godhead (from you tube)

[Sam]

thought this was interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsS2-...ayer_embedded#

!

[Praxeas]

I always get a bad feeling when someone claims to prove "Oneness Apostolics" in History.

For one, they often resort to Bro Arnolds works, which were not accurate

Two, they never prove a sect of believers who 1 Baptized in Jesus name, 2 taught speaking in tongues as the evidence of the Holy Ghost and 3 the Oneness of God all at the same time as a group.

Yes we can find through history people that had a somewhat Oneness view of God, modalism

We can find those that baptized in Jesus name

And we can find folks that spoke in tongues too

What we never find are groups that taught all three and as a necessity of salvation

That does not necessarily mean there wasn't anyone or any group that help such a view but the historical evidence is lacking

[Dedicated Mind]

cool video, love the music

[pelathais]

Looney tunes. Name one "Oneness believer" who was even alive at the time of the Council of Nicea. For that matter, name one person of any theological stripe was forced to be "re-baptized" after the Council of Nicea.

These bozos didn't eve bother to crack a history book. They just produce fictional narratives right off the tops of their heads.

I know that this might not sound "nice," but they can shut me up very quickly by answering the questions I just (above) and providing some real facts to back up the pipe dreams.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Looney tunes. Name one "Oneness believer" who was even alive at the time of the Council of Nicea. For that matter, name one person of any theological stripe was forced to be "re-baptized" after the Council of Nicea.

These bozos didn't eve bother to crack a history book. They just produce fictional narratives right off the tops of their heads.

I know that this might not sound "nice," but they can shut me up very quickly by answering the questions I just (above) and providing some real facts to back up the pipe dreams.

... but actually, they did manage to avoid the mistakes of Marvin Arnold and others. The "list" is pretty good - despite the obvious and needless hype about the Council of Nicea.

There are some names that would never be allowed to preach in a UPC church... okay, none of the names would be allowed to preach in a UPC church or one of our contemporary "Apostolic holiness" churches...

But folks like Servetus were more Unitarian than Oneness, and folks like Swedenborg were steeped rather deeply in the spiritualism that was so prevalent in the 19th Century.

Still, it's refreshing to NOT see Bogomils, Albigensians and Waldensians on the "list."

The final statement however, makes the usual error - "Oneness Apostolics have always existed..." yadda, yadda, yadda. No they haven't. And, this video PROVES THEY HAVEN'T ALWAYS EXISTED by failing to name a single person who preached the "full package Acts 2:38 message" at any time in history. Nobody did until after about 1913. That's a fact that videos like this are designed to cover.

So, over all - it is deceptive. Did all of these people baptize by immersion "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins?" Not only is the answer "NO!" but not all of these people even baptized by immersion.

And... what about "speaking in other tongues?" Did any of them even make the claim that they had ever "spoken in tongues?" No.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by pelathais

...
So, over all - it is deceptive. Did all of these people baptize by immersion "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins?" Not only is the answer "NO!" but not all of these people even baptized by immersion.

And... what about "speaking in other tongues?" Did any of them even make the claim that they had ever "spoken in tongues?" No.

I think if anyone on this forum has honestly looked at the Bro. Arnold premise, they realize that he was either drastically over simplifying, desperately grabbing at straws to prove a theory, or downright deceiving.

What I thought was neat about the video was that there have been diverse opinions on the "godhead" through out history just as there are now among oneness and trinitarians. I also thought it was an over reach to claim that they were all oneness, sorta like the Bro. Arnold premise but not as far-fetched because it was limited to just the one subject of the godhead and not "the Acts 2:38 church.". I thought it also showed, by the way the presenter grabbed and assembled those dibs and dabs from here and there, how precarious his position was.

[SRM]

Jesus is never one time called..THE Almighty..it is a bad KJV translation..

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by SRM

Jesus is never one time called..THE Almighty..it is a bad KJV translation..

Yeah, the KJV can give you fits. That's why it's good to check other translations to see how they translate that:

Revelation 1:8 (NIV)
Revelation 1:8 (NKJV)
Revelation 1:8 (Youngs)
Revelation 1:8 (NASB)
Revelation 1:8 (NLT)
Revelation 1:8 (AMP)
Revelation 1:8 (ESV)
Revelation 1:8 (ASV)
Revelation 1:8 (Darby)

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Yeah, the KJV can give you fits. That's why it's good to check other translations to see how they translate that:

Revelation 1:8 (NIV)
Revelation 1:8 (NKJV)
Revelation 1:8 (Youngs)
Revelation 1:8 (NASB)
Revelation 1:8 (NLT)
Revelation 1:8 (AMP)
Revelation 1:8 (ESV)
Revelation 1:8 (ASV)
Revelation 1:8 (Darby)

You forgot the most important part. All those translations have The Almighty in them.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by jfrog

You forgot the most important part. All those translations have The Almighty in them.

I didn't "forget." Let folks read "other translations" and draw their own conclusions. If the KJV flubbed the Greek title of "Pantokrator" by translating it as "Almighty," then a whole lot of others made the same "mistake."

"Pantokrator" is the Greek word used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew title of El Shaddai. Since the writers of the NT quoted the OT via the Septuagint one has to conclude that they intended to make this same association between "Jesus" and "Almighty."

We can argue all day (and all night!) long whether or not Jesus is actually "God," but the fact that the Bible makes this claim is pretty emphatic.