And In That Day Ye Shall Ask Me Nothing...
 

mfblume left the following post on another forum. I think it is very interesting and wanted to present it here as well.

This post is brought over to AFF with permission from mfblume. Thanks again Brother Blume for sharing your insight.

Begin Quote of Brother Blumes post:
This is an interesting issue.

Jesus said these words:


Then we read:

But then we read this:


Comments?

Most of us believe Oneness here. And I am oneness. But the above clearly states some issues regarding praying to the Son or the Father. Jesus distinctly said in that day ye shall ask me nothing.

Many oneness people dismiss this as though there is no purpose for it in the Bible, but it is in the bible and Jesus, Himself, said it. I think we miss it when we say that Jesus is God so if we pray to the Son or the Father it does not matter. I disagree. The Son still has a role that is apart from the role as Father. And we are to keep those distinctions in mind, though I certainly do not agree they are distinct persons.
End Quote:

Any Thoughts?

Hi D4T,

Thank you for valuing my thoughts. You are very kind.

This issue reminds me of the issue regarding Christ who is STILL operating as High Priest, while seated at the right hand throne of Power. Many believe the Son's distinction from the Father is over now, but that is not the case. Hebrews teaches that we presently have a High Priest after the order of Melchisedek. It is not a past issue. There presently "IS" one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. This is still occurring.

The most oft-quoted verse from the Old Testament that we read in the New is Psalm 110 where we read Christ is seated at the right hand. I think something has been lost in this regard from much of the church. This verse weas preached in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost and is found in 1 Cor 15 and Hebrews 10 and Col 3, to name just a few.

As oneness people, we can dismiss the idea that references to Father and Son are irrelevant, since they are one and person, anyway. But the bible does make these statements, and for a very good reason, whether we think ther eis one or not. And if we dismiss any significance, we will miss something God wants us to understand.

But we are to call on His name and the early church called ON his name

Joh 14:13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
Joh 14:14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.

1Co 1:2 to the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, and called to be saints, with all those in every place who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.

Act 9:14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to imprison all who call on your name!"

Also the following is evidence that to ask "In Jesus name" is synonymous with asking HIM
Joh 16:26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:

Notice that? Why would he need to pray the Father for us if we are praying NOT to Jesus but to the Father?

Another good verse...
Paul had a conversation with Jesus.

One more verse I did not add

Joh 14:6 Jesus replied, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Joh 14:7 If you have known me, you will know my Father too. And from now on you do know him and have seen him."
Joh 14:8 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be content."

Now, some of you are probably focusing in on the part about seeing him...but notice that Jesus said NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT through Jesus.

Jesus is our mediator. He is our intercessor and right now Jesus is...if you will, our God by proxy sitting on God's throne having ALL power in heaven and earth AND...AND...Jesus is our great high priest.
Edit/Delete Message

Right. But Jesus said we do not pray to Him and spoke as the Son. Of course, we know the name is common to Father, Son and Spirit. So we do not pray to the Son.

Asking the Father is not asking the Son, though. And that is the point. The same principle applies when we know the Father did not die for our sins, but the Son died.

Correct. But as High Priest, he is glorified man. The mediator is not the Father, but the Son. The MAN Christ Jesus is the mediator.

Well when Jesus said "in that say you shall ask me nothing" I think he was meaning something different than saying "after this you will never talk to me again" or "pray to me again", for Jesus also said "uptill now you have not asked me anything, ask and you shall receive" or something to that affect. I kinda think he was more in a way of warning them.

I may be wrong, but also we have to understand what he means by "that day"...is this AFTER New Jerusalem is come down and we shall all dwell in that city where it is said "God himself shall dwell with his people"

Brother if you start back at chapter 14 you will notice that Jesus speaks in a certain way where first he says the Father sends the Spirit, the it's the Son that sends the Spirit. Then it's praying to the Father, then it's Praying to the Son. Then it's the Holy Spirit will come then it's "WE" will come. Jesus refers to the Spirit already being WITH them and that they already KNEW Him and then He would be IN them. Was he not referring to Himself?

Robert Sabin did an excellent article on this, though his conclusions on the interpretation of the verse that was the point of his article might not be something we all agree on, he did note how Jesus used the same language when referring to Himself, the Spirit and the Father...

An example
Joh 15:15 I no longer call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his lord does. But I called you friends, because all things which I heard from My Father I made known to you.

Joh 16:13 But when that One comes, the Spirit of Truth, He will guide you into all Truth, for He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will announce the coming things to you.

The Key is this

Joh 16:23 In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.
Joh 16:24 Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.
Joh 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.
Joh 16:26 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;
Joh 16:27 for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
Joh 16:28 I came from the Father and have come into the world, and now I am leaving the world and going to the Father."

See, I see these verses as a prophetic/allegorical way of saying Father and Son are truly One in person and Spirit. Trinitarians see it as just the opposite. Also as I pointed out early, "my name" is often a reference to the Person. God said in the OT that He would put His name there (Temple)
Names, in Acts 1 (number of names) was a way of speaking about persons. Perhaps because the name represented the person. When they called on the name of Jesus, where they not calling on His person?


Im not saying the Father is the Son. But in praying To the Son you are praying to the Father. Remember Jacobs ladder? Angels ascending and descending on the ladder? Jesus is the ladder that extends from man to heaven. The real essential thing is that we are praying in that name to God Himself. God is our Father and God is our redeemer. We are not praying to a body or a nature, but via His Spirit God is in us and through us and hears us and answers us

I just thought that verse meant that the disciples would no longer go to Jesus as a man with their needs but would go to Him as their Heavenly Father. Sort of like what Paul meant that we may have known Jesus in the flesh in the past but now our relationship to Him is with a spiritual being (2 Cor 5:16).

Bro. Blume, I'm not disagreeing with you but some of the language you used would be called "trinity" by some OP's who would have a problem quoting John 3:16 or Acts 10:38.

Maybe, look again from chapter 14 on how the topic moves from Him to Father to Spirit etc etc...Spirit does not come till he goes away...I will send him to you....I will come to you?

I disagree somewhat, but please bear with me, as I think you have some awesome points, and this entire conversation has just opened something up to my spirit. I hope I can explain it well enough. Please consider it open-mindedly.

Joh 14:20 KJV At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

When Jesus spoke of a time when Jesus would be in us and us in Him, this was speaking about the church age, as I see it. Jesus is presently in us and we in Him. We do not have to await post resurrection time for us to say we are in Christ.

So, John 14:1-3 is speaking about Christ going to the cross and then to the Father in making and providing atonement for our souls in order "to prepare a place for us" that WHERE HE SAID HE WAS they might be with Him. He was standing right there with them when He said this. So he was not speaking about a physical location. He was the only one who was indwelt by the Father at that time. And He was the only one who could directly speak to the Father.

Watch the implication that they could not beforehand speak directly to the Father:

He not only did miracles, but HE PRAYED DIRECTLY TO THE FATHER.

Continue...

This is the same Greek word for ABODE as MANSIONS in verse 2. It speaks not of physical indwelling, because we know ONLY ONE SPIRIT indwells us, not two or three. David Bernard had it right, I think, when he said it speaks of union in purpose and mind. But it is a bit more than that, too. It is the idea that we are in union with the Father through the work of the Son on the Cross so that we can directly pray to the Father.

Continues in chapter 16

The above clearly shows that the Son had to pray for us before the cross. But we can go directly to the Father instead of through the Son, implying the Son had to pray to the Father for us. But when atonement is made, the Father Himself loves us. The only way to understand this is to see that verse 27 is the reason for the statements in verses 23 and 26. The reason we will not pray to the Son, and the reason we will pray in the name of Jesus, and the reason He said He is NOT PRAYING FOR US, is because the Father himself loves us. And the Father loves us because we have believed in the work of the Son in salvation. We are ONE with the Son and therefore are now LOVED OF THE FATHER AS WELL.

That little statement.... "I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you" explains it all. That explains why we do not ask the Son. They asked the Son beforehand since that was the only way they could get a prayer through to the Father -- the Son alone could go directly to the Father. And when Jesus said He would prepare a place for us that WHERE HE IS WE MAY BE ALSO, we will be able to PRAY IN JESUS' NAME since we will be IN THE POSITION OF THE SON -- where He is. That is what it means to do something IN ONE'S NAME. We stand in that one's position. And since He alone can go to the Father, and we are IN HIM AND HE IN US, then WE can go to the Father IN HIS NAME!!

This is entirely speaking of the church age now. He was going to the cross and to the Father in order for the Spirit to come to us, and put us in Christ - IN THE PLACE WHERE HE WAS!

Notice He did not say we would be WHERE HE WOULD BE, as though His place was FUTURE TENSE from the perspective of the moment He spoke it. He spoke in PRESENT TENSE and said "THAT WHERE I AM". This proves he is not speaking about a physical city in our future as that place. It was a POSITION He held when He said that, which would become OUR POSITION as well. The position of ability to go directly to the Father.

It is all a picture of atonement, when He as High Priest would make atonement for us immediately after His resurrection when he ascended to the Father. That is the reason the chapter mentions about His going to the Father so we could have the Spirit. If this is shooting ahead to a time when the Holy City is supposed to come to earth, then we see a jumbling of two thoughts of (1) Him going to the Father -- which already occurred - with (2) something future which has not yet occurred.

Needless to say, I personally believe this entire concept of a place for us being actual heavenly mansions is way offcourse compared to the intended understanding. This may ruin a lot of funeral sermons, but it has really nothing to do with our "afterlife". It is the place of being in the position as Christ since we can PRAY IN HIS NAME -- pray in His Proxy position.

Jesus even said expressly that the Father dwelt in Him right after He spoke of the "Father's house."

continued...

Yes, and that is why the chapter is about the church age. But He speaks as per His person. His person is the same in all three roles. But when He speaks of His roles, He is speaking of distinctively different things.

His Person, yes. But He is not speaking of His varying manifestations which trinitarians confuse for "persons".

And that is because they are one Person. But, still, never is Sonship ever made synonymous with Fatherhood.

This proves the PERSON is the same in Father and Son, but the Father role is distinct from that of the Son.

As I see it, He plainly said above that we pray directly to the Father, and not to Him, because speaking to the Son was accomplished because we were not yet atoned for and could not call upon the Father directly. But after the atonement, which is the subject of the "place" where Jesus said He was going -- to the Father to make reconciliation and atonement -- we could directly speak to the Father in Jesus' name.

It gives us the understanding that before atonement and calvary the believers spoke to the Son so that the Son might speak to the Father for them. And the reason we do not ask the Son anything now in the church age is because we can go directly to the Father ourselves, since we're in the position of the Son - IN HIS NAME. This implies the reason they formerly had need of speaking to the Son was due to their inability to go directly to the Father.

This is also why Jesus specifically told Mary on the day He resurrected that He was going to His Father and "HER FATHER". That was an unusual point of emphasis.

He was speaking of something entirely NEW! THEY were now in on it since the cross! They would be born again since the cross.

I wholeheartedly agree. But it does not remove the fact that the roles of Father and Son are not the be confused as one and the same. As I said, the Mediator is not the Father.

Exactly!!!! But not the Son, as such. When we do not speak to the Son, but to the Father "IN JESUS' NAME", it does not mean we are speaking to the Son.

If you are speaking of praying to the Person, then yes. But otherwise, no. But Jesus distinctly said we would not pray to Him, and He was speaking as SON when He said that. Otherwise it makes no sense.

Yes. But more specifically it is JESUS AS SON.

I indeed think it is that, plus much more! Consider that the chapter speaks of praying directly to the Father and not having to go to the Son in order to indirectly get to the Father. And it also speaks of preparing a place for us so that we can be where Jesus is and pray to the Father ourselves.

Summary: Here is what I think the chapters 14 and 16 are saying: We are praying to the Father in the name of Jesus because that name specifically points to SALVATION. It's even what the name JESUS means! And we are praying to the Father directly because of what salvation occurred through the work of the cross. And that is exactly what I am claiming Jesus meant when He said He was going to prepare a place for us so that we could be where He is and thereby pray directly to the Father. Nobody was in the place to pray directly to the Father before the cross, because all had to go to the Son. But when we are where He is, then we can pray to the Father directly, ourselves!

Consider how Jesus said He would not pray to the Father for them, in explanation of why they would not ask Him anything. And then He said they would speak to the Father themselves. And consider that this is excatly what it means to pray in JESUS' NAME. It means IN HIS POSITION.

When a policeman knocks on your door and tells you to open up in the name of the law, he is telling you that he stands in the position AS THE ENTIRE LAW SYSTEM, and not one man who chose to be a cop one day. We are intended to regard him as the entire law system.

Being baptized into Christ causes us to be baptized into HIS PERSONAL DEATH, so that we can say we are dead indeed unto sin. Same principle. As His death stands as my death when I am baptized into it in HIS NAME, my position before the Father is as THE SON OF GOD, since I am there in His name. This does not detract from the fact the name Jesus is common to Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but in this case it is not implying that truth. It is implying we are standing as though the Son Himself is speaking to the Father, which alone is allowed. Only the Son can go to the Father. But we are in His name. So we can, too, and the picture is that the Son still alone can go to Him.

Yes, many OP's do not properly understand oneness, and think that reading about the Son speaking to the Father is something we should cast out of our minds, and make themselves convinced that these are statements that are not in the bible, although the bible uses those terms! lol.

I just want to repeat I NEVER once suggested Father and Son were the same thing or same role.

No, I know you did not. I never said you did. But I am saying that in the instances of John 14 and John 16, I do not think it is speaking of the Person being synonymous in reference to the Name. I think it is speaking of the role of the Son being considered our "position". In those chapters, IN THE NAME means in the position as the Son.

I believe Jesus was trying to make it clear to the disciples, that because of His advocacy, we now have access to God. Personal relationship, intimacy, "...because the the Father also loves us..." thru His Name and because of His work of Calvary. "Father, I come to you in Jesus Name......" My father taught his children and those he pastored this very thing.

Well also consider that the context here is future
Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Note that in the verses we are discussing Jesus says he will show them of the Father plainly
Joh 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Note this is exactly what Jesus said of the Holy Spirit
Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
Joh 14:12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. The verses in question, we are discussing really starts in this chapter
Joh 14:13 Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. Notice ask in my name, I WILL do it so that the Father is glorified...how does the Father get the glory if it's in the Son's name and the Son is doing the answering to prayer? Well other translations render the next verse as
Joh 14:14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.
Joh 14:14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. (see above, remember this is all the same discourse and the topic here is future tense)
Joh 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, This is future still, but notice Jesus here is saying he WILL ask the Father, but later on Jesus is saying he won't pray the Father
Joh 14:17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.
Joh 14:18 "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
Joh 14:19 Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live.
Joh 14:20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

Father and Son are the same hypostatically, praying to Jesus then or in Jesus name is to pray TO that one person. Praying TO Him is in essence a prayer to both Father and Son. A prayer to the Father is in essence also a prayer to the Son, there is an existential difference and an difference with the Human nature, but hypostatically they are the same.

Still I might be wrong, but the way Jesus speaks here is enigmatic as proven by his saying he had been speaking in proverbs up until now

EXACTLY!! All due to the cross that made the entire differences noted in these chapters.

Amen, Brother.

Correct. In the church age, though, beginning in Acts. I think.

The Father is glorified because the Son just said he could nothing without the Father in Him doing it.

Joh 14:10 KJV 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.

Joh 5:19 KJV Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Joh 8:28 KJV Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

Correct. But what we can only conclude is that 14:14 is speaking in regards to PERSON and 16:23 is in regards to offices and not person.

I cannot agree there, since 16:23 does exist in context of speaking of OUR position as Christ in His name.

True. But I think we might miss the thought of OUR proxy position in Christ.

I think Romans, for instance, explains it all. Proxy position in Christ's name. Really, I've come to learn the work of the cross is involved in more of these conversations than we have thought. Everything focuses on the cross. I strongly think that was the case with John 14:1-3 and not a future time after the resurection or about the afterlife.

Parables are meant to be enigmatic for unbelievers, true. But ironically they enhance a truth to the believer. So I think we need to focus on what is in many cases the commentaries of the Gospels, namely the epistles.

Anyway, thanks for your good thoughts. :)

You're welcome :-)

Something else, more important than what direction our prayers take. More important than direction is relationship. Notice in the "Lords Prayer" Jesus did not say "the Father", even though Iron_Bladder insists 'God the Father" is the only way the Father can be called Father as per his argument on Isaiah 9:6. He said OUR Father. Because Father, unlike our little friend here, is NOT a meaningless name. It's an adjective that describes His relationship to us. I don't have to say "Father" over and over to be praying to the Father as much so as what I need to do is realize that He really wants to be my Father in a father-son relationship

How can that be when Christ mediates between us and the Father? Just as the Holy Spirit also mediates between us and the Father at Romans 8:26, how would you explain these problems Praxeas?

I agree Christ mediates between us and God. I have no problem with that. It's not a problem. There is an difference between Father and Son that on a pschological level makes them function as two different persons due to the human nature, but not hypostatically.

Amen and amen. If we have that relationship, we do not have to expressly say, "Father". If we say JESUS, knowing the person of Jesus is the Father, then it is the same as saying "Father". INTENTION of statement is the issue.

MF Blume, would you please clarify, when you emphasis the Son and not the Father in the above quote are you saying that the Son is the Man-flesh? Please will you clarify this for me, what is the official Oneness position, almost all Oneness folk whom I’ve ever met will simply say that Father is the deity and Son is the flesh of Jesus. If the Son is the flesh and deity combined, then because God is one person in Oneness, that would make Jesus as Son the mediator with himself Jesus as Father; a position which is difficult to maintain if God is only one person. Please would you clarify thanks.

Actually, the language progresses far beyond this, in that not only are we told that the Holy Spirit will come to us but that both the Father and the Son will also indwell us; ‘We will come to him and make our abode with him.’ (John 14:23). The use of the first person plural ‘we will’ tells us that both the Father and also the Son together indwell us. My only explanation is that being one Spirit, F-S-HS can’t be separated (perichoresis) and so when one person indwells us, all three must indwell us. I fell that you should comment on John 14:23 and the plural verb used here. How can ‘we will’ be harmonised with a One person God?

MF Blume, I certainly agree with you that the mediator is not the Father, however, how can a mere force or power like say the Jehovah’s Witnesses concept of the Holy Spirit as some impersonal power like electricity be God or be the mediator? I don’t know your opinion about this statement, so please do reply and let me know how you interpret it. As a Christian I don’t worship some impersonal force and neither do I have some power like the force of the Star Wars movies as my mediator. Now I’m not saying that your claiming this. But if the Son is not the Father as I think that you’ve clearly stated this in your post, and I’d certainly agree with you by the way, then you need to ask, does a personal being that is a ‘he’ mediate with another personal being ‘another he,’ or does an ‘it’ mediate with either another ‘it,’ or does a ‘he’ mediate with an ‘it,’ or does a 'he' act as both the mediator and the one to whom mediation is given?

You need to understand that the Trinitarian term ‘three persons’ doesn’t mean that God is three separate people or three Gods or three spirits. It just means that the one God who is one Spirit exists as three ‘he’s’ and not as three impersonal ‘its.’ You see it’s not possible for Christ our mediator to be an impersonal ‘it’ just like the force of the Star Wars movies or the JWs definition of the Holy Spirit, for an impersonal ‘it’ cannot properly mediate with a ‘he.’ Only a person a ‘he’ or a ‘she’ can mediate.

As I see it you have an urgent need to define who or what the mediator is and who or what the one he mediates to is. If someone were to say that an ‘it’ (Son) mediates to a ‘he’ (Father), then that would imply that the Son is impersonal and thus can’t be Yahweh God who is a ‘he’ and not an ‘it.’ However if a ‘he’ (Son) mediates with another ‘he’ (Father) then you’d have two ‘he’s’ as Yahweh God, a position known as the Trinity when we then also consider the Holy Spirit. Or if a person were to say that a ‘he’ mediates with himself the very same ‘he’ then they’d have a problem for how can one person mediate between himself and somebody else? This latter position is logically inconsistent. Anyway thanks for listening to my point of view MF Blume.

If they are the same one person as you claim, then how is the Son the way ‘TO’ the Father as John 14:6 states? Can a person be the mediator to himself and if so, which you obviously must be claiming, then how does the one person of God do this? In the very next verse; John 14:7 which you also omitted from your long passage, we discover the word also; ‘If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.’ Here my question is, how does this verse fit into your claim that God is only one person? So how does this word ‘also’ at John 14:7 imply a uni-personal God who is also with himself or with another person? Then at John 14:9 you fail to explain the use of the word; ‘horao’ (seen). If Jesus were physical manifestation of the Father as you’ve claimed, then he would have used the word ‘blepo’ instead. Finally, at John 14:23 the Father and the Son are said to both indwell those who are saved (obviously together with the Holy Spirit), for in Trinitarian theology, perichoresis claims that where one person is the other two also are. Please explain the use of the first person plural verb here; WE WILL come to him and make OUR abode with him.’ So please tell me Praxeas, how does the plural verb fit into your one person deity claim, thank you.

Firstly, re John 14:10 MF are you aware that Trinitarianism does teach that the Father and the Son mutually indwell the other, it’s known as the doctrine of perichoresis. Secondly, this verse doesn’t just state that the Father indwells the Son, it also teaches that the Son indwells the Father, so how do Oneness Pentecostals explain that? How can the Son indwell the Father in your Theology MF? Thirdly, re John 5:19, as God is one being, one spirit and one God, he has a single source of power which is from the Father, through the Son and then onto the Holy Spirit, the Son can no more act independently of the Father than the Father can of him. So John 5:19 actually ascribes every divine attribute to the Son, as the Father is creator, eternal, omnipresent and omnipotent, these attributes are also ascribed to the Son as well to the Father at John 5:19. How would you explain that? If the Son can do everything that the Father can do, can’t you see that the Son must be Yahweh himself and not some mere impersonal manifestation of either Yahweh or alternatively of Yahweh’s flesh or of a man whom God indwelt, or of any such other explanation which undeifies the Son.

MF I’d agree with some of your sentiments, but not all, however, Oneness theology has two extremes one of which you cannot possibly hope to avoid if you're pepaired to think about it carefully. For either it claims that the flesh that is the Son or humanity in the most popular layman’s Oneness terms died upon the cross, offering up a sacrifice to the Father; ‘How much more shall the blood of CHRIST, who through the ETERNAL SPIRIT offered himself to GOD’ (Hebrews 9:14). Which would mean that the Son is really something far less that Yahweh God, namely Yahweh’s flesh or God’s human body in this, the most popular and yet the most unscholarly of the various Oneness position.

Or alternatively, if the Oneness person insists that the Son is Yahweh but that the Father also is Yahweh as well, and yet God is only ever one person, then when the Son was made flesh the whole Godhead of this one person, including the manifestation of Yahweh as the Father also became flesh with himself (Son). “For He ((Father)) hath made Him ((Son)), who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God ((Father)) in him ((Son)).” (2nd Corinthians 5:21). So a Son who was made sin for us, was then offered up as the sin offering to the same person of God namely to God the Father, who also became sin, for being one person in Oneness theology, you can’t now separate the Father from sin, when he made (himself as the Son) the sin offering. Thus being made sin the Father also, not being sinless could not accept the Son’s sacrifice which has to be that of a sinless Son who is still Yahweh, offering up a sin offering to a sinless Father who also is Yahweh but is not the Son. This second more scholarly Oneness position fails at this point, by making the Father become sin.

You see you have to reconcile a number of verses in whichever theology you promote. The Son died and gave himself for my sins; “Son of God loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20). No verse anywhere in Scripture even hints that the Father died on the cross for me. Yet at the point of atonement on the cross, the Son had been forsaken by the Father; ‘My God My God why hast thou forsaken me’ (Mark 15:34). So if God is one person and yet God the Father is not the Son but the Father forsook the Son on the cross, then how do you explain the Son’s deity on the cross? Anyone can give a flippant answer, however, sadly, few Oneness Pentecostals have even attempted to reconcile Mark 15:34, 2nd Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 9:14 and Galatians 2:20 with their view of the atonement.

MF I do beg you to please think carefully over my comments, a lot of thought and re-writing hasd gone into this post, which was written at home and saved to my memory stick as I use library PC not having the interent at home myself. MF I've put more effort into thsi post that any other which I've written for years, I'd greatly appreciate your comments and thoughs. Hey I may be wrong, I was wrong last month about my post on Malachi 3:6, which I've admitted and have now corrected. But if this post is wrong then Please do correct me, I'm open to correction from the Bible.

wrong thread. Yes I do and have claimed they are the same person, always. Yet they are NOT the same mode or form OF that same person and because of the human nature the Son is psychologically someone other than the Father, not hypostatically

There is no force or impersonal power who is mediator. The SON is mediator. The JW's are wrong.

Christ as mediator is a MAN -- human being. ANTHROPOS. There is one mediator between THEOS and ANTHROPOS, the ANTHROPOS Jesus Christ. The HUMAN BEING aspect of Christ's person is the mediator. That is far beyond a mere force or impersonal power.

I know trinitarians disagree with the thought of a force or power as mediator.

I know that. But it's just that you make the Son "HE" eternal, when that cannot be so since Sonship requires a mother.

Son is man-flesh as well as deity. He is never referred to as Deity, though, without the thought of God incarnated, unlike the Father.

That is not the official Oneness statement. The statement that I consider to be official is as follows:

"The doctrine of Oneness can be stated in two affirmations:

1. God is absolutely one with no distinction of persons (Deut. 6:4; Gal. 3:20).

2. Jesus Christ is all the fullness of the Godhead incarnate (John 20:28; Colossians 2:9).

"All the names and titles of the Deity, such as God, Jehovah, Lord, Father, Word, and Holy Spirit, refer to one and the same being. These various names and titles simply denote manifestations, roles, relationships to humanity, modes of activity, or aspects of God's self-revelation.

"All these designations of the Deity apply to Jesus, and all aspects of the divine personality are manifested in Him. Jesus is God, or Jehovah, incarnate (Isa. 9:6; 40:9: John 8:58; 20:28; II Cor. 5:19; Col. 2:9; I Timothy 3:16; Titus 2:13).

"Jesus is the Father incarnate (Isaiah 9:6; 63:16; John 10:30; 14:9-11; Rev. 21:6-7). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit that was incarnated in Jesus and is Jesus in Spirit form (John 14:16-18; Romans 8:9-11; Philippians 1:19; Col. 1:27).

"The Oneness doctrine recognizes that the Bible reveals God as the Father, in the Son, and as the Holy Spirit. The One God is the Father of all creation, Father of the only begotten Son, and Father of born- again believers. (See Deut. 32:6; Malachi 2:10; Galatians 4:6; Hebrews 1:5; 12:9).

"The title of Son refers to God's incarnation. The man Christ was literally conceived by the Spirit of God and was therefore the Son of God (Matthew 1:18-20; Luke 1:35). The title of Son sometimes focuses solely on the humanity of Christ, as in 'the death of His Son' (Romans 5:10). Sometimes it encompasses both His deity and humanity, as in 'Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven' (Matthew 26:64). It is never used apart from God's incarnation, however; it never refers to deity alone.

"The terms 'God the Son' and 'eternal Son' are nonbiblical; the Bible instead speaks of the 'Son of God' and the 'only begotten Son'. The Son is not eternally begotten by some incomprehensible, ongoing process; rather, the Son was begotten by the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary. The Son had a beginning, namely, at the incarnation (Luke 1:35; Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 1:5-6).

"There is a real distinction between God and Son - not a distinction of two divine persons, but a distinction between the eternal Spirit of God and the authentic human being in whom God was fully incarnate. While Jesus was both God and man at the same time, sometimes He spoke or acted from the human viewpoint and sometimes from the divine viewpoint. As Father, He sometimes spoke from His divine self-awareness; as Son, he sometimes spoke from His human self-awareness. As a man, He prayed to, related to, and submitted to God as all humans should do. At the same time, God dwelt in and revealed Himself in that man with His undiminished character, nature, power and authority.

"In John 1, the Word is God's self-revelation, self-expression, or self-disclosure. Before the Incarnation, the Word was the thought, plan, reason, or mind of God. In the beginning, the Word was with God, not as a distinct Person but as God Himself -- pertaining to God as much as a man and his word. 'The Word was God Himself' (John 1:1, Amplified Bible). In the fullness of time God put flesh on the Word; He revealed Himself in flesh. In the person of Jesus Christ, 'the Word was made flesh' (John 1:14). 'God was manifest in the flesh' (I Timothy 3:16). The eternal Word was revealed in the begotten Son.

"The title of Holy Spirit refers to God in spiritual essence and activity. It describes the fundamental character of God's nature, for holiness forms the basis of His moral attributes while spirituality forms the basis of His nonmoral attributes. The Title is particularly used of works that God can do because He is a Spirit, such as anointing, regenerating, indwelling, and sanctifying humanity. (See Genesis 1:1-2; Acts 1:5-8).

"The three roles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are necessary to God's plan of redemption for fallen humanity. In order to save us, God provided a sinless Man who could die in our place - the Son. In begetting the Son and in relating to humanity, God is the Father. And in working in our lives to empower and transform us, God is the Holy Spirit.

"In sum, the titles of Father, Son and Holy Spirit describe God's multiple roles and works, but they do not reflect an essential threeness in God's nature. FATHER refers to God in family relationship to humanity; SON refers to God in flesh; and SPIRIT refers to God in activity. For example, one man can have three significant relationships or functions -such as administrator, teacher, and counsellor - and yet be one person in every sense. God is not defined by or limited to an essential threeness.

"A corollary of the Oneness doctrine is that the name of Jesus, which means Jehovah-Saviour, is the supreme name by which God has revealed Himself to humanity and the redemptive name in the New Testament. (See Matthew 1:21; Luke 24:47; Acts 4:12; 10:43; Philippians 2:9-11; Colossians 3:17.) Consequently, the apostles always baptized by invoking the name of Jesus, and the church should do the same today. (See Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:3-5; 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; I Corinthians 1:13; 6:11). Since Jesus is all the fullness of God incarnate, the name (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as described by Matthew 28:19 is Jesus. (See Matthew 1:21; Luke 24:47; John 5:43; 14:26).'

In person, YES. And that only sounds strange to us becuase HUMAN PERSONS cannot do that. And trinitarianism confuses God's person and HIs abilities with a mere human being's person and limits.

The humanity was so human that it actually had to pray to Deity.

It is only difficult if you throw humanity's limitations of person upon God.

I know about this. However, Jesus was saying the Father was physically located in the Son. And this is true because Jesus said we would likewise physically have God's Spirit indwelling us, as HIs explanation for how we would do the same things He did because the Father indwelt Him.

When He spoke of the Son indwelling the Father, it is in unity of purpose and will.

The Son can act so because He has the nature of a human being. And human beings MUST possess free will or else they are not true human beings. Unless you are baptist and do not accept free will.

There you go putting false words in my mouth again. Praxeas is right, IB. You need to stop doing that. It is not honest and ethical.

The SON IS YAHWEH, Himself. Pleasee NEVER AGAIN imply we do not believe that. We believe that more than you do because we believe they are ONE PERSON and not two or three.

The flesh is not the Son, period. Deity incarnate, and flesh, is the Son.

The Son is very God, Himself, in person. It gets no simpler than that.

ONLY THE PERSON. You do not really understand oneness for you to speak this way. You are too ingrained with the trinitarian box to understand what we are saying, since you are really misrepresenting us. Please try harder.

The PERSON is YAHWEH. He manifested as Father and Son and Holy Ghost. You are not extrapolating back far enough in your reasoning to the PERSON behind the manifestations.

Yes we can separate the picture, because THE PERSON only enacted Himself as Father and Son, and the Sonship involved humanity that alone can HAVE sin. The sin was limited ot the humanity of hte Son of God and not His deity. It's really so simple, that you are tripping over an obvious thought, by over-complicating it.

I never heard of such a view of oneness. It is way offkey, IB. Believe me.

Exactly. The Father did not die because FATHER is a manifestation of God that does not possess human nature as does the manifestation of Son. the person was both, though. So the PERSON experienced death, but not the Father. You cannot see the distinction between the manifestation and His person.

The Father is still a manifestation of God's person, so the PERSON remained while the specific manifestation of Father did not. It is very simple. You are really overcomplicating it.

I think you should be able to see how your representation of oneness is faulty now.

Thanks!