Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Father?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

A person CANNOT be Oneness if they do not believe Jesus it the Father, any more than a person can be a Trinitarian and claim that anything other than there is only one God eternally existent in three co-equal, co-powerful person, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Words have meanings. We can't just go around calling ourselves whatever we want. If we don't fit into a particular category, then we must find a different label, or at least modify it.

"Oneness" inherently describes a union between two distinct things. Don't confuse the term "oneness" with "singleness".

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Aquila

"Oneness" inherently describes a union between two distinct things. Don't confuse the term "oneness" with "singleness".

This is the main argument Trins use against the truth. It is absolute trite.

One YHWH means he is one single YHWH. How easily this is proved in Gods holy word. The Trin scholars have pretty much ruined modern Apostolics in many ways.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

This is the main argument Trins use against the truth. It is absolute trite.

One YHWH means he is one single YHWH. How easily this is proved in Gods holy word. The Trin scholars have pretty much ruined modern Apostolics in many ways.

But if you have a YHWH living in two distinct "modes" simultaneously (Modalism)... you have two YHWHs. One here... and one over there.

It's essentially the same problem that is found in Trinitarianism... except these aren't distinct eternal persons... they are emanating modes of existence. You still have "two" Gods. Only now... one became two or three... instead of always being two or three. It's the very same mathematical problem as Trinitarianism.

But... if the one and only YHWH were to choose to be in perfect spiritual union with a zygote from it's conception (incarnation) and partake in that man's very nature as that man partook in God's very nature... God would have become a man in Him... and He would have been a man who was also God from conception.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Aquila

"Oneness" inherently describes a union between two distinct things. Don't confuse the term "oneness" with "singleness".

I am using the word "Oneness" as an appellation for a distinct theological position, not as an adjective describing the relationship of Father and Son within the Scriptures.

Oneness, in this way, is descriptive, just like Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Unitarian, and etc. is descriptive of an overall theological position.

These words have traditional, and traditionally understood meanings. Oneness as a theological position, has universally and traditionally always asserted that Jesus is the Father and the Son.

Anyone who doesn't believe that, should not use the term Oneness to describe themselves.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I am using the word "Oneness" as an appellation for a distinct theological position, not as an adjective describing the relationship of Father and Son within the Scriptures.

Oneness, in this way, is descriptive, just like Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Unitarian, and etc. is descriptive of an overall theological position.

These words have tradition, and traditionally understood meanings. Oneness as a theological position, has universally and traditionally always asserted that Jesus is the Father and the Son.

Anyone who doesn't believe that, should not use the term Oneness to describe themselves.

Why not bro...Jesus had a God.....Was Jesus ONENESS?....
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.(this is AFTER the resurrection)

Psalm 22
22 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Are they the same exact being?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Sean

Why not bro...Jesus had a God.....Was Jesus ONENESS?....
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.(this is AFTER the resurrection)

Psalm 22
22 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Are they the same exact being?

Everyone but MtD seems to be missing the point I'm making. I have not and so far, do not plan to, dive into the theological aspect of this discussion.

I am merely making the point that words have meaning, and we can't just use them however we want. Since I am not a Trinitarian, nor ever have been, nor ever will be, I will never use the word Trinitarian to describe myself or my theological understanding of the Godhead.

Why? Because I do not affirm the Trinitarian view of God.

So, if I do not affirm the Oneness view of the Godhead, then likewise I should not call myself Oneness.

Think about the average man on the street:

You say, "Hi, I'm a Oneness believer in Jesus Christ"

They say, "Oh, you believe Jesus is the Father?"

You say, "Nope, I don't believe Jesus is the Father."

They say, "Then you aren't Oneness."

See what I mean?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Everyone but MtD seems to be missing the point I'm making. I have not and so far, do not plan to, dive into the theological aspect of this discussion.

I am merely making the point that words have meaning, and we can't just use them however we want. Since I am not a Trinitarian, nor ever have been, nor ever will be, I will never use the word Trinitarian to describe myself or my theological understanding of the Godhead.

Why? Because I do not affirm the Trinitarian view of God.

So, if I do not affirm the Oneness view of the Godhead, then likewise I should not call myself Oneness.

Think about the average man on the street:

You say, "Hi, I'm a Oneness believer in Jesus Christ"

They say, "Oh, you believe Jesus is the Father?"

You say, "Nope, I don't believe Jesus is the Father."

They say, "Then you aren't Oneness."

See what I mean?

Yes I see Bro. Very good point. I'm always shocked when this topic comes up. Its almost like the Oneness doctrine is being lost all over again.

It was hard for me in the beginning to see how that the early Church could have all but lost the truth it was delivered within 200 years more or less.

Now it was fully recovered less than 100 years ago. Millions have come to its light. But now it seems to be fading possibly more quickly than in the beginning!

I really hold the Ministers largely responsible. Instead of having a strategy for teaching truth and taking it serious we have entertainment type preaching. People like "hot" preaching! Jehovah Witnesses train their converts and get them witnessing immediately. I have hardly met any "Apostolics" that I would trust to go out and represent the true gospel.

I knew one group in the Jesus movement where in 6 months they were expected to memorize 500 verses. And yet Apostolics walk around like the Emperor with his new clothes.

The worse part is when one of them gets their eyes open to some tradition of men they are being fed they immediately turn back FROM TRUTH that they have been taught (like Oneness) and go shopping among Trins and Arians because they no longer trust their leaders.

I thank God through Jesus Christ that we have the book of Revelation to let us know there will be end time overcomers!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Yes I see Bro. Very good point. I'm always shocked when this topic comes up. Its almost like the Oneness doctrine is being lost all over again.

!

Or it's being better explained/defended in a more coherent manner

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Or it's being better explained/defended in a more coherent manner

From whats being said here I totally disagree. It was pretty coherent when I came into it in 1980. All I here from many now is God is spirit. The spirit of God is in the man Jesus.

Tho that is true its just a snippet and would not even put a dent in Trinitarian armor.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Everyone but MtD seems to be missing the point I'm making. I have not and so far, do not plan to, dive into the theological aspect of this discussion.

I am merely making the point that words have meaning, and we can't just use them however we want. Since I am not a Trinitarian, nor ever have been, nor ever will be, I will never use the word Trinitarian to describe myself or my theological understanding of the Godhead.

Why? Because I do not affirm the Trinitarian view of God.

So, if I do not affirm the Oneness view of the Godhead, then likewise I should not call myself Oneness.

Think about the average man on the street:

You say, "Hi, I'm a Oneness believer in Jesus Christ"

They say, "Oh, you believe Jesus is the Father?"

You say, "Nope, I don't believe Jesus is the Father."

They say, "Then you aren't Oneness."

See what I mean?

Bro. I see your point, but I produced those passages to show you the way the Bible looks to a TRINITARIAN...We must have a better explanation than just...JESUS IS THE FATHER and THE FATHER IS JESUS.

These folks need a clear explanation.
I believe Jesus is the Father, because he was indwelled by the Father and the Words/Works were done through him by the indwelling Father.

Jesus was however, a real live human being that admittedly had a GOD.

Many of our oneness explanations seem like a lot of technical jargon to them in my opinion.

Many of us struggle with the thought of Jesus being a human being and having a God(Father).