Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Father?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I think you did not really consider my last phrase, yourself, though. Let's just say for the moment that I am right. Just for the sake of making a point. God is solely in every sense one person.

Then using our language to communicate between the MAN and the GOD would demand it to be two persons simply due to language! And can you not see how language would cause misunderstanding of His nature?

One such as God is fully capable of accurately using language to express what He means. Language doesn't limit Him. Therefore, I would expect to surely be able to turn to what the Bible actually says, and the implications of those statements, and know the truth about God.

I will answer the remaining of what you say later. But I want to make sure you get my point here first.

If God is as I say He is, then there is no way you or others would ever accept that due to language, but the language He uses would be the only way He could do what He does. In this manner, your basis of language is marring reality. Yes, it works between human persons showing first person singular talking to another second person singular. But those literary labels cannot define the godhead.

Again, language doesn't limit God. And the manner in which you describe it isn't the only way He could do what He does. For example, why didn't Jesus simply say, "I am one?" Or, simply say, "I am the Father" instead of saying, "I am in the Father and the Father in me"? Why not simply say, "I am the Father"? Why even speak of terms that demand a mutual indwelling, a "union" of being?

I know that this is perhaps a silly example, but an illustration of a single person in multiple manifestations is better seen in Agent Smith, the villain in the film, The Matrix. You'll note that each "manifestation" is indeed Agent Smith. He even speaks through any given Agent Smith as himself. They are clearly the same "person"... the same "self-conscious reality"... the same "self". We don't see this in Jesus. Jesus clearly has a distinct human self-conscious reality, or "self" that relates to the Father. Therefore, we see a distinctly human "person". That human person is who the Bible refers to as, "the man, Christ Jesus".

There's nothing that could occur in communication between the two that would allow you to see the truth, if I am right in how I describe God since you are stuck to literary terminology to define the Godhead.

Please re-read your statement above. You are saying that there is nothing that could occur in communication between the Father and the Son, as seen in Scripture, that would allow me to see the truth, if you are right in how you are describing God. Don't you see, that's my point? We don't walk away with your view being established by what we see in Scripture. Your view isn't expressed... in Scripture. You are admitting it. However, you're not realizing what you're admitting. You're putting your theology before what we see in the Scriptures themselves. What we believe about God should be based entirely upon what is written in the Scriptures and their implications. Not what a chosen school of theological thought professes. I've heard of being true to your school... but when it comes to the Bible and what it says and what it implies... I'll side with the Bible.

Try to re-image it this way. Jesus is the express image of the invisible God. A perfect imprint in flesh of God. Picture yourself talking to your image in a mirror and the image has the ability to genuinely talk back. You are using language but in no way does that demand two persons.

Yes, if I looked into the mirror and said, "Hello, I'm Chris." Then my reflection smiled and looked at you and said, "This is also me. Isn't this interesting Rev. Blume?" You'd have a single "person" expressed in both physical presence and reflection.

But, if my reflection smiled and said, "I am also Chris. Indeed, we are one. But Chris is a little stuffy and straight laced. While, I don't know what Christopher knows, I know that I'd like to go get drunk and maybe buy a hooker tonight." You'd have a distinct "person" who is a reflection of me but isn't really me. I'd be vehemently saying, "I don't want to get drunk or buy a hooker! That's not me!" The moment we see a distinct "self" or a distinct "self-conscious reality" coming from that reflection... while it is a reflection of me... it isn't me. We'd not be the same "person".

Nothing is imaginary. Jesus was an actual man in every sense of the term. Even with a distinct circle of consciousness. But when God is in the equation causing that to happen, as well as being one communicating to this manifestation, we cannot limit Him and must pull out all the plugs.

A distinct center of self-conscious reality (self) is a distinct "person". Frankly, if it were the same "person" (self), there'd be no need for the inter-personal communication we see between Christ and the Father.

Do we not see inter-personal communication between Jesus and the Father??? Yes or no? Of course we do. Thus... we have two distinct personalities, personal realities, centers of self-consciousness, or selves. One being human... the other being God Himself.