's just an example, but with that said clarify this statement:

    You said:For us there is but one God the Father and one Lord JESUS Christ.

    What does that mean and what are trying to communicate? The JW's, Mormons and many Christians state the exact same thing, but they all and each believe differently.

    What does it mean to have One God and One Lord? Are they one in the same or two different entities? How does that work and why the double statement if God is truly one? Expound.

  63. I didn't say that Paul said it in 1 Cor. 8:6, I, like a wise master builder used that foundation. What others believe is irrelevant, as we know the devil believes in one God and trembles. God was manifested in the flesh. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Word was God not a God or a member of deity (what is translated godhead). The son came in the fulness of TIME, made of a women, made under the law. JESUS was both God and man. You don't have to understand everything.

  64. Thug King,

    That's what I mean, I know what Paul says and what he means from his writings, but I don't know what you mean...

    You said that: The Word was God not a God or a member of deity (what is translated godhead).

    The SCRIPTURE also said that the WORD was WITH God also. That indicated a duel relationship doesn't it? That's not a detail to leave out is it?

    So what does your statement mean? Noone here including those who believe in the trinity believe in three God's or membership status amongst Gods? So expound on that please, what prompts you to say it?

    You also said that Jesus was "made of a women, made under the law."

    That's not exactly true, he was BORN of a woman and BORN under the law, not made under either one. The other's who you believe it doesn't matter believe that Jesus was "made" or created at some point in time. I say that to say, it DOES matter what we communicate.

    You said:You don't have to understand everything.

    Agreed, noone does, but we can know what God has given us to know and all aspects of himself are important. Is there something about God that we don't need to know that he has revealed?

  65. As far as made, born it's a matter of translations. He had a definite beginning, that is, the son. Ok, thought maybe if you could see a trinity you could use that reasoning to understand that "with" does not have to imply a spacial relationship. My word is with me and withou my word being expressed as in this communication, no one would know me. Therefore, I and my word are one in the same. Without my word I am lump of clay. Even those who cannot speak or hear have to use "word" language to express thought.

  66. Question, what do you mean no one here including those that believe in the trinity? What is here and what do you believe. I see schism and devouring, apostle Paul and James, ref. To all bloggers, oneness, trinitarians or whatever, stop trying to re-invent the nature of God. Stick to the scriptures, avoid being puffed up. There is one God the Father who manisfest Himself in and through creation and most recently by his Son. Labels and doctrine and books and big names nor long titles neither Greek or Hebrew will help you see, Luke 10: 22-23. Amen

  67. THUG King,

    This is what I mean and glad you are clarifying your statements and as I though, you have a position like everyone else...simply don;t try to hide it, just state it and we wouldn't have to go through a 1000 questions.

    You said: "As far as made, born it's a matter of translations. He had a definite beginning, that is, the son."

    Now, please explain this because HE, the WORD, had no beginning. Read John 1:1..."In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was God and the WORD was with God" Later in John 1:14 that WORD puts on flesh and dwells among us. Therefore by inductive reasoning we know that WORD to be Jesus.

    I see no reference to Jesus being created at any point in time. I see him putting on the the limitation of flesh, but I don't see a "created" Jesus.

    Would that be accurate?

    Then you said: "you could use that reasoning to understand that "with" does not have to imply a spacial relationship. My word is with me and withou my word being expressed as in this communication, no one would know me. Therefore, I and my word are one in the same.

    Excellent reasoning, BUT context details what "with" suggests would it not? Your words are "with" you as you state, but neither do your words "put on flesh and dwell among men"...There is a VAST contextual difference.

    What we see within scripture is that the WORD "becomes" flesh and "dwells" among us and feels, displays compassion and has a mind or will (Jn.4:34) These are not attributes that your words could have at any point in time.

    So the word "with" in context is a spacial term used in this instance to indicate duality as opposed to a mere social relationship as you explain. This is the evidence contained within the scripture.

    So your assertion does not fit what we see and find within scripture itself.

  68. THUG King,

    You also asked:Question, what do you mean no one here including those that believe in the trinity? What is here and what do you believe.

    In the WORD of God that's why I and we take time to meticulously examine it and lay out what it says in concise fashion.

    You said:"I see schism and devouring, apostle Paul and James, ref. To all bloggers, oneness, trinitarians or whatever, stop trying to re-invent the nature of God. Stick to the scriptures, avoid being puffed up.

    Personally, I see [people developing in their understanding like you and some that haven't developed a biblically inspired view of their position similar to you.Schism come in when unfounded and unsupportable assertions are rendered as biblical fact.

    You said:"There is one God the Father who mansifest Himself in and through creation and most recently by his Son."

    These are two different things...God manifesting himself through creation is called cosmology. God IN Jesus Christ reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor. 5:19 ~ To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. This is a description of theantropist or a God/man as demonstrated by miracles, display of power over life and death and by remitting sins, which only God could do.

    You said:"Labels and doctrine and books and big names nor long titles neither Greek or Hebrew will help you see, Luke 10: 22-23. Amen"

    What you describe is fatalism of ignorance and that's nowhere taught within scripture as it pertains to God, his word or his ways...In fact God said that ignorance is part of the reason we perish. (Hosea 4:6)His ways can be perceived, though they are "past finding out" (Rom. 11:33). God has promised to dispel our ignorance if we seek him (Mt.7:8, Lk 11:10) That seeking is NOT limited to prayer and fasting but includes searching the scriptures diligently as the Bereans (Acts 17:11) and further we are commanded to study so that Christ will not be ashamed 2 Tim. 2:15 ~ "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

    The word need not only to be read, it MUST be rightly divided or applied and ALL resources must be studied.

    Must one have a scholarly degree? NO! But one can seek and find without a degree and much study is not a mark of weakness, it is a mark of strength especially when one is making truth claims and handling souls which have an eternal destiny.

    One more thing...EVERY BOOK, has a cover if it is expected that it is to be read. A title or a name for what you believe is not a mark of division, it's simple wisdom.

  69. As expected, you are still saying a lot but at the same time saying nothing. It's amazing how intellect continues to confound the "wise" thank God for using the foolish things. Your labels cosmology, theophany, trinity and the rest weren't revealed to you, they were past on to you. I am sure you sound impressive to those unlearned in the Word of God, but they neither add to take away from me. Once they called Peter and the others ignorant and unlearned. But it didn't stop the truth. Hide, you were joking, right? There is again according to scripture rightly divided, one God. Explain it to your followers however you see for He is one. Oh, every thing you see manifested began as a "logos" in someone's mind.

  70. THUG King,

    Aside from the fact that your ramblings have become unintelligible and very self-exalted as if to say, "i am the one really true to the bible, while you people aren't" displaying the cultism that usually comes along with the oneness Pentecostalism that you espouse...

    Explain do you explain what happened to the WORD in John 1:14? How did the WORD come to earth? We know ,born of a woman, but how is that process described?

  71. You keep trying to label me and put me in some group for your convenience. It's wonderful how that church history has shown that controlling entity has a system for established false doctrine based on philosophy and just plan whimsical fantasy and then call everyone else cults our heretics. You sound ready to start another inquisition. A cult is any religious sect or system, excuse me, I am a member of neither. Can you honestly say the same. Titus 3:10, A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject. However the Word became flesh it did and I thank God that when I stand before Him I won't have to give account for believing what others said or wrote about Him over what He inspired His prophets and apostles to write. It was nice interacting with you, and should I meet there, know this, "I ain't mad at ya".

  72. THUG King,

    And I "ain't mad at you either" so that has nothing to do with anything.

    YOU are the one who makes certain claims stating that nobody but YOU are faithful to scripture and scriptural methods. Those are claims that can be challenged. If you don;t want statements challenged, or examined, then simply keep them to yourself.

    There are two things that you imply and neither makes sense:

    1- that the only language that is to be used is biblical language when it comes to describing what we observe within scripture. That attitude is NOT scripture itself. Paul used the words of Greek philosophers at Mars hill to describe God and gain an opportunity to preach. None of those words were found in the Torah, but they were yet used him to describe and preach the glory of Christ.

    2- The church is universally connected both in heart and in purpose and mission to one another and first and foremost to Christ. Though each individual is a "temple" of God you say that you belong to nothing in the natural realm, but you are a one man island. However that violates the scriptural command of "assembling together"(Heb. 10:25). You may say you "assemble" with them but are not a part and that begs the question. So in your effort to prove how faithful you are to scripture, you actually violate it by not being an accountable part of a body of believers.

    So some advice, seeing that you have pointed to no scripture that either justifies your position and cannot adequately explain your position and do not want your statements examined in the light of day, then please keep them to yourself. Some of us enjoy indepth study which challenges our positions rather than a waste of time from persons trying to assert that noone's right but them.

    In addition what happened in John 1:14 was called the INCARNATION. I believe that you may be willing to believe in that even though the word is never once found in the bible. If not, you'd do better to keep that to yourself also because that would really be sad.


  73. Never said no one knows the truth but me, and don't know how you came to that and many other conclusions. Know this however, I know all your words to describe your position, been there studied that. Again, not that it really matters, I am not affiliated with any oneness organization but I am a member of the body of Christ. I am the pastor and teacher of Christ for THUGS Ministries. Maybe the use of brother King cause you to think that I am in some organization. Regardless, Paul used the language he was inspired to use and frankly I don't need to add to or take away from that for the sake of some so-called deep study or conversation. It is a small thing if I be examined by you, actually it's refreshing. Thanks in JESUS' name

  74. THUG King,

    You saidNever said no one knows the truth but me, and don't know how you came to that and many other conclusions.

    Maybe it's because you started off the conversation with utter arrogance such as this: I have never read so much supidity on the subject of One God and the Trinity in my life.

    That would strongly suggest that YOU are the only one that knows truth and right because posters on both sides of the issue have posted here and I have taken the time to be as clear and concise on my position so that a child wouldn't error, but to you, it;s all "stupidity". That's ARROGANCE and self-exaltation.

    Now, I understand that it may be because you are young and inexperienced because you draw conclusions and make assertions like a young person would do. Although I don't hold it against you, let me just give you an example of what I mean.

    OK, let me get this straight. You said that:"I am the pastor and teacher of Christ for THUGS Ministries. Maybe the use of brother King cause you to think that I am in some organization."

    Youth and inexperience may not see this but guess what? Christ THUG Ministries IS and organization is it not? It would have to be if you are the "pastor and teacher" of it and it is not YOU, or your person as an entity. Right?

    More importantly, I think you intend well, but that's what I'm for in this capacity, to help folks intents match their presentation when possible, I suppose.

    You said:"Regardless, Paul used the language he was inspired to use and frankly I don't need to add to or take away from that for the sake of some so-called deep study or conversation."

    Now, this almost isn't fair. I want you to remember that you also said this:

    Labels and doctrine and books and big names nor long titles neither Greek or Hebrew will help you see, Luke 10: 22-23. Amen

    Now there may be two confusions here. The first may be that you "think" that what you are reading in either the KJV or whatever version of the bible you read, are the words and language of Paul. When the FACT is that what you are actually reading is either 17th Century Victorian styled English (as in the case of the KJV) or some other form of the English language in other versions.

    While the "language" that Paul was not only "inspired" to use, but actually spoke was either GREEK, HEBREW or ARAMAIC...That was the language of scripture. However you emphatically state that neither Greek or Hebrew will help you see,

    That is the most RIDICULOUS statement that one who affirms importance and significance of the word of God could make. One doesn't have to be a linguist by any means, but to say what you said, that the study of the original languages, which includes context, intent and mood, is insignificant, makes all those who would listen to you RIPE for deception and confusion.

    See pt. 2

  75. Pt. 2

    Now, you could have been referring to the content of Paul's words. But it's hard to tell from your assessment and the information that you've delivered in this forum. Either way, as stated Paul referred to statements and used SUBJECT MATTER that was not inspired by God to teach Christ. the "in him we live move and have our being" (Acts 17:28) was developed by a pagan poet named Aratus, from his poem Phaenomena, written in 270 BC in Athens to describe pagan deities.

    PAUL DID NOT solely use terms found in the bible or Torah or what we know as the Old Testament to describe the God of scripture...For YOU to assume that restricting the description of God to what is found in the KJV or some other ENGLISH language translation OR to what the Old Testament describes otherwise is not only is not a scriptural practice, NEITHER is it beneficial to obtaining an understanding of scripture.

    So I can only analyze what you say and set forth and I have demonstrated that there are many flaws with your presentation and IF it be that you are communication the nature of God to people hat you are to oversee in THUG Ministries, the ORGANIZATION, of which you are the pastor, you should consider changing many of the fundamental assertions that you've made in just this short discourse. Souls deserve better and they deserve for you to be better.

  76. No, I am not young and have been serving God in this capacity for over 20 years. No let the name prime your mind. I began this ministry to counter the recent glorification of the thug life. Now the majority of the youth I began with have college degrees, nursing and medical professions, married and raising families. Others have decent jobs and one his own business. Glory to God. I still stand by my original post and everything that followed. You can be incorporated and a 501 c 3, with being and organization. I admire your brightness even though misled.

  77. THUG King,

    Me "Mislead"?...OK, Mr. "I'm not part of an organization even though I pastor one"

    We see who IS "mislead", not only in this but in the more specific matters as it pertains to scripture.

    Thanks for stopping.

  78. Thank you for this teaching on oneness. I grew up in Michigan and had a mother who was (and is) a staunch, oneness, card carrying member of the PAW. Growing up I was confused because oneness didn't make sense. After high school I left the state and became a christian in a non-denominational church that teaches the trinity. Finally it was all clear, I got it, it made sense. Of course to this day my mother does not believe I can make it to heaven unless I get re-baptized in Jesus Name. Despite the fact that I gave my life to Christ in the 90's, am filled with the Spirit and love the Lord with all my heart. Growing up Apostolic, I had a very hard time even understanding Jesus or the bible because I could not understand "Jesus only" Being a nurse, I think medically, I compare the oneness Jesus to someone with schizophrenic tendencies (please no one take offense I have the utmost reverence for the Lord). Their description of Jesus was someone who went around talking to himself about himself, hearing voices and constantly referring to someone who did not exist, HUH?? I always questioned who was this Father who said (audibly) this is my son in whom I am well pleased? (Matthew 3:17). Or in John 16:7 when Jesus said "I" will depart and send "Him" (the comforter) to you, how could he be talking about himself when He said He was leaving. John 4:24 says they that worship God MUST worship Him in spirit and in TRUTH. Can you be a true worshiper of God if you are believing the lie of oneness? Are you worshiping the true God of the bible if you believe in oneness? I pray that God will open the eyes of the ones believing this false doctrine. I honestly can't even understand how anyone believes oneness. It's like trying to push a square peg through a round hole it just doesn't fit.

  79. WarriorForChrist,

    Thank you for adding your thoughts and you are on point as far as I see it when examining scripture.

    What I see as the problem is that the Oneness folk think that God somehow left the human Jesus to do God acts. For example, I've heard many of them say that when God spoke from heaven he was talking to the "human portion" of Jesus on the Revelation, when Jesus received the book out of the hand of the one who sat on the throne and was worshiped in heaven, that it was the "fleshly portion" of Jesus that was being worshiped...??? Puzzling I know, because when you explain that NO ONE is worshiped in heaven or on earth but God and that BOTH he that sat on the throne AND he that took the book from the one that sat upon the throne were worshiped, they then reduce the whole scene to a vision, like a dream...they weren't actual act or proceedings of heaven, only figurative symbols...

    I mean the avoidance is VERY fanciful.

    The option is to simply BELIEVE what he says and what he describes. He, Jesus, has a will and the Father has a will. The Holy Spirit, has a mind which constitutes will. Will denotes PERSON-HOOD, not modes unless one is, as you CORRECTLY said, a schizophrenic...

    GOd IS NOT schizo and they they describe him and such and claim that there is some sort of separation between the God Jesus and the human Jesus destroy scripture in the process...Yes, it is a mystery...but that AIN'T not mystery...that's scripture.

  80. District Supt. Harvey Burnett!

    Glory to God for your life. Keep on teaching the truth. i've learned a lot from you!.. God bless you more Sir!..

    Ptr. Allan B. Villa
    The Glorious Church
    Caba, La Union, Philippines

    1. Djhanz,

      Thank you my Philippine brother. Very encouraging and bless you more! Love it!!!

  81. Most Holy and Gracious God:

    Before I ask for a thing God, I just want to thank you for another day, another moment, this moment and time Lord God to thank you. Lord, I thank you for all that you have done for me and in my life. God you have truly blessed me and I can never repay you for it.

    I give you praises Lord. Lord I bless Your Holy Name. I worship you Father. I worship You for who You are, Lord. You and only You are the Alpha and the Omega. You and only You Lord are the Creator of all things.

    You and only You Lord have shut up the doors to the seas, seperated the heavens from the earth, made a brown cow eat green grass and make white milk.

    Father, because I know how Mighty and Wonderous You are, I am coming to you with the issues of my heart. Somethings have been said here, You know them all, and You and You alone know the intent in which they were said.

    God I ask that You stregthen these men and women of God. Bring unto rememberance to them that You do not call the qualified oh Lord, but You qualify the called.

    Restore unto them a child like nature Oh God, so that they might be able to receive knowledge from You, Lord. Let them forget what they know Lord, and become child like, focused on receiving a definite and complete revelation from You.

    Lord their responsibility is heavy, it's large, and whether they know it or not, it's too much for them alone.

    But Your Word promised that if they would lean not unto their own understanding, but in all their ways acknowlege You, Lord that you Will, undoubtly, absolutely, 100% of the time direct their paths.

    Help me to understand more Lord, and continue to cleanse me Father, that I might be a good servant unto You, ready and available to do Your Will. Thank you for Your Precious Son, Jesus, that you gave to die just for me, so that I might be unestranged from You. In Your Awesome and Holy Name I pray, Amen.

  82. Men of God:

    I am saddened and I am ashamed. I am saddened at what others who are newcomers in Christ have to look forward to when trying to understand the Word of God. I am ashamed of my leaders, these so called great men of God. I thought that the Word of God was not up for debate.

    I thought that we were to judge not lest we be judged. Matt. 7:1 There are horrible things being said about a man of God. Horrible things that are dressed up nicely in words that others don't readily identify as character assasinations.

    There are attitudes here. Great senses of self that are so colossal they are causing delusions of grandeur in oneself. There is hurt and pain here.

    I'm uncomfortable with what I've seen what I've heard here today. I clicked on this article hoping to understand something I'd yet embarked on, looking for great leadership and solutions to what was being addressed as a problem.

    I am on milk, I am not as advanced or degreed in the Word of God as you all are, but even I know something is wrong here. You all should be ashamed of your behavior.

    I have young people everyday telling me why they don't like church, or want to come to church, and I have to work so hard to prove to them that it's a place they need to be, because faith cometh by hearing and hearing by Word of God Romans 10:17; and after reading this I have to wonder, will they hear the Word of God, or other people's version of it?

    I am a babe, but even I know that there is a such thing as a revealed knowledge which comes from God. How could God, the Alpha and the Omega, be telling all of you different things?

    The Word of God tells me that God does EVERYTHING decent and in order, 1 Cor. 14:40. Why do you all have to treat each other this way because you beleive different things? You all are responsible for feeding us, sheperding us....I represent your flock!

    If you all don't agree, God said in His Word where two or more are gathered together in His Name, there will He be in the midst. Matt. 18:20. Why aren't you all getting together and fasting together for clarification of God's Word?

    Instead you argue, and nothing is solved and the Body of God is no closer together then when you started this futile argument. If the leaders be divided who govern the people, how in the world do you expect the people to come together....

    this is sad, and these things you all are doing are disappointing. God provides all, there is a simple solution to this problem, and judging Bishop Jones is not the solution. If he is wrong, why is not every message here a message of prayer?

    Instead you all are talking about him. I thought prayer changes things? Why aren't you all praying? My heart is truly aching over here and I just don't know what we have to look forward to when my leaders are behaving this way.

    This is all I have to say. I am praying for you all and wish you all the best, and if you all don't mind, would you all join me in seeking God's face, lets fast and pray and let God see us out. After all, He's the only One that knows everything.

    1. Hebrews 11:1,

      Thanks for commenting but you make some pretty serious errors in thinking through the argument. First, what are you to do with this scripture?

      Isa. 58:1 ~ "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins."

      Now who should be obeyed...YOU or the scripture? You say you venerate the word. Is it venerated in this?

      In addition you conclude that one cannot pray/correct/rebuke/exhort, etc at the same time. Where is your biblical basis for that imposition on those of us engaging in this conversation?

      Jeremiah was given a call saying this:

      Jer. 1:9-10 ~ "9-Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth. 10-See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.

      Was Jeremiah NOT a praying person? Was Jeremiah's mission only to those NOT of the household of faith, or was he speaking to the children on God? Then follow up with Jude that says this:

      v.3 ~ "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

      What does it mean to earnestly contend? And can one pray while they are doing such? According to you and the dissertation that you felt compelled to deliver, we are not to stand or fight for the truth based on how it might look to onlookers, only your standard of truth is simply NOT a biblical standard.

      You may have an answer to these things, but until you make a compelling biblical case, I think we're representing Christ just as he would have done confronting the same or similar situations and false doctrines.

      I'll conclude by delivering the words of Jesus himself, who loved the world so that he gave his life, but DIDN'T fail to tell the truth as you are suggesting that we shouldn't:

      John 8:44 ~ "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."

      Now did Jesus fail to pray, or was he less than savior for addressing hypocrisy and error openly? Now , who is our example???

    2. I notice you also said this: If you all don't agree, God said in His Word where two or more are gathered together in His Name, there will He be in the midst. Matt. 18:20. Why aren't you all getting together and fasting together for clarification of God's Word?

      Why fast and pray over something that can be resolved simply by yielding to truth? To fast and pray over that is to be caught in rebellion and stubbornness. The scriptures say, "such and such" how Does Jones have the right to reinterpret it?

      Simple solution, leave false doctrine and what's more stop trying to deceive people by changing and manipulating words which is something that many false teachers, oneness or trinitarian, are good at doing.

  83. But that's just the thing sir, you are not Jesus and neither are we. If the man has errored, then it is not up to us to destroy him. It's our responsibility to pray for him. I'm not saying that you are wrong. I just don't agree.

    I will study the scriptures that you placed in your rebuttal to me, and I will meditate and seek God for their proper position in my life and how relative it is in the life of others.

    Also, I am not judging you, or trying to embarrass you, or belittle you, because I would be doing the same thing that I am saying that you all are doing. I am just simply and truly hurt by all that I've read here, um Superintendent.

    I'm not sure how to address you so I hope that when I say sir, I'm not being offensive. It's just that even though you gave me something else to think about, you have not given Bishop Noel anything to think about. This page is not fixing any real issue if what Bishop Noel is doing is truly in error.

    You are not making this argument with him, but with others. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that what you say is inacurate, I said that I was a babe, and you all seemed to be more knowledgeable, what I am saying is the way this looks is malicious sir.

    1. Heb.11:1,

      You saidBut that's just the thing sir, you are not Jesus and neither are we. If the man has errored, then it is not up to us to destroy him. It's our responsibility to pray for him.

      First you make another false assumption that by bringing to light false doctrine is destroying someone. What about those he destroys by pronouncing erroneous biblical teaching? Your obligation is to a false premise and not secure in the truth. As minister's of light we have an obligation to God and the people to write the vision and make it plain. I am praying, praying that he will be delivered from false doctrine and those of us who see it, and know the scriptural truth of the matter, are doing the same as well. he destroys himself with false doctrine, anyone pointing that out is doing NO LESS than Christ requires.

      You deliver a man made emotive moral basis on the issue. I deliver a biblical truth and basis on the issue. The bible is the only thing that can be supported, not our view of what we "think" it should say.

  84. Imagine that you were a babe, fresh and new to the Lord. Imagine that you stumbled upon this... what would you think? What I'm saying sir, is other than open rhetoric between you and others, I do not understand the point of any of it if it's not being addressed to the person who's at fault.

    My Dad told me, never talk about a person behind their backs. That's the way of a coward. Never talk just to hear yourself. That's the way of a fool. Don't discuss another person with other people.

    If you have a problem with the way a person conducts himself, go to them, well prepared and state your case without judgement.

    Everyone doesn't need to know how you feel about someone or something, if you won't be proactive in creating solutions, then stand down, because you'll only be a hinderance.

    I would rather email you personally sir, rather than post it, simply because, this is no business of any of the other people that you have spoken to and with on this subject.

    I personally felt malice sir, and I came to you sir, respectful and what I believed was well prepared. I did not sir create a page stating how you are no better than Bishop Noel because he's giving the wrong message, and you are giving another, all while being malicious, and I know that this is not of God, because the word of God says.....

    I am not going to debate the Word of God with you. And I will definitely not entice other people to feel like because I think I'm right, join me on bashing you, oh and feel free to debate the Word with me too.

    1. You asked: Imagine that you were a babe, fresh and new to the Lord. Imagine that you stumbled upon this... what would you think?

      I would think that some people feel that this is a serious enough issue that I would take the time to find out why, instead of rendering a Rodney King emotive like "can't we all just get along", or accusing the host (me) of "destroying Noel Jones" when all we are doing is examining what he is saying in light of biblical truth.

      You said:"What I'm saying sir, is other than open rhetoric between you and others, I do not understand the point of any of it if it's not being addressed to the person who's at fault."

      The point of it all is to declare truth and warn others of false doctrines and false teachers, which is something that we are commanded to do. he made a truth claim and truth claims should stand to be examined. Why should anyone be silent about Noel Jones version of truth? What makes it unexamineable? We are commanded to examine the scriptures. What about a man's words can't be examined. You examined mine. Why not examine Jones's for truth. And the excuse that you are "new' and know no better doesn't cut it. Have YOU called Jones to ask him the truth of these matters?

      You said,I would rather email you personally sir, rather than post it, simply because, this is no business of any of the other people that you have spoken to and with on this subject.

      For over 3 years my email has been posted underneath my picture on the right side of the page as you are looking at it. If you were sincere, it would be no problem to simply click the link. You'd rather speak in the comments because I suspect that you are a defender of apostasy as well. that's not being malicious. That's simply saying what I mean and meaning what I say. As you note, that's what I do and what WE do around these parts.

  85. I'm sorry I won't do it. I don't even know you, but I will be respectful of you and to you. If I feel you did something wrong I will address you, not talk about or judge you.

    Even with all the information you've given, I don't know who you are, what it took for you to gather the conclusions you did, what you may feel God revealed to you, I just know that I am not going to cut you down, and I know that it is impossible for God to teach everybody something different on something so important. He is even when we are not; concise and clear.

    So the solution to that is for the men and women of God to fast and pray so that God may give a revelation. That's better than sitting around desecrating somebody's character, I mean it's not really Bishop Noel anyway right? Because we fight not against flesh and blood right?

    I think the Word stands on it's own and needs nothing extra from me. But what I am saying sir, is I respected you enough to come to you. If I didn't have to post it so openly, I would have rather emailed you. Sir, the bible says the things that you say it says. I'm not disputing that, but that same bible says the things I said it says too.

    It seems to me that you believe you are doing this in Holy boldness. And I can't dispute that. Only God knows the intent in which you delivered all this. What I am saying is this sir, I am a babe, and one of the main things God has revealed to me is to treat others the way I want to be treated, do not be unevenly yolked, and love inspite of myself or feelings.

    To come under authority and be teachable, but verify ALL things through Him. To help others in their time of need. If they fall, pick them up, and judge them not. But to Pray, sir. And to pray without ceasing, because only He can change the ways of man.

    Again sir I am a babe, and Plainly spoken sir, this feels, looks, and seems malicious to me, and to me, it seems we ought to pray and fast to seek God's face to change the course of things instead of destroying people. That's all I am saying sir.

    Thank you for your time and attention to all I've said. I believe you are a Superintendent and I know that if you are, you are quite busy, so for you to take the time to address my concerns means a great deal to me, because you could have just written it off, and went about your busy day. I will be praying, for us all, and I hope you enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you again.

    1. You said:I'm sorry I won't do it. I don't even know you, but I will be respectful of you and to you. If I feel you did something wrong I will address you, not talk about or judge you.

      Now how does that fit with this one:
      "I did not sir create a page stating how you are no better than Bishop Noel because he's giving the wrong message, and you are giving another, all while being malicious, and I know that this is not of God, because the word of God says....."

      Is that not a judgement? If it is it is also hypocrisy. It is also a logical inconsistency to demand that I not "judge" while you are judging. In short, your premise is totally off and really not worth considering and I certainly don't hold it against you as this is how it goes when one battles for truth and righteousness.

      Since you are a "babe in Christ" as you have stated (even with the threat of "cutting me down") I would suggest that you undertake some serious study on the issue before further commenting. You mention NONE of the arguments posed either in the article or in the over an hour spent on audio regarding the SUBJECT.

      As stated if you have something to say regarding the topic, that would be worth noting and appreciated. Thanks.

  86. Replies
    1. Jesus is certainly God but he ain't the Father...THAT'S the Bible as well!

  87. Replies
    1. Lord why do they persist in ignorance???

      Rom: 10:2 ~For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

      2 Tim. 3:7 ~ Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

      But what do they ever do with this?

      John 1:1-4 ~ 1-In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2-The same was in the beginning with God. 3-All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4-In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5-And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

      Then this:

      John 1:14 ~ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

      Do they not understand the meaning of "monogenes" or begotten??? Do they not understand what it means that the Son was "begotten"???

      John 14:18 ~ No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

      Do they simply not understand that the WORD who was WITH God, was the one who was BEGOTTEN, monogenes of the Father??? Why do human minds feel that they should comprehend a triune God and understand how that triune God is ONE God??? I believe that's simply called arrogance of man...One thing is for certain, if they didn't understand any of that, they certainly won't understand any of this:

      1 Cor. 15:28 ~ And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

      Now they will invariably come up with some scripturally illiterate position that this is referring to the FLESH of Jesus saying that the God in him placed all things under his feet...but then, that simply goes right back to my original question, WHY do they persist in ignorance, when submission to the truth is a much more easy path???

  88. Is. 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his NAME shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting FATHER, The Prince of Peace.

    John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

    John 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

    keep reading...

    John 1:14 And the WORD was MADE flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    the invisible became visible.

    1Tim. 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

    Jesus = God (spirit) revealed in the flesh. Its the SON of God not God the Son. God is NOT persons. God is a spirit. There is only ONE spirit, ONE God.

    Gen. 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    So... keep reading..

    Gen. 1:27 So God created man in HIS (singular) own image, in the image of God created he(singular) him; male and female created he them.

    1. yea. EVERLASTING FATHER. could Mr Burnett tell us how Jesus is not the Father. if He isn't, could you tell us what this means? this is serious. i always needed this clarified.

    2. First for het keerpunt the tense of scripture should be a clue to you that God, by the description of the word certain IS ONE, but that ONE is described in plural terms.

      Deut. 4: 6 Hear O Israel the Lord our God (ĕ·lō·hê·nū...a derivation of elohim, whis is in PLURAL form...which accurately interpreted would be "Gods" as to indicate a duality) is ONE Lord.

      Here we find ONE God. That cannot be avoided. But this ONE is described in multiplicitous terms.

      He is REVEALED dully and distinctly as having relationship with the Father as a SON. Consciously aware of the difference between his will as a son and the will of the father, even so much as to SUBJECT himself to the will of the father.

      Further according to scripture all things will be put under his feet as the scripture recounts:

      1 Cor. 15:28 ~ And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

      Jesus is not LESSER as the JW's hold. He is GOD. But heaven AIN'T confused. He is NOT God the Father no matter what sort of trick you try to pull.

  89. uhhm, Mr Burnnett, could you please respond to het keerpunt especially with respect to isaiah 9:6. i'm sure it would be interesting. and please could you give a detailed solution to settling the concept of the trinity in the whole body of Christ if it were possible. because i'm sure every preacher including you has got one thing or another wrong in his interpretation of the word. so how does the whole Bride of Christ arrive at a common faith. thank you. you really have passion for stating your claims as you believe are from the word.

    1. So far as your "smoking gun" of "Everlasting Father"...I don;t understand what that proves...His name is also called "Almighty God"...That is EXACTLY what we know...He is GOD! However, NONE of that proves that he is ontologically the Father, or that Jesus is Father in being. Jesus is God by NATURE...same essence, same God to be worshiped, however, as i stated earlier, the scripture is clear with a subject/object distinction.

      In fact, if Jesus is the father as you require, to whom does Jesus pray when he is in the Garden saying,

      Luke 22:42~ Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

      How does that even make sense if he is ontologically the father? How does this even make sense:

      Luke 3:22 ~And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

      Our friend het keerpunt, mentioned John 1:1 but NEVER mentions what it really says...John 1 not only mentions God, it mentions the WORD and claims that the WORD was/is God. It describes a RELATIONSHIP between 2, not a singularity. Then it goes on to say that Jesus was the only "begotten" (MONOGENES) of the Father. This term was used 2 times in scripture, both in John. 1:14 and 3:18. The application of the term indicates that Jesus was united with the Father, by NATURE and ESSENCE. He was the only one of his kind to ever exist. This has nothing to do with physical makeup, but with the essence of who he is.

      This is EXACTLY what we teach. Jesus is God by nature, essence. There is yet an ontological difference that Jesus himself affirms, but there is no greater or lesser God. He is GOd, simply not God the Father. Not God A son, but God THE only BEGOTTEN (MONOGENES) Son...

      So you simply can't just skip over what you find in scripture and think, "well look at other scriptures that agree with my position and call it a day"...that's CRACKERJACK scriptural reading and NOT what God has proscribed for us to do.

  90. If Jesus is God and Jehovah is God, but they are not the same person, then does that mean there are two Gods? And where does the Holy Ghost stand since the Holy Ghost has also been called God by Trinitarians? Does each member of this "trinity" sit on a separate throne in heaven, and if so, why does the Bible always speak of the "throne" of God and not thrones of God? Jesus is the Everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6), he's the son (Matthew 1:21, 23) and he is the Holy Spirit which is also called the Comforter (John 14:18, 1st Corinthians 15:45). The fact is this: "Jesus" was the name given to a human being who was born by the power of the Spirit of God. Prior to being born, God existed in heaven, but not as a "son," because son refers to a "male child that has been born." If Jesus were not born in heaven, he couldn't be “the son” in heaven before being born on Earth. But the Spirit of God, aside from the physical frame that is called a "man" or "son," existed before he came to the Earth. God said he made all things by himself. (Isaiah 44:24) If there were a separate "god" or member of the trinity-godhead with him in heaven helping to make things, then God would not have said that he made all things by himself. God said He is "one." In Hebrew, the word is "echad." This has been said to mean plurality or a cluster. It refers to the plurality of his attributes, not the plurality of his "being" because his proper name "YHWH" (a.k.a.) Jehovah is singular. If the God's name is singular and he said he made all things by "himself," he is not two or three "persons," but one. God can and did send his Spirit to a woman and cause a male child to be born. As King, God remained in heaven while the Spirit in Jesus was on the Earth. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself and still on the throne. In other words, God is everywhere. Since he is omnipresent, he can be in two places at the same time. In Revelation chapter 5, Jesus as the (atoning) "Lamb of God" is sitting on the throne of God and being given worship. God said he would not give his glory to another. (Isaiah 42:8) David prophetically declared that the King of Glory would enter into the Everlasting Doors. (Psalm 24:9) There is only one King of Glory and he will be crowned King of Kings. If Jesus were not the one and only king in heaven, how can he be the King of Glory or be crowned King of Kings? Again, there is only one God. The whole idea of a trinity of three persons is an old lie which the pseudo-Christian Roman Catholic Church adopted from the ancient pagan trinities, which is why they had to take hundreds of years to develop this erroneous doctrine and then have the audacity to label all early Christians who only believed in one God as "heretics." The truth of the matter is that the early Catholic pictures of the trinity depicting God with three heads attached to one body, or three persons sitting side-by-side on three thrones, was not taken from any scriptural or biblical depiction of God seen by prophets or apostles, but borrowed directly from the pagans in Rome, Greece, Egypt, Babylon and elsewhere. Even the traditional Catholic symbol of the trinity called the "triquetra" was borrowed from the pagans who worshiped the triple-goddess. Based on the fact that God never stated that he was (or ever will be “three”) in the Scriptures, and the fact that the only place we can find a “trinity” is in pagan worship, we can safely say that God has hidden the truth of who he is from the so-called wise and revealed it to babes.

    1. Phunter

      Thanks for your commentary. If the Catholics were wrong on some things, they were certainly RIGHT about this. If God is God at all, then both of us could expect to not be able to exhaust his knowledge nor fully comprehend his being. This is one of those subjects where what he has left us within scripture causes us to not full comprehend him, although we can apprehend him from scripture and from what he said.

      You commentary is correct 100% in that there is ONLY 1 God and that God is The Lord God Jehovah as we understand him from scripture. So on that we do not disagree. So the question becomes hos is he that ONE God and what does he do to cause us to pose that question?

      Be clear, I don't disagree with any scripture you quote. I simply disagree with your conclusions. They are not complete.

      First point to clarify is what the Trinitarian means by "persons". When you hear that you think of an individual being separate from the other. That makes sense to say that of man, but God is NOT a man (Num. 23:19) We can say that by his physicality, his nature and his ontology in general. We we reference the "persons" of God, we reference those things that constitute his complete nature and how he has extended knowledge of himself in the world. The first point of reference is the subject/object distinction that is clearly given in his word. What do I mean? Allow me to give a few examples:

      God SENDS his Son.(John 6:29, 7:16, 8:42, 12:44, 17:3 - the beat goes on)
      The Son prays TO the Father (Mt. 11:25, Lk. 5:16, Lk. 6:12, Jn. 17:1, Heb. 5:7 ~ In The Garden-Mk. 14:32, Mt. 26:32, Lk. 22:41)
      The Father SENDS the Holy Ghost (Jn. 14:25)
      Jesus SENDS The Holy Ghost (Jn. 16:7)

      Now, you can contend that in all of these instances that this is referring to Jesus human nature praying to the Father, but if you want to make that a doctrine, have at it, there is nothing quite like that one in NT theology with the exception of Jesus not knowing the day of judgement (Mt. 24:36)...But if you want to attribute these things to the absence of the divine nature at these times...Have at it, I would like to see that one pass muster...

      Another point that cannot be so easily overlooked is that Jesus says something interesting in John 14:23. He says:

      Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

      Jesus says, "and WE will come unto him" you can gerrymander all you want, try to say that was "Victorian English" of kings stating "we", but that is thin ice, because you and I know clearly that at other times Jesus said "I" or my Father" will do such and such. An interpretation to the contrary does not satisfy the context nor the grammar of the passage.

      So from this we clearly see at least 2 things. There is a SUBJECT/OBJECT distinction recorded in scripture, where Jesus is "sent", Jesus "prays", Jesus is "aware" of the Father and as I will point out in Pt. 2, has a "will" that he subjects to the Father.

      See 2

    2. 2

      Now, lets look at will and the concept of it...

      From SCRIPTURE we see that God has a will. We also see that the Son has a will also. Where do we see this at? John 4:34~Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

      Here Jesus was playing off of the disciples asking him to eat. He states that his "substance" that sustained him was to do the "will" of him that has sent him. There is that subject/object distinction again...Later, in the Garden, as I reference above in the previous comment, Jesus prays to the Father as says something to teh effect, "Nevertheless, not my WILL, but thy WILL be done."(Lk. 22:42)

      Here we see that the Father has a WILL and the Son has a Will that he subjects to the Father. This is startling!

      Personhood then is based, not on the ability or physical capacity of God, but on the recognition and acknowledgement of 1- Will, which constitutes desires and intellect, and 2- a subject/object distinction as I have amply noted and pointed out.

      Both Peter and Paul reveals something specific about the The Holy Ghost. In Acts 5, Peter says that the Holy Ghost was lied to (Acts 5:3). Paul says that the Holy Ghost has a "mind" Rom. 8:27 and in the same passage says that he "maketh intercession" (aka: PRAYS) whom and how? "according to the WILL of God". Further Paul tells us in Ephes 4:30 that the Holy Ghost can suffer "grief".

      So what I contend should be very clear. A manifestation, as my dear oneness brothers and sisters contend, is NOT what the bible describes about the nature of God. manifestations cannot not pray...certainly cannot feel...cannot have a will...cannot submit their will to another...and further cannot send other manifestations etc...Descriptions as such simply make a complete mockery of scripture and lead to all kinds of fanciful gerrymandering as Noel does in the broadcast.

      So what we see from scripture is a God who is ONE. We ALL agree. He is not THREE Gods. He is ONE and there is only One Throne in heaven, EXCEPT for the ONE who stands/sits at the RIGHT HAND of the Father (Acts 2:33) and not to overlook the testimony of Luke recording Stephen when he was stoned. Stephen looked and saw "the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God" (Acts 7:55) Now, you may say that he only saw Jesus. That is OK, but the text says he saw the "glory of God, and Jesus standing" The next verse he point out that he saw Jesus standing "on the right hand of God" Nevertheless, he recognized God (the father) and Jesus (the Son)

      Further, John tells us what we see in heaven as you pose the question earlier. The scripture is clear, and it was not an allegory. John says that he saw a throne in heaven. There was ONE who sat upon the throne Rev. 4:2-3 and all heaven worshiped HIM. Rev. 4:10. Both YOU AND I AGREE that God is and should be the ONLY object of worship in Heaven, earth and the universe. We are not confused on this. HOWEVER....Rev. 5:9-10 a LAMB proceeds from the midst of the Throne, proceeds to to take the book, from the hand of the ONE who was on the throne and is further worshiped by ALL heaven. Rev. 5:14.

      How many GOd's do we see worshiped? If EITHER of us say anything more than ONE, we ARE HERETICS....However, what we see, we can;t hardly describes as we CLEARLY see a Lamb, a Throne, a God that sits upon it, a Lamb that takes the book from HIS hand and that proceeds from him and BOTH who receive all the worship of heaven and earth....

      See 3

    3. 3

      Now, THAT is scripture my friend. THAT is what we see from scripture...We DO NOT see ANY EVIDENCE that a manifestation, takes a book, receives worship, or dies for our sins. This was a PERSON with a will and a mind, not a God/man combination, but a God man MIX...100% God, 100% Man continually, not at certain times.

      That my friend I don't fully understand or comprehend, but I do APPREHEND it and subject myself to it. Not an EGG with a shell yolk, and gelatin. This is distinctly different. Not a God who wears different hats and performs different duties at times, but a God, who exists in ALL his glory from the beginning, and who NEVER changed his nature nor added to his person to accommodate anything.

      Now, until you can render an exegesis from scripture to address ANY of that...I will have to with the testimony of the word and respect your opinion, but relegate it to the trash.

      Thank you my friend!

  91. Dear Superintendent Burnett, you said there’s only one God and that we can’t comprehend everything about his being. If so, why continue using the limited human expression “trinity” or “persons” to defend an ideology that even theologians don’t completely agree on or understand?
    You said “persons” doesn’t refer to three separate beings because God is not a man, according to Numbers 23:19. The verse is not really about God not being a man, but about God not saying lying and changing his mind. God is a Spirit, but as Jesus, and while visiting Abraham in Genesis 18, God was a man and ate food. Spirits don’t eat food.
    “Persons” refers to the Greek term “hypostasis,” which is translated as essence or sediment. Alternatively, these “persons” are called God’s “masks,” which present an image a character is portraying.
    You said Jesus and God had separate wills. (John 4:34 and Luke 22:42) This only applied to Jesus as a human. In heaven it doesn’t apply because he’ll no longer exist as a distinct human separated from the essence he came from. Even Trinitarian theologians of antiquity generally agreed on this.
    Even praying to the Father doesn’t disqualify Jesus from being the same (singular Supreme Being) that he was prior to his incarnation. God was in two places at the same time.
    You said that the Holy Spirit had a mind. OK. But then again, the Spirit also caused the incarnation of Jesus, meaning he took on the role of Father. Afterwards, you said that manifestations cannot “grieve.” If a manifestation is just an apparition, you’d be correct. However, when I say manifestation I am in line with 1st Timothy 3:16, which indicates that God was manifested in the flesh and that Jesus is that manifestation. Manifest means to reveal. Jesus is the express image and revelation of God. And since the Spirit speaketh expressively in the last days, it too serves as a manifestation to manifest God or some truth God wishes to reveal. No one in the Bible saw the Holy Spirit standing, sitting, or flying in heaven. It’s because the Spirit is God the Father. And as the “Father,” the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and produced the babe we now call Jesus.
    Now with regards to Revelation 5:9-10, one may claim that the Lamb literally took the book from God. Since Jesus is not a physical lamb, this is symbolic. When a story is told with symbolism to convey an idea about something else, it is an allegory. This is allegorical just like the expression about the lamb being led to the slaughter.
    You asked, “How many Gods do we see worshiped?” I don’t know what anyone else sees, but I know how many I worship, the one God who sits on his throne alone, who has no subordinate nor equal. There a not three separate gods. Nor are there three persons all claiming to be one God. There is no scripture for a trinity on three thrones. The Spirit’s never mentioned as having a throne. So I cannot see this trinity as biblical, but a concoction from pagan Greco-Roman philosophers to make up for their lack of understanding on seemingly conflicting terms which we may not fully understand until we reach glory.
    I pray that God will give you the zeal to truly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints and not allow the sayings of man to inhibit you from getting a greater revelation of the Lord God Almighty, in Jesus’ name like the Apostles received when they proclaimed Jesus as the Lord and baptized everyone in the name that is above every name, knowing his name didn’t just represent “authority,” but that there was power in literally using Jesus’ name. This is why no one in the Bible was baptized in the name “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” Apostate Rome reversed the 200-year tradition of Jesus name baptism and proceeded to adopt other pagan elements such as pagan baptismal fonts and a pinch of salt to expel the alleged “demons” in infants. I do believe you are sincere. I pray you get it right.

    1. P Hunter,

      So far as language and use of the word "trinity" You said: If so, why continue using the limited human expression “trinity” or “persons” to defend an ideology that even theologians don’t completely agree on or understand?

      That has no bearing on the subject. "Trinity" is just what we find in scripture. There are not words for many things we accept such as "incarnation" or even "oneness", Yet we teach them now don't we? So that argument is at best disingenuous and adds nothing to the subject matter, that being understanding the nature of God. The term "trinity" is consistent with that term.

      While we are on that topic, "terms", you incorrectly use the word "manifestation" as demonstrated by your 1 Tim. 3:16. The word "manifest" (or revealed) or phaneroó also ἐφανερώθη (ephanerōthē) is a VERB, not a noun, presented in the aorist indicative passive -third person singular. As far as I know, and I am no linguist, this term properly means "reveled" as in revealing something or showing something. It is very particularly different from saying that what it is referring to is a "revelation" or a "manifestation". To say that is a sloppy use of language.

      Example, if I say, I have $100 in my pocket. You say, "show it to me". then I take it out and say, "Here it is" Now is the $100 a "revelation" or a "manifestation"? Or is the ACT of showing you the $100 the revelation and the manifestation? In proper context the ACT of showing you (THE VERB) is the revelation or the manifestation process.

      Further, the creedal statement that Paul was delivering to Timothy was not an all inclusive exegetical lecternal teaching on the issues in that verse. He actually states very early circulated and simple creed. Creeds often deliver a summary of things believed. 1 Cor. 11 is another example of this. In this case the Creed states "God was:"

      1- manifest in the flesh,
      2- justified in the Spirit,
      3- seen of angels,
      4- preached unto the Gentiles,
      5- believed on in the world,
      6- received up into glory.

      This was something delivered that could be easily rehearsed and set to memory by the believers as well as communicated quickly and accurately.

      In other words, what I am saying is that not only are you, and others making a grammatical error in interpretation of the scripture, you are overlooking the 5 other things that is said in that short verse and exalting one aspect of the scripture as its primary point of emphasis. That is clearly NOT what Paul intended and was not the case within that scripture. In addition, because of that mistake and error, compounded by your linguistic error, you are attributing Jesus to being a "manifestation" of God in a sense that a the act of "manifestation" is or can be a noun. But this use of "manifest" is NOT a noun neither is it intended to be. So your whole interpretive kinda falls flat on its face, not because of the Greek, but because of the misuse and abuse of language, and in particularly ours.

      You seem to know this, but pay little attention to it, because you state "Manifest means to reveal" That is true and on its face you should notice the error. Now, is what is made manifest a "manifestation"? I think that is what you are getting to or the point that you are trying to make. However, scripture DOES NOT attribute or relegate Jesus to being a "manifestation" as I have discussed and clarified. That is something that you draw out, NOT something that scripture states.

    2. So let's go back to this "trinity" terminology for a minute. It seems that YOU are doing a similar thing, by tagging Jesus with attributes or descriptives such as "manifestation" or "revelation of God", when scripture does not attribute those terms to him in the manner that you apply them. Jesus "became" (ginomai ~ came into being) flesh and is the "only begotten" (monogenes~ same nature or essence) of God.

      As I stated, and you have not come close to overcoming, "manifestations" don't do anything. They don't have will, mind, or intellect. All of these things we see with Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Ghost.

      So far as your defense that the beatific vision of revelation is an "allegory"...DO YOU REALLY want to do that? Make Revelation allegorical? You have ISSUES my friend if you do that. In addition, that was not about Jesus being led to the slaughter, that was about him judging and making judgement as he stated to Ciaphas, and as was taught by Daniel in Daniel 7:14. So not only do you do the scripture no justice by destroying what it is saying and what it is emphasizing, you are totally out of context.

      I'll tell you now, that is the ONLY way a oneness Pentecostal can reconcile those passages. In other words DESTROY the complete narrative to make it fit your theology....

      And you don't even try to touch John 14:23 Let me remind you again:

      Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

      HELLO!!!! Is this thing ON?????

      So I am not talking about what no Greeks said or what any pagan taught. I am talking about what the BIBLE teaches and what it says. I am not making it up to suit me as you do with Oneness doctrine. I know Ewart and the other one, (I forget the name at the moment) felt that when the name of "Jesus' was used, in the service, things happened. But I am sorry, there is no power in the letters or the alphabet that constitutes a name. There is POWER in the one whom those letters represent.

      The name "Jesus" is NOT a magical potion, spell or incantation. There are millions of Mexicans and Latin folk named JESUS!...Having that as a name gives them no special power. There is only power in the God behind that name and the power comes from the BLOOD that was shed and the remittance of sins countained within that blood.

      Ephes. 5:26 reveals the mission of Jesus to the church "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word," The WATERS that we are cleansed by are not the waters of some pool with an incantation waived over it. The waters that we are WASHED by is the WORD of God.

      John 15:3~Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. The WORD of god is the agent of sin because of the power in the blood, and that resonates back to the cross NOT a baptismal.

      So in this, I can only hope that YOU get it right...because THAT is the doctrine that the Apostles taught. Wasn't nobody in scripture baptized to be saved. They were baptized BECAUSE they were saved, had confessed and turned to Jesus. One thing I can say, is your dialogue is classic and exactly why TRUTH must continue to be preached, because without it, errors such as those you've adopted would go unchallenged.

    3. In discussing the hypostatic union you said: Alternatively, these “persons” are called God’s “masks,” which present an image a character is portraying.

      Now, that is beyond confusing and straight from a Oneness Pentecostal apologetic writing on the hypostatic union. I am almost willing to bet that you wrote what you read...Well, PLEASE get rid of that book.

      God DOES NOT wear masks. He is not hidden in any way or manner. His delight is revealing himself to all them who will see. Sctipture says he gives wisdom to how many that ask? and does not "upbraid" them either...

      to say something like that falls into all kinds of traps and inconsistent theological conundrums...One possibly leading to the religions of gnosticism of a Valentinus or Marcion, who deconstructed God presenting the attributes of God that they felt were more representative of his nature. In fact, Marcion believed that the God of the OT was completely different than the God of the NT and deconstructed it to suit. He also mutilated many of Paul's writings and thre out some on the same basis.

      What I am saying is, if we believe that god is ONE LORD as Deut. 6:4 says, he is a whole package when he speaks and when he does acts. One cannot divide him as Oneness Pentecostals offensively do. Jesus is the SAME yesterday (OT) Today(NT) and forever more(Future) in other words ETERNALLY he is the same. He wears no masks....

      Man ooh man....what folk will do to defend their doctrines

  92. My dear brother, I am so sorry you thought I was promoting the idea of "three masks." I was merely saying was that some (others) have used this term alternatively in place of the word "trinity." I explained this better in my original text, but had to abridge much of what I originally wrote because it was too much to be uploaded onto your website. I do not believe in "three masks" of God. I believe that Jesus is the express image of God and the fullness of the godhead bodily, and that we are complete in HIM who is the head of all principality and power. The word "godhead" is "theotetos" in Greek and literally means "divinity" or "deity." And regarding John 14:23 saying "we will come unto him..." the Greek doesn't say "we." The words "we" and "our" were inserted. The Greek word in John 14:23 referring to "will come" is "eleusometha." The decision of translators to insert "we" in John 14 reminds me of Genesis 1:26, which traditionally is translated "Let us make man in our image." Trinitarians love to cite this to promote the "trinity." The problem here is that the Hebrew doesn't contain the word "us" It was inserted. I don't pretend to be a linguistic scholar in Greek or Hebrew, but anyone with a clear head can check the Hebrew and see that the verse that is translated "let us make" in the Hebrew is actually only one word, and that word is a verb that says "make." By adding "let us" to the word "make" changes the meaning. Some will suppose God is talking to himself. Others will take this to mean that he is talking to other beings. Since God is not divided into two or three persons in this verse, He is not talking to himself.

    1. P Hunter,

      OK, I understand you now on the "three masks" issue. Sorry for not getting a clarification. As i see it though, that term would more properly apply to oneness doctrine in that One God simply wears 3 different hats or operates in 3 different modes, thus the term modalism. But, I would agree that "three masks" does not convey what modalism conveys, so we are good.

      So far as your claim of insertions of John 14:23. I don't see and or find it my friend. What I do find is over 21 various translations that use the same wording, "We will come". I further find that the word erchomai (ἐλευσόμεθα) is otherwise inclusive of the "we" saying "we will come". Pulpit commentary says this:

      "The keeping of the Word is a certain consequence of holy love. And my Father will love him. So far Christ has only reiterated the great statement of Ver. 21, but instead of saying, "I will love him, and manifest myself," he added, We will come - the Father and I - to him, and take up our abode, make for ourselves a resting-place in his dwelling (πἀρ αὐτῳ); cf. the analogous and wonderful parallel in Revelation 3:20. There is a clear utterance of Divine self-consciousness. It is worthy of note that such an expression as this sounds a profounder depth of that consciousness than any phrase (λόγος) already delivered."

    2. Gills expository says it like this:

      "and we will come unto him: I who am now going away, and my Father to whom I am going, and the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, I have promised to pray for: hence a proof of a plurality of persons in the Godhead, of a trinity of persons, of there being neither more nor fewer than three; since neither more nor less can be collected from the context; and of their distinct personality, or it could not be said with any propriety, "we" each of us "will come unto him"; not locally and visibly, but spiritually, by affording our gracious and comfortable presence, the continuance of which is promised next...and make our abode with him; which denotes habitation; for the saints are the dwelling places or temples of the living God, Father, Son, and Spirit; and the constancy and perpetuity of their residence in them,"

      Then your Genesis snafu (and anyone that notices, can see how a Oneness believer say that ALL verses that discount their view were interpolated or changed) that is dealing with the text disingenuously But let's just give you that you are true about what you said. There is still a problem. The problem is that man is made after our image and after our likeness (so says God)! So if "us" is absent, how can "our" be present?

      The Jews contended that it was angels, but that is not scriptural. God NEVER consulted with angels or anything else in HIS acts. If that is the case, which I believe that it is, the options are limited to what can be deduced from this. Like Ellicott's Commentary says on the issue, this is a "germ" or "seed" of the plurality of God that we find from the beginning of the bible and the beginning of what God communicates to us. No, I will agree that does not, by itself, make the case fro the trinity, but it begins to lay the groundwork, and by the time you finish with Deut. 6:4, "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God (Elohim- better translated as "Gods" (plural) is One Lord!" there is yet another layer to place on top of what we see that exists from the beginning.

      Like I said, I am NOT a linguist. Neither are you!!! However, I can make sense of what training I have on the subject and have access to some pretty adequate materials to know that what I am saying, is not only coherent, but it is also biblically sound.

      Another thing that Oneness overlooks, is the requirement of "witness". This is a heavenly principle. God does NOTHING without a witness. Everything is established through the principle of "witness". This is a powerful concept. Among men, one witness was not enough to convict in the event of a crime (Deut. 19:15) Paul told the Corinthians, his prior teachings served as a "witness" for "everything" was established by the mouths of 2 or 3 witnesses". The right and wrong of disagreements are established by the company of 2 or 3 witnesses (Mt. 18:16) It is 2 witnesses that prophesy in Rev. 11. God does nothing in the earth except he reveal it to his prophets (Am. 3:7). The burden of bearing record is a deeply entrenched biblical principle.


      Jesus was accused of bearing false witness by the Pharisees, because he spoke without what they considered a confirmation. What Jesus said emphasizes and underscores my point exactly. John 8:16-18 says this:

      16-And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. 17-It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. 18-I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

      This again is another powerful statement that undermines the whole of Oneness doctrine and teaching on the nature of God. Yes only ONE God, but existent in Three Persons, who have mind, will and intellect and awareness of one another. NOT three Gods...only ONE!

    3. In short my brother, Oneness doctrine or modalism as it is formally known destroys many tenets of the Christian faith and belief, it it is true. It violates so many various principles that it would be impossible to make a coherent faith in light of its demands. The principle of "witness", and record bearing is destroyed. The who of "us" and "our image" becomes a joke. Further, God praying to himself is disingenuous even if we separate the deity from the man Jesus, which is something that we can never do in a biblical manner, and have Jesus the man, praying to God the deity...that is RANK heresy!

      Further, what is the VOICE that comes from heaven at his baptism? Why would Jesus throw his voice? Makes no sense and the answers from a oneness perspective only creates many more problems than what it addresses. This is why modalism was rejected as heresy long ago and still yet is heretical as a doctrine and or teaching.

      Thanks for commenting, unlike you, I claim that you can still yet be a "brother" even though you currently are in error. Your misinterpretation of truth cannot keep you from truth IF you are willing to receive truth when it comes.

      Receive this brother, because it is TRUTH!

      Happy New Year!

  93. Many have taken to claim that Bishop G E Patterson was a sort of Oneness adherent at some point in his ministry. I don't believe that is the case. If it was, it was certainly nothing that he was willing to pronounce and advertise. In fact from all available evidence of the body of messages and teachings he left, he denied Oneness doctrine by invoking the trinity as a teaching and clearly teaching that being filled with the Holy Ghost was an act subsequent to salvation.

    In Oneness circles, the doctrine states that one is saved by combination of both repentance, baptism in Jesus name and speaking in tongues or being filled with the Holy Ghost. This is clearly NOT what Bishop GE or Dad Mason taught.

    Here is one message to evidence that:

    About 3 minutes in, Bishop GE Affirms a historic trinitarian and Pentecostal position on the subject. Now, it seems that even if they were baptized in the formula of "In Jesus Name" or had adopted oneness or modalism, we would see it someplace in something they left. We see nothing of the sort, and there is a vast body of recent materials that GE Patterson leaves.

    So I am hardly convinced that either of these men either taught, believed or experienced anything to the contrary.


  94. District Supervisor Burnett,

    On May 4.2012 you wrote:

    John 1:14 ~ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    Do they not understand the meaning of "monogenes" or begotten??? Do they not understand what it means that the Son was "begotten"???

    John 14:18 ~ No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

    Do they simply not understand that the WORD who was WITH God, was the one who was BEGOTTEN, monogenes of the Father??? Why do human minds feel that they should comprehend a triune God and understand how that triune God is ONE God??? I believe that's simply called arrogance of man...

    End Quote

    I do not understand "begotten". Would you please explain it to me.

    Does begotten mean created? If Jesus was created, then that has to mean Jesus had a beginning and therefore he cannot be eternal. If he is not eternal, then he cannot be GOD.

    If Jesus is separate from the FATHER because he was begotten (or created) by the FATHER, then the FATHER ALONE is GOD, correct?

    Please explain how Jesus was "begotten".

    Thank you!

    1. Very good question. Please allow me to link you to a teaching whereby you can have a visual and take it a little at a time. Here it is:

    2. Thank Supervisor Burnett for the link. I read the material, looked over the diagram, and I listened to the lecture given by R.C. Sproul however neither source explained what "begotten" means.

      In your 5/4/2012 reply to BROTHER KING, it appears you were saying that you understood the term begotten and you were questioning why others do not have that same understanding when you wrote

      "Do they not understand what it means that the Son was begotten?"

      So once again I ask, would you please explain YOUR understanding of what it means that Jesus was begotten of the FATHER??

      Thank you.

    3. Mr. Brickson,

      I have been very consistent in what MY understanding is on the word. This is why I gave you another source that would pour more meaning than a short answer into it. So allow me to be a little more technical since I have already made it plain when I was speaking to Borther King:

      Stongs says:

      Monogenes is used of Christ, denotes the only son of God or one who in the sense in which he himself is the son of God has no brethren. He is so spoken of by John not because ὁ λόγος which was ἐνσαρκωθεις in him was eternally generated by God the Father (the orthodox interpretation), or came forth from the being of God just before the beginning of the world (Subordinationism), but because by the incarnation (ἐνσαρκωσις) of the λόγος in him he is of nature or essentially Son of God, and so in a very different sense from that in which men are made by him τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ (John 1:13).

      In other words momogenes refers to his nature. if he has the "nature of God" then he is eternal. Thus John 1:1 makes perfect sense that he was in the beginning, and was God and was with God. Not a created or lesser being.

      So "monogenes" refers to nature and in this case when referring to divine nature or being is eternal. However, he "proceeds from" God which is a statement referring to an ontological or "being" difference.

    4. Superintendent Burnett,

      Please call me JC.

      You were a bit too technical for me with that explanation. I guess I need the simple man's version.

      The statement "came forth from the being of God just before the beginning of the world"... sounds like Jesus was not around for the eternity that was before the beginning of the world. And if he indeed had some point of coming forth, then he is not an eternal being.

      But let me give you my simple man's understanding of your position on this subject:

      GOD is like the US Congress - there is only 1 GOD - only 1 Congress.

      YAHWEH or JEHOVAH the FATHER, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit - are separate but equal
      just like 3 representatives from the same state; separate but equal in power/equal vote

      All 3 are congressmen but there is only 1 Congress.

      ALL 3 (FATHER Son & Spirit) are Deity but there is only 1 GOD

      So the 1 GOD is a body or a Fraternal Group (no disrespect intended or implied)

      Is this a reasonable analogy of your understanding?


    5. JC,

      No that is not quite it. Governmental bodies don't have the same nature or essence. In addition there could be schism. In the Godhead there is no schism and the nature and essence is the same.

      In addition, Jesus is God. The father is God. The Holy Ghost is God, but Jesus is NOT the Father, the Holy Ghost is NOT the Son and neither is the Father the Son or the holy Ghost.

      So a "simple man's analogy" falls short and is NOT my understanding and more importantly not what the Bible teaches.

      The WORD is God eternally without any creative point of coming into being. If there is then he is not eternal and therefore not God. This is the teaching of scripture.

      So what is YOUR understanding? I ask because I think whether one apprehends it or not, it is laid out rather clearly and there is enough information to discern it here. So what are you trying to get to?

    6. I think you added to and ramped up the analogy to bring in other points that I did not mention. I know man could have schisms and GOD doesn't, but that's not the focus. The point is there could be 3 representatives from 1 state. Rep #1 is not Rep #2, Rep #2 is not Rep #3 and so on and so on just like you point out about the FATHER, Son & Holy Ghost not being each other. The 3 reps are all congressmen but there is only 1 congress. Don't go any deeper than that. Just work with numbers and office, not what's in their heart or what they are capable of vs GOD. Just numbers (3 Deities/3 people) and office (1 GOD / 1 Congress).

      Broken down to it's simplest terms you are in fact saying the term GOD actually denotes a body or office, not 1 particular person. Just like the term Congress denotes a body and not 1 particular person. Right?

    7. As for my understanding, I believe we all should probably say "I don't know" !

      You made some valid points about the voice coming from heaven saying "this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased" and the verse in 1 Corinthians where at the end Jesus will turn all things back to his FATHER and will be subject to the FATHER. But I think you stepped lightly around the scripture that clearly says the EVERLASTING FATHER was born unto us.

      You commented once on Jesus being disingenuous if he was in fact praying to himself - maybe that's a valid point.

      Of course, if there are separate Gods (like you say), then there is no dis-ingenuousness in the one God praying to the other.

      But on the other hand, isn't it also disingenuous for the FATHER to say HE created the heavens and the earth alone and does not KNOW of any other GOD?(Isa. 44:8 & 24) How can HE possibly say that with the other 2 GODS sitting right there in front of HIM? How can the FATHER possibly say HE created heaven and earth ALONE when the bible clearly tells us all things were created by and for Jesus? That's rude and disingenuous isn't it if in fact there are 2 other GODS sitting there with the FATHER? Can you concede that this point about genuineness is equal to yours?

      Of course, if Jesus is GOD (like the Oneness people state), then there is no dis-ingenuousness in the statements made is Isaiah.
      Can you see validity and reconciliation in both viewpoints?

      You believe Jesus is the same essence as the FATHER and he is eternal God just like ALMIGHTY YAH. You most likely believe the FATHER is all knowing, and if (as you say) Jesus is just like the FATHER, then Jesus would have to be all knowing as well! Yet you also believe it is possible for Jesus (God), NOT to know all things (Mark 13:32). You believe it is possible for eternal God Jesus to get hungry, get tired, go to sleep, feel fear, ... and experience a number of other human frailties and limitations (all of which the bible says GOD does NOT do), including DEATH. You have no problem separating human Jesus from your eternal God Jesus in these cases, yet you find it impossible for human Jesus to have a will that is different than the will of eternal God Jesus. You find it impossible for human Jesus to pray to Eternal Jesus, yet your eternal God (Jesus) can die! If your eternal God Jesus can get hungry and die, then why can't the will of human flesh Jesus be different than the will of eternal God Jesus? Why can't the flesh of human Jesus pray to the Spirit of Eternal God Jesus?

      You easily and willingly accept the separation of the human from the Divine in some aspects of the God-man, why can't you accept the separation in ALL aspects of the God-man?

      My point is Trinitarians have their proof text and overlook the difficult points about their theory just like Oneness believers have their proof text and overlook the difficult points about their theory. And neither side is willing to humble themselves and say "I see your point".

      Saying "I think" or "I don't know" doesn't mean the person who says that is an unlearned Christian. It only means that person recognizes their own human limitation of not knowing it all !!

    8. JC Op,

      You said: I think you added to and ramped up the analogy to bring in other points that I did not mention. I know man could have schisms and GOD doesn't, but that's not the focus

      It's called logic and reasoning and that is exactly the focus and why your analogy fails. Jesus is subject to the Father and there is no and can be no schism and or division. Let's apply your "congress" analogy to a car. Here you have one car with thousands of parts. Now, are any of those parts the car? No, they are part of the car. The legislature is one part of the government. It is not THE government. Your 3 representative analogy is just as fallacious and froth with the same logical flaw. 3 reps are not the legislature themselves. They are only a part of it. In God's case, as I will RESTATE (because folk that offer the false doctrine that you do love to keep enunciating it over and over) Jesus IS God, the Father IS God, and the Holy Ghost IS God, and contrary to your false statement and false witness of trinitarian position, we teach that there is only ONE God!

    9. Let me remind you where you bear false witness:

      You said:"Of course, if there are separate Gods (like you say), then there is no dis-ingenuousness in the one God praying to the other."

      Only I DON'T and never have said that. So there is no need to lie and or reinterpret what I plainly say and what Trinitarians have said for ages. Deut. 6:4..."Shema, O Israel, the Lord our Elohim is ONE Lord!" We echo what the bible reveals about God and his nature and I don't think you are quite ready for the "Elohim" Hebrew plural form of God, that is contained within the text. I won;t even go there at this point.

      Back to the program:
      Following your logic, (by way of those error filled analogies) Jesus cannot be God, and neither can the Holy Spirit, and neither can the Father. They can only be a part of God or a "figment" of the imagination of what God will be. THAT IS NOT scripture in any way shape or form.

      We know the Father is God. However, Jesus is God as well and the Holy Spirit is God as well. So each one IS God, not a part as in a piece of God.

      You are a oneness adherent and it clearly shows in your bias which is not seeking an answer, it is hemhawing around a particular point that you are trying to unsuccessfully make. You, like many Jesus only's, struggle with your view of the hypostatic union as well. At no point does the deity of Jesus separate from his humanity. He is a God/man mix. His "flesh" cannot pray without his deity, which is his nature, essence and monogenes being involved as well. Somehow you Jesus only folk try to separate and compartmentalize God into fine "pockets" you can manage.

    10. JC Op,

      You also asked, as if it were a question: "But on the other hand, isn't it also disingenuous for the FATHER to say HE created the heavens and the earth alone and does not KNOW of any other GOD?(Isa. 44:8 & 24) How can HE possibly say that with the other 2 GODS sitting right there in front of HIM?"

      So let's look at the language of God. You agree that the book of Hebrews is the word of God (I assume). You agree that it is infalliable as well (again an assumption)

      Heb. 1:8 ~ But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

      This is a direct appellation of Ps. 45:6 to whom? It is to Jesus himself. Coming from whom? God himself. In fact Hebrews 1:2 starts off talking about God, speaking to us by Jesus.

      V.3 outlines that Jesus is the "express image" χαρακτὴρ (charaktēr) meaning exact expression, the word from which we get "character" also, of his person. Notice what it does not say. It does not say that Jesus is his person. This is consistent with what I have already set forth about his nature and essence being the same as God's. I mean one can't miss the language unless one wants to stay in the dark.

      Nevertheless, Hebrews goes on to make certain statements emphasizing Jesus in creation, showing his distinction from creation by saying "unto which of the angels" has he said..."Thy throne O GOD..."

      How is God calling someone else God? Further, how does anyone, including angels maintain their relationship with God while worshiping any other being? UNLESS that being IS God?

      Finally, my statements and sentiments are not based on "knowing it all". We are not relegated to some sort of fatalism in lost understanding. It is about being faithful to the truth we have received!

      If God has revealed himself a certain way, and it is hard to understand, why change that understanding simply because we cannot grasp it? Why can't we be faithful to the text? Understand and accept God as HE has revealed himself, and not simply trying to explain away how God can be 3 but yet IS one? How the ontology of god is based on relationship, identity and awareness and yet there is only ONE.

      That may not be comprehensible, but it is apprehendable. What's more, if we are truly faithful to what he has delivered or given us, then we should not even try to explain it away.

    11. Superintendent Burnett,

      Why are you getting angry? Can we not have a discussion, voicing different view points without getting mad at each other? I never called you any names or referenced your beliefs in a pejorative manner. Why the vitriol in your reply?

      You clearly and repeatedly have said the FATHER is GOD, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is GOD and the FATHER is not the Son or the Spirit, and the Son is not the FATHER or the Spirit and the Spirit is not the FATHER or the Son. Those were YOUR words. I paraphrased that down and said "separate Gods", and you accuse me in bold type of attacking Trinitarians. How was that an attack? I thought I was saying what you were saying: each member is God but they are not each other. Please forgive me for the wrong use of terms.

    12. JC Op,

      Has nothing to do with anger. That may be your feeling. What it has to do with is truth. YOU said "Separate God's" and attributed that to me BUT that is a LIE!!!

      Deut. 5:20 ~ Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.

      So you may be shrewd, but you got caught in trying to attribute a false argument to me, based on your presupposition of Oneness.

      So your whole conversation has been a sham and is revealed to be one that is not seeking to understand anything. You are seeking an opportunity to make your point which has been well refuted.

    13. As for the Congress analogy, you have decided to look at what you prefer rather than what I asked you to look at, so let me try something else.

      Let's say Superintendent Burnett has been blessed financially to the point where he can afford houses in 3 locations. 1 in North Carolina, 1 in Florida and 1 in the Tuscany Valley of Italy. Obviously these 3 houses are individual structures. Now Superintendent Burnett can say he has "1 house" and be correct because he would be talking about the "House of Burnett" or his family instead of speaking about structures.

      So I liken this to what you have said about the FATHER, Son and Holy Spirit. They are 3 individual Beings.

      So when the term GOD is used, it is referring to the DIVINE FAMILY rather than to a singular individual. Right?

    14. JC Op,

      Further you KNOW that Trinitarians DO NOT teach multiple God's. This is something that you and Oneness individuals teach in an attempt to impugn Trinitarians. Your statements are in no way supported by anything I've ever said and the only way you can come up with that interpretation is to reinvent what I have stated then take that totally out of context.

      Now so far as the "Everlasting Father" argument, your argument or understanding (which you pretend to 'seek") is based on a faulted interpretation of the text in 2 ways.

      First, the word "Everlasting" means one who abides or persists or exists in perpetuity or without creation. THAT is exactly what WE believe about the Word, or who we call Jesus. That is borne out in the text of Hebrews and countless scripture.

      Secondly, and this is where you oneness adherents further misapply believe that "father" refers to the ontological being of the father. So you interpret the scripture to be saying that the Son given is the "Everlasting Father" as if that is God's name.

      The problem is that whole phrase is an appellation to God and also an anthropomorphism. The "everlasting" part in conjunction with the Messianic reign or rule of God, and the "Father" part distinctly referencing his exaltation above man, mankind and all of creation and the whole world and universe etc...This is further reinforced by "Prince Of Peace" signifying the same sort of thing, that HE is the epitome of peace as he has vanquished all enemies and has no competition.

      ALL of this is exactly what Trinitarians teach. Jesus is God. He has no competition. He is not created and he that was dead lives forever more. not as a man, but as God! We KNOW that God was in Jesus reconciling the world to himself. (2 Cor. 5:19)

      So what you think is a "smoking gun" is no more than what we already know!

      Back to that word "monogenes"...It is this teaching where the word "begotten" is understood. Not some offspring as in a man and a woman having a child. That is not bible and you, as a Oneness adherent cannot magically change the interpretation to fit your doctrine once you apply a weird interpretation to me. However, in my case, Jesus having the nature of God and being the "express image of his person" is not problematic when I understand that a "Spirit" which God is, does not and cannot be merely reduced to a matter of a body and physical characteristics. This refers to HIS nature, being and essence.

      So thanks, if nothing else for allowing me to expound additionally from various points and positions on the issue. There is nothing new and the Oneness arguments are not in accord with what scripture teaches. If that is important, one would do well to consider it strongly.

    15. As for my other point on dis-ingenuineness, you made a point about Jesus being disingenuous if he prayed to himself, so I COUNTERED your logic with the logical question - is ALMIGHTY YAH also disingenuous by saying HE doesn't KNOW of any other God and HE made the heaven and earth by himself when in fact Jesus and the Holy Spirit were right there with HIM!??

      You diverted to the scriptures in the book of Hebrews but did not answer the question. The scripture in Isaiah was written approximately 800 years before the scriptures in the book of Hebrews were penned. So focus please on the people who read Isaiah 44:8 & 24 back in 700 BC. Was ALMIGHTY YAH (or Jehovah) disingenuous to them when HE told Isaiah HE knows of no other God, with Jesus and the Holy Spirit sitting right there?

    16. JC Op,

      You said: "So when the term GOD is used, it is referring to the DIVINE FAMILY rather than to a singular individual. Right?"

      NO. That is wholly incorrect. There is no "divine family" of God. That is polytheism. In this case an attempt to place tritheism on me. So this is incorrect and that "House of Burnett" analogy is just as bad...

      Like an engineer stuck in the mud, your whole design theory is off, in the wrong direction and not in accord with what is revealed in scripture.

      Again, you misinterpret what trinitarians teach, and bear false witness as to what the trinity is...God the father, God the son and God the Holy Ghost are not 3 distinct beings. They are 3 distinct persons. There is only ONE WHO, but 3 whats...One cannot enter a room and find Jesus in one corner, God in another and the Holy Ghost yet in another. They are ONE!

      So your attempts to rationalize and contort what scripture teaches is really problematic IF the word of God has a high view in your theology. Just so happens that it does in mine. When I read that the Father placed all things under the feet of Jesus and that Jesus will submit himself so that god may be all in all...I simply believe what scripture says, rather than trying to reinvent it , twist it, or reinterpret it to suit my preconception.

      1 Cor 15:27-28 ~For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28-And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

      One thing I know, that ain't talking about a man or half the nature of Jesus (humanity) submitting to God the Father in the future. I've heard all kinds of fanciful oneness interpretations of scripture on this one, and they all fail miserably.

      Just believe scripture for what it teaches and stop wrestling with God!

    17. Also Superintendent Burnett,

      You wrote:
      At no point does the deity of Jesus separate from his humanity. He is a God/man mix. His "flesh" cannot pray without his deity, which is his nature, essence and monogenes being involved as well.
      End Quote

      With that in mind, would you please tell me was Jesus human back in eternity past trillions of years before GOD created heaven and earth?
      Since his flesh cannot separate from his deity, did Jesus get hungry and sleepy back in eternity past long before the creation of the heaven and earth?
      Since his flesh cannot separate from his deity, did God Jesus die along with flesh Jesus?
      If God Jesus died along with flesh Jesus (because they can't be separated) doesn't that break his ETERNAL existence?
      If Jesus is not eternal, then how can he be God?

      Remember YOU said - "At no point does the deity of Jesus separate from his humanity."

      Finally Superintendent Burnett,

      As I said earlier, I never called you any names or showed you any type of disrespect. It was you who referred to me in the pejorative sense by saying "You Jesus Only folk..." But I don't recall ever telling you I was a Jesus only folk!

      Can we keep the conversation civil?

    18. JC Op,

      You said: Was ALMIGHTY YAH (or Jehovah) disingenuous to them when HE told Isaiah HE knows of no other God, with Jesus and the Holy Spirit sitting right there?

      Since you didn't understand my Hebrews reference and why it was applicable to your pretend question-LOL

      Of course God being ONE would say that there are no other God's in creation. YET, the same scriptures affirm that nothing that was made was made without HIM. (John 1:3, Heb. 1:2) But who is that "him" or that one, "by whom he also made the worlds"? John 1:1 points out a relationship, that God was WITH the Word and the Word WAS God. Hebrews says that it was the one who "purged our sins" and "sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high"

      If you cannot see the distinction, you can't read!

      Further, to go on in Hebrews, as I stated earlier, we see the Father, saying to the Son, "Thy throne O God..." So you need to better understand how God acts "alone" and what that means...

      Aside from this, you totally erode a consistent biblical teaching of witness. This is a message that I am writing a book about. God being One has not acted in creation or in anything without a witness! Who he is and his acts can be thoroughly witnessed in the world and his truth is always established through witness. Nothing different as it pertains to the his being. This is the "us" in "let us make man", not some plurality of majesty argument....

    19. BTW,

      My name is JC

      I don't know what JC Op means or why you wrote it.

      I hope it isn't more name calling or a secret vitriolic text in code

    20. JC Op,

      The conversation IS civil, you just don't like what is being told according to scripture...I just don't like Op's coming in pretending to want to know something, or to have "dialogue" all the while seeking to simply proliferate their false doctrine. That is a false pretense. The only one I know who flies under false pretenses is the devil himself.

      You have consistently attributed false statements to me, even claiming that i am teaching three gods or three distinct beings. That is false and I haven;t seen an apology!

      You are a "Jesus only"...own it. Why be ashamed of it?

      Now, on to the question. You correctly state that the "flesh" of Jesus is not eternal. That is true. I believe Origin said that Jesus was the son eternally (meaning with flesh also) and there are problems with that. What we do know is that Jesus is the WORD eternally. John 1:14 says that "the word was made flesh". This is the incarnation. You as a "Jesus only" would also agree with this.

      Only problem is that you believe that this "made flesh" means that the Father suddenly turned into the Son, or put on another hat as in another job, and therefore become the Son in redemption. That may sound good over a microphone, but it ain't exactly scripturally true.

      He is the eternal Son in that he was the lamb slain "from the foundation" (a double entendre) of the world. (Rev. 13:8) however, his flesh, came into existence in time.

      Now, this should not be some great understanding that is lost on us. What did Jesus say in John?

      John 17:5 ~ And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

      Jesus praying TO the father asks that his "glory" or "doxa" which means " honor, renown; glory, an especially divine quality, the unspoken manifestation of God, splendor" that he had or shared with God...PRIOR TO the world's beginning be restored.

      So the fact that Jesus, or the word as he is called, is eternal is not a problem on scripture or a correct teaching on Christ himself.

    21. An Op is an Op is an Op...that is what i am saying and until i see otherwise, I'll stick with it....

    22. I said: So the fact that Jesus, or the word as he is called, is eternal is not a problem on scripture or a correct teaching on Christ himself.

      I meant: "So the fact that Jesus, or the word as he is called, is eternal is not a problem on scripture and is certainly a teaching of Christ on Christ himself."

  95. I'm looking at a debate on this subject done in the 80's when Dr. Walter Martin was alive. The question was posed what John 1:1 essentially meant. The UPC pastor said that the verse reflected that Jesus or the "word" was in "the mind of God" and was going to be a future manifestation of God as we see in Jesus. In other words he equated "the Word" to an abstract idea that was to come.

    Dr. Martin defined rather quickly that the construction of John one being "the word was God, the word was with God" indicated that "the Word" was "face to face" with God solidifying the fact that one can't be "face to face" with a concept or abstract idea #1. #2 in addition, one can't handle, touch or feel and abstract idea, as scripture says that we touched and handled Jesus. Then #3, if the Oneness is correct, one would have to argue for the divinity and eternality of man because "man" would also have to have been "in the mind" of God or a concept. Therefore man would also not only be eternal, but also ONE with God if their theology is right....

    Well, we KNOW that ain't right. Man ain't eternal! Man was not "face to face with God". In addition, all the personal pronouns indicate PERSON, not abstract idea of "view" such as a thought....

    Anyway, here is that debate. It is old, but it is good. Look how those arguments hold up...

  96. this discussion is a waste of time as there does'nt seem to be a interest in knowing the truth only an interest in promoting what each other believe. it is not what you believe or think. it is about what is true or truth. Jesus Christ has declared that that he is the way, the truth, and the life. Why not believe Jesus Christ. If you truly want to Know God, Know Jesus Christ, If you truly want salvation, it is in Jesus Christ,if you need the holy Ghost, it is in Jesus Christ. What is all this bickering about! " the Fullness of the Godhead is manifested in Jesus Christ, bodily. The truth is right in front of you. It's all in Jesus Christ- 1 Timothy 3:16. end of story.

    1. First of all Richy....failure to read what is being talked about is no excuse for ignorance. Secondly, you, like many Oneness adherents, describe God differently than what he describes himself, and what's worse, you manage to do that by somehow pointing to the word as a support for your error. Third the Holy Ghost is not an "it"...HE is a person with a MIND (Or did you read Rom. 8:27) that "intercedes" for the people (same verse) and that can be lied to (Acts 5). In addition, Jesus prays TO the father repeatedly in the gospels, says he has a WILL and that the Father has a WILL and that he (Jesus) submits his will to the Father by saying:

      "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Mt. 26:39b

      That cannot possibly be one distinct person as we know it, saying to himself "not my will but your will be done." That would be what we call schizophrenia and you and I BOTH agree that God is not schizo...

      The ONLY possible interpretation from scripture is that The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost are distinct PERSONS, having a relationship and awareness of one another, but are more than just those who "agree", they ARE one nature, of the same essence and are ONE GOD, not three.

      how that works, I don't know, but I do know enough to know that YOU are wrong and the scripture you refer to says nothing about ontology, or being, and is only referring to HIS nature or essence, which is something that we already know...

      So PLEASE bring something to the table that we can examine that makes SENSE...otherwise the less chatter the better, because we can;t keep going over old ground and repeating things that even the most rudimentary examination reveals...Jesus IS God, just that he is not God the Father, nor is he god the Holy Ghost!


I've switched to real time comments for most posts. Refresh your screen if you post and do not see it right away. Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Thanks.