Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Father?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

So again, it is an illusion.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So again, it is an illusion.

No. He really was Human. He was not pretending

[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.

[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..

[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?

[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?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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

Because there are serious implications of multiple self's residing in one person. Psychosis.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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

Humans are Persons that have a human nature

He is a Person with a Human nature. It's NATURE that makes us Persons whatever kind of being we are