Jesus or Yahweh?

I would first like to recommend an article by my friend and fellow theologian Jason Dulle. He has some very excellent remarks on Yahweh or Jesus? What is God's Name? 

There is really no choice that needs to be made between Jesus or Yahweh (a pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton). I think this presupposes something unnecessary as well. In reality they are both the same name, but with one being a continued or expanded form of the other, describing what God does. Dulle notes this as well in his article:

"the problem with such a statement is rooted in the fact that it sets up a false dichotomy between "YHWH" and "Jesus," forcing us to decide between the two."

The Jewish Study Bible (non-Christian source) says,
"YHVH was probably originally pronounced "Yahweh," but in Second Temple times, as an expression of reverence, Jews began to avoid uttering it, substituting adonai and other surrogates. (As a reminder, to do so, in printed Hebrew Bibles the consonants are accompanied by the vowels of the surrogate words, leading to such hybrid English forms as Jehovah.") pg. 112
Yah or Jah is an abbreviated form of the Tetragrammaton. Some however do believe that this form, Yah or Jah, is the original form. I personally don't know for certain but others say it is a shortened form such as yeho, yo, yahu, yah which in some way represent the divine name known among the Israelites before the full name Jahveh or Yahweh was revealed on Mt. Horeb (Ex. 3:6-16).

This is not the LZ (landing zone) though. Think of it this way, what is the name of Jesus without YHWH/YHVH? His name is YHWH, YHWH is salvation. Indeed, by saying "I and my Father are one" is to identify Himself as Yahweh. There is no either/or here. God's name is YHWH because He is timeless existence but He is also Yeshua/Jesus because of what He is doing with us - saving us! We call on YHWH when we speak the name of Jesus.

Ephesians 5:20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, ESV

See Catholic Encyclopedia on "Jehovah/Yahweh"
See Jewish Encyclopedia on "Tetragrammaton" 

Nestorius and Nestorianism?

‎" The extent of his error [Nestorianism] had been much exaggerated." ~J. J. Lias, M.A 

Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century
Nestorius and Nestorianism


Jesus Is Yahweh's Unique Dwelling Place

"Jesus is Yahweh's unique dwelling place."*
David Norris, I AM: A Oneness Pentecostal Theology pg. 78

Exodus 3:15
וַיֹּאמֶר֩ עֹ֨וד אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶל־ מֹשֶׁ֗ה כֹּֽה־ תֹאמַר֮ אֶל־ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ יְהוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י

Exodus 3:15
And God said moreover unto Moses Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel The LORD* God of your fathers the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob hath sent me unto you this is my name for ever and this is my memorial unto all generations. ESV

The term "Father" is a title or metaphor for God. It is true that God is our Father and the title certainly applies, but we should keep in mind that it is used to point us to God in his relational mode of existence with Creation. The title Father is used variously throughout the Old Testament. Trinitarian theologians put so much emphasis on the title "Father" that it is used to refer to a distinct person in the Godhead as well as a worthy title to be called over one in baptism. Is this the name for God though? Father? Here is how the Bible defines its use of "Father":

1. The immediate male parent or grandfather or even more distant relative (Gen 17:4; 28:13; 42:13).

2. The pioneer of some craft or occupation (Gen 4:21)

3. The mayor or provost of a town (1 Chron. 2:51)

4. A courtesy title for one who had acted like a benevolent father (Gen 45:8)

5. An aged and revered teacher (1 Sam 10:12)

6. As a prophetic title of Christ, the coming Messiah, as “The everlasting Father” (Isa 9:6).

The Gospel of John takes the use to an all time high in the New Testament with a total around 116 with Christ using them about 108 of those times. John is very theological in his presentation and so this is to be expected as we see the reality of the Incarnation or the relationship between the Father and the Son. Thomas F. Torrance points out that "We can approach Jesus only as sinners who need the mediation of Christ in order to go to the Father..."* This relationship helps us conceptualize how God could become a man and indeed redeem us.

Besides the Gospels the New Testament authors only use "Father" 78 times, but use "God" more than 1000 times. This is their preferred term for God, whereas Jesus’ preferred term was "Father" but not by much. 174 times He called God "Father" and 161 times He called Him "God". To the Jew Yahweh is God, the only Lord God.

In Exodus 3:15, above, LORD here is capitalized because it is יְהֹוָה or Yhvh. J.R. Ensey made these comments at the Apostolic Theological Forum worth noting:

"If God's name has always been Yeshua, it would seem strange that He never referred to Himself as such, nor was He ever called that until the New Testament. It might be counter-argued that while God was called YHWH in the OT, He is never called by such in the NT. But is God called YHWH in the NT? Yes, in its expanded form as Jesus, meaning YHWH is salvation. The name Jesus found exclusively in the NT, is a continuation of the revealed name of God found throughout the OT. "Jesus" is not a new name." *

The name of God in the Old Testament is YHWH and Jesus is the continuing revelation of the name of YHWH. Indeed, Yehshua means: YHWH is salvation. To invoke the name of Jesus is to in some way invoke the name of YHWH. This distinguishes the name of Jesus as a covenantal name and is not equivalent to the proper name "Jesus" given in other languages. There are several titles for God but God's name is YHWH (Ex. 3:14-15). Yeshua or Jesus has been revealed, as the "exalted" name "above all names" (Phil. 2:9-11).

In I AM: A Oneness Pentecostal Theology Dr. David Norris says, "Analogously, the name of Jesus functions covenentally much the same as Yahweh." The name Yeshua contains part of the divine name in its grammatical construction and was also accompanied by the announcement of angels. In fact, there is "no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" outside the name of Jesus (See Acts 4:12).

To those who heard the name know that Yeshua was the salvation of Yahweh. This was important for Christ's divine identify as Yahweh but also His mission since it "declared what Yahweh would do in the person of Jesus Christ."* (Norris, pg. 76) The name of Jesus is the name above all names. We must be sure that we do divorce from its very meaning or forget, rather, that it is a continuing revelation of YHWH Himself.

"God did not remain in heaven and send a Son, the second Person in the Godhead, to earth. He was right here HIMSELF, GOD WITH US Matthew 1:23" S.G. Norris
(The Mighty God in Christ, pg. 20)


* Norris, David S. I AM: A Oneness Pentecostal Theology (c) 2009 by David S. Norris. Word Aflame Publishers Academic, pg.78

* Torrance, Thomas F. Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ (c) 2008 by Thomas F. Torrance and Robert T. Walker. Intervarsity Press Academic publishing.

* "What is God's Real Name?" by J.R. Ensey delivered at the 2009 Apostolic Theological Forum

* Norris, pg. 76


Faithful and True

Faithful and True

Excerpt from article:

It is easy to forget that God is not subject to the human frailties we are. Too often we put limitations on His ability, defining it through our carnal eyes. I can tell you what God will say to us. He will say that we are His children, His bride, and His church. He will tell us that He died on the cross for our sins, and He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He can tell us that He knows every tear that we cry, and that He cares for us more than anyone else. However, I feel the need to declare what God will not do. He will not leave us, nor forsake us. He will never lie, or break His promises. He will never abuse us, or take us for granted. He will never mock us, or tell us that He’s too busy for us.

Faithful and True



Click to purchase from Amazon.

Bloodroot is a first class novel. If you are interested in the South or slavery this is the book for you. As you read you begin a journey into the reality of what the late 50’s and 60’s must have been like. The author says that Bloodroot is fiction but it is “based on the life…of Harry Weatherholtz” the real life grandfather of the author’s wife. The book tells us that Harry, Evelyn Weatherholtz, the Baldwin family and Ruth are real people. As the story unfolds we see the racial prejudice of this era and for some we can realize that “prejudices still abound.” (Arrowood, pg. 217)

It’s the summer of 57’ and Mr. Cutshaw, who does not hide “disdain for Christianity” symbolizes racial ignorance that permeated the thoughts of some in these times. In fact, for Cutshaw it was “white man’s Christianity” that put “foolish idea’s into the heads of Negroes.” (Arrowood, pg. 17) Cutshaw watches and goads little Eddie, a young black boy, to wade deeper into the water. Cutshaw has snagged his lure, while fishing, and sent young Eddie in to do his bidding. Ms. Ann, Eddie’s sister and also in the employ of Cutshaw, stands by urging Eddie not to go too far…

Was the drowning an accident or purposeful? The wheels of justice turn ever so slowly in this story. Is this much different from reality? Especially in the 50’s and 60’s in the South? The author does a great job in demonstrating this. The Sheriff becomes afraid to buck the system given the status of black people during this time. After all, during these times did they take a black woman’s word over a white man’s?

I am writing a review and not a spoiler so you will have to get the book to know the rest. Harry Weatherholtz cuts to the heart of our culture, today even, when he says, “decent hearted men are a rare find. They develop from personal choices and conscientious effort…” (Arrowood, pg. 121).  Change or things of value do not occur over night in many cases. They do not simply materialize. Things like toadstools come up over night but it is things like oak tree’s that take time. It starts with choices.

Larry M. Arrowod

Here are more titles
by Larry Arrowood
 @ Amazon.com


Scriptural Data For Christ's Claim to Divinity

 "...the God Jesus Christ"
Mosaic in the floor of oldest known Christian church*

Jesus is our perfect example. Of this the Scriptures are clear. Is this all that Christ is though?

For some time those who would consider the deity and the human aspects of Christ, without division of them, use a term such as the Dual Nature. This means that the humanity and the deity are united inseparably into one. This, however, does not mean Jesus was a mirage, a hologram, a mere shell, or ONLY a man. He was indeed true and genuine biological matter however this is not only side of the Biblical story. The claims of Christ and the witness of the Scriptures themselves attest to His humanity and His divinity.

We must bear in mind though that we cannot SEPARATE the divie and human aspect of Jesus, the Christ. Jesus is fully God and man - not 50/50 but God existing as man. He did not just appear as a man, He was truly a man. He was not ONLY a man and that makes all the difference. We must also remember that the flesh of Jesus was not divine and if it was He would NOT be truly human and therefore flying in the face of Christ as our substitutionary atonement. The name Jesus, the person Jesus was born on a day and in the tapestry of Creation.

English Standard Version
For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? Heb. 1:5

Concerning 1 Tim. 3:16.

God was manifest in the flesh refers to Jesus, the Christ and Lord (Phil. 2:5) and particularly to His Incarnation. You cannot refer to God being manifest in flesh and not invoke the Incarnation just as Paul also cannot refer to "vindicated [justified] by the Spirit" without implying the Resurrection. This passage is still a great testimony to the Incarnation and to the Resurrection.

English Standard Version
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. 1 Tim. 3:16

Obviously then Jesus as God manifest in flesh refers in some sense to the qivine qualities in Him from the Incarnation. It borders on Nestorianism to separate the aspects of Christ's humanity and deity. Paul also tells us of the "mystery of godliness". Paul is saying that genuine godliness was manifest in the flesh for the first time from the moment He came into existence. He was not just indwelt by the Spirit of God but the logos/word that became flesh dwelt among us (John 1:1-14).

English Standard Version
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14

The word “became” or egeneto (Grk.) means to come into being, to happen, to become. Jesus is our perfect, sinless example. God manifest in the flesh. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Word was with God and the Word was God.

English Standard Version
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” John 8:58

Concerning John 8:58

John 8:58 does not simply assert Messiahship. The verb suggests the eternal present of God’s eternity. “I AM” is also reminiscent of God’s name in Ex. 3:14. There is no way to overlook this as it is also impossible to realize, as a result, that Jesus is the divine Son of Man - the Messiah whom they knew would come from Heaven.

English Standard Version
21 As I looked, this horn made war with the saints and prevailed over them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints possessed the kingdom. Daniel 7:21-22

Jesus often used the term son of man to refer to Himself. Dr. Raymond Crownover suggests that "Although Jesus was literally the “Son of God,” He was not the son of any man. The title “Son of Man” ho wios tou anthroupou = “the Son of Mankind”" He goes on to state that, "Against all my expectations, the title “Son of Man” refers to Jesus primarily in his Deity, not His humanity." He also concludes with "The title “Son of Man” is a prophetic title clearly demonstrating the Devine nature of the coming Messiah." He offers these texts concerning the Son of Man:

Matthew 9:6 tells us the “Son of Man” has power to forgive sins

John 5:27 says that the “Son of God” was granted authority “because He is the Son of Man.”

Matthew 12:8 "For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

Matthew 13:41 “The Son of Man will send out His angels”

Matthew 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.”

John 1:51 And He said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man."

John 6:62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?

John 3:13 "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.”*

When God revealed Himself as "I AM" (ehyeh in Hebrew) and "I am he" (ani hu in Hebrew), the Septuagint renders these two phrases as "ego eimi." Thus when Jesus repeatedly used "ego eimi" in John 8 and in other places He is using the divine name for God. The Jews reacted accordingly because they knew He was claiming to be the I AM of Exodus 3:14-15 and the "I am he" of various OT scriptures. "Except ye believe I am the Messiah!" is not what Jesus is trying to say. He is saying to them He is God from all eternity. There was never a time when He came into being, or when He did not exist. Therefore He said, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” See also Hebrews 13:8.

English Standard Version
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Hebrews 13:8

We must acknowledge, as did the Jews of John 8, the identity of Jesus Christ as the incarnation of God. The divine identity is the same yesterday, today and forever. Jesus is eternally God. Identifying Jesus Christ as God without the humanity leaves an incomplete Christ. Likewise, Jesus Christ as human without divinity would also leave an incomplete Jesus.

Another key point, Jesus prefaces His remarks with amen, amen or truly, truly. This type of phrase at the beginning of a discourse—surely, truly, of a truth but when used at end—so it is, so be it, may it be fulfilled. During the times of Jesus it was a custom that when the one reading Torah was finished and offered prayer that the others responded with Amen, Amen. This continues to happen in Christendom. Jesus totally takes Himself to another level before the Jews by declaring His existence is not just earthly but eternal as it relates to the essence of God but also that this is very true! Truly, surely!

Concerning John 8:58 we can also note that by pronouncing God's name, as Jesus had done (I AM), and claiming it for Himself was punishable by death. Lev. 24:15-16 points this out as well as the Mishna Sanhedrin 7:5 which says "The blasphemer is not guilty until he pronounces the Name." Jesus was essentially claiming that although Abraham had a beginning He has no beginning. Only His flesh was bound by limitations as the manifestation of the Father.

The Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John makes this plain, "Here again I Am is used in the absolute sense in which it identifies Jesus with God the Father."*

Concerning John 10:30

English Standard Version
"I and the Father are one.” John 10:30

Jesus simply referred to God as "The Father" in third person speech, for the sake of those with whom He would speak, in the incarnation, who did NOT recognize Him for who he was and is. The word "one" here is hen, the singular neuter from of heis (Grk. for “one”). The gender of the word doesn’t tell us alot about how the word is being used outside of it being masc. fem. or neut. “hen” or “one” that comes after “Father” in 10:30 is sing. neut. This does not preclude John 10:30 from referring to essence though just because other passages do not (John 17:11). In 10:30 the grammar and context indicate that that is the meaning. Other passages could be taken to indicate that Jesus is no more God than we are, if we took the text in a vacuum. John 10:30 clearly declares Jesus to be God. He is equal to God. When you have seen Jesus you have looked upon the Father. These verses do not contradict nor are they oppositional to one another in any way.

English Standard Version
Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. Gal. 3:20

This verse was used against the Arians in early Church History as well as various other beliefs that would separate the deity and humanity of Jesus. To say Jesus is to invoke the Incarnation itself. In John 8:52ff we see that Abraham died, and Christ is the giver of life (vs. 51). To the Jews Abraham was their father, their ancestral hero so to speak. Christ was at the center of everything Abraham did in the OT for he rejoiced at the very thought of the day of Jesus. Abraham was a man and the contrast here is that Christ is essentially God. That is why when the Jews asked "Who do you think you are?" (vs. 53) Jesus would reply, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

Here is a list of Scriptural data on the deity of Christ:

1. The early creedal formula "Jesus is Lord [kyrios]": 1 Cor 12:3; Phil 2:11.

2. The title "Son of God" ("Son of" implies "of the same nature as."): Matt 11:27; Mark 12:6; 13:32; 14:61-62; Luke 10:22; 22:70; John 10:30; 14:9.

3. The New Testament calls him "God": Titus 2:13; 1 John 5:20; Rom 9:5; John 1:1.

4. Absolutely, universally supreme: Col 1:15-20.

5. Eternally preexistent: John 1:1; Phil 2:6; Heb 13:8; Rev 22:13.

6. Omnipresent: Matt 18:20; 28:20.

7. Omnipotent: Matt 28:18; Heb 1:3; Rev 1:8.

8. Immutable: Heb 1:11-12; 13:8.

9. Creates (only God can create): Col 1:16-17; John 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Heb 1:10.

10. Sinless, perfect: Heb 7:26; John 8:46; 2 Cor 5:21.

11. Has authority to forgive sins: Mark 2:5-12; Luke 24:45-47; Acts 10:43; 1 John 1:5-9.

12. Rightly worshiped: Matt 2:11; 14:33; 28:9; John 20:28; Heb 1:5-9.

13. Speaks the unique, forbidden divine name: John 8:58.

14. Called "King of kings and Lord of lords": 1 Tim 6:15; Rev 17:14.

15. One with the Father: John 10:30; 12:45; 14:8-10.

16. Performs miracles: John 10:37-38; and throughout all four Gospels.

17. Sends the Holy Spirit: John 14:25-26; 16:7-15.

18. The Father testifies to him: Matt 3:17; 17:5; John 8:18; 1 John 5:9.

19. Gives eternal life: John 3:16; 5:39-47; 20:30-31.

20. Foreknows the future: Mark 8:31; Luke 9:21-22; 12:49-53; 22:35-37; 24:1-7; John 3:11-14; 6:63-64; 13:1-11; 14:27-29; 18:1-4; 19:26-30.

21. Is Lord over the Law: Luke 6:1-5.*

New International Version
Men will tell you, 'There he is!' or 'Here he is!' Do not go running off after them. 24 For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. Luke 17:23-24

It is imperative for Christians that we believe and confess that Jesus was a man, but is also more than a man. The believer, without qualification, should be able to confess that Jesus is "my Lord and my God". This is in keeping with the early confession of "doubting" Thomas, a disciple of Christ. In John 20:28 it records

English Standard Version
Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. John 20:28


* Mosaic pictured above is oldest Christian church or prayer hall in Israel. It is located in Megiddo in a prison that dates third or fourth century. Inscription speaks of “the God Jesus Christ” thought to exist in the memory of "the god, Jesus Christ". According to Prof Leah di Segni of the Hebrew University - "The God-loving Aketous/Ekoptos has offered this table to , as a memorial to the God Jesus Christ"


* Newman, B. M., & Nida, E. A. (1993], c1980). A handbook on the Gospel of John. Originally published: A translator's handbook on the Gospel of John, c1980. Helps for translators; UBS handbook series (295). New York: United Bible Societies.

* Excerpt from: Handbook of Christian Apologetics
© 1994 by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli. All rights reserved.


Dr. James R. White and The False Charge of Nestorianism

I listen to the podcast of Dr. James R. White, from AOMIN.org often. Dr. White is an excellent Reformed apologist and has done a great job in defending the deity of Christ, the Existence of God, and other religious topics. He has done a great job debating Islam as well. During the Septermber 7th podcast edition of The Dividing Line Dr. White answers a question from a caller concerning Oneness Pentecostals, John 14:9 and the claim that “Jesus is The Father”. The answer for the caller, in part, was that John 14 distinguishes between the Father and Son over, and over and over again. Dr. White also suggests that Oneness Pentecostals have a presupposition that if Jesus is in any way shape or form connected with the Father then they somehow are together. He also notes, “If you can talk to someone using personal pronouns….you are clearly not the other person.”  He eventually crashes the argument by suggesting that Oneness Pentecostal’s believe that one half of Jesus was praying to the other half and that they also turn Jesus “into two persons.”

This is the old fashioned charge of Nestorianism. I had listened to his remarks at the Bunyan Conference (click here for video) at which he spoke in 2008 and he had made similar arguments based upon John 1:1, John 17:5, and Phillippians 2:5. He even repeated his offer to debate Dr. David K. Bernard who is currently the General Superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church International. Given his duties as the Superintendent, Pastor and President of Urshan Graduate School of Theology I see Dr. White waiting a very long time. He should move on.

This podcast seemed to be even more radical. Sadly, Dr. White then refers the questioner to his debate with Dr. Robert Sabin in 1999 in Patchoque, NY. In my opinion Sabin could have done much better than he did but chose to rely upon the emotive argument of Michael Servetus. In other debates however with Robert Bowman, Walter Martin, John Ankerberg and Cal Beisener his approach was different.

The point is though that by doing this Dr. White demonstrates his misunderstanding of Oneness Pentecostalism and by referring to the Sabin debate he shows us that his arguments haven’t changed. They are the same old arguments much like those we see of Dr. Robert Morey in The Trinity: Evidence and Issues. These are mostly vacuous claims that are really tangential to the argument that the Oneness Pentecostal is actually making.

Dr. White has probably not even read the final report from the Society of Pentecostal Studies 2008 Oneness and Trinitarian Dialogue which was presented at Duke University Divinity School in Durham, North Carolina. I should give him the benefit of the doubt and hope that he has. Those interested in what Oneness Pentecostals actually believe can read these writings in a theological journal which is the outcome of over seven years of scholarly dialogue. Oneness Pentecostal contributors include but are not limited to UPC scholars like Dr. David K. Bernard, Dr. Daniel L. Segraves, Dr. David Norris, and PAW scholar and bishop James A. Johnson.

I have posted Dr. Segraves remarks concerning vol. 30, number 2 of the Pneuma journal for the Society of Pentecostal studies. Here is the post from January of 2009. What do Oneness Pentecostals believe though about the deity and humanity of Christ? In the journal Oneness Pentecostals affirm:

41. We affirm the genuine and complete humanity of Jesus. Christ’s humanity means that everything we humans can say of ourselves, we can say of Jesus in his earthly life, except for sin. Moreover, in every way that we relate to God, Jesus related to God, except that he did not need to repent or be born again. Thus, when Jesus prayed, when he submitted his will to the Father, and when he spoke about and to God, he simply acted in accordance with his authentic, genuine humanity.
42. We regard the terms “Father” and “Son” in the New Testament as serving to emphasize the true humanity of Jesus, not to make distinctions within God’s being. The title of Father reminds us of God’s transcendence, while the title of Son focuses on the incarnation. Any attempt to identify two divine persons tends toward ditheism or subordinationism. Moreover, in our view, defining the Son as a second divine person results in two Sons—an eternal, divine Son who could not die and a temporal, human Son who did die.
43. Although we recognize both deity and humanity in Christ, it is impossible to separate the two in him. Humanity and deity were inseparably joined in him. While there was a distinction between the divine will and his human will, he always submitted the latter to the former. Jesus was, and remains, the one God manifested in flesh.

The charge of Nestorianism is false on its face. This is not the teachings of Oneness Pentecostals. In fact Nestorius may have been more orthodox than Nestorius; however, Oneness believers do not affirm that Christ has a human side that is a person and a divine side that is another person. Are there issues in how they express it? Of course. Dr. White can accuse us of Nestorianism for ages if he would like but it is probably about as effective as me accusing him of being Tritheistic.

If I say the humanity of Jesus wept or hungered I am recognizing His humanity in such a way that does not say He is a human person ONLY that is also another yet divine person. It is like referring to a red ball. It is a ball but is also the color of red. If the Spirit that was resident in Christ were to leave, hypothetically, prior to His death, then what would have happened to His body? Jason Dulle, M.A. say those who hold to a Nestorian Christology will say that Christ would continue to live but those who reject such a view would say that the body would not continue to live and function.

Not all Oneness Pentecostals say “Jesus is the Father” as well. It is more accurate to say Jesus is the Father manifest in the flesh or the Father Incarnate. "Jesus is the Father" can be a logical contradiction given the different nature of existence that the Son of God had versus the nature of existence that God the Father has. There is a distinction as a result of the Incarnation between the Father and the Son. Yet a distinction does not prove a person. I do not say Jesus is the Father because “is” refers to state of being and the state of the Father’s being was not identical to that of the Son since one is transcendant and the other existed in time/existentially. The Son of God is not identical to the Father and this claim is not necessary in order to posit Oneness Theology. The Father is Incarnate in the Son of God. As the above affirmation declares, “Jesus was, and remains, the one God manifested in flesh.” (# 43)

Click here for debate between Dr. David K. Bernard and Dr. James R. White

Click here for comments on John 17:5 by Dr. Daniel L. Segraves

Is God a Person? Click here for comments by Jason Dulle, M.A.

John 1:1 “with God” and pros theos. Click here for comments by James Anderson

Debate between Dr. James White and Dr. Robert Sabin


Debate: James Anderson and Glen Burt

The Oneness of God and The Trinity

When? TBA

Time? 7:00 p.m.

Debate Propositions:

Burt affirm and Anderson will deny: The scripture teaches that the Godhead (one God) is three divine beings.

Anderson will affirm and Burt will deny: The scripture teaches that the Godhead (one God) is one divine being.

Glen R. Burt (Trinitarian)
James N. Anderson (Oneness)

Adversus Trinitas

"...unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." (John 8:24 ESV)