Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Father? - Page 64

Aquila · #**631** 11-18-2014, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

That is where you go wrong. Yes, there was a distinct circle of consciousness in the man, but that does NOT mean a distinct person is therefore considered. This is precisely where trinitarianism started -- with that kind of reasoning.

It is ONE person in every sense of the term, simply manifesting in flesh.

So, you are saying that residing in God's being are two distinct personalities??? One divine... one human? Doesn't this create as much of a Schizophrenic God as Trinitarianism?

mfblume · #**632** 11-18-2014, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe we can. There is only one divine person, the Father. Even the human person of the man, Christ Jesus, is fashioned in the express image of the Father's own person, so even the humanity reflects the reality and personality of the divine person, the Father. So, only one person is truly revealed between the revealed person of the Father and the human person of the man Jesus Christ.

"Oneness", defined:

one·ness noun \ˈwən-nəs\

: the state of being completely united with or a part of someone or something ~ Marriam-Webster

Please note... "oneness" isn't "singleness". Oneness can only exist through a union of two distinct realities. So, technically, this view is solidly "Oneness" while the traditional position known as Oneness (Modalism) professes a "Singleness" that in fact... rules out "oneness".

The simple point is that no matter how you slice it, if there are two persons of any kind then there is no oneness. You are the only one who has ever hypothesized differently.

Aquila · #**633** 11-18-2014, 08:05 AM

Let's set aside any theological thoughts or bias. Now, let's take Christ's own words describing His oneness with the Father and how would we define Oneness using Christ's own words???

John 10:30
30 I and my Father are one. (KJV)

John 10:38
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. (KJV)

John 12:45
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. (KJV)

John 14:7-10
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. (KJV)

Aquila · #**634** 11-18-2014, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

The simple point is that no matter how you slice it, if there are two persons of any kind then there is no oneness. You are the only one who has ever hypothesized differently.

So, there is no "oneness" between a man and wife who are in union and are one flesh? No "oneness" between two distinct braches that have been grafted together? The very term "oneness" demands a union between two (or more) distinct realities.

mfblume · #**635** 11-18-2014, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, you are saying that residing in God's being are two distinct personalities??? One divine... one human? Doesn't this create as much of a Schizophrenic God as Trinitarianism?

No. This confusion always arises, though. God manifested as a man, and to do so requires human spirit, soul and body. Otherwise he would not be a man. But the trinitarian's problem is that they have done just what you have here, in limiting what God can or cannot be according the limitations of humanity. God If God was ONLY a human person than, yes, that would be sickness and schizophrenia. I have argued this a hundred times with trinitarians and they just can't see how saying such things puts human limitations on God.

We cannot use humanity as a basis for determine the nature of God. He is somewhat of a different species, so to speak, without wanting to sound vulgar about it. This is why trinitarians also say he is three persons, because in their minds since human beings could not do anything remotely close to what He did without being three persons, then they figure God must be three persons. And you are saying similarly if man did anything remotely close to what God did as Father and Son then we'd be schizophrenic, so that must be the case with God demanding that it not be true.

It is so tempting to throw human limitations on GOD, even in His state before incarnation, whenever we see Him doing things that would require something of us as humans if we did anything closely remote to it. But we cannot do that. We can compare each other and analyze a single person using the rest of humanity as a base to describe one's condition. But that's because the one human being we're are looking at has many like beings all around with which to compare him to as a base. But God is not one of many, as humans are, to have a base in another to compare Him to.

What would make a mental sickness amongst human beings to do something close to what God does, does not in any means whatsoever imply God must be mentally ill to do it as well. can you not see that you are unintentionally using humanity as a basis to determine what God can or cannot do, what God can or cannot be?

mfblume · #**636** 11-18-2014, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, there is no "oneness" between a man and wife who are in union and are one flesh?

That is not the context in which I am using the term. Let me clarify. That is not a oneness of person. Brother, they called Oneness by the term "oneness" because it is a contrast of one person from three in trintarianism.

Aquila · #**637** 11-18-2014, 08:14 AM

If there isn't a distinction of person... language would demand that Jesus say,

"I, the Father, am one." ... not... "I AND my father ARE one."

Jesus used personal distinction linguistically by speaking of the Father in "second person" using terms like "he", "him", and "my Father". What you're saying is that the very words Jesus spoke and their linguistic meaning and implication mean nothing. You have to deny that it says what it says and FORCE an interpretation that would redefine the very usage of the words involved so that any distinction of "person" would only be argued to be "apparent". This sentence structure DEMANDS distinction of person (self):

If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Now, a Trinitarian will argue that this second "person" established by Christ's own usage of language is a second divine person... I don't believe that is so. It is the human person of the man Jesus Christ, the one who is fully man, made in the express image of the Father's own person.

mfblume · #**638** 11-18-2014, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

Let's set aside any theological thoughts or bias. Now, let's take Christ's own words describing His oneness with the Father and how would we define Oneness using Christ's own words???

John 10:30
30 I and my Father are one. (KJV)

John 10:38
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. (KJV)

John 12:45
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. (KJV)

John 14:7-10
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. (KJV)

You are sounding JUST LIKE trinitarians here, brother. That is exactly their arguments.

In THAT instance of scripture, yes the idea is not singleness of person being portrayed. But it does not imply more than one person, either. But the part where Jesus said the FATHER IS IN HIM and does the works, that is implying singleness of person. And this is where trinitarians will stop. they do not believe Jesus meant the Father was located IN Jesus as Christ said He was. They maintain it is oneness in purpose alone, which is what the first portion of scripture implied. When Jesus said Her and the Father were one He was not saying one person THERE. But that does not mean they are not one person. He just was not speaking of that there. But when He said the Father indwelt Him that is a different story.

Aquila · #**639** 11-18-2014, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

You are sounding JUST LIKE trinitarians here, brother. That is exactly their arguments.

If there isn't a distinction of person... language would demand that Jesus say,

"I, the Father, am one." ... not... "I AND my father ARE one."

Jesus used personal distinction linguistically by speaking of the Father in "second person" using terms like "he", "him", and "my Father". What you're saying is that the very words Jesus spoke and their linguistic meaning and implication mean nothing. You have to deny that it says what it says and FORCE an interpretation that would redefine the very usage of the words involved so that any distinction of "person" would only be argued to be "apparent". This sentence structure DEMANDS distinction of person (self):

If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Now, a Trinitarian will argue that this second "person" established by Christ's own usage of language is a second divine person... I don't believe that is so. It is the human person of the man Jesus Christ, the one who is fully man, made in the express image of the Father's own person.

Aquila · #**640** 11-18-2014, 08:18 AM

Language is solid.

"I and my father... went fishing."

"I and my father... are fishing."

Linguistically, how many "persons" did I establish as the subject matter? The very sentence demands distinction of "person" between "I" and "my father". If I were the "father" in this sentence, I'd say, "I, the father of this family, went fishing."... or simply, "I went fishing." But by my very usage of language... you realize that two persons went fishing... me... and... my father.