ONENESS/TRINITY DEBATE
WITH COLIN SEAGER - Part 9

Hi Colin,

... continued.

You claim that in Hebrews 7:3, Melchisedec's lack of genealogical records as to his parents and birth form a likeness with the alleged eternality of the Son of God.

This is not at all speaking in those terms. What Hebrews 7:3 is teaching is Melchisedek's priesthood required no genealogical records in order for this man to function as priest. This is in stark contrast to the Levitical priesthood.

Ezra 2:62 These sought their register [among] those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.

Above, we read that genuine priests of Levi could not function as priests due to the lack of their possession of genealogical records showing that they inherited the ministry through family. Melchisedek's priesthood is superior, because he functioned without need of such records.

You admit that he was human. So the point is not that he had no beginning, for he most certainly did. But the point is he functioned without having inherited the calling to do so. And the idea of a successor is absent unlike the Levitical situation. Christ, in like manner, did not inherit the priesthood as though through genealogical descendency. He received it directly from God as did Melchisedek. And his ministry does not involve succession, but rather continues forever, thereby not requiring anything to do with genealogical records for the purpose of succession.

The point of Melchisedek having neither BEGINNING OF DAYS, as you stress it, has nothing to do with the idea of the Son having no beginning. It has to do with the idea of the lack of genealogy that is normally required for Levitical priesthood. This is not saying that the Son literally had no beginning of days, but rather no genealogical need of succession.

You then claim that Psalm 2:11-12 indicates a pre-incarnate existence of the Son of God. No it does not!

Lets read the entire context.

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Psalm 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give [thee] the heathen [for] thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth [for] thy possession. Psalm 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Psalm 2:10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Psalm 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Psalm 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish [from] the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed [are] all they that put their trust in him.

The first mention of SON in this Psalm is in verse 7. There we read of a PROPHECY of the resurrection of Jesus. This is not speaking about times before the incarnation, as though the Father spoke to a then-existing Son. No. We read the Apostle's own interpretation of this very Psalm as pointing to the resurrection of Jesus, whereupon He received His calling.

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.

And with that in mind, keep reading the Second Psalm.

The reception of the heathen for inheritance is speaking of the dominion of Christ after the cross over all the world. Verse 9 speaks of the rod of iron as is fulfilledas follows:

Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne.

Notice the future tense of the ruling with a rod of iron. After the incarnation.

And verses 10-11 speak of a warning to kings and judges of the wrath of the Son in that post-incarnate dominion should they fail to submit to Him. This is a prophecy, Colin. It is saying nothing similar to the existence of the Son during the times in which this Psalm was written. Verse 7 proves that!

You claim that since Col. 1:16-18 says that the Son is BEFORE all things, that He must have existed before all things existed. Not true. the Greek word translated as BEFORE is PRO. It means ABOVE, in the sense of pre-eminence.

James 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and [your] nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

It is found in like manner in many many places. It simply means the same as the following:

Colossians 1:17 And he is ABOVEall things, and by him all things consist.

You say the Son is Creator, but yet everytime we read of the Son in conjunction with Creation we find that God created all things BY HIM. Why does it say BY HIM? Why can we never read one line that says "the SON CREATED. "How do we define that statement, BY HIM? Look to Romans 5:14 where you read of God creating Adamwith the thought of Adam being the FIGURE OF HIM THAT WAS TO COME. It does not say that Adam was made in the figure of HE WHO WAS THEN IN EXISTENCE. The Son did not exist at Adam's creation, necessitating the Holy Ghost to inspire Paul to write that Adam was made in the figure of HIM THAT WAS TO COME.

And the reason that all things were created FOR the Son is simply saying that the Son would rule all things after he came into existence at the incarnation and died and resurrected to be seated over everything. You read NOTHING about the Son of God being seated over anything before the incarnation. Show me one verse where it says He was. And you said that Pharaoh rose to power under the dominion of the Son. You are absolutely wrong. You distort the entire context of the Second Psalm, despite Paul's interpretation of that Psalm as referring to post-resurrection times.

You say it is of no concern to you that we read that the Father created all things BY THE SON. It should be of concern to you, for never do we read otherwise! You say that the trinity was involved in creation as alleged in the so-called mystery of the Godhead. Too bad it wasn't in the Bible! You say the Spirit created according to Job. Oneness teaches that God the Father is a Spirit. Jesus used the terms FATHER and SPIRIT synonymously.

John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. John 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

In Colossians it does not say the Son created all things. It says God created all things "BY THE SON". And I have no problem with post-incarnational distinctions between Father and Son both being involved in sanctification. All that that is saying is the Father sanctifies us through the work the Son accomplished in His sacrifice on the cross. The real issue is the presence of Son and Father before the incarnation. Don't lose sight of the real issue.

You say that the idea of the presence of an eternal Son demands the presence of an eternal mother is silly. No it is not. A thousand times no. You not only fail to concern yourself over the terms BY HIM, in creation, by you fail to concern yourself over the literal definitions of a word! Son does not mean Son to you. And I accuse you of fulfilling this warning!

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Your doctrine denies the SON. It denies the literal meaning of the very term SON. In your doctrine, God has totally cast away all thoughts in using the term SON in lieu of the definition that every human on earth understands SON to possess. In your doctrine, He is not really a "Son" at all. God should have used another term, but you insist that God cared less what the language of mankind understood SON to mean. Although the very definition of the term involves relationship to mother and father, you deny the word that definition in this case. You say this is so because God is above our earthly relations and is not confined to them. It sounds more like God is not confined to our definition of words that we use in language, and makes up an unknown definition for a word that nobody else ever uses. Words lose all meaning in Trinity doctrine.

You said that my thoughts of Luke 1:35 "say more than it actually does (as usual). "All that I said was that it is as similar as me saying "I am called son of Werner Blume, because Werner Blume begat me when I was conceived in the womb of Marie Blume, and she later birthed a son as the result of the impregnation. "And you say that is saying more than what the verse actually states? Really? I think not. Gabriel said the child would be called SON OF GOD because the Holy Ghost wouldimpregnate Mary, who would in turn birth that child in absolute anthropomorphic fashion as any child is born. Since the Holy GHost begat the child, then the child is called SON OF GOD.

Find one other single verse anywhere that gives an alternative reason as to why the child would be called SON OF GOD. You have not shown me one so far.

You claim that saying God was manifest and the Sonwas manifest is synonymous. Not it is not, because you failed, once again, to quote the entire words. 1 Tim 3:16 says that God was manifest IN THE FLESH. Outside of being particularly manifested in flesh, there . are a multitude of ways by which one might be made manifest. 1 John 3:8 simply states that the Son was manifest. It does not say IN THE FLESH. DId you not know that Jesus destroyed not one work of the devil until he was presented to the world at the age of 30? I was not made manifest to you until my first email to you, or perhaps until you first saw my webpage. That does not mean that I am eternal.

You state that scripture says that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. Jesus Christ is said to have manifested in the flesh because Jesus Christ is the single person of God who eternally exists. But you never read the SON WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. Hmmmm... . .

This does not confirm that Jesus is the name of the Son of God alone, but rather the highest name of God that we know, and God is eternal. .

You said, "It was the Holy Spirit Who physicallyplanted the seed in Mary's womb, but He is not His Father (and you have yet to yield an explicit statement stating otherwise! ). "You say that the Spirit physically planted the seed into the womb of Mary. Well, isn't that what makes a father a "father"? This is really getting strange, Colin.

You claim that I would desire to make Luke 1:35 say that "He shall become the Son of God. "That is not true at all. The "holy thing" is the issue in that verse. And that refers to the human child and infant Jesus Christ. Since it is the human child in question, then I would never want the verse to say anything other than what it says. I do not wish the verse to read that the Child shall become the Son of God. The child did not exist until the Son of God existed. You make it sound as though I believe the child existed before the Son of God existed. Odder by the moment. But I think you would rather have the verse to read something other than what it does read. You would have it to read, "

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee IS called the Son of God.

. . instead of SHALL BE called. You believe the Son of God EXISTED before the incarnation. But Romans 5:14 and now Luke 1:35 say that it was yet a future existence before the incarnation.

You say that for this purpose the child shall be "called" Son of God. And then you note that is a big difference. I don't know what you are comparing that thought to. But that is my whole point! The child "shall be called" Son of God for the purpose stated in the former part of the verse... that is, anthropomorphic conception and birthing. You like to remove the anthropomorphism away from the entire titling, although Gabriel bases it upon that!

You say that jesus relationship with the Father is eternal based upon the thought that the Holy Spirit implanted Him into Mary's womb. How does that prove the Son of God is eternal? I cannot follow you at all here. Where do we read that the Son of God was implanted in the womb? A seed is implanted and the result is the Son of God. He is not a Son until He is born of a woman. In fact, the Bible uses the term SEED OF THE WOMAN in Genesis 3. You are saying it was not a seed, but was rather the SON OF GOD implanted? You told us earlier that it was the SEED. Are you now taking that statement back?

You claim the Bible does not call the Holy Spirit the Father of Jesus. Yet you admit that the Holy Spirit physically planted the seed in Mary's womb. This may mean another urge for you to check out the birds and the bees!

"What you are saying makes complete sense from a Oneness slant, but not from a Scriptural view. "Colin, it makes sense from scripture and from normal common sense. The one responsible for physically planting a seed into the womb of a woman is always considered the "father. " Even if you feel the Spirit did the work for the Father, you still have to admit that the Holy Spirit performed a function that is very fatherly by the very biological act of being the direct responsibility of impregnating a woman, and must therefore be recognized in some form as the Father of the Son! It throws trinity doctrine into a frenzy, I know. But you have to get a bit real here, Colin. Admit it. The one responsible for directly impregnating a woman with a seed is called the father.

You say I confuse that which is spiritual and eternal with that which is temporal and physical. No I am not. I am just stating what scripture tells us in plain language. Gabriel attributed the purpose of the title "Son of God" being given to the "holy thing" that would be born of Mary to the direct implanting of the seed by the Holy Ghost, which is God, period. Since the HOLY GHOST IS GOD, and since the Holy Ghost impregnated Mary to birth a child, then the child is called SON OF GOD. You have to be well rooted in trinitarian distortion of scripture to conclude anything else than what I have just written.

Then you ask about what the issue is with the Holy Spirit. Is He eternal? Of course! God is HOLY and is a SPIRIT. He is the HOLY SPIRIT.

Psalm 99:9 Exalt the LORD our God, and worship at his holy hill; for the LORD our God is holy.

John 4:24 God is a Spirit

Notice that these are all "explicit" statements. HOLY SPIRIT. Are these two verses only talking about the third person of the trinity, or are they talking about what it says they are talking about:GOD, period? The distinction of the HOLY GHOST in scripture is in relation to God's work in regenerating mankind and inspiring mankind. Its just another manifestation (revealing) of God. I agree the Holy Spirit is eternal. God was eternally holy and was eternally a Spirit. No problem there.

You believe that because Isaiah 9:6 says that the eternal Father is Jesus, we yet cannot claim that God the Father is Jesus. I only said that this verse proves that Jesus is "the eternal Father. "Again, how many eternal Fathers are there? Please answer this direct question, Colin. How many eternal Fathers are there? Is God the Father eternal? Is Jesus, the eternal Father, eternal? How many eternal Fathers are there? One or two? Don't change my question -- simply answer one or two.

And you think that this is not corroborated anywhere else in scripture. It is so. We read that Jesus is Alpha and Omega in Revelation 1. And then again in revelation 21:7 we read that the Alpha and Omega calls the believer his "son. "You admitted that Jesus the eternal Father of BELIEVERS. So would you not say that once again we read in Revelation 21:7 about Jesus? You're getting closer to the truth when you said that Jesus is the everlasting Father of believers. But you are going to wish you never said that as I show you a ramification of that thought a little later.

" You will nowhere find any explicit statement saying the Father is Jesus. "Despite your refusal to see it, Isaiah 9:6 says it explicitly!

You say that the phrase "the eternal Father" is "titles or attributes. His name is not literally 'almighty God'; this is simply stating that fact that this is Who He is! "I have no argument with that! Who ever said that FATHER was a name, other than yourself? Not me. My entire point is that Father, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Holy Ghost and Son of GodARE ALL TITLES OR ATTRIBUTES of the one person of God! You admit that JESUS has many attributes as listed in Isaiah 9:6. You're getting on the right track, slowly.

You said, "I will admit that inall that you've presented thus far this verse stumped me the most. Although I could see no connection elsewhere in Scripture, I was baffled as to why the SON would be called FATHER. I came across a piece that did help me immensely. Charles Spurgeon years ago wrote a little pamphlet addressing this very verse. "

Colin, if you look outside of scripture in other writings long enough, you are bound to find something to remove your baffled query of the scriptures that do not fit your theory.

You claim that Spurgeon said that the objects of Christ's Fatherhood is us, the believers, the redeemed. The verse does not explicitly say that, but let's assume you are right. You carry on and say, "Understand that Jesus is a father to us, but to God the Father He is a Son. This phrase has to do with His relation to BELIEVERS, not GOD the Father. Jesus is the Son of GOD, yet the Father of BELIEVERS. "

So, if you are right, and Jesus is the FATHER OF BELIEVERS, then Jesus was telling the disciples to pray to Himself when He told them to say, "Our Father who art in heaven. "Is it Jesus that you had in mind when you prayed that prayer before? Hmmm... I wonder. DO you pray to Jesus when you pray to YOUR FATHER, since you said Jesus is Father to believers?

What about this?

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.

Jesus Himself said that HIS FATHER was also OUR FATHER. So what does that say for your newfound theory? You waffled in this one, Colin. You said that Jesus is a Son to God the Father, but to believers Jesus is the Father.

And this really takes things into chaos. Because we read this about Jesus as well.

Hebrews 2:12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

Jesus calls the believers "MY BRETHREN. "So how can He be both the believers' FATHER and the believers' BROTHER at the same time? And how can His Father also be Our Father if our Father is Jesus? Do you really want to believe Spurgeon now? He seems to be pushing you more and more towards Oneness! See how trinitariansim is so filled and rife with confusion? Oneness has no problem with one person of God manifesting as various relationships.

You write: "I am a son to my father, yet a father to my children. In different contexts, I can be referred to as a son or a father. " But yet you are saying that Jesus is both our Father and our brother, but you cannot agree with the same logic that Jesus is Father and Son and Holy Ghost. Jesus, Himself, said that God the Father is our Father as well as His Father. And you already said that Jesus is Father to believers. So is Jesus referring to Himself when He told Mary that He was ascending to His Father and her Father? You better look in the mirror the next time you want to argue with someone who believes one person in the Godhead could be both Father and Son, or Father and Brother!

You claim your eyes were opened to a beautiful truth in Hebrews 2:13 where it "brilliantly" informs us that God the Father gave the Son some children. You even stress to me that it is JESUS that is speaking of receiving children from the God the Father. But yet 5 verses later Jesus is speaking as though He were the Believers' brother!

So if Jesus is our Father and God the Father is also our Father, maybe we should be calling God the Father more correctly, GOD THE GRANDFATHER, for He seems to be grandfather to us. But yet we also explicitly read that Jesus is our Brother. So now Jesus is both brother and Father to us, and God the father is both Father and Grandfather to us. Wow! You're going to have at least 6 persons in the Godhead after a while!

1. God the Grandfather 2. God the Father 3. The Son of God (Jesus) 4. The Everlasting Father of the Believer (Jesus) 5. The Brother of the Believer (Jesus) 6. The Holy Spirit.

You even said yourself, "Of course, God the Father is also called my father, for through the Spirit I can cry 'Abba, Father'. "

But the Bible teaches:

Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Colin, the Bible absolutely refutes the thought of believers having MORE THAN ONE FATHER!

I am really amazed you cannot see the chaos in all of this thinking. You admit God the Father is our Father and Jesus is also our Father. Now, after looking at Hebrews 2:13, and finding that Jesus is our Brother, you may come to see the Oneness truth soon. The onlywas that Jesus can be our Father and God the Father top be our Father, and yet there be one Father, is for ONENESS TEACHING TO BE TRUE AND TRINITY TO BE ERROR!

In fact, Malachi you must be consistent with them term ONE in the thought of ONE FATHER and the thought that ONE GOD CREATED US. Your "oneness" of God is a plurality, and therefore when you read that ONE GOD created us, you imply that three persons created us. You even said that all three persons of the trinity created us. But the same thought of ONE GOD creating us teaches that we have ONE FATHER. So are you saying that the ONE FATHER is a plurality also? You must! For whatever context in which you place ONE in that verse, with ONE GOD, you must also be consistent and mean the same for ONE FATHER. So now we have FATHER who is composed of at least two persons, each a Father. And in that Father, where two Fathers actually exist, one is a Father to the other Father, but both are our Fathers! Confusion runs rampant, Colin, in your teachings!

John says similar words:

John 8:41 ... we have one Father, even God.

The Jews rightly proclaimed that we have ONE FATHER, in reference to Malachi 2:10.

So if GOD is three persons to you, then ONE FATHER, even GOD, is actually two Fathers, one Son, one Spirit, one Brother, etc. Wow! "ONE" has lost all meaning for sure!

So we have Isaiah saying His name shall be called the ETERNAL FATHER. Why don't we read HIS NAME SHALL BE CALLED GOD THE SON? You claim that I have no other verse that explicitly states that Jesus is the FATHER other than Isaiah 9:6. But you NO verses anywhere that states that He is called GOD THE SON.

Jesus said that I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE. John 14:10. He never said I AND THE FATHER ARE TWO PERSONS.

I know this is not saying the Father is the Son. But its not saying they are two persons!

And we read that the sheep are in Jesus' hands!

John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.

But yet we are in the Father's hand!

John 10:29 My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand.

Sounds like one person in two different manifestations to me!

Unlike you trinitarians, when the Jews heard Jesus say things like this, they correctly assumed He was calling Himself God.

John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. John 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

They did not think He was speaking about being a second person of the trinity, for they had no such understanding nor do they yet today! You say that Jesus' statement that He and the Father were one does not mean he is the Father, however the Jews thought so!

Do you believe that there is a distinction between a man and His breath? Are you and your breath two persons?

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Why did Jesus call HIS BREATH the HOLY GHOST?

The Pharisees wanted to know where the Father was.

John 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? ...

Look what Jesus replied:

John 8:19... Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

Why did He not say that the Father is in Heaven? Why did He say that they should look to Him to see the Father, and know Him to know the Father? The Father LITERALLY INDWELT HIM! And you will not accept that fact!

JOHN 15:23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.

JOHN 13:20 he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

JOHN 12:45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.

JOHN 12:44 He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

This lines up with the reference that says the Son is the express image of the Father, in the context and definition that I gave to you in the Greek. CHARAKTER. Look at that again closely. Jesus was the express image of the Father -- an "imprint" of the Father in the flesh, so to speak. These verses above prove that to be so.

You said that GOD THE FATHER is a proper name. No it is not! Prove that God the Father is a name. Its a title. Just as THE ETERNAL FATHER is a title. You make these zinger statements and do not prove them. Prove that GOD THE FATHER Is a proper name.

You then say, "First off, note that an "eternal Father" in this context demands an "eternal Son". I doubt you're willing to go there. "

Oh, no! I am very happy to go there with you, for it shows even more confusion in your doctrine. If "the Eternal Father" demands there to be an "eternal SON," and if the title "THE ETERNAL FATHER" is speaking in relation, not to God the Father and the Son of God, but rather to Jesus as ETERNAL Father of Believers, then you are demanding that BELIEVERS be eternal! You said yourself that THE ETERNAL FATHER refers to Jesus, and not God the Father. This is getting worse all the time for you. You said that AN ETERNAL FATHER demands the presence of an ETERNAL SON, but yet direct ETERNAL FATHER to be a title of Jesus in relation to His children who are believers.

We not only have one eternal Son, but as many eternal Sons are there are believers! Your Godhead count is mounting higher and higher in persons.

You claim that if the ETERNAL FATHER is referring to God the Father, then you ask why would a proper name be included in a list of attributes. Who ever said GOD THE FATHER is a proper name? Not I. That is one great folly of trinitarianism. "God the Father" is not a name. GOD is a name. You are really showing your paradigmal thinking here.

You claim that the NT should abound with statements saying that Jesus is the Father. Isaiah 9:6 is not good enough for you. And yet you have not ONE single verse that states that God is three persons. There should be chapters and chapters of explanation about that alleged fact, if it were true. I already pointed out to you that Israelites were strict oneness adherents, believing in absolutely one person of the Godhead all during Law and before. And you claim that they were unregenerate, and that is the reason they did not see three persons. However, after they were regenerated in NT times, it would have been necessary for the apostles to teach multiplied chapters and entire books of scripture about the alleged trinity of God. But they were absolutely SILENT! In other words, the strict oneness was applied to the presence of the Son of God, and that is the reason you find NOT ONE statement saying THE SON IS ETERNAL in the NT.

You will never be able to produce one verse that says the SON IS ETERNAL.

In reference to John 1, you said, "Does He use the word Trinity? No. Does He use the word 'Persons'? No. There simply isn't any terminology in our languages that adequately describes the magnificence and full essence of our God. "You seem to believe that TRINITY and PERSONS are fine enough words to use. In fact the term PERSONS as you use it was in existence in John'stimes. IN fact, you cannot even talk about the Godhead without using that term!

You said that John used a distinction between the term WORD and GOD. I agree. But the argument is not that there is not a distinction between the two, nor is the argument that no distinction exists between Father and Son. The argument is WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC DISTINCTION? You say PERSONS, and I say MANIFESTATIONS OF ONE PERSON. You say it is quintessential trinity theology to say the WORD is distinct from GOD. Then we are both trinitarians! And you know that is not true. No, the detail of what the distinction is is the issue at hand. Don't imply that my concept of the WORD and GOD is that there is no distinction between the two. But the distinction is the same as between my THOUGHTS and MYSELF.

Your trinitarian company even has this to say of John 1:1, which agrees perfectly with what I am saying.

"As we clothe our thoughts in words, so God reveals his will by the Word, and when the Word is clothed in flesh, as the Teacher of men, we recognize it as Jesus Christ. "

This trinitarian author to the PEOPLE'S NT COMMENTARY on my Seedmaster Bible cdrom, was careful enough to note that we read the WORD was made flesh, not the SON. WORD is from the Greek LOGOS. And here is what LOGOS means:

LOGOS 1) of speech 1a) a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea 1b) what someone has said 1b1) a word 1b2) the sayings of God 1b3) decree, mandate or order 1b4) of the moral precepts given by God 1b5) Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets 1b6) what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, aweighty saying, a dictum, a maxim 1c) discourse 1c1) the act of speaking, speech 1c2) the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking 1c3) a kind or style of speaking 1c4) a continuous speaking discourse - instruction 1d) doctrine, teaching 1e) anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative 1f) matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law 1g) the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed 2) its use as respect to the MIND alone 2a) reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating 2b) account, i. e. regard, consideration 2c) account, i. e. reckoning, score 2d) account, i. e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment 2e) relation, i. e. with whom as judge we stand in relation 2e1) reason would 2f) reason, cause, ground

This is not another person! There is the trinitarian theory that John used a term known to the pagans as speaking of a created being that God made in order to create the physical, since God was too holy to directly touch it. And that created person was the LOGOS. And guess who the pagan was who first proposed this? HERACLITUS, a Greek Philosopher. Plato picked up on it also. Check your history. This is what Strongs bases the following interpretive statement upon:

3) In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.

"A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B. C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. "

And Strong says the following:"This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1. "Wow! Did you get that! Its shocking but its faithful to trinitarian tripe. Strong said that the PAGAN idea of a LOGOS was suited to John's purpose in John 1:1. Sounds like my accusation of Justin Martyr using Plato's LOGOS to substantiate the trinity. What lengths you guys will go to in order to prove your doctrine! Resorting to Pagans!

And the reason the WORD was distinct from God and yet WAS GOD, is because one's thoughts are distinct from oneself and yet are in another sense oneself, also. The WORD created all things, not the SON, because GOD SPOKE in Genesis 1. Don't you connect that verse with Genesis 1? God SAID... and all was created.

Your Trinity misses all of this harmonization of scripture!

You said, "Where is there any mention of God the Father and the Son? Though it is referring to them,... "What? You say John is referring to God the Father and the Son? And then in the same paragraph you say that we rejoice in your error in thinking so? Which do you believe? Do you believe John 1:1 is referring to God the Father and God the Son or don't you? Yes or no? Please answer this direct question.

I have to quote another absurdity of yours to truly impact our readers. "The absurd position that the Word was merely a thought or plan in God's mind has no Scriptural support whatsoever. It is dreamed up and 'supported' by weak cross references... "Colin, LOGOS literally means THOUGHT OR PLAN. I quoted the definition above for you! Are you saying LOGOS does not mean what the Lexicon says it means?

I agree that John 1:1 is saying Jesus is God. But note that John did not WRITE the SON was in the beginning! Why? You'd like to ignore that thought, but its right there in black and white for all to see. Always another word besides SON is used in these forceful and direct statements. And don't build a straw man saying that I do not believe the WORD existed at the beginning. The word is eternal. But the SON IS NOT. THE WORD became FLESH. And it was then that the existence of the SON began, because SON literally implies the existence of Father and mother. And there was no Son until the mother birthed Him.

I accuse you once again of fulfilling this verse:

1John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also].

"Son" to you is simply a word God picked out of thin air, not caring what it REALLY means. One trinitarian said that Jesus is not literally a Son but only LIKE a Son IN SOME aspects. He was honest anyway. But you won't admit that. God seems to have another definition for SON than every language on earth has, but assumes we will know that He is meaning something other than what the terms demands by its very use. I cannot buy that.

You ask what I feel Heb 1:3 means when it says that He upholds all things by the word of His power, if WORD is "thought or plan. " Well, here is where you once again did not do your research. WORD in Hebrews 1:3 is RHEMA not LOGOS. I believe I answered your posed questions of summary that you gave me at the end of your response.

Now I have some thoughts for you to consider.

Trinitarianism actually weakens the thought of monotheism. It is the next thing to saying there are more than one God. Jesus Christ came into the world after 1,500 years of Old Testament Monotheism, and after 4,000 years of man's history. This period of Law purged the Israelites of all polytheism, and had them prepared to receive Christ without the danger of the very thing you adhere to -- that is, thinking that the coming of Christ implies more than one eternal "being" or "person". Off and on during Old Testament history, Israel was plagued with polytheism. God continually dealt with it and had it removed from their midst. And for that reason, the Jews of even today are too ingrained in absolute monotheism to accept anything similar to a trinity.

You say we cannot stand upon such a basis of confirmation of Oneness doctrine, but yet God chose to detailingly speak to those unregenerate Hebrews of His Oneness and stressed it over and over again when combating polytheism. Despite your efforts to sweep this beneath the carpet, the only people who believed anything similar to trinity were pagans in those Old Testament times.

God is always called the "Holy One. "He is never called the "Holy Two" or "Holy Three. "He should be called such due to the stress you continue to place upon such an idea. You view God as comprised of "three". We do not. And your sort of language in stressing Three is never found in scripture. Even the New Testament stresses ONE.

Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: Mark 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment.

1 Corinthians 8:4 ... and that [there is] none other God but one.

1Corinthians 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, ...

Galatians 3:20 ... but God is one.

1Timothy 2:5 For [there is] one God...

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

1John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

You have to throw in a disclaimer in all of these verses that is not found anywhere in Scripture, saying that it is indeed One God, but that One God is a composite One, comprised of three eternal holy "ones". So ONE to you is actually THREE ONES. But such a disclaimer is not found anywhere in scripture. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, is that even hinted at in Scripture, let alone explicitly written. I know you claim you believe in One God. But "God" to you means something different than "God" means to me. "God" is synonymous with "three persons" to you. Each person is totally God, and yet you say there are not three gods. But that explanation or anything similar is never found in scripture.

You claim that God is a plurality of persons. But yet God never made that clear ANYWHERE in scripture. He continued to contrast Himself with other supposed deities, by stating that HE IS ONE. What else could God say in the Bible to tell people that he is absolutely one in person that He has not already said in scripture? He used the most forceful language that was in existence at that time to say He is not more than absolutely One in person.

God said things like, "none, none else, none beside me, alone, by myself, one" throughout Isaiah chapters 37 through 46. But nothing is similar to God saying "I am three. "And when oneness people resound those statements in our own writings and conversations about God's person, we are branded heretics! Yet what we believe is repeated word for word in the Bible many many times. And not one instance of anything similar to three persons is found in scripture. And neither Jesus, Himself, nor the apostles, ever gave any explanations about the deity's number of persons besides those statements already found in Old Testament scripture. And all during this major silence on anything about "three persons" in the Bible, you people demand that we believe the disciples and the Lord, Himself, ahd this entire complicated set of thoughts of three persons comprising one God in their minds. And you expect us to accept that?

Jesus Christ is absolutely the only existing, single, Person of the Godhead. He is the one of whom we read created all things by Himself with other deity or "person" beside Him.

The Son of God is the Father indwelling a human body.

John 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?

The Son is not the Father, but the Father in a human body. The Father literally indwelt the Son, which you cannot accept.

John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

The whole key to the Son of God being able to do miracles and wonders was due to the Father being inside Him. This is what verses 8-10 tell us from Jesus' Himself. And then we read this:

John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

Why would we be able to do the things He did, and greater? How did He do them? The Father dwelled inside Him. And so that is how we will do them, too. That is the reason that the Son of God said that He would go to the Father in order for us to do the things He did and greater. What does that mean, "go to the Father"? It means that the Father indwelling Him was His reason for being able to work wonders. And if we were going to work wonders, too, then the Father must also indwell us. So He would go to the Father to see that accomplished.

We then read ... .

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

This is the purpose that the Comforter is given to us, the Holy Ghost. It is the Spirit of God. God is a Spirit.

Then Jesus says that He will not leave us comfortless, but that He would come to us.

John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Now, if He is going to send the Comforter to us, and then said that He will not leave us comfortless, Himself, but would come to us, himself, then that must mean that He is the Comforter. How many comforters do we have inside us? Two? Three? How many persons are in us? Two, three?

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,, whom the Father will send in my name,

Notice that the Father would send the comforter to us in Jesus' name, which is the Holy Ghost. Jesus is saying that the Holy Ghost is His Spirit Form! he is the Comforter.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Now this verse states that the Father, Jesus would make their abode in us. And we already noted that the Holy Ghost would dwell in us, also. So are there three persons who indwell us?

And you have to deny that the Father literally indwelt the Son. Your trinity doctrine would never accept that. However, Jesus compared His ability to work wonders with our ability to do so by saying the Father indwelt Him and He would go to the father for our ability to do His works. Now if the Father in Him was the reason He did those works, then the Father in us would also be the reason we could do wonders. And So Jesus says the Father literally indwelt Him (John 14:10) and the Father would literally indwell us (John 14:23). But its not three persons inside us!

Colin, do you believe that all three persons of the Trinity dwell in each true believer? Please answer me that one. You must, if you incorporate your trinity doctrine into the 14th chapter of John! But John's Gospel make s a mess of the trinity doctrine!

From John's Gospel's very outset we read nothing of the Son in the beginning, but rather the WORD. And the WORD was made flesh and TABERNACLED (literal form of DWELT) among us. The flesh was never God. You believe the flesh literally was God also, because you believe that GOD DIED on the cross, and that GOD WAS BORN. You believe in some sort of "transmutation" where God's Spirit is literally turned into flesh, however the Bible states that God was "MANIFEST IN FLESH. "Big difference! And if you turn to John 1:14 and said the WORD was made flesh, you must continue reading, which you are never apt to do, and discover that an explanation of what that means is given. He DWELT among us. In other words, using the literal rendering, He TABERNACLED among us. And we know that the TABERNACLE is the Body.

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

So God was IN THE temple/tabernacle of the BODY. The WORD WAS GOD. And the WORD DWELT or TABERNACLED among us. God was never turned into the temple during Old Testament times. Neither was he turned into flesh in the temple of flesh in incarnation. He was "enfleshed" -- incarnate. He robed Himself in humanity and flesh. God did not become humanity, but His deity and Godhood was ever separate from the flesh and humanity. Trinity confuses all of this into a veritable mess! You teach and believe that God was MADE FLESH, period. You discount what that means... that God was TABERNACLING in flesh. And yet you do not believe the Son of God was literally INDWELT by the Father. But the Father was as much in Him as He is in true believers, according to John 14.

The Roman Catholic teaching of trinity is ingrained into your thinking, and causes you to comply with their absurdity that Mary is the "mother of God. "At least they go so far as to pray and worship her, which is the only honest thing to do for God's mother!