Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Father?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It's my understanding that early Modalists views God has being comprised of three "hypostasis" (persons), yet these persons were viewed as being sequential modes of the monad's existence.

WRONG...WRONG..once again you misuse terms. Early modalists were accused of believing in 3 PERSONAS (masks)

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Aquila View Post
It's my understanding that early Modalists views God has being comprised of three "hypostasis" (persons), yet these persons were viewed as being sequential modes of the monad's existence.

I have never heard that. Sequential modalism would be foreign to scripture.

Modalism is simply that God can exist as God in one mode of being while at the very same time exist as man in another realm of being.

Not sequential as in he must stop being the Father to be the Son. He must stop being the Son to be the Spirit.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You don't believe that a man speaking to his own soul is a use of metaphor?

You won't see our point, will you?

[Jermyn Davidson]

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Something about metaphors, and how some don't know which scriptures are metaphors and which aren't, and some don't even know what a metaphor is, and a lot of I'm-right-and-you're-wrong, and don't limit God, and stuff.

So, not much.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Scripture does not say one divine essence. It does say this concerning the Messiah:
Isaiah 9:6

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of peace.
I affirm the Messiah (YESHUA) is the begotten son and the Eternal Father? Do you?
The distiction is that the son was born of a woman. Therefore a human being. The Father is the Mighty God of Heaven.
Yeshua is both simultaneously. He is God and man at the same time.

I believe the problem is that we don't fully understand the NAME: "...and you shall call HIS NAME Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." I don't see where the child shall be called those things, but the NAME shall be called...

If we really knew the NAME, there would not be so much discrepancy within the Christian community. Everyone seems to saying, "Jesus, Jesus"; but they are really trying to promote their own denomination. It is in the NAME that we will find the Wonder of God; the Counsel of God; the Might of God; the Everlasting Father; and the Prince that brought us Peace through the sacrifice of his own body.

Matt. 11:27 "All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knows the son but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, save the son, and he to whomsoever he will reveal him."

[Esaias]

If your name is Dirt that means YOU have no cred. His NAME is mighty God therefore HE is the mighty God. To suggest the NAME of Christ is somehow different than the One signified by that name is something newfangled and suspect. The apostles affirmed Jesus is God, not just his name.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Categories of belief have to have meaning, or else they cease to be categories.

I would say that if a person claims to be Oneness, but doesn't believe that Jesus is the Father, then they cannot be classified as "Oneness".

We shouldn't go around co-opting terms to suit ourselves when the terms have an already well established meaning.

When I focused on the NAME, it brought me to the saving knowledge of my Redeemer. I already believed in God, and had repented with a "...godly sorrow...". But as I look on the NAME, I see a difference between the son called Jesus, and the Father whose NAME is also Jesus.

Votivesoul: what do you mean by "co-opting" and "established meaning"?

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Exactly. No one is in "Apostolic Oneness" who rejects that Christ is both the Father and the Son.

This is a unique faith in the world and as to this particular truth the more Biblical.

I believe in ONE God, and the person of Jesus, the son of God. I believe that the son was "anointed"; and the Father needed no anointing, because He has always been holy.

Tell me, how could the Christ, who needed anointing, be the Father who needed no anointing? If Christ = the anointed one, and he is the Father (who needed no anointing), then who was anointed?

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

There are groups that believe in only one God besides Oneness Pentecostals. However they also reject the fact that Christ is God...not just the Father period.

Jehovah Witnesses a prime example.

If Jesus is not the Father he is not the Christ. The Christ must be both according to Isaiahs Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 9:6.

JW's are NOT ONE-ness, though they seem that way: they baptize in the titles.