Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Father?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

What if you're wrong and you can trust the words as written?

Back home again! lol



I believe the words are totally trustworthy, but when we add grammatical terms like first person singular speaking to second person singular, confusing the terms as indication of more than one person misses the mark, I think. The terms and their labels were never meant to dictate to us understanding of the Godhead.

Generally speaking, though, language really is based upon multiple human persons, and it just cannot perfectly apply outside of that limitation.

If God really is one person alone, and used our language to interact in his manifestations then you can see how that would pose confusion to us and start a polypersonal doctrine, right?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Back home again! lol



I believe the words are totally trustworthy, but when we add grammatical terms like first person singular speaking to second person singular, confusing the terms as indication of more than one person misses the mark, I think. The terms and their labels were never meant to dictate to us understanding of the Godhead.

Generally speaking, though, language really is based upon multiple human persons, and it just cannot perfectly apply outside of that limitation.

If God really is one person alone, and used our language to interact in his manifestations then you can see how that would pose confusion to us and start a polypersonal doctrine, right?

I don't want you to take this the wrong way. I want you to really think about what I'm saying before just dismissing it. I see an irrational fear of the word "person" among Oneness Apostolics. For example, one of the definitions from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines "person" as being one's "personality" or "self". To me, it is clear that the man Jesus Christ has a distinct sense of "self". In Jesus human center of self-conscious reality that is indeed distinct from the Father. For all intents and purposes, He has a distinct personality from that of the Father. We see Him pray to the Father, speak of the Father with distinction, express love towards the Father, speak of the Father's love towards Him, speak of being sent by the Father, speak of going back to the Father, and speaks of the Father as being His "God". He describes Himself as being "in" the Father and the Father being "in" Him; this clearly expresses a mutual indwelling that speaks of a "oneness" or "union" of being. But Christ's "person" (self-conscious reality, "self", and/or personality) remains clearly distinct from that of the Father.

The only way Jesus could have established that He was indeed the same person as the Father would be to speak as the Father while expressing human limitation. Instead of saying, "The Father is greater than I.", Jesus could have said, "I am greater as the Father." Or, "I, the Father, am one." Or, "I came from being the Father, and return to being the Father." Or, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither me as the Son, but I know all things as the Father." Language would be instrumental in establishing that the person of Jesus was the same as the person of the Father.

Essentially, your arguments are that the distinction of person seen in the man Jesus Christ is only an illusion, a by product of Oneness. However, if Jesus were indeed the same person as the Father, He would express it, speaking as the Father Himself... albeit while also indicating personal limitations.

Now, I don't really have a fear of the word "person". I clearly see a distinct "human person" in the man Jesus Christ. Truth is truth. I'd rather be true to Scripture than an eisegetical angle of theology. Notice, I draw distinction between "human person" and "divine person". So, I contend that I too only see one "divine person" in the man Jesus Christ, the indwelling Father. Even in the "human person" of Jesus, I see the "divine person" of the Father made flesh, for the man Jesus Christ was fashioned in the express image of God's own person. So, between the Father and the Son... only one divine person is revealed.... YHVH.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't want you to take this the wrong way. I want you to really think about what I'm saying before just dismissing it.

I think you did not really consider my last phrase, yourself, though. Let's just say for the moment that I am right. Just for the sake of making a point. God is solely in every sense one person.

Then using our language to communicate between the MAN and the GOD would demand it to be two persons simply due to language! And can you not see how language would cause misunderstanding of His nature?

I will answer the remaining of what you say later. But I want to make sure you get my point here first.

If God is as I say He is, then there is no way you or others would ever accept that due to language, but the language He uses would be the only way He could do what He does. In this manner, your basis of language is marring reality. Yes, it works between human persons showing first person singular talking to another second person singular. But those literary labels cannot define the godhead.

There's nothing that could occur in communication between the two that would allow you to see the truth, if I am right in how I describe God h since you are stuck to literary terminology to define the Godhead.

Try to re-image it this way. Jesus is the express image of the invisible God. A perfect imprint in flesh of God. Picture yourself talking to your image in a mirror and the image has the ability to genuinely talk back. You are using language but in no way does that demand two persons.

Nothing is imaginary. Jesus was an actual man in every sense of the term. Even with a distinct circle of consciousness. But when God is in the equation causing that to happen, as well as being one communicating to this manifestation, we cannot limit Him and must pull out all the plugs.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I think you did not really consider my last phrase, yourself, though. Let's just say for the moment that I am right. Just for the sake of making a point. God is solely in every sense one person.

Then using our language to communicate between the MAN and the GOD would demand it to be two persons simply due to language! And can you not see how language would cause misunderstanding of His nature?

One such as God is fully capable of accurately using language to express what He means. Language doesn't limit Him. Therefore, I would expect to surely be able to turn to what the Bible actually says, and the implications of those statements, and know the truth about God.

I will answer the remaining of what you say later. But I want to make sure you get my point here first.

If God is as I say He is, then there is no way you or others would ever accept that due to language, but the language He uses would be the only way He could do what He does. In this manner, your basis of language is marring reality. Yes, it works between human persons showing first person singular talking to another second person singular. But those literary labels cannot define the godhead.

Again, language doesn't limit God. And the manner in which you describe it isn't the only way He could do what He does. For example, why didn't Jesus simply say, "I am one?" Or, simply say, "I am the Father" instead of saying, "I am in the Father and the Father in me"? Why not simply say, "I am the Father"? Why even speak of terms that demand a mutual indwelling, a "union" of being?

I know that this is perhaps a silly example, but an illustration of a single person in multiple manifestations is better seen in Agent Smith, the villain in the film, The Matrix. You'll note that each "manifestation" is indeed Agent Smith. He even speaks through any given Agent Smith as himself. They are clearly the same "person"... the same "self-conscious reality"... the same "self". We don't see this in Jesus. Jesus clearly has a distinct human self-conscious reality, or "self" that relates to the Father. Therefore, we see a distinctly human "person". That human person is who the Bible refers to as, "the man, Christ Jesus".

There's nothing that could occur in communication between the two that would allow you to see the truth, if I am right in how I describe God since you are stuck to literary terminology to define the Godhead.

Please re-read your statement above. You are saying that there is nothing that could occur in communication between the Father and the Son, as seen in Scripture, that would allow me to see the truth, if you are right in how you are describing God. Don't you see, that's my point? We don't walk away with your view being established by what we see in Scripture. Your view isn't expressed... in Scripture. You are admitting it. However, you're not realizing what you're admitting. You're putting your theology before what we see in the Scriptures themselves. What we believe about God should be based entirely upon what is written in the Scriptures and their implications. Not what a chosen school of theological thought professes. I've heard of being true to your school... but when it comes to the Bible and what it says and what it implies... I'll side with the Bible.

Try to re-image it this way. Jesus is the express image of the invisible God. A perfect imprint in flesh of God. Picture yourself talking to your image in a mirror and the image has the ability to genuinely talk back. You are using language but in no way does that demand two persons.

Yes, if I looked into the mirror and said, "Hello, I'm Chris." Then my reflection smiled and looked at you and said, "This is also me. Isn't this interesting Rev. Blume?" You'd have a single "person" expressed in both physical presence and reflection.

But, if my reflection smiled and said, "I am also Chris. Indeed, we are one. But Chris is a little stuffy and straight laced. While, I don't know what Christopher knows, I know that I'd like to go get drunk and maybe buy a hooker tonight." You'd have a distinct "person" who is a reflection of me but isn't really me. I'd be vehemently saying, "I don't want to get drunk or buy a hooker! That's not me!" The moment we see a distinct "self" or a distinct "self-conscious reality" coming from that reflection... while it is a reflection of me... it isn't me. We'd not be the same "person".

Nothing is imaginary. Jesus was an actual man in every sense of the term. Even with a distinct circle of consciousness. But when God is in the equation causing that to happen, as well as being one communicating to this manifestation, we cannot limit Him and must pull out all the plugs.

A distinct center of self-conscious reality (self) is a distinct "person". Frankly, if it were the same "person" (self), there'd be no need for the inter-personal communication we see between Christ and the Father.

Do we not see inter-personal communication between Jesus and the Father??? Yes or no? Of course we do. Thus... we have two distinct personalities, personal realities, centers of self-consciousness, or selves. One being human... the other being God Himself.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

One such as God is fully capable of accurately using language to express what He means. Language doesn't limit Him. Therefore, I would expect to surely be able to turn to what the Bible actually says, and the implications of those statements, and know the truth about God.

You're not getting my point.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You're not getting my point.

I get your point. However, I am pointing out that your point demands a denial of the Scriptures clear and present language and implications.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I get your point. However, I am pointing out that your point demands a denial of the Scriptures clear and present language and implications.

No it does not. You assume too much out of pronouns. The same Pronouns could be used to prove the opposite

the subject/object pronoun relationship is merely the result of the incarnation of One Person becoming Human while continuing to exist as God

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I get your point. However, I am pointing out that your point demands a denial of the Scriptures clear and present language and implications.

No, this shows you did not get my point. Anyway....

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Please re-read your statement above. You are saying that there is nothing that could occur in communication between the Father and the Son, as seen in Scripture, that would allow me to see the truth, if you are right in how you are describing God. Don't you see, that's my point? We don't walk away with your view being established by what we see in Scripture. Your view isn't expressed... in Scripture.

Again you totally missed my point. i said, JUST FOR sake of argument, say my view is correct.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Again you totally missed my point. i said, JUST FOR sake of argument, say my view is correct.

Okay, just for sake of argument, the position you presented would have us unable to take the clear and present language, meaning, and implications of the Scriptures at face value. It would totally deny the mutual indwelling that Jesus Himself describes in clear detail and language.