MIKE: Colin, You bring up the very point that I use in speaking about trinity error. Each of the titles you listed, and all the others, are all simply various facets of the one person of God. JESUS literally means JEHOVAH-SALVATION. So it is the same as saying JEHOVAH-JIREH, JEHOVAH-TSIDKENU, etc. None of those titles denotes various persons. Otherwise there would be many, many persons in the Godhead. Each of these brings up a revelation of God. God was never known as provider until Abraham offered Isaac, and God provided Abraham with a sacrifice in the form of the ram. And the greatest of all names is JESUS. What greater work was there than salvation for mankind? So I distinguish these titles from all others as facets of God's revelation of Himself, and not revelation of His supposed "persons." Jehovah-Jireh is no more another person in the Godhead than is Father or Son.
COLIN: 2) You wrote, "The Father is Jesus and the Son is Jesus. They are just two different manifestations of the single person of God. The Son is God expressed.
The SON is the way to the Father...You are thinking in trinitarian terms, and nowhere is the name JESUS limited to that of the SON." I believe Scripture is very clear in limiting the Name Jesus to the Son...take II John 1:3..." Grace, mercy and peace...from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father,..." Note that Jesus is distinguished from the Father (how can Jesus be the Father?); according to you, would this say, "...from Jesus, and from Jesus the Son of Jesus"? I am not poking fun but that is what I understand you to be saying. Please exegete the relevant parts of II John 1:3 according to Oneness doctrine.
MIKE: I did not say that the name JESUS is not used to distinguish
Father from Son. I said Jesus is not limited to Son alone. Since
Jesus literally means
JEHOVAH-SALVATION, and Jesus is simply the only Saviour that exists,
and yet we read that no other Saviour exists besides God...:
Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
YOUNG'S LITERAL Isaiah 43:11 I--I am Jehovah, And besides Me there is no saviour.
...Then Jehovah is Saviour. That is the same Jehovah who
is Jireh-- provider... etc. Its a function that Jehovah would perform
from the Old Testament
perspective, and did perform from the New Testament perspective.
Since the role of SONSHIP was the primary reason for there being a Salvation
for us, then Jesus is known to be more distinguished by the Son. But
its the same with myself. I am primarily known to most people as a
pastor. So my name is primarily associated with that office
I hold. But it in now way is limited to that office. This is
the same with Jesus, since He is known, admittedly by you, in Rev 21 as
our "Father." But that is not the Son's primary identifier.
2 John 1:3 there shall be with you grace, kindness, peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
God the Father is distinguished from the Son using the name "Jesus Christ" in this verse. And the distinction is using the humanity into which God was incarnated due to the need for salvation through vicarious atonement for humanity. Notice in this verse that the term "GOD" is distinct from the "THE SON OF GOD." It did not say "GOD THE SON." "Son of God" and "God the Son" are very much different. Its like saying that the two titles are synonymous. "Colin the son" and "the son of Colin". That sounds like two different persons to me!
In the same manner that we know the Son is God, so, too, do we know that JESUS is the Father. If I cannot say that the Father is Jesus according to this verse, then by the same token you cannot say that the "Son" is God, according to this verse, for GOD is distinguished from the SON OF GOD here.
Many many times the name of JESUS is used in contrast to the FATHER in instances when the Father is indicated simply by the term GOD. The Bible repeatedly reads GOD and JESUS.
Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Acts 13:23 Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:
Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
All of these verses above distinguish the FATHER from the SON, but the terms used to distinguish are GOD and JESUS. But we both know that Jesus is God.
John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Thomas addressed Jesus as God.
So we know that distinguishing Father from Son using the terms GOD and JESUS does not mean that Jesus is not God. These terms are used because our Saviour Jesus (JEHOVAH-SALVATION) is inherently human as well as divine. There is no Son without humanity. But that is not so with Father. There is no inherent sonship when thinking of the Father. That is why the Son did not pre-exist the incarnation, but the Father did. Christ did not take upon Himself humanity until the incarnation. Anthropomorphically, that incarnation demanded the Lord to be called the SON OF GOD, since a real mother's birthing occurred.
So we are seeing a contrast of divinity with humanity, which humanity was needful for our salvation. The same is in 2 John 1:3. Jesus is used to distinguish Father from Son, but in no way implies that the Father is not named Jesus also.
Matthew 28:19 says there is one common NAME to Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It is invoked at water baptism. And we find that name in Acts where they did invoke a name to be only JESUS. So the Father's name must be Jesus by that account also. Acts 22:16 uses the greek term INVOKE... "calling on".
COLIN: Also take Hebrews 7:22-25. People come to God through Jesus, and Jesus continues to intercede for those in God's family. If Jesus is the Father, for whom and to whom is He interceding?
MIKE: This is the same as was for 2 John 1:3. If these verses are saying that we cannot call Father by the name of Jesus, then by the same reasoning we cannot call Jesus "God." But yet we read...
Ephesians 3:14 For this cause I bow
my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Ephesians 3:15 Of whom the whole family
in heaven and earth is named,
The entire family is named JESUS.
Philippians 2:9 Wherefore God also
hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus
every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in
earth, and things under the earth;
Philippians 2:11 And that every
tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of
God the Father.
Is the Son's name JESUS greater than the Father's own name? Of course not. And since JESUS means Jehovah-salvation, and Jesus is God, then we know that Jehovah's name is, by default, JESUS.
There is only one name that Jesus manifested to Israel.
John 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
That is not only speaking of AUTHORITY as some claim, but the actual personal name JESUS, for you cannot separate the personal name from the authority.
Again in summary, your reference in Hebrews 7 distinguishes GOD from JESUS, but yet we also know Jesus is God. And we also know Jesus is called our father in Revelation 21 and Isaiah 6. But we are never told that SOn and Father are "two persons." So we find that the Bible does distinguish Father from Son at times using titles and names that are common to both. It is the same with the NAME Jesus in the instances you quote.
COLIN: Clearly there is a distinction. Please exegete vs. 25 from your perspective.
MIKE: Hebrews 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
In order to understand this issue more fully, let us read the following from the same book:
Hebrews 5:6 As he saith also in another
place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
Hebrews 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh,
when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and
tears unto him that was able to save him
from death, and was heard in that he feared;
Intercession is prayer. And God did not pray as God. But in the days of His flesh, when God was incarnated for the purpose of saving mankind, we read that He prayed, because men pray. Men pray to deity. Even Jesus' own humanity had to pray or else He was simply not truly incarnated at all.
As Sonship continues in the glorified humanity He obtained from His resurrection, intercession continues for us. The days of His flesh continue, albeit it is glorified flesh. As intercessor and great High Priest, Jesus is still our representative in t he sense of the High Priest being human was representing the people as he entered the Holiest of Holies in the temple. He could not represent us unless he be genuine humanity.
COLIN: See also Hebrews 4:14, where Jesus is the Son of God (NOT the Father) who intercedes TO the Father on our behalf. Note as well I John 1:7, 2:1 - the Son is distinguished from the Father and the Son is called Jesus, NOT the Father.
MIKE: Once again the same rule applies with these references as it did in 2 John 1:3. God is distinguished from Jesus, yet we know Jesus is still God.
COLIN: 3) What verses can you point to that in themselves explicitly declare Jesus to be the Father? And what verses can do the same to say that Jesus is the Holy Spirit?
MIKE: FATHER: Isaiah 9:6. Revelation 21:7. John 14:9-11.
HOLY SPIRIT: John 14:16-18, 26 (Jesus is the comforter. The Comforter is the Holy Ghost) Romans 8:9 (Spirit of God and Spirit of Christ are synonymous here); 2 Corinthians 3:6, 17; 4:5 (Paul ministered THE SPIRIT OF GOD to the people, and The LORD is that SPIRIT. And He then said in the same teaching that He preached Jesus.)
COLIN: 4) We wrote, " WHY IS IT AN ERROR TO BELIEVE THAT GOD REVEALED MORE OF HIS NATURE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT? Because nothing in the New Testament teaches about His nature being a mystery. Only the Gospel is a mystery. WHAT SCRIPTURE DO YOU USE TO BASE YOUR PREMISE THAT GOD HAS COMPLETELY REVEALED HIMSELF IN THE OT? The fact that there is no teaching any different in the New testament in contrast to the Old Testament. Show me one explicit teaching in the New Testament explaining that God is three persons."
MIKE: It is error to believe that God did reveal more of His nature in the New Testament because we simply find no explicit teaching in the New Testament about this at all. But we do find explicit teaching in the Old Testament that God is ONE. Never do we read that God is three or two. Deut. 6:4. Nothing is stated any different or more clearer than that in the New Testament. If it is, please show me. The scripture to saying that God completely is revealed in the Old Testament does not exist, because He was simply fully revealed there and nothing is given to indicate His nature any different in the New Testament. The New Testament simply did not explicitly teach God's nature. So we are left to conclude that the God of the Old Testament is fully revealed in nature before the New Testament existed. The only thing we see in the New Testament is that Jesus is God.
COLIN: You didn't quite answer my question above. I find no reason whatsoever that God could not reveal more of His nature in the NT.
MIKE: Show me where He did, then.
COLIN: Please give me a verse that says this can't be so (not your own deductive reasoning).
MIKE: Colin, where do we read explicit teaching in the New Testament saying that the nature of God being three persons is truth? Explicit statements are found of God's nature in the Old Testament.
ONE: Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
SAVIOUR: Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
OMNIPRESENT: Psalm 139:7
Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
Psalm 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven,
thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there
.
Psalm 139:9 If I take the wings
of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
Psalm 139:10 Even there shall thy hand
lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
ALMIGHTY: Genesis 17:1 And when
Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said
unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk
before me, and be thou perfect.
You get the point. These are explicit teachings. That
is what we require in order to believe anything about God. But where
is it explicitly taught that the
nature of God is three persons in the New Testament? We do
not find those ideas until three hundred years after the Bible was written.
COLIN: The NT revelation of Himself does not at all contradict anything in the OT.
MIKE: I totally agree! And nothing says that God is three persons in the New Testament. It is DERIVED by you. It is deductive reasoning to say otherwise.
COLIN: I give a hearty AMEN to the monotheistic teachings of Deut. 6 and Isaiah 43. But I see clearly that the One God exists as a Trinity.
MIKE: Where does the Bible explicitly teach that?
COLIN: Nowhere in the OT do you see revelation as you do in the NT.
MIKE: Such as...?
COLIN: I know all the reasons given for discounting the Trinitarian understanding of Jesus' Baptism, but surely you find nothing like it in the OT.
MIKE: That is not explicit teaching of the nature of God. You are defeated by your own accusation of me saying that I deduce. The only way you can say that the Baptism of Jesus proves trinity is by deduction and not explicit teaching from that account. God did many things at the same time in the Old Testament. And there IS very similar thoughts to the baptism of Jesus.
Zechariah 3:9 For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.
Zechariah 4:10 For who hath despised the day of small things? for they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel with those seven; they are the eyes of the LORD, which run to and fro through the whole earth.
The seven eyes are the seven spirits of God. And we see them simultaneously running throughout the entire earth. You must admit that using your reasoning of Jesus' baptism with three simultaneous manifestations proving the existence of three persons of the Godhead demands that God be an additional 7 persons in the Godhead, if you say that simultaneous manifestations at the baptism demands faith in three persons. We see God's Spirit moving while at the same time God spoke His word in Genesis. In fact, trinitarians use that to say that the trinity is shown just as it was shown working simultaneous at Jesus' baptism. But its interesting that the Jews never attributed that to Him being three persons after reading Genesis.
COLIN: The NT teaching of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Oneness or Trinitarian) are not clearly articulated in the OT...clearly God IS showing us more of Himself in the NT. Please give a verse that clearly states that God cannot reveal anything more of His Own personal nature in the NT.
MIKE: You are not getting my point. There is no explicit teaching about God's nature in the New Testament, other than statements that already occur in the Old, such as GOD IS SPIRIT, etc. Everything else you claim as being more fully revealed is not explicitly taught. Especially the idea that God is three persons. If He really was three persons, then every Israelite in His day who followed Him would have been told in veritable chapters of the New Testament about the new revelation of His nature! Look at the Jews today and tell them that God is three persons and see how shocked they would be, and how disgusted at the idea! The trinity idea is simply too great a change from the Old Testament for there to have not been a "load" of teaching on it, explicitly in the New. And when it is not explicitly taught until well after the bible was written... centuries after.... and we know that the apostles warned of doctrines coming in later, that they did not teach, then it makes me really wonder and highly !question!!! I hope you see my perspective of doubt. Its just that people were told they be banished or worse, killed, if they reject trinity. And after centuries of that, when man finally smartened up a bit about killing for religion, it was too llate It was ingrained within people, until the latter generations simply do not question. "My father, and his father before him, and his father before him, believed this all their lives. I will too". Bad foundation thinking. NNevertheless what do the scriptures say?