Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Father?

[Sean]

Prax...PLEASE SEE MY WORDS........JESUS IS ALMIGHTY GOD...JESUS IS ALMIGHTY GOD...JESUS IS ALMIGHTY GOD.


Unitarianism is a Christian theological movement named for its understanding of God as one person, in direct contrast to Trinitarianism, which defines God as three persons coexisting consubstantially in one being.[1] Unitarians maintain that Jesus is in some sense the "son" of God, but is not the one God.[2


That is not what I said is it?

I said Jesus is ALMIGHTY GOD.

The way you misrepresent me is not right. So I will give you back the thread.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

The Oneness Orgs did NOT originate around tithing. Nor around whether it was sin for a woman to trim her hair or to preach men into Hell for a beard.

NONE OF THAT WAS THE REASON.

They were formed on the belief that Jesus was the only true God, the Father.

They were right in that. They have many added traditions and other false doctrines. On this matter they were right.

Jesus is the only true God. However He is also a man. A man who was formed in the womb of Mary. He learned His alphabet and learned to pray. A man. A real man. His human person being the express image and likeness the Father's own person. The perfect reflection of the Father in full humanity.

This man is the begotten Son of God. Not a pre-existent being. He pre-existed only as a thought, plan, expression, or concept in the mind of God, the Word. A thought of God regarding who God would become, thereby a thought of God that was God. And this thought was made flesh. In the fulness of time this Word was made a man.

[elder_brother]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Although the man, Jesus Christ (the Son of God), distinct from the Father... He is not separate from the Father. They are one.

From R.C. Sproul's booklet "What is the Trinity?"

"It is the prerogative of the theologian to make fine distinctions, that is what theology is about. Therefore, I tell my students, "One of the most important distinctions you will ever learn to make is the one between a distinction and a separation." We say that a human being is a duality-he has a physical dimension and a non-physical dimension, which the Bible describes in terms of body and soul. If I distinguish a person's body from his soul, I do no harm to him, but if I separate his body from his soul, I not only harm him, I kill him. By not grasping the difference between distinguishing and separating, Nestorious essentially destroyed the biblical Christ.

I think this is a great point. When we speak of the Father/Son/Holy Spirit we are speaking of distinctions. In this manner the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit. When we speak of their essence, in no manner can we ever separate them for they are completely one. This is what Jesus meant when he said that "I and my Father are one". He did not mean "you cannot distinguish between the Father & the Son" but that we are in complete unity, or oneness. In Christ dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily. They are inseparable.

[elder_brother]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yes Trinitarians always use passages of "distinction" to imply "separation" in order to justify their notion of God being three "separate persons".

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I just wanted to clarify that classical Trinitarianism does not teach separate persons, rather distinct persons. Other alternative phrases have been suggested for use in place of the term "persons" such as "mode of being" (Barth) or "manner of subsistence" (Rahner) but the Orthodox doctrinal teaching is that God is one in essence (being) and three in person (subsistence). Separation should not be taught, and hopefully not even implied because of the obvious contradictions with Monotheism found in Scripture. Of course, I am not suggesting that some Trinitarians don't teach separation within the Godhead but it is certainly a misconstrued understanding.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Jesus is the only true God. However He is also a man. A man who was formed in the womb of Mary. He learned His alphabet and learned to pray. A man. A real man. His human person being the express image and likeness the Father's own person. The perfect reflection of the Father in full humanity.

This man is the begotten Son of God. Not a pre-existent being. He pre-existed only as a thought, plan, expression, or concept in the mind of God, the Word. A thought of God regarding who God would become, thereby a thought of God that was God. And this thought was made flesh. In the fulness of time this Word was made a man.

I've discussed this with a Oneness friend of mine, and he used this as a argument for why he will not affirm the Son as God (argument goes "the Son is the Word, who is only the image that God created for Himself and does not share the same divine essence with God").
Yet we read in John 1:1-2 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. and John 1:14 says 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

From my understanding, the Word not only is distinguished as being with God but is also in complete Oneness with God because the Word is also God Himself. God is completely and fully being (essence), and if God were to "become" that would make God a creature who changes, which is a direct contradiction of Scripture. Also, these Scriptures clearly teach that apart from Him (the Word) nothing has come into being. I believe that the Word's role in creation necessitates Him to be pre-existent and eternally God.

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Awesome!

But do you believe Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, is the Father?

One with the Father is not the same as BEING the Father.

Here again I'd just like to mention that from a classical Trinitarian perspective, in this sense, particularly discussing God's Being or Essence we do not believe in any separation. The distinctions are spoken of as three subsistence's of the ONE DIVINE BEING. As BEING, we cannot distinguish the Son's BEING from the Father's BEING because they are ONE in BEING.

Great thread by the way! I'm sure that I also have some misconstrued ideas on this complex subject as well. As Christians, I believe that it is important that we affirm both that The Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ is the Almighty God, and that He is One.

[Esaias]

What is the origin of trinitarianism? The first trinitarians held certain view. Later trinitarians evolved and then at Nicea condemned the early trinitarianism of Arius, who simply taught as Tertulllian (the father of trinitarianism) taught.

But where did it originate?

The early church was "oneness". But over time they ignored Paul's warning about being spoiled by vain philosophy. They tried to explain Christ using the language of philosophy and metaphysics. They turned to words like "essence" and "mode" and "person". They "went beyond what is written" and wound up trinitarian.

And I have been watching history repeat itself over the years.

In 100 years (maybe sooner) "oneness" will be indistinguishable from trinitarianism. And the "oneness pentecostal" orgs will find a way to have "common ground" with Rome... which is by design.

And those who are "original oneness" due to THE REVELATION. OF THE MIGHTY GOD IN CHRIST will be castigated and cut off by the "new oneness" believers who are oneness due to speculative philosophy and grasping at equality with trinitarianism.

Let no man go beyond WHAT IS WRITTEN.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What is the origin of trinitarianism? The first trinitarians held certain view. Later trinitarians evolved and then at Nicea condemned the early trinitarianism of Arius, who simply taught as Tertulllian (the father of trinitarianism) taught.

But where did it originate?

The early church was "oneness". But over time they ignored Paul's warning about being spoiled by vain philosophy. They tried to explain Christ using the language of philosophy and metaphysics. They turned to words like "essence" and "mode" and "person". They "went beyond what is written" and wound up trinitarian.

And I have been watching history repeat itself over the years.

In 100 years (maybe sooner) "oneness" will be indistinguishable from trinitarianism. And the "oneness pentecostal" orgs will find a way to have "common ground" with Rome... which is by design.

And those who are "original oneness" due to THE REVELATION. OF THE MIGHTY GOD IN CHRIST will be castigated and cut off by the "new oneness" believers who are oneness due to speculative philosophy and grasping at equality with trinitarianism.

Let no man go beyond WHAT IS WRITTEN.

Yes.

[Michael The Disciple]

This man is the begotten Son of God. Not a pre-existent being. He pre-existed only as a thought, plan, expression, or concept in the mind of God, the Word. A thought of God regarding who God would become, thereby a thought of God that was God. And this thought was made flesh. In the fulness of time this Word was made a man.

I have showed lots of scripture showing that Jesus pre existed as YHWH. The teaching that Jesus was merely a "thought" or a "plan" in Gods mind has been very destructive to the truth.

Paul said THAT ROCK in the OT was Christ.

24 times in the Hebrew text we find that YHWH IS THE ROCK.

Conclusion Christ is the YHWH of the Bible.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Jesus is the only true God. However He is also a man. A man who was formed in the womb of Mary. He learned His alphabet and learned to pray. A man. A real man. His human person being the express image and likeness the Father's own person. The perfect reflection of the Father in full humanity.

This man is the begotten Son of God. Not a pre-existent being. He pre-existed only as a thought, plan, expression, or concept in the mind of God, the Word. A thought of God regarding who God would become, thereby a thought of God that was God. And this thought was made flesh. In the fulness of time this Word was made a man.

Amen, you are exactly right bro.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I have showed lots of scripture showing that Jesus pre existed as YHWH. The teaching that Jesus was merely a "thought" or a "plan" in Gods mind has been very destructive to the truth.

Paul said THAT ROCK in the OT was Christ.

24 times in the Hebrew text we find that YHWH IS THE ROCK.

Conclusion Christ is the YHWH of the Bible.

The Rock was a theophany of YHVH. The Rock was not YHVH's Word made flesh. Being a theophany, providing life giving water, the Rock was a type or representation of Christ.

If the Rock was literally Christ, and not a type of Christ, you just affirmed Trinitarianism..

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The Rock was a theophany of YHVH. The Rock was not YHVH's Word made flesh. Being a theophany, providing life giving water, the Rock was a type or representation of Christ.

If the Rock was literally Christ, and not a type of Christ, you just affirmed Trinitarianism..

Well if the Rock was a theophany and Christ was the Rock and the Rock was YHVH we are making progress.

However when you say the Rock was not YHVH you are directly contradicting 24 scriptures.