One In The Greek

[Michael The Disciple]

As I have stated many times publicly, what is biblically an ontological distinction between God and His Son—Trinitarians attempt to turn into “coequal, coeternal, divine persons, each w. their own distinct centers of divine consciousnesses”...the very definition of Tritheism (no matter how much they may scream “Monotheism”).

Every time the Trins I war with bring up the prayers and baptism of Jesus I bring them back to this.

Their version makes one God person praying to another God person, eliminating monotheism and believing that a person who is God needs to pray about anything.

That one of the God persons needed to be baptized in water and that the other two God persons who were on hand likewise eliminates the idea of monotheism.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I think what happens is this: ..

Yes, but that simply spells out the problem, not much different than Costeon's concern.

[Steven Avery]

Size and bold emphasis added:

Originally Posted by rdp

...passage after passage after passage, and grammatical quote after quote stating that the masculine singular “heis” means “one person”

Simple question.

After this totally bogus assertion, and Roger doubling down on his blunder:

.... why would anyone dialog on grammatical issues with Roger Perkins?

And I understand that the chances of Roger's coming back to sound exposition is small. He has made this blunder his cause célèbre.

One irony is that he is using the faux Trinitarian obsession with person/persons. And then using that to make a totally absurd claim in the grammatical world.

Steven

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Every time the Trins I war with bring up the prayers and baptism of Jesus I bring them back to this.

Their version makes one God person praying to another God person, eliminating monotheism and believing that a person who is God needs to pray about anything.

That one of the God persons needed to be baptized in water and that the other two God persons who were on hand likewise eliminates the idea of monotheism.

Mike, all the Yahwists and Sacred Namers all are Concordance and Lexigraph Ninjas. They “Scott Pitta” as a good example know as much as you. If we have learned anything about religion we have this as our take away. Men speak with authority and seem to know what they are talking about. But unless you are having a discussion with Miltos Taccas, you can bet your Ecclesiastical peyots your opponent’s first language is English. Furthermore they read the Bible in English. Elizabethan English, and don’t really understand that. So, while I commend scholarly studies in ancient languages, in debates they beg the question. Can one find truth in their own language or must they look for another?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Mike, all the Yahwists and Sacred Namers all are Concordance and Lexigraph Ninjas. They “Scott Pitta” as a good example know as much as you. If we have learned anything about religion we have this as our take away. Men speak with authority and seem to know what they are talking about. But unless you are having a discussion with Miltos Taccas, you can bet your Ecclesiastical peyots your opponent’s first language is English. Furthermore they read the Bible in English. Elizabethan English, and don’t really understand that. So, while I commend scholarly studies in ancient languages, in debates they beg the question. Can one find truth in their own language or must they look for another?

I rarely ever meet a "YAHIST" or a "sacred namer". The ones I have ran across over the years have leaned toward Twinity or Arian.

In years past you didnt hear much about Oneness becoming Trins. It was always the other way around. For a number of years everyone who went through my entire presentation of Oneness accepted it.

Things have really changed. I have ran into a number of Oneness who now mock it. For years I had no real interest in what other languages said. I still have very little.

Nonetheless it got more and more where you cannot do a study without someone trying to throw Greek into the mix or Hebrew for that matter. It seems people are very impressed by that and are quick to accept whatever the person says. I have seen it to often.

In my own teaching or contending sessions I have a very small perimeter of these words that are nonetheless effective to some. A Greek fellow contacted me a few years ago and told me he accepted Oneness after hearing me teach on Mark 12:29 that one actually meant one. He had been a Trin basically because everyone else was.

I do use the Concordance or Interlinear some, generally I think the KJV translators probably knew the Greek as good as most today. There are very few places in it where I think translation makes a difference. It seems to me the larger battle is over text sources.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I think what happens is this: Most oneness pentecostal evangelism and apologetics is directed at trinitarians (or at least has been in the past). As a result, the emphasis in preaching is on the absolute Deity of Christ as the Father contra the trinitarian "god the son". The result is what may be perceived as an overemphasis on Jesus as God with limited or zero emphasis or mention of Jesus as Son of God. This trickles down to the unlearned as a mistaken near-Apollinarian view of Jesus as simply God-in-a-physical-body (like Tony Stark inside his Ironman suit). This shows up in repeated "robed in flesh" type statements delivered without clarification.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Yes, but that simply spells out the problem, not much different than Costeon's concern.

I agree, Steven. I do think Esaias is exactly right here. It does seem to me that all the Oneness books on Christology I have read are overreactions to Trinitarianism and therefore are distortions. I have often wondered what a Oneness Christology might look like that simply ignored Trinitarianism. Would we have, for example, ever described Jesus as having a dual nature if Chalcedon wasn't looming in the background?

Earlier Esaias felt it was best just to suggest that I simply didn't understand the various ways I've heard Oneness Christology explained, but now he has correctly noted that "most oneness pentecostal evangelism and apologetics is directed at trinitarians " and ends up overemphasizing things and thus downplaying other things. So, perhaps I have actually understood what I've read and heard.

For example, to explain the self-awareness of a dual-natured being like Jesus and how he acted and spoke, Bernard says that sometimes Jesus spoke or acted from his divine self-consciousness and sometimes from his human self-consciousness. Or, "as a man" he said or did this, but "as God" he said or did this. Nothing in the Gospels suggests this is how Jesus experienced reality or what his self-awareness was like.

Jesus describes it as a man being in relationship with the Father. He always seems to have acted and spoken from the perspective of being the Son of God in relationship with the Father.
He was sent to do the Father's will.
The Father has given all things into his hands.
He can do nothing but what he sees the Father do.
The Father has given him authority.
He can do nothing on his own but he judges as he hears from God.
He spoke as the Father taught him.
He had heard and seen the Father.
The Father is greater than the Son.
He calls the Father and himself "we" and likens them to two witnesses.
He calls the Father his God.
And on and on.

I have yet to read a book on Oneness, and I've read most of the ones available through the Pentecostal Publishing House, that actually takes all this into account without downplaying it. The emphasis is always that he is the Father, but never on what the NT emphasizes: he is the Son. "Who do men say that I am?" "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

I have yet, for example, to hear anyone pray to the Father and speak of Jesus in the third person as the early church felt comfortable doing (Acts 4).
24 So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: “Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the mouth of Your servant David have said:

‘Why did the nations rage,
And the people plot vain things?
26 The kings of the earth took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the Lord and against His Christ.’

27 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. 29 Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.” If I got up and prayed about the Father's holy servant Jesus, there would be problems.

In Psalm 2 from which the early believers quote, it goes onto say
“Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”

4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
6 “Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”

In Scripture, Jesus describes him and the Father as "We/Us", the Father talks about "my king", early believers speak of Jesus in the third person to the Father and quote from a passage where the Father and Son are "they/their." I have never heard Oneness people speak this way or read anything that takes all this into account

I have yet to read a Oneness Christology that sounds like the Gospels in describing Jesus. Oneness Christology seems to have always been reactionary to Trinitarianism and therefore seems unbalanced.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Yes, but that simply spells out the problem, not much different than Costeon's concern.

I *did* include a proposed solution, though. lol

[Scott Pitta]

Due to being in the middle of a painting project, my bookshelves have been moved and my books are in a pile. Not sure where my hardbound Greek concordance is.

So I am using an online reference. Not something I ever do. Not sure if it is accurate.

Heis in John's literature came up.

Rev. 5:5 one
Rev. 7:13 one
Rev. 17:1 one
Rev. 17:10 one
Rev. 18:21 *not translated*
Rev. 21:9 one
Rev. 21:21 each

Notice heis is not translated "one person" not at least in Revelation.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Due to being in the middle of a painting project, my bookshelves have been moved and my books are in a pile. Not sure where my hardbound Greek concordance is.

So I am using an online reference. Not something I ever do. Not sure if it is accurate.

Heis in John's literature came up.

Rev. 5:5 one
Rev. 7:13 one
Rev. 17:1 one
Rev. 17:10 one
Rev. 18:21 *not translated*
Rev. 21:9 one
Rev. 21:21 each

Notice heis is not translated "one person" not at least in Revelation.

I once had a preacher tell me he couldn’t discuss a subject because his notes were in his shed. Another one told me he didn’t have his personal Bible. It’s like this, either you know the information or not. Painting your bookshelf and being instant in season and out of season shouldn’t be a conflict.

Good grief

[Scott Pitta]

heis in Gospel of John

Jn. 1:40 one
Jn. 6:8 *not translated*
Jn. 6:70 one
Jn. 7:50 one
Jn. 8:9
Jn. 10:16 one
Jn. 11:49 one
Jn. 11:50 one
Jn. 12:2 *not translated*
Jn. 12:4 one
Jn. 13:21 one
Jn. 13:23 one
Jn. 18:22 one
Jn. 18:26 one
Jn. 19:34 one
Jn. 20:24 one