Is the Father the Son?

Originally Posted by Believer

Did Jesus pray to His Father or not?

Joh 17:1 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,

Mat 26:39 And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will."

Jesus, in the flesh, prayed to His Father.

believer this is about where I started to get confuse with my Oneness beliefs. Could you please explain it bit further for me?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

It gets tiresome and even slanderous that some of us can't be questioned on our logic, traditions and approach to many of these issues without being labeled a liar or false claiming.

I will not ask for an apology as these recent posts questioning my integrity as a Oneness child of God infer I'm a lying Oneness believer ...

however, please note that there are many on this forum, mostly PCIers, who will not quibble w/ one statement I've made on this thread.

They often do not post in these type of topics, I speculate, because those who maintain they are our Oneness brethren will do as some have here ....and impugn their reputations w/ false accusations as not being Apostolic or Oneness enough.

I've even had accusations that I have not been taught Apostolic principles in a proper manner by my pastor and father. {Which may be entirely another issue that is now dead}

Furthermore, BD, Oneness pioneer Andrew Urshan had no issues using the term three-in-one, or triune. He used it w/ regularity in his books to describe God.

Urshan, father of Nathaniel Urshan, objected to the use of the term "oneness" preferring to describe God as a "tri-unity" or "Three-One God" in his book: The Almighty God in the Lord Jesus Christ, (pgs 6,42,78,93) or : The Blessed Three-ness of the Godhead. WG 4 (July 1923), 2-4.

Are we to question his integrity as a Oneness believer also? I think not.

This also is part of the problem with some modern OPs. They have solidified their thinking to the point that any mention of what may be deemed as as Trinitarian language is ANATHEMA.

If you want cheerleaders, BD and Mizpeh, you have quite a few already. My poms-poms are mainly reserved for other issues. This united front argument has serious holes and wreaks of "us against them", IMO.

I will not, and do not see in our forum rules, where I have to agree with your logic or approach.

I have and always affirm to be Oneness. If questioning logic, history, or aspects of our own doctrines on some these issues is deemed as promotion of Trinitarianism than we need to define promotion as a forum.

As I read the rules they state:
On matters of doctrine, feel free to post your views supported with scripture. It is okay to disagree, just let the conversation flow, letting go of the need to prove yourself right.

Secondly, if I understand the forum policy ... promotion is proselytizing. If this is the case , then I have never told someone to believe in 3 persons, as by conscience I cannot. It also seems odd that we would invite trinitarians to post here and debate us on our beliefs but do not also see it as a form of promotion by allowing a platform.

IF a history as presented by a oneness is indeed incorrect, then suggest an alternate, more correct history from your own original research (or someone else's) that better proves the oneness position. If you question a history, if you are going to try to disprove it (with real evidence, not just stateing "this is false"), the provide the appropriate explaination. What I have observed is you attack oneness historians, accuse them of propogating falsehoods and lies, (while in doing so undermining their position), and then fail to offer an alternative.

Also, if a logic is inapproprately applied, suggest a more accurate logic with which to arrive at proper conclusions. Again, what I have observed from you is an erroneous critique of oneness logical analysis, without you providing a more accurate approach. If you are indeed a oneness adherent, and you disagree with a logic or history I or someone else presents, don't fight against us, work with us to arrive at the proper logic and correct history. If you have nothing of substance to offer in these areas, then your critique is more damaging than fruitful. I will stand by Chalfant and Weisser's histories, and the logic that has been presented, until someone shows contradictory and original historic evidence that suggests otherwise. Simply saying "these histories and conlusions are false" offers nothing of real substance.

I am certainly interested in seeing what you believe about the real believers between 500AD and 1500 AD? Where were they in history? Who were they? What were they called? What did they believe? If you disagree with Chalfants research, show HOW it's incorrect with real historical references (not rote parroted encyclopedic references), but real history. I will consider it. Also, offer your alternative analysis and what you feel are the proper conclusions!

[SDG]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

IF a history as presented by a oneness is indeed incorrect, then suggest an alternate, more correct history from your own original research (or someone else's) that better proves the oneness position. If you question a history, if you are going to try to disprove it (with real evidence, not just stateing "this is false"), the provide the appropriate explaination. What I have observed is you attack oneness historians, accuse them of propogating falsehoods and lies, (while in doing so undermining their position), and then fail to offer an alternative.

Also, if a logic is inapproprately applied, suggest a more accurate logic with which to arrive at proper conclusions. Again, what I have observed from you is an erroneous critique of oneness logical analysis, without you providing a more accurate approach. If you are indeed a oneness adherent, and you disagree with a logic or history I or someone else presents, don't fight against us, work with us to arrive at the proper logic and correct history. If you have nothing of substance to offer in these areas, then your critique is more damaging than fruitful. I will stand by Chalfant and Weisser's histories, and the logic that has been presented, until someone shows contradictory and original historic evidence that suggests otherwise. Simply saying "these histories and conlusions are false" offers nothing of real substance.

I am certainly interested in seeing what you believe about the real believers between 500AD and 1500 AD? Where were they in history? Who were they? What were they called? What did they believe? If you disagree with Chalfants research, show HOW it's incorrect with real historical references (not rote parroted encyclopedic references), but real history. I will consider it. Also, offer your alternative analysis and what you feel are the proper conclusions!

You've got your threads mixed up BD. This discussion about history is in the Monarchians thread ... and is now being discussed in the Fudge thread. Mizpeh has decided to discuss the issue of Remnant History there also. Me thinks this is sour grapes because your info presented was aptly refuted. We can continue this discussion in th Fudge thread where other ONENESS BELIEVERS have also stated in agreement w/ me ....

I'll post the thrust of this post there minus the attacks on my integrity ... if you like?. :sshhh