Brother Chad

This would be a form of polytheism! I thought there was only one throne in heaven and One who sits upon it? also, John chapter 5 is simply incomprehensible from a "oneness" stance. Look at these passages. If this is God the Son saying this of God the Father, then doesn't that make God the Son inferior to God the Father or at least subordinate? If they are co-equal they should be able to do there own thing since they are one and the same. Of course the Father loves the Son, He is the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. John 5:22 (Whole Chapter) For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: John 5:23 (Whole Chapter) That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. John 5:26 (Whole Chapter) For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; John 5:30 (Whole Chapter) I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. John 5:36 (Whole Chapter) But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. John 5:37 (Whole Chapter) And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. John 5:45 (Whole Chapter) Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. John 6:27 (Whole Chapter) Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. John 6:37 (Whole Chapter) All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. John 6:44 (Whole Chapter) No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:45 (Whole Chapter) It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. John 6:46 (Whole Chapter) Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. John 6:57 (Whole Chapter) As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. John 8:16 (Whole Chapter) And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. John 8:18 (Whole Chapter) I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. John 8:27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. John 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. Pardon the "whole chapter" thing, This is cut and past. Anyway, if Jesus is not a seperate person from teh Father, then how can these statements be true? Oneness people must somehow explain away all of these passages where Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and the Father.

The Jews also don't believe Jesus is their Messiah. They might have missed some things. In fact that is the reason they rejected Jesus was His claims to be on an equal par with the Father: Their misunderstanding of the Shema and its implications forced them to reject the idea that Jesus could be God The Jews wanted to kill Jesus because He claimed to be God not another person of God. They didn't understand that God manifested Himself in flesh. Not that there were three persons in God. There is plurality in the Godhead but it is one of roles or functions that the one God uses and not three persons. If three persons then tritheism. And if only one, then modalism. So who was running the universes when God came down to be a man? God is omnipresent! He can be everywhere always. Right? Besides as you would have it God the Son was doing His work on the ground (earth), while the Father was doing His work in the heavens. Is this what you teach? Otherwise, I could ask you the same question, who was running the universe when God the Son was here? Okay, so then who did Jesus (The one God in the flesh) sit down next to when He ascended to the throne? Also, "Omnipresent" is not in the Scriptures. I don't know who did He sit down next to when He ascended to the throne?

The Jews also don't believe Jesus is their Messiah. They might have missed some things. In fact that is the reason they rejected Jesus was His claims to be on an equal par with the Father: Their misunderstanding of the Shema and its implications forced them to reject the idea that Jesus could be God The Jews wanted to kill Jesus because He claimed to be God not another person of God. They didn't understand that God manifested Himself in flesh. Not that there were three persons in God. There is plurality in the Godhead but it is one of roles or functions that the one God uses and not three persons. If three persons then tritheism. And if only one, then modalism. So who was running the universes when God came down to be a man? God is omnipresent! He can be everywhere always. Right? Besides as you would have it God the Son was doing His work on the ground (earth), while the Father was doing His work in the heavens. Is this what you teach? Otherwise, I could ask you the same question, who was running the universe when God the Son was here?

The Jews also don't believe Jesus is their Messiah. They might have missed some things. In fact that is the reason they rejected Jesus was His claims to be on an equal par with the Father: Their misunderstanding of the Shema and its implications forced them to reject the idea that Jesus could be God Who wrote this verse of scripture? They didn't understand what they were writing? Moses wrote it. He also wrote the passages in Genesis that described the plurality of the God-head active in creation. So I think Moses did understand. It is those that came after him that perverted the meaning. Yes namely the Trinitarians after Jesus death and resurrection. There is no plurality in creation. I know you speak of Genesis 1:26 and in verse 27 what does "Moses" write: So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Still more unity in plurality: So God created man (plural) in His own image (singular)... So how does this make a case for a tri-une God?

The Jews also don't believe Jesus is their Messiah. They might have missed some things. In fact that is the reason they rejected Jesus was His claims to be on an equal par with the Father: Their misunderstanding of the Shema and its implications forced them to reject the idea that Jesus could be God Who wrote this verse of scripture? They didn't understand what they were writing? Moses wrote it. He also wrote the passages in Genesis that described the plurality of the God-head active in creation. So I think Moses did understand. It is those that came after him that perverted the meaning. Yes namely the Trinitarians after Jesus death and resurrection. There is no plurality in creation. I know you speak of Genesis 1:26 and in verse 27 what does "Moses" write: So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Deuteronomy 6:4 (original meaning of course) I Timothy 3:16 Ephesians 1:6-7 I John 2:1 John 3:16 Acts 2:38 There is obviously more but that would be a good start for any new believer.

The Jews also don't believe Jesus is their Messiah. They might have missed some things. In fact that is the reason they rejected Jesus was His claims to be on an equal par with the Father: Their misunderstanding of the Shema and its implications forced them to reject the idea that Jesus could be God The Jews wanted to kill Jesus because He claimed to be God not another person of God. They didn't understand that God manifested Himself in flesh. Not that there were three persons in God. There is plurality in the Godhead but it is one of roles or functions that the one God uses and not three persons. If three persons then tritheism.

Well, likewise, isn't saying that God is not something placing limitations on Him? God never states anywhere in the Bible that, "I am not three." Saying, "I am one," is not saying, "I am not three." That's arguing from a negative, which can't be done. You see, you are addressing only one aspect of the Trinity - that He is one, and ignoring the other aspect - that He is also three-one. Ask yourself why there is unity in plurality/plurality in unity in the Bible, and then try to argue from that negative standpoint. It can't be done, because these are two sides of the same truth. There are four gospels, are there not? Why would God inspire the writing of four gospels instead of just one? Obviously God could have inspired only one writer to write one complete gospel; yet He chose four. There are at least four aspects of the Christ as the Savior: In Matthew He is the King Savior - the one anointed by God, selected from the line of David, to establish His heavenly Kingdom on the earth. In Mark He is the Slave Savior, the One who willingly laid aside His divinity to serve man, to obediently go to the cross to accomplish redemption for us. In Luke He is the Man Savior. He is the One who came in the image of corruptible man, yet without sin, and as part of the old creation died for all of those who bear the image of the corruptible. Finally, in John Jesus is the God-Savior. He is the Word of God, who was from the beginning God, through Whom all things were created and all things came into being. He is the incarnation of the eternal God - God in the flesh. These four aspects of the Christ are revealed to us in the four gospels; yet the Christ, Jesus, is one Person. There are so many other examples of unity in plurality/plurality in unity in the Bible: From the heavenly manna, to the ark of the covenant, to the tabernacle, to the temple, and all the way to the New Jerusalem in the book of Revelation. In each and every one of these things there is unity and there is plurality. Therefore, we can only conclude that, from the evidences of Scripture, these things point directly to the nature of God - who He is, and how He is. To ignore the evidence of one is forsaking the evidence of the other, and you are not completely in the truth. Actually evidence from Scripture indicates that the soul and the spirit are separate, although they are both closely associated with another. Were it so that the soul and the spirit are one, then there wouldn't have been verses written like, "For the word of God is living and operative and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit and of joints and marrow, and able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Heb. 4:12), and, "And the God of Peace Himself sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame, at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thess. 5:23) (Bolds added for emphasis on each verse). So, actually, "soul" and "spirit" are not interchangable terms. The Scriptures show in many places that the human soul and the human spirit are separate parts of our being, with different functions. In your answer you used Ecclesiastes 12:7, which is probably one of the most misused verses; it says, "And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it." Notice that is says, "...and the spirit returns to God..." It does not say, "..and the soul returns to God, or, "...and the soul/spirit returns to God." The Hebrew word used is "Ruwach" which corresponds (is the same as) the Greek word used in the new Testament (pneuma). But *sigh* I wrote earlier that I didn't want to get into the semantic of this (If you want to learn more about what I just wrote, try reading through THIS website). You still agree with me that you are a plural being! And if you are a plural being then that must say something about the One who created you! You never did answer my earlier question about whether I should call you "He," "she," or, "it," by the way. You can just call me they since I am obviously in your eyes three in one!

The Jews also don't believe Jesus is their Messiah. They might have missed some things. In fact that is the reason they rejected Jesus was His claims to be on an equal par with the Father: Their misunderstanding of the Shema and its implications forced them to reject the idea that Jesus could be God Who wrote this verse of scripture? They didn't understand what they were writing?

Do you even realize that the Jews believe the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) is one of their most sacred verses and they don't believe that there are three persons in one God?

I guess if that is what you want to say! Well, where in there do you see it denying that a plurality exists, and how do you explain Jesus command for us to be one and yet retain our individual personalities? Because to a people that were worshipping polytheistically at the time, He wanted them to know that HE was the only God they were to worship. Thus He is one. God had every opportunity to tell His people right then and there that there were two other persons with Him, but He doesn't because of what I have shown in the past. Mainly that Jesus is God manifest in flesh and God is both Holy and a Spirit and thus is the Holy Spirit. Different roles of God, not persons.

I see your version of the Bible giving "none beside me" a new meaning by saying "no one besides Me." Still Me is very much a singular pronoun and not "Us". If Jesus and the Holy Spirit are with God the Father then why doesn't He just say us?

I guess if that is what you want to say!

How about Isaiah 45:6?

Deuteronomy 6:4 is a good one! Jesus even reiterated it in Mark 12:29-30 "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:"

Yes! Okay, good. So then, if I said that the beauty and perfection of creation reveals a God that is holy, beautiful, and perfect, you would not agree with me? Assuming that your answer is yes, do you deny that there is unity in plurality/ plurality in unity in nature? If there is, then shouldn't that aspect of creation also reveal the same about the God that created it all? If we humans were created with a body, a soul, and a spirit, which are all separate parts of our being (And yet are also all one within ourselves), and we were created in the image (mirror reflection) and likeness (inner aspects) of God, then how can it be that God is not also a plural being as well? He isn't a plural being because He says that He is not. He says that He is one. That there are no others besides Him. You are talking about God who is everything and trying to say that He is broken down into three persons. That is putting limits on an all-powerful God isn't it? I would beg to differ with you that body, soul, and spirit are three in one because you can separate the soul and spirit at death. The body is not living yet the soul is still alive. Now you have one as being one since I see the soul and spirit as together. They each play a role for us as human beings. Yet when the one dies the other still lives apart from it. That is why when Jesus comes back to complete His work on earth, there will be no more need for the Sonship and God will be all in all once again. Your approach is a good one but not one that makes a trinity of God any more prevalent.

Yes!

No I believe that I have a body, a soul and a spirit. I would combine soul and spirit to mean the same thing.

Let

No one in the Old or New Testament specifically mentions the Trinity or a triune God. If being a Trinitarian is so crucial to salvation then why didn

No I don't believe that it is. So I guess I need to show how God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient...... to prove my point?

The problem with this question is that many of the words you used to describe God (omniscient, omnipresent etc) are not in the Bible either. But you are not suggesting they are not valid because they are not there. They are words developed by Theologians to describe attributes of God in a more succinct way. This is really not an argument I think that your response shows that it is a good argument and you can't refute it. Otherwise please feel free to show me where I have shown the scriptures not to show these truths?

Please explain to me how "my theology" is creating anything? The text follows what I have said. Please explain where I have strayed?