The Results Of My Poll Are Shocking

[Michael The Disciple]

Prax

The suggestion that Jason or myself denies Jesus is God is false. Not sure why someone would take that route but so be it.

And who suggested this? No one that I know of. What I said was that you are making it to complicated.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Thats my point Sister. This is an Apostolic Forum. Only 25 people here cared enough to vote. The apathy is unbelievable. Then the majority who did care reject the very premise that Jesus is the Everlasting Father.

It is a crushing defeat for truth.

Are you one of those guys who forwards emails that say "If you love Jesus forward this to ten people, if you hate Him, then delete it"?

My theology is mine, and I don't need to vote in YOUR poll to express my beliefs.

It's not that I don't care about my beliefs, I just don't care about your poll.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Socialite

WIKI (I'm too lazy):
Arianism is the theological teaching attributed to Arius (ca. AD 250–336), a Christian presbyter from Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of the entities of the Trinity ('God the Father', 'God the Son' and 'God the Holy Spirit') and the precise nature of the Son of God.

It was the Arians that provoked the Council of Nicea and an official creed that articulated a description of the godhead, named by Tertullian, "the Trinity."

Arian BELIEF (WIKI - Yup, still lazy):
God the Father ("unbegotten"), always existing, was separate from the lesser Jesus Christ ("only-begotten"), born before time began and creator of the world. The Father, working through the Son, created the Holy Spirit, who was subservient to the Son as the Son was to the Father. The Father was seen as "the only true God". First Corinthians 8:5-8:6 was cited as proof text:

Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth — as in fact there are many gods and many lords — yet for us there is one God (Gk. theos - θεος), the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord (kyrios - κυριος), Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
—NRSV

Arian's, in essence, seemed to deny the divinity of Jesus -- a heretical propagation.

But you're a "seeker" man, what do we expect? We can cut some slack!

Ok, yeah, that sounds about right.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

And who suggested this? No one that I know of. What I said was that you are making it to complicated.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Ok Jason says calling Jesus God the Father IS VALID. So I assume he would vote YES in our poll.

In his end statement where he is worried about obliterating the distinction between God and Jesus Christ in the New Testament he wants us to be more cautious than Paul.


2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13

Does Paul say the name of our Great God and Savior is Jesus Christ? Yes indeed! Why did he drop the distinction altogether here? Because he wants us to know that beyond the distinctions Jesus is THE GREAT GOD.
.

That is where you suggested it. At issue isn't calling Jesus "God", but calling Jesus (the Son), "The Father"

And the problem is not that it is complicated. The problem is that your way is problematic and vague

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Oneness doctrine has always taught Jesus is both Father and Son.

Jesus who? This is a vague statement. Are you saying there is a singular person named Jesus who is both Father and Son?

That is fine but when you say "Jesus is God" are you referring to Father or to the Son?

See very often when someone says "Jesus is God", they are thinking of the Son.

But if a OP says "Jesus is God" very often they are thinking of the Father, because many OPs say the Father is God but the Son was just a man that the Father dwelt in.

And when OPs say "Jesus is the Father" again ordinarily people are thinking that means the Son is the Father.

It's not a matter of being ashamed.

It's not a pathway to apostasy

It's not a denial of His Deity

It's being clear, maybe clearer than we have in the past, but emphasizing the distinctions between Father and Son and not relying on "bumper sticker" theology and overly simplistic catch phrases that are vague and subject to being misconstrued

You see, you said that Jason's view is too complex...well the truth is ANY theology that is defined or explained ends up being more complex than merely spitting out statements...'

"Jesus is the Father"...you said that OPs have explained and defined what that means. Well that is all anyone else has done including Jason. It's not that his way is too complex, it's that he has done a better job defining and explaining Oneness.

His way avoids Nestorianism, Unitarianism, Patripassionism and monophysitism...most others usually go down one of those paths

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Really.

I thought your point was AFF was anti-oneness.

Apathy for not wanting to vote does not equal to anti-oneness.

Sounds like how OPs like Michael handle their theology....its too vague and contradictory.

Now had he elaborated and explained what he meant before hand you might not have needed to point out the contradiction

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I dunno, Michael the Disciple. I didn't vote because the question struck me as one of those "trick question" polls. "Jesus" was the name given to a baby that was born in Bethlehem around 2,000 years ago (Matthew 1:21). Was THAT BABY "God the Father?" According to Joseph's vision, the Father of that Baby was "The Holy Ghost."

Is "the Holy Ghost" the Father of "God the Father?"

It's a more complex issue than what your question appeared to invite.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Its only complex because you all are making it complex. .

No see, the problem people are recognizing is what Ive been saying, on it's own without any definition or explanation such a statement or question as "Is Jesus the Father" means "Is the Son the Father".

And the problem is one of apologetics. How we present what we believe.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Some of us are just sick to death of the never-ending arguments and avoid those threads altogether.

In other words Mike, not everyone is a Godhead Ninja...seriously even through out all the Oneness churches not everyone is running around starting witch trials to hunt down those that won't say the words "Jesus is God the Father".

They avoid such issues and confrontations just like Missourimary here

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Yes I have read this in the past.

Notice Jason acknowledges that Oneness believers accept Jesus deity is THE FATHER.



I have never at any time taught no distinctions. I teach them like Oneness teaching has all along and agree with Jason.

Again Jason speaks the truth:

God's Dual Manner of Existence




Jason says Jesus is the same person as the Father. So he would have to have voted yes Jesus is the Father to be consistent with his own teaching.

So Jason of course agrees with David Bernard and all the other Oneness Teachers that Jesus in his deity is God the Father.

I think you are reading much into Dulle's position.
FYI David Barnard gave a rebuttal to this very paper.

Here are a few paragraphs from Dulles paper. Take note the last line...
Read it all at http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/ugstsymposium.htm

The Data

To convey a sense of the magnitude of the problem confronting us, consider this small sampling of passages in which a clear distinction is made between the Father, Son, and Spirit: In the Great Commission, Jesus said all power was given to Him in heaven and in earth (Matthew 28:18). To be given something implies a distinction between one who gives and one who receives, and thus a distinction between Jesus and the one who gave Him all power.

Jesus said the Father was greater than Himself (John 14:28). “Greater” is a comparative term that implies the presence of two distinct entities. Surely Jesus did not mean to say He was greater than Himself! On another occasion He said, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do; for whatever he does, the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all things that he himself does” (John 5:19-20; See also 3:32). Here we have one showing, and one doing. Clearly Jesus is not showing Himself what to do. In another context He plainly said of His own ability, “I can of mine own self do nothing” (John 5:30). Even the words Jesus taught were first given Him by the Father (John 12:49-50). Once again we have one giving, and one receiving. All such statements point to a genuine distinction between Father and Son.

Furthermore, Jesus said, “…even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love” (John 15:10b). One cannot keep their own commandments and abide in their own love. Such a statement implies the existence of one who gives the commandment, and one who keeps the commandment; one who loves, and one who abides in that love.

Jesus spoke of the Father as being with Him (John 8:29), and Himself as proceeding from and being sent by the Father (John 8:42; 14:24; 16:27-28; 17:8, 18), returning to the Father (John 16:5, 7, 10), and as being sanctified by the Father (John 10:36). The Father is even said to honor the Son (John 8:55).

Jesus told His disciples He would pray to the Father to send them the Spirit. The Spirit is said to proceed from the Father, speaking not of Himself, but speaking that which He will hear (Hear from whom? Himself?). The Spirit is even said to glorify Jesus (John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:13-14).

On another occasion Jesus said that if we love Him, then His Father will love us, and they will come to us and make their abode with us (John 14:23). If there is only one God, and both Jesus and the Father are that God, why does Jesus speak of the Father and Himself in the plural?

Finally, Jesus said, “My Father has not left me alone; for I always do those things that please him” (John 8:29). Did He mean to say He always pleased Himself? It seems evident that Jesus was speaking of the Father as being someone other than Himself.

[Praxeas]

BTW MOST of those "active" users you thought you saw are guests/spiders