Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Father?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by 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.

I saw it the first time. As I said it appears to be a contradiction. Im not misrepresenting you at all. I can quote you verbatim

[Praxeas]

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..

I don't believe that. I don't believe God shape shifted into a rock.

It was a real actual rock

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Aquila

"Oneness" inherently describes a union between two distinct things. Don't confuse the term "oneness" with "singleness".

I am using the word "Oneness" as an appellation for a distinct theological position, not as an adjective describing the relationship of Father and Son within the Scriptures.

Oneness, in this way, is descriptive, just like Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Unitarian, and etc. is descriptive of an overall theological position.

These words have traditional, and traditionally understood meanings. Oneness as a theological position, has universally and traditionally always asserted that Jesus is the Father and the Son.

Anyone who doesn't believe that, should not use the term Oneness to describe themselves.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I am using the word "Oneness" as an appellation for a distinct theological position, not as an adjective describing the relationship of Father and Son within the Scriptures.

Oneness, in this way, is descriptive, just like Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Unitarian, and etc. is descriptive of an overall theological position.

These words have tradition, and traditionally understood meanings. Oneness as a theological position, has universally and traditionally always asserted that Jesus is the Father and the Son.

Anyone who doesn't believe that, should not use the term Oneness to describe themselves.

Why not bro...Jesus had a God.....Was Jesus ONENESS?....
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.(this is AFTER the resurrection)

Psalm 22
22 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Are they the same exact being?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Sean

Why not bro...Jesus had a God.....Was Jesus ONENESS?....
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.(this is AFTER the resurrection)

Psalm 22
22 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Are they the same exact being?

Everyone but MtD seems to be missing the point I'm making. I have not and so far, do not plan to, dive into the theological aspect of this discussion.

I am merely making the point that words have meaning, and we can't just use them however we want. Since I am not a Trinitarian, nor ever have been, nor ever will be, I will never use the word Trinitarian to describe myself or my theological understanding of the Godhead.

Why? Because I do not affirm the Trinitarian view of God.

So, if I do not affirm the Oneness view of the Godhead, then likewise I should not call myself Oneness.

Think about the average man on the street:

You say, "Hi, I'm a Oneness believer in Jesus Christ"

They say, "Oh, you believe Jesus is the Father?"

You say, "Nope, I don't believe Jesus is the Father."

They say, "Then you aren't Oneness."

See what I mean?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Everyone but MtD seems to be missing the point I'm making. I have not and so far, do not plan to, dive into the theological aspect of this discussion.

I am merely making the point that words have meaning, and we can't just use them however we want. Since I am not a Trinitarian, nor ever have been, nor ever will be, I will never use the word Trinitarian to describe myself or my theological understanding of the Godhead.

Why? Because I do not affirm the Trinitarian view of God.

So, if I do not affirm the Oneness view of the Godhead, then likewise I should not call myself Oneness.

Think about the average man on the street:

You say, "Hi, I'm a Oneness believer in Jesus Christ"

They say, "Oh, you believe Jesus is the Father?"

You say, "Nope, I don't believe Jesus is the Father."

They say, "Then you aren't Oneness."

See what I mean?

Yes I see Bro. Very good point. I'm always shocked when this topic comes up. Its almost like the Oneness doctrine is being lost all over again.

It was hard for me in the beginning to see how that the early Church could have all but lost the truth it was delivered within 200 years more or less.

Now it was fully recovered less than 100 years ago. Millions have come to its light. But now it seems to be fading possibly more quickly than in the beginning!

I really hold the Ministers largely responsible. Instead of having a strategy for teaching truth and taking it serious we have entertainment type preaching. People like "hot" preaching! Jehovah Witnesses train their converts and get them witnessing immediately. I have hardly met any "Apostolics" that I would trust to go out and represent the true gospel.

I knew one group in the Jesus movement where in 6 months they were expected to memorize 500 verses. And yet Apostolics walk around like the Emperor with his new clothes.

The worse part is when one of them gets their eyes open to some tradition of men they are being fed they immediately turn back FROM TRUTH that they have been taught (like Oneness) and go shopping among Trins and Arians because they no longer trust their leaders.

I thank God through Jesus Christ that we have the book of Revelation to let us know there will be end time overcomers!

[Abiding Now]

After reading this thread, I am reminded of the old "slippery slope, first goes the standards, then goes the doctrine" saying. Evidently it doesn't take long for some folks that are determined to get away from Pentecostal standards and all things Pentecostal to lose even the unique Bible doctrine of the mighty God in Christ. Sad.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Everyone but MtD seems to be missing the point I'm making. I have not and so far, do not plan to, dive into the theological aspect of this discussion.

I am merely making the point that words have meaning, and we can't just use them however we want. Since I am not a Trinitarian, nor ever have been, nor ever will be, I will never use the word Trinitarian to describe myself or my theological understanding of the Godhead.

Why? Because I do not affirm the Trinitarian view of God.

So, if I do not affirm the Oneness view of the Godhead, then likewise I should not call myself Oneness.

Think about the average man on the street:

You say, "Hi, I'm a Oneness believer in Jesus Christ"

They say, "Oh, you believe Jesus is the Father?"

You say, "Nope, I don't believe Jesus is the Father."

They say, "Then you aren't Oneness."

See what I mean?

Bro. I see your point, but I produced those passages to show you the way the Bible looks to a TRINITARIAN...We must have a better explanation than just...JESUS IS THE FATHER and THE FATHER IS JESUS.

These folks need a clear explanation.
I believe Jesus is the Father, because he was indwelled by the Father and the Words/Works were done through him by the indwelling Father.

Jesus was however, a real live human being that admittedly had a GOD.

Many of our oneness explanations seem like a lot of technical jargon to them in my opinion.

Many of us struggle with the thought of Jesus being a human being and having a God(Father).

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Sean

Many of us struggle with the thought of Jesus being a human being and having a God(Father).

I don't. God became a man. The man would of course be a worshipper of God. When God became a man he took on a way of existence, that of a genuine human being (while not ceasing to be YHVH of course).

Jesus is not the Father "because the Father dwells in him". Rather he is the Father because he is the human being that the Father became in order to redeem us. If indwelling makes him God then all Christians are God IN THE SAME WAY right?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Everyone but MtD seems to be missing the point I'm making. I have not and so far, do not plan to, dive into the theological aspect of this discussion.

I am merely making the point that words have meaning, and we can't just use them however we want. Since I am not a Trinitarian, nor ever have been, nor ever will be, I will never use the word Trinitarian to describe myself or my theological understanding of the Godhead.

Why? Because I do not affirm the Trinitarian view of God.

So, if I do not affirm the Oneness view of the Godhead, then likewise I should not call myself Oneness.

Think about the average man on the street:

You say, "Hi, I'm a Oneness believer in Jesus Christ"

They say, "Oh, you believe Jesus is the Father?"

You say, "Nope, I don't believe Jesus is the Father."

They say, "Then you aren't Oneness."

See what I mean?

Hey, I didnt miss your point! lol

Oneness as a theological position is slowly but surely morphing among the OP movement. The end result seems to me will be trinitarianism.

The same move towards trinitarianism is happening among SDAs as well though they are a bit further along.