Apostolic Friends Forum - Jesus....Not God?

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)

- Fellowship Hall (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)

- - Jesus....Not God? (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=46260)

Re: Jesus....Not God?

BTW guys, I got all of my info by listening to trinity/oneness debates. (Hicks/ Hill) from the 70s, They are UPC inspired.

Re: Jesus....Not God?

Guys, I posted a couple of things on page 2. There is a big blank space between me and Michael.(just so you see it at the bottom of the page)

Re: Jesus....Not God?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1316747)

The Divine Spirit he was "full of" was His own Divine Spirit, QUOTE PRAXEUS

Prax, that is what I struggled with, (what you just said). When I saw Jesus had the actual Holy Ghost and likewise noticed He said, "the Father that is IN me, He doeth the works", then thinking Jesus had a "DIVINE" nature of his own. My conclusion was more than one divine "being".

Now by removing the divine nature idea from my vocabulary, It became much more understandable to teach.

I just simply said the Father was INSIDE the Son.

Trust me when I say JESUS IS GOD. I just believe, in his 33 years on earth he was a completely human being, wth NO special, God like nature of his own. Simply put, Adam was a completely human being and so was Jesus(the 2nd or last Adam)

The Divine nature of Jesus is the same Divine nature of the Father.

That's NOT two Divine beings. I don't have a problem with this

Your view that Jesus was not Divine but just Human is Unitarianism.

Jesus was NOT God in your view IF He did not have the Divine nature as well as a Human nature. If he just had a Human nature then he was Just human and not God.

Re: Jesus....Not God?

Prax, do you believe Jesus preexisted before he was born?

If so, can you explain in your words how he did?

BTW. The Unitarian position teaches JESUS IS NOT GOD as we speak.

I say JESUS IS GOD as we speak.(on page 89 of Bernards book "oneness of God, volume 1, Bernard considers my position "ADOPTIONISM") , Download this book for free and find out what I am saying yourself.(I would post it, but It wont allow me to)

YOU ARE BLATANTLY MISREPRESENTING MY POSITION TO BOLSTER YOUR POSITION IN THE EYES OF THE READERS.

SRM sent me his doctrinal theses and it does not include my position. He said it is NOT unitarian in doctrine.(on page 89, Bernard explains Unitarianism there also.)

Again I SAY to ALL of YOU reading this....

JESUS IS GOD, JESUS IS GOD, JESUS IS GOD, I dont want anyone to be falsifying my position, to prejudice the readers!

Re: Jesus....Not God?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1316840)

Prax, do you believe Jesus preexisted before he was born?

Yes

Quote:

If so, can you explain in your words how he did?

As God

Quote:

BTW. The Unitarian position teaches JESUS IS NOT GOD as we speak.

Right...so do you. You might say "Jesus is God" but then you turn around and say He has NO Divine nature. He is just Human.. It's really confusing

Quote:

I say JESUS IS GOD as we speak.(on page 89 of Bernards book "oneness of God, volume 1, Bernard considers my position "ADOPTIONISM") , Download this book for free and find out what I am saying yourself.(I would post it, but It wont allow me to)

"Jesus is God" is not adoptionism.

Adoptionism is the teaching that God saw a man and "adopted" Him to make Him His own Son

Quote:

YOU ARE BLATANTLY MISREPRESENTING MY POSITION TO BOLSTER YOUR POSITION IN THE EYES OF THE READERS.

No Im not. I can quote you (and I did).

Here is what you said

Quote:

Trust me when I say JESUS IS GOD. I just believe, in his 33 years on earth he was a completely human being, wth NO special, God like nature of his own.

See that part? NO GOD LIKE NATURE OF HIS OWN means "NOT GOD".

Is Jesus the same "Person" as the Father or is Jesus someone other than the Father?

Quote:

SRM sent me his doctrinal theses and it does not include my position. He said it is NOT unitarian in doctrine.(on page 89, Bernard explains Unitarianism there also.)

Unitarianism teaches Jesus was just human..he did not have a Divine nature.

That's what you said "I just believe, in his 33 years on earth he was a completely human being, wth NO special, God like nature of his own."

Quote:

JESUS IS GOD, JESUS IS GOD, JESUS IS GOD, I dont want anyone to be falsifying my position, to prejudice the readers!

But THEN you contradict that and say Jesus is NOT God when you say "I just believe, in his 33 years on earth he was a completely human being, wth NO special, God like nature of his own."

To NOT have a Divine nature is to NOT be God

Re: Jesus....Not God?

But Prax, the point that differentiates me and the Unitarians I am trying to make is how I say Jesus became God when He resurrected.
The Unitarian says Jesus NEVER became God after the resurrection(and never will be God).
I may not even have a "brand" yet, if "adoptionism" doesnt define my beliefs.

My beef is about a non existent Christ before his birth and His 33 years on earth as what he consisted of.
The belief I have with the Godhead as (after) His resurrection is identical with Bernard.

Bernard and I were interestingly enough, on the same page, saying the "divine nature" in Jesus was the Spirit of the Father.

I see how he says Jesus was God(the father) as the same being in the Beginning. But I ran into a wall with in term "incarnation". (It implies the God became a man). I do not believe that GOD became a MAN....
I believe that God gave the seed to make a man(begotten Son), and chose to dwell in that man for his life on earth(which was the Holy Ghost or, Spirit of the Father).

Isaiah 9:6
King James Version (KJV)
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

If Jesus was a the everlasting Father. The only way he could be that is that the Father was inside of his human body.(I believe that). If he died as the everlasting Father, then we have a dead everlasting Father.

I read the oneness term..."the flesh of God". That is nonsense to me. God, in my opinion, did not have a flesh(part). I believe Jesus was totally Human during His 33 years on earth, with a BODY,SOUL and SPIRIT of his own. He was just "indwelled" by God.
That same everlasting Father raised Him from the DEAD, and "indwells" Him today. Jesus is simply the "house" or "temple" of God for us to Identify God to an image to worship. Jesus is also the NAME of our God, since God resides in his glorified body.(and didnt change his name).
Bernard also says the role of the son(Jesus) will cease(that God will be all in all). I have no comment on that, but he may be right.

The following is a Commentary on Bernard I got off a website to further explain his beliefs. This commentary is a rebuttal of his teachings of a preexistent son and the role of the son....

PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SON OF GOD

The Onenites quickly dismisses the sonship prior to the incarnation by saying it all is prophetic. Instead of letting the Bible express what it means they like J.W.s and other anti-Trinitarians use their cultic interpretation and rules for Biblical hermeneutics.

Heb.1:2 states that God... has in these last days spoken to us by his Son whom he has appointed heir of all things, through whom he made the worlds." his agrees with Jn. 1:3 " all things were made through him and without him nothing was made that was made."

The same Son who is speaking to us now was present at creation. This is the same Son that was in the bosom of the Father, which means a place of blessedness and relationship. It is here where we expose their presumptions for their theology. Bernard emphatically denies this "There was a time when the Son did not exist; God prophesied about the Son’s future existence." (p.105) Bernard clarifies his view: "What does creation ‘by the Son’ mean, since the Son did not have a substantial pre-existence before the incarnation." "Of course, we know that Jesus as God pre-existed the incarnation, since the deity of Jesus is none other than the Father himself. We recognize that Jesus (the divine Spirit of Jesus) is indeed the creator." (p.115) I'm not sure that we are reading the same Bible but if he, Jesus the Son, was there before Creation as the Son, creating as the Scriptures state, which certainly dismisses a view of prophecy. Bernard goes further to claim "the Sonship had a beginning and will have an ending,"(p.122) that the Son will cease. "When the millennium is completed, the Sonship ministry will be finished." (Is Jesus in the Godhead, Magee p.25) Yet not all Oneness adherents agree with Bernard that the sonship role will cease. Others say, "The Son is the permanent body of the Father" (Norris p.6) "God became a man, and he will be a man forever more". (R. Sabin VI, p.3)

Guys, I am so close to Bernards' beliefs its almost identical. If you believe Jesus preexisted, you are teaching against your superintendents position!

Re: Jesus....Not God?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila (Post 1316373)

The man, Jesus Christ, was indeed a man. A human being. Yet He was also God. How? Oneness. He was one with the Father.

Let's review how Jesus Himself describes His Oneness with the Father...

John 10:30
30 I and my Father are one. (KJV)

John 10:38
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. (KJV)

John 12:45
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. (KJV)

John 14:7-10
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. (KJV)

If you walked the earth with Jesus, you'd get to know Him as a man. He'd teach. He'd laugh. He'd eat. He'd use the restroom. He'd sleep. He'd rest. He'd pray and speak of His Heavenly Father. He'd fast. He'd cry. He'd sweat. He'd bleed. However... at times you'd feel something otherworldly emanating from deep within Him. Something emanating from the very core of His being. Something powerful. Something that has authority over all creation. Something that speaks to the winds... bringing them into obedience. Something that raises the dead and heals all manner of sickness. Something indescribable. You'd sense GOD Himself at the core of Christ's own person. You'd realize that this man is... also God.

However, keep in mind...God did not reside in Christ as a vehicle. God resided in and permeated Christ's very being. A Oneness so complete, so majestic, and so divine that in Christ it can be said that God became a man... and that this very same man was also God.

No other religion elevates Christ to such an infinite height of majesty and honor. No other religion expresses Christ's true person to such an infinite degree. Most religions merely make Christ a prophet. No... Christ was not just a prophet. Christ was the human tabernacle of God Himself. To deny this imperils the soul... and reduces Christ to being either a lunatic or a liar.

All authority and power has been delivered to Christ Jesus. He will judge Krishna. He will judge Buddha. He will judge Mohammed. He will judge Nanak. He will judge the followers of every false prophet and madman. He will judge all men in accordance to the Father's will as it relates to the Gospel. Through Him, the Father will judge. Because they are one.

Thanks, Aquila, for succincly describing the Lord of the Universe!

I've been doing some reading about Jesus' divinity lately, including a book called, "When Jesus Became God". This well- researched historical book is interesting. I have to keep in mind that a skeptical Jew wrote it.

Sean, if Christ did not have two natures, then why did he fall asleep on the boat, get hungry in the wilderness or weep at Lazarus' tomb? Was he only demonstrating human weakness - was it an act - for the benefit of his followers? I'm curious as to how you have come to your conclusions.

Re: Jesus....Not God?

Sean, if Christ did not have two natures, then why did he fall asleep on the boat, get hungry in the wilderness or weep at Lazarus' tomb? Was he only demonstrating human weakness - was it an act - for the benefit of his followers? I'm curious as to how you have come to your conclusions.QUOTE

Brother, it was not, in my point of view, 2 natures, no more than WE have 2 natures.

Jesus was as human as we are right here and now.
Our brethren have said that Jesus WAS a God/man. Its right in our book of doctrines.
If that is true, when Jesus was born, God had a placenta.....LOL

One thing I admonish the brethren is to leave no stones unturned in your mind about the oneness theology you teach. If someone brings up a tough question. figure it out and deal with it the best you can. Everyone has a little different(slight variations) idea of oneness theology in our movement. If we were not allowed that, and we were just supposed to "parrot" the organizations' position, we would be trapped in situation of possible heresy in some cases with no way out.

Also , if Prax tries to pin this misrepresentation of a "Unitarian" label on me again, I will spread it all over the AFF that he is a "closet" Giants' fan...LOL

Re: Jesus....Not God?

Sean, Jesus became god???!!

Re: Jesus....Not God?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean (Post 1316859)

One thing I admonish the brethren is to leave no stones unturned in your mind about the oneness theology you teach. If someone brings up a tough question. figure it out and deal with it the best you can. Everyone has a little different(slight variations) idea of oneness theology in our movement. If we were not allowed that, and we were just supposed to "parrot" the organizations' position, we would be trapped in situation of possible heresy in some cases with no way out.

Not a bad idea. Why not do the same thing on some of our views on Spirit filled people who had a less than perfect baptism?