Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Father?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You're saying that the same "self" (person) that prayed to the Father is the same "self" (person) as the Father. That means He'd speak with a singular sense of "self". "Hello, me. I'd like to ask me to glorify me with my own self." "I and me are one." lol

It doesn't work that way. If a "mode" (as you call it) has a distinct sense of self, that "mode" has a distinct "personhood" and is therefore a distinct "person" with a distinct line of thought, will, and ability to reason. And that's what we see in the Son.

Yes it does work that way and no he would not do that. Why? As explained He existed as both Father AND Son at the same time with two distinct natures

He really was God as the Father and God incarnate as the Son (Deity united with Humanity)

BTW, I don't care for analogies but if you've ever followed science fiction and Quantum Mechanics, maybe you can see how one Person can be in two distinct dimensions or time frames and communication with each other. Same Person

In Oneness the Father is God existing transcendentally and the Son Temporally

One is outside of all constraints and the other is a part of Creation

One functions through the Divine will and the other through the Human will.

Yes ontologically it is possible and YES grammatically it's demanded. When Jesus prays he does not pray to the Son. He prays to the Father in heaven. He has a human will and human brain and a humanized perception of everything so why wouldn't he have a perception of the Father as if the Father were someone other than himself?

Let me approach it this way. Your idea of Person is one way but Person can also include the idea of being, the WHOLE Person

And so while they are the same self conscious individual they are not necessarily the same Being (referring to essence)

So the Father is the Divine Being and the Son with the Human nature is functionally a Human being

There is One Person (Your idea) that Personifies both natures and both "Beings"

The word Being simply means "exist" and Nature explains how we persons exist.

God (Person) exists as both God and Man

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Aquila, the church is called "her" does that make the church a female PERSON? YES OR NO?

Eph 5:27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Sorry Aquila but you apparently don't understand how the bible is written. It is full of figures of speech, anthropomorphisms and personification devices

Read Proverbs and tell me if it's all literally talking about these female persons called Wisdom and Prudence

Go learn about that stuff and when you return I will give you a lesson on what Private interpretation means

Oh that reminds me, you also are not supposed to take a verse out of context to misuse it for your own personal agenda as you just did

2Pe 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

None of the things you've listed have a distinct "self", so I don't believe they compare.

I have not spoken a prophecy. But if I do, it will be as the Spirit bids me, as it did the with the oracles of God.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No. He really was Human. He was not pretending

Humans are human persons. If Christ doesn't have a distinct human personhood, He's not an authentic human being.

[Aquila]

If the Son is the Father, when praying to the Father, is He not praying to the Son, i.e. Himself? When speaking of the love between Father and Son, wouldn't be only a love of self? It all becomes a false representation, an necessary illusion, required by this bi-modal state of existance. The expanation would only serve to require the reader not to believe this interpersonal relationship is real. Why not accept that each mode has a distinct personhood?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Humans are human persons. If Christ doesn't have a distinct human personhood, He's not an authentic human being.

That is not necessarily true. Oneness proposes one single person between both Father and Son, and yet genuine humanity praying ,etc..

[Timmy]

You guys. SMH. Lol

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

That is not necessarily true. Oneness proposes one single person between both Father and Son, and yet genuine humanity praying ,etc..

I know that's what Oneness proposes. But we see two distinct "selfs" between the Father and the Son. By definition, that's two distinct "persons"... even if the second is an emanation from or reflection of the first. We have two living self-conscious realities that exist in an I/thou relationship with one another. If they are not two distinct centers of "self" (persons), but rather only one, then we eliminate the distinct "self" of the man, Jesus Christ and the need to pray or have relationship entirely. It would be entirely possible to have a single center of self-conscious reality between the two manifestations. Of course, this would have the baby Jesus speaking parables from His crib and speaking as God Himself, not as a mediator. However, let's say your right. We then see only what "looks like" two distinct persons communicating in relationship... yet according to classical Oneness thought, this isn't the theological reality. Therefore it is only an "appearance of interpersonal relationship" between two persons which is demanded by the very nature of the monad's bi-modal (or sometimes tri-modal) existence. Therefore, Oneness can only be affirmed by looking at the text and saying, "I know what it looks like, but it's not what you think." That's what I mean when I say that it makes the appearance of interpersonal relationship between persons merely an illusion.

It looks like two persons in interpersonal relationship. But you're saying that it "isn't" what it clearly looks like.

There is another way to incarnate...

I could also create a child that is the express image of who I am, yet is distinctly human. A real and authentic, "man". He'd be a "son" to me. I could also unite my very spirit with that man's spirit at his conception, making us "one". He would be the very human "vessel" through which I will reveal myself. My human tabernacle. He would be himself, but he would also be me in both image and through our union of essence. And I would be myself, but I would also be a man, through Him. He would love me as a father, and I would love him as a son. I would be in him and he in me. Yet we'd exist in a manner wherein we have a union of being. Thus our oneness is affirmed, and our distinction is affirmed. Interpersonal communication and relationship would be REAL. However, when you saw him, you'd see me. When you heard him, because I impress upon him the very words to say, you'd be hearing me. He'd be human and limited in knowledge and offer me true praise and worship as his God. I would be greater than him. Yet I would manifest my greatness in him and through him. I would reconcile humanity to myself, through him. All miracles would be my work, for I would dwell within him. I'd even delegate all power and authority to him and appoint him as judge over creation. He'd be my prince. He'd be my mediator between myself and man. He'd be my son. And all the glory that he would possess would be mine, as I am manifest in him. He would share in all that I am... and I would share in all that he is.

Which view is expressed in the Bible? How does Jesus Himself describe His Oneness with the Father?

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)

John 17:10
10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. (KJV)

Galatians 4:4
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (KJV)

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (KJV)

Matthew 17:5
While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. (KJV)

2 Corinthians 5:19
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, (KJV)

John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (KJV)

Which view of incarnation is therefore most true to the very text of the Bible? Which text allows what is written to be true without any twisting or re-adjustment for theological bias?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If the Son is the Father, when praying to the Father, is He not praying to the Son, i.e. Himself? When speaking of the love between Father and Son, wouldn't be only a love of self? It all becomes a false representation, an necessary illusion, required by this bi-modal state of existance. The expanation would only serve to require the reader not to believe this interpersonal relationship is real. Why not accept that each mode has a distinct personhood?

I have accepted that. If God is a person, there is one God and one man. Its both Jesus.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim. 2:5

I guess the "natures dont pray" thing seems to be a valid point.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I have accepted that. If God is a person, there is one God and one man. Its both Jesus.

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim. 2:5

I guess the "natures dont pray" thing seems to be a valid point.

Amen, that which prays must have a distinct personhood of it's own (regardless of nature)... or what's the point?

I've realized that those who hold to Oneness Theology don't typically disagree with the concept of the man Jesus Christ having a distinct sense of "self"... but if you called this a "distinct personhood" or spoke of the man Jesus being a "human person", they freak out. They fear the word "person"... but not the concept it accurately describes. lol

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I know that's what Oneness proposes. But we see two distinct "selfs" between the Father and the Son. By definition, that's two distinct "persons"... even if the second is an emanation from or reflection of the first.

Why do you require a distinct self to be a distinct person?