I thank you for the content of this channel.... I want to know how Christianity was practiced before all the simplicity was removed from the church. I think Paul warned the church and was concerned about what was sneaking in even before his martyrdom. In short, thank you and May God bless all that watch. The Lord returns 🙂

Great video brother!

Very good! I like this study alot

God is a Spirit .

I did but I m travelling dark and light I own my personal .. People can't see . I thank you for. An nosy information.

I agree with all said but when I struggle with understanding I fall back on Thomas when Christ proved in physical form to Thomas did not rebuke him when he exclaimed....”my Lord and my God”. And John 1 the word was with God and the Word was God........ and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” Also Colossians ......”by Him (Christ) all things consist.....” But I wouldn’t be truthful if I said I have not wrestled with the trinity vs mono theists ideas about One. So I trust fully in Christ since The Father was pleased and gave all power to Christ. Side note: read Revelation 4 and visualize what is being revealed about the throne. In my finite mind I picture Revelation 4 and I pray please Lord let me see the heavenly elders eternally praising the Lotd God.🤫 I’m awestruck by the picture painted by John in Rev. 4

God can speak into out spirits as our spirits are of God. We do not sense God with temporal body parts. No seeing, hearing, feeling, touching smelling. The temporal is not made for seeing beyond life in the body. Yet with our spirits, as granted by God, can sense God, as our spirits can be understood as being God’s spirit in us.

God is not invisible at all times, as God told Moses, who saw his back parts. Exo 33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: Exo 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: Exo 33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Whyfore art thou so invisible father... Wherefore art thou???

You know what I wish we could get our hands on but probably never will, an epistle from the The Apostle Thomas out in India. I really wonder how his Christian theology was working considering he was so far out from the other Apostles. Matter of fact I wish we could of gotten an epistle from each of the Apostles considering Peter James John and Paul all have their own flares and points of theological emphasis that distinguish themselves from one another when you really look into them closely.

no one can see God and not experience death of ego? and the death of ego leads to purity of heart? what does Forehead mean? is it like "the right hand" indicates the "action irrevocable" ?

Are you still planning to make a video on the Angel of the Lord?

@PostApostolicChurch

2 жыл бұрын

Very much so. It will be a few videos in the future. Based on how often I have posted videos lately, it might be a couple years before I get to The Angel of the Lord. God bless you!

@maxprescott9371

Жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurchLooking forward to it ✝️👋

But Adam saw God and spoke with Him. Cain is also to have spoken to God, then God marked Cain so that no one would kill him..... So in Genesis it starts with God walking and talking with Adam. Would that mean that he was God the Father? Or God the Son? What do you suppose it is meant that God walked and talked?

@patriciah3235

5 жыл бұрын

Where does it say Adam saw God? Adam could hear His voice and not have seen Him. Read carefully.

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. When it comes to God the Father speaking, this is not unusual for Him. He spoke often, which Scripture often says comes from heaven. The Father speaking at Jesus' baptism and transfiguration are good examples. When it comes to God the Father being seen (or walking on earth), this is where the early Christians say this is not the Father. As R Rem pointed out, any appearance of God would have been Jesus/Son/Logos. Down the road, when the video about The Angel of the Lord is released, it will share from Scripture how the Son had a role throughout the Old Testament. The most notable event was the burning bush. When you read the passage, the Being in the bush says that He is God and that He is the Angel of the Lord. It's very fascinating. And I believe the early Christians were right in saying that any physical appearance of God was God the Son (not God the Father).

@maxprescott9371

Жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurchAwesome !! So we’ll said ✨🔅💫✝️

@pamelalc63

Жыл бұрын

His voice walked in the garden

To say that it was Jesus (then known as Jehovah) whom the prophets of the Old Testament saw and spoke with is a good explanation. However, in the case of Stephen as he is being stoned, he declares that he sees both God and Jesus on his right hand. Acts 7:54-55. How does this reconcile with verses that say that no man has seen God?

@johnhanks4260

4 жыл бұрын

Notice that the fiction gospels were written by insecure males with a vivid male insecure imagination. This is true with the authoritarian insecure male Bible. God the father with insecure stereotype words. Modern fiction can be seen that way, especially fiction with male authority heroes, insecure.

@PostApostolicChurch

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting and bringing this up. There are a lot of instances in the Scriptures where people seem to have seen God with their eyes. There is also when Moses was on Sinai, when God passed by Moses, covering him. My answer would be the same as the answer God gave to Moses. While people may see God's glory, God on his throne, and (in the case of Acts 7) God's right hand... these are instances where a portion of God's glory is shown. But, again, I fall back on John and Paul who said that no one has seen Father God in a real, literal sense. That's the best explanation I can give at this time. If you would like to discuss this more, I would be glad to continue the conversation. God bless you!

@eklypised

2 жыл бұрын

@@johnhanks4260 Then why would a male imagination writing "fiction" as you say have women find the tomb empty and not men? Why was Yeshuas mother so prominent in this all male story and not his dad??

God the Father is invisible cause He is Spirit (John 4.23-24), and a Spirit has no flesh, neither bones (Luke 24.39). A spirit can't be crucified for our sins, that's why Jésus, the Son, God make Flesh, humiliated Himself and came as a Man to die for ours sins on the cross (John 1.14; 1 Cor. 3.16 ; Philippians 2.5 à 11). There is Only One God, the First and the Last, Jésus : (Isaiah 44.6 ; Revelation 1.18). Jésus is under the authority of the Father, the Spirit, and the one who see Jésus, see the Father, cause the Father, the Spirit, live in Him (John 14.7 à 10). Hallelu-YAH !

Very interesting. Are you catholic?

@PostApostolicChurch

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for asking. I am not Catholic and have never been Catholic. God bless you!

8:46 "seen, adoptively through the Son" - does Irenaeus mean to say that Jesus is only the Son of God through adoption?

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

Great question. It looks like Irenaeus is contrasting the time of the prophets with the time of the apostles. That is, during the time of the prophets, God's attributes were seen prophetically. They were seen as the Spirit moved through the prophets and proclaimed many prophecies. Then during the time of the apostles, God's attributes were seen through Jesus the Christ. By "adoptively," I don't think Irenaeus had in mind anything to do with the adoption of a child. Adoptively, I believe, means "taken on something." As in, "After studying that, I have adopted that belief." In this case, God the Son adopted human flesh and the world physically saw Him. I think a related passage would be when Jesus said, "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father." Basically, seeing God the Son in a body is the closest a person can get in actually, physically seeing God the Father. But they are seeing God the Son, not God the Father. I believe Irenaeus is saying that the incarnation of God the Son (and how He was seen by men) is how mankind can "adoptively" see God the Father. I must admit, it is a strange choice of words, and I hope I am explaining my perspective well enough. God bless!

@frikandelthaisaus

5 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch Yes, your explanation is very clear. Thank you and God bless!

@TheBelovedDisciple144

4 жыл бұрын

I just want to throw this scripture in here, I think it has something to do with all of this. Romans 8 14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your *adoption to sonship.* And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs-heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. We are adopted into sonship through the Son and by the Spirit.

You assume that the all-powerful Father lacks the ability to manifest himself to us, but the Son can, even before he receives a human body. From that you conclude that the Old Testament manifestations of God were the Son. In that case the Father is not all powerful, and is actually inferior to the Son with respect the that ability. How do you reconcile that? This is yet another example of the Trinitarian doctrine leading to nonsensical and contradictory conclusions.

@PostApostolicChurch

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. I'm curious... why would the "ability to manifest oneself to mankind" be something that makes one more powerful? I've never thought of that before, and I would like to know why that is the case. After all, I would not say that the Father "lacks the ability." Just because the Father is invisible to us, how does this mean He lacks the ability? God bless you!

@rwbaira

4 жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch Perhaps I should start by clarifying that I don't think this is a contradiction within Trinitarianism, but rather that assuming the doctrine of the Trinity leads people (mostly lay people who don't fully understand the doctrine) to some weird and often problematic conclusions, and that this is an example of that. Second, I should apologize up front for being verbose. You asked for clarification, and I have a bad habit of trying to explain things thoroughly (with mixed success). My objection has to do with what visibility is. We are physical beings and as such our eyes are incapable of seeing anything that is not physical. All of physical reality is created, but God's existence is independent of created reality, which means he has no native physical nature. That is to say that if He wants us to see Him, He has to create a physical representation of Himself for light to reflect off of which we can then see. To put it more succinctly, visibility (to our physical eyes anyway) is a property of physical reality only, and God is in no way physical by nature. This applies to both the Father and the Son. At 9:33 in the video, Novatian is quoted saying that the Father was never seen, but only the Son. The idea is derived from scripture saying that God cannot be seen and that God has been seen. So he concludes (understandably) that the distinction between how God cannot be seen and how he was seen is a difference between one person and another. This certainly seems to be a reasonable hypothesis given that the Son certainly has been seen. The problem with this hypothesis is the "cannot" part of it. If it were a matter of "no one has seen God" versus "people have seen God" this could work fine. But to suggest that one person can be seen and the other cannot means that the one person has the ability to manifest himself physically and the other does not. This calls into question how these persons are co-equal if they're not capable of all the same things and it calls into question the Father's omnipotence if there's something he cannot do. And since the Son is the one that has an ability that the Father does not have, that means that, in at least this one respect, the Son is more powerful than the Father simply by virtue of being able to do something that the Father cannot do. So the problematic thinking is like this. First, suppose that we explain how God cannot be seen and yet has been seen by interpreting this to mean that the Father cannot be seen but the Son can. Second, if the Father cannot be seen but the Son can, we can conclude that anywhere anyone has ever seen God in any respect, it must not have been the Father, but the Son. But the objection I've laid out is in step 1, which means that the conclusion in step two is based on a faulty premise. Now, I suppose you could understand the claim that God cannot be seen to mean that the Father CHOOSES never to manifest himself physically, and not that He CANNOT do so. In that case, we could never see Him because he never gives us the opportunity. If this is how you understand it then my objection is moot. However, this is still a bit problematic since it's rather ad hoc. It requires two or three unsupported conjectures (depending on how you want to count them). First it conjectures that the explanation can be found in a distinction of persons. Second it conjectures that the Father chooses never to manifest himself. It also conjectures that the Spirit never manifested himself to people in the Old Testament, but only the Son did. None of these three suppositions can be supported independent of the source of the hypothesis (or at least I know of no such support). That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it's a conclusion based on a very thin foundation. I think the thinness of this conclusion calls for us to explore possible alternative explanations. Incidentally, I do believe that the Father can never be seen and that the Son has been seen, but not for the same reason. I do not believe the doctrine of the Trinity, so my understanding of what the terms "Father" and "Son" mean are different from the Trinitarian understanding. If you search the scriptures, you'll find that the term "the Son" never refers to Jesus before the incarnation. In fact, Luke 1:35 gives the incarnation as the reason for him being called the "Son of God." That doesn't mean that he didn't exist before the incarnation, but the term "Son" was not applied to him before that. So I understand the term "the Son" to refer to the physical manifestation of God (I'm talking about Jesus, not Old Testament theophanies) and not to any eternal, divine person. So God was seen in that the Son (i.e. the man) was seen. Now when God took on a human form, he did not cease to be omnipresent, omniscient, etc. and I understand the term "the Father" to refer to God in this sense that He was still there with all his divine attributes, (invisible, immortal, omnipresent, etc.) even though He was also manifested finitely in a human body on earth. So the Father cannot be seen because we don't call any physical manifestation of Him "the Father." If he manifests Himself, we call that manifestation something else, such as "the angel of the LORD," "the Son," etc. depending on the manifestation. Jesus sort of suggested as much in John 14:9 ("He who has seen me has seen the Father"). I.e. the Father HAS been seen, but only in the sense that the Son has been seen. The man, Jesus, was not called the Father, not because he wasn't the Father (he was), but because he was manifested in flesh and in that sense he was distinct from what we call "the Father" which is invisible. So that's my alternative hypotheses. God cannot be seen in that physical visibility is not inherent to His nature (His purely divine nature which is called the Father) but He has been seen in that He has created representations of Himself in the physical world (including a special one called the Son). Those representations are created, and not part of God's inherent nature, which cannot be seen. Nevertheless, those representations are understood to be God Himself and so we can say that God has been seen. So, rather than invoking a distinction of persons to explain the seen/unseen apparent contradiction, my hypothesis asserts that the distinction to be invoked is essentially one of definition. I.e. the Father can be defined as the invisible God (and therefore by definition, can never be seen) and the Son as a visible manifestation of the invisible God (which has been seen). It is not necessary to use the terms "Father" and "Son" here, but they are helpful to clarify. So in brief, my hypothesis is that God is invisible by nature (and thus cannot be seen) but he has manifested Himself in created forms to us (and thus has been seen). Those forms are NOT Him in that they are created things, but they ARE Him in that they represent Him to us in a very direct and literal way. So rather than making the two or three conjectures needed to explain this apparent contradiction and ending up with the unintended conclusion that only the Son was seen in the Old Testament, I instead make one, I suppose, philosophical claim about how the term "invisible" can be used discriminately with regards to God and to His manifestations. As far as I'm aware, this doesn't lead to any unintended conclusions. So this hypothesis seems simpler (despite my verbose explanation) and less ad hoc. That doesn't necessarily make it true, but it is less problematic and therefor it's a more reasonable hypothesis. And if you leave the definitions of the terms "Father" and "Son" out of my explanation, it's even compatible with Trinitarianism. I apologize again for being verbose. Thank you for taking interest in my comment and for taking the time to read my explanation. God bless you!

@PostApostolicChurch

4 жыл бұрын

@@rwbaira Again, I don't think this has anything to do with the Father not having the ability to be seen and the Son having the ability to be seen. Instead, I believe it is humanity that is lacking the ability to truly see. As you said, we can only see physically--the things that reflect light. So it's not that the Father does have or do not have the ability. For whatever reason, the Divinity decided that the Son would take on flesh. And in that way, mankind would be able to see the Son. Just as Jesus Himself said, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." Jesus is not talking literally or physically here. Jesus is talking about how the Father and Himself are united in nature and in united in will. Though mankind is unable to see the Father, seeing the Son is just as good. Here is another aspect. We agree that the Son can be seen. However, the Son cannot be seen by me! This is because the Son is sitting at the right hand of the Father. I cannot see the Son. That's not the Son's fault or the Father's fault. It's a lacking on my part. When I think about how the Son is seen, it is because the Son was seen by the apostles and disciples. In short, the Son was only seen while He was on the earth (both before and after His resurrection). Yet, before the Son's birth and after the Son's ascension, the Son is now also invisible. Of course, the Son is the one who can allow mankind to see Him. The Son did this to Paul on the road to Damascus. The Son did this to John on the island of Patmos. So again, it is mankind who has the inability to see Father and Son. And it is in the Father's and Son's ability that allows mankind to see the Son--however and whenever They will. I can agree with you that Father can be "seen" in the things He has created... things that can represent Himself. Yet, I still say that these things are NOT the Father, merely representations of Him. I think the biggest example of this is mankind itself. In fact, God said that mankind was created in His image. Therefore, the best representation of the Father (outside of the Son's flesh and humanity) is humans. We can say that looking at the face of a human is like looking at the face of the invisible Father, but this is only a simile, a representation. I believe the closest a human being has ever come to acutally seeing the Father was Moses on mount Sinai. There, God passed by Moses. Even there, God explicitly told Moses that Moses was not allowed (unable?) to truly see God. God bless!

@rwbaira

4 жыл бұрын

​@@PostApostolicChurch That all makes sense, but what I'm trying to understand is why anyone would say that "when people in the Old Testament saw God, they didn't see the Father, but the Son" (at 9:57 in the video) but now you're saying "before the Son's birth...the Son is now also invisible." Are you saying that the Son's human body existed before the incarnation and so he could show himself at will but was otherwise unseen? Or maybe that, after he was glorified, he traveled back in time to show himself?

@PostApostolicChurch

4 жыл бұрын

@@rwbaira I think I understand what you're saying. I should clarify more about what I meant when I said those things. Before Jesus was born and after Jesus ascended, no one is able to see Jesus' body. So in that way, His body is invisible. It's much like what Jesus said in John 20:29. But then, Jesus made a lot of appearances in visions, bright lights, and other means. For example, there are the many visions of Jesus in Revelation. In those visions, John saw Jesus (Jesus was not invisible). Paul saw Jesus in a bright light on the road to Damascus. And then there are the OT appearances, such as Abraham's three visitors in Genesis 18. And there is His appearance as The Angel of the Lord in the burning bush in Exodus 3. And his appearance to Joshua at the end of Joshua 5. In short, when I was talking about the Son's birth and He being invisible, I was referring to Jesus' body. In those cases, Jesus was physically seen. Yet, Jesus was seen in visions and lights at other times. On the other hand, Father God was not visible in any time. I hope that helps.

I appreciate your videos, but would disagree with you here. Just a few thoughts. We are created in his image. If he is invisible, there is no image. Or are we to believe that God is like Wonder Woman's plane? To what end? It makes more sense that God the Father and Jesus Christ are visible & corporal, while the Holy Ghost is the member of the "Divinity" that has no body with the mission to testify to our spirits of truth and provide us the influence of God. In fact, there is something about having a body that seems key to the whole plan when you consider the sacrifices that were made for our future resurrection. I'm wondering if Christ having a body and being visible make him greater than the Father. The statement in scripture that no man can see him and live, per se, means there is something to "see." Perhaps you are defining invisible to mean that man is not capable of viewing him or rather a man would be consumed if he were to look upon God, and not that if one were to look upon him...nothing visible would be there. I fully believe that the Supreme Being of the Universe could protect us from being consumed in his presence by his presences if he so chose. And as far as the scriptures that state that he is invisible, I would answer yes. He is invisible to most in our daily lives. He is hidden from nearly all mankind. Based on other writings and things I have pointed out above, I believe the invisible comments to be metaphorical and not literal. It is referring to our having to live by faith in his existence. Personally, I believe either Irenaeus misunderstood Paul or the reading of "He has declared [Him]" is misunderstood by today's readers. I would clarify who the [HE] and [HIM] are in that phrase. So, I'd see it saying "No man has seen God at any time, except the Father testified of the Son." Think of the times the Father has appeared (Stephen's martyrdom) Of course, I don't expect you to believe this as my reasoning for knowing this unique to my faith. The nature of Heavenly Father is a key point, as a correct understanding of God's nature is essential for us to fulfill our purpose. If we do not understand that 1. He is the Father of us all and that we are created in his image, literally 2. that as his children we have divine attributes he wishes us to develop and 3. that Jesus Christ is the example or mirror image of God on earth in character and will (as I agree with you that they are two distinct beings) and we have been commanded to be perfect (complete) like our Father, it is extremely harmful to not know God's true nature, how we are related to that divine nature, and that that is where our true potential comes from.

@PostApostolicChurch

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for commenting. It was great reading the detail you put in your comment. I am interested in discussing this complex thing with you. :) I can see that we both believe that Father God is invisible AND that we are created in the image of God. It looks like you are focusing on the image of God as a starting point, which has a connection to mankind's physical image. As for me, I admit that I am focusing on the invisibility of God as a starting point, which would mean that God has zero physical similarities to mankind. I think a good discussion would be how we can describe both the invisibility and the image as being true. One thing you said that I thought is very interesting is the idea that Father God has a body. Do you believe that Father God has a body? If so and if mankind is made in the image of that body, do you believe that Father God is human on some level? Thanks for discussing this with me. I look forward to seeing how we might help each other understand this better. God bless you!

@cabarete2003

Жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch Good to see your response. So I believe God has a body of flesh and blood but that he and now Jesus Christ are exalted beings. In full disclosure, I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Don't want to come off as I am playing coy about my faith. I’m not sure if you are familiar with our beliefs, but I really enjoy you coverage of the pre-Nicaean era in relation to our belief of that time. So, I believe that God is metaphorically in the way my wife is currently not in the room right now. She is out there, but she is currently invisible to me. Nevertheless, she has a body. I brought up the image of God to argue that how can God be invisible if we are made in his image? That was the point I was making there. I appreciate your understanding of God not being like man in any way. But then I must disagree. I believe the idea that he is the Father is quite literal in that he organized our spirits and that we are made in his image. Thus I’d say he has human form. And lastly, based on what I just said above, God is immortal and eternal. So in that sense he is not a mortal human. But yes, I believe that we are in very close relation to our Heavenly Father. And I say this without getting into details of the foundation of that proposition. God bless you as well. You’re work is on these is invaluable and I hardly can take it all in. I started reading this material. However, I am reading it on line and hate reading on line.

@cabarete2003

Жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch I am reading a book you may have read. It is very interesting on this topic: Bercot, David. Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity .

@PostApostolicChurch

Жыл бұрын

@@cabarete2003 Thank you for sharing about your membership with the LDS. Actually, because your comment mentioned "body," I was curious if you were. Yes, I'm familiar with the Mormon belief that Father God has flesh and bone and that Father God has been seen by humans. I have a very, very close and good Mormon friend. He's really smart and I absolutely loved discussing this with him. In the end, I strongly disagree with those two Mormon beliefs. You ask a great question. You said, "How can God be invisible if we are made in his image?" Since my foundation is based on what the Scriptures say about Father God's invisibility (after all, not a single Scripture is lying), my conclusion is that our creation in God's image is not at all physical. I'll rephrase your question into how I would answer it: Father God is invisible physically because Father God has no physical attributes, so our created image is more based (1) on Father God's qualities/nature or (2) on Father's God's design/will or (3) on a mixture of things. Again, because of the invisibility of Father God, I believe the image cannot be merely physical. What you said about God having a human form. As I mentioned in the video, I believe this is very true with Jesus, Son of God. I believe Jesus continues to have His human body, whether He is in heaven or earth. But with Father God, this is not the case (as this video presents). I'm happy to hear that you are looking into the material from Christians who lived after the apostles. :) Ever since I found their writings, they have re-shaped my thinking about Christianity and the Scriptures for the better. It has already been a blessing discussing things these things you!

@cabarete2003

Жыл бұрын

@@PostApostolicChurch Well we have a shared interest in the first writings of the church. Yes, as we are the "Latter-day Saints" it is very useful to learn about the "Early-day Saints." For me, as we believe in a great apostasy, I look for those teachings lost b/w the Apostolic age and the Creeds. I find it faith building. So for that I am grateful. Your work will certainly be helpful for many for a long time.

Jesus is the Father God incarnate as a human son. John 14:9. You are wrong. People do literally see God, but they don’t see Him in His Full Glory. That’s the difference. Please repent of your false form of Christianity and roman Trinity doctrine.

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

The apostle John said that no one has ever seen God at anytime (John 1:18). He also said that people saw Jesus (John 1:14). If no one has seen God at anytime and if Jesus is the Father incarnate, are you saying that Jesus is not God?

@thebiblerefutesheretics2054

5 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church What did God tell Moses? No one can see God in His fulness of glory and expect to still remain alive. But in the old testament there are many theophanies where God appeared to humans in various ways. So God can be seen, just not in His fulness of glory. The answer therefore is very simple. God bless you.

@thebiblerefutesheretics2054

5 жыл бұрын

Post-Apostolic Church I believe Jesus is God the Father incarnate as the son. Just as the Bible teaches Isaiah 9:6, etc.

@PostApostolicChurch

5 жыл бұрын

@@thebiblerefutesheretics2054 In the above video, there is a quote from Irenaeus (student of Polycarp who was a student of John). He disagrees with the idea that "it was not the fullness of glory." You are welcome to believe that the Jesus is the Father incarnate, but it is incorrect to claim that the Bible teaches this belief.

@EMan-cf8lv

5 жыл бұрын

Oneness Christian when Christ Jesus was on the earth he spoke to the Father and Father spoke back to the Son. If you are right then the scripture is a lie. But, since you are clearly wrong and in error then the scripture as usual is and always will remain true and every heretical word a lie