Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Father?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't want you to take this the wrong way. I want you to really think about what I'm saying before just dismissing it.

I think you did not really consider my last phrase, yourself, though. Let's just say for the moment that I am right. Just for the sake of making a point. God is solely in every sense one person.

Then using our language to communicate between the MAN and the GOD would demand it to be two persons simply due to language! And can you not see how language would cause misunderstanding of His nature?

I will answer the remaining of what you say later. But I want to make sure you get my point here first.

If God is as I say He is, then there is no way you or others would ever accept that due to language, but the language He uses would be the only way He could do what He does. In this manner, your basis of language is marring reality. Yes, it works between human persons showing first person singular talking to another second person singular. But those literary labels cannot define the godhead.

There's nothing that could occur in communication between the two that would allow you to see the truth, if I am right in how I describe God h since you are stuck to literary terminology to define the Godhead.

Try to re-image it this way. Jesus is the express image of the invisible God. A perfect imprint in flesh of God. Picture yourself talking to your image in a mirror and the image has the ability to genuinely talk back. You are using language but in no way does that demand two persons.

Nothing is imaginary. Jesus was an actual man in every sense of the term. Even with a distinct circle of consciousness. But when God is in the equation causing that to happen, as well as being one communicating to this manifestation, we cannot limit Him and must pull out all the plugs.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The only way Jesus could have established that He was indeed the same person as the Father would be to speak as the Father while expressing human limitation. Instead of saying, "The Father is greater than I.", Jesus could have said, "I am greater as the Father." Or, "I, the Father, am one." Or, "I came from being the Father, and return to being the Father." Or, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither me as the Son, but I know all things as the Father." Language would be instrumental in establishing that the person of Jesus was the same as the person of the Father.

He did!

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

You know the many passages where Jesus spoke as God. He spoke as man at times and as God at others.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

But that is throwing human limits on God's abilities again.

But every prayer, conversation, and interaction between Himself and the Father would only be an illusion brought on by the theological dynamic of Modalism. We're not seeing a real inter-personal relationship... only the appearance, or illusion, of one. Can you explain why this wouldn't be so?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I think you did not really consider my last phrase, yourself, though. Let's just say for the moment that I am right. Just for the sake of making a point. God is solely in every sense one person.

Then using our language to communicate between the MAN and the GOD would demand it to be two persons simply due to language! And can you not see how language would cause misunderstanding of His nature?

One such as God is fully capable of accurately using language to express what He means. Language doesn't limit Him. Therefore, I would expect to surely be able to turn to what the Bible actually says, and the implications of those statements, and know the truth about God.

I will answer the remaining of what you say later. But I want to make sure you get my point here first.

If God is as I say He is, then there is no way you or others would ever accept that due to language, but the language He uses would be the only way He could do what He does. In this manner, your basis of language is marring reality. Yes, it works between human persons showing first person singular talking to another second person singular. But those literary labels cannot define the godhead.

Again, language doesn't limit God. And the manner in which you describe it isn't the only way He could do what He does. For example, why didn't Jesus simply say, "I am one?" Or, simply say, "I am the Father" instead of saying, "I am in the Father and the Father in me"? Why not simply say, "I am the Father"? Why even speak of terms that demand a mutual indwelling, a "union" of being?

I know that this is perhaps a silly example, but an illustration of a single person in multiple manifestations is better seen in Agent Smith, the villain in the film, The Matrix. You'll note that each "manifestation" is indeed Agent Smith. He even speaks through any given Agent Smith as himself. They are clearly the same "person"... the same "self-conscious reality"... the same "self". We don't see this in Jesus. Jesus clearly has a distinct human self-conscious reality, or "self" that relates to the Father. Therefore, we see a distinctly human "person". That human person is who the Bible refers to as, "the man, Christ Jesus".

There's nothing that could occur in communication between the two that would allow you to see the truth, if I am right in how I describe God since you are stuck to literary terminology to define the Godhead.

Please re-read your statement above. You are saying that there is nothing that could occur in communication between the Father and the Son, as seen in Scripture, that would allow me to see the truth, if you are right in how you are describing God. Don't you see, that's my point? We don't walk away with your view being established by what we see in Scripture. Your view isn't expressed... in Scripture. You are admitting it. However, you're not realizing what you're admitting. You're putting your theology before what we see in the Scriptures themselves. What we believe about God should be based entirely upon what is written in the Scriptures and their implications. Not what a chosen school of theological thought professes. I've heard of being true to your school... but when it comes to the Bible and what it says and what it implies... I'll side with the Bible.

Try to re-image it this way. Jesus is the express image of the invisible God. A perfect imprint in flesh of God. Picture yourself talking to your image in a mirror and the image has the ability to genuinely talk back. You are using language but in no way does that demand two persons.

Yes, if I looked into the mirror and said, "Hello, I'm Chris." Then my reflection smiled and looked at you and said, "This is also me. Isn't this interesting Rev. Blume?" You'd have a single "person" expressed in both physical presence and reflection.

But, if my reflection smiled and said, "I am also Chris. Indeed, we are one. But Chris is a little stuffy and straight laced. While, I don't know what Christopher knows, I know that I'd like to go get drunk and maybe buy a hooker tonight." You'd have a distinct "person" who is a reflection of me but isn't really me. I'd be vehemently saying, "I don't want to get drunk or buy a hooker! That's not me!" The moment we see a distinct "self" or a distinct "self-conscious reality" coming from that reflection... while it is a reflection of me... it isn't me. We'd not be the same "person".

Nothing is imaginary. Jesus was an actual man in every sense of the term. Even with a distinct circle of consciousness. But when God is in the equation causing that to happen, as well as being one communicating to this manifestation, we cannot limit Him and must pull out all the plugs.

A distinct center of self-conscious reality (self) is a distinct "person". Frankly, if it were the same "person" (self), there'd be no need for the inter-personal communication we see between Christ and the Father.

Do we not see inter-personal communication between Jesus and the Father??? Yes or no? Of course we do. Thus... we have two distinct personalities, personal realities, centers of self-consciousness, or selves. One being human... the other being God Himself.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

He did!

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

You know the many passages where Jesus spoke as God. He spoke as man at times and as God at others.

Amen. However, even when Jesus speaks as God... He doesn't speak outside of His human "self" as the Father. The human "self" is expressing divine prerogatives. That is exactly what we'd expect to see with a man who was "one" (in spiritual union) with God to the point wherein they partook in all that the other is, without losing their individual self-conscious realities.

[Michael The Disciple]

Heaven weeps. Yeshua is being demoted. He is not considered to be the creator. He is not the Lord of hosts. He is not the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. He is not "that Rock" that went with Israel. He was not present when satan fell from Heaven.

Nope. He is considered a man that God dwells in. No more no less.

Biblically speaking they are 50% wrong.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Heaven weeps. Yeshua is being demoted. He is not considered to be the creator. He is not the Lord of hosts. He is not the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. He is not "that Rock" that went with Israel. He was not present when satan fell from Heaven.

Nope. He is considered a man that God dwells in. No more no less.

Biblically speaking they are 50% wrong.

Did the "man" Christ Jesus, the human self-conscious reality, exist prior to the incarnation? Nope. Traditional Oneness Theology assumes a transmutation, a morphing of of God into a man. Incarnation is God's act of infusing His very essence in a divinely created zygote whose nature is fully human, is...a complete human being. This union of being existing from conception, elevatining humanity into the divine reality. Therefore, the man, Jesus Christ, is indeed both man, made of a woman under the law,...and Creator.

[Michael The Disciple]

Did the "man" Christ Jesus, the human self-conscious reality, exist prior to the incarnation? Nope.

And in 34 years of Oneness Pentcostalism I have never heard ONE PERSON say this.

Can you name one?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

And in 34 years of Oneness Pentcostalism I have never heard ONE PERSON say this.

Can you name one?

David K. Bernard emphasized in his book, The Oneness of God, that "the humanity" didn't pre-exist the incarnation. Bernard emphasizes that it is this "nature" that prayed to the Father. However, I disagree with the notion that a "nature" prays. Natures don't pray, "persons" (self-conscious realities) do. Therefore, I propose that it is the human person of Jesus that didn't pre-exist the incarnation. I can quote the source tomorrow, as I don't have my sources with me at the moment.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

But every prayer, conversation, and interaction between Himself and the Father would only be an illusion brought on by the theological dynamic of Modalism. We're not seeing a real inter-personal relationship... only the appearance, or illusion, of one. Can you explain why this wouldn't be so?

Same arguments as trinitarians.

I am surprised.

Why does it have to be an illusion is genuine humanity is involved without there being two persons?? Ii believe we cannot throw human examples as a basis onto this issue. Again, when God is involved, pullout all the plugs. Can you not imagine God doing things beyond human abilities in this regard?