Replies

Yes, you did not say that, you said And yet, they CANNOT be One, because they are often separate.

That was offered as a rebuttal to your:

And yet, they CANNOT be separate because we believe that God is ONE. We also believe that Jesus was God. And we believe that they were separate "somethings":) --> you cannot put those 3 beliefs together without the idea of the Trinity.

Src

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

[...] so I asked you do you believe in 3 Gods?

To clarify, I have already declared that I do fit within the Trinitarian model - albeit loosely so.

I believe there is ONE God, Yahweh, Jehovah, who IS the great I AM. I believe that His Son, Yeshua, Jesus, is the promised Messiah, the Lion of Judah, King over ALL things, and is part and parcel, Jehovah Himself. I believe that The Holy Spirit, Ruach HaKodesh, fills the Temple of the Lord, and is, part and parcel, Jehovah Himself. These things can be proved upon the Word.

By which method that is made true is not made known - as the Scriptures are silent. But the knowledge of that method is neither needful, nor necessary, as the Father has blessed us, and ordained an order by which He is to be approached by anyone. Ergo, if one uses the means God has provided, the point is made moot.

And to assign a definition to Yahweh which is not as He has revealed is blasphemous. The Trinitarian "Hypostatic Union" is not declared by the Father, and I will not blindly endorse it.

To wit: What the Bible DOES say is that Yahweh is ONE. That is as far as I am willing to go.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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