The Instigator
testimonyofprophecy
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
blaster
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Oneness Pentecostalism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,005 times Debate No: 5962
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

testimonyofprophecy

Pro

The Bible teaches that God the Father is an immutable Spirit that dwells in heaven, the Son of God is this same God in a lesser, human form, and the Holy Spirit is the "wind" or "breath" of this self same God. There are no divine personalities within God. God is personally one, although He is a person far beyond the human definition of the word, because He is timeless. Jesus is the one person God of Israel manifested through human flesh.
Since God is Spirit, he can dwell many places at the same time. He dwelt in heaven in an omnipotent, omniscient, and timeless state of being--while at the same time--he dwelt in the man Christ Jesus on this earth, within time. As God is billions upon billions of times greater than man, the distinction between God as an omnipotent Spirit and God in the Son of Man or Son of God is the same. Inside of the man Christ Jesus, God perceived everything from within a human mind. The incarnation caused the eternal God to exist in two different consciousnesses. He continued to exist in an omniscient consciousness in heaven, while he also existed within a human consciousness on earth. There are not two or three conscious persons in God, but rather the one personal God exists in two consciousnesses--human and divine.
After the resurrection, the Son of Man's physical body was changed. He then ascended outside of this universe into the one timeless "age" of the Almighty God called the "Olam Habba" in Judaism and the "Aperion" among the Greeks. God and heaven were known to be the immutable beginning and ending of time and space. It is in this timeless, eternally pre-existent place that the Son of Man--God existing the lesser form of a man--is our High Priest.
Therefore, God and Christ are two distinct beings, but not two distinct persons. The Son of David ascended into the immutably pre-existent God, who is Spirit. This real distinction was reinterpreted by the second century Church Fathers as bitarianism, which later led to the formation of the trinity.
There are three forms of Oneness:
(1) Orthodox. This is what I believe. There is a real distinction between the Father and Son brought about by the incarnation.
(2) Neotisorianism. This is what most Oneness Pentecostals believe today. This divides Christ's two natures into almost two persons, where "sometimes he speaks as a man, and sometimes as God." I reject this view.
(3) Sabellianism. This view purports that God changed from the Father to the Son, and from the Son to the Holy Spirit. I reject this view, and it is defunct.
blaster

Con

Let me first thank my opponent for this debate. I am particularly fond of this topic. I hope to have an interesting debate.

I would like to clear up a few things before we begin.

I will be the negative or CON in this debate so I have the task of arguing that the Doctrine of Oneness is in fact fallible. The title of this debate is oneness Pentecostalism; I am assuming that we are not debating the many different forms of Pentecostalism, but the doctrine of oneness which makes this belief distinct from other Pentecostal denominations. Please specify if otherwise.

1. I am assuming the King James Bible will be the only Bible we will count as a reliable source for this debate. And the ONLY reliable source for this debate.

2. For this debate we agree that God does exist and is fact for this debate.

3. From the resolution in this round we gather that the Father and Son is one and the same person. And through the mind of the human Christ, Father God (Spirit) reveals his will to man. All things known by Christ are known by the Father (Spirit) and vice versus. And from the three different doctrines we have also learned that Pro adheres to the first doctrine of oneness, Orthodox. And being that Pro believes Orthodox and not Neotisoriansin or Sabellianism the beliefs associated with these two doctrines are not fact in this debate. Please specify that Christ either has a separate conscience from God or that the two consciousness are different but with all knowledge of Heaven and of God. This seems contradictory when you read the statement below.

Inside of the man Christ Jesus, God perceived everything from within a human mind. The incarnation caused the eternal God to exist in two different consciousnesses. He continued to exist in an omniscient consciousness in heaven, while he also existed within a human consciousness on earth. There are not two or three conscious persons in God, but rather the one personal God exists in two consciousnesses--human and divine.

(1) Orthodox. This is what I believe. There is a real distinction between the Father and Son brought about by the incarnation about by the incarnation.

(2) Neotisorianism. This is what most Oneness Pentecostals believe today. This divides Christ's two natures into almost two persons, where "sometimes he speaks as a man, and sometimes as God." I reject this view.

(3) Sabellianism. This view purports that God changed from the Father to the Son and from the Son to the Holy Spirit. I reject this view, and it is defunct.

I have focused on the above statements because they seem to be the hinge pin of this debate. All other arguments rest on the personage of God. Arguments like this;

Therefore, God and Christ are two distinct beings, but not two distinct persons,

This argument relies on what the personage of God actually is. The Doctrine of Oneness states that God is one person in multiple forms or beings, but all are still one God working in one or two consciousnesses'. Unlike the Doctrine of the Trinity that states God is three consciousnesses working in three persons together in one will or purpose

I would like the Pro to confirm these as fact for his side of this debate. After my opponent affirms these statements and gives further argument I will begin to argue my side of the debate.

I hope to see your arguments soon.
Debate Round No. 1
testimonyofprophecy

Pro

My response to the assumed positions:

"1. I am assuming the King James Bible will be the only Bible we will count as a reliable source for this debate. And the ONLY reliable source for this debate."

My position is that only the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic is completely valid. All translations have errors. I will use the KJV as my main translation and basis of argument, but other translations must be used in order to confirm through a third party the literal translation of the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic.

"2. For this debate we agree that God does exist and is fact for this debate."

Yes

"3. From the resolution in this round we gather that the Father and Son is one and the same person. And through the mind of the human Christ, Father God (Spirit) reveals his will to man."

Yes

"All things known by Christ are known by the Father (Spirit) and vice versus."

No. The human mind of the man Christ Jesus has human limitations and cannot know the omniscience of the eternal Spirit of God. While experiencing an existence from within a human mind, the Spirit of God exterior to the man Christ Jesus taught Him as God teaches all men.

"And from the three different doctrines we have also learned that Pro adheres to the first doctrine of oneness, Orthodox. And being that Pro believes Orthodox and not Neotisoriansin or Sabellianism the beliefs associated with these two doctrines are not fact in this debate. Please specify that Christ either has a separate conscience from God or that the two consciousness are different but with all knowledge of Heaven and of God. This seems contradictory when you read the statement below."

The one person God simultaneously existed in two consciousnesses—human and Divine. The one person of God is the source of both; the Divine consciousness is omniscient, immutable, timeless and cannot change; the human consciousness is based upon a human language that the man Christ Jesus learned from a child and stored chemically inside of his human brain, as any man. Inside of this human mind, the eternal God live a genuine human life, with a separate, human will.

I have these questions for you:

(1) Do you consider yourself trinitarian or arian?
(2) Was the Son call "Son" in heaven?
(3) Did God take upon Himself human limitations in Christ? Or did Michael the Archangel if you are arian?
(4) What did the Hebrews use the term "Word" or "Memra" for in the Targums?
(5) Did ancient Jews and Greeks believe that heaven was the timeless beginning and ending of all things?
blaster

Con

I am very sorry that is has taken me so long to get back here. Work has been crazy.

My position is that only the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic is completely valid. All translations have errors. I will use the KJV as my main translation and basis of argument, but other translations must be used in order to confirm through a third party the literal translation of the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic.

Please settle on at least on definition source for Greek and Hebrew words in the KJV. Aramaic is very difficult to do on a online debate. Do you know of a good online source for Aramaic? One source is usually good because thousands of different definitions from unknown source that can not be verified easily are hard to substantiate.

"All things known by Christ are known by the Father (Spirit) and vice versus."

No. The human mind of the man Christ Jesus has human limitations and cannot know the omniscience of the eternal Spirit of God. While experiencing an existence from within a human mind, the Spirit of God exterior to the man Christ Jesus taught Him as God teaches all men.

"And from the three different doctrines we have also learned that Pro adheres to the first doctrine of oneness, Orthodox. And being that Pro believes Orthodox and not Neotisoriansin or Sabellianism the beliefs associated with these two doctrines are not fact in this debate. Please specify that Christ either has a separate conscience from God or that the two consciousness are different but with all knowledge of Heaven and of God. This seems contradictory when you read the statement below."

The one person God simultaneously existed in two consciousnesses—human and Divine. The one person of God is the source of both; the Divine consciousness is omniscient, immutable, timeless and cannot change; the human consciousness is based upon a human language that the man Christ Jesus learned from a child and stored chemically inside of his human brain, as any man. Inside of this human mind, the eternal God live a genuine human life, WITH A SEPARATE,HUMAN WILL

So it is basically Neotisoriansin under different pretenses. What you have explained separates Jesus into two persons. If He has a Human will AND a Divine will then there are TWO wills. And a will defines a person. So basically there is still a separation as in the Trinity but oneness separates Christ instead of the Godhead, ignoring the rest of Scriptures. This also effects the purpose and meaning of the Blood of Jesus. Also, do you worship a MAN?

I have these questions for you:

(1) Do you consider yourself trinitarian or arian?

Trinitarian.

(2) Was the Son call "Son" in heaven?

I do not know. He was never called Son in Heaven in the Scriptures, but Scriptures do not tell of ever second in Heaven. Actually Scriptures give us brief glimpses into Heaven. And surely more goes on in Heaven then what is written in Scriptures. The Father called Jesus Son once. Do you contend that Jesus is no longer God's Son? Or are you contending that Jesus was never God's Son in the first place?

(3) Did God take upon Himself human limitations in Christ? Or did Michael the Archangel if you are arian?

Yes and no. Jesus was made a little lower then the Angels. The degree of separation between humans and Angels is hard to determine. And how do you measure "a little"? Also, if Jesus was made a little lower then the Angels he must have been greater then the Angels at one point in time. If Jesus is human with two wills at what point in time was He ever greater then the Angels before His Passion? And then after His death and ascension He was again made greater then the Angels because of His sacrifice to the Father for our sins, being that only His blood would do. I am not Arian so I do not understand the Michael question.

Hebrews 2:7.
Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

The above verse is a prophecy from Old Testament.

Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

The fulfillment of the said prophecy.

(4) What did the Hebrews use the term "Word" or "Memra" for in the Targums?

There were many uses for the word ‘Word" in Hebrew. I am very sorry, I have minutes left to debate in this round. Please explain in the next round. I do not know off the top of my head. In John it meant Jesus.

(5) Did ancient Jews and Greeks believe that heaven was the timeless beginning and ending of all things?

I did not know that. Please fill me in on it in the next round. Again, please accept my apology for this being so short and so uninformed. I spent my free time this weekend trying to get an internet connection and we pulled a 13 hour shift today at work.

Here are a few verses that refute oneness.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

In this verse God in Hebrew means; elohiym. God, plural.

Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Did Angels make or help God create man?

Genesis 19:24
Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Lord standing on the earth. Raining down brimstone FROM the LORD out of Heaven. Beginning of Trinity doctrine.

Acts 2:27
Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Spoken my King David about the Christ.

1 John 5:7
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The basic formula of the Trinity. There are THREE. And these Three are one.

One you ask? They are one so that means they are numerically one right? Not necessary. Please look at these verses and tell me if the word one is numerically ONE.

1 Corinthians 3:6-8
6I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

7So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

8Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

This clearly says that Paul and Apollos are "ONE". So are they the same person as in numerically? NO. They are one in action and desires for one mission. In Greek the same word is used in both verses.

I look forward to the next round. I eagerly await your responses on the above verses and the SEPARATE wills of Jesus.
Debate Round No. 2
testimonyofprophecy

Pro

"So it is basically Neotisoriansin under different pretenses. What you have explained separates Jesus into two persons. If He has a Human will AND a Divine will then there are TWO wills…do you worship a MAN?"

This is not Neotisorianism, which you attempt to force upon me. I do not believe that there was a "God mind" present within the physical body of the Son of Man which existed side by side with a "human mind" also present within Christ physical body. This does separate Jesus into two "personalities." My position is that God's Divine consciousness in heaven simultaneously existed in heaven while God in the Son of Man on the earth existed within a human consciousness. I worship God in a man.

"(2) Was the Son called "Son" in heaven?"

I contend that the term "Son" must be defined as God incarnate in human flesh, born of a woman, not "God the Son" (i.e. the name of a second personal deity or person who shares God's Deity apart from the incarnation) based upon this passage in Luke:

KJV Luke 1:35 …that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Since this angel came from God's throne in heaven, He either lied—if the "Son" was known as the "Son" before the incarnation—or the term "Son" means "Son of David" or "Son of Man." Clearly, the "Son of God" is called "a holy thing" which refers to the baby laying in the manger.

"(3) Did God take upon Himself human limitations in Christ?"

"if Jesus was made a little lower then the Angels he must have been greater then the Angels at one point in time."

Of course, whether you are Oneness or Trinitarian, you believe that the eternal God—who is Spirit—descended into human flesh and was "made a little lower than the angels" in the incarnation. This does not prove a second divine person.

"If Jesus is human with two wills at what point in time was He ever greater then the Angels before His Passion?"

Jesus did not have two wills. This is Neotistorianism. He was God existing within a human will, with the eternal God as the source of His "person.'

"And then after His death and ascension He was again made greater then the Angels because of His sacrifice to the Father for our sins, being that only His blood would do. I am not Arian so I do not understand the Michael question."

I was asking the question both ways, because I did not know your position. In scripture, Jesus was raised in a body as the saints of God. Our bodies will become as His body. Yet, the Bible teaches that our bodies will become as the angels of heaven. Therefore, His body was raised into a "new creation"—a being greater then the angels of heaven, but similar.

"(4) What did the Hebrews use the term "Word" or "Memra" for in the Targums?

There were many uses for the word ‘Word" in Hebrew. I am very sorry, I have minutes left to debate in this round. Please explain in the next round. I do not know off the top of my head. In John it meant Jesus."

John used a term that was previously defined by the Targums, and the Hellenist Jew Philo only about 20-40 years previously. The term "Word" or Memra was used in the place of the Angel of the LORD, God manifestation of Himself in the Old Testament. Jesus is God manifested in the flesh. Therefore, we read that the "Word became flesh" in John. Jesus is the "Word" not because "Word" is an "unknown divine name," but because Jesus is the "image of the invisible God." And, it is the Son of Man who is God's image, not Christ's Deity apart from the incarnation.

"(5) Did ancient Jews and Greeks believe that heaven was the timeless beginning and ending of all things?"

Jews, Greeks and Persians believed in the doctrine of "two aeons." They believed that time only exists in the "aeon" of this present universe, and outside of this universe, only the "timeless age" of God exists. This "timeless age" was known to be the immutable, unchanging, beginning and ending of all things. It is the Spirit of God Himself, who never changes and said "I am the beginning and the ending." This is because the universe will expand and contract (according to Scripture), which lead credence to the scientific theory of "Singularity"—the beginning and ending of all things. Since God exists outside of this universe, He dwells beyond "singularity." Jesus ascended into God's presence in heaven, not a separate person, but God immutable Spiritual essence that is separate from the physical being of the Son of Man, even though the same person exists in two forms.

"Genesis 1:1 elohiym. God, plural."

In Zechariah 1:1-10 Jesus, who returns to the Mount of Olives is called "Elohim." Is He more than one person?

"Genesis 1:26
Did Angels make or help God create man?"

No. God's image-His Word-formed man from the dust of the earth. According to Philo and passages from the DSS, ancient Jews interpreted the plural "us" as God and His image, the Angel of the LORD. Philo made it clear that this was not a separate personal entity, but the same God in a lesser state of being, who "bridged the gap" between the infinite God and the finite universe.

"Genesis 19:24"

No trinity doctrine, but the same distinction made between God and His image. The Targums read that the "Word of the LORD' rained fire and brimstone "from the LORD out of heaven." According to Judaism, God's spiritual essence, and the source of His power in heaven was called His "right hand" as the source of God's authority was called His "throne." The Angel of the LORD was the one standing of the earth. He was/is the one God of Israel manifesting Himself in a lesser form. For this reason, He is called "Word." Yet, all of the power that this visible image of God used on the earth originated from the essence of the omnipotent God in heaven. The Jews never believed that a separate "person" from God was on the earth, but as Philo and the Targums prove, it was God's image, God manifesting Himself in a lesser form.

"Acts 2:27 Spoken by King David about the Christ.'"

The "Holy One" was a Messianic term (but also applied to God in some instances); so the distinction was made between the Son of David, Man, or God (God incarnate in human flesh) and the one God who is an omniscient, omnipotent Spirit. This distinction is obvious, if you think about the incarnation, and do not merely read the words "Father" and "Son" as though they are two equal characters in a play. One is God in an omnipotent state of being, the other is God in the lesser form of a man.

"1 John 5:7
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The basic formula of the Trinity. There are THREE. And these Three are one."

This passage does not have the support of any Greek manuscript before the 12th century (I believe that this is correct.) It is not found in any newer version. It is an interpolation.

"Paul and Apollos are "ONE."

I do not say that everywhere the word "one" is used in the Greek, it means "numerically one" but can mean "unity" or "united." In the Greek, whether the word "one" is in neuter or masculine gender determines whether "one" means numerically one or "united." This is the case in John 10:30, where Jesus said "I and my Father are one." "One" here is neuter gender, which means "united." However, a comparison of this passages with John 17 proves that Jesus was speaking as a man referring to the oneness with God He would attain in the ascension, because He also said that we would also be "one" with God. Here "one" is in the neuter gender. However, there is a passage where "one" is in the masculine:

Mark 12:28-29 Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one [masculine, numerically one] Lord:"

Jesus interpreted the plural "Echud" in Deuteronomy as the numerically singular "one" by the use of the masculine heis instead of the neuter hen.
blaster

Con

I must apologize yet again, for my slow response in this debate. . I hope you can accept my apology.I also never meant to force anything upon you. I apologize for coming across that way; I will not give myself a point for conduct in this debate.

Targums, Hellenist Jew Philo.

Could you please post some time of source for these references? With out some creditable source these references and all arguments made using them can not be counted as fact. Neither the reader nor I know that these sources exist or whether or not they are considered factual.

I believe I understand your point of argument now. God existed to two beings, human and Divine. But He was never fully human. A consciousness of God inhabited Christ but God Himself never fully was man. How does this verse line up with your theory?

Philippians 2 (King James Version)

5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Jesus chose for Himself not to be equal with God. To become a servant. And Jesus did this. This reflects an act of will. Jesus ‘CHOSE" to become this. Did the alter consciousness of God chose to do this? Or did the Image of God decide? If so the Image of God and God the Spirit (as you call Him, I call Him Father) are separate with two wills. Jesus chose this destiny, the Father requested this and Jesus chose? So what did this alter consciousness of God give up then? Form your statements in this debate you stated that the being of Jesus was made already in a lesser being. What did this lesser being give up then? To give up equality of something you must first have this equality. If the "Word" from John is the Image of God then it was never separate from God just a the image of God, not able to give up anything because of a lack of will. Or did this ‘WORD" have a will?

And look closely at verse eight. So did the alter consciousness of God become obedient to death? Who ruled death at the time of Jesus' death? Satan. Jesus obtained our pardon from death, and our obedience to death. So a consciousness of God becomes obedient to death?

Here is a scene out of Heaven showing a clear distinction between the Father and the Son.
Revelation 4 (King James Version)

1And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.

2And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?

3And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.

4And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.

5And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

6And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

7And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

8And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

9And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

This shows a very clear distinction between the one that sits upon the throne and the Lamb. The Lamb in irrefutably Jesus Christ. One of God's alter consciousness's took the book from His other alter consciousness's? This paints God and the mission of His Son Jesus Christ as a huge play or act. Is this the God you serve?

And looking close at the last verse of this passage we see again the Blood of Jesus Christ. Did the Blood of a man save you or the Blood of God made man? If Jesus is nothing more then a human with a human conscious then what is the importance of His Blood?

Does the Holy Spirit dwell in us also?

1 Corinthians 3:15-17 (King James Version)

16Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

17If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

So did does the blood of Peter, James and Paul also save us?

The Bible teaches that God the Father is an immutable Spirit that dwells in heaven, the Son of God is this same God in a lesser, human form, and the Holy Spirit is the "wind" or "breath" of this self same God.

Spirit when referring to God the Father and the Holy Spirit is the same word. "Spirit" in Greek mean wind or breath any time in is used in the New Testament. But the Scriptures clearly show a distinction between the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly
Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

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

John 14:26
26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

If they are the same "person" then how can the Father send Himself in the name of Jesus, again in the name of Himself? In this verse agian you see the three persons of the Godhead working together in one mission. Sending by one another in the name of another. Or God send Himself in His own name?

You also stated this.

However, a comparison of this passages with John 17 proves that Jesus was speaking as a man referring to the oneness with God He would attain in the ascension, because He also said that we would also be "one" with God.

John 17 proves that Jesus was SPEAKING as a MAN.

Neotisorianism. This is what most Oneness Pentecostals believe today. This divides Christ's two natures into almost two persons, where "sometimes he speaks as a man, and sometimes as God." I reject this view.

Was that statement you made true or false? The above fallacy (stated by you) uses the exact same words that you used. So are you agreeing that Neotisorianism is true or what your statements are false?

Inside of this human mind, the eternal God live a genuine human life, with a separate, human will.

So God does have separate wills? Let me quote you.

"With a separate, human will".

Jesus is God right?

You stated
Jesus did not have two wills. This is Neotistorianism. He was God existing within a human will, with the eternal God as the source of His "person"?

Source of His person? Jesus had a person? I am assuming this "person" had a will because the definition of a person having conscious is to be aware of ones self and to have a will. Two consciousnesses are two conscious beings, with thought and a will. But for the "Word" or an image of God to choose to become less then equal then God this "Word" would require a conscious which is to have a will.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I look forward to your arguments in the next round.
Debate Round No. 3
testimonyofprophecy

Pro

(1) Sources for the interpretation of "Angel of the LORD" as "the Word of God"
The "Angel of the LORD" appeared to Hagar, and was identified as YHWH God. The Jerusalem Targum reads:

"She prayed in the name of the Word of YHWH that had spoken to her: the God who sees me..." (Jerusalem Targum, Genesis 16:3)

This is one of several dozen examples where the Angelic appearance of God in the Old Testament is called "the Word" in the Targums. Philo echoed this interpretation:

"But Hagar fled out of shame. And a proof of this is that the angel—that is the word of God—met her with the intention to tell her what she should do, and to guide her in her return to her mistress's house." (Philo On Flight and Finding From: The Works of Philo Judaeus: The contemporary of Josephus. Translated By Charles Duke Yonge 1854-1890 Public Domain.)

Philo also wrote:

"we must understand this, that he on that occasion took the place of an angel, as far as appearance went, without changing his own real nature, for the advantage of him who was not, as yet, able to bear the sight of the true God; for as those who are not able to look upon the sun itself, look upon the reflected rays of the sun as the sun itself, and upon the halo around the moon as if it were the moon itself; so also do those who are unable to bear the sight of God, look upon His Image, His Angel-Word as Himself." (61:238-23916)

"I believe I understand your point of argument now. God existed to two beings, human and Divine. But He was never fully human."

I never said that Jesus "never was fully human." Where do you get that from my words. He was God who became fully human, inhabiting or using a human brain as any man to experience a conscious human life.

"A consciousness of God inhabited Christ but God Himself never fully was man."

I never said this either. And, it appears that you interpret my words to mean that before the incarnation, God projected Himself into a separate angelic being permanently and existed in a separate consciousness, which entered Christ. This is a hyper interpretation of my words. I never said, neither do I believe this. However, the tradition of Philo and the Targums that the image of God formed man from the dust of the earth must be correct, because God is Spirit and He dwells outside of this universe. In order for God to appear on the earth, He must have appeared in His image inside of creation to form man from the dust of the earth. Philo also wrote:

"Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made" (41:81)

God did not exist in two consciousnesses until He became a man. The Angel of the LORD that existed in the Old Testament was either a Theophany (a temporary manifestation of God) or the immutable God used the glorified Christ to represent His glory on the earth throughout all times. If Einstein's theory of time is correct, God could accomplish this feat. Yet, whether this occurred or not, the Apostle Paul believed that the ascension of Christ took Him to the "immutable beginning and ending"—the presence of God Himself.
I asked you previously whether ancient Jews and Greeks believed that God and heaven always exist before and after all things. Kittle's Theological Dictionary proves that this is the case:

"As the Creator and Consummator God is the eternal One. His eternal being stretches beyond the time of the world. He is from eternity to eternity ...Before the world was created, He was (ψ 89:2); and when heaven and earth have vanished, He will be ...Thus the unending eternity of God and the time of the world, which is limited by its creation and conclusion, are contrasted with one another. Eternity is thought of as unending time—for how else can human thought picture it?—and the eternal being of God is represented as pre-existence and post-existence9." (Kittle's Volume 1:201-202)

God always exists as the beginning and ending. For this reason, the Apostle Paul wrote that Jesus "IS" before all things IN THE PRESENT TENSE:

Colossians 1:17 17 And he is [present tense] before all things, and by [in, with dative means at, near or among] him all things consist.

Paul wrote that Jesus IS before all things. In the Greek, this is in the present indicative case. When a word is in the present indicative case in the Greek, it means that the one writing or making the statement is describing something that is occurring at the time the statement is being made. This means that Paul believed that the resurrected Son of Man dwelt "before all things" as he wrote these words.
The only way that this is possible is if he believed as all Jews of his day believed. This is that heaven always exists before all things—and Jesus (God incarnate in human flesh) ascended into heaven! Therefore, He is the image of God that was present with God in the beginning, in Genesis 1:26 and John 1:1—which used the term "Word"—which means "image"!
For this reason, we read that before the incarnation, Jesus was in God's "form" (the verse in Philippians you quoted:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

This describes "Christ Jesus" as the one who was "being in the form of God." In the Greek, this phrase is in the present tense, which means "subsisting." This means that Christ continues to exist in the "form of God." Some Greek dictionaries try to interpret the word "Form" to mean "inner essence." Kittle's and Thayer's disagree with them. They say for means "what strikes the vision." The Septuagint proves that this is correct, the word morphe is used for idols, which have no "inner essence." Therefore, "form" means "image." And, because the Son of Man ascended into heaven, and was raised up in a body similar to the angels of God, he is the "image" with God in the beginning!
We also read that this "image" "thought it not robbery to be equal with God." In the Greek, this means that "equality with God was not something to be" "stolen" or "grasped." This means that God's image or form could not grasp equality with God. Of course, God existing as a glorified man was in a state of being billions of times lesser than the omnipotent, omniscient Spirit of God.
In the words that follow, Paul identifies Christ with the angel of the LORD when He wrote:

7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

In this verse, the word "made" means "to copy." This is different than the incarnation, which Paul describes in the verse that follows. Since Paul wrote that the Rock that followed Israel was Christ, he identified the Messiah, the Son of Man with the angel of the LORD. This is consistent with numerous Jewish texts that teach this concept. It was obviously a tradition that the apostle embraced.

"Jesus ‘CHOSE" to become this. Did the alter consciousness of God chose to do this? Or did the Image of God decide?"

Again, I do not believe that God projected Himself into a different angelic consciousness before the incarnation, but that God really became a man, and therefore existed in a separate human consciousness in the Son of Man, who was transformed into a new creation, and ascended into heaven, which always exists before all things.

The passage you quoted in Revelation simply shows a distinction between God as Spirit and God incarnate in human flesh. The term "Lamb" means "Son of Man" not "God the Son" because only a man can give His blood. However, you stopped quoting too soon. We read:

Revelation 5:12 12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

The Lamb RECEIVED power, wisdom and strength. God apart from the incarnation does not need to RECEIVE wisdom—because He has it all! Only in the form of a man did God need to RECEIVE wisdom, because a human mind cannot hold it all!
blaster

Con

Pro: Sources for the interpretation of "Angel of the LORD" as "the Word of God"
The "Angel of the LORD" appeared to Hagar, and was identified as YHWH God. The Jerusalem Targum reads:

http://www.newadvent.org...

Here is another opinion of the Targum. The authority of the Targums is called into question in this reference on the topic. This is still not substantial enough for this debate. We still do not have a web site to go and read the writing for ourselves. The passages you posted could have been slightly changed or taken out of context. I say this is possible not as slander, I looked at the web sites you posted in your profile for this site, but I have found some evidence of how easy it is to miss place a letter when writing, I do it all the time.

Paul wrote: "All the fullness of the Godhead (Deity) dwelt "in Him (Christ, the Anointed One

The verse actually says this;

For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 2:8-9)

Dwelleth and dwelt are two different words with two different definitions.

Dwelleth; present.

Dwelt; past tense.

Pro: I never said that Jesus "never was fully human." Where do you get that from my words. He was God who became fully human, inhabiting or using a human brain as any man to experience a conscious human life.

Inhabiting- Living in, dwelling in. But not becoming the actual residence.

God inhabiting a human brain? I inhabit my house, have I become a house?

God was using a human mind? I use this computer to send out my messages and desires to anyone that will listen. But I have not become my computer.

PRO: However, the tradition of Philo and the Targums

I addressed this issue of the Targums and Philo. Would you accept the "tradition" of a Protestant or Catholic teaching? If you do not then do you expect this "tradition" to stand?

PRO: God did not exist in two consciousnesses until He became a man.

So before the incarnation there was only one consciousness? So who chose to make Himself a servant and humble Himself taking on a human body?

The Angel of the LORD that existed in the Old Testament was either a Theophany (a temporary manifestation of God) or the immutable God used the glorified Christ to represent His glory on the earth throughout all times.

If Einstein's theory of time is correct, God could accomplish this feat. Yet, whether this occurred or not, the Apostle Paul believed that the ascension of Christ took Him to the "immutable beginning and ending"—the presence of God Himself.

IF Einstein's theory of time is correct. Even if you accept this theory (a theory is just that, a theory) it still is not substantial enough to be considered reliable.

Jesus could exist in Heaven after the ascension where time is not like ours. So yes Jesus (glorified) could be seen to people such as Abraham. Jesus was not glorified until His ascension, so He had to choose this at some point in time on, either on earth or in Heaven.

Jesus came from the Father and He returned to the Father.

John 16:28
28I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

So some point He was with the Father, chose to become human becoming a servant and humbles Himself. Chose is something a "person" has, requiring a will that is also a quality of a "person".
Philippians 2: (King James Version)
5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Kittle's. As the Targums and Philo this source is not considered reliable for this debate. Would you accept a Protestant or a Catholic the dictionary that could possibly be bias? So do you expect this resource that could be bias to be allowed in this debate? In a quick search of the internet you will not find any web site that allows you to see the definitions.

Paul wrote that Jesus IS before all things.
"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

We also read that this "image" "thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

You stated that this "image"
The only way that this is possible is if he believed as all Jews of his day believed. This is that heaven always exists before all things—and Jesus (God incarnate in human flesh) ascended into heaven!
Therefore, He is the image of God that was present with God in the beginning, in Genesis 1:26 and John 1:1—which used the term "Word"—which means "image"!

This definition is according to an unsubstantiated source. I have been using "image" to keep the readers heads form exploding.

But this "image" still had a will to decide that it was not robbery to be equal with God. And this image decided this and then chose to become a servant. This clearly shows that before the incarnation this "image" you describe had a choose. You say this is the "image" of God and I believe this is the SON OF GOD. Whose statement would be more likely according to scriptures? Here are to verses from scriptures that might help.

In the Greek, this means that "equality with God was not something to be" "stolen" or "grasped." This means that God's image or form could not grasp equality with God.

This scripture did not say this "image" COULD NOT grasp, the scriptures reads *THOUGHT* it not robbery! A thought process separate before the incarnation in the GODHEAD or GOD.

Of course, God existing as a glorified man was in a state of being billions of times lesser than the omnipotent, omniscient Spirit of God.

A second lesser GOD? TWO GODS????

In the words that follow, Paul identifies Christ with the angel of the LORD when He wrote:

7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

TOOK ON, He was not identified as an angel (though He was NOT identified as an angel) until after the incarnation. The choose HE CHOSE! Choose, will, mind, TWO!

In this verse, the word "made" means "to copy."

Were you made in to a human? Was Adam made? YES! This is what happens when you become Human. Jesus the SON OF GOD became a man, a human.

"Jesus ‘CHOSE" to become this. Did the alter consciousness of God chose to do this? Or did the Image of God decide?"

Again, I do not believe that God projected Himself into a different angelic consciousness before the incarnation, but that God really became a man, and therefore existed in a separate human consciousness in the Son of Man, who was transformed into a new creation, and ascended into heaven, which always exists before all things.

Jesus did ascend into Heaven. But first He had to chose to humble Himself and become man. He chose to be made a little lower then the angels, first He had to be greater then the angels, only then could He become lower then the angels. You claim that Jesus was greater then the angels after His ascension, after He was glorified. Then, once ascended and a separate being or consciousness He could then go back (in Heaven) and then chose to do what He did not chose in the first place because at that point He was one conscious with God. But if He never chose to humble Himself in the first place how did he go back (in Heaven) if it required a chose to become lower then the angels and then to be glorified and made greater then the angels?
Debate Round No. 4
testimonyofprophecy

Pro

Greetings,
I will respond to your points without quoting them directly, to save space. The historical evidence of the first century is indeed substantial for this debate. A mere 20-40 years before John wrote his prologue, Philo defined the term "Word" as God's image. Furthermore, Paul wrote that the Son of Man is the image of God (Colossians 1:15.) This link cannot be denied, as well as the same term used in the Targums. And, in the Old Testament, we read that the word APPEARED to Abraham in a vision:

Genesis 15:1-4 KJV Genesis 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

The term "Word" is used for God's manifestation of Himself. This is why John used this term. And, is your word a different person from yourself? And, I do not believe that the fullness of God dwelt (past tense) in Christ. What is your point? And, you get hung up in semantics (not to be unkind) and miss the whole point. God was incarnate in the Son of Man. Therefore; He "inhabited a human brain." If you have a better term for really becoming a man, and really using a human brain as your center of consciousness, please tell me and I will use it. And, this is NOT like me using a computer; it is like me using my mind to write these words in a computer.
And, there is a BIG difference between accepted Jewish terminology and interpretation (traditions) that existed in the first century A.D. at the time of Christ and the apostles, and traditions of the Catholic Church. I am talking about a contemporary interpretation.
And, when it says that Jesus "came forth from the Father" this refers to the virgin birth. Remember, God's Spirit moved upon Mary. It is in this way that the Son was sent. Consider: If God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit (according to your theory) are omniscient (know all things) and timeless (see the end from the beginning) how can one of them be "sent" from heaven, where they exist in an immutable, unchanging state of being? If God the Son is omniscient, and timeless, and cannot change (Malachi 2:10) how could he be sent from heaven? Would he not know that he was going before He was even asked to go? Likewise, how can the Holy Spirit be a separate person of God who is omniscient and timeless, if He is sent from heaven? If He sees the end from the beginning, then he would know that he was going to go before he was ever asked! Yet, if the Holy Spirit is defined as Jews define it, the "breath of God", then if makes sense that God could "send" His "breath" or spiritual essence into this universe. And, since God in the lesser form of a man is the High Priest and mediator (there is one mediator…the MAN Christ Jesus 2 Tim 2:5) the breath of God is sent to the earth through His blood.
The "Form" in Philippians is God's image. What image was "God the Son" (your theory) in before the incarnation? Please explain this. And, this "form" or "image" could not grasp equality with God, because He is God in the lesser form of a glorified man. And, why is a second person (God the Son) the "form" of another person (God=God the Father)? Yet, it makes sense that the Son of Man is the "form" or "image" of God, because He is God incarnate. And, this is NOT "TWO GODS"! You read too much into everything! I told you time and time again that I believe that the SAME GOD and SAME PERSON exist as two different beings. Two gods are two persons, who are both God, not one person who became two (God and man)! And, God in this lesser form had a human will, so he could "choose" independently from the eternal God, who exists in a state of being that does not change. God as a man went to sleep also. Did He do this within a human mind? Please answer this. And, Kittle's merely states a provable historic belief of ancient times. The present tense of Colossians 1:16 proves it. And, as we continue to read, we discover that Jesus become "the first" through the resurrection of the dead:

Colossians 1:17-18 17 And he is [PRESENT TENSE] before all things [CREATION, previous verse], and by [in, at or near] him all things consist [hold together]. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is [PRESENT TENSE] the beginning, the firstborn from the dead [RESURRECTED, GLORIFIED]; that [IN ORDER THAT] in all things he might have [BECOME] the preeminence [THE FIRST].

These are the Greek definitions. Take note, Jesus was "first born from the dead" so that He could become "the first" or "pre-eminent." This is possible because of the Jewish belief that God and heaven always exist before all things, and the Son of Man ascended into the Spirit of God, who dwells outside of the universe in heaven. And, of course, AS GOD, who is Spirit, Jesus was greater than the angels before the incarnation, in order to become lower. However, after the resurrection, He as made greater than the angels. This does not mean that He became only a Spirit once again. We know by the Bible that He was raised up into a body that is a "new creation" of God. This body is similar to the angels of heaven, because our bodies will become as His body, and we will become as the angels of heaven. God existing in this glorified body was a separate physical entity from the omnipotent, timeless Spirit of God the Father, and will continue to exist in this body, and through it will commune with us forever more. I ask you, is "God the Son" going to only exist in the body of the Son of Man throughout all time? Just because God can exist as two (grace and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus the Anointed One, the Messiah,) does not mean that He is two persons. The one God who is beyond the human definition of a person became a human person. He is the same person, in a lesser form that we can relate to.
Consider the passage in Philippians:
Philippians 2:7-8 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made [copied] in the likeness of men [plural] : 8 And being found in fashion [to hit upon] as a man [singular] , he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
The Angel of the LORD in the Old Testament was God, but He appeared as man—as God's servant! It is for this reason that we read that He "copied" the likeness of men (plural.) The Angel of the LORD copied the likeness of men, and appeared as God's messenger, or servant. This is what verse 7 speaks of. Verse 8 is the incarnation, for we read that God was found or "hit upon" as a man. The order of events merely reflect the apostle's belief that Christ was the Angel of the LORD, and his understanding that heaven was the timeless beginning and ending of all things, and this is where Christ now resides.
Consider John's words in the book of Revelation:
Revelation 22:3 3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him [one person!]." John calls God and the Lamb "HIM" and not "THEM!" This is because He understood that God and the Son of Man are distinct, but are the same. Jesus said "when you see me, you see him who sent me." (John 12:42) This is because the same God living as a man is the same Spirit that formed the Son of God in Mary's womb. Son of God. Mary. Get it? Son of God is the man who is God incanate! Yet, the incarnation brought about circumstances that are unique. God was able to exist as two, and speak from within a human voice, with words that He learned as a child, and chemically recalled from within His human brain as any man. Only the Spirit of the one and only God was the "soul" (metaphorcally) behind the words inside of this mind, as our spirits or souls is what is behind our own. Only, since God knows all things, and it is not possible for a human mind to hold all of the knowledge of this universe, God in this man was distinct, and limited, and lesser. Jesus said "my Father is greater than I."
blaster

Con

Philo defined the term "Word" as God's image. This resource could have been substantial for this debate if you would have gave a link to back up you claims. 20-40 years before John wrote his gospel? John wrote his gospel some 60 years after Christ. Could Philo had a reason to try and deny that Jesus was not the Son of God and possibly been a bit bias in his writings??????

Genesis 15:1-4 KJV Genesis 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

Hebrew definition of Word;
d) business, occupation, acts, matter, case, something, manner (by extension)
What is your point? And, you get hung up in semantics (not to be unkind) and miss the whole point.

http://www.blueletterbible.org...

My point is words can be switched when copying from a book or web site to this debate, not intentionally but still it can happen. The text says dwelleth and you wrote dwellt on your web site. And because there is a web site that has the Bible for us to read we can look and see for ourselves. You have not posted any web sites that we can verify what Philo or the Targums have in them. So we can not trust your references without proof.

And, this is NOT like me using a computer; it is like me using my mind to write these words in a computer.

You said it yourself. You are using your mind. Your conscious individual mind. What if someone used my mind to write these pages? If God was using Himself to write those words as you claim, then this "image" had a will BEFORE the incarnation.

Remember, God's Spirit moved upon Mary. It is in this way that the Son was sent.

Mary conceived Jesus. Jesus was born of a woman.

If God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit (according to your theory) are omniscient (know all things) and timeless (see the end from the beginning) how can one of them be "sent" from heaven, where they exist in an immutable, unchanging state of being?

Are you saying God can not do this? Is this impossible for God? Jesus gave up His equality and was made a man.

If God the Son is omniscient, and timeless, and cannot change (Malachi 2:10) how could he be sent from heaven?

He gave up His equality with God and became like us. Change? Does this ABSOLUTLY mean a state of being? Or can it also mean will or quality? It can mean who Jesus is, He did not become a different person, He gave up His equality for US. This is why Trinity makes Jesus' sacrifice EVEN GREATER.

Would he not know that he was going before He was even asked to go?

Of course He knew. Does Scriptures ever say Jesus was surprised by this mission given to Him by the Father? No. His Passion was known before hand. How does this matter? He gave up His place in Heaven for that time, to become human to save our souls. Again, a much greater sacrifice then an image or form dying for our sins.

Likewise, how can the Holy Spirit be a separate person of God who is omniscient and timeless, if He is sent from heaven?

The Holy Spirit has been dealing with men since the beginning; craftsmen were filled with the Holy Spirit when they built the Ark.

What image was "God the Son" (your theory) in before the incarnation? Please explain this.

He was is and will always be God. He was never an "image"; WE are made in the image of God. WE are the "image".

And, this "form" or "image" could not grasp equality with God, because He is God in the lesser form of a glorified man.

Again you say COULD NOT GRASP. But the text says did not think (again, will) it was robbery. "Could not grasp" completely changes the verse and its meaning.

God in this lesser form had a human will, so he could "choose" independently from the eternal God, who exists in a state of being that does not change.

There was no lesser God in human will until the incarnation, according to your theory.

God as a man went to sleep also. Did He do this within a human mind? Please answer this.

What do you mean "sleep"? Like death? Or just going to sleep? The answer to both is the fact that Jesus became a man, fully. He had TWO natures or qualities, but still completely man AND completely Divine. It is demonstrated throughout the Gospels that Jesus was man and Divine. He got hungry, tired and thirsty; all human qualities. He also knew what people were thinking and had control over nature; Divine qualities. And being fully man He died on the cross. Not a second consciousness but a person with a will.

And, Kittle's merely states a provable historic belief of ancient times.

Again, you gave no link for the references from this Kittles. I do not have a copy of this dictionary lying around; I doubt many people here do. And I could not find it on line, therefore the information
therein can not be held as reliable.

Colossians 1:17-18 17; and he is [PRESENT TENSE] before all things [CREATION, previous verse], and by [in, at or near] him all things consist [hold together]. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is [PRESENT TENSE] the beginning, the firstborn from the dead [RESURRECTED, GLORIFIED]; that [IN ORDER THAT] in all things he might have [BECOME] the preeminence [THE FIRST].

These are the Greek definitions. Take note, Jesus was "first born from the dead" so that He could become "the first" or "pre-eminent." This is possible because of the Jewish belief that God and heaven always exist before all things, and the Son of Man ascended into the Spirit of God, who dwells outside of the universe in heaven.

Jesus was born a man just like us; He gave up His equality with God to do this. He was BORN (just like us) He was Baptized (just like us) He died (just like us) and He was raised from the dead. (just like we WILL be) and this is why He is the first born.

And, of course, AS GOD, who is Spirit, Jesus was greater than the angels before the incarnation, in order to become lower. However, after the resurrection, He as made greater than the angels. This does not mean that He became only a Spirit once again. We know by the Bible that He was raised up into a body that is a "new creation" of God.

Yes, He became a man, after this He went to Heaven fro where He came. In this new body. Please do not forget, HE BECAME A MAN. This is very important. This is opposite of your theory, God became man.

Consider the passage in Philippians:
Philippians 2:7-8 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made [copied] in the likeness of men [plural] : 8 And being found in fashion [to hit upon] as a man [singular] , he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

Made:
the habitus, as comprising everything in a person which strikes the senses, the figure, bearing,
discourse, actions, manner of life etc.

Fashion:
to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being

The Angel of the LORD in the Old Testament was God, but He appeared as man—as God's servant!

Then who is Gabriel and Michael? I thought they were angels? Did God create them after the incarnation? I believe I covered this in the beginning of this post. He did not appear as man, He became a man, and by doing this He became as a servant.

When I sent a representative it is someone I fully trust to display me in my absence. AND, Jesus is God just as the Father is God, there are no disagreements here. When Jesus says that marriage was never meant to be terminated by a man He is speaking in full confidence of God. So Jesus' words are God's words. This is why Jesus is the WORD of God, God's full revelation to man.

Oneness is false, there are two many problems in the theory when studied by scriptures. The doctrine of the Trinity is superior in all ways when the two are compared side by side. I have enjoyed this debate and hope to debate other topics with Pro
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
This debate was so difficult to read. Both sides quoted the other without distinction. I wouldn't realize I was reading a quote until several sentences into it. I just couldn't read anymore beyond round 3, so I won't be voting. Sorry. Please read other debates and get some ideas on how to guide the reader.

Always keep your audience in mind when writing - English Writing 101.

I will, however, point out one thing. Con defines trinity as "God is three consciousnesses working in three persons together in one will or purpose." This is not Trinity as defined at the Council of Nicea, which defined it as "One God in substance in three separate but co-equal persons." (paraphrase) Not a big deal in this debate, but I thought it should be stated.
Posted by blaster 8 years ago
blaster
I do admit that is one of the best oneness theory's out there. I really enjoyed this debate. I hope we can debate again. I have been studying the oneness Pentecostal belief on salvation. So it is required to speak in tongues to go to Heaven?
Posted by testimonyofprophecy 8 years ago
testimonyofprophecy
KRFournier wrote: What is the resolution? That Oneness Pentecostalism is true? That Oneness Pentecostalism is a superior explanation of the nature of God than the Trinity?
Answer: "yes"
Posted by testimonyofprophecy 8 years ago
testimonyofprophecy
I put it to 25 years old...it was not intended to keep others out, but to make sure that the one accepting the challenge had at least 7 years of Biblical study as an adult (from 18). This was not my origional intent, I saw the age criteria choice and I chose one. Sorry if I left anyone out that perhaps has gone to seminary in a lesser age. Next time I will leave it blank.
Posted by josh_42 8 years ago
josh_42
'You cannot accept this challenge because you do not match the Instigator's age and/or rank criteria.'!
Why can't i accept this debate? what setting did u put it too?

what kind of censorship is this?

Debate.org TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!!
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
What is the resolution? That Oneness Pentecostalism is true? That Oneness Pentecostalism is a superior explanation of the nature of God than the Trinity?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
He turned the dial all the way over to "I fail" I'm betting :D.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
'You cannot accept this challenge because you do not match the Instigator's age and/or rank criteria.'!
Why can't i accept this debate? what setting did u put it too?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by kccsr1 7 years ago
kccsr1
testimonyofprophecyblasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by Revolution1902 8 years ago
Revolution1902
testimonyofprophecyblasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Bellalouise 8 years ago
Bellalouise
testimonyofprophecyblasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00