[Cronos]

What I am pointing to is the bare fact that other solutions to the Godhead can just as easily exist, and qualify, by the evidence.

valid -- however, I will repeat that we can know what the Godhead is NOT like for instance, we do KNOW that Jesus is God, you, I, Uri believe that (none of us believe the Oneness Pentecostal belief that believes that the Son was not eternally begotten but was a man, Jesus, who was born, crucified and died which is Adoptionism, pure and simple).

Uri's "solution" to the Godhead is a lot more subtle, as it denies the complex "three persons, one substance (ousia) According to the Athanasian Creed, each of these three divine persons is said to be eternal, each almighty, none greater or less than another, each God, and yet together being but one God, "So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say: 'There are three Gods or three Lords.'"—Athanasian Creed, line 20.

Modalism, to which Uri subscribes seems to me to be that belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself. Modalists note that the only number ascribed to God in the Holy Bible is One and that there is no inherent threeness ascribed to God explicitly in scripture except the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) and the Comma Johanneum.

Against this, Tertullian said in his work Adversus Praxeas, Chapter I, "By this Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete, and he crucified the Father."

I'm not certain of the relationship of Uri's beliefs with Unitarianism, though I'll venture enough to say that he is not a member of the Unitarian Universalists!

Interestingly, Arius himself does not subscribe to idea that Jesus was non-divine. he says

Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning.

Arius taught that Jesus Christ was divine and was sent to earth for the salvation of mankind but that Jesus Christ was not equal to the Father (infinite, primordial origin) and to the Holy Spirit (giver of life). Under Arianism, Christ was instead not consubstantial with God the Father [6] since both the Father and the Son under Arius were made of "like" essence or being (see homoiousia) but not of the same essence or being (see homoousia).

[the_conscience]

Cronos,

Modalism has been a problem for the Western Church since Augustine. I wish my Pastor was little more Trinitarian in his preaching but he is young so I give him a break.

But I wonder if you have the same concerns with the Eastern Church and their Monarchialism?

I think we can say God is both One Person and three Persons which allows the unity of God to be personal and the distinct economic nature of the persons, without being irrational.

[roamer_1]

[roamer_1:] What I am pointing to is the bare fact that other solutions to the Godhead can just as easily exist, and qualify, by the evidence.

valid -- however, I will repeat that we can know what the Godhead is NOT like for instance, we do KNOW that Jesus is God, you, I, Uri believe that (none of us believe the Oneness Pentecostal belief that believes that the Son was not eternally begotten but was a man, Jesus, who was born, crucified and died which is Adoptionism, pure and simple).

Accepted. However, What God "is not" does not necessarily infer what He IS. The Trinitarian view is not proven by Adoptionism's fault. By definition, both are mere tradition, as neither is declared within the Word.

Again, the errata that stands against Trinitarian-ism denies it in fact. It cannot be true, if the Word says it is wrong.

Holy Yahweh says He is ONE... That is declared explicitly throughout, and even confirmed by Christ. I will take Him at His Word. It is undeniable.

Now, There ARE errata which stand against "Yahweh is One"... Jesus declared "No one knows, but the Father" about the time of the end... This implies separation in that Christ is basically saying He doesn't know, but the Father does. He didn't say "I know, but I don't want to tell you ..." He implies that He doesn't know.

Trinitarians must explain this separation - The all knowing Uber-3 are tied at the hip... How is it that Christ did not know? This is the danger of assuming to declare something that is not known.

But the Father loves a good pun ("All Israel is not Israel"), and all that...

All I must do, as I do not endorse the Trinitarian model, is stick to the original explicit declaration - Yahweh is ONE (which Christ also proclaims) - and assume that Christ's words about the end are not yet revealed to me. Quite the riddle, eh?

Mine is the correct position, I think. We need to stand upon what we know, and avoid confusion.

The Hypostatic Trinity model is not true, because it is not declared, and cannot be proven... This single piece of errata denies it wholly.

God is ONE is true, because Jehovah said it Himself, explicitly. I will not blaspheme Jehovah. I need to explain nothing further.

[...] According to the Athanasian Creed, each of these three divine persons is said to be eternal, each almighty, none greater or less than another, each God, and yet together being but one God, "So are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say: 'There are three Gods or three Lords.'"—Athanasian Creed, line 20.

Please do not quote creeds to me. I find them to be offensive. I will subscribe to *none* of them. Prove it upon the Word alone.

Uri's "solution" to the Godhead is a lot more subtle, as it denies the complex "three persons, one substance (ousia) [...] Modalism, to which Uri subscribes seems to me to be that belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God

I have not seen UriÂ’el-2012 claim Modalism. I have seen nothing about "modes" or "aspects". I have seen UriÂ’el-2012 say "Our God is ONE God." I will stand with him in that.

Against this, Tertullian said in his work Adversus Praxeas, Chapter I, "By this Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete, and he crucified the Father."

Yet when it was believed that there was ONE God over Israel(Yahweh is his Name), prophecy abounded - as well as prophets - Even past the time of the Resurrection. Now, nearly the entirety of the Church denies the need for prophecy and prophets... claiming that time has passed (not only your side of the fence, btw). This is not a good argument for you.

Arius taught that Jesus Christ was divine and was sent to earth for the salvation of mankind but that Jesus Christ was not equal to the Father (infinite, primordial origin) and to the Holy Spirit (giver of life).

I would love to have been able to argue with him. My position would be "Our God is ONE God".