User talk:JParksT2023

Hello!

Welcome to my page! JParksT2023 (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia. I am excited for the things you may do in the future! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Super Bowl commercials

The article Super Bowl commercials you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Super Bowl commercials for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! JParksT2023 (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Oneness Pentecostalism

The article Oneness Pentecostalism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Oneness Pentecostalism for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for laboring intensively to sustain a NPOV for the Oneness Pentecostalism article, and for nominating it a good article! TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply not being honest about OP nor the Bible

And the truth will come to be known about this, that Jesus did in fact explicitly teach that He, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons (John 8:17-18;16:13-15) and that you guys are well aware of that, but don't believe Him. You're allowed to not believe Jesus and certain parts of the Bible, but if you're going to do that, at least be honest. Stop claiming that these teaching aren't in the Bible and slandering trinitarians claiming they believe something that isn't there when in fact it is. You might win the day, but your war against the Word of God will fail, and that's not an opponent I'd want to have. Colemanwalterj (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe 100% of the Bible, and I 100% believe the Trinity is not in there. We can have a civil discussion about that if you would like, but I would appreciate it if the personal attacks could stop. God bless you my friend. JParksT2023 (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's just categorically false. Jesus said explicitly in John 8:18 that Him and the Father are two distinct people and in John 16:13-15 that the HS is not the same person as the others. You are aware of these teachings and do not believe them, you cannot claim to believe the Bible. You are simply lying about what it says. Colemanwalterj (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But let's just go straight to the source, do Jesus and the Father fulfill the law of 2 or 3 witnesses or not (like Jesus claimed they did)? Colemanwalterj (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do and here's why: Jesus is both God and man. The Pharisees only see Him as a man, and so they confront Him and say that He is bearing witness of Himself alone. Jesus responds and says that there is a second witness, the Father. This simply draws the distinction between the man that was before them and the God that was operating in Him. That's why in the next verse it says, "They said to him therefore, “Where is your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”" Jesus says in response to their question of where the Father is that if they knew Him, they would know His Father. Why? Because they are one, united in the person of Jesus: He's both God and man. It's not just a man testifying about himself, but rather God and man testifying about Himself as the God-Man. That's why He says in John 14:10, "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works." The Father is in Him! JParksT2023 (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So they are two distinct people that fulfill the law of 2-3 witnesses? Colemanwalterj (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two witnesses, yes. It's both God and man. JParksT2023 (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's also not true, John 1:1 says "...and the Word was with God and the Word was God" that whole man-god-nature thing is not in the Bible, that is man-made doctrine. What are disagreeing with however now? Colemanwalterj (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe that Jesus is both God and man? My understanding is that's a basic teaching of Triniatians too. JParksT2023 (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He's God and man, but "Jesus" does not refer to His "man-nature" and "the Father" does not refer to His "God-nature." But yes, you do agree that Jesus and the Father are two distinct people? Colemanwalterj (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to get me to use clunky, non-biblical language. The only context of a "person" in the Godhead is when Hebrews says that Jesus is the "express image of His person." There are not three persons, just one person. Let me clarify what I believe: there is one eternal God with no distinctions. That one God was manifest in the flesh as Jesus. Jesus is both fully God and fully man. That's the only distinction. This distinction but simultaneous unity is difficult to comprehend, hence the "mystery" of Godliness that God was manifest in the flesh, but that's what I believe is accordant with scripture. JParksT2023 (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is a witness? What was God asking for in the law of 2-3 witnesses in Deuteronomy 17:6?

A witness is a person by the way. Colemanwalterj (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that sense, the man (Jesus) and God (the Father) are distinct, and that's where the two witnesses are. JParksT2023 (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So... yes?... they are two distinct witnesses? What's a witness? Colemanwalterj (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are two distinct witnesses. I don't see in Deuteronomy 17:6 where it says you must have two distinct persons, just that you must have two witnesses. God and man are speaking as two witnesses in this passage. JParksT2023 (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What was required in D 17:6? Can you define for me what a witness is and what God was asking for? Colemanwalterj (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Deuteronomy 17:6 establishes the requirement of two or three witnesses to support a death penalty sentence. A person cannot be put to death based solely on the testimony of one witness. This passage emphasizes the importance of corroborating evidence in legal proceedings, particularly when the penalty is death." -Directly from Google. God is asking for two witnesses to establish a word, and that is fulfilled in John 8 by Jesus, the man, and the Father, the divine. The point that Jesus is making to the Pharisees is that He is not simply speaking on His own accord as just a man, as they perceive Him to be, but God is also speaking and bearing witness because Jesus is both God and man. JParksT2023 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is a witness? So then you're agreeing that Jesus plainly says that Him and the Father are not the same witness? Can I get a definition for the word "witness" please? Colemanwalterj (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster: "One that gives evidence, specifically : one who testifies in a cause or before a judicial tribunal." Jesus and the Father are the two witnesses. JParksT2023 (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

one what that testifies? what is testifying? An apple? Colemanwalterj (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to get me to say persons, but you're missing the point entirely. If you applied that literally, we couldn't use a security camera in court as a witness because it's not a person. A witness is something that can provide testimony, whether a person or a security camera or an audio file, etc. Let's get back to the original point of the passage: the law requires two witnesses. Witness 1=The man (Jesus), Witness 2=God (The Father). That's the two witnesses, and it is fully comprehensible with Oneness Pentecostalism. If there are other passages you want to reference, we can go there, but I think we have basically exhausted this scripture. JParksT2023 (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camera footage is not a “witness” like God was asking for in D 17:6, God specifically asked for 2-3 people in that law and Jesus agreed that Him and the Father fulfill it. What was required in D 17:6? Specifically tell me what a witness is in that context. I’m not going away from this verse until you give me a clear answer. Colemanwalterj (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Malachi 2:14, God is a witness. So in this context, The Father is a witness and Jesus is a witness. That fulfills Deuteronomy 17:6. JParksT2023 (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, for (I think) the 4th time, can you give me a definition of what a witness is in the context of Deuteronomy 17:6? Your first definition was too vague. Colemanwalterj (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to move on? I don't know if we are getting anywhere with this. I'm sure there are other passages you have that I would be happy to discuss. JParksT2023 (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is a witness in the context of D 17:6? One what? Colemanwalterj (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deuteronomy requires two persons to testify. Jesus fulfills that by being fully human (one person who can testify) and having within Him the divine Spirit (the Father), who also testifies. These are not two separate persons in the Godhead like in Trinitarianism, but two distinct sources of testimony, fully satisfying the law. JParksT2023 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So Jesus and the Father do not fulfill the law of 2-3 witnesses as stipulated in D 17:6? Or they do? How can they fulfill that law that specifically says one witness is insufficient and you’re insisting they are the same witness/person? Colemanwalterj (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify again since I feel like my position may not have been fully understood. I am not at all insisting that they are the same witness. Yes, Jesus and the Father do fulfill the requirement of two witnesses in Deuteronomy 17:6, not as two separate persons within the Godhead, but as two distinct testimonies that come from the man Christ Jesus and the indwelling divine Spirit (the Father) within Him. Jesus the man (a person, by the way) testifies, and God testifies (which He can do according to Malachi 2:14). This satisfies the biblical standard of two witnesses without violating the Oneness of God. JParksT2023 (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That does fulfill the biblical teaching of two witnesses, if the same person came and gave two testimonies, is that two witnesses? If they fulfill that law, then they’re necessarily two persons, if they are the same person, they cannot fulfill that law (as the law requires more than one person). The word person and witness mean the same thing. Colemanwalterj (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is where we have confusion. Can God testify? I hope we agree that the answer is yes. There's one indisputable witness that we both agree on, The Father. Now the question is who is the other second witness? I'm saying that's the man Jesus. While Jesus is both God and man, Jesus can speak as a man and often does (Jesus refers to Himself as a man later in John 8:40). So it's a man testifying and God testifying. Two witnesses. 1 Timothy 2:5 says "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." One God plus one man equals two witnesses. JParksT2023 (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This accords with the passage because the Pharisees see Him as only a man, which is only one testimony. Jesus says yes I am a man (one witness), but I am also God, and God testifies (two witnesses). JParksT2023 (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re importing a Trinitarian definition of "person" and equating it with "witness" in a legal passage. But the legal requirement is about independent verification, not ontological separation in the Godhead. If God can testify (as you haven’t denied), and Jesus the man can testify, then you have what the law requires: two witnesses. This is consistent with John 8:17–18 and preserves the Oneness of God as understood by Oneness Pentecostals. JParksT2023 (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree or not agree that the word "witness" in Deuteronomy 17:6 means "person"? If Jesus and the Father are the same person, they cannot fulfill that law, they cannot be two witnesses. Colemanwalterj (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep returning to the claim that "witness = person," but you're assuming the very thing that is under debate without engaging what I've actually said. I’ve never denied that Deuteronomy 17:6 requires two witnesses — I affirm that. What I’ve argued is that Scripture shows the Father and the man Christ Jesus can both serve as witnesses because they offer distinct testimonies, not because they are separate persons in a Trinitarian sense. You're equating the word "witness" with "person" as if those terms are interchangeable, but that's not what the text demands — it requires two independent testimonies, not two divine centers of consciousness.

Jesus Himself explains this in John 8:17–18 by saying, "I am one that bears witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." He distinguishes the man who is speaking (Jesus) from the divine Spirit who sent Him (the Father). That is fully consistent with Oneness theology — one God manifest in flesh, providing two forms of testimony: one human, one divine. Malachi 2:14 even shows God can be a legal witness, so that satisfies Deuteronomy 17.

Unless you engage that distinction directly — between source of testimony and metaphysical personhood — you’re not addressing my argument, you're just repeating your own assumption. JParksT2023 (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely inconsistent with oneness theology. You agree D17:6 requires two persons. I'm engaging directly with what you're saying and you are contradicting yourself. This is not my assumption, it is the plain reading of the text. You can deny it if you want, but at least be honest about it when you do. Colemanwalterj (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Pharisees didn’t tell Jesus to prove that He and the Father are two distinct persons. Rather, they accused His testimony of being invalid because He alone testified of Himself. Jesus proved this was not the case because the Father also testified of Him. He was not just testifying of Himself as a man, there was a second witness, namely God. JParksT2023 (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Witness = person as you agreed to earlier. If He and the Father are the same person, then He is speaking of Himself. Colemanwalterj (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Deut 17:6 asking for 2-3 people or not? Do Jesus and the Father fulfill that or not? If they do, they cannot be the same person because a witness is indeed the same thing as a person in the context of that law, it's not "evidence" like you're trying to inject. It's a blatant refutation of oneness theology by Jesus Himself, are we going to believe Him or not? Colemanwalterj (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're insisting that "witness = person" must mean two separate individuals in the sense of distinct divine persons, but that is your theological assumption — it is not demanded by Deuteronomy 17:6, nor by the passage in John 8.

Let’s go back to the actual biblical context. Deuteronomy 17:6 says, “at the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death.” The word for “witness” there (Hebrew: ‘ēd) simply refers to someone who gives testimony — not to their ontological makeup. You’re reading “two persons” in a metaphysical sense back into the law, when the actual legal requirement is about independent corroboration, not essence or personhood within the Godhead.

In John 8, the Pharisees are not demanding that Jesus prove He and the Father are two divine persons — they are challenging whether His testimony is valid at all. Jesus responds by saying, “I am one who bears witness of myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness of me.”

He appeals to two testimonies — not two divine centers of consciousness — to fulfill the legal requirement. That aligns exactly with what I’ve been saying: Jesus is the man (a real human person who testifies), and the Father is the indwelling God who also testifies (as proven in Malachi 2:14). This provides two valid witnesses — not one person pretending to be two, but two modes of testimony from the one true God.

So yes, Jesus and the Father fulfill Deuteronomy 17:6 — not as two persons in the Godhead, but as two sources of testimony: the man and the indwelling Spirit. That’s not a contradiction; it’s precisely what Jesus said. We’re simply operating under different frameworks, which is why I was suggesting to move on to something else, as we keep talking right past each other. JParksT2023 (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D 17:6 does require two distinct people, not testimonies. Your statement to the contrary is categorically false. You are simply denying what that law requires, not “approaching it differently.” You are allowed to believe what you want, but if you don’t think the Bible means what it says, then be honest about it. Colemanwalterj (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask for clarity here: under my view, are there two witnesses or not? I’m not asking whether you agree with my theology, I’m asking if, within the framework I’ve presented (the man Christ Jesus and the indwelling Spirit of God both testifying), this meets the definition of two witnesses in your understanding of Deuteronomy 17:6.

If your answer is “no,” then please explain why the man Jesus and the Father do not count as two witnesses. JParksT2023 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, under your theology, Jesus and the Father, who are the same person (witness) cannot fulfill this law. Colemanwalterj (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, but with respect, this still misrepresents my position. I’ve never said that Jesus and the Father are the same person in the sense you’re implying. I’ve clearly stated that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, and that the man (Christ Jesus) and the indwelling Spirit (the Father) are distinct in function and testimony. That’s not the same as saying they are one “person” giving one testimony.

Under my view, the man Jesus testifies and the indwelling Father testifies. That’s two sources of testimony, and two witnesses — which satisfies Deuteronomy 17:6.

Your response doesn’t address this at all. You’re simply saying it can’t be two witnesses because my theology doesn’t divide the Godhead into separate persons. That’s circular — you’re assuming your conclusion in order to dismiss the argument.

Unless you can show why two distinct testimonies from Jesus and the Father don’t qualify under the biblical definition of “witness,” then you’re not engaging my view — just repeating yours. JParksT2023 (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two testimonies from the same person don’t fulfill that law because a witness in that law is a person. That’s why. OP doctrine is that they are the same person (same witness). You are changing the definition of the word “witness” to mean “source of testimony” and that’s simply not what the law requires, it requires 2-3 people. And you giving very confusing, inconsistent answers to get around this. Colemanwalterj (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the conversation, but I need to clarify again because you’re still misrepresenting my view. I do not believe Jesus and the Father are the same witness or the same person in a Trinitarian way. I’ve consistently said they are distinct and therefore provide two distinct witnesses — the man Christ Jesus and the indwelling Spirit of the Father — who speak distinctly.

You keep asserting that the law in Deut 17:6 requires "2–3 people," but that’s not what the text says. It says "witnesses." You're reading your theology into that word, while I’m pointing to function — two entities giving independent testimony — which is what any legal system actually requires.

If you're unwilling to evaluate my argument on its own terms — not Trinitarian terms — then we’re just talking past each other. I’ll leave it here respectfully, and I'm happy to pick up the conversation on other passages if you're ever interested. JParksT2023 (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I’m reading d17:6 for exactly what it says. That’s not a “trinitarian” reading, that’s a Jesus reading. No, the law requires 2-3 people. Colemanwalterj (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don’t think that this passage proves or disproves either side; I’m simply arguing that it’s intelligible from both positions. JParksT2023 (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are changing D 17:6 to say what you want it to say. Colemanwalterj (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the discussion. I think we’ve both stated our views clearly at this point, but it seems we’re operating from different underlying assumptions, so I’m going to leave the conversation here unless a new scripture is brought up. I’m always open to continuing if there’s a fresh passage to discuss. God bless. JParksT2023 (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D 17:6 is not “up for the debate” there’s no underlying assumption other than “are you going to believe what it says or not?” You don’t get to decide that it’s not asking for people when it is. Otherwise, 1 person could’ve given two dishonest testimonies and gotten someone killed. No, it required 2-3 people. Jesus claimed clearly that Him and the Father are two distinct people and you guys need to start being honest about this. And be honest that you aren’t disagreeing with trinitarians but with Jesus. Colemanwalterj (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello, I'm FULBERT. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Restorationism have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. FULBERT (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]