Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Father?

[Aquila]

Me and Rev. Blume chatted on Apostolic Friends Forum.

"I and my friend... talked about Oneness."

"I and my father... had a good laugh."

[Aquila]

Jesus said,

"I and my father are one."

Any distinct "self-conscious reality (or "self") is a "person" by definition. It can say "I" in relation to or distinction from... "you". The "I"/"thou" usage of language demands a distinct "person" from the Father.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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."

I've never seen anyone use trinitarian reasoning for two persons and call themselves oneness. lol. Hooboy.

Jesus used personal distinction linguistically by speaking of the Father in "second person" using terms like "he", "him", and "my Father".

You cannot use linguistic labels such as "first person singular," or "second person singular," because those labels were invented with mankind in mind who is limited to human restrictions because they're only human. When we speak about God then all limits go out the window as to what God can or cannot do. But again you are doing the exact same thing trinitarians do to prove more than one person and disprove oneness.

What you're saying is that the very words Jesus spoke and their linguistic meaning and implication mean nothing.

No, I am saying you cannot use those limitations and linguistic labels that were created due to having them work with human beings interacting with human beings that simply necessitate more than one person in their implications, when yuo speak about God being involved with His manifestation in flesh.

This is why trinitarians cannot see how one person was involved in the baptism of Jesus, when the Father spoke from heaven and the Spirit descended on the man in the water. They cannot get away from -- and they cannot see themselves even doing it -- thinking that because man would require to be three persons to do anything close to that then God must be three persons.

Pit it this way. I always use this analogy, though crude as it is: A space ship travels to Mars and finds a martian creature with intelligence. The creature is one person in its "race". But it has two mouths and a single brain that has the ability to speak two distinct conversations at the same time, which would require two human persons to accomplish. But in its race it is one person. Since it requires two persons for us to do the same thing, we demand it is not one person of its race but two. But it is from a different race than ours. It indeed is one person in its own race.

Well, that is sort of like God. he is not of our race. He has abilities as a single person we do not have. What kind of logic is there in throwing our limitations on Him when we see Him do something that would require more than one human person to even remotely copy, and say He must be more than one person? It's illogical because HE IS GOD. He has abilities we do not have. We have restrictions He does not have.

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.

No, you are again missing the fact that we cannot limit God in this way as soon as He is involved in the equation. When God who is not a human is involved and doing something, throw out all human restrictions on what His nature must or must not be.

It's so simple to realize, but it is sometimes hard to explain in writing.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Jesus said,

"I and my father are one."

Any distinct "self-conscious reality (or "self") is a "person" by definition. It can say "I" in relation to or distinction from... "you". The "I"/"thou" usage of language demands a distinct "person" from the Father.

Not when GOD IS INVOLVED. God can so perfectly manifest as a man and yet remain one person, that it will only confuse us if we don't realize we can't throw human limitations on Him.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Me and Rev. Blume chatted on Apostolic Friends Forum.

"I and my friend... talked about Oneness."

"I and my father... had a good laugh."

Because you and I are both humans./ But when GOD is involved pull out the plugs! We based this literary ruling on more than one human person. But when God is one who is involved with His own manifestation, then those literary rules are out the window in using them to determine His nature.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

That's not good enough, though. You still have TWO PERSONS. That is far closer to trinitarianism than oneness, brother. Seriously.

[mfblume]

Gotta run!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I've never seen anyone use trinitarian reasoning for two persons and call themselves oneness. lol. Hooboy.

I'll gladly be your first. lol

You cannot use linguistic labels such as "first person singular," or "second person singular," because those labels were invented with mankind in mind who is limited to human restrictions because they're only human. When we speak about God then all limits go out the window as to what God can or cannot do. But again you are doing the exact same thing trinitarians do to prove more than one person and disprove oneness.

I agree that anything is possible with God. I can assume many different things that would supersede the text. However, the implication of your reasoning is that... Jesus draws a false distinction between Himself and the Father.

If I walked around saying, "I and my father... went fishing." But it was only me... would I not be establishing a false impression of distinction as it relates to persons mentioned?

If Jesus were being honest, as it relates to Modalistic Oneness... He have said, "I, the Father, am one."

[Aquila]

Also... Jesus states,

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)

This my friend, is mutual indwelling that expresses a union of being. If we take Christ's words "seriously" (unlike Modalists who argue that it doesn't have to mean what it says)... we have to admit that what we have in view is a mingling of essence wherein the Father and the Son mutually indwell and experience and partake in one another's very being. As a result... in Christ... we can say that the man can be said to be also God... and God can be said to also be a man.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I've never seen anyone use trinitarian reasoning for two persons and call themselves oneness. lol. Hooboy.



You cannot use linguistic labels such as "first person singular," or "second person singular," because those labels were invented with mankind in mind who is limited to human restrictions because they're only human. When we speak about God then all limits go out the window as to what God can or cannot do. But again you are doing the exact same thing trinitarians do to prove more than one person and disprove oneness.



No, I am saying you cannot use those limitations and linguistic labels that were created due to having them work with human beings interacting with human beings that simply necessitate more than one person in their implications, when yuo speak about God being involved with His manifestation in flesh.

This is why trinitarians cannot see how one person was involved in the baptism of Jesus, when the Father spoke from heaven and the Spirit descended on the man in the water. They cannot get away from -- and they cannot see themselves even doing it -- thinking that because man would require to be three persons to do anything close to that then God must be three persons.

Pit it this way. I always use this analogy, though crude as it is: A space ship travels to Mars and finds a martian creature with intelligence. The creature is one person in its "race". But it has two mouths and a single brain that has the ability to speak two distinct conversations at the same time, which would require two human persons to accomplish. But in its race it is one person. Since it requires two persons for us to do the same thing, we demand it is not one person of its race but two. But it is from a different race than ours. It indeed is one person in its own race.

Well, that is sort of like God. he is not of our race. He has abilities as a single person we do not have. What kind of logic is there in throwing our limitations on Him when we see Him do something that would require more than one human person to even remotely copy, and say He must be more than one person? It's illogical because HE IS GOD. He has abilities we do not have. We have restrictions He does not have.


No, you are again missing the fact that we cannot limit God in this way as soon as He is involved in the equation. When God who is not a human is involved and doing something, throw out all human restrictions on what His nature must or must not be.

It's so simple to realize, but it is sometimes hard to explain in writing.

You do realize that... the essence of your argument above is that, since God can do anything, the text doesn't have to mean what it says or mean what it implies, don't you???

I am arguing that we have to take the very usage of the language of Jesus seriously to draw theological conclusions. You're arguing that we shouldn't because it could mean anything, because God can do anything.