If there isn't a distinction of person... language would demand that Jesus say,
"I, the Father, am one." ... not... "I AND my father ARE one."
Jesus used personal distinction linguistically by speaking of the Father in "second person" using terms like "he", "him", and "my Father". What you're saying is that the very words Jesus spoke and their linguistic meaning and implication mean nothing. You have to deny that it says what it says and FORCE an interpretation that would redefine the very usage of the words involved so that any distinction of "person" would only be argued to be "apparent". This sentence structure DEMANDS distinction of person (self):
If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Now, a Trinitarian will argue that this second "person" established by Christ's own usage of language is a second divine person... I don't believe that is so. It is the human person of the man Jesus Christ, the one who is fully man, made in the express image of the Father's own person.
Threaded Mode
