God is Jesus; Jesus is God

[McCulloch]

I don't know of many Christians who would say that "God is Jesus," unless they're Oneness Pentecostals.

They say Jesus is God. Is that not the same thing? It gets rather confusing to us.

They (Oneness Pentecostals) say both. As one of their hymns says, "It's all in Him." They believe that there is one God and that His name is Jesus.

Questions for debate:

1. Is there a difference between saying that Jesus is God and God is Jesus?
2. What do the Oneness Pentecostals teach? Is it significantly different from what most Christians teach? Is it in line or contrary to the Bible?
3. How many Gods do the Christians really believe in?

[Heterodoxus]

Questions for debate:

1. Is there a difference between saying that Jesus is God and God is Jesus?
2. What do the Oneness Pentecostals teach? Is it significantly different from what most Christians teach? Is it in line or contrary to the Bible?
3. How many Gods do the Christians really believe in?

[1] No. Either way it tries to say that Jesus = God. Trinitarians insist that Jesus is the "God" of both Judaism and Judeo-Christianity and, oh yeah, Jesus is also the Holy Spirit and Messiah-Christ who is prophesied to compel Judeo-Christianity upon all infidels whether they want it or not. They also insist the words God and Father are synonymous yet, according to the Greek and non-Christianized definitions and spellings of those two words, they are distinctly different. In brief, based on my 30+ years of theology study and research, Jesus and "God" are not one in the same person/entity in the sense in which Christians use that word.

[2] Concerning "Oneness Pentecostals," much info here (http://www.carm.org/religious-movements ... l-theology). IMO, no surprises at that link concerning their concept/version of Churchianity.

[3] Judeo-Christians believe in only one God character:YHVH in Judaism, the name having been Christianized to JeHoVaH by Galatinus who, in the early 16th century CE, mistakenly placed the vowels for the root ADNY (Lord) with the sacred Tetragrammaton of YHVH (the Jewish national name for the God of Israel), producing the word English speakers say today as "Jehovah."

All Christians are, by faith and creed, Jehovah's witnesses whether they know it, like it, or admit to it, or not.

[Kadmon]

I don't know of many Christians who would say that "God is Jesus," unless they're Oneness Pentecostals.

They say Jesus is God. Is that not the same thing? It gets rather confusing to us.

They (Oneness Pentecostals) say both. As one of their hymns says, "It's all in Him." They believe that there is one God and that His name is Jesus.

Questions for debate:

1. Is there a difference between saying that Jesus is God and God is Jesus?
2. What do the Oneness Pentecostals teach? Is it significantly different from what most Christians teach? Is it in line or contrary to the Bible?
3. How many Gods do the Christians really believe in?

There Is No Way To Have A Trinity Without First Separating Each Of The Three Things Indivdually To Declare Then A Trinity . By That I Mean , You Have To First Establish That There Is A Father One Thing And A Son Another Thing And A Holy Ghost The Thrid Thing , In order For These Things To Totally Mix And Become One Thing . They Would Have To Start Off Equal In Rank , Quantity . Space , Density , Authority , Or Existence . In Admitting That The Son Came From The Father , Time Make The Difference , The Father Would Have To Had Been First , Before The Son . This Would Make Them Unequal And Incapable Of Becoming A Balanced Triad . No It Did Not Mean That When It Said God The Father ,,, God The Son , And God The Holy Ghost = One God .. Because Three Cannot Go Into One .

[floydkeith]

Many years ago I spent a short time caught in the midst of the Godhead debate. I had good friends on both sides and although their doctrine was nearly identical in every other way, because one viewed God as one and the other three in one, they acted like bitter enemies. As a young Christian I was having my friends on both side tell me that if I embraced "that other gospel" I was going to hell. Wow was shocked and confused.

After much agonizing and many hours of research, I could only come to the conclusion that they were both wrong on lots of points, and I couldn't really choose a side, so both groups said I was going to hell.

I came to the conclusion that only the arrogant can believe they absolutely understand the infinite nature of an eternal God. For a long time after that when people asked my what I believed about the Godhead I would tell the I believe in the Holy Twoity just to mess with their heads

It is okay if you think you understand and can define the God head, just don't damn others to hell for not agreeing with you.

Now days I have opinions I mostly keep to myself lest I offend either group.

[Cathar1950]

I found the Trinity was best understood historically and the defence of the doctrine was largely irrelevant. If it said God was toast or Toast they would defend it.
Understanding what the Jews meant by "Son of God" is different then how Gentile(sinners) understood "Son of God" or "Christ".
How Paul understood either is up for grabs and they are still arguing about it.

[Kadmon]

I found the Trinity was best understood historically and the defence of the doctrine was largely irrelevant. If it said God was toast or Toast they would defend it.
Understanding what the Jews meant by "Son of God" is different then how Gentile(sinners) understood "Son of God" or "Christ".
How Paul understood either is up for grabs and they are still arguing about it.

Are You Speaking Of Paul , The Self - Appointed Apostle ?

[Cathar1950]

I found the Trinity was best understood historically and the defence of the doctrine was largely irrelevant. If it said God was toast or Toast they would defend it.
Understanding what the Jews meant by "Son of God" is different then how Gentile(sinners) understood "Son of God" or "Christ".
How Paul understood either is up for grabs and they are still arguing about it.

Are You Speaking Of Paul , The Self - Appointed Apostle ?

Yes as he is a slipper thinker. But given his tendency was to present to sinners(gentiles) it is hard to pin him down as he seems to be winging it.
The point is that many differing traditions clam him as well as the objectors.
Did Paul mean "Son of God" as in the adopted Davidic son of God or some Pagan son of God? Did he mean "Christ" as in someone that was called, appointed or anointed or did he mean some divine being or cosmic Enoch? Dying and becoming a part of a god wasn't uncommon when a Jewish god is.

The Trinity is best understood historically between differing concepts about Jesus both what they understood as flesh and god and become about God.
They wanted Jesus t be fully human and fully divine made of God stuff.
The Eastern Greek Christians differed from the Western Roman Christians that failed to care about Greek concepts and wanted Jesus to be both divine and human. They battled it out for centuries and sometimes with mobs in the streets organized by bishops. Finally one of the descendants of Constantine won against his brother that happened to be orthodox who now won the Empire and the others lost. But rather then see the paradox and contradiction is being both fully human and fully divine is that it blurs what it means to be either as well utter nonsense. They made it a doctrine and called it a mystery and apologists have tried everything they could think of to explain it because it is a doctrine and they have been indoctrinated to believe it is right and read it into the writings.

[Kadmon]

I found the Trinity was best understood historically and the defence of the doctrine was largely irrelevant. If it said God was toast or Toast they would defend it.
Understanding what the Jews meant by "Son of God" is different then how Gentile(sinners) understood "Son of God" or "Christ".
How Paul understood either is up for grabs and they are still arguing about it.

Are You Speaking Of Paul , The Self - Appointed Apostle ?

Yes as he is a slipper thinker. But given his tendency was to present to sinners(gentiles) it is hard to pin him down as he seems to be winging it.
The point is that many differing traditions clam him as well as the objectors.
Did Paul mean "Son of God" as in the adopted Davidic son of God or some Pagan son of God? Did he mean "Christ" as in someone that was called, appointed or anointed or did he mean some divine being or cosmic Enoch? Dying and becoming a part of a god wasn't uncommon when a Jewish god is.

The Trinity is best understood historically between differing concepts about Jesus both what they understood as flesh and god and become about God.
They wanted Jesus t be fully human and fully divine made of God stuff.
The Eastern Greek Christians differed from the Western Roman Christians that failed to care about Greek concepts and wanted Jesus to be both divine and human. They battled it out for centuries and sometimes with mobs in the streets organized by bishops. Finally one of the descendants of Constantine won against his brother that happened to be orthodox who now won the Empire and the others lost. But rather then see the paradox and contradiction is being both fully human and fully divine is that it blurs what it means to be either as well utter nonsense. They made it a doctrine and called it a mystery and apologists have tried everything they could think of to explain it because it is a doctrine and they have been indoctrinated to believe it is right and read it into the writings.

Do you have scriptures to back up the above ?

[Cathar1950]

I found the Trinity was best understood historically and the defence of the doctrine was largely irrelevant. If it said God was toast or Toast they would defend it.
Understanding what the Jews meant by "Son of God" is different then how Gentile(sinners) understood "Son of God" or "Christ".
How Paul understood either is up for grabs and they are still arguing about it.

Are You Speaking Of Paul , The Self - Appointed Apostle ?

Yes as he is a slipper thinker. But given his tendency was to present to sinners(gentiles) it is hard to pin him down as he seems to be winging it.
The point is that many differing traditions clam him as well as the objectors.
Did Paul mean "Son of God" as in the adopted Davidic son of God or some Pagan son of God? Did he mean "Christ" as in someone that was called, appointed or anointed or did he mean some divine being or cosmic Enoch? Dying and becoming a part of a god wasn't uncommon when a Jewish god is.

The Trinity is best understood historically between differing concepts about Jesus both what they understood as flesh and god and become about God.
They wanted Jesus t be fully human and fully divine made of God stuff.
The Eastern Greek Christians differed from the Western Roman Christians that failed to care about Greek concepts and wanted Jesus to be both divine and human. They battled it out for centuries and sometimes with mobs in the streets organized by bishops. Finally one of the descendants of Constantine won against his brother that happened to be orthodox who now won the Empire and the others lost. But rather then see the paradox and contradiction is being both fully human and fully divine is that it blurs what it means to be either as well utter nonsense. They made it a doctrine and called it a mystery and apologists have tried everything they could think of to explain it because it is a doctrine and they have been indoctrinated to believe it is right and read it into the writings.

Do you have scriptures to back up the above ?

I don't need any as nothing there is really in the scriptures and the scriptures would be a rather poor limit. It is how their dogmas were formed and how they read and reinterpret the writings with the doctrines that were battled out.
I find it amusing that you ask for scriptures to back it up when it is not really dealing with the scriptures. W e are dealing with a doctrine. I can only think you are being sarcastic.'
The doctrines are in their history not their Bible and it shaped their reading and interpretations. Granted the Bible may set the stage or limit the analogies and metaphors but even the possible ways of interpreting are almost endless as the History of Christianity plainly shows.

[Kadmon]

I found the Trinity was best understood historically and the defence of the doctrine was largely irrelevant. If it said God was toast or Toast they would defend it.
Understanding what the Jews meant by "Son of God" is different then how Gentile(sinners) understood "Son of God" or "Christ".
How Paul understood either is up for grabs and they are still arguing about it.

Are You Speaking Of Paul , The Self - Appointed Apostle ?

Yes as he is a slipper thinker. But given his tendency was to present to sinners(gentiles) it is hard to pin him down as he seems to be winging it.
The point is that many differing traditions clam him as well as the objectors.
Did Paul mean "Son of God" as in the adopted Davidic son of God or some Pagan son of God? Did he mean "Christ" as in someone that was called, appointed or anointed or did he mean some divine being or cosmic Enoch? Dying and becoming a part of a god wasn't uncommon when a Jewish god is.

The Trinity is best understood historically between differing concepts about Jesus both what they understood as flesh and god and become about God.
They wanted Jesus t be fully human and fully divine made of God stuff.
The Eastern Greek Christians differed from the Western Roman Christians that failed to care about Greek concepts and wanted Jesus to be both divine and human. They battled it out for centuries and sometimes with mobs in the streets organized by bishops. Finally one of the descendants of Constantine won against his brother that happened to be orthodox who now won the Empire and the others lost. But rather then see the paradox and contradiction is being both fully human and fully divine is that it blurs what it means to be either as well utter nonsense. They made it a doctrine and called it a mystery and apologists have tried everything they could think of to explain it because it is a doctrine and they have been indoctrinated to believe it is right and read it into the writings.

Do you have scriptures to back up the above ?

I don't need any as nothing there is really in the scriptures and the scriptures would be a rather poor limit. It is how their dogmas were formed and how they read and reinterpret the writings with the doctrines that were battled out.
I find it amusing that you ask for scriptures to back it up when it is not really dealing with the scriptures. W e are dealing with a doctrine. I can only think you are being sarcastic.'
The doctrines are in their history not their Bible and it shaped their reading and interpretations. Granted the Bible may set the stage or limit the analogies and metaphors but even the possible ways of interpreting are almost endless as the History of Christianity plainly shows.

Relax I Wasn't Trying To Be A Wise Guy Nor A Smart A$$$ , I Never Seen Some One Calling Him / Her Self Explaining Dogmas / Doctrine / Christianity Without Scriptures . Being They're Many School Of Though When It Comes The The History Of Christianity ....