User Talk: JParksT2023

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Hello!

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

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)

Your GA ↗ nomination of Super Bowl commercials ↗

The article Super Bowl commercials ↗ you nominated as a good article ↗ has passed 20px ↗; 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. <small>Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina</small> -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
: Great, thank you! JParksT2023 (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of Oneness Pentecostalism ↗

The article Oneness Pentecostalism ↗ you nominated as a good article ↗ has passed 20px|link= ↗; 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. <small>Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru</small> -- Whiteguru (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Teamwork Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | 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)
|}

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)

: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)
::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)
:::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)
::::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)
:::::So they are two distinct people that fulfill the law of 2-3 witnesses? Colemanwalterj (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::There are two witnesses, yes. It's both God and man. JParksT2023 (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
::::::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)
:::::::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)
::::::::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)
:::::::::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)
::::::::::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)
:::::::::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)
::::::::::So... yes?... they are two distinct witnesses? What's a witness? Colemanwalterj (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::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)
::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::::"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)
::::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::::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)
::::::::::::::one what that testifies? what is testifying? An apple? Colemanwalterj (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::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)
::::::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::::::::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)
::::::::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::::::::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)
::::::::::::::::::What is a witness in the context of D 17:6? One what? Colemanwalterj (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::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)
::::::::::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::::::::::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)
::::::::::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::::::::::::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)
::::::::::::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::::::::::::::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)
::::::::::::::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::::::::::::::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)
::::::::::::::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::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)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::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)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::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)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::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)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::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)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::You are changing D 17:6 to say what you want it to say. Colemanwalterj (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::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)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::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)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Hi JT,
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::On the question of whether that law necessarily requires at least two distinct people, reread verse 17.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Lying about the Word of God is extremely, extremely wicked. Please turn from your actions, and receive Jesus as your savior. His arms are open wide waiting for you to come in, so come.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Take care, god bless you. Colemanwalterj (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diplomacy'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for continuing to exemplify what it means to be a Wikipedian. Your assistance and contributions to this encyclopedia on religion-based articles will not go unnoticed! TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
|}

:Thank you so much! I appreciate your willingness to engage as well; it does not go unnoticed! JParksT2023 (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
::It is always refreshing to see in the midst of this chaotic world. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
:::I also noticed your main userpage. If you would like, you could copy the code from my main userpage design, to structure your stuff some more. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FPCNLR Logo.png

35px|text-top|left|⚠|link= ↗ Thanks for uploading ''':File:FPCNLR Logo.png ↗'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use ↗. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media ↗).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

John 8:17

Hi JT, since it’s been a year, and since I want to believe we’re both acting in good faith, let’s pick the conversation back up. You said the Deuteronomy law did not necessarily require two distinct persons, but Jesus doesn’t agree:
”it says in your law, the testimony of two men is true.”
I’ll admit, I was disrespectful the first time we talked, and for that I apologize. But at the same time, I hope you weave verses like this in your page so that everyone gets a chance to decide for themselves which doctrinal position is correct.
What does the law require according to Jesus? Colemanwalterj (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you for reaching out again. While Wikipedia pages themselves are not places for doctrinal discussion or scriptural exposition, I am certainly willing to engage in this forum.
:Let me lay down the groundwork of the argument, and then explain my position on this passage. Firstly, this critique using John 8 and Deuteronomy 19:15 is an internal critique, meaning you are arguing that the Oneness explanation fails to explain the passage, and thus the Oneness position is incorrect entirely. While it is possible to argue externally that the Trinitarian explanation is ''better'', you are attempting to ''disprove'' Oneness theology using this passage, meaning you must prove the text and the Oneness position are completely ''incompatible'', not just that the Oneness position is ''less likely to be true'' than the Trinitarian one. If I can demonstrate that the passage does not contradict the Oneness framework, you have not disproved it; rather, you must rely on other passages to defeat the Oneness position or instead argue that the Oneness position is inferior.
:With that out of the way, I would like to address your argument with this passage. However, to get the full picture of the situation, I would like to go through the text and explain the context to make clear what I think is happening and why I believe the Oneness explanation is in agreement with the passage.
:We pick up the story in John 8:12, where Jesus explains that He is the light of the world. The Pharisees challenge Him in response by saying (all in NASB), "13 You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true." The way the Pharisees see this situation is that this man from Nazareth has risen up and declared that He is the Messiah and the light of the world (a bold claim). However, they note that Jesus is only providing His own word as proof, so they argue that His claims are invalid, because it's not backed up by another witness.
:Jesus responds in verses 14-18, and He says something really interesting in the beginning: "14 Even if I am testifying about Myself, My testimony is true, because I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from or where I am going." Notice that Jesus states that, even though the law prohibits one's own testimony in civil and criminal matters in human judgement, it doesn't make His testimony false, because He knows where He came from and where He is going, while the Pharisees don't. This is important. If we follow the logic, Jesus is saying, "Yes, for a word to be established in a court context, it must be backed up by two or more witnesses. However, even if it's only backed up by one witness, the testimony isn't by default ''false'', it's instead ''unsubstantiated''. You may not know it's true, but I know it's true." Basically, He's saying, "It doesn't matter if you believe Me, what I say is true. Your argument is invalid."
:However, while that response is satisfactory, He adds another reason why His testimony is true: "17 Even in your Law it has been written that the testimony of two people is true. 18 I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me." Notice that this example from the law is actually used outside of its intended application. In our previous conversation, we referenced Deuteronomy 17:6, "On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness." This is in a courtroom context for establishing the truth for a death sentence, a very weighty sentence that needed solid proof to be executed. However, Jesus could also be referring to Deuteronomy 19:15, which states more broadly, "One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." Once again, notice that this is in the context of a courtroom, and the standard is two witnesses to establish criminal wrongdoing, a standard necessary to protect proper justice. This, like with capital punishment, ensures that the standard of "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (Deuteronomy 19:21), is properly executed and proper justice is done.
:The story of Jesus and the Pharisees in John 8 is not in a courtroom context; no one is accused of criminal wrongdoing, and Jesus already established that His word is true and that the Pharisees are wrong. However, He takes it a step further to prove His point. This is where I think your misunderstanding comes in. Clearly, Jesus is not pointing to the strict reading of courtroom procedure to prove His point: He has already done that, and this isn't even the proper forum. Rather, He is drawing from this provision in the law not as a black letter standard that ''must'' apply here, but as a ''principle'' that reinforces His point from the law: two testimonies establish the truth. That's where the distinction between the Father and the Son that Oneness people acknowledge comes in. Jesus, as the Son, is a genuine man, so that is one witness/testimony. However, the Father, God, is another testimony. While we know that these two are united in the person of Jesus, these are two voices/witnesses. Jesus is demonstrating to the Pharisees that He is not just "some man" testifying about Himself alone, but the Father, God Himself, testifies of who He is. He can do this while still saying in a later place in John's gospel, "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, but the Father, as He remains in Me, does His works." (John 14:10). The Father was in Jesus, doing the works through Him.
:It's natural that the law, which was made for humans, would use the word "man" (or "people" in the NASB) to refer to witnesses in interpersonal relations, because those are the only beings that can testify in that context. However, it is at least reasonable to see Jesus applying the principle, rather than a strict constructionist reading, when it comes to the nature of the incarnation, arguing from human law to demonstrate the greater principle of God manifest in the flesh. To argue that Jesus is actually revealing a complex metaphysical relationship between members of a multi-person Trinity seems to me to be reading theology into the text, rather than examining what the text is actually saying and what Jesus is actually proving. Once again, it's not enough to prove this viewpoint is less likely; rather, it must be in active opposition to the text to prove the point you are making. The issue I see with your framing is that you are reading the law Jesus is pointing to out of context to make a point Jesus Himself isn't making. Jesus is not using this passage to demonstrate two persons in the Godhead; rather, He's adding proof that His testimony is true by stating that it's not just a man speaking to them, but that God Himself is backing up the words He is speaking, establishing the truth of the matter with two witnesses. Tying in John 14 is especially powerful because we learn that Jesus' words are the Father's words, and the Father is in Jesus, so they are truly one and the same, but still represent two witnesses in a sense, as Jesus is both God and man.
:In my opinion, reading the passage as "witness=man" proves too much, because it makes God a man and insists that a law applying to humanity is only fulfilled if the parties are exactly like humans, even if we are talking about God. This provision is important in the human context because it forces two different individuals with two different minds and perspectives to agree on something before establishing a fact. To extend that rule unilaterally to Jesus and the Father, we go beyond stating that they are two different persons to the idea that they are two different beings with different minds that simply agree on one thing, which is more of a Mormon view than a Trinitarian one.
:I believe this passage is perfectly understandable from a Oneness perspective, and thus is insufficient to disprove the Oneness position. Let me know what you think, and I look forward to your thoughts! God bless! JParksT2023 (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
::Hey JT, thanks for writing a thoughtful passage. However, and I hope this isn’t rude, I’m not going to read all of that. I did read some of what you wrote, but your explanation was evasive, and could easily be read to mean “two persons.” I would consider this a classic oneness deflection via writing into oblivion. I asked a simple straight-forward question hoping for a simple, straight-forward answer. What does the law require according to Jesus? Colemanwalterj (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I apologize if you thought my explanation was dense, but our previous interaction had a lot of talking past each other, so I wanted to clearly lay out my position while giving the text what I thought was appropriate exegesis, giving the Word of God proper respect. If you do take the time to read my response, you will see that I am not writing just to write or deflect, but because I genuinely want to explain the thought process.
:::However, to make clear my position in fewer words, I believe that the law as quoted by Jesus requires that two testimonies are needed for a word to be established. Jesus uses it to show that it is not just "a man" testifying of Him, but that God Himself also testifies, establishing Jesus' credibility through two witnesses, if not strictly two persons in a metaphysical sense.
:::If we read the passage hyperliterally, as when you quoted the passage, problems are created. It would imply two separate beings with different minds/perspectives, landing straight in Tritheism, not Trinitarianism. Numbers 23:19 directly says, "God is not a man," so it makes no sense that a passage requiring a man to testify could be fulfilled by God (the Father) if it is the case that we must read the text in that way.
:::I'll also point out that in John 8:17, the Greek word for "men" (or "people") is ''anthrōpōn'', which strictly means "human beings." To claim that Jesus and the Father literally fulfill this law as "two persons" is to equivocate the theological concepts of ''hypostasis'' (divine person) and ''anthrōpos'' (human being). They are not the same, so using this passage to "prove" two persons in the Godhead really only works in English.
:::To end, I'll bring us back to Hebrews 1:3, which I referenced in our first conversation. It states that Jesus "is the radiance of His [God's] glory and the exact representation of His [God's] nature". In this verse, the Greek word for "nature" is ''hypostasis'', the same word for "person" used to describe the members of the Trinity (three ''hypostases'' in one ''ousia''). However, we see that the word hypostasis is singular, meaning that God is a singular ''hypostasis'' (person), and that Jesus is the exact representation of that one person.
:::God bless, and I hope this sufficiently answers the question without being too long-winded! JParksT2023 (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Thanks JT, much better. However, let’s both try to be even more concise. Also, so you don’t exhaust yourself, you don’t need to bring up points you’ve already stated. Trust that I have read everything you’ve written and considered it thoughtfully.
::::That being said, I think we still need to clear something up; does your assertion that Jesus was saying the law historically required two testimonies line up what you admitted He said the law historically required (anthropos)? Colemanwalterj (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::Yes, my assertion aligns perfectly with the law Jesus quotes. However, you are missing the point I was making. I think that the law requiring two ''anthrōpos'', if read hyper-literally, goes against both the Oneness ''and Trinitarian'' position. You are arguing that, when Jesus quotes a law requiring two ''anthrōpos'', it means that Jesus and the Father are two ''hypostases''. However, this is an error because it conflates ''anthrōpos'' and ''hypostases''. If the law requires two ''anthrōpos'', and we assume that is strictly applied when Jesus quotes it, that means God (the Father) is an ''anthrōpos'', which the Bible denies ("God is not a man"), and would imply that Jesus is ''just'' an ''anthrōpos'', denying the divinity of Christ.
:::::Therefore, we cannot assume that Jesus' quotation here is invoking that He and the Father are two ''anthrōpos'', rather, we must read the purpose of His quotation. Let me ask you this question: is Jesus' purpose here to demonstrate that He and the Father are two different persons, or that He and the Father represent two testimonies? If He meant to show them that He and the Father are two persons, how does that answer the Pharisee's charge that His word is not true? JParksT2023 (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

WPF article when? 👀

Figured since you gave the UPCI page a major facelift and made the FPCNLR page in general, I'd try and see if you had any thoughts on making a page for the WPF lol ~2026-36202-19 ↗ (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

:I've thought about it, and I would love to, but the problem I run into is that there really aren't any third-party sources about the WPF, and even the WPF itself doesn't have detailed information published online (historical, statistical, etc.) to put into the article. If you can identify sources that could be used, that would be great! However, it's been difficult for me to find anything. God bless you! JParksT2023 (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)