Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Father?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Rome would never agree that the Son is a man who is also the Father.

If what you have said up until now your beliefs, neither would you

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Not a double standard. If I speak to my soul (psuche/psyche) metaphorically as though it is another that's one thing...but if I speak to one who I indwell and is my beloved Son...that's another.

It's a double standard to insist we have to take the word of God LITERALLY yet you do not

[Aquila]

People go personal when they are starting to understand what you're saying and they don't have a response. Metaphor, talking to my arm or my soul, isn't the same as having an actual relationship and conversation with another self-conscious being or reality.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

People go personal when they are starting to understand what you're saying and they don't have a response. Metaphor, talking to my arm or my soul, isn't the same as having an actual relationship and conversation with another self-conscious being or reality.

But you are missing our point that you made a sweeping statement saying we were showing the bible does not mean what it says, and the bible includes words like the man talking to his own soul, using the very personal pronouns you demand were proof of multi-personal interaction. Our point is that the Bible uses this language in reference to Father and Son and does not necessarily demand we think in multi-personal terms. Just as the man talking to his own soul is not a picture of two persons, yet uses the language of multipersons, the interaction between Father and Son uses those terms but DOES NOT IMPLY MULTiIPERSONS either, but something else.

The "something else" is not the same condition as the man talking to his own soul, but apart from that, but still not multi-persons as you insist.

We''re showing you that the BIBLE USES that language and it cannot be used as proof for more than one person.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

People go personal when they are starting to understand what you're saying and they don't have a response. Metaphor, talking to my arm or my soul, isn't the same as having an actual relationship and conversation with another self-conscious being or reality.

People get defensive when they are shown to apply one standard to everyone else and not themselves when they don't have a good argument instead...like accusing others (personally) of not believing in the pure word of God and not believing the scriptures as they are written...then turning around and insisting certain verses are Metaphorc

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

People get defensive when they are shown to apply one standard to everyone else and not themselves when they don't have a good argument instead...like accusing others (personally) of not believing in the pure word of God and not believing the scriptures as they are written...then turning around and insisting certain verses are Metaphorc

So you don't believe the text is metaphoric?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

But you are missing our point that you made a sweeping statement saying we were showing the bible does not mean what it says, and the bible includes words like the man talking to his own soul, using the very personal pronouns you demand were proof of multi-personal interaction. Our point is that the Bible uses this language in reference to Father and Son and does not necessarily demand we think in multi-personal terms. Just as the man talking to his own soul is not a picture of two persons, yet uses the language of multipersons, the interaction between Father and Son uses those terms but DOES NOT IMPLY MULTiIPERSONS either, but something else.

The "something else" is not the same condition as the man talking to his own soul, but apart from that, but still not multi-persons as you insist.

We''re showing you that the BIBLE USES that language and it cannot be used as proof for more than one person.

You don't believe that a man speaking to his own soul is a use of metaphor?

[Aquila]

If a man talked to his soul and it literally began to speak back and they began a loving Father and Son relationship... that wouldn't be a metaphor.

I get what some are saying theologically about the word "person". However, when talking about the man Jesus Christ, I've often referred to His "human person". Because it is so clunky to say it was His "human nature" praying and the like. Nature's don't pray. Persons do. When I use the word person, I'm speaking of a self-conscious reality or self.

[Aquila]

It's my understanding that early Modalists views God has being comprised of three "hypostasis" (persons), yet these persons were viewed as being sequential modes of the monad's existence.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So you don't believe the text is metaphoric?

Do you even know what a metaphor is? You use a lot of worse inaccurately.

You also never responded to a post I repeated 3 times about the language. You also make a lot of non sequitur statements. This one by you is an example