Oneness Questions

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sean

I guess that last post just draws a blank to you that I wrote. You are determined to label me no matter what I show you in the last post. Well we will let the readers decide.

You label people all the time. Labels are just a way of identifying and classifying things.

I don't see the big deal. It's not a big deal. I know lots of Unitarians that are my friends. They call themselves Unitarians. They don't get all buggy over labels

Do you believe the Son is someone other than the Father?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The big questions being raised here, without even being mentioned until now are the following:

1.) Can or did God trans-substantiate (change from one thing into something entirely else and different) His nature (Divine, Eternal Spirit) in order to literally "become" a human being, and still be God?

2.) Is apotheosis (being elevated to Godhood) possible?

How one answers each question will determine their Christology. Anyone who answers differently from the next person will, by default, have a vastly different understanding of the person and nature of Christ.

He didn't morph from one thing into another. He remained God even though taking on a human nature

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

He didn't morph from one thing into another. He remained God even though taking on a human nature

You've never heard or used the phrase "God became a man", using John 1:1 & 14 as the prooftext?

If at any point in God's past, He was not a human at all, but then, in time, became human, i.e. Jesus Christ, then, by default, He had to have trans-substantiated His nature.

Many, many Oneness people believe the above. Maybe you don't, which is fine. Do you think God always had within Himself, but hidden, that aspect of His being and nature which was human, to be revealed as Jesus Christ?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

You've never heard or used the phrase "God became a man", using John 1:1 & 14 as the prooftext?

If at any point in God's past, He was not a human at all, but then, in time, became human, i.e. Jesus Christ, then, by default, He had to have trans-substantiated His nature.

Many, many Oneness people believe the above. Maybe you don't, which is fine. Do you think God always had within Himself, but hidden, that aspect of His being and nature which was human, to be revealed as Jesus Christ?

Yes but not God changed into a man. Nobody that I know that says God became a man means he stopped being God

[votivesoul]

Not stopping being God, but also becoming the human named Jesus of Nazareth. Some word it that God "added" to Himself a human nature (or colloquially said "God took on flesh"). That seems to be the majority Oneness view.

But in order for God to add to, take on, or become human, since He never was such at one point in time, it requires trans-substantiation.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Not stopping being God, but also becoming the human named Jesus of Nazareth. Some word it that God "added" to Himself a human nature (or colloquially said "God took on flesh"). That seems to be the majority Oneness view.

But in order for God to add to, take on, or become human, since He never was such at one point in time, it requires trans-substantiation.

the only way I am familiar with that term is the Catholic view of the Bread being changed from one substance into another and the wine too...

That means it ceased being bread and wine

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

the only way I am familiar with that term is the Catholic view of the Bread being changed from one substance into another and the wine too...

That means it ceased being bread and wine

This then goes toward understanding why some have such a difficulty with God becoming a human. They do not see how God can become a human being while still remaining God at the same time, hence the term transubstantiation.

(Although, in Catholic tradition, the bread and the wine retain certain physical aspects of bread and wine, called "accidents", even though a change in their nature has occurred.)

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

This then goes toward understanding why some have such a difficulty with God becoming a human. They do not see how God can become a human being while still remaining God at the same time, hence the term transubstantiation.

(Although, in Catholic tradition, the bread and the wine retain certain physical aspects of bread and wine, called "accidents", even though a change in their nature has occurred.)

ok......

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You label people all the time. Labels are just a way of identifying and classifying things.

I don't see the big deal. It's not a big deal. I know lots of Unitarians that are my friends. They call themselves Unitarians. They don't get all buggy over labels

Do you believe the Son is someone other than the Father?

The way I see it Prax, when Jesus was on earth, being he was a man, YES

But "after" the resurrection....NO

The unitarians say Jesus is not God, I say He is the only true God......I say Jesus IS the Father(after the resurrection)


I really wish you guys would keep going and "elaborate" on the God became a man subject above. I taught that for many years. I am not saying that it is entirely wrong, I just had problems with some of the "phrases" like(Jesus had a dual nature, God/man, flesh of God etc.) that I taught.(parroted).Who knows, I could have fell out of the bus also. I may need to get back on the bus. However I was just thinking about what I was saying those years. Really its only "minor tweaking" of standard oneness theology. In reality, I just took a HARD look at the HUMANITY of Jesus. He totally had his own thought process along with the Holy Ghost(Father) inside him influencing him to do and say certain things. I see him saying things like "why calleth (me) good, there is one good...God"....I guess I just want answers to "every" thing I see. In my mind, every verse must have a logical explanation.




One thing I know for sure.....our oneness leaders have embraced some serious HERESIES in other doctrines (tithing, etc). They definitely are not "infallible" as they would appear to be as our instructors. The early pioneers of Pentecost or modern theologians must not be viewed as infallible.(everything should be scrutinized) I just think we are "still" in the REFORMATION.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yes they would. They believe that second human person has God in Him.

BTW if you are saying they are One in Divine Spirit (meaning the second person is God too), then you don't really believe the second person was human, but human AND Divine.

That would be Binitarianism or Polytheism depending on how some other factors

They might believe that Jesus had God "in" him. However, I see the "in him" as not being like one sits in a car. But rather "in him" means within His very being. They are "one". On an unexplainable spiritual level they are one (in union). Jesus is therefore a man who was one with God from conception. That means that Jesus is truly a man. However, the man Christ Jesus was also God.

I believe the word "person" to denote a distinct "self-conscious" reality. The "I" that speaks to "thou". Therefore, we see a human person in the man Christ Jesus, especially when He prays to or speaks of the Father. And a divine person in the Father, especially when He speaks to or speaks of the man Christ Jesus (the Son). Although we see two distinct "persons" (self-conscious realities) they share a union in being. They are one.

Examples often help, especially when concepts that are theoretical like this are being discussed. I posted this before, but here is an example of the way I see it:

Sit back and imagine hanging out with Jesus as one of the disciples. You'd be observing a man... one who is clearly a man... yet you'd sense that this man is also... God. And while on most occasions He'd speak as a man who loved His Heavenly Father and faithfully prayed to His Heavenly Father... there would also be times wherein He would speak from the divine prerogative as though He were His Heavenly Father. You might even begin to get goose-bumps when Jesus was beginning to teach and got "the look"... or what you've come to know as "the God look". You'd sense that this wasn't merely a man. He is a man who is also God.

There is a mutual "indwelling". Divinity indwelling humanity, and with that, humanity indwelling divinity. Jesus put it this way...

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)

The very being of God indwells a human being, the man Jesus Christ. There is no getting around it. Those are the very words Jesus used to describe His oneness with the Father. You see, He is Jesus, the Son of God. A man who was one with God from His very conception. The man in which God chose to manifest Himself, and through whom God chose to reveal His very own glory. A man, in whom the Father chose to share His very being and nature with a human being. Jesus was indeed a man. And... so much more.