Oneness Pentecostal Apologetics Conference

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by notofworks

So then you're a "Troublemaker" too??? So why are you whining about my avatar. Talk about hijacking a conversation. We're here talking about an apologetics conference and its participants and the validity thereof, and you're crying about my avatar.

Just be glad it hasn't been sidetracked into a discussion of women's shoes.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

I understand. Just remember though, we are not at a "table for an hour". I get offline in a few.

No, we're not at the table for an hour, but I would say it's a "virtual table" we're at.

Here's a problem I have with Rev. Bernard...Rather than give an honest attempt at explaining I John 5:7, he, instead, just falls on the sword of, "That verse wasn't translated correctly". I instantly lose respect for any "theologian" who wimps out like that. Many do the same thing with Matthew 28:19.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Just be glad it hasn't been sidetracked into a discussion of women's shoes.

So do you believe it's "Holy" for a woman to wear open-toed shoes?

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by notofworks

No, we're not at the table for an hour, but I would say it's a "virtual table" we're at.

Here's a problem I have with Rev. Bernard...Rather than give an honest attempt at explaining I John 5:7, he, instead, just falls on the sword of, "That verse wasn't translated correctly". I instantly lose respect for any "theologian" who wimps out like that. Many do the same thing with Matthew 28:19.

Bruce Metzger, Philipp Comfort, Don Carson, et al. all see the Comma as an interpoloation. I do as well. It is not wimping out.

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Why are Oneness people so afraid of Paul's salutations?

Why do Oneness people intentionally misuse "I and my Father are One" to mean one in number and not one in purpose? (He goes on to pray that the disciples will be as one even as Jesus and His Father are one.)

Why do Oneness people make Jesus into a man with an identity crises never knowing from one minute to the next when He is God and when he is a man?

Questions like that?

Good questions. I have actually done a bit of research on the first one lately. It is rather conspicuous in the 1 Cor 13 salutation that Trinitarian scribal bias is present. Metzger, Coogan, and Comfort agree upon this as well so I am not a lone ranger here. Most of the other ones are obviously great texts for Oneness believers but I dont see how one interprets Trinitarianism out of those texts without already reading it into the texts.

I think one in purpose is an analogous or figurative expressional use of one. Even echad, in its early constructions (pre-Jammnia), held no notion of compound unity but only the cardinal number, such as in a sequence: 1, 2, 3.

lol The Nestorian Crisis. I am sure it will come up. It has been handled in different ways but again even Nestoraianism is possibly more unorthodox than Nestorius was himself.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by notofworks

So do you believe it's "Holy" for a woman to wear open-toed shoes?

I don't believe God made closed toed shoes for Adam and Eve.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

Bruce Metzger, Philipp Comfort, Don Carson, et al. all see the Comma as an interpoloation. I do as well. It is not wimping out.

I don't know who any of those people are.

So if you can't explain it, just discredit it. It's totally wimping out. But boy, ya'll sure can scream about how the bible is the perfect, infallible, every jot and every tittle Word of God. Sorry, I don't get it.

I would guess, however, that you DO believe in the validity of Mark 16:8-20? So what's the foundational principle you all use for discrediting a verse? I'm guessing it's the "Hmmm.....I don't agree with this yet can't explain it" methodology.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

Good questions. I have actually done a bit of research on the first one lately. It is rather conspicuous in the 1 Cor 13 salutation that Trinitarian scribal bias is present. Metzger, Coogan, and Comfort agree upon this as well so I am not a lone ranger here. Most of the other ones are obviously great texts for Oneness believers but I dont see how one interprets Trinitarianism out of those texts without already reading it into the texts.

I think one in purpose is an analogous or figurative expressional use of one. Even echad, in its early constructions (pre-Jammnia), held no notion of compound unity but only the cardinal number, such as in a sequence: 1, 2, 3.

lol The Nestorian Crisis. I am sure it will come up. It has been handled in different ways but again even Nestoraianism is possibly more unorthodox than Nestorius was himself.

Explain the the scribal bias...

The reality is however we understand the disciples being one is the same way that we should understand Jesus and the Father being one in that portion of John.

Yes and DKB is one of the worst at, "Jesus did this as a man and this as God."

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

Good questions. I have actually done a bit of research on the first one lately. It is rather conspicuous in the 1 Cor 13 salutation that Trinitarian scribal bias is present. Metzger, Coogan, and Comfort agree upon this as well so I am not a lone ranger here. Most of the other ones are obviously great texts for Oneness believers but I dont see how one interprets Trinitarianism out of those texts without already reading it into the texts.

I think one in purpose is an analogous or figurative expressional use of one. Even echad, in its early constructions (pre-Jammnia), held no notion of compound unity but only the cardinal number, such as in a sequence: 1, 2, 3.

lol The Nestorian Crisis. I am sure it will come up. It has been handled in different ways but again even Nestoraianism is possibly more unorthodox than Nestorius was himself.

And this is my trouble with oneness theologians. The stretching is SO intense to make these things fit into your theology, it turn the bible into something none of us recognize.

[JN Anderson]

Originally Posted by notofworks

I don't know who any of those people are.

So if you can't explain it, just discredit it. It's totally wimping out. But boy, ya'll sure can scream about how the bible is the perfect, infallible, every jot and every tittle Word of God. Sorry, I don't get it.

I would guess, however, that you DO believe in the validity of Mark 16:8-20? So what's the foundational principle you all use for discrediting a verse? I'm guessing it's the "Hmmm.....I don't agree with this yet can't explain it" methodology.

No sir. I think there are excellent reasons for keeping the longer ending of Mark 16. There are several reasons. This has been hashed out rather well by Wallace and Maurice Robinson, et al. I am not here to debate the long ending of Mark 16 on this thread.