I posted a reply to this post from Maple Leaf (used as the thread start here):
.............
I disagree with this view because I disagree that God became a man.
God was manifested within creation by making his habitation within his only begotten son.
Manifestation is NOT an equivalent with BECOMING. (this is my long running discussion with Mizpeh).
God's WORD became flesh, God did not become flesh (God is a spirit)
One manifestation does not have its own will from another manifestation if both manifestations are sponsored by the same singular entity. Giving one manifestation a separate will from another manifestation has to stop...its WRONG because it is immediately contradictory.
Oneness teachers must evoke the same special exception clause that Trini teachers use....its a mystery requiring revelation.
Both schools of thought evoke the same mathematical silliness when speaking of the "Son"...using the phrase fully God and fully man, 100% God, 100% man. Hey, if you can put your brain on hold when your teacher brings that lesson, have at it....I can not.
................
My post provoked a reply from Maple Leaf that expressed considerable negative reaction to my position:
{supplied by MapleLeaf in the other thread:}
Well since you seem more interested in exchanging insults than conversation.
Your post is merely the gassy thoughts of a flatulent mind.
I really was NOT out to EXCHANGE insults and regret that I had that effect. Rather, I was out to say something that would try to change the track that the train is running on...."God became a man", is NOT a track you find in scripture.
God's word has always been a manifestation of God's person.
God's
Word became flesh and dwelled among us.
God has been manifested in numerous ways throughout the scriptural record...but in these last days, God has spoken (is manifested) within creation by his Son (
Heb 1:2)
manifest means to RENDER APPARENT.
Rendering something apparent that is not apparent does not equate to BECOMING the something (the vessel) used to render or reveal.