On this thread, Bishopkingsley was caught red handed copying and pasting from other websites without including the references, passing himself off as someone knowledgeable, which clearly proves he’s still lightweight on what he claims to believe.


Bishopkingsley has no idea what trinity is about. He preaches modalism and confuses that for trinity.


Up till today, Bishopkingsley is too scared to get into the Hebrew Scriptures to show one reference where Yachad (Solitary One) was used in reference to the Oneness of God, but has claimed repeatedly it applies. (Personal beliefs with zero scriptural proof). Instead of being honest and humble enough to admit there is nothing as such in the Hebrew Scriptures, he claims the English Bible is sufficient and explains everything, as though the authors of the scriptures wrote it in English.


Now Bishopkingsley has gone on an emotional meltdown to claim I can’t prove three beings whatever, when the simple picture below (image on the left) can be understood by anyone with a sound mind.

The moment someone like Bishopkingsley cannot defend his position, he gets emotional.
I’ve seen this happen many times with others on this forum. I’m not your problem, your refusal to believe the naked truth placed before you is the problem. So deal with it.

OkCornel:


The image on the left explains it clearly, that’s what I subscribe to.

Not the modalism heresy Bishopkingsley has been spreading on this forum.

I don't care about Bishopkingsley or anything explain to me in words what that three beings mean

Kingsnairaland:
I don't care about Bishopkingsley or anything explain to me in words what that three beings mean

Is the picture on the left (trinity) not clear enough for you to understand?

BassReeves:
Fyi, God is distinct from 'married couples'
You're contradicting yourself using apple to compare with oranges.
God is unitary wholeness, while 'married couples' is double, triple, quadruple, 700 wives up to the nth number wholeness

'married couples' are said to be one flesh, while the Lord God is one, plain and simple just one, you even would say God, simultaneously, is echad and yachid or yachad[

Bishopkingsley:
Why should I be looking for that when I told you

God is all in all...... God, simultaneously, is echad and yachid or yachad

OkCornel:
Just be honest enough to admit you can’t find Yachad used in reference to the Oneness of God in the Hebrew Scriptures.

End of discussion.

Fyi, the words 'Echad, Yachid and/or Yachad'
(i.e. Echad, meaning 'one' next Yachid, meaning 'only one' and then Yachad, meaning ''the unity of God, togetherness of the Godhead, to unite, to be united, to be one, to make one, as in, to set apart'') all come from the same root

If you need where 'Yachad ' is used in reference to the Oneness of God in the Hebrew Scriptures, then start at looking at the portmanteau name Jahdiel, first mentioned in 1 Chronicles 5:24. It is a derivation from two words 'yachad' and 'El' meaning 'the unity or unitedness of God'

Fyi, note the following:
1. Yachad, is an action word, it is a verb. The Godhead has to be in united for a common purpose etc. The word Yachad, is related to a verb of action, expressing or describing what action the Godhead or God does.
2. Yachid, is a substantive word and also an adjective word. The former espouses the firm basis in reality of the uniqueness of Godhead or God, while the latter, on another note, is a word, naming the only, only one, solitary existence of Godhead or God. If you're familiar with the concept of monogenes, you'll get a sense of what this one (i.e. Yachid,) means in terms of being one and one alone (i.e. its not a unified one or Echad)
3. Echad, is an adjective word, describing the unity or unified essence of the Godhead or God, telling the fact or state of the Godhead or God, being unified regardless of the ability to exist or manifest in more one way, more than one means, more than one form etc. It is describing the state of the Godhead or God, being in harmony even the reality of the togetherness or oneness of the Godhead or God. Mind you, Echad is talking of unity or harmony here and not sameness. Godhead or God is One

BassReeves:


Deuteronomy 6:4
'“Hear, O Israel:
The LORD our God, the LORD is one.'

Mark 12:29
'“Jesus replied, "This is the most important:
'Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One'

What on this thread is going on OkCornel? Bishopkingsley? and Kingsnairaland?
Is the Oneness of H₂O a literal number?
Or is it about unity irrespective of the literal numbers?

Please pause, think, reflect and respond.

OkCornel:
I don’t need to, it’s not the first time I’ve conversed with Bassreeves (MuttleyLaff) on this forum.

Has BassReeves informed you that BassReeves is MuttleyLaff?
Why are providing unsolicited information to mischievously to deflect and draw away attention to subject matter at hand.
You might have conversed with MuttleyLaff, but has BassReeves conversed with you on the subject discussed here. Remember the questions above were addressed to you, OkCornel, Bishopkingsley and Kingsnairaland?

OkCornel:
If he has an objection to that position, he would have quoted me long ago.

As you can see from above that I quoted you when it suited me to quote, [/quote]Your position isnt clear, and I couldn't really pin down what the contention was between the trio of you, OkCornel, Bishopkingsley and Kingsnairaland and so that is why I shot those questions at the three of you

OkCornel:
And if you read that post of mine you quoted properly, his moniker was mentioned there.

So what if his moniker was mentioned there.?

OkCornel:
And when I brought out 1 Corinthians 11 v 3;

Did Bassreeves object to this? I haven’t seen any objections from him so far.

Christ’s subjection to His Father in 1 Corinthians 11:3 doesnt at all argue an inequality between nor is it advancing an idea about a difference of Jesus in nature and essence from God.
Fyi, its similar to how the subjection of subjects to their king doesnt argue inequality

OkCornel:
From what I can see, you’re desperately seeking people to support your argument, and that support isn’t forthcoming.

You don’t have to lie to make a point. Bassreeves corrected nothing.

Bishopkingsley is absolutely right that you didnt understand the meaning of this below:
'God is distinct from 'married couples'
You're contradicting yourself using apple to compare with oranges.
God is unitary wholeness, while 'married couples' is double, triple, quadruple, 700 wives up to the nth number wholeness

'married couples' are said to be one flesh, while the Lord God is one, plain and simple just one, you even would say God, simultaneously, is echad and yachid or yachad'

OkCornel, you are using 'married couples' which like H₂O in reality is unable to sufficiently deal with the situation or purpose of explaining the oneness of God. This is the reason I used the phrase makeshift (i.e. make do H₂O Metaphor) and this solely because the oneness of God is unique. Besides marriage isnt necessarily duology, the patriarchs, had more than one wife, while king Solomon is recorded to have married 700 wives.

So, you see that there is nothing in on earth, nothing in our world to perfectly compare the oneness of God with.There are only analogies, like your forwarded 'married couples' or the 'make do H₂O Metaphor' that Bishopkingsley and I might have used. Neither are exact parallels that fully and adequately explains the oneness of the Godhead or God. Of course, they take enough along the road to position of having a sense and degree of understanding what the oneness of the Godhead or God.

Reiterating, the oneness of the Godhead or God is a unique, its just as like, the birth of Jesus Christ is unique. OkCornel, the point being made here is that the oneness of God is remarkable, is special, is unusual and above all those aforementioned, is unlike anything else anyone could ever think up, hence it is impossible for us, with easy explanations, to know anything about what it is we call the oneness of God.

As I've posited to Bishopkingsley earlier before, the prefix to the 'logy' of God, when you go beyond or far beyond, is not limited to three.

What could be taken away from all this is that, God is a Genius, without a genus. Mic drop.

OkCornel:
My modalistic friend, this one being in three person doctrine of yours is a heresy the early church fought against and that’s why you can’t find scriptural references from the Hebrew Bible to back up your point, you’d rather drop that Oneness talk like hot potatoes.

The earlier you realise oneness is about unity rather than numbers, the better for you.

Modalism, Sabellianism etc are heretic doctrines you’re still stubbornly clinging to, and you’re still here trying to prove to me that you know better than the early church and the Hebrew authors of the scriptures.

Bishopkingsley:
I have explained to you

And now I asked a simple question more than ten times and you have no answer to your own

It means you don't even understand what you preach you just say what you don't know

This thing I preach is what catholic, and living Fath, Christ embassy, all pentecostal preach yet your better that all of us

With your nonsense beings evil doctrine making God three beings who join together

Get out from my sight since you can't explain your so called trinity and beings theory

God is trinity and more, which is why
trinity is an unnecessary doctrine not explicitly taught in the bible. As I earlier have said, its impossible from a human being POV to explain trinity, mathematically or otherwise.

As believers, we dont worship the Holy Spirit, however honoring Jesus Christ, the Son is also honoring God, the Father, so there ought to be no conflict there that JWs seem to have a beef with. There is no need to reconcile the worship of the Father or the Son, being that the Son, is God Incarnate anyway

OkCornel:


Is the picture on the left (trinity) not clear enough for you to understand?

my master it is not clear

BassReeves:


God is trinity and more, which is why
trinity is an unnecessary doctrine not explicitly taught in the bible. As I earlier have said, its impossible from a human being POV to explain trinity, mathematically or otherwise.

As believers, we dont worship the Holy Spirit, however honoring Jesus Christ, the Son is also honoring God, the Father. There is no conflict there that JWs seem to have a beef with. There is no need to reconcile the worship of the Father or the Son, being that the Son, is God Incarnate anyway

From the images you attach below, Bishopkingsley differs from what you are even discussing. He claims the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same person.

And by the way, is Bassreeves not Muttleylaff hmmm?

OkCornel:


Is the picture on the left (trinity) not clear enough for you to understand?

I don't understand the picture clearly put it in words

Bishopkingsley:
my master it is not clear

Is kingsnairaland your alternate moniker?

I’m having a conversation with Kingsnairaland right now.

Bishopkingsley:
my master it is not clear

It cant be clear because its flawed and inadequate, that why

BassReeves:




Fyi, the words 'Echad, Yachid and/or Yachad'
(i.e. Echad, meaning 'one' next Yachid, meaning 'only one' and then Yachad, meaning ''the unity of God, togetherness of the Godhead, to unite, to be united, to be one, to make one, as in, to set apart'') all come from the same root

If you need where 'Yachad ' is used in reference to the Oneness of God in the Hebrew Scriptures, then start at looking at the portmanteau name Jahdiel, first mentioned in 1 Chronicles 5:24. It is a derivation from two words 'yachad' and 'El' meaning 'the unity or unitedness of God'

Fyi, note the following:
1. Yachad, is an action word, it is a verb. The Godhead has to be in united for a common purpose etc. The word Yachad, is related to a verb of action, expressing or describing what action the Godhead or God does.
2. Yachid, is a substantive word and also an adjective word. The former espouses the firm basis in reality of the uniqueness of Godhead or God, while the latter, on another note, is a word, naming the only, only one, solitary existence of Godhead or God. If you're familiar with the concept of monogenes, you'll get a sense of what this one (i.e. Yachid,) means in terms of being one and one alone (i.e. its not a unified one or Echad)
3. Echad, is an adjective word, describing the unity or unified essence of the Godhead or God, telling the fact or state of the Godhead or God, being unified regardless of the ability to exist or manifest in more one way, more than one means, more than one form etc. It is describing the state of the Godhead or God, being in harmony even the reality of the togetherness or oneness of the Godhead or God. Mind you, Echad is talking of unity or harmony here and not sameness. Godhead or God is One

I just need one thing from you. Where in the scriptures is Yachad (Solitary One) used in reference to the Oneness of God rather than Echad (Unified One)?

Just show references, that’s all.

BassReeves:
It cant be clear because its flawed and inadequate, that why

so I I thought I was the only one that noticed it

BassReeves:


God is trinity and more, which is why
trinity is an unnecessary doctrine not explicitly taught in the bible. As I earlier have said, its impossible from a human being POV to explain trinity, mathematically or otherwise.

As believers, we dont worship the Holy Spirit, however honoring Jesus Christ, the Son is also honoring God, the Father, so there ought to be no conflict there that JWs seem to have a beef with. There is no need to reconcile the worship of the Father or the Son, being that the Son, is God Incarnate anyway

Bassreeves, this picture of yours below explains it perfectly!

OkCornel:
From the images below, Bishopkingsley differs from what you are even discussing. He claims the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same person.

1. Is water when liquid, vapour or solid form, not H₂O then, hmm?
2. Is water in liquid, the same thing, as water in vapour or solid form, hmm?

OkCornel:
[s]And by the way, is Bassreeves not Muttleylaff hmmm?[/s]

So BassReeves informed you that BassReeves is MuttleyLaff, hmm?

OkCornel:
Bassreeves, this picture of yours below explains it perfectly!

I already said your original picture is flawed and inadequate

BassReeves:


Has BassReeves informed you that BassReeves is MuttleyLaff?
Why are providing unsolicited information to mischievously to deflect and draw away attention to subject matter at hand.
You might have conversed with MuttleyLaff, but has BassReeves conversed with you on the subject discussed here. Remember the questions above were addressed to you, OkCornel, Bishopkingsley and Kingsnairaland?

As you can see from above that I quoted you when it suited me to quote, Your position isnt clear, and I couldn't really pin down what the contention was between the trio of you, OkCornel, Bishopkingsley and Kingsnairaland and so that is why I shot those questions at the three of you

And if you read that post of mine you quoted properly, his moniker was mentioned there.So what if his moniker was mentioned there.?

And when I brought out 1 Corinthians 11 v 3;

Did Bassreeves object to this? I haven’t seen any objections from him so far.Christ’s subjection to His Father in 1 Corinthians 11:3 doesnt at all argue an inequality between nor is it advancing an idea about a difference of Jesus in nature and essence from God.
Fyi, its similar to how the subjection of subjects to their king doesnt argue inequality

From what I can see, you’re desperately seeking people to support your argument, and that support isn’t forthcoming.

You don’t have to lie to make a point. Bassreeves corrected nothing.Bishopkingsley is absolutely right that you didnt understand the meaning of this below:
'God is distinct from 'married couples'
You're contradicting yourself using apple to compare with oranges.
God is unitary wholeness, while 'married couples' is double, triple, quadruple, 700 wives up to the nth number wholeness

'married couples' are said to be one flesh, while the Lord God is one, plain and simple just one, you even would say God, simultaneously, is echad and yachid or yachad'

OkCornel, you are using 'married couples' which like H₂O in reality is unable to sufficiently deal with the situation or purpose of explaining the oneness of God. This is the reason I used the phrase makeshift (i.e. make do H₂O Metaphor) and this solely because the oneness of God is unique. Besides marriage isnt necessarily duology, the patriarchs, had more than one wife, while king Solomon is recorded to have married 700 wives.

So, you see that there is nothing in on earth, nothing in our world to perfectly compare the oneness of God with.There are only analogies, like your forwarded 'married couples' or the 'make do H₂O Metaphor' that Bishopkingsley and I might have used. Neither are exact parallels that fully and adequately explains the oneness of the Godhead or God. Of course, they take enough along the road to position of having a sense and degree of understanding what the oneness of the Godhead or God.

Reiterating, the oneness of the Godhead or God is a unique, its just as like, the birth of Jesus Christ is unique. OkCornel, the point being made here is that the oneness of God is remarkable, is special, is unusual and above all those aforementioned, is unlike anything else anyone could ever think up, hence it is impossible for us, with easy explanations, to know anything about what it is we call the oneness of God.

As I've posited to Bishopkingsley earlier before, the prefix to the 'logy' of God, when you go beyond or far beyond, is not limited to three.

What could be taken away from all this is that, God is a Genius, without a genus. Mic drop.

Let me ask you something from the image you’ve provided. Are you also one with God?

Per John 14 v 22-26

BassReeves:
I already said your original picture is flawed and inadequate

Inadequate perhaps yes, flawed? Absolutely not.

Or do you subscribe to the Father is the Son and the Son is the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is the Father?

BassReeves:
1. Is water when liquid, vapour or solid form, not H₂O then, hmm?
2. Is water in liquid, the same thing, as water in vapour or solid form, hmm?

So BassReeves informed you that BassReeves is MuttleyLaff, hmm?

Lol, cut the side games jare…I’ll always know you from your writing style, lol.


Your water analogy still subscribes to modalism, like the image on the right.

John 14 v 22-26;

22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”

23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.

24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

25 “All this I have spoken while still with you.

26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.


Dear Bassreeves, going by the above scriptures and the image below, are you also “One” with God?

BassReeves:
Has BassReeves informed you that BassReeves is MuttleyLaff?
Why are providing unsolicited information to mischievously to deflect and draw away attention to subject matter at hand.
You might have conversed with MuttleyLaff, but has BassReeves conversed with you on the subject discussed here. Remember the questions above were addressed to you, OkCornel, Bishopkingsley and Kingsnairaland?

As you can see from above that I quoted you when it suited me to quote, Your position isnt clear, and I couldn't really pin down what the contention was between the trio of you, OkCornel, Bishopkingsley and Kingsnairaland and so that is why I shot those questions at the three of you.

Bishopkingsley is absolutely right that you didnt understand the meaning of this below:
'God is distinct from 'married couples'
You're contradicting yourself using apple to compare with oranges.
God is unitary wholeness, while 'married couples' is double, triple, quadruple, 700 wives up to the nth number wholeness

'married couples' are said to be one flesh, while the Lord God is one, plain and simple just one, you even would say God, simultaneously, is echad and yachid or yachad'

OkCornel, you are using[b] 'married couples' which like H₂O in reality is unable to sufficiently deal with the situation or purpose of explaining the oneness of God. This is the reason I used the phrase makeshift (i.e. make do H₂O Metaphor) and this solely because the oneness of God is unique.[/b] Besides marriage isnt necessarily duology, the patriarchs, had more than one wife, while king Solomon is recorded to have married 700 wives.

So, you see that there is nothing in on earth, nothing in our world to perfectly compare the oneness of God with. There are only analogies, like your forwarded 'married couples' or the 'make do H₂O Metaphor' that Bishopkingsley and I might have used. Neither are exact parallels that fully and adequately explains the oneness of the Godhead or God. Of course, they take enough along the road to position of having a sense and degree of understanding what the oneness of the Godhead or God.

Reiterating, the oneness of the Godhead or God is a unique, its just as like, the birth of Jesus Christ is unique. OkCornel, the point being made here is that the oneness of God is remarkable, is special, is unusual and above all those aforementioned, is unlike anything else anyone could ever think up, hence it is impossible for us, with easy explanations, to know anything about what it is we call the oneness of God.

As I've posited to Bishopkingsley earlier before, the prefix to the 'logy' of God, when you go beyond or far beyond, is not limited to three.

What could be taken away from all this is that, God is a Genius, without a genus. Mic drop.

---

---

OkCornel:
Let me ask you something from the image you’ve provided. Are you also one with God?

Per John 14 v 22-26

You havent learned anything at all from all the write up so far above.

Look at the above in bold. There is nothing in on earth, nothing in our world to perfectly compare the oneness of God with

Kingsnairaland:
I don't understand the picture clearly put it in words

If you can’t understand that straightforward picture, then I wonder how you might understand the words.

If you refer to my preceding post (John 14 v 22-26) are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit the same person?

BassReeves:

---

---

You havent learned anything at all from all the write up so far above.

Look at the above in bold. There is nothing in on earth, nothing in our world to perfectly compare the oneness of God with

I suggest you read John 17 v 22 and see what Jesus compared his oneness with the Father to. To us! The body of believers. For us to be one JUST AS HE AND THE FATHER ARE ONE.

Dear Bassreeves, look at your picture again and answer the question.

From the image, it shows the Father is in the Son and vice-versa, same kind of relationship with the Son has with the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit with the Father as well.

Now as Jesus explained in John 14 v 22-26, are you one with the Father if these beings dwell within you? Yes or No.

OkCornel:
[s]Lol, cut the side games jare…I’ll always know you from your writing style, lol.[/s]

You think you are smart, but you are only smart by half

I am certain you havent heard that copying is a form and sign of flattery.

OkCornel:
Your water analogy still subscribes to modalism, like the image on the right.

The water analogy is one of the many out there, means, to an end. It is not the end or the only means to the end.

God cannot be restricted, God is not limited. God is infinite. God is infinity. Drop the L sign please

BassReeves:

---

---

You havent learned anything at all from all the write up so far above.

Look at the above in bold. There is nothing in on earth, nothing in our world to perfectly compare the oneness of God with

John 17 v 22;
I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one


Jesus’ own words

OkCornel:
I suggest you read John 17 v 22 and see what Jesus compared his oneness with the Father to. To us! The body of believers. For us to be one JUST AS HE AND THE FATHER ARE ONE.

Dear Bassreeves, look at your picture again and answer the question.

From the image, it shows the Father is in the Son and vice-versa, same kind of relationship with the Son has with the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit with the Father as well.

Now as Jesus explained in John 14 v 22-26, are you one with the Father if these beings dwell within you? Yes or No.

I suggest you stop being truculent for truculent sake, and just go over the breakdown above done on the three words 'Echad, Yachid and/or Yachad'

OkCornel:


If you can’t understand that straightforward picture, then I wonder how you might understand the words.

If you refer to my preceding post (John 14 v 22-26) are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit the same person?

the wrong thing I did was to ask you a question and you responded by asking me if the father is the same person as the son..... Rather than explain to me what 3 beings is.... I want to know the number of God that join together to form God from your teaching

BassReeves:
You think you are smart, but you are only smart by half

I am certain you havent heard that copying is a form and sign of flattery.

The water analogy is one of the many out there, means, to an end. It is not the end or the only means to the end.

God cannot be restricted, God is not limited. God is infinite. God is infinity. Drop the L sign please

Dear Bassreeves, is the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Holy Spirit, how does your ice, liquid, steam analogy hold?

Aren’t you telling us one literal being (water) can choose to be ice sometimes, then liquid sometimes and then steam sometimes hmmm?

OkCornel:
John 17 v 22;
I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one

Jesus’ own words

OkCornel you are not one with anyone in terms of the subject matter of this thread. You get it now

After you finish with Bishopkingsley and bass and others I will come back

BassReeves:
I suggest you stop being truculent for truculent sake, and just go over the breakdown above done on the three words 'Echad, Yachid and/or Yachad'

Before we get to that, are you also one with God as Jesus and your picture below beautifully described in John 14 v 22-26? Yes or No.

Kingsnairaland:
After you finish with Bishopkingsley and bass and others I will come back

No wahala, we’ll catch up later.