Oneness vs Trinity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(December 2007)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
The tone or style of this article may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.
Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.(December 2007)
Main article: Oneness Pentecostalism

Both Trinitarian and Oneness adherents believe in one God. Some Trinitarians believe the term God means a nature and not an individual being. The God nature (spirit) is divided between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three separate persons (beings). Oneness believe the term God means a single Divine Being. Trinitarians believe one of the eternal God persons was manifested in the flesh and this was Jesus the Son of God. The other two God persons remained in heaven. Oneness believe the one God, the Father, came to earth in human form as Jesus. The traditional doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is, and eternally has been, existent in three Divine persons or members in the Godhead (specifically "God the Father, "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit"), who together form the single nature called God. These three are taught to be co-eternal, co-equal, and co-powerful. Ancient as well as modern art displayed in many Catholic churches show the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three separate beings standing or sitting next to each other. Yet it is affirmed that these three separate Divine persons are somehow still one being in essence. There is much information available about traditional trinitarianism as well as neo-trinitarianism in relationship to the Holy Trinity.

Oneness theology maintains that the biblical terms God the Father and Holy Spirit[1] both refer to the same one eternal, incorporeal, ever-transcendent Deity, that is indivisibly one in number (with Father describing God in relationship and Spirit describing God in action or emanation, see John 4:24, "God is a spirit"), and their doctrine holds that the biblical terms for Jesus Christ (including His name, as well as various other titles, such as Son, Son of man, and Son of God) refer to an historic figure, a real man, who was and ever will be the human manifestation of the invisible God, inseparably united with the Father (see John 10:30).

Certain Bible verses about Jesus seem to cause both Trinitarian and Oneness adherents to feel supported and justified in their views. The scriptures describe the Son (Jesus) as "God ... manifest in the flesh" (1Timothy 3:16), the one in whom dwells "bodily" (see Colossians 1:19 and Colossians 2:9-10) the "fullness of the Deity" (NIV, NNAS, NASB, NRSV) or "fulness of the Godhead" in some translations (KJV, NKJV), and the express image of the invisible God (the Son is "the exact representation of His [God's] nature" Hebrews 1:3 and "the image of the invisible God" Colossians 1:15).

Oneness Pentecostals generally describe God in singular terms and do not endorse terms such as Trinity, Divine persons, members (i.e. of the "Godhead"), separate (i.e. Divine persons), they, them, etc., to describe the Judeo-Christian God. Additionally, they do not endorse common para-biblical terminology such as co-eternal, co-equal, and co-powerful. They welcome the often-used biblical phrase "Son of God" but not the Trinitarians' reversal of it ("God the Son") as a way to refer to Jesus. The reason being, is that saying God the son would make the flesh of Jesus God when it was human. Saying the Son of God would refer to the human nature of Jesus as was told to Mary by Gabriel. Otherwise, Jesus would have been begotten twice by the Father: once in eternity and once in Bethlem.

Oneness Pentecostals do not deny the existence or divinity of the Father, the Son, or Holy Spirit. They do deny that God is three divine persons that are one in essence (as per Trinitarianism). By essence it is meant a nature, that is eternal Spirit. Thus the one essence all three possess is an eternal Spirit and the eternal Spirit is a nature called God. Most trinitarians try to explain this with the example that the term "mankind" is a generic nature of all human beings. Yet each human being of mankind possesses a singe essence. So, they say is the understanding of the term God. Oneness do, however, appear to believe in a slightly different view of God than Sabellius (circa 200-300). For example, while Sabellius taught that the Father became the Son who became the Holy Spirit in the passing of time (a form of sequential modalism)[citation needed]; today's Oneness Pentecostals teach that it is possible for some or all three main manifestions of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) to be present simultaneously as at the baptism of Jesus in Jordan. They highlight that this is part of the omnipotence and mystery of God.

Contents

[edit] More than one consciousness within God

Some on both sides of the debate have questioned whether Oneness doctrine allows for any more than one mind, consciousness, or will within God, and some have even posed that it does not.[2] However, Oneness scholars have written quite plainly[2] that, because they see both Deity and humanity (two natures, or dual-nature) inseparably united in the Incarnation, then both Divine and human minds, consciousnesses, wills are present. They point out that Jesus, in His humanity, prayed thus, "Father ... not my will, but thine, be done" (Luke 22:42). They cite this and other verses as proof of Jesus' humanity both in mind, will, emotion, intellect, and consciousness. They hold that clearly there is the Divine mind, will, consciousness, as well as the human. To them, these two (Divine and human, Father and Son) are united in the Incarnation, and both essential to the Incarnation.

Trinitarians use the same passage (Luke 22:42) to prove two (of three) Divine persons. This is where Trinitarians make the human fleshly body of Jesus divine. Oneness scholars respond that, in order to prove the Trinity, the passage would need to prove two Divine wills, not one human will and one Divine will. So, trinitarians claim the fleshly body of Jesus was divine and this constitutes two divine wills. But, ask Oneness scholars: was there then only one divine will before Jesus was born of flesh in Bethlehem? And is it true that God the Father created the divine will in the fleshly Jesus? If so, then the divine will of Jesus that would make him a second person in the trinity would also make him a "created God." They point out that the Divine will is perfect, by its very nature flawless/inerrant, while the passage shows Jesus' created human will (the second of the two wills present) not as flawless, but quite the opposite: a human will that must not be followed, that must be eschewed in favor of the Father's flawless and perfect (Divine) will. Both sides of the debate have come away from this passage feeling it supports their view, often with little understanding of how the other side could miss the truth they see in the passage.

Oneness people see in Jesus the incarnation of the fullness of God (Colossians 2:9-10), not the incarnation of but one of three "Divine persons" (i.e. "God the Son"). To them, according to Jesus' Deity, He is God (shown in the scriptures as LORD/Lord, Spirit of God, Spirit of the LORD, Holy Spirit, Spirit of Christ, Father, etc.). Their use of the term "Jesus is God" is a shortened way of stating that "Jesus is God manifest in the flesh." Their doctrine or teaching is referred to by some Trinitarians as Jesus-Only doctrine or Sabellianism as well as other terms. Some on either side believe Christians on the opposite side to be in heresy, although the differences between the two groups can sometimes seem nuanced or semantic if one is not familiar with Christology or with the Bible.

[edit] Trinitarian Interpretation and Oneness Reply

Anti-trinitarian teachings are rejected as heretical by the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches. Trinitarians have made various allegations about Oneness doctrine in efforts to debate against it. Both modern Trinitarians and modern Oneness adherents have asserted that certain elements of Oneness doctrine existed in some ancient Jewish and Christian movements and teachings, including Sabellianism, which is also referred to as Modalism or Patripassianism. There have been debatable assertions that modern Oneness doctrine and ancient Sabellianism are one and the same. For a brief discussion of why this is a moot topic, see paragraphs 3 and 4 of the "Jesus-Name doctrine" article. Tertullian, one of the earliest recorded Trinitarians to argue about the matter, coined a Latin phrase from which the modern term Patripassianism is derived. It means to accuse Oneness people of either claiming or believing that God the Father suffered and died on the cross instead of Jesus, the Son of God. However, Oneness people believe that the man Christ Jesus, the human manifestation of God, died on the cross, not God the Father. But a whole host of Oneness do believe in a form of Patripassianism, notably is Dr. Gary Reckart, Sr. an Apostolic Messianic, and chancellor of the Apostolic Theologiocal Bible College. Says Dr. Reckart: "If as Oneness believe, that God the Father was incarnate in Christ, which Jesus confessed ("it is the Father in me that doeth the work"), the Father was in Christ during all of the sufferings and being nailed to the cross. Thus the Father did suffer or experience the sufferings of the Son up to the time the Father departed from the body: "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAST THOU FORSAKEN ME." The moment the Father departed from the Son is certified and logged in the scriptures. How can anyone say the Father was not in Christ during his sufferings and during the initial crucifixion?" [3] Thus, according to Dr. Reckart if Oneness is true so is Patripassianism. Patripassianism becomes false when trinitarians claim Oneness believe the Father died.

A common Trinitarian viewpoint is:

“ A core difference between the Trinitarian and Oneness interpretation of God is whether the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three persons that constitute one God or whether there is but one God that exists in various manifestations. Most people essentially define a person as synonymous with a being. Therefore the concept of God existing as one being and yet three persons, seems like a contradiction. However, since the issue has been raised modern Trinitarian apologists have clearly distinguished the concepts of person and being:

A person is a function of a sentient being, in that a person is a type of being that has higher functions of reason, self-awareness, self-reflection, and other identifiable capacities not found in animals. However, a being in itself, is not a person. All animals are considered beings, yet animals do not have the respect of being persons. An analogy would be to say that apples are fruit, but one cannot call all fruit apples. In the Trinitarian concept, God exists still as one being, and one Deity, while having the capacity to interact as three distinct (but not separate), persons who are eternally in perfect unison and harmony with each other (which would logically be essentially necessary for them to be the same being). This is shown throughout the Bible, as Jesus speaks of Himself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit consistently in the first, second, and third person.

For Trinitarians, if God were to not exist in this fashion, then the interactions found throughout the Bible would be meaningless, and an unnecessary layer of theological interpretation and confusion. To assert that these are manifestations and not persons is to imply to Trinitarians that God was creating an elaborate hoax or illusion in order to merely test the perceptions of the followers.

A similar case against a self-generating circular manifestation can be also found in Trinitarian rejections of Koranic verses describing God having someone else put on the cross but made to look like Jesus in order to fool otherwise devout and sincere followers. This is the interpretation of 21st century Trinitarianism. However, classic Trinitarianism has always been understood as the Father and the Holy Spirit being "persons" in the traditional sense. This can be seen in both ancient and modern paintings of an elderly man with a staff in his hand (Father God), a younger man (God the Son), and either a dove or a faceless person portraying the Holy Spirit. Within the Bible, especially the New Testament, these roles, or titles, interact with each other as persons would, and are able to respond to each other as well as to humanity. Most Christian groups recognize this relationship between the identities. If Oneness acknowledge Jesus as "a person" then obviously God would be "another" person that Jesus would be talking to, hearing, responding to, and addressing in the past, present, and future tense. Otherwise Jesus would be addressing a false idol, or a non-existent being, as "you", and "him".

 ”

A Oneness reply is:

“ The words person and manifestation are not mutually exclusive terms. As the completely human manifestation of (i.e., revealing of) the invisible God, Jesus was and is a human person and the manifestation of God. To imply that person and manifestation are mutually exclusive terms is an erroneous statement, and a needless accusation against Oneness. It is a straw-man argument.

Oneness doctrine acknowledges that Jesus was and is human in body, soul, will, emotions, intellect, consciousness, and these functions are in addition to the continued existence of the Divine will, emotions, and consciousness of God, which exist even while God is manifested in Jesus. Thus, there are two wills, consciousnesses, etc. present in the Incarnation, and the Divine will, consciousness, etc., continue as transcendent to the Incarnation, even during it. Some scriptural terms for these two are "Father"/"Son" and "one God"/"one man." This does not take away from Jesus' Deity. To the contrary, it properly ascribes it. To force unbiblical language into the issue, is to force confusion into the debate.

The biblical interactions mentioned above (between God the Father and the Son of God) were very genuine, and they do not disprove Oneness, nor prove the Trinity. In fact, since the Trinity argues that the Son is co-equal, co-powerful, co-divine, and co-eternal with the Father and Spirit, then having a human man as Son cry out to the Father for help not only does not prove the Trinity, it is problematic for it. If the Son really is co-powerful and co-equal, then Him praying for help is actually a Trinitarian "hoax" similar to the type accused of Oneness (above). On the other hand, Oneness doctrine acknowledges, and in fact strongly holds to, the presence of "one God" and "one man" in the Incarnation (see 1 Timothy 2:5) and acknowledges, and strongly holds to, the ongoing transcendence of the Father/Spirit, even while He was and ever will be manifested in the Incarnation. That genuine human being (Jesus) was and is a genuine human person. Acknowledging Him as God's exact representation in flesh, or God manifest in flesh, or God revealed as a human, does not take away from Him being quite real as a human person (and not just an "elaborate hoax or illusion").

 ”

[edit] In the Name of...

One essential difference that spawned the Azusa Street Revival and forms the backbone of the theological difference between Oneness and Trinitarian Christianity is who, or what name essentially is preeminent in the identification of God. The issue regarding the name of God is codified in the differences in how Oneness Pentecostals and Trinitarians identify God and Jesus, how the two groups differ in worship, and how water baptisms are performed.

[edit] HYH Name of God

Oneness Pentecostals believe that God revealed His name to Moses as a name that would be forever throughout all generations, and that name is Ehyeh asher Ehyeh (Exodus 3:14).

"And Moses said to God, Behold, when I come to the Israelites and say to them, The God of your fathers has sent me to you, and they say to me, What is His name? What shall I say to them? {14} And God said to Moses, EHYEH asher EHYEH. And God said: you shall say this to the Israelites: Ehyeh has sent me to you! {15} God said also to Moses, This shall you say to the Israelites: The Lord, the God of your fathers, of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, has sent me to you! This is My name forever, and by this name I am to be remembered to all generations" (Exodus 3:13-15).

Note: the Hebrew Ehyeh asher Ehyeh is translated to mean I AM that IAM or I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE. But there is no conclusive proof EHYEH means either of these definitions. But we do know this name was to be used for the deliverance of Israel. So it with its contraction "yeh" would mean deliverer.

"I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty [El-Shaddai], but by My name Ehyeh I did not make Myself known to them..." (Exodus 6:3).

Here again the Hebrew Ehyeh is developed into YHVH and then made into either LORD, Jehovah, or Yahweh. There is no proof Ehyeh is connected to the guess names Jehovah or Yahweh. We do know Ehyeh is associated with Adonai and thus Adonai Ehyeh is a correct manner in describing God that was unknown to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The name LORD is a substitute for the sacred name EHYEH in the original Hebrew. Scholars render EHYEH as IAM. Some scholars see in HYH the Tetragrammaton YHWH. Today it is often pronounced as Jehovah or Yahweh, although there are now over 30 guess names for YHWH. Tetragrammaton groups choose their own guess name and build their doctrine of the sacred name around it. It is confessed by tetragrammaton scholars that YHWH in its original pronunciation is not known with any certainty.[4] Modern scholars have theorized different pronunciations such as Yehwah, Yahowah, and (more popularly) Yahweh which was invented in the 16th century.[5] However, the original pronunciation may never be known for certain (Egyptian and Semitic Cults, Tripolitis, op. cit., p. 49). And the fact that "Yah" was the Egyptian moon god throws additional concerns by many Oneness for not using the name Yah-weh. This is also applied to "hallelu-yah" where praise is given to Yah. Some scholars say "Yah" means Lord but does it really? For these reason, many Oneness Pentecostals believe "the sacred name is found in the name of Jesus" [6], which means (in both Aramaic and Hebrew) "HYH Ehyeh Savior" (see also Bloodstains, Ward, p. 57). The ancient Eastern Orthodox Church, while not modalists, also taught that the name of the Father was fully realized in the name of the Son.

[edit] HYH: included in Jesus' name

Oneness scholars point out that the HYH name is included in the name of Jesus.[7] It is believed by Oneness theologians that the YHWH name of God was not replaced or done away with, but was given, in conjunction with the meaning of salvation, to the Son of Man as the name JESUS thus showing God's plan of becoming savior being fulfilled in Christ (in the same manner that Abram's name signified the fulfilled covenant promise by fulfilling his name as Abraham). Bible scholars show that the name of Jesus means "HYH Savior" or "the God of deliverance has become our Saviour or salvation"; thus signifies Jesus as the fulfillment of God becoming our Savior.

[edit] Implications for water baptism & Soteriology

Both sides of the debate would agree that salvation is a practical matter that God intended to be understood by all. The consummation of Christ's earthly ministry was the "great commission" to His disciples in the final chapters of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). There is seen one of most debated scriptures relating to water baptism:

“ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: {20} Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen (Matthew 28:19 KJV). ”

Oneness believers cross-reference that verse with Acts 2:38 (and others) to show support for their practice of Jesus name baptism, and they believe that an abrogation (a contradiction in scripture) would exist if their view were incorrect:

“ Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38 KJV). ”

Oneness followers teach that the Savior's singular name, "Jesus," meets all three qualifications of Matthew 28:19. According to their view:

  • The proper formula for Christian water baptism is to baptize in the name of the one who was crucified for us (1Corinthians 1:11-13) — that is in Jesus name, since Jesus is the one who was crucified for us.
  • Converts are to be baptized in the name of the Son (Matthew 28:19), and the Son's name is Jesus (Matthew 1:21).
  • Converts are to be baptized while calling upon Jesus name (see Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5, and Acts 22:16).
  • Being baptized in Jesus name is the proper way to obey Matthew 28:19, because only the name of Jesus singularly qualifies as being the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

They say that Jesus can be accepted as the name of the Father because:

  • Jesus came in His Father's name (John 5:43),
  • The Father and Son (Jesus) are one (John 10:30),
  • It was prophesied that the Lord's name is to be one (Zechariah 14:9),
  • Since the Son's name is Jesus (Matthew 1:21), and since God the Father is glorified when believers worship Jesus by bowing to Him and confessing Jesus Christ as Lord (Philippians 2:11), then all should recognize that by calling upon the name of Jesus we have access to God the Father, and that, for those alive in the New Covenant, Jesus is the person and name by which God the Father desires to be addressed and accessed.

Similarly, according to their view, Jesus can be accepted as the name of the Holy Spirit because:

  • "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24). The terms Spirit and Ghost are synonymous. They hold that all the prior points, about the name of the Father, should apply.
  • There is only one Spirit (Ephesians 4:4), and only one Lord (Ephesians 4:5).
    • According to Philippians 2:11, Jesus is the Lord.
    • According to 2 Corinthians 3:17, "the Lord is that Spirit."
    • While Jesus was describing the Holy Spirit's arrival to dwell within believers, He said, "I will not leave you comfortless, I will come unto you" (John 14:18).
    • The Holy Spirit is "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27).
  • Regarding Jesus name, scripture states, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
  • Citing 2 John 1:9, they believe that believers who have the one Spirit dwelling in them and who abide in the doctrine of Christ, have both the Father and the Son.

In one of the parallel accounts of the Great Commission (Luke 24:47), the three titles do not appear. Instead, "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his [Christ's] name [i.e., the name of Jesus] among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Acts 2:38 directly links this mention of "repentance and remission of sins" with repentance and water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins. Oneness believers hold that God’s/Christ’s redemptive name for New Covenant believers is Jesus, and that the command of our Lord in Matthew 28:19-20 refers to baptism in His own name of Jesus. They see support for this view in that His words were carried out by the Apostles, who baptized/commanded baptism in Jesus name in the Book of Acts (see Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5, Acts 22:16).

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the baptismal formula was changed by the early Church from the name of Jesus Christ to the words "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost", in the second century AD.[8] Another source shows that the early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the trinity doctrine in the second century.[9] The Roman Catholic Church,in the Catholic Encyclypedia, also points to this shift.[10] The Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion pointed to the time of Justin Martyr for when the change to the Trinitarian formula began, and showed that, previously, Christian baptism was administered using the name of Jesus.[11] The same source, in commenting on Acts 2:38, also showed that name was an ancient synonym for person. Payment was always made in the name of some person, referring to ownership. Therefore, one being baptized in Jesus name became His personal property (note 1Corinthians 3:23: "Ye are Christ's").

This portion of the issue may seem trivial to some, but the distinction is important to Oneness people because they believe that water baptism is an essential step of obedient faith for salvation (John 3:3-5, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, 1Peter 3:18-22). Some Christian groups seem to convey that saving faith can be separated from obedience, and that one can be saved by "believing" even when important, essential Christian doctrines/rites such as repentance and water baptism are relegated to optional status and essentially ignored and disobeyed.[12] Some other groups stress the importance of water baptism while considering as trivial the mode (i.e., immersion vs. sprinkling) and formula (i.e., Jesus name vs. three titles). (Oneness people believe the mode should be immersion.) Other soteriological differences are debated as well.[13] An official website of the United Pentecostal Church (a Oneness Pentecostal church organization) has this to say regarding the importance of, mode of, and formula for water baptism.

In summary, after the inception, implementation, and acceptance of the Trinity doctrine, the most commonly-used baptismal formula in most churches has been the Trinitarian formula drawn from Matthew 28:19 ("in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost"). However, Oneness Pentecostals object to the removal of Jesus' name from baptism, and instead baptize "in the name of Jesus Christ" or a similar phraseology such as "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" or "in the name of Jesus", while citing the primitive church baptizing in the name of Jesus.

[edit] References

  1. ^ As well as all other similar biblical terms, including God, Father, Spirit, and Spirit of Christ, etc.
  2. ^ a b Some rank-and-file Oneness people, i.e. non-scholars, have struggled with this, and some Trinitarian authors have sought to deny Oneness proponents the freedom to observe any distinction between the Deity manifested in Jesus Christ and His humanity. Examples are found in "The Gospel According to Oneness Pentecostalism" by Mike Barden (self-published via the Internet) and Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity by Gregory A. Boyd (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992). Barden alleges of Oneness: “Any relationship between the Father and the Son is between Jesus' deity and Jesus' humanity (in other words, when Jesus prays, He's really talking to Himself). Otherwise, there is no real distinction or relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, because ‘God is one’; any personal relationship between these ‘modes’ of God is not real, but only apparent.” The logic of Barden is seriously flawed. First, Oneness do not believe Jesus had deity as the Son. The deity they subscribe to Jesus is the Father. Further, Oneness teach in the omnipresence of the Father who fills all space and time. Jesus had the deity of the Father manifest and dwelling in him but not all of the quantity of God resided in Christ. Thus, Jesus as Son and humanity could pray to the eternal Spirit who was within him and who was also throughout the universe. Oneness explain this as a person who is Holy Spirit filled who prays. Do they pray to themselves because the Holy Spirit dwells within them? Or do they pray to the Holy Spirit who is omnipresent without regard to the indwelling Spirit within? Thus, Barden's personal opinion although welcomed among trinitarians is seen by Oneness as a weak and feeble attempt to malign their doctrine. According to Oneness scholars, such attacks are arguments against a straw man they have built in order to pervey their own opinions and obtain applause from those who reject Oneness. Oneness proponents do not hold there can be no distinction observed between the Deity manifested in Jesus Christ and His humanity. Rather, as stated by U.P.C.I. author David Bernard, a noted Oneness scholar (in "An Answer to a Critic", a review of Gregory Boyd’s above mentioned work), “a distinction between the Father and the Son (not of eternal personhood, but relative to the Incarnation) is at the very core of Oneness theology.” According to Bernard and other Oneness scholars, the scriptural distinction between the Father and the Son is held by Oneness believers as obvious and very real (not “faked”). See also David K. Bernard, Teaching the Apostolic Faith p. 16.
  3. ^ Patripassianism, Dr. Gary Reckart, Sr., Apostolic Theological Bible College, 1999, Tampa, Florida
  4. ^ . Jews do not accept either Jehovah or Yahweh as correct names of God. Old Testament Jews were commanded by God (via Moses in the Ten Commandments) to not take the name of the Lord God in vain. Many scholars see the name in question as EHYEH not Jehovah or Yahweh which are names invented between 1200-1600AD. Their zealous caution resulted in the decision to not say the name aloud. Furthermore, the ancient Hebrews' written alphabet had only consonants. (Vowel sounds were spoken, but no written vowel markings existed.) The Hebrew monarchic period saw the beginnings of a limited system for writing vowel designations (middle Hebrew). Much later, the Masoretes, a sect of Jewish scribes, developed a full system for writing vowels. When the tetragrammaton was inserted into the sacred scrolls replacing EHYEH is unknown. However, the four consonants YHWN which replaced EHYEH and became a mysterious secret name, was not written with vowel signs intended to guide them in pronouncing the name. But according to Jewish scholars the vowels of Adonai was intended to hint at developing a pronouncable name of God. Jews would not pronounce the sacred name but would instead skip over it and pronounce Adonai (LORD). Thus, the sure and certain pronunciation of this name was lost.
  5. ^ Considering all the variations of vowel sounds in the Hebrew language, there are some nine to sixteen possible pronunciations.
  6. ^ The Sacred Name, Dr. Gary Reckart, Sr., Apostolic Theological Bible College, 1994, Tampa, Florida
  7. ^ Some modern groups advocate pronouncing the Lord Jesus' name in some variation of proto-/ancient-, middle-, or late-Hebrew (e.g. Yehshua’, where the apostrophe represents the Hebrew letter Ayin, a guttural sound virtually unpronounceable by today's English-speaking Westerners). Others point out that recent scholarship reveals that Christ spoke Aramaic, and that in northern Judea (which at that time did not pronounce any "SH" consonant-blend sound) His name Yehshas would phonetically have been pronounced "YEHSU" (with the "H" silent) or if the "Y' is given an "e" sound as "EEHSA" as pronounced by Muslims. In Greek, due to a lack of one-to-one match in phonetic language tools from the donor language to the receptor language, and due to the fact that in Greek masculine names were required to have an ending "S" for declension, His name Yehshas yielded something like "EE-AY-SUS" i.e. "EE-AY-SOOS". But it is to be remembered that if the Apostles did see Yehshas as IEHSOUS (IESOUS), they would ...NOT... have pronnounced it in Greek form because it was a Hebrew name. They would have pronounced it in Hebrew form. This was later lost by the Greeks and subsequent generations who gave the Hebrew "Y" and "e" sounding. His name at birth was the then-current derivation of an ancient name Jehoshua (Numbers 13:16, KJV). Jehoshua was shortened by dropping out the letters "eh" to form "Joshua" (Moses' successor) and had already been translated, long before Jesus' birth, into both Aramaic and Greek (e.g. the Greek Septuagint). The New Testament was written primarily in Koine Greek (common man's Greek), and later translated into Latin. In Latin translation, His name was rendered as "IESUS". In the legitimate development of the English language (in both type-style and pronunciation) the initial "I" became its own new letter "J." Except for the "J" sound (http://jesus-messiah.com/html/sacred-name.html), the ancient pronunciations are not far from the way Jesus name is pronounced in English today.
  8. ^ Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., vol. 3, pp.365-66
  9. ^ Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 53
  10. ^ 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 2, p. 365
  11. ^ Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 2, pp.377-78,389
  12. ^ It is frequently pointed out that the thief on the cross was promised that he would be with Jesus in paradise, even though he was not water baptized and the Holy Spirit baptism was not given until the day of Pentecost, after the thief died. Oneness Pentecostals point to Hebrews 9:11-17 and note that at the time of the promise to the thief, the "Testator" (Jesus) had not yet died and therefore the New Testament salvation was not yet in effect when Christ was alive on the cross. They believe the thief's confession was a unique circumstance and salvation was accordingly granted because he confessed his sin to the "Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the World".
  13. ^ For example, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is presumed by Oneness Pentecostal Christians to be accompanied by evidence, including the initial, physical evidence of speaking in tongues as the Spirit gives the sound, and the long-term evidences of the gifts of the Spirit and the fruit of the Spirit. The same event is presumed by non-pentecostal Christians to be innocuous at the time it happens, indiscernible by outward sign or evidence. Also, some reject that the gifts of the Spirit still operate today, although the fruit of the Spirit seems more broadly accepted. Oneness believers understand and teach the saving virtue of Spirit baptism is not in tongues, but rather in the Spirit which gives the utterance to speak. In addition many, but not all, Oneness Pentecostals adhere to strict holiness standards.