Continued from Part one

QUESTION A1: Let me ask you- Why did God tell Abraham he had past tense made him a father of many nations before Abraham even had any children?

A1. Because God in eternity past had made a decree concerning His comprehensive plan for the creation, fall and redemption of the human race. That plan included the language that you are asking about and therefore God could state His plan for Abraham's life as something that had already been determined. (i.e. past tense)

The questions I'd been asking were for scripture. Maybe I failed to make that clear on this first question. Nevertheless, I am left with no alternative than to believe that you hold your private interpretations on a level of authority above quoted scripture, since I've been quoting scripture, but you refuse to receive it, but keep finding ways of making the quoted word of none effect. Regardless of your private interpretation, Rom. 4:17 specifically states an immutable characteristic of God, whether we are talking about Genesis 1:26 or any other scripture.

Rom 4:17 …God… calleth those things which be not as though they were.

QUESTION A2: Would I have to stop believing this (or at least not be able to believe it applied in Genesis 1:26) in order to be of the Trinitarian persuasion?

A2. I cannot see any relationship to the question or answer of A1 in relationship to Genesis 1:26. So given that statement the answer would be NO.

So I continue to believe that the statement of God's character- " God… calleth those things which be not as though they were..." applies to Genesis 1:26, and you have provided no scripture for me to believe otherwise. But you have replied that you don't believe it applies to Gen. 1:26, but continue to make the stand that an interpretation founded manifestly on pagan philosophical thought is preferable to you over a scriptural quotation.

QUESTION A3: Do you also believe, as I, that if we truly believe in something then we will filter our perspectives through, and conform our thoughts and responses to, that belief?

A3. Most definitely. It is called a presupposition

That is why , for example, we must interpret Genesis 1:27 in light of Genesis 1:26. God has given us the truth of plurality in the Godhead. Which he expects to form as a presupposition in our thinking. The Holy Spirit arranged the words of scripture in a specific order for His specific purposes.

Actually, God didn't give anyone plurality (of persons) in the Godhead, which I presume you are referring to, rather the pagan philosophers did. Furthermore, you haven't proven how you've interpreted Genesis 1:27 in light of 1:26, or Rom. 4:17, or any other specifically stated scripture for that matter, you've merely demonstrated how you've interpreted Gen 1:27 in "light" of pagan philosophical thoughts and terminology imposed upon the church by pagan philosophers. Neither Genesis 1:26 nor ANY OTHER SCRIPTURE states that the "us" means distinct persons in the godhead. Over and over I requested you to quote such a scripture if there be one. Your silence, vain attempts and ultimate inability to produce such a scripture speaks much louder than your continued groundless insistence on your interpretation.

QUESTION A4: Therefore, without putting words into God's mouth, could you please search His word, as I have done for you, and quote where He said as you allege, that the Eternal Father was talking to the Eternal Son, in distinction of persons, or any such specific language? Could you provide any scripture anywhere that would give us any other such specifically stated clues as to who that "us" was whom God was talking to in Genesis 1:26?

A4. Without putting words in God's mouth? Okay here goes...

Heb 1:8-12

8 But of the Son He says,

Who is the speaking? The Father

Who is he speaking to? The Son, whom he calls God.

"YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,

AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

Excuse me, but I requested, and you said you would comply, with a definition of distinction of persons without putting words in God's mouth. You leave me, once again, with no alternative than to believe you are neither able to do that, nor even understand the concept! I don't see where the scripture you quoted anywhere stops and says "Who is speaking? The Father. Who is He speaking to? The Son, whom He calls God." I don't have a problem so much with that but with the extra-biblical conclusion that these are distinct persons in the Godhead, which you base on opinion founded in pagan polytheism, rather than deity relating to humanity which is scriptural.

Furthermore, it is written-

Mark 12:32 ...THERE IS ONE GOD; and there is none other but he:

1 Tim 2:5 For THERE IS ONE GOD, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

James 2:19 Thou believest that THERE IS ONE GOD; thou doest well

Isa 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

The scripture you quoted didn't say- "your throne O Son, is forever and ever"! No, He said, "Your throne O God, is forever and ever" There is one God. The scripture didn't say "your throne O Son, second distinct person in the Trinity, is forever and ever" either! If scripture said that, ANYWHERE this debate would be settled.

What you have actually done is attempted to make a distinction between two distinct Gods talking to each other! You have one God talking to another God. And then you wonder why we criticize Trinitarians as being polytheistic!

In my original email I demonstrated that there is relationship without necessity of distinction of persons based on the biblical statement that-

Eph 5:28 …MEN… LOVE… THEIR OWN BODIES…

29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself

You asked "What is the minimum Biblical number of persons to have loving relationship?" and there is your answer. God's word says that men love their own bodies in verse 28-29 & 33. In fact God predicates the commandment to men to love their wives on the fact that men love their bodies. My body is not a distinct person from me, yet God Himself, through His word, says I love it, and cherish it...

The Bible says no man ever yet hated his flesh. And if you do, you have relationship with your body. Therefore, scripturally, the minimum number in order to have relationship is not dependent on plurality of persons, but on plurality of bodily members (soul, body, heart, mind, etc.). If you believe what this scripture says, then you must stop using the fact that God loved the Son, sent the Son, or any other terms of "relationship" as evidence of distinct persons. Because such a conclusion is not warranted in light of this scripture, and would also be putting words in God's mouth.

How long will his throne endure? Forever and ever!

But the man who you claim to be a student of ( David Bernard) says in his book "The Oneness of God" on page 121,

"The Son's reign will have an ending, for when the Church is presented to God and when Satan and sin and death are finally judged and subdued, the role of the Son will cease"

Again, the scripture said God's throne would endure forever, not "the distinct person of the Son's throne shall endure forever." There is only ONE GOD, and that ONE GOD'S Throne will endure forever, and the deity of Jesus Christ IS none other than THAT VERY SAME ONE GOD, but that doesn't mean that the Son is ONLY deity, but it is THAT humanity of the Son which is the ONLY biblical distinction from God there is in Jesus Christ. David Bernard was merely rephrasing what could otherwise be quoted and merely left at that-

1 Cor 15:21 For since by man came death, by MAN came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every MAN in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

1 Cor 15:28 And WHEN ALL THINGS SHALL BE SUBDUED UNTO HIM, THEN SHALL THE SON ALSO HIMSELF BE SUBJECT UNTO HIM THAT PUT ALL THINGS UNDER HIM, THAT GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL.

Notice the word "MAN" in the scriptures above. Well, God is not a man (Num 23:19, 1 Sam 15:29) But "MAN" is what is in the Bible describing the one who shall deliver up the kingdom TO GOD, not a second distinct person in the Godhead, and not a second God. There is one God. I haven't added to the words of the Bible, I'm just pointing them out to you to make sure you notice them.

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator BETWEEN GOD and men, THE MAN Christ Jesus;

This is the only biblical distinction within and between the Father and Son- deity in contrast to humanity. You will find absolutely NO other distinctions between the Father and Son specifically so stated in the scriptures. "Jesus" the name, happens to apply to both. But don't take my word for it, here it is in scripture-

Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last...

16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his NAME shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

2 Cor 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, (not themselves)!

"At this point it is very evident that at the very least, David Bernard is a false teacher. "

David Bernard is a false teacher according to the perspective of a follower and defender of philosophically applied paganistic polytheism-thinned-down-monotheism. That is a true statement, but it is a double negative! If I were David Bernard, and considering your reliance on pagan thought, concepts, and terminology, I would be honored at your conclusion of him. :-)

What you Trinitarians don't seem to grasp, is that Jesus said there would be people who condemn us specifically for the sake of Jesus' name.

Luke 21:17 And ye shall be hated of all men for MY NAME'S sake.

You won't find one scripture that says anyone will be hated for the Trinity's sake. The Bible would have to state there is a Trinity for that to be true, and of course it doesn't.

Acts 4:17 But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.

18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.

20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

21 So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done.

In this debate, you are in the place of Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest (Acts 4:6) arguing against the use of the name of Jesus, whereas we Oneness Apostolics are in the place of the Apostles arguing for the use of the name Jesus. That's why we are called Apostolic! :-) Seems simple, straightforward, and obvious enough to me!

9"YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS;

THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU

WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS."

10And,

"YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH,

AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

In reference more specifically to your question of the "Us" and the "Our" of Genesis 1:26

Who is speaking? God the Father.

To whom is he speaking? "Heb. 1:8 But of the Son He says,"

To what is he speaking? Creation

11THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN;

AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT,

12AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP;

LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED.

BUT YOU ARE THE SAME,

AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END."

NASU

Here the same 'God" that is called the "Son" that was present at creation is told that his years will not come to an end.

i.e. Eternal Father, Eternal Son

This is another example of your attempting to demonstrate multiple Gods. OF COURSE GOD WAS PRESENT AT CREATION! There is only one God! Truly, you have been spoiled by vain philosophy and traditions of men so that your eyes are totally closed! You are not quoting a scripture that says these are distinct persons in the Godhead, nor that the Son existed as a distinct person at creation, rather you are implying these scriptures are saying "here's one God and here's another one there also- one's the eternal father and one's the eternal son so that's two"! But you are counting up your gods not distinct persons!!! There is no such terminology or such definitions in these passages or anywhere else in the Bible that these are two distinct persons in the godhead. It is simply another pure case of putting words in God's mouth!

Just as Jesus identified Himself as one with the Father, so the Father here identifies Himself as one and the selfsame with the Son!

There is, however, distinction between God and man-

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

And there is distinction between head and body-

1 Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

And there are distinctions of "Word" and Spirit in terms of "bearing record"-

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

And yes, God's word was present at creation, as it is written-

Gen 1:3 And God said... and there was...

6 And God said...

7 ...and it was so.

And it is by that very word that God created everything, and then later, in process of time-

John 1:14 ...the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son ("the Word was made flesh"), made of a woman, made under the law,

But never in scripture does God ever state that there are multiple persons in the Godhead, or that the Word of God was a distinct person from the Father or the Holy Ghost. In fact it is impossible scripturally to come to such a conclusion unless and until one begins to resort to imposing borrowed pagan philosophical thought and terminology upon the scriptures! I've given you opportunity to prove me wrong, but you have not and cannot quote scripture that in and of itself states, defines or declares there are distinct persons in the Godhead.

And even if that could be done, it would contradict what IS written-

1 Cor 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.

5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.

6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8 For to one is given by the Spirit... 10 ...prophecy... 11 But all these worketh that ONE AND THE SELFSAME Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

The Bible qualifies this by saying it is God who sets prophets in the church-

1 Cor 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him (not them).

28 And God hath set… in the church… prophets,

Scripture likewise attributes these gifts, including prophesy, to one and the same, Jesus Christ-

Eph 4:7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ...

10 He that descended is the same also that...

11 ...gave... some, prophets;

1 Cor 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 ...the same Lord. 6 ...the same God which worketh all in all...8 For.... 11 ...all these worketh that ONE AND THE SELFSAME Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he (not they) will. 12 For as the body is one, and hath many members... so also is Christ.

There is another pure scripturally quoted definition of the Godhead that totally contradicts your pagan philosophical Trinitarian theory! Interesting that I can quote scripture stating that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are all "one and the selfsame" but that doesn't settle the issue! Which in itself is another distinguishing factor between true and false Christians-

1 John 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

5 But whoso keepeth HIS word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

We Oneness Apostolics keep "HIS" word; Trinitarians are the keepers and defenders of the words of pagan polytheistic philosophers!

Mic 5:2

2"But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,

Too little to be among the clans of Judah,

From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.

His goings forth are from long ago,

From the days of eternity."

NASU

Notice that this verse also makes absolutely no use of the words or concepts of "persons" in the godhead or any other such Trinitarian terminology. Once again, one would have to impose the historically developed concepts and terminology of the pagan polytheists to come to such a conclusion. And it isn't as if the Word of God is ignorant to the word "persons" for the Word does have this to say-

Job 13:10 He will surely reprove you, if ye do secretly accept persons.

11 Shall not his excellency make you afraid? and his dread fall upon you?

It is written-

Isa 55:11 So shall MY WORD be THAT GOETH FORTH out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

If you would just stop using pagan philosophical thought, concepts, and terminology and truly lean on the purely stated scriptures for your doctrine, you would come to the conclusion of the simplicity of the distinction of the humanity of Jesus Christ being precisely nothing more or less than the WORD OF GOD made flesh- not a "distinct person"!

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made...

10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not...

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

The bible never says that this "Word" is a distinct person of God. That again would be putting words in God's mouth, and it would be putting words that originated in pagan thought in God's mouth. We are left with no reason to believe, scripturally, that God wants us to understand His word is any different in relationship to him than our word, with the exception that all men are liars, and God's word is a perfect and true representation of God.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

2 Cor 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)

4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

QUESTION C1: Do you agree that Paul was speaking of himself, or was he speaking of another person here? If he was speaking of himself, why did Paul use such language as to be speaking in the third person? Was he misleading us? If he wasn't speaking of himself, who was he speaking of?

C1. Yes, Paul was speaking of himself.

QUESTION D1: Do you love your body?

D1. Yes

QUESTION D2: Why, in describing the relationship between God (the Father) and Jesus Christ, did God choose to use a relationship (Father/Son) that consistently signifies precedence in time, if, as the Trinity dogma demands, the Son is coeternal, and eternally begotten?

D2. I have already pointed out from scripture

Mic 5:2

2"But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,

Too little to be among the clans of Judah,

From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.

His goings forth are from long ago,

From the days of eternity."

NASU

The "Me" is distinct from the "One"who will go forth. And the "one who goes forth is eternal. The problem that you will continually run into has to do with your hermeneutic. You constantly, just like David Bernard, resort to natural revelation to interpret special revelation. You need to reverse your method of interpretation.

(I dealt with use of Micah 5:2 above)

You accuse David Bernard and I of resorting to natural revelation, yet he and I continue to quote scripture for our revelation, and quote scripture for why the path that is used to get to the Trinity conclusion is against the commandments of scripture. Your accusation is simply groundless. I have established scripturally that there is no necessity of distinction in persons in order to have relationship. My body is distinct from my soul. You have admitted that you love yourself, so you have effectually admitted that there is relationship without necessity of distinction of persons, yet rather than presupposing this concept into your mindset, you continue to assert there must be distinctions of persons in order for there to be relationship (as between the Father and Christ, the embodiment of God). Therefore, your presupposition is not based on scriptural fact, but is according to forbidden extra-biblical and philosophical thought. You are the one who is confused, and speak out of two sides of your mouth. The onus is still on you to provide scripture that states, declares or defines any distinctions of "persons" in the deity whatsoever. You continue to fail to do this, and that is simply and matter-of-factly because there are no such scripture.

1 Cor 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet NOT the wisdom OF THIS WORLD [ie PHILOSOPHY], NOR OF THE PRINCES OF THIS WORLD [ie EMPEROR CONSTANTINE], that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God [ie specifically stated so in the Bible].

13 Which things [bible] also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom [ie philosophy] teacheth, but WHICH THE HOLY GHOST TEACHETH; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

So the fact of the matter is the reverse of your statement is true- "You constantly, just like David Bernard, resort to natural revelation to interpret special revelation. You need to reverse your method of interpretation." The fact is, what you are calling "special revelation" and attributing to God is precisely what the Bible calls the wisdom of the world, which is philosophy. So you are the one who needs to reverse your method of interpretation and search the scriptures for expression and definition of your doctrine, rather than the wisdom of the world, and the princes of this world which comes to not. That is, if you wish to be obedient to the scriptures.

QUESTION D3: Why then don't Trinitarians accept the scriptures that both in analogy and explicit statement declare that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was made in process of time?

D3. First of all I dont reject any "scriptures". Secondly, the passages that you have quoted refer to the incarnation. The nature of the Son of God being joined with the nature of the Son of Man.

I have quoted numerous scriptures declaring the distinctions between the Father and the Son, not one scripture declares or states these distinctions to be distinctions of persons in the godhead, but you denigrate if not ignore them. Rather, you employ philosophically developed terminology that was intentionally designed to compromise Biblical monotheism with pagan polytheism, contrary to God's commandment not to go after the gods round about you, and to beware of being spoiled by philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, but you employ their thoughts, concepts and terminology anyway with total impunity! Therefore, your declaration that you don't reject any scriptures is demonstrably contrary to your actions.

Isa 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men [ie philosophy]:

14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

QUESTION D4: So, if God explains to us, in His own word, and in no uncertain terms, that which we have therefore manifestly not taken upon ourselves to fashion God in our image, that the Head of Christ is God, then who are you to question and deny that God and Christ are anything more than one body, with one name, though there are distinctions in manifestation and bodily position and function, though specifically NOT distinction or division of persons in the Godhead?

D4. If you listen to the debate you will find that I am the one that raised this verse. The verse is making the distinction not I.

I think you need to read your question again. What kind of distinction is there if not in persons? You say "bodily position and function" that doesn't sound like a distinction to me. That just sounds like God doing one thing today and another tomorrow.

Neither the verse nor the Bible ever states any distinction in "persons" between Christ and God- you did! You read that into the verse, putting words in God's mouth. My body is distinct from me today. My head and body is one of the Biblically stated distinctions between Christ and God. Furthermore, there is no necessity of time involved in the distinction of bodily members.

Key point

The analogy is for the purpose of teaching us something about the relationship between a man and his wife. If I were to take your definitions of the Oneness theology then I am forced to conclude that the wife is the husband! nonsense! And that man is Christ!

1 Cor 11:3

3But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

NASU

David Bernard says on page 66 of the above mentioned book, "If there is only one God and that one God is the Father (Mal. 2:10), and if Jesus is God, then it logically follows that Jesus is the Father"

Your key point sounds very similar to my contention with your use of Rev. 5:7 in attempt to establish evidence of distinct persons! Except that the passage in Rev. actually makes no statement whatsoever in specific declaration of what it is attempting to symbolize- for that we have to look elsewhere- we Oneness look to scriptural statement, and Trinitarians to pagan polytheistic terminology.

Furthermore, the definition and explanation of head and body is not mine but God's. God said it, and God is not a liar. Unlike the passage in Rev. 5, in 1 Cor 11:3 we are not left guessing at what the distinctions are, as it tells us- head and body.

As to your conclusion, obviously, everyone has an opinion, and you have shared yours. The point you continue to miss is that the doctrine you are presenting of multiple persons is simply not stated in scripture.

Now I will explain to you exactly why you don't see the Oneness interpretation-

1 Pet 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on HIM shall not be confounded.

7 Unto you therefore which believe HE is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

This scripture very clearly says we must believe in HIM, it does not say to believe in a "them." They that don't believe the commandments to believe on HIM, but rather believe on a "them" are disobedient, and the stone, which they disallow (meaning, not that they wouldn't demonstrate lip service, but that they disallow in reality that Jesus is the First and Last the beginning and the end, The root AND the offspring, THE Almighty), will become a rock of offence, and a stone of stumbling. This is exactly the state you and all others who believe in a Godhead of "them" are in. But to us, this same Jesus is most precious indeed; made even more precious when it is manifested to us just what a privilege it is to be made partakers in this revelation.

The Bible commands that the Lord our God is one Lord. The Bible says not to lean on our own understanding, nor to add to the word of God, and to beware of the vain philosophies of men. You are in disobedience to these scriptures, therefore, according to 1 Peter 2:6-8 the truth of Jesus Christ will be a stumblingblock to you until you determine in your heart to put these commandments of God above your human reasoning which has spoiled you toward a hybrid of pure monotheism and pure polytheism, which in the final analysis is simply not the pure monotheism commanded by God in the Bible, and surely Satan could care less if you have a diluted definition of his polytheistic doctrines.

Furthermore, what you've done here in your "key point" is called jumping to conclusions. Twice I noted that this was only an analogy-

Mr. Bernard did a great job in pointing out how this is a very fine analogy for the humanity of Christ in submission to deity. I would like to point out another aspect in addition to Mr. Bernard's point. And that is the fact that the analogy GOD USED did NOT begin at the husband and wife, but began with the man himself- Eph 5:28 …MEN… LOVE… THEIR OWN BODIES…

What you've done in jumping to conclusions with my words is the same thing you do with the word of God- you see something that to you seems to imply multiple persons, and so you jump to conclusions and start acting as if you've stumbled upon a fact. That is exactly the way Satan interprets the Bible also. That's what he did when he said that since God's word says his angels will protect us, he jumped to the conclusion that the Bible implied we should be able to jump off a building without fear of getting hurt. After Satan's example of Bible interpretation, you see God talking about the head and body of God and Christ and man and woman and so on, and then, without any scripture stating this is what God means, you jump to conclusions and all of a sudden you declare it to be fact that God is comprised of multiple persons, regardless of whether or not you can quote scripture actually saying such. And regardless of what scripture contradicts such a presumptuous interpretation.

By jumping to conclusions based on what is implied in scripture, no matter how many scriptures only imply a thing, there is no limit to the amount of extra-biblical doctrines that could be assumed. For example, it could be assumed that we are to baptize the dead since scripture implies this was done in 1 Cor 15:29. What you need to do is learn how to search the scriptures, rather than jumping to conclusions, and putting words into God's mouth based on your opinion of what is at best merely implied in scripture. In order to get yourself in a state where you can do this, you need to humble yourself, and realize that your "reasoning powers" are more harm than good in attempting to understand God- you need submission and humility in order to receive with meekness the engrafted word which is able to save your soul.

QUESTION E1: In Rev. 5:6 it says the lamb 1) stood as it had been slain- is that literal?

E1. No, This language is symbolic.

QUESTION E2: In Rev. 5:6 it says the lamb has seven horns and seven eyes- is that literal? Are you expecting to see Jesus literally looking like a lamb slain with 7 horns and 7 eyes?

E2. I am expecting to see the wounds in his body that Thomas saw and touched.

QUESTION E3: Without putting words into God's mouth then, can you point to scripture where God's word demonstrates this symbolic scene is, or is even meant to be, evidence of distinct persons?

E3. Although the language is symbolic the symbols are given to represent something or someone. For example we both have agreed that the symbol of the lamb is meant to be Jesus. The evidence for the distinction of persons is clearly given in verse 7.

Rev 5:7

7 And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne.

Who is the He? Jesus

Who is 'Him who sat on the throne? Obviously someone other than Jesus.

For those of us who are determined to find scripture for definition of our doctrine, rather than putting words in God's mouth, or jumping to conclusions, we find that the scene actually very specifically does represent humanity in contrast to deity, not supposed "distinctions in the Godhead"...

1 Cor 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he (man... Christ) shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

This scripture clearly states that it is a man that delivers up the kingdom to God. This is not the only scripture that is very adamant that it was the humanity of Jesus that was sacrificed, not His deity-

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Heb 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

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

21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

John 4:24 God is a Spirit:

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Therefore the lamb in Rev. 5:7 is not a distinct person in the Godhead, but symbolic of the humanity of Jesus Christ, because it is that humanity that gave up His life, being the Lamb slain as a ransom for many, who also could only be a man because He had to be our kinsman redeemer as David Bernard pointed out to you (Lev 25:25, Lev 25:49).

Lev 25:47 And if... thy brother... wax poor, and sell himself...

48 After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him:

49 Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, OR ANY THAT IS NIGH OF KIN UNTO HIM OF HIS FAMILY MAY REDEEM HIM; or if he be able, he may redeem himself.

This is also another perfect example of the difference between how we "Oneness Apostolics" interpret the Bible and how Trinitarians do. I have searched the Bible for God's definition of who died the sacrificial lamb's death and quoted what it says, and stand on those quotes without needing to interject opinions from philosophy in order to validate or define them. I have not had to add any words to the Bible to declare this doctrine: I have used my words solely to point to what the Bible specifically says. Trinitarians jump to conclusions based on philosophical polytheistic thought and employ such terminology in their interpretations of Biblical passages, rather than searching and quoting God's word.

What really blows me away, is that Trinitarians don't even realize the difference in what they are doing, as evidenced by your responses. Of course, this is just confirmation that we are in a spiritual battle that makes no humanly sense-

2 Cor 4:1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;

2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

1 Cor 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

In addition to the Babylonish pagans which created the Trinity doctrine in the first place, there are an unbelievable amount of carnal Christians, agnostics and even atheists that see a Trinity of persons in the Bible. Just the fact that worldly Platonic and Aristotelian philosophers see the Trinity, let alone developed it, ought to send up big red flags- which it does, but alas, we have to have our eyes open to see even such glaringly blatant signs as that! If the worldly Platonic and Aristotelian philosophers who invented the Trinity doctrine were right about God, which the Trinity doctrine owes it's development, definition, and terminology to, then that fact alone makes God's word right there in 1 Cor. 1:21 a lie. We can't have both- one or the other is lying. Either the philosophers who developed and introduced the "Christianized" version of the Babylonian Trinity doctrine knew not God, or God's word lied in saying by wisdom the world knew not God. The Trinitarians owe the worldly philosophers credit for the Trinity doctrine, so the Trinitarians have manifestly declared through their deeds that they actually believe God's word lies, whereas to them philosophers hold truth. And as a matter of fact, the philosophers credited with developing the Trinity are on record as admitting this as precisely what they believed-

"The Cappodicians, theologians who reconciled the faith of Athanasius with the current philosophy, and apprehended it abstractly, did not retain his teaching pure and simple... They boldly characterized the PLURALITY OF HYPOSTASES, E.G., AS A PHASE OF TRUTH PRESERVED IN GREEK POLYTHEISM" -Adolf von Harnack, "History of Dogma", pg 142-143.

"It is a solution BY HARMONIZATION, an attempt to COMBINE, as Gregory of Nyssa characterizes it, THE MONOTHEISM OF THE JEWS AND THE POLYTHEISM OF THE GREEKS. THE METHOD OF HARMONIZATION USED BY THEM WAS TO THIN DOWN THE JEWISH MONOTHEISM AS A CONCESSION TO GREEK POLYTHEISM." -Wolfson, Harry A. "The Philosophy of the Church Fathers", pg 578-579.

That is precisely the true source of your "special revelation."

Talk about needing to repent! Open your eyes, man! Let go of the world!

QUESTION E4: Without such specific statement from God, and without putting words in God's mouth, how is it then that Rev. 5:6 is any proof text at all of distinct persons in the Godhead?

See answer to E3

Which answer was, once again, your opinion formulated by putting your words in God's mouth. Conclusion- you have no scripture stating the scene is demonstrating distinction of persons, but you have your opinion, and apparently that is good enough for you, and is supposed to be good enough for me, I guess simply because you say so.

It is written-

Prov 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

(QUESTION F1:) Could you please demonstrate THROUGH SCRIPTURAL QUOTATION ALONE a definition of the distinction between God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son of God according to and in statement and defense of the Trinity dogma?

F1. I have already shown several passages (at least three) that show a very clear distinction between the persons.

You are quite mistaken; you have "shown" (when specifically asked for quotation alone) no scripture that states, through scriptural quotation alone, a definition of the distinction between God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son of God according to and in statement of the Trinity dogma. Once again, all you have done for us is clearly demonstrated you have no qualms in interpreting a scripture to mean what you want it to mean, through putting words in God's mouth. Unfortunately, that isn't what I was asking of you. In fact, I've been specifically asking if you could quote scripture instead of putting words in God's mouth, but unfortunately those requests seem to keep going right over your head. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just being honest with how you are coming across to me. Just as you were when you accused David Bernard of putting words in your mouth.

Please continue in Part Three of this response