Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Father?

[Aquila]

So, my Oneness brethren... are the following statements I posted in some of my previous posts "Oneness" or are they some form of Unitarianism???

That Jesus had a complete human nature and complete divine nature at the same time is the teaching of Scripture, but we cannot separate these two natures in His earthly life. It is apparent that Jesus had a human will, mind, spirit, soul, and body, but it is equally apparent that He had the fullness of the Godhead resident in that body. From our finite view, His human spirit and His divine Spirit were inseparable.

The divine Spirit could be separated from the human body by death, but His humanity was more than a human body – the shell of a human – with God inside. He was a human in body, soul, and spirit with the fullness of the Spirit of God dwelling in that body, soul, and spirit. Jesus differed from an ordinary human (who can be filled with the Spirit of God) in that He had all of God’s nature within Him. He possessed the unlimited power, authority, and character of God. Furthermore, in contrast to a born-again, Spirit-filled human, the Spirit of God was inextricably, and inseparably joined with the humanity of Jesus.

The humanity of Christ prayed, cried, learned obedience, and suffered. The divine nature was in control and God was faithful to His own plan, but the human nature had to obtain help from the Spirit and, had to learn obedience to the divine plan. Surely all these verses of Scripture show that Jesus was fully human – that He had every attribute of humanity except the sinful nature inherited from the Fall. If we deny the humanity of Jesus, we encounter a problem with the conception of redemption and atonement. Not being fully human, could His sacrifice be sufficient to redeem mankind? Could He really be a true substitute for us in death? Could He truly qualify as our kinsman redeemer?

The Word or Logos can mean the plan or thought as it existed in the mind of God. This thought was a predestined plan – an absolutely certain future event, - and therefore it had a reality attached to it that no human thought could ever have. The Word can also mean the plan or thought of God expressed in the flesh, that is in the Son.

People don't get it... take this in real good...

The deity in the Son is the Father, we do believe that the Father is in the Son (John 14:10). Since Jesus is the name of the Son of God, both as to His deity as Father and as to His humanity as Son, it is the name of both the Father and the Son.

Thus, the man Jesus Christ is the Father only by virtue of the Father residing in His being.

I'm curious, share your thoughts.

[Sean]

I made it a point in my life to not "marginalize" or "categorize" folks, unless they insist on being part of a movement. I am only interested in their opinion. Most folks are INDEPENDENT thinkers and I like to deal with that without bias.

EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON AFF DISAGREES with each other about stuff. The psychology scene would be very busy trying to figure us all out and LABEL us...LOL

[votivesoul]

Point still missed. Oh well, one more time.

I am not referring to any theological explanation of the Scriptures regarding the nature and relationship of the Father and the Son.

I am speaking only of categorical definitions as a way to classify.

Traditional Oneness teaches Jesus is the Father. If a person doesn't believe that, they CANNOT be traditional Oneness. They, by the very nature and definition of Oneness, as a category of theological expression, HAVE to be re-classified as something else, or else the whole purpose and intent of using the word Oneness to describe and define a theological expression and doctrinal position is pointless.

At least say "Modified Oneness" or "Oneness with some qualifications" or something, else you are going to throw everyone else off by claiming to be Oneness without actually affirming the traditionally held understanding of what it means TO BE Oneness.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Is a knife a fork? Of course not, so why redefine what a knife is just so you can reclassify it into the fork category?

Let the two remain distinct and individually defined. One is a knife and is in the knife category, based on the traditionally held understanding of what a knife is. The same with fork.

The same with Oneness. Let it be it's own category with its own internal logical and theological definitions and expressions.

We all may freely define our positions at will, but let us not co-opt other terms with already established meanings just to suit our fancy.

I wouldn't co-opt the term Calvinist, redefine it to suit my fancy, change that traditional meaning and understanding, and so, attempt to make it mean something else, just so I could call myself a Calvinist. So why would anyone do that with the term Oneness?

Let the word mean what it means, as a distinct theological category of belief and expression.

PS, Thanks, Esaias.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Sean

I made it a point in my life to not "marginalize" or "categorize" folks, unless they insist on being part of a movement. I am only interested in their opinion. Most folks are INDEPENDENT thinkers and I like to deal with that without bias.

EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON AFF DISAGREES with each other about stuff. The psychology scene would be very busy trying to figure us all out and LABEL us...LOL

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, my Oneness brethren... are the following statements I posted in some of my previous posts "Oneness" or are they some form of Unitarianism???

That Jesus had a complete human nature and complete divine nature at the same time is the teaching of Scripture, but we cannot separate these two natures in His earthly life. It is apparent that Jesus had a human will, mind, spirit, soul, and body, but it is equally apparent that He had the fullness of the Godhead resident in that body. From our finite view, His human spirit and His divine Spirit were inseparable.

The divine Spirit could be separated from the human body by death, but His humanity was more than a human body – the shell of a human – with God inside. He was a human in body, soul, and spirit with the fullness of the Spirit of God dwelling in that body, soul, and spirit. Jesus differed from an ordinary human (who can be filled with the Spirit of God) in that He had all of God’s nature within Him. He possessed the unlimited power, authority, and character of God. Furthermore, in contrast to a born-again, Spirit-filled human, the Spirit of God was inextricably, and inseparably joined with the humanity of Jesus.

The humanity of Christ prayed, cried, learned obedience, and suffered. The divine nature was in control and God was faithful to His own plan, but the human nature had to obtain help from the Spirit and, had to learn obedience to the divine plan. Surely all these verses of Scripture show that Jesus was fully human – that He had every attribute of humanity except the sinful nature inherited from the Fall. If we deny the humanity of Jesus, we encounter a problem with the conception of redemption and atonement. Not being fully human, could His sacrifice be sufficient to redeem mankind? Could He really be a true substitute for us in death? Could He truly qualify as our kinsman redeemer?

The Word or Logos can mean the plan or thought as it existed in the mind of God. This thought was a predestined plan – an absolutely certain future event, - and therefore it had a reality attached to it that no human thought could ever have. The Word can also mean the plan or thought of God expressed in the flesh, that is in the Son.

People don't get it... take this in real good...

The deity in the Son is the Father, we do believe that the Father is in the Son (John 14:10). Since Jesus is the name of the Son of God, both as to His deity as Father and as to His humanity as Son, it is the name of both the Father and the Son.

Thus, the man Jesus Christ is the Father only by virtue of the Father residing in His being.

I'm curious, share your thoughts.

Thank you.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Point still missed. Oh well, one more time.

I am not referring to any theological explanation of the Scriptures regarding the nature and relationship of the Father and the Son.

I am speaking only of categorical definitions as a way to classify.

Traditional Oneness teaches Jesus is the Father. If a person doesn't believe that, they CANNOT be traditional Oneness. They, by the very nature and definition of Oneness, as a category of theological expression, HAVE to be re-classified as something else, or else the whole purpose and intent of using the word Oneness to describe and define a theological expression and doctrinal position is pointless.

At least say "Modified Oneness" or "Oneness with some qualifications" or something, else you are going to throw everyone else off by claiming to be Oneness without actually affirming the traditionally held understanding of what it means TO BE Oneness.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Is a knife a fork? Of course not, so why redefine what a knife is just so you can reclassify it into the fork category?

Let the two remain distinct and individually defined. One is a knife and is in the knife category, based on the traditionally held understanding of what a knife is. The same with fork.

The same with Oneness. Let it be it's own category with its own internal logical and theological definitions and expressions.

We all may freely define our positions at will, but let us not co-opt other terms with already established meanings just to suit our fancy.

I wouldn't co-opt the term Calvinist, redefine it to suit my fancy, change that traditional meaning and understanding, and so, attempt to make it mean something else, just so I could call myself a Calvinist. So why would anyone do that with the term Oneness?

Let the word mean what it means, as a distinct theological category of belief and expression.

PS, Thanks, Esaias.

Esaias...

So, you disagree that the following statements I posted earlier describe a traditional "Oneness" perspective? Please review and clarify. Thanks.

That Jesus had a complete human nature and complete divine nature at the same time is the teaching of Scripture, but we cannot separate these two natures in His earthly life. It is apparent that Jesus had a human will, mind, spirit, soul, and body, but it is equally apparent that He had the fullness of the Godhead resident in that body. From our finite view, His human spirit and His divine Spirit were inseparable.

The divine Spirit could be separated from the human body by death, but His humanity was more than a human body – the shell of a human – with God inside. He was a human in body, soul, and spirit with the fullness of the Spirit of God dwelling in that body, soul, and spirit. Jesus differed from an ordinary human (who can be filled with the Spirit of God) in that He had all of God’s nature within Him. He possessed the unlimited power, authority, and character of God. Furthermore, in contrast to a born-again, Spirit-filled human, the Spirit of God was inextricably, and inseparably joined with the humanity of Jesus.

The humanity of Christ prayed, cried, learned obedience, and suffered. The divine nature was in control and God was faithful to His own plan, but the human nature had to obtain help from the Spirit and, had to learn obedience to the divine plan. Surely all these verses of Scripture show that Jesus was fully human – that He had every attribute of humanity except the sinful nature inherited from the Fall. If we deny the humanity of Jesus, we encounter a problem with the conception of redemption and atonement. Not being fully human, could His sacrifice be sufficient to redeem mankind? Could He really be a true substitute for us in death? Could He truly qualify as our kinsman redeemer?

The Word or Logos can mean the plan or thought as it existed in the mind of God. This thought was a predestined plan – an absolutely certain future event, - and therefore it had a reality attached to it that no human thought could ever have. The Word can also mean the plan or thought of God expressed in the flesh, that is in the Son.

The deity in the Son is the Father, we do believe that the Father is in the Son (John 14:10). Since Jesus is the name of the Son of God, both as to His deity as Father and as to His humanity as Son, it is the name of both the Father and the Son.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, my Oneness brethren... are the following statements I posted in some of my previous posts "Oneness" or are they some form of Unitarianism???

That Jesus had a complete human nature and complete divine nature at the same time is the teaching of Scripture, but we cannot separate these two natures in His earthly life. It is apparent that Jesus had a human will, mind, spirit, soul, and body, but it is equally apparent that He had the fullness of the Godhead resident in that body. From our finite view, His human spirit and His divine Spirit were inseparable.

The divine Spirit could be separated from the human body by death, but His humanity was more than a human body – the shell of a human – with God inside. He was a human in body, soul, and spirit with the fullness of the Spirit of God dwelling in that body, soul, and spirit. Jesus differed from an ordinary human (who can be filled with the Spirit of God) in that He had all of God’s nature within Him. He possessed the unlimited power, authority, and character of God. Furthermore, in contrast to a born-again, Spirit-filled human, the Spirit of God was inextricably, and inseparably joined with the humanity of Jesus.

The humanity of Christ prayed, cried, learned obedience, and suffered. The divine nature was in control and God was faithful to His own plan, but the human nature had to obtain help from the Spirit and, had to learn obedience to the divine plan. Surely all these verses of Scripture show that Jesus was fully human – that He had every attribute of humanity except the sinful nature inherited from the Fall. If we deny the humanity of Jesus, we encounter a problem with the conception of redemption and atonement. Not being fully human, could His sacrifice be sufficient to redeem mankind? Could He really be a true substitute for us in death? Could He truly qualify as our kinsman redeemer?

The Word or Logos can mean the plan or thought as it existed in the mind of God. This thought was a predestined plan – an absolutely certain future event, - and therefore it had a reality attached to it that no human thought could ever have. The Word can also mean the plan or thought of God expressed in the flesh, that is in the Son.

People don't get it... take this in real good...

The deity in the Son is the Father, we do believe that the Father is in the Son (John 14:10). Since Jesus is the name of the Son of God, both as to His deity as Father and as to His humanity as Son, it is the name of both the Father and the Son.

Thus, the man Jesus Christ is the Father only by virtue of the Father residing in His being.

I'm curious, share your thoughts.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing openly about any of the above, but what you have written is not the traditional teaching and understanding of the Oneness doctrine of God and Christ.

The Oneness view is that Jesus is the Father, PERIOD. Not by indwelling, not by manifestation, not by permeation, and not even by the Incarnation, but by ontological self-existence (and pre-existence, as Michael has tried to point out).

Again, I'm not coming against your views, per se. I'm only indicating that they do not fall under the category of traditional Oneness.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Point still missed. Oh well, one more time.

I am not referring to any theological explanation of the Scriptures regarding the nature and relationship of the Father and the Son.

I am speaking only of categorical definitions as a way to classify.

Traditional Oneness teaches Jesus is the Father. If a person doesn't believe that, they CANNOT be traditional Oneness. They, by the very nature and definition of Oneness, as a category of theological expression, HAVE to be re-classified as something else, or else the whole purpose and intent of using the word Oneness to describe and define a theological expression and doctrinal position is pointless.

At least say "Modified Oneness" or "Oneness with some qualifications" or something, else you are going to throw everyone else off by claiming to be Oneness without actually affirming the traditionally held understanding of what it means TO BE Oneness.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Is a knife a fork? Of course not, so why redefine what a knife is just so you can reclassify it into the fork category?

Let the two remain distinct and individually defined. One is a knife and is in the knife category, based on the traditionally held understanding of what a knife is. The same with fork.

The same with Oneness. Let it be it's own category with its own internal logical and theological definitions and expressions.

We all may freely define our positions at will, but let us not co-opt other terms with already established meanings just to suit our fancy.

I wouldn't co-opt the term Calvinist, redefine it to suit my fancy, change that traditional meaning and understanding, and so, attempt to make it mean something else, just so I could call myself a Calvinist. So why would anyone do that with the term Oneness?

Let the word mean what it means, as a distinct theological category of belief and expression.

PS, Thanks, Esaias.

Good point, however, there are some VARIANTS between traditional oneness believers, even when they began. Nobody agrees EXACTLY bro.
After folks gang up on individuals doctrinally, they soon turn on each other doctrinally...EVER NOTICE THAT?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I am not agreeing or disagreeing openly about any of the above, but what you have written is not the traditional teaching and understanding of the Oneness doctrine of God and Christ.

The Oneness view is that Jesus is the Father, PERIOD. Not by indwelling, not by manifestation, not by permeation, and not even by the Incarnation, but by ontological self-existence (and pre-existence, as Michael has tried to point out).

Again, I'm not coming against your views, per se. I'm only indicating that they do not fall under the category of traditional Oneness.

So, would a position have to agree with Rev. Bernard or the UPCI, ALJC, or other established Oneness organization to be considered "Oneness" in the "traditional" sense? I'm only trying to see the standard by which you're viewing the points I've presented.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Esaias...

So, you disagree that the following statements I posted earlier describe a traditional "Oneness" perspective? Please review and clarify. Thanks.

That Jesus had a complete human nature and complete divine nature at the same time is the teaching of Scripture, but we cannot separate these two natures in His earthly life. It is apparent that Jesus had a human will, mind, spirit, soul, and body, but it is equally apparent that He had the fullness of the Godhead resident in that body. From our finite view, His human spirit and His divine Spirit were inseparable.

The divine Spirit could be separated from the human body by death, but His humanity was more than a human body – the shell of a human – with God inside. He was a human in body, soul, and spirit with the fullness of the Spirit of God dwelling in that body, soul, and spirit. Jesus differed from an ordinary human (who can be filled with the Spirit of God) in that He had all of God’s nature within Him. He possessed the unlimited power, authority, and character of God. Furthermore, in contrast to a born-again, Spirit-filled human, the Spirit of God was inextricably, and inseparably joined with the humanity of Jesus.

The humanity of Christ prayed, cried, learned obedience, and suffered. The divine nature was in control and God was faithful to His own plan, but the human nature had to obtain help from the Spirit and, had to learn obedience to the divine plan. Surely all these verses of Scripture show that Jesus was fully human – that He had every attribute of humanity except the sinful nature inherited from the Fall. If we deny the humanity of Jesus, we encounter a problem with the conception of redemption and atonement. Not being fully human, could His sacrifice be sufficient to redeem mankind? Could He really be a true substitute for us in death? Could He truly qualify as our kinsman redeemer?

The Word or Logos can mean the plan or thought as it existed in the mind of God. This thought was a predestined plan – an absolutely certain future event, - and therefore it had a reality attached to it that no human thought could ever have. The Word can also mean the plan or thought of God expressed in the flesh, that is in the Son.

The deity in the Son is the Father, we do believe that the Father is in the Son (John 14:10). Since Jesus is the name of the Son of God, both as to His deity as Father and as to His humanity as Son, it is the name of both the Father and the Son.

I'm votivesoul, i.e. Aaron. I was thanking Esaias from an earlier post.

I'm not going to openly agree or disagree as to the merits of your expressed position on the nature of Christ.

I merely point out that your expressed position on the nature of Christ is not traditional Oneness as it has been embraced and understood for decades. You have modified the term, if you use it to describe your views.

I submit that one need not to adopt and modify the term in order to describe their views. Use a different term so that the term in question can continue to mean what it has always meant, else the purpose of even having the term and using it becomes superfluous.