Hi Colin,
Thank-you for your clarification of meaning to address foundational issues in our exchange. It was much appreciated! Sorry for mistaking your intentions.
Of course I deny that I look scriptures "in the eye" and deny their true meaning. I would never intentionally do that, to be sure. However, that is the entire scope of our differences -- interpretation of scripture. Also, please be sure to point out any issues that you may feel I have not answered adequately. I would never skirt about an issue that you addressed. If there are any issues you feel are left unanswered, it is certainly not due to any avoidance of that issue by myself. I simply feel that the statements I make adequately deal with each issue you raise.
Also, if at any time you feel I am making a straw-man argument, that is, misrepresenting what you believe and then attacking that misrepresentation, then, by all means, point it out to me!
You say, "I absolutely agree that the masses can be wrong. But it's highly unlikely." I am surprised you even make this statement, as it really shows how much value you place on counting heads. I place barely no value on such thinking, for the record. The only value I place on such determination is according to Christ's words that we must have other witnesses to validate our claims. Since every false doctrine has witnesses who agree with its tenets, then I am sure you can agree that such a consideration is really moot as to our discussion.
It is not "apples and oranges" to refer to Matthew 7 and its reference to the many who go through the broad road to destruction, when speaking of godhead doctrines and varying scriptural interpretations. For example, many professing Christians feel that any faith in any God whatsoever will bring one through into glory one day. They claim they know Christ. But yet they are clearly following the broad path without any narrowing down to the truth of Christ being the only route to the Father. You would agree these are in grave error, and are most likely set to perish unless they change their paths. But yet they, themselves, claim to be Christians, and would claim we cannot apply that verse to them, either, as you claim. So I cannot nor will not accept your words that this issue cannot apply to our discussion of Trinity versus Oneness doctrine. So, it is circular reasoning to say this does not apply to you.
You claim that I am in error in saying that Trinitarianism smacks of Platonic thinking. And you urge me to resort to the Puritanical writings. I resort to Justin Martyr's writings because he is considered to be one of the "Church Fathers" of trinitarianism. And it has always amused me how that men like Martyr, and even Adamantius Origen, were considered to be such "fathers", when men like Origen believed views that are considered heretical by modern Trinitarians. As to the Puritanical writings, did not these Puritans also consider Martyr and Origen to be "Church Fathers"? I am only going by what your entire trinitarian world considers as predecessors of the so-called trinitarian "truth".
Since you continue to claim that Puritanical writings and your words do not state that Plato affected your thinking, let me reiterate that it is the Trinitarians' world, that claims that Justin Martyr, who resorted to Platonic writings to prove his trinity doctrine, who make these statements about Justin Martyr that simply cause me to cower from proverbial lightning bolts, to put it amusingly, whenever I read such thoughts. Now, you either agree with the trinitarian world's views about Justin Martyr, and thus alienate yourself from somewhat of the trinitarian proponents' beliefs, or you don't. Which is it? You chose to camp with the trinitarian dogma. And that dogma is intrinsically linked to the thought that Justin Martyr was one of those who were considered to be "Church fathers". So where do you really camp out, Colin?
I am not even commenting about persons like Owen, Goodwin or Spurgeon. The issue is principle thought concerning whether or not martyrdom deems one worthy of being referred to as a true believer. Despite your agreement that such thinking is circular, you continue to stay in that league by saying, "But I was referring to the Trinitarian believers such as Goodwin, Owen, Spurgeon, etc., whom I doubt you'd place outside the circle of true believers. If you do, I don't even want to hear about it!" Spurgeon believed in "once saved always saved." Though I can never judge any man's eternity, this doctrine of his is one of the most damnable I have ever heard about!
You claim that 1 Tim 3:16 does not support my doctrine. How so? You say it is because "God was manifest in the flesh" cannot prove the Oneness position. But what you fail to note is that this is one scripture, among others, that does not state that the SON OF GOD was manifest in the flesh. Trinity doctrine teaches that the God the Son existed eternally as a "second person" aside from the Father. But I am trying to point out that the wording of the Bible is very particular in never saying such statements as "God the Son was manifest in the flesh." If it did, we would have the entire argument settled, and you would be correct! You say you believe the eternal Son is God, and therefore, you are vindicated by referencing this verse to support the trinity doctrine. I am only arguing that there is no scripture anywhere in the BIble that states that the Son is eternal, let alone was the only person of the Godhead to manifest in flesh. i am pointing out that in every instance we read that GOD was manifest in the flesh, period, with no specifics about God the Son being that aspect of God. John stated that Jesus is come in the flesh. But why does not John state that GOD THE SON came in the flesh? I am trying to show you that your specification of the idea of who manifested in the flesh is offkey and the Bible is silent about any such distinction of who manifested in flesh. Its simply GOD, and JESUS. Nothing is written in the Bible to cause one to think that an eternal Son alone manifested in flesh.
In fact, Jesus Christ said that the works He did were those of the Father who literally indwelt Him. Therefore, the works He did were the manifestation of God the Father in the flesh! John 14:10. The flesh was the SON OF GOD. And human flesh is simply inseparable from the existence of the Son of God. The only conclusion you can come up with is that God the Son is an eternal human!
The idea that a distinction is made by you, in saying that more specifically, it is God the Son, who was manifested, is added by you. I insist that the statement GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH is repeating the Oneness doctrinal stand. We do not need to add any words to 1 Tim 3:16 to our position for any clarification, as do you. GOD--- ALL OF GOD -- period -- was manifest in flesh. Our statement stands on what the verse says. But you have to make a disclaimer to that verse and state that it is GOD THE SON, and not GOD THE FATHER, etc., who is referred to there.
It does, therefore explicitly state Oneness belief. You claim that 1 John 3:8 is the exact same thought presented in 1 Tm 3:16. No it is not! John did not write that the Son was manifest in the flesh. He only noted that he was manifest. If it had said "in the flesh", then we would correctly understand that the Son must have existed before the incarnation, because incarnation simply means "in the flesh". However, without that distinction, there are a number of ways He could be intended to have manifested. I manifested myself to you in my first response to your email. But that did not imply that I existed before I was in a human form!
By the same token, Trinitarians resort to references to Christ being sent of the Father to the world to prove the eternality of the Son. However, John 1:6 states that John the Baptist was sent by God, too! But we both know John was not pre-existent, nor eternal. So 1 John 3:8 is not the exact same thought as 1 Tim 3:16. Not by any means! Jesus was in the world as a man for 30 years. And it was at that time that He was baptized and revealed to the world as the Christ for the first time. In other words, he was manifested at that time. He did not destroy one work of the devil before that age of 30. And we read that the Son was manifested to destroy the works of the devil. In the same way it can be said that I was manifested to you to present the oneness doctrine when I first emailed my response to your first email to me.
You claim that my exegesis of Hebrews 1:1-3 is incredibly silly. Why? All that I said was that this is the only statement in the entire New testament that includes the thought of the person (singular, by the way) of God. The bible states that jesus is the express image of God's person. Not the "Father's Person", but "God's".
I quoted the Greek definition for EXPRESS in EXPRESS IMAGE. Can you argue with the greek? It stated that EXPRESS means the mark or exact representation of something, as in a facsimile. Nothing in the trinitarian dogma matches that definition of the word, Colin! And you state it is silly, but do not argue why you feel it ts so! All that you state is that I did not draw delineate enough of a distinction between the physical and the spiritual. You ask me "Is the Son is the human nature of Jesus Christ, and the Father God in Him?"
The Son is the specific combination of the humanity that God took upon Himself in the incarnation and the deity that God always was. But because it is the combination, there was no Son of God before the incarnation. Since it is the single person of God who was manifest in flesh, and since that person carried on in His deity in that flesh, while simultaneously manifesting as a human person, the "Son of God" is not Jesus' human nature alone. The specific manifestation of God as Father was inside the Son, yes. But the Son was not the human nature of Jesus alone. We are speaking about persons. The person of the Son is the same person of the Father. That is the reason the Son is deity as well as humanity. The person in question here is God.
I told you, "...It [Heb 1:1-3] is saying that the Son is the impression of the Father in fleshly form." And you responded saying, "Mike, this passage simply does not say that - not even close!"
Colin! I am shocked! I gave you the greek definition of the term EXPRESS. Let me repeat it again!
EXPRESS IMAGE -- GREEK: charakter {khar-ak-tare'}
AV - express image 1; 1
1) the instrument used for engraving or carving
2) the mark stamped upon that instrument or wrought out on it
2a) a mark or figure burned in (Lev. 13:28) or stamped on, an impression
2b) the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile
Replace the term EXPRESS IMAGE with any of these definitions.
Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person,
Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the instrument used for engraving or carving of his person,
Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the mark stamped upon that instrument or wrought out on it of his person,
Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the mark or figure burned in (Lev. 13:28) or stamped on, an impression, of his person,
Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the exact expression (the image) of, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile, of his person,
Which do you choose? They all said the same thing I stated.
You insisted that my theology states that it must say that, but I argue that Greek states that it must say that! I only took the greek definition for EXPRESS IMAGE. I think you better read some of Strong's Greek definitions a little bit. You say that these verses are clear until Oneness teachers get their hands on them. Ha! I don't think so. Any of our readers can look for themselves at the Greek definition of EXPRESS IMAGE and see that you are completely unaware of the need to resort to the Greek definitions of a particular word to be able to determine what a vers using that word really is saying. Were you not aware that one can take a definition of a Greek word and insert it into the text instead of that word and be correct in doing so? I gave all four definitions, and none of them contradicts what I said! Really, Colin!
You ask, "If the Son is merely the 'impression of the Father in fleshly form', just how did He create the worlds?" The failure that you and Trinitarians in general make is that you ignore definitions of words due to your lack of being able to fit the actual definitions of those words in with your pre-imagined picture of what the verses in question are saying. you dream up the thought that Hebrews is simply saying that the Son existed before the world. Therefore, although the actual Greek language bears out what I have said about the term EXPRESS IMAGE, you laugh at me, all the while the onus is upon you to check out the greek term used. I am saying that the true silliness stands in your court when you refuse to consider how that the definition of the Greek term EXPRESS IMAGE must cause us to consider the preceding words in its light, in order to properly understand what is really being said when Hebrews reads, "his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds."
In other words, you do not base your belief of a statement upon what the immediate context of the scripture demands it to say, but rather you ignore the context and the very definition of words associated therein, and hold on to your predetermined opinion rather than allow scripture to teach you.
Since the EXPRESS IMAGE definitely does mean what I said it does, as proven above, then the interpretation of the phrase, "his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds," must line up with that picture. So, since the EXPRESS IMAGE ("charakter") of God's person means that Christ is the impression of the Father in fleshly form, then the writer of the quoted phrase must have taken that into consideration! Its common sense! He wrote the word "charakter", not me!
Therefore, it has to be understood, with no other options, that the
Son did not exist at the time of creation, for that would demand an eternal
fleshly human being called the Son. And even you do not believe He
was eternally fleshly! So how else can God have used the Son to create
the worlds if the Son is explicitly said to be the impression of the Father
in fleshly form? It must be wording that is in the same venue as
Romans 5:14. God is explicitly said to have made Adam in the
likeness of "him that was to come", not in the likeness of "Him who eternally
existed," more specifically the Son of God. So if God made Adam,
while looking ahead in time at His incarnation, and made Adam after that
figure, then why could it not be said that Hebrews 1:1-3 is telling us
that God
looked ahead in time when He created the worlds to the then-future
incarnation? Its scriptural! And it agrees with the Greek term
"charakter"'s definition! Your idea does not fit that definition
at all!
How does "charakter's" definition work with your predetermined and preconceived notion of the trinity?
You said yourself that the idea of the Son being the Father's impression in fleshly form is definitely Oneness doctrine! And yet this is exactly the meaning of the word "charakter"! You really waffled in this one, Colin!
You ask, how is it that the Son is the brightness of the Father's glory according to my understanding. He is the brightness of the Father's glory in the same sense that He is the "charakter" of the Father's person. He is the human person through whom the Father manifested His glory as much as the Father literally manifested His works through the Son (John 14:10).
You ask, "So the Son is the impression of the Father in fleshly form, eh?" I resoundingly respond, yes! According to the greek term CHARAKTER.
Then you state Paul must have then been confused when he wrote in Colossians that the Son created the world. First of all, I hope you finally see the extreme error of your avoidance of the definition of "charakter," because one has to consider that definition in order to properly understand Col. 1:16. Notice that the verse literally states that the worlds were created "by Him." They were created by Him and for Him. This is saying the same thing that Hebrews 1 stated, and you are missing the all-important manner in which Paul chose to write this thought down! It does not say THE SON CREATED anything. It says that GOD CREATED THE WORLDS BY THE SON. It refers to the SON in the manner of a tool or instrument in another's hands -- ii the Father's hands. And that makes perfect sense when you consider the Greek term CHARAKTER, which demands post-incarnational existence of the Son, alone. How is it that God created the worlds BY the Son, when the Son was the facsimile of the Father in flesh? Its simple! In the same way that Christ was not yet come, when God created Adam, and how that Christ was the pattern after which God made the figure of Adam, before Christ came, God used the pattern and purpose of all that Christ was about when He made the worlds. In other words, without the then-future coming of Christ in mind, while God stood before the worlds existed, and foreknew that man would fall and sin, it would be a complete waste of effort to create everything physical! Mankind was meant to rule the physical realm! Without any future coming of Christ to recover the fallen humanity to this original purpose, God was wasting His Almighty time in creating any worlds!
How else does the term CHARAKTER fit into the picture? You tell me. So I did not force this interpretation, but simply used the interpretation. On the other hand I accuse you of ignorance of the interpretation of "charakter." Your interpretation does not allow charakter to mean what it actually means.
Who is it that upholds all things by the Word of His OWN power? The Son! But that does not demand the Son exist in time of ancient creation. God created all things by the word. And the WORD is eternal. And the WORD became flesh and was only then known as the Son of God. Before the Son existed, the Word that became flesh and became the Son eternally existed. It was that WORD of God that spoke all things into existence and upholds all things.
I strip NOTHING from Jesus Christ when I state this. In fact, I uphold Him to be higher than Trinity doctrine could ever exalt Him, as He is the one and only person of God that exists, and shares that deity with nobody, whereas Trinity splits up the deity among three persons.
You think it strange that God be one person and yet manifest as Son of God and speak to the Son and call Him "God." This is only strange due to your continued limitation of God's personhood to that of a human being, as I have repeatedly accused you of doing. However, I see you did not even perceive what I meant whenever I said that. And thus, the old mother of errors in the trinity dogma continues to rage through your heart -- that of not realizing that God's person cannot be compared in any way to the abilities of single human persons.
When the Father speaks to the Son and calls Him, "God," the Father is recorded as having said that for the purpose of all of us to understand that the Son of God is full deity! What has that got to do with three eternal persons? This is one repeated travesty of thinking that you make. You take experiences and events that took place in recorded human history, when God was manifest in flesh and experienced a relational exchange of communication as between Father and Son, and note the clear distinction between Father and Son, yet demand without any foundation that such a relationship existed within the Godhead for eternity!
Yes, there is a distinction in the Godhead during the history of earth, since the incarnation, where Son and Father communicated. But why does that prove the same situation existed for all eternity? I accuse you and every other trinitarian of blatant and complete assumption in this matter.
And once again, I stand upon the outright oneness position of ancient Hebrews in Old Testament times as credence for my claim that all the manifestations of the One God led none of those people to assume God was more than one person, causing us to be sensible enough to take the same absolute oneness stand. And since Christ is yet another, albeit the greatest, manifestation of God's person, we ought not think anything more of it as far as how many persons of God exist, than did those ancient Hebrews.
Confusion? None at all. Just consistent standing upon truths already set forth in the Old Testament.
You erringly accuse me of believing, Hebrews should read ""...whom He appointed heir of all things [although the Son himself is a created being]..."
I already gave you the rendering that the greek word CHARAKTER demands us hold to above. And I maintain that your straw man statement that I believe that the Son is a created being is blatantly false. I do not believe the Son is a created being. It would be easier for you, if I did!
And you state that I believe "The Son does not have the power to create anyway". This is another blatant falsity. I would appreciate it if you asked me what I believed before claiming what I believe to our readers.
You also accuse me of believing, ""person" doesn't mean "person", it means "manifestation"". The term PERSON that is in question here, refers to the person of "God". And it is only ONE person that is ever noted in scripture. Too bad it did not say, "Persons." But, alas, "persons" is never found to be describing God in scriptures. You have to go to extrabiblical trinitarian creations (speaking of creation) to find that. In this instance, the person of God is not a manifestation as you accuse me of believing.
You also accuse me of believing that, speaking of the Son, "He isn't really God, God is just in Him. If He were God, then He'd be eternal, and that can't be!" Another lie, Colin. The person of the Son is God's person, and is therefore eternal. But you refuse to acknowledge that I distinguish the person of God from the manifestation of Son. And so long as you continue to do so, you are simply not listening to what I am saying.
Let me give a rendering of what you believe about the verses in question, which, contrary to your efforts of portraying my beliefs, are faithful to your beliefs.
Hebrews 1:1 God [Not really God, but what should have been added, which trinitarians will add later, don't worry, -- God the Father, doing all of this, while the eternal Son and Eternal Holy Ghost stand aside and watch the Father do everything -- leaving one to believe that the Son said NOTHING to ANYBODY in the entire Old Testament, which contradicts all previous teaching! Our contradiction here is that these verses force to Son to stand waiting, during the entire duration of the Old Testament period, for a future time to at least say something], who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets [Only the Father spoke in all of these times. the Son and Holy Ghost were still silent partners],
Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, [the Son finally can say something! But note that the Son can only say what the Father wants said. Quite an unfair situation for the second person of the trinity! he could not say anything to all of mankind for 4000 years. And now that he has come, he can only be a speaker on behalf of the Father. Thus, the non-equality of the eternally co-equal three persons of God!] whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds [the Son can't create anything on his own. Even in Col. 1:16, the Son did not create anything Himself, but the Father did it by Him. He has to be used like an instrument to create things. He's always subservient, even in eternity past, although we like to say He is co-equal. This verse is not speaking about God using a foreknown coming of Christ as a purpose for creating all things, but rather to the Son who is veritably handicapped so as to require the Father to use Him to create, so that we can later say that the Son existed at the time of creation. Who created anyway? We'll say the Son, because our doctrine won't stand any other way. Just ignore the words "by whom" and "by him" in Col 1:16.] ;
Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image [forget the entire definition of this term, EXPRESS IMAGE, because it does not fit in with the previous verse. We are obviously being silly and ridiculous here. On the other hand we could say that CHARAKTER does not mean what your greek dictionary means. So forget about actual definitions for words. If this really was the inspired word of God that would force verse 2 to mean that God the Father used the incarnation as His pattern when creating, and that will not do, for it sounds too Oneness.] of his person [we only wished the Bible said "persons" somewhere else, but this is all we have. So we created some writings to fill in that gap!], and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high [the poor Son is never really equal to the Father, for He could never say a peep throughout the Old Testament. And now He still does not take the central position in the Godhead, except only in an extrabiblical title given Him -- the second person of three];
Hebrews 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels [not much better, though, since angels could at least talk to people during Old Testament times -- but only better since the incarnation -- in name only] as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they [here the Son is only an heir, compared to an angel. Too bad He was not the writer of the will and testament, as the Oneness teaches!].
Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? [We wish we could say that this refers to a pre-incanrate discussion between the Great Two, but Paul already stated in Acts 13:33 that this referred to the resurrection, obviously post-incarnate. So we will simply not make any comments and hope people assume it to refer to pre-incarnate times.] And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? [Although the grammar here means that this was a then-future situation to take place since the time this was written in 2 Samuel 7:14, in flow with the future fulfilment of Psalm 2, words do not mean anything in our writings. SImply ignore the future tense, because the Son was always a Son of the Father's -- this does sound confusing, but we're used to that.]
Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God [God is actually multipersonal, that is having many persons and personalities -- three -- sort of schizophrenic. But yet this eternal reign of the Father and the Son has the Son silent throughout all time until the incarnation, and even then he can only say what the first person says. It is unfair to call them co-equal, for even before the incarnation, before the Father decided the Son would suffer and die, making it yet another one-sided decision -- the Son could say nothing to mankind. Was the Son ever coe-qual? He must have been, even though there is no scripture for this idea. But we expect you to assume so.] , is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Hebrews 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God [notice here that our God is actually a God who has another God, but yet they are one and the same God. Confused? You should be. This is supposed to be a mystery and if you are not confused you obviously misread this] , hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. [There are those who are peers with the Son, but we cannot call them peers, so forget I wrote that!]...
Hebrews 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands [forget that we used the term "charakter' again, -- you'll notice you are supposed to forget much of what we said. Forget that God did things with HIs then-future masterpiece of salvation in mind. Forget that I started to say that the Father created "by the Son." Just read this verse without reading anything else, and you will believe the Son really existed before the world began! ] :
And this likewise, as you intended, is not meant to belittle you. But if you look closely at your doctrine and then read ALL of the words and keep the CONTEXT in mind, you will fin d how bad your doctrine contradicts itself.
And, for the ump-teenth time, you continued to state that God revealed
more of His nature in the New Testament times, so far as Godhead plurality
or singularity goes, but have not shown one explicit verse where anything
akin to "eternal God" is given in the NT as pertains to your alleged multipersonality
of the Godhead. You say you have beaten this for quite some time,
but not in one instance have you quoted me a single verse akin to those
stated in the Old Testament describing God's nature as agreeable with your
doctrine. It was a simply request. You could not fulfill it.
I look at the entire Bible as one, also but I keep in mind the divisions
that God intended us to keep in mind, that is, Old And New Testaments.
You cannot ignore that division. You say the Bible was
never meant to be chopped up. On the contrary! God Himself
decided to have two distinct divisions. I wish you would treat the
Godhead like you do the Bible! But you have your eternal divisions
in the Godhead, whereas the Bible, that explicitly divides itself, you
claim to have no divisions. You are absolutely backward on the Godhead
and Bible issues, whereas you should divide the Bible and not divide the
Godhead.
And you insist that unregenerate Jews should not even be considered when it comes to the question of God's inherent amount of persons. That is absolutely wrong. Pagans alone believed in multipersonal deities all the while the ancient Hebrews, God's only people at that time, rejected anything to do with it. You imply these pagans were more correct about the Hebrews' God than the Hebrews themselves!
This is no small matter, Colin. I said it before, and bears repeating. The abundance of absolute silence of any teaching by Christ or the apostles on any difference of opinion of God between the ancient Hebrews and the disciples of Christ's day causes one to only reasonably assume that the ancient Hebrews' absolute monotheism without multipersons was absolutely correct and without need of being refuted by Christ. If you were correct, there would have to be multiplied books and books of trinitarian thought recorded from Christ's explanation of such a doctrine to the disciples, and the subsequent apostles' teachings concerning the subject to the church. But the Bible is silent on that matter!
So when I take you up on your suggestion to take all of the Bible and then make my conclusions, I must stick to the Oneness view, due to the absence of any clarification of alleged trinitarian statements found in the Old Testament. In other words, because the unregenerate Jews of Christ's day required no clarification after their generation, and since they made no statements pointing to their error of single person belief before their regeneration, I take the entire Bible as teaching Oneness. To say otherwise is to make too alarming a conclusion.
You say it is an enormous jump to state that God revealed Himself in "manifestations." Colin, "Manifested" is simply synonymous with "revealed!" Are you saying that "persons" is synonymous with "revealed"? Understand language, Colin. Words truly have lost all meaning in your vocabulary! You miss the entire definition of words again. This is getting to be quite a repeated problem in your thoughts. You are saying that it is an enormous leap to say that God revealed himself in "revealings."
Again, in fact I insist, it is enormous leaping to believe in "persons" in contrast to believing in mere "revealings." You told me to provide you with one statement saying, "Relax, these are just manifestations". I am sure you now see the absurdity of such a statement. Manifestations simply means revealings. 1 Timothy 3:16 simply says what I am saying and nothing less than what I am saying. Leave the bible at what it says, unless it is too vague and is clarified by another statement elsewhere.
This also handles he challenge you give for me to show where Farther, Son and Holy Ghost are manifestations. I am sure you agree.
You again erringly compare the absence of the term "trinity" with the absence of the term "incarnation." Once again you fail in your interpretations of words. "Incarnation" simply means enfleshed -- or put into fleshly form. This agrees literally with John 1:14. The word was made flesh. Literally that is synonymous with saying the word was incarnate. What is literally synonymous in the Bible as "trinity"? The burden of proof is on your side. I only accept incarnation because its synonymous with "made flesh". "Trinity" has no such degree of synonyms in the Bible. So I absolutely deny your accusation that my demand for you to provide me with explicit statements destroys my own doctrine that cannot provide any as well. You are completely out of good form there, Colin. Your only basis for this accusation is my use of manifestations and incarnation, which are in reality synonymous with terms used already in the Bible. Your use of Trinity is not so. How can I be destroying my own doctrine thereby? Colin, it seems to be a pattern here that you are unaware of the definition of terms you hurl into this discussion.
You said, "God doesn't use the term 'eternal Son' because He doesn't need to." What? Such an important detail describing your trinitarian Son of God does not need to be stated? Absurd!
You argue the reason for your statement's truth based upon these points:
"1) The Son is referred to as God, Heb 1:8, 10. If the Son is God, then He is eternal."
You forget the entire basis of our difference. I agree that the PERSON of Christ is God, and is eternal.
You said, "This is not a complicated argument. When deity is ascribed
to the Son, I don't think it's a stretch to say He is the eternal Son.
I would also call
Him the Almighty Son, the Omniscient Son, etc."
It is indeed a stretch to say the Son is eternal simply because we say the person of the Son is God. You are assuming an element of an equation that does not exist. You are demanding that the term "son" is synonymous with the term "God." That is not the case at all. It is the understanding of what the term SON points to in relation to the term GOD, in this case, that is the question. I note you call Him many terms that are also non-biblilcal, and you neglect to consider that such terms just might not have been used purposely by God since they simply do not relate the truth to us.
The Son is not eternal, since Gabriel distinctly told Mary that the reason for the term "Son of God" being given to the individual to then yet be born was due to the fact that a birth, a mother and a Father were involved. This coincides perfectly with the dictionary! SON is a relational term by very definition! God did not ignore what we considered to be SONS when He told the angel to describe the reason for the child being called SON OF GOD. You care less about definitions of words! Its little wonder that you can accept a blatant leap of assumption by calling the Son of God and eternal Son.
I brush nothing under the carpet nor re-interpret anything, as you accuse. You imagine an idolatrous set of three eternal persons, and then say it is ultimate travesty for me to remove two thirds of those persons and stick with the Book that explicitly states that God is One, and never states that God is three anythings! If you can live with yourself on that platform then go ahead. I cannot live with my own conscience and do that.
You ask, "You say that His eternal majesty is really God the Father in Him (am I right?)." No. The eternal Majesty is in His Person, for it is the only person in the Godhead!
(....to be continued.... )