When Bryan says that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one "being" - Is that adding to scripture by saying "being", there? [1 John 5:7]
All the heresies of the doctrine of the Godhead say something after "one" when describing the Godhead.
I've been getting this thought about all the videos I've seen where Bryan says that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one "being" and he places an emphasis on the word "being", there, that that is adding to scripture, similarly to how all the false people place a word or something after the word "one", there.
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” 1 John 5:7
Seems like an issue of semantics, the word 'being' as a noun, according to our modern use, does not line up with the bible which uses it more in the verb sense, in seemingly every instance. (I didn't go through all 286 instances of its use in the KJV though)
Note the phrase "one being" appears nowhere in the KJV
Note the word "beings" plural appears nowhere in the KJV
The point of (Bryan's) argument of God as one, with three aspects, remains correct;
As opposed to God('s) [x3] being distinctly separate (and working together) as one.
The problem is with our human understanding, we simply can't understand the mystery of the Godhead; we are so tied to the physical, as our understanding of what a 'being' is.
Are you one 'being'? (just the flesh part) or do all of your part's (Body, Soul, Spirit) make up that one 'being'?
Really we are not "being's" we are Men, and Women; 'being' terminology seems more like modern evolutionary / scientific vocabulary, so I don't think it should be used.
Id have to go over some specific examples before I accuse Bryan of adding to scripture, as I don't believe he makes such statements in that way, we are all adding to scripture when we talk about it; everything someone says that is between two verses is adding to scripture (the commentary) the question is whether what you are adding reinforces what scripture teaches on it's own (sound doctrine), or adds doubt & confusion or even contradiction to sound doctrine (false doctrine).
I have noticed this as well with bible believers who are teaching sound doctrine, but doing so in a way I don't always agree with, going outside of scripture with commentary or various non-biblical analogies even if the intent is good it just seems unnecessary at times; sometimes (or most times) it seems best to let scripture speak for itself.
If the people refuse to accept, they are denying scripture; I haven't seen any non-biblical explanations / analogies convince any skeptics on this issue anyways, not that i try myself very often.
I agree, especially with the part about it reinforcing what the scripture teaches.
But I think that if I was to (try) to explain the Godhead the best I could, I'd just say some things about the body, soul and spirit and "these three are one." and leave it at that. Saying "being" there - especially when "these three are one." is a biblical phrase - would be giving me a poke that something isn't right.
I think this is similar to the semantics of "...Jesus Christ IS come in the flesh..." where the wording is very important.
So "these three are one." - one what? That's the important wording, or lack of, that I am focusing on, here.
We don't know exactly how the Godhead works, how the body, soul and spirit can separate or be one, but we will know some day - hopefully soon.
I am thinking the main reason for brother Bryan using "being" is because many of the Godhead deniers out there twist "one" to mean "in purpose" so they can continue to teach three distinct "persons". Brother Bryan, by using the word "being" is further narrowing the definition of "one" in the given context to mean just what "one" means, one, distinct from two or three and not tied to purpose.