Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
I don't want you to take this the wrong way. I want you to really think about what I'm saying before just dismissing it.
|
I think you did not really consider my last phrase, yourself, though. Let's just say for the moment that I am right. Just for the sake of making a point. God is solely in every sense one person.
Then using our language to communicate between the MAN and the GOD would demand it to be two persons simply due to language! And can you not see how language would cause misunderstanding of His nature?
I will answer the remaining of what you say later. But I want to make sure you get my point here first.
If God is as I say He is, then there is no way you or others would ever accept that due to language, but the language He uses would be the only way He could do what He does. In this manner, your basis of language is marring reality. Yes, it works between human persons showing first person singular talking to another second person singular. But those literary labels cannot define the godhead.
There's nothing that could occur in communication between the two that would allow you to see the truth, if I am right in how I describe God h since you are stuck to literary terminology to define the Godhead.
Try to re-image it this way. Jesus is the express image of the invisible God. A perfect imprint in flesh of God. Picture yourself talking to your image in a mirror and the image has the ability to genuinely talk back. You are using language but in no way does that demand two persons.
Nothing is imaginary. Jesus was an actual man in every sense of the term. Even with a distinct circle of consciousness. But when God is in the equation causing that to happen, as well as being one communicating to this manifestation, we cannot limit Him and must pull out all the plugs.