Godhead Question

[Sherri]

Ok, I lean heavily toward Oneness, even though I hate using that title, because it's divisive. But tonight Eddie was using a scripture during his message that really is hard to understand from that viewpoint. When the Word talks about Jesus being the mediator between us and God, how does that work into a Oneness view? Seriously, I'm trying to wrap my brain around this.

I'm going to bed, so I will read your responses in the morning. G'night!

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Sherri

Ok, I lean heavily toward Oneness, even though I hate using that title, because it's divisive. But tonight Eddie was using a scripture during his message that really is hard to understand from that viewpoint. When the Word talks about Jesus being the mediator between us and God, how does that work into a Oneness view? Seriously, I'm trying to wrap my brain around this.

I'm going to bed, so I will read your responses in the morning. G'night!

As always, Jesus and God should not be viewed as two beings here. Rather, in the general sense, Jesus, because of who he is (both God and man) can mediate our case.

Because he is one of us, a "kinsmen", he can effectively plead our case to God as he exists beyond the incarnation.

It helps to get some clarity of the terms.

I like to say the Son, Jesus Christ was God in and through the incarnation, while the Father is God beyond and outside the incarnation.

Therefore it makes sense to say the Son (who knew the struggles and limitations of humanity) could effectively plead and mediate our case to the Father (who is God apart from the incarnation, and offer Himself as a willing sacrifice for the sins of humanity.

[Sherri]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

As always, Jesus and God should not be viewed as two beings here. Rather, in the general sense, Jesus, because of who he is (both God and man) can mediate our case.

Because he is one of us, a "kinsmen", he can effectively plead our case to God as he exists beyond the incarnation.

It helps to get some clarity of the terms.

I like to say the Son, Jesus Christ was God in and through the incarnation, while the Father is God beyond and outside the incarnation.

Therefore it makes sense to say the Son (who knew the struggles and limitations of humanity) could effectively plead and mediate our case to the Father (who is God apart from the incarnation, and offer Himself as a willing sacrifice for the sins of humanity.

This is good, Hoovie, but it's still confusing. If it's confusing for me, I totally understand how it can be confusing for those who've never been taught "oneness". It still sounds like two beings.

I guess the part that makes me go "hmmmm" is that it sounds like they have two different thought patterns, which I don't believe they do. It sounds like Jesus is thinking one thing and trying to persuade the Father (God) to think like Him. I know that is convoluted, but that's how this scripture sounds.

I just don't think we'll ever understand the godhead, so maybe I should quit trying and just love the Lord and live for Him.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Sherri

This is good, Hoovie, but it's still confusing. If it's confusing for me, I totally understand how it can be confusing for those who've never been taught "oneness". It still sounds like two beings.

I guess the part that makes me go "hmmmm" is that it sounds like they have two different thought patterns, which I don't believe they do. It sounds like Jesus is thinking one thing and trying to persuade the Father (God) to think like Him. I know that is convoluted, but that's how this scripture sounds.

I just don't think we'll ever understand the godhead, so maybe I should quit trying and just love the Lord and live for Him.
[/B]

The man Christ Jesus did think differently from the Father at least one time.

[39] And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
[40] And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?
[41] Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
[42] He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. Matt. 26:39-42

Messiah seemed to be capable of independent thought. Yet he prayed through and always did the Fathers will and not his own.

To me this does nothing to hurt Oneness doctrine. It simply demonstrates that in his humanity he was dependant upon the Father both for direction and for power to obey.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Sherri

This is good, Hoovie, but it's still confusing. If it's confusing for me, I totally understand how it can be confusing for those who've never been taught "oneness". It still sounds like two beings.

I guess the part that makes me go "hmmmm" is that it sounds like they have two different thought patterns, which I don't believe they do. It sounds like Jesus is thinking one thing and trying to persuade the Father (God) to think like Him. I know that is convoluted, but that's how this scripture sounds.

I just don't think we'll ever understand the godhead, so maybe I should quit trying and just love the Lord and live for Him.
[/B]

The Son Jesus, while being God, had the added benefit (or willing limitation) brought about by his genuine humanity therefore his speech and prayers reflect the same.

"Beings" and "persons" have to be specifically and narrowly defined before they apply to the Godhead at all.

I would rather just say Christ, though He was God, willingly took upon Himself the limitations of humanity to be our kinsman redeemer. The Father in heaven was simply God beyond those limitations.

Not sure that I agree that it is confusing, but the entire concept of the incarnation is somewhat incomprehensible. God reconciling the world unto Himself through a cross... I am glad he did!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sherri

This is good, Hoovie, but it's still confusing. If it's confusing for me, I totally understand how it can be confusing for those who've never been taught "oneness". It still sounds like two beings.

I guess the part that makes me go "hmmmm" is that it sounds like they have two different thought patterns, which I don't believe they do. It sounds like Jesus is thinking one thing and trying to persuade the Father (God) to think like Him. I know that is convoluted, but that's how this scripture sounds.

I just don't think we'll ever understand the godhead, so maybe I should quit trying and just love the Lord and live for Him.
[/b]

Well, you sort of do have 2 "beings"...in that Christ here on earth was a genuine human being in that he had a complete human nature, human will and mind

[TheLegalist]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Well, you sort of do have 2 "beings"...in that Christ here on earth was a genuine human being in that he had a complete human nature, human will and mind

As Sabin would say. It's not do we have two.... it's two what.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Well, you sort of do have 2 "beings"...in that Christ here on earth was a genuine human being in that he had a complete human nature, human will and mind

This only works if we are defining God as a human "being".

Seems we can say it two ways...

One Human being who was also God, though God also existed beyond this mode.

Or

One God defined as a "being" who existed in simultaneous modes.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

This only works if we are defining God as a human "being".

Seems we can say it two ways...

One Human being who was also God, though God also existed beyond this mode.

Or

One God defined as a "being" who existed in simultaneous modes.

How can God be confined to a human being at all?

The simultaneous modes is quite mysterious, and I think it's as plausible as other theories about the godhead.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

This only works if we are defining God as a human "being".

Seems we can say it two ways...

One Human being who was also God, though God also existed beyond this mode.

Or

One God defined as a "being" who existed in simultaneous modes.

If people can compartmentalize the topic then it's easier to see.

God is a person, like you and I, in that He is a rational, thinking, intelligent being, yet of much much more "power" than us.

God though, as a person, has a Divine nature. It's at the incarnation that Person picked up a human nature too and became in practical terms, a human being.

The one Divine Spirit that makes the Father "Divine" unifies both so that the Son is not separated from the Father. We can use the terms modes or manifestations or forms