Jesus....Not God?

[jfrog]

By the way I wasn't questioning that you were oneness, I was just curious about what I asked and I think I didn't really get the question across I was wanting to ask the first time.

[shazeep]

i'm sure it isn't meant this way; but it comes across like a contest or something--"Oneness or Threeness: who's gonna win?"
i have pointedly asked both camps--like prolly 20 times now, on this forum or others--what it is that might be edifying...anyone, about either position; and you know what the response has been, every, single time, without fail?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Let me ask you this way: how do you know the father and Jesus are the same doer of actions?

I understand they can be. I understand its possible for them to be. How do you know they actually are the same person, or doer of actions?

Im just informing you of what Oneness is and is not. Do I really need to rehash all that again?

Let's start with the OT that teaches God is one HE.

The Son is that same God, so the Son is that same HE. Really..haven't we done this before?

[Sean]

Guys, if I may butt in just this once. I would like to recommend for anyone here to download the SFT 1 (teachers training manual). Then find the single page on the manual that says.."who was Jesus Christ". It is very easy to understand, even to help you or I explain the Godhead. I have slightly tweaked it a little, but it is an awesome explanation. I would post it for you, but it wont let me copy it.

I will just bow out for you guys to continue..thanks

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Im just informing you of what Oneness is and is not. Do I really need to rehash all that again?

Let's start with the OT that teaches God is one HE.

The Son is that same God, so the Son is that same HE. Really..haven't we done this before?

Yes we have which is why I'm trying to tread lightly. You say God is one HE. I am with you so far. You say the Son is that same God and so is the same HE. I'm still with you so far.

Except there's verses like John 5:26:

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

Now, hear me out. I'm not saying your oneness doctrine cannot explain this verse. I'm not going to bring that up because we've already discussed that to many times. I get it I really do. Your oneness doctrine works.

My contention this time isn't whether it works. My contention is whether your oneness explanation is the only viable explanation for the relationships between Jesus, the Father and God. I think there is more than one solution for the problem at hand.

That is why I ask how you were certain there was only 1 doer of actions? I don't think there is any way you can be certain and to prove that I want to submit an alternate theory.

Instead of starting with the foundation that God is one person and interpreting all other events from that perspective I'm going to start with a different foundation.

My foundation is going to be that in John 5:26 and all throughout the new testament Jesus and the Father are distunguished from each other and yet both are shown to be God. I'm going to choose to call them manifestations for my new doctrine. So Jesus and the Father are two different manifestations that are each God. However we read in the old testament that there is only one God. OPPS! It almost sounds like we have two gods since we have two manifestations that are each God. So the next step in my doctrine is to explain that God is a single person and manifests himself in different manifestations (sometimes even at the same time) and that's how both Jesus and the Father are both God and appear and interact with each other.

I think this sounds pretty parallel to your doctrine so far. It's just my starting point and terms are a little different but the meaning between our two explanation is basically the same. Wouldn't you agree?

Now with this established I want to make a small change in terminology. Instead of saying God is a person, I'm instead going to refer to God as a being and let everything else be the same. I have a being that manifests himself in different manifestations. I think you'll agree that this change isn't really a problem as long as I change my definition of being to be similiar to what my definition of person previously meant. If I make that change then everything is still essentially the same, I'm just using different terms to explain the same concept.

Now I want to make one more minor change. Instead of calling Jesus and the Father manifestations, I am going to change my term to person. Jesus and the Father are both persons. As long as my new term persons means something similiar to what I previously meant by manifestation then I've still not really changed anything.

Now I have a doctrine that is essentially the same as Prax's except I use slightly different terminology (I just tie different meanings to my terms than Prax does). Why would I rather use person for Jesus and the Father instead of being? The biggest reason is because Jesus and the Father have personal relationships with each other and so it only seems fair in my mind to denote them as different or distinct persons.

And there is my case that Prax's oneness view and the trinity both carry the same meaning.

[elder_brother]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I would assert that ALL real Oneness assert Father, Son and Spirit are distinct. The issue between Trinity and Oneness is HOW.

Oneness says they are distinct manifestations or modes

Trinity says Distinct Persons

So it seems that there is mutual agreement that Father, Son & Holy Spirit are absolutely one in there Divine Nature (Oneness would also contend in Person). It appears that we would also both (Oneness & Trinity) affirm that God is Triune in regards to these three distinctions. So my question: Within the three distinctions, can Oneness assert that the Father is NOT the Son is NOT the Holy Spirit?

Also, thanks for sharing the difference between the Oneness view of manifestations or modes & The Trinitarians view of persons. Is the Oneness view identical to Modalistic Monarchianism? If not, what are the differences? I am probably off topic here, so I can start a new thread if you would prefer. Thanks for sharing.

[Ev. Duane Williams]

Just seeing if you guys were noticing this doctrine popping up among Apostolic churches. I know, Arianism and Unitarianism has been around for centuries. However, my concern is it seems like it's starting to take root in the Apostolic church. There are also those who claim that the Name of Jesus is a perversion and that the savior went around being called "Yahwah", or "Yahweh", or some variation of YHWH.

What I have gathered from discussions with both the "Jesus is not Godders" and the "Sacred Namers" is that although there is quite a bit of diversity of belief among them, they invariably have one thing in common:

THEY ALL STARTED AS ONENESS APOSTOLICS. Shouldn't this be an area of concern for the leadership of the UPCI, ALJC, PAW, etc.?

P.S. .....and they're all big on "standards" too. Apparently Jesus' Name and Divinity can be questioned, but sleeve length is set in stone.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Ev. Duane Williams

Just seeing if you guys were noticing this doctrine popping up among Apostolic churches. I know, Arianism and Unitarianism has been around for centuries. However, my concern is it seems like it's starting to take root in the Apostolic church. There are also those who claim that the Name of Jesus is a perversion and that the savior went around being called "Yahwah", or "Yahweh", or some variation of YHWH.

What I have gathered from discussions with both the "Jesus is not Godders" and the "Sacred Namers" is that although there is quite a bit of diversity of belief among them, they invariably have one thing in common:

THEY ALL STARTED AS ONENESS APOSTOLICS. Shouldn't this be an area of concern for the leadership of the UPCI, ALJC, PAW, etc.?

P.S. .....and they're all big on "standards" too. Apparently Jesus' Name and Divinity can be questioned, but sleeve length is set in stone.

Basically, what is happening, is that these people are grasping at a new way of teaching a law that is not JESUS. These pastors want to insert themselves between the saint, and Jesus, and call themselves the one who sets the standards, laws, and doctrines, to build THEIR kingdom. It is just another tactic being used (with the method being tweaked a bit), with the same underlying principle that has been used for centuries to control people, and build kingdoms, starting with the RCC.

Have you found an apostolic church that teaches that JESUS is the law? He is the law that should govern our life... not the pastor, or the pastor's teaching! Read Romans 8:1-4. Jesus is to be the LAW of the spirit in each individual life.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Ev. Duane Williams

Just seeing if you guys were noticing this doctrine popping up among Apostolic churches. I know, Arianism and Unitarianism has been around for centuries. However, my concern is it seems like it's starting to take root in the Apostolic church. There are also those who claim that the Name of Jesus is a perversion and that the savior went around being called "Yahwah", or "Yahweh", or some variation of YHWH.

What I have gathered from discussions with both the "Jesus is not Godders" and the "Sacred Namers" is that although there is quite a bit of diversity of belief among them, they invariably have one thing in common:

THEY ALL STARTED AS ONENESS APOSTOLICS. Shouldn't this be an area of concern for the leadership of the UPCI, ALJC, PAW, etc.?

P.S. .....and they're all big on "standards" too. Apparently Jesus' Name and Divinity can be questioned, but sleeve length is set in stone.

Well until you had brought it up I didn't think much of the issue but I think you are right. There's at least 2 on this forum who believe similarly to what you have described.

[shazeep]

"Apparently Jesus' Name and Divinity can be questioned, but sleeve length is set in stone."