Here is another verse that Onenessians use to claim that Jesus is God incarnate as a dual natured individual, and Trinitarians use to claim that Jesus is the same deific substance as the Father.

This one is incredibly easy to refute for those who are willing to hear Jesus. Jesus himself said, in the very context of making this statement, in the very next verse: “I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does His works” (John 14:10). Notice the context…

⁷“‘If you had known me, you would have known my Father also…⁹He who has seen me has seen the Father. How do you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ ¹⁰Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I SPEAK NOT FROM MYSELF; but the Father who lives in me does His works.’” (John 14:7–10)

What Jesus did not say is “don’t you know by now that I am the Father incarnate?” He did not say that which shows us that Onenessians use the devil’s method of jumping to conclusions to create a false dilemma in order to claim this verse supports their conclusion…

Proof Texted Scripture	False Dilemma “Concluded” from Proof Text	Scripture Negating the False Dilemma / Conclusion
John 14:9 “He who has seen me has seen the Father”	“Jesus is trying to tell them that he is the Father incarnate as a man.”	John 14:10 “I speak not from myself, but the Father who lives in me…” See also John 12:49-50; John 14:24; John 8:26, 28; John 5:19-20; John 6:29; John 7:16-18; John 3:34-35; John 9:4; John 10:24-25; John 10:37-38; John 11:42; John 15:9-10; John 15:15; John 15:23-24; John 17:2, 3, 6-8, 11, 21, 22, 23, 25-26; Acts 2:22; Acts 3:22-33; Deuteronomy 18:15–19; Acts 3:26; John 17:18; John 13:20; John 17:14-16; Luke 10:16; Matthew 10:40; John 12:26; Matthew 25:34-40; Acts 9:3-5; 1 Corinthians 12:27; Exodus 3:1-6; Acts 7:30-35; 1 John 4:12; John 1:18, 6:46, 1 Timothy 6:16; Exodus 33:20; Colossians 1:15; Zechariah 12:8; Acts 14:11; Hebrews 1:1-2

There is no culture, no language, no dictionary, and no lexicon where “myself” means “my human nature” in direct distinction to “my deific nature.” And yet when Jesus says, “I am not alone,” Onenessians do not believe him. Rather, they claim he is “trying to say” he is the person of the Father standing right there talking to them. Do you recall reading in the first few chapters of Genesis how the serpent beguiled Eve to believe that what God said was not what God meant? That is exactly what is going on here with the Oneness contention that what Jesus said is not what Jesus meant.

We will not do the whole Trinity/Oneness comparison this time. By now it ought to be clear that nowhere here, or anywhere else, did Jesus say either that he was the second person in a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, or that he was a dual natured incarnation of God the Father and he was speaking from his humanity when he said, “I speak not from myself.”

Why, then, do so many people simply refuse to hear Jesus’ words right there, where he explicitly and clearly stated: “The words that I tell you, I SPEAK NOT FROM MYSELF”? 

With those words Jesus flat out just explained that he is not the “word incarnate,” rather, he is claiming to be speaking for God as God’s agent, God’s representative. “Agency” and “identity” are completely contradictory ideas, and the one that Jesus uses consistently to explain himself is the concept of “agency” rather than “identity.”

Let us look at those scriptures.

“For I spoke not from myself, but the Father…he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak… The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak.” (John 12:49-50)

“The words… I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me.” (John 14:10) 

“The word which you hear isn’t mine, but the Father’s who sent me.” (John 14:24) 

“He who sent me is true; and the things which I heard from him, these I say…” (John 8:26) 

“…I do nothing of myself; but as my Father taught me, I speak these things” (John 8:28). 

“¹⁹Jesus therefore answered them, “Most certainly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise. ²⁰For the Father has affection for the Son, and shows him all things that he himself does. He will show him greater works than these, that you may marvel.” (John 5:19-20)

“Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” (John 6:29)

“¹⁶Jesus therefore answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. ¹⁷If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself. ¹⁸He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory, but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.” (John 7:16-18)

“³⁴For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for God gives the Spirit without measure. ³⁵The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand. ³⁶One who believes in the Son has eternal life, but one who disobeys the Son won’t see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:34-35)

“I must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day. The night is coming, when no one can work.” (John 9:4)

“²⁴The Jews therefore came around him and said to him, “How long will you hold us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” ²⁵Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you don’t believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name, these testify about me. ²⁶But you don’t believe, because you are not of my sheep, as I told you.” (John 10:24-26)

“³⁷If I don’t do the works of my Father, don’t believe me. ³⁸But if I do them, though you don’t believe me, believe the works; that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” (John 10:37-38)

“I know that you always listen to me, but because of the multitude that stands around I said this, that they may believe that you sent me.” (John 11:42)

“⁹Even as the Father has loved me, I also have loved you. Remain in my love. ¹⁰If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love.” (John 15:9-10)

“No longer do I call you servants, for the servant doesn’t know what his lord does. But I have called you friends, for everything that I heard from my Father, I have made known to you.” (John 15:15)

“²³He who hates me, hates my Father also. ²⁴If I hadn’t done among them the works which no one else did, they wouldn’t have had sin. But now have they seen and also hated both me and my Father.” (John 15:23-24)

“Even as you gave him authority over all flesh, he will give eternal life to all whom you have given him.” (John 17:2)

“³This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3)

“⁷Now they have known that all things whatever you have given me are from you, ⁸for the words which you have given me I have given to them, and they received them, and knew for sure that I came forth from you, and they have believed that you sent me.” (John 17:6-8)

“I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them through your name which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are.” (John 17:11)

“That they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me.” (John 17:21)

“The glory which you have given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, even as we are one” (John 17:22)

“I in them, and you in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that you sent me, and loved them, even as you loved me” (John 17:23)

“²⁵Righteous Father, the world hasn’t known you, but I knew you; and these knew that you sent me. ²⁶I made known to them your name, and will make it known; that the love with which you loved me may be in them, and I in them.” (John 17:25-26)

Did Jesus anywhere, let alone with such consistency, explain that he was a “mode” of the Father? If not, then what is the benefit of not listening to Jesus? Why do Onenessians feel their extrabiblical imaginations outrank and supersede, let alone improve on, Jesus’ explanations?

Or Peter’s…

“Men of Israel, hear these words! Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as you yourselves know,” (Acts 2:22)

Or Moses…

“²²For Moses indeed said to the fathers, ‘The Lord God will raise up a prophet for you from among your brothers, like me. You shall listen to him in all things whatever he says to you. ²³It will be, that every soul that will not listen to that prophet will be utterly destroyed from among the people.’” (Acts 3:22-33)

[Moses said] “¹⁵Yahweh your God will raise up to you a prophet from the midst of you, of your brothers, like me. You shall listen to him. ¹⁶This is according to all that you desired of Yahweh your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, “Let me not hear again the voice of Yahweh my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I not die.” ¹⁷Yahweh said to me, “They have well said that which they have spoken. ¹⁸I will raise them up a prophet from among their brothers, like you; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. ¹⁹It shall happen, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:15–19)

Do you hear what God said right there? YHWH agreed with the Israelites and told them that, instead of hearing Him directly, He would raise up a prophet in whom He would put His, God’s, words in his mouth. So Onenessians want us to believe that God was being deceitful to these, His chosen people! Again, Onenessians, like the devil in the Garden, want us to believe that what God explained wasn’t what God meant, rather, their man-made interpretation to the contrary is what God meant. The apostles disagree with the Oneness conclusion. They said things like…

“God, having raised up his servant, Jesus, sent him to you first, to bless you, in turning away everyone of you from your wickedness.” (Acts 3:26)

All these scriptures clearly, consistently, constantly, and plainly state and explain the doctrine of “agency” of Jesus from the Father (the principle) repeatedly. Yet nowhere, let alone with anything like this kind of consistency or clarity, did Jesus or the apostles ever, even once, describe Jesus and the Father as being “God the Father incarnate in the flesh as the son” (as in modalism/Oneness) or “a Trinity of three coequal persons.”

Those who refuse to hear these explanations are the ones Jesus referred to in John 10:26…

“²⁴The Jews therefore came around him and said to him, “How long will you hold us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” ²⁵Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you don’t believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name, these testify about me. ²⁶But you don’t believe, because you are not of my sheep, as I told you.” (John 10:24-26)

Jesus never told anyone, plainly, that he was “God incarnate as a man.” We have quoted, above, what Jesus did plainly tell them. The question is, will you believe Jesus and what he plainly told us, or will you read between the lines and jump to a conclusion that he never explained of himself?

Jesus’ apostles and disciples as agents.

See if you can identify the concept of “agency” in the following passage: it is not a trick question:

“⁶I revealed your name to the people whom you have given me out of the world. They were yours, and you have given them to me… ¹⁶They are not of the world even as I am not of the world…¹⁸As you sent me into the world, even so I have sent them into the world.” (John 17:6, 16, 18)

With that verse in mind, let us read the definition of “apostle” in the following:

“apostéllō … is common in Greek for ‘to send forth... It thus carries the further thought of authorization, e.g., in the case of official envoys, but also divinely sent teachers.” Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (pgs. 67–68). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

In the Greek LXX, the translation of apostéllō means, “the sending of a special messenger with emphasis on the sender (cf. Is. 6:8), so that the messenger is a kind of plenipotentiary. The message and the one sent are of interest only as they embody the sender, no matter who the sender or the sent may be. Even those who are sent realize that the stress is on the sender (cf. Gen. 24:1ff.).” [ibid.]

Plenipotentiary means: “a person, especially a diplomatic agent, invested with full power or authority to transact business on behalf of another.”

“The LXX pursues this thought consistently, even using apostéllō for šlḥ [shaliah] contrary to the literal sense in order to bring out the authoritative element in the action and the position of the one who acts.” [ibid.]

So, the apostles, and the disciples, were all acting as plenipotentiaries–legal representatives–agents (Heb. shaliah), of Jesus! And Jesus explicitly said, 

“¹⁸As you sent me into the world, even so I have sent them into the world.” (John 17:18)

“Most certainly I tell you, he who receives whomever I send, receives me; and he who receives me, receives him who sent me.” (John 13:20)

What we are seeing in these passages is that Jesus used the same type of language in John 14:9, and yet no one “concludes” by these that Jesus was claiming all his disciples to be little incarnations of Jesus. Rather, that is an explicit definition and declaration of the doctrine of agency at work. But it is hardly the only one.

“⁷Now they have known that all things whatever you have given me are from you, ⁸for the words which you have given me I have given to them, and they received them, and knew for sure that I came forth from you, and they have believed that you sent me.” (John 17:6-8)

Many other such scriptures help us disciples of Christ understand “agency” by our position in Christ as those of “agents” with, in our case, Jesus being the “principle,” for example:

“Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me. Whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16) 

“He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.” (Matthew 10:40)

“If anyone serves me, let him follow me. Where I am, there will my servant also be. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.” (John 12:26)

Again, those are all textbook definitions of agency being explained by Jesus. But never once does Jesus take the time to explain to anyone that what he means is that he is an incarnation of the person of the Father, or a “mode” of the Father.

Here is another important descriptive case:

“³⁴Then the King will tell those on his right hand, ‘Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; ³⁵for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in. ³⁶I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.’ ³⁷“Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? ³⁸When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? ³⁹When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?’ ⁴⁰“The King will answer them, ‘Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’” (Matthew 25:34-40)

This is, again, the doctrine of agency (shaliah) being clearly spelled out by Jesus. A doctrine simply does not get any more biblical than this! Imagine someone using that passage to assert, “see, Jesus said I am him.” If you can see how misguided that conclusion would be, if not deceitful, then you should be able to see how misguided and deceitful Onenessians are in claiming that John 14:9 is to be understood as Jesus “trying to say he was the Father.”

Having seen many scriptures that show Jesus expressly applying the concept of agency to himself, this seems like the best spot to introduce the Hebraic concept of agency: shaliah.

“AGENT (Heb. shaliah): The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself” (Ned. 72b; Kidd. 41b). Therefore, any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle, who therefore bears full responsibility for it with consequent complete absence of liability on the part of the agent… The agent is regarded as acting in his principle’s interest and not to his detriment…” (R. J. Zwi Werblowsky and G. Wigoder, editors, The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion (New York: Adama Books, 1986), 15.)

And that explains where the confusion comes between the identity of the principle and the separate identity of the agent. Note how closely this definition of shaliah is to Jesus’ statement, “inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” Jesus, as the “principle” who sends his disciples, takes full responsibility for the acts of his agents- us.

It seems to me, that one of the biggest roadblocks to understanding who Jesus truly is, is a lack of knowledge and understanding of this Christian, biblical, and Hebraic concept of “agency.” An agent is not the identity of the principle; that would defeat the purpose of calling it agency. It would be like saying, “inasmuch as you did it to me, you did it to me.” Or, it would be like having Jesus say,

“I spoke from myself… I gave myself a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak… The things therefore which I speak, even as I told myself, so I speak.” 

Jesus never said any such thing. He said the opposite. The reason I am no longer Oneness, is because I choose to hear Jesus’ explanations of himself instead of those who claim he meant otherwise.

The idea that Jesus spoke from himself is what Onenessians want us to think he meant, but that is neither what he meant nor what he said. As we’ve previously quoted, what he said was,

“For I spoke not from myself, but the Father…he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak… The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak.” (John 12:49-50)

This statement aligns perfectly with what we read in Deuteronomy 18 where God told Moses, “…I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. It shall happen, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.” (Deuteronomy 18:15–19).

This proclamation from God is exactly the manner in which Jesus explained himself and his relationship with his Father, as agency and principle, as submissive to the Father’s commandments, and not at all or ever as “human nature” in contrast to or distinction from his “deific nature.”

Now, if we can understand when Christ speaks this way in the context of his relationship with us, as so…

“…inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me,”

Then we should also be able to understand when he explains himself in the same exact way in context with his relationship with God his Father,

“I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does His works.” (John 14:10)

But Onenessians and Trinitarians would rather ignore and negate all these clear explanations and impose their unique ideas of Jesus being the “identity” of either “God the Father incarnate” in the Oneness sense, or “God the Son” in the Trinitarian sense.

Notice how the idea of agency/shaliah, (where Jesus takes full responsibility for the actions of his saints as his “agents”), also explains Jesus’ response to Saul in the following:

“³As he [Saul] traveled… suddenly a light from the sky shone around him. ⁴He fell on the earth, and heard a voice saying to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ ⁵He said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ The Lord said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.’” (Acts 9:3-5)

Notice how Jesus describes himself to Saul. He said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.” But Saul had not been persecuting Jesus; he had been persecuting his disciples. Yet Jesus identified himself so closely with his disciples that he spoke of them in the first person as if Saul were literally persecuting him, Jesus. 

Was Jesus lying or exaggerating? No, not at all. This is a prime example of the idiomatic speech of “agency” (or shaliah). It should be easy for us to understand that the saints that Saul persecuted were not the literal person of Jesus Christ. But Jesus spoke of them that way because believers make up the “one body” of Christ…without negating their individual personalities to do so.

The people that Saul were persecuting were literally doing the work of Christ as his agents in the world; and therefore, Jesus was correct to take full responsibility both for their actions, and for Saul’s actions against them, by identifying them with himself. This also explains why Paul writes most adamantly and decisively, “Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually” (1 Corinthians 12:27). 

For these reasons, most Christians have no problem accepting that Jesus spoke of his disciples, who were acting in the world as his agents, in the first person as himself. But usually, we are still able to distinguish the fact that does not mean we have become the personal identity of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, Christians are not always consistent in applying the concept of agency without assigning literal “identity” of the agent to the principle. I am referring, of course, to Jesus Christ’s own relationship as the Father’s “agent” in distinction from the Father as “principle.” This is what was being expressed when Jesus said…

“⁷‘If you had known me, you would have known my Father also…⁹He who has seen me has seen the Father. How do you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ ¹⁰Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I SPEAK NOT FROM MYSELF; but the Father who lives in me does His works.’” (John 14:7–10)

Jesus was not “trying to say” something different than what he said. Jesus was simply saying the same thing about he and his Father that he turned around and said about us.

“⁴⁰The King will answer them, ‘Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’” (Matthew 25:40)

The Old Testament teaches Agency

Now let’s look at what is probably the premier example of agency in the Old Testament as confirmed and interpreted for us in the New Testament.

As you read this, keep in mind the first principle of “agency”: “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself.” Now let’s look at the angel that appeared to Moses…

“¹Now Moses was keeping the flock of Jethro…and came to God’s mountain, to Horeb. ²The angel of Yahweh appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush… ³Moses said, ‘I will turn aside now, and see this great sight…’ ⁴When Yahweh saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the midst of the bush, and said, ‘Moses! Moses!’ He said, ‘Here I am.’… ⁶Moreover he said, ‘I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look at God.” (Exodus 3:1-6)

Try to understand this passage considering Saul’s experience with Jesus. Recall that Jesus said Saul had been persecuting “me.” Now we have the angel, who was the agent of Yahweh speaking in the first person as if he were Yahweh himself. But that is just the language of “agency” being demonstrated and taught by example. How can we know for sure? Because the Bible interprets that scene for us very clearly as being the angel appearing to Moses.

“³⁰When forty years were fulfilled, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush. ³¹When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight. As he came close to see, a voice of the Lord came to him, ³²‘I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’… ³⁵This Moses, whom they refused, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’—God has sent him as both a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush.” (Acts 7:30-35)

This is further confirmed by the scriptures that are very adamant that “No one has seen God at any time.” (1 John 4:12; John 1:18, 6:46, 1 Timothy 6:16; Exodus 33:20; Colossians 1:15).

So, according to God-breathed and inspired scripture, what Moses “literally” saw was “the angel that appeared to him,” and thus not “literally” God himself. And as the “agent” of God, the angel was perfectly within legal rights to speak on God’s behalf in the first person as if God, because the words that the angel spoke came directly from God.

This is what is meant in defining shaliah/agency as being when, “a person’s agent [i.e., the angel in this case] is regarded as the person himself [i.e., God].”

With that concept in mind, that the Jews were fully aware of, consider this prophecy of the scriptures:

“In that day Yahweh will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem. He who is feeble among them at that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of Yahweh before them.” (Zechariah 12:8)

The “house of David will be like God,” that is talking about Jesus as the heir of the Davidic kingdom. Furthermore, “the house of David will be…like the angel of Yahweh.” And there you have it, that is a clear explanation of why people confuse Jesus as being Yahweh for the same reason they confuse the angel that appeared to Moses as literally being “God”; because the “agent” has full authority to speak “as the primary,” or in other words, “a person’s agent [i.e. the house of David; Jesus] is regarded as the person himself [i.e. God].”

The question simply remains, then, since Jesus consistently and clearly spoke and explained himself in the context of being God’s agent, and not as being God by identity, who will believe his explanations? Will you listen to Jesus?

The fact is, as we have already seen, Jesus explicitly, consistently, and even constantly explained himself in terms of “agency.” Again, that is, “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself (Ned. 72b; Kidd. 41b). Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle.” But that doesn’t mean the “agent” has been, actually or literally, elevated to being the “identity” of the “principle.” 

So then, when Jesus said, “if you’ve seen me, you’ve seen my Father,” it is not, or should not be, really that difficult of an idiom to understand. But, granted, it does give those who want to interpret the Bible the way the devil does an easy opportunity to use this as a proof text by which to impose their doctrine of incarnation upon the text.

So, let’s try it in another setting and see if we can make it clearer. What would it mean if I told you, “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen my brother”?

If I said, “If you have seen me, you have seen my brother,” would that meant that I was trying to tell you I am the very person of my brother? I have heard Oneness preachers say that “Jesus was trying to tell them he was the Father.” What, Jesus could not just come out and say that? Why would I tell you “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen my brother” if I was “trying to tell you” I am my brother?

If I explicitly said, “the words that I speak to you, I don’t speak from myself, but what my brother told me to speak,” would you claim that I meant I was speaking from one side of my personality, but that I was really claiming myself to be my brother, by referring to a different side of my personality?

If I told you, “None of you have seen my brother at any time, but I have revealed him.” Would you still assume that I was trying to tell you I am my brother?

Yet this is the kind of failure of understanding and negating of Jesus’ words Onenessians are doing by “concluding” that only if Jesus was literally “the true God” could he speak the way he did; even though Jesus explained himself over and over to the contrary. 

So, once again, the truth of the matter boils down to this. By misreading Jesus as a “god come down to us in the form of a man” (Acts 14:11) like pagans do, many Christians have been duped into adopting a pagan view of God rather than to hear Jesus’ own explanation of himself, namely, as an agent or apostle, a legal representation, of the Father. And they have turned and sought out “proof-texts” to use to confirm their confirmation bias, rather than hearing the clear explanations given in the scriptures.

I have laid out many examples of how Onenessians use the devil’s method of interpretation to arrive at and defend their man-made doctrine. For sake of space, I certainly have not addressed all the many proof texts they use; but the pattern remains the same. It only takes two or three witnesses to establish a word. I have provided many more than that to prove that this is a standard operating procedure and not merely a mistake over one or two interpretations. 

Any serious disciple of Jesus’ ought to be able to see how the bulk of the words of Jesus himself speak clearly against the jumped to, false dilemma conclusions of the Incarnationists, both Trinitarian and Onenessian. How can anyone in good conscience claim that ambiguous words of Jesus and the Bible are to be considered as holding more weight and authority than the consistent, clear, and explanatory words of Jesus to the contrary of jumped to, false dilemma conclusions?

“This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Listen to him” (Matthew 17:5; also Mark 9:7 and Luke 9:35).

“¹⁵Yahweh your God will raise up to you a prophet from the midst of you, of your brothers, like me. You shall listen to him… ¹⁷Yahweh said…I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:15-19)

“¹Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus; ²who was faithful to him who appointed him…” (Hebrews 3:1-2)

“¹In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, ²but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.” (Hebrews 1:1-2)

“Pilate therefore said to him, “Are you a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I have been born, and for this reason I have come into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” (John 18:37)

Here are some links to other writer’s articles on shaliah/agency…

http://www.christianmonotheism.com/media/text/Raymond%20Essoe%20–%20Shaliah.pdf

 Print This Post