One In The Greek

[Michael The Disciple]

How can Jesus and the Father be one person yet Jesus be in close relationship with and talk with the Father? How can Jesus be described as "he" in distinction from the Father, when he and the Father are one person?

Because of the concept of "modalism".

Jesus as a man was not one person with God. He was one person with God in his deity.

In one mode of being he was God. The only God.

In another mode of being he was man and not God.

It still works this way. Right now as God, Jesus is THE GOD. YAH.

Right now Jesus in his humanity is not God but rather he is THE MAN, JESUS CHRIST.

He is not as some SEEM to portray a God man. Kind of half God and half man.

The distinction when Jesus speaks of his God is between his humanity and his deity.

Do you think of or refer to the Father and Jesus as "they" since Jesus describes his relationship with the Father as "We" and "us"? Jesus in one place even likens he and the Father to two witnesses giving testimony: "16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me" (John 8.16-18).

Its when Jesus is speaking as a man he says "us" and "we" and rightly so. From his human nature Jesus sees God as his Father.

Rev. 1:6

6And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.

Rev 3:21

21To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

My creed is:

1 Tim. 2:5

5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

There is one God (Christ in his deity) and one man.

Not 2 God persons.

This is one reason I have been inquiring about the Greek for "one". I have been using this in discussion/debate with the Trins and so far they have not addressed it. To me it seems it cannot be refuted. Nonetheless if and when they challenge the Greek I want to be as certain as possible that the Greek for one God and one man is the same.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Because of the concept of "modalism".

Jesus as a man was not one person with God. He was one person with God in his deity.

In one mode of being he was God. The only God.

In another mode of being he was man and not God.

It still works this way. Right now as God, Jesus is THE GOD. YAH.

Right now Jesus in his humanity is not God but rather he is THE MAN, JESUS CHRIST.

He is not as some SEEM to portray a God man. Kind of half God and half man.

The distinction when Jesus speaks of his God is between his humanity and his deity.



Its when Jesus is speaking as a man he says "us" and "we" and rightly so. From his human nature Jesus sees God as his Father.

Rev. 1:6

6And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.

Rev 3:21

21To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

My creed is:

1 Tim. 2:5

5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

There is one God (Christ in his deity) and one man.

Not 2 God persons.

This is one reason I have been inquiring about the Greek for "one". I have been using this in discussion/debate with the Trins and so far they have not addressed it. To me it seems it cannot be refuted. Nonetheless if and when they challenge the Greek I want to be as certain as possible that the Greek for one God and one man is the same.

You say, "Its when Jesus is speaking as a man he says "us" and "we" and rightly so. From his human nature Jesus sees God as his Father."

Based on John 1, I think everything Jesus says in the Gospel of John is as the Word incarnate. I don't see how his sayings can be divvied up between his man mode and God mode.

The issue with this brand of modalistic thinking is that nothing Jesus says really is as it seems. On just about every page of, say, the Gospel of John, Jesus the Word incarnate distinguishes himself from the Father. Just read the Gospel straight through. It's relentless. But, then we say, no, Jesus is actually the Father as well--just in another mode. Basically we have Jesus saying, "So all that talk about we and us, and my God, and he sent me, I only do what he tells me, etc., well, I was just talking about myself in one mode communicating with my other mode."

What books have you read on the Godhead or Christology that have helped you formulate your modalistic view and that you would recommend?

[Esaias]

If God became a man, actually began to exist as a human being, without ceasing to be God (omnipresent Spirit), how would that human being speak?

I imagine He would speak exactly like He does in the Bible.

On the other hand, if God were a trinity of persons, and one of them became a human, I suspect He would speak of God in the plural: "They", rather than "Him". Unless He had no human consciousness, but was just God-in-a-physical-body. In which case His speech would not really make sense to us, people would think He was schizophrenic or psychotic, not to mention He simply wouldn't act, think, or feel in any genuinely human manner at all.

I also think He would mention "Hey, we're a trinity of Divine Persons". That He never said that is enough for me to reject the speculative nonsense of 4th and 5th century catholic priests.

[Michael The Disciple]

Based on John 1, I think everything Jesus says in the Gospel of John is as the Word incarnate. I don't see how his sayings can be divvied up between his man mode and God mode.

The Logos which was God became human. The Logos was the FORM OF GOD, not the entirety of God.

John 1:14

14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Now there was still one God and now one man amen? That which was man saw himself as subject to that which was still God.

The issue with this brand of modalistic thinking is that nothing Jesus says really is as it seems. On just about every page of, say, the Gospel of John, Jesus the Word incarnate distinguishes himself from the Father. Just read the Gospel straight through. It's relentless. But, then we say, no, Jesus is actually the Father as well--just in another mode.

Wheres the issue? I agree the huge majority of what Jesus said was as a man. Then a few times in comparison, he begins to let out the secret of his full identity.

Basically we have Jesus saying, "So all that talk about we and us, and my God, and he sent me, I only do what he tells me, etc., well, I was just talking about myself in one mode communicating with my other mode."

Well if you have a better explanation say on. Otherwise for me I will accept the unacceptable in mens eyes.

Isaiah 9:6

6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The Christ, Messiah is BOTH.....THE SON.....AND THE FATHER. If Yeshua was not the Everlasting Father he was not the Messiah at all.

Not merely in sequence but simultaneously. Few things are deeper than this.

Paul called it a "hidden truth".

1 Tim. 3:16

16And without controversy great is the mystery (hidden truth) of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

There is a difference in "hidden truth" and deception. Our Lord never decieved anyone at anytime. Neither did he tell everything he knew to everyone. And then only in its proper time.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If God became a man, actually began to exist as a human being, without ceasing to be God (omnipresent Spirit), how would that human being speak?

I imagine He would speak exactly like He does in the Bible.

On the other hand, if God were a trinity of persons, and one of them became a human, I suspect He would speak of God in the plural: "They", rather than "Him". Unless He had no human consciousness, but was just God-in-a-physical-body. In which case His speech would not really make sense to us, people would think He was schizophrenic or psychotic, not to mention He simply wouldn't act, think, or feel in any genuinely human manner at all.

I also think He would mention "Hey, we're a trinity of Divine Persons". That He never said that is enough for me to reject the speculative nonsense of 4th and 5th century catholic priests.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Again, everything is based on context within the sentence. The Bible is taught in a whole, not in bits and pieces. Jesus speaks as Himself as God, and that He is the father. In Revelation 21:7 Jesus calls Himself the father who is God and that the Church is His son.

I agree very much that everything is based on context. But it was after reading the Gospel of John many times over a short period of time, and so feeling the weight of how often and how thoroughly John and Jesus distinguish Jesus from the Father, that made me doubt that Jesus was simply conflating himself with the Father without qualification in John 14.9 or 10.30.

The Gospel begins in John 1 with Jesus as the Word incarnate who will reveal the Father. No one has seen the Father, but the only Son who is at the side of the Father will reveal him. From chapter 1 to 10 and 14, Jesus over and over distinguishes himself from the Father while revealing him, and even in the very contexts of 10 and 14 thoroughly distinguishes himself from the Father, and continues to do so throughout the rest of the Gospel. In ch 14 we have one of the examples of Jesus describing Jesus and the Father as "we": "23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him" (14.23). This is an unusual example: Jesus says he and the Father will indwell people together.

So when I read 14.9, I understand him to be saying, "How can you say show us the Father? I've been showing you. I've been revealing who he is and what he is like. The Father can't be seen, but he can be seen in my actions and words, because I only do what the Father has taught me to do and say." I do not, and right now cannot, read it as, "Despite everything I have said about me being the Son and distinguishing myself from the Father, well actually, I am the Father."

Anyway, as far as Oneness goes, I do think the Scripture is against the idea that God's being consists of three divine persons. I noted in a post to BCsenior that any doctrine of God and Christ has to be built on the OT foundation and harmonize with this concept of God. But I have not read a Oneness Christology yet that I found compelling and persuasively explained the distinctions we see in John's works between the Father and Son, and I haven't been able to come up with anything myself. :-) It's frustrating. All I can say confidently right now is that there is one God and he has a Son. The Son is not merely a human being like us. He is divine and human.

If there are any books you could recommend that you have found useful on the subject, I would appreciate any recommendations.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If God became a man, actually began to exist as a human being, without ceasing to be God (omnipresent Spirit), how would that human being speak?

I imagine He would speak exactly like He does in the Bible.

On the other hand, if God were a trinity of persons, and one of them became a human, I suspect He would speak of God in the plural: "They", rather than "Him". Unless He had no human consciousness, but was just God-in-a-physical-body. In which case His speech would not really make sense to us, people would think He was schizophrenic or psychotic, not to mention He simply wouldn't act, think, or feel in any genuinely human manner at all.

...

This. Absolutely this.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I also think He would mention "Hey, we're a trinity of Divine Persons". That He never said that is enough for me to reject the speculative nonsense of 4th and 5th century catholic priests.

I would expect that too, especially at some point when he was alone with his disciples teaching them. Since he (and the apostles) never point blank reveal this about God--and how could they not in light of how important monotheism was to Judaism?--I too feel I must reject it.

But, I would also expect him to have taught his disciples plainly to the effect, "I have distinguished myself from the Father in public and have called myself the Son and have described my relationship with him as one of mutual love and of him teaching me things to say and showing me what to do, and I have said the Father is greater than I, and in every way have made it seem like I was not the Father, but do not be misled: I'm just the Father in a different mode. As the Son, I'm in a different human mode of being in contrast to my omnipresent Spirit mode of being. That's why I speak this way as if I'm distinguished from the Father, because these modes of being are distinguished." I would expect it all the more since this concept is hard to grasp and not obvious and so obviously open to misunderstanding. It seems to me that, because the Father-Son relationship is not explicitly explained, speculation has filled the void.

I came across this verse in John 16: 25 “I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father."

So this sounds promising. He is going to speak plainly in order to teach them about the Father, so we can apparently take what he says at face value. Does he just plainly tell them he's the Father? No.

26 In that day you will ask in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf; 27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”

When he said this, a light went off in their heads.

29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech! 30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.” 31 Jesus answered them, “Do you now believe? 32 Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me."

So in his plain teaching, Jesus tells them that they can pray directly to the Father and shouldn't seek to have Jesus ask the Father on their behalf. He notes that they believed He came from the Father. Then he sums up the history of his ministry: He came from the Father and came into the world, and once he completes his ministry, he will go to the Father. And he finishes by saying that he's never alone--even when the disciples will forsake him--because the Father is always with him.

I can't read this "plain" account and conclude, "Oh, he clearly means he's the Father in a different form or mode." Taking the language at face value, he is not simply the Father. At any rate, I can understand why millions have read passages like this and concluded that Jesus is not the Father.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I agree very much that everything is based on context. But it was after reading the Gospel of John many times over a short period of time, and so feeling the weight of how often and how thoroughly John and Jesus distinguish Jesus from the Father, that made me doubt that Jesus was simply conflating himself with the Father without qualification in John 14.9 or 10.30.

The Gospel begins in John 1 with Jesus as the Word incarnate who will reveal the Father. No one has seen the Father, but the only Son who is at the side of the Father will reveal him. From chapter 1 to 10 and 14, Jesus over and over distinguishes himself from the Father while revealing him, and even in the very contexts of 10 and 14 thoroughly distinguishes himself from the Father, and continues to do so throughout the rest of the Gospel. In ch 14 we have one of the examples of Jesus describing Jesus and the Father as "we": "23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him" (14.23). This is an unusual example: Jesus says he and the Father will indwell people together.

So when I read 14.9, I understand him to be saying, "How can you say show us the Father? I've been showing you. I've been revealing who he is and what he is like. The Father can't be seen, but he can be seen in my actions and words, because I only do what the Father has taught me to do and say." I do not, and right now cannot, read it as, "Despite everything I have said about me being the Son and distinguishing myself from the Father, well actually, I am the Father."

Anyway, as far as Oneness goes, I do think the Scripture is against the idea that God's being consists of three divine persons. I noted in a post to BCsenior that any doctrine of God and Christ has to be built on the OT foundation and harmonize with this concept of God. But I have not read a Oneness Christology yet that I found compelling and persuasively explained the distinctions we see in John's works between the Father and Son, and I haven't been able to come up with anything myself. :-) It's frustrating. All I can say confidently right now is that there is one God and he has a Son. The Son is not merely a human being like us. He is divine and human.

If there are any books you could recommend that you have found useful on the subject, I would appreciate any recommendations.

If Jesus is a genuine human being, then the descriptions and statements in John make perfect sense. Including John 14:9.

So honestly I'm not seeing where any difficulty exists. The distinctions between the Father and the Son are the distinctions between God and the human being named Jesus. Which John ch 1 explains that the Son is the Word become flesh. 1 John 1 explains that this Word is basically the eternal life of God.

There is one God and He has a Son. But that Son is not merely "divine" unless He is also that One God. Otherwise you have two gods.

The great mystery of the faith is that GOD was manifested in the flesh etc. Putting all the data together, we have God taking on for Himself a genuine human existence which we call the Son of God. The distinctions are between God and the man, not God and another divinity or "divine person".

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I would expect that too, especially at some point when he was alone with his disciples teaching them. Since he (and the apostles) never point blank reveal this about God--and how could they not in light of how important monotheism was to Judaism?--I too feel I must reject it.

But, I would also expect him to have taught his disciples plainly to the effect, "I have distinguished myself from the Father in public and have called myself the Son and have described my relationship with him as one of mutual love and of him teaching me things to say and showing me what to do, and I have said the Father is greater than I, and in every way have made it seem like I was not the Father, but do not be misled: I'm just the Father in a different mode. As the Son, I'm in a different human mode of being in contrast to my omnipresent Spirit mode of being. That's why I speak this way as if I'm distinguished from the Father, because these modes of being are distinguished." I would expect it all the more since this concept is hard to grasp and not obvious and so obviously open to misunderstanding. It seems to me that, because the Father-Son relationship is not explicitly explained, speculation has filled the void.

I came across this verse in John 16: 25 “I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father."

So this sounds promising. He is going to speak plainly in order to teach them about the Father, so we can apparently take what he says at face value. Does he just plainly tell them he's the Father? No.

26 In that day you will ask in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf; 27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father.”

When he said this, a light went off in their heads.

29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech! 30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.” 31 Jesus answered them, “Do you now believe? 32 Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me."

So in his plain teaching, Jesus tells them that they can pray directly to the Father and shouldn't seek to have Jesus ask the Father on their behalf. He notes that they believed He came from the Father. Then he sums up the history of his ministry: He came from the Father and came into the world, and once he completes his ministry, he will go to the Father. And he finishes by saying that he's never alone--even when the disciples will forsake him--because the Father is always with him.

I can't read this "plain" account and conclude, "Oh, he clearly means he's the Father in a different form or mode." Taking the language at face value, he is not simply the Father. At any rate, I can understand why millions have read passages like this and concluded that Jesus is not the Father.

If He isn't the Father then He isn't God. But the disciples confessed Him to be God. Therefore He must be the Father.

Your description of what Jesus might have said seems to me to be a caricature of actual Oneness Christology.

When we confess that He is the Father, we do not mean the man - CONSIDERED AS A MAN - is the Father. We mean the man is the incarnation of the only God in existence, the God we identify as our Father and as the Father of us all. The PERSON is God, yet the PERSON is also a man. The humanity and Deity are not to be confused. Terms like "in a different mode" are borrowed from trinitarians and would have likely been unintelligible to the disciples. You would have Jesus explain things using 4th and 5th century metaphysical terms in vogue among Greek philosophers?

His explanations make perfect sense to me, at least.