Sin, Life & Death

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Right. But GOD is in the equation here. The Son is deity as well as the Father, although the Son involves humanity while the Father does not. So a DIVINE PERSON is involved. That immediately removes all possibilities of saying God must be two persons in order for Son to talk to Father, since we can only see huamnity being two persons if a similar thing happens with us.

God does not need to be two persons for the Son to talk to the Father. I am not trying to assert this. I am trying to assert that in this oneness view, Jesus prayed to Jesus. This does not disprove oneness, but it is a logical consequence of oneness doctrine.

I am also asserting that if you do not confess this to be true that Jesus prayed to Jesus, then your only option to deny it is you must be dividing Christ into one human person and one divine person... (which would be a contradiction to your view that Jesus is fully man and fully God, since Jesus would no longer be a singular person)

Originally Posted by mfblume

No, you still miss the point I made. God caused the incarnation. So God is the issue here. What God can and cannot do as one person is simply UNKNOWN to us, really. In this light, to say He must be more than one person in order for Son to pray to Father is simply irrational, I think.

You are the one missing my whole point... IF Jesus is both the Father and man, THEN Jesus prayed to Jesus. That is all I am saying. I am not saying this proves oneness is untrue, but I'm saying that logically following from your conception of oneness, Jesus prayed to Jesus.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I never said a nature prays. I said a HUMAN BEING is praying to GOD, and since God is both the incarnation as a human being as well as God, we cannot presume He must be two persons just because Son prays to Father. Such a presumption, again, is based upon conisidering what huamns must be in order for two humans to do the same thing.

Okay then, since a nature does not pray then my point is proven. Since a nature does not pray then a person prays. Jesus the "person" prayed to the Father, but since the "person" Jesus is the Father THEN Jesus the "person" prayed to Jesus the "person". Again this does not disprove oneness, it is just a logical consequence of it.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I gave a picture of what I am trying to say before, and I was not sure if it was you with whom I spoke about it or not. It must not have been you.

So, let me explain. Imagine a martian is discovered on Mars. It's species is quite different from that of human beings. This creature has two mouths with which to speak simultaneously in two totally different conversations. Its brain is created to be able to do that. But it is one "person" of it species. If we were to look at that, we would reason that since we can only carry on two totally different conversations at the same time by there being TWO HUMAN PERSONS, we might wish to consider this creature as two persons. However, we are talking about a different species. It can do things we cannot do.

As crude as that picture is, I think it adequately explains what I am trying to say. I do not like to call God a species, but to get my point across, He is a different SPECIES than us. Although He is the only One of His kind. And it is error to say He must be more than one person when we see Him do things that would require more than one human person to do. And whether we realize it or not, we ARE comparing God to human beings and our abilities when we reason He is two persons at least. We have no other basis than that upon which to say God is more than one person.

As for your example, you are not asserting that God spoke to God, or even that God prayed to God. You assert that there is no other God for God to speak to. You assert that man prayed to God. In your example you are asserting that one of those mouths was a man and one of those mouths was the Father. This also supports my position. You said there was one person, Christ (of that two mouthed species) and that one mouth was a man and the other mouth was the Father. If the mouth that was a man spoke to the mouth that was the Father, would we not say that Christ spoke to Christ, that the two mouthed creature spoke to itself?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

God does not need to be two persons for the Son to talk to the Father. I am not trying to assert this. I am trying to assert that in this oneness view, Jesus prayed to Jesus. This does not disprove oneness, but it is a logical consequence of oneness doctrine.

Oh, your point is Jesus prayed to Jesus. Okay. I agree. What is so wrong about that, though? Why is that so shocking? Answer: our comparison with human persons.

Jesus as a man prayed to Jesus as God. And He so completely manifested as a man that it was genuine humanity genuinely needing Deity. So, since it is humanity genuinely needing deity, it is not as people think it is to say Jesus prayed to Jesus.

That sounds odd to us because, AGAIN, we are comparing this to a human person. Since it sounds odd to see a human person talk to himself in this same manner, we assume it is odd for God to do that. But we cannot perfectly manifest as another "species" and then speak to that other one like God did.

We're so biased due to our assumptions that make us base everything form OUR perspective. And it makes us feel odd about something we really cannot conceive in our understanding properly enough.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

But why is that so shocking? Jesus as a man prayed to Jesus as God. And He so completely manifested as a man that it was genuine humanity genuinely needing Deity. So, since it is humanity genuinely needing deity, it is not as people think it is to say Jesus prayed to Jesus.

That sounds odd to uis because, AGAIN< we are comparing this to a human person. Since it sounds odd to see a human person talk to himself in this same manner, we assume it is odd for God to do that. But we cannot perfectly manifest as another "species" and then speak to that other one like God did.

We're so biased due to our assumptions that make us base everything form OUR perspective. And it makes us feel odd about something we really cannot conceive in our understanding properly enough.

Thank you, that is what I have been trying to say all along. Apparently it isn't just other people that are bothered by Jesus praying to Jesus, I think oneness people don't like the notion much either. But it is there. I don't really have a problem with it, I was just trying to point it out. Though, I was under the impression that you was having a problem with me saying that oneness teaches that Jesus prayed to Jesus. I suppose I usually have a poor way of wording stuff but I try to be thorough.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Thank you, that is what I have been trying to say all along. Apparently it isn't just other people that are bothered by Jesus praying to Jesus, I think oneness people don't like the notion much either. But it is there. I don't really have a problem with it, I was just trying to point it out. Though, I was under the impression that you was having a problem with me saying that oneness teaches that Jesus prayed to Jesus. I suppose I usually have a poor way of wording stuff but I try to be thorough.

Sorry for missing your point. It is true that this bothers some. But it is because they cannot stop thinking of how silly it would be for one human person to talk to oneself, not realizing it is not the same at all.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sorry for missing your point. It is true that this bothers some. But it is because they cannot stop thinking of how silly it would be for one human person to talk to oneself, not realizing it is not the same at all.

Agreed, and sorry I couldn't more clearly reveal my point.