Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Father?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I'm votivesoul, i.e. Aaron. I was thanking Esaias from an earlier post.

I'm not going to openly agree or disagree as to the merits of your expressed position on the nature of Christ.

I merely point out that your expressed position on the nature of Christ is not traditional Oneness as it has been embraced and understood for decades. You have modified the term, if you use it to describe your views.

I submit that one need not to adopt and modify the term in order to describe their views. Use a different term so that the term in question can continue to mean what it has always meant, else the purpose of even having the term and using it becomes superfluous.

Thanks for clarifying Votivesoul, I mean Aaron. Love you bro.

What if I told you that every statement listed below (which I've posted in previous posts) were directly taken from, THE ONENESS OF GOD, by Rev. David K. Bernard, chapter 5, The Son of God... and is mandatory reading for all UPCI ministers?

Would they be "traditional Oneness" understandings then??? LOL!

"That Jesus had a complete human nature and complete divine nature at the same time is the teaching of Scripture, but we cannot separate these two natures in His earthly life. It is apparent that Jesus had a human will, mind, spirit, soul, and body, but it is equally apparent that He had the fullness of the Godhead resident in that body. From our finite view, His human spirit and His divine Spirit were inseparable." - Rev. David K. Bernard, The Oneness of God

"The divine Spirit could be separated from the human body by death, but His humanity was more than a human body – the shell of a human – with God inside. He was a human in body, soul, and spirit with the fullness of the Spirit of God dwelling in that body, soul, and spirit. Jesus differed from an ordinary human (who can be filled with the Spirit of God) in that He had all of God’s nature within Him. He possessed the unlimited power, authority, and character of God. Furthermore, in contrast to a born-again, Spirit-filled human, the Spirit of God was inextricably, and inseparably joined with the humanity of Jesus." - Rev. David K. Bernard, The Oneness of God

"The humanity of Christ prayed, cried, learned obedience, and suffered. The divine nature was in control and God was faithful to His own plan, but the human nature had to obtain help from the Spirit and, had to learn obedience to the divine plan. Surely all these verses of Scripture show that Jesus was fully human – that He had every attribute of humanity except the sinful nature inherited from the Fall. If we deny the humanity of Jesus, we encounter a problem with the conception of redemption and atonement. Not being fully human, could His sacrifice be sufficient to redeem mankind? Could He really be a true substitute for us in death? Could He truly qualify as our kinsman redeemer?" - Rev. David K. Bernard, The Oneness of God

"The Word or Logos can mean the plan or thought as it existed in the mind of God. This thought was a predestined plan – an absolutely certain future event, - and therefore it had a reality attached to it that no human thought could ever have. The Word can also mean the plan or thought of God expressed in the flesh, that is in the Son." - Rev. David K. Bernard, The Oneness of God

"The deity in the Son is the Father, we do believe that the Father is in the Son (John 14:10 . Since Jesus is the name of the Son of God, both as to His deity as Father and as to His humanity as Son, it is the name of both the Father and the Son." - Rev. David K. Bernard, The Oneness of God

So, what makes me an "untraditional Oneness" believer who can be labeled "Unitarian" for embracing what has been taught by the leading Oneness apologist of this century?

[votivesoul]

I guess I'm just a stickler for letting words hold their denotative meanings.

So, since "Oneness" as term has basically meant the same thing since about 1915 AD, I desire to allow the term to hold the same meaning.

To erode the meaning from what it has always traditionally meant, means a forced evolution of meaning was exerted upon it. I don't like that.

As Aquila stated:

I'm only trying to see the standard by which you're viewing the points I've presented.

The standard is the traditionally held understanding of what Oneness means.

If we are going to allow multiple definitions of the term Oneness into the discussion, we aren't going to get anywhere, fast. We won't even be on the same page talking about the same thing, because what I mean when I say Oneness is not what the next guy means, and the next and the next. So I advocate that we all just agree to the traditionally held meaning of "Oneness" so we can at least talk to each other and try to answer Jermyn's original question.

There will no true understanding otherwise.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Thanks for clarify Votivesoul. Love you bro.

What if I told you that every statement listed below (which I've posted in previous posts) were directly taken from, THE ONENESS OF GOD, by Rev. David K. Bernard, chapter 5, The Son of God... and is mandatory reading for all UPCI ministers?

Would they be "traditional Oneness" understandings then??? LOL!

"That Jesus had a complete human nature and complete divine nature at the same time is the teaching of Scripture, but we cannot separate these two natures in His earthly life. It is apparent that Jesus had a human will, mind, spirit, soul, and body, but it is equally apparent that He had the fullness of the Godhead resident in that body. From our finite view, His human spirit and His divine Spirit were inseparable." - Rev. David K. Bernard

"The divine Spirit could be separated from the human body by death, but His humanity was more than a human body – the shell of a human – with God inside. He was a human in body, soul, and spirit with the fullness of the Spirit of God dwelling in that body, soul, and spirit. Jesus differed from an ordinary human (who can be filled with the Spirit of God) in that He had all of God’s nature within Him. He possessed the unlimited power, authority, and character of God. Furthermore, in contrast to a born-again, Spirit-filled human, the Spirit of God was inextricably, and inseparably joined with the humanity of Jesus." - Rev. David K. Bernard

"The humanity of Christ prayed, cried, learned obedience, and suffered. The divine nature was in control and God was faithful to His own plan, but the human nature had to obtain help from the Spirit and, had to learn obedience to the divine plan. Surely all these verses of Scripture show that Jesus was fully human – that He had every attribute of humanity except the sinful nature inherited from the Fall. If we deny the humanity of Jesus, we encounter a problem with the conception of redemption and atonement. Not being fully human, could His sacrifice be sufficient to redeem mankind? Could He really be a true substitute for us in death? Could He truly qualify as our kinsman redeemer?" - Rev. David K. Bernard

"The Word or Logos can mean the plan or thought as it existed in the mind of God. This thought was a predestined plan – an absolutely certain future event, - and therefore it had a reality attached to it that no human thought could ever have. The Word can also mean the plan or thought of God expressed in the flesh, that is in the Son." - Rev. David K. Bernard

"The deity in the Son is the Father, we do believe that the Father is in the Son (John 14:10). Since Jesus is the name of the Son of God, both as to His deity as Father and as to His humanity as Son, it is the name of both the Father and the Son." - Rev. David K. Bernard

I've read that book twice or thrice, but it's been awhile. The above may be direct quotes. If so, I'll give it to you that yes, it is traditional Oneness, BUT only as it relates to the concept of Jesus as the Son of God, since the above quotes, if what you say is true (that these quotes came from that part of the book) are only about the Sonship of Christ.

So the above quotes don't paint the full picture of the "traditional Oneness" view, especially as is relates to Jesus being the Father.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I've read that book twice or thrice, but it's been awhile. The above may be direct quotes. If so, I'll give it to you that yes, it is traditional Oneness, BUT only as it relates to the concept of Jesus as the Son of God, since the above quotes, if what you say is true (that these quotes came from that part of the book) are only about the Sonship of Christ.

So the above quotes don't paint the full picture of the "traditional Oneness" view, especially as is relates to Jesus being the Father.

Wouldn't this statement suffice???

"The deity in the Son is the Father, we do believe that the Father is in the Son (John 14:10). Since Jesus is the name of the Son of God, both as to His deity as Father and as to His humanity as Son, it is the name of both the Father and the Son." - Rev. David K. Bernard

Because of the ONENESS existing between the Son of God and the indwelling Father, the name of Jesus is therefore the name of BOTH the Father and the Son. While they are "one" there is a distinction between the man, Jesus Christ, and the indwelling Father. That's my point.

[Aquila]

Most gloss over the distinction that the Scripture draws between the Father and the Son. This is why so many preachers have argued that Jesus wasn't really praying... He was pretending to pray to the Father as a "example".

What I'm presenting to you is essentially "traditional Oneness" thinking... I'm simply emphasizing the humanity of the man Jesus Christ so as to draw clear distinction between the Father and the Son.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Wouldn't this statement suffice???

"The deity in the Son is the Father, we do believe that the Father is in the Son (John 14:10). Since Jesus is the name of the Son of God, both as to His deity as Father and as to His humanity as Son, it is the name of both the Father and the Son." - Rev. David K. Bernard

Not quite. Oneness is more than just a "statement", i.e. nutshell version.

As I've read through your posts, you've made it plain, as far as I can see, that Jesus is only the Father by merit of the Father residing in Him and permeating through Him, a la perichloresis.

It is that part of your expressed views that is not traditional Oneness.

Traditional Oneness indicates that Jesus was God the Father from time immemorial, even before the man Christ Jesus came on the scene, and not just God the Father due to ontological union of Eternal Spirit and temporal flesh inside of Mary's womb at the Incarnation.

[good samaritan]

Traditional Oneness indicates that Jesus was God the Father from time immemorial, even before the man Christ Jesus came on the scene, and not just God the Father due to ontological union of Eternal Spirit and temporal flesh inside of Mary's womb at the Incarnation.

This goes along with trintitarians belief in the eternal god the son.

[good samaritan]

Traditional Oneness indicates that Jesus was God the Father from time immemorial

I don't want traditional oneness I want scriptural oneness.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I don't want traditional oneness I want scriptural oneness.

Now thats what I love to see!!!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Not quite. Oneness is more than just a "statement", i.e. nutshell version.

As I've read through your posts, you've made it plain, as far as I can see, that Jesus is only the Father by merit of the Father residing in Him and permeating through Him, a la perichloresis.

It is that part of your expressed views that is not traditional Oneness.

Traditional Oneness indicates that Jesus was God the Father from time immemorial, even before the man Christ Jesus came on the scene, and not just God the Father due to ontological union of Eternal Spirit and temporal flesh inside of Mary's womb at the Incarnation.

But that lands us right back to what I'm saying. If Jesus is the Father from time immemorial... we have to recognize that what we're talking about IS the Father residing in Him... not His humanity. Not His distinct human mind. Not His distinct human will. Not His distinct human spirit. Else... you'd have to have an Eternal Son.

What I'm proposing is that what has become known as "Traditional Oneness" is a dumbed down version of actual Oneness that doesn't draw proper theological or ontological distinctions.