Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Father?

[Aquila]

All distinct personality found in the Son as He relates to the Father is biblically understood as being an aspect of Christ's humanity. This distinct personality isn't from eternity, nor is it divine. However, at present it is "glorified".

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

All distinct personality found in the Son as He relates to the Father is biblically understood as being an aspect of Christ's humanity. This distinct personality isn't from eternity, nor is it divine. However, at present it is "glorified".

You are confusing Person with Nature...again

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by jfrog

That's because oneness is primarily interested in the person that is god. The trinity is primarily interested in the roles of God.

As such the oneness says the father is the son because they are both the same person. The trinity says the father is not the son because the father and son are different roles.

However in the right context either approach may begin to sound like the other.

with respect Jfrog, I really dont think you understand what trinitarians believe or what they are interested in....

Trinitarians speak of persons. not roles.

Modalism is expressly concerned with the ROLES that God has. Prax stated somewhere else, that the terms have to be defined to have any rational discussion of the topic. You cant simply redefine the terms to make it sound like you want it to.

[Ferd]

this really is simple when you start stopping to complicate this.


Here O Israel, the Lord our God is ONE LORD.


God has always been God. He will always be God and beside him there is no other. NONE.

God has revieled himself to humanity as Father in creation, Son in redemption and Holy Spirit regeneration.

He has chosen a name for himself. That name is Jesus.

There will come a day when he chooses a new name.

between now and then, he has left us with a simple easy to understand connection to him.....ergo.... LISTEN TO PETER> Mt. 16.

Peter: Acts 2

The rest us man trying to intectualize their way into putting God in a box.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Ferd

with respect Jfrog, I really dont think you understand what trinitarians believe or what they are interested in....

Trinitarians speak of persons. not roles.

Modalism is expressly concerned with the ROLES that God has. Prax stated somewhere else, that the terms have to be defined to have any rational discussion of the topic. You cant simply redefine the terms to make it sound like you want it to.

Right. ROLES are like MODES. That is more oneness than trinitarian.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You are confusing Person with Nature...again

I agree.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

But how does it imply polytheism anymore than the father, son and holy spirit interacting forever after the incarnation?

Because Son is not eternal so there is only temporal interaction. Only "eternal" interactions implies more than one god.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Ferd

with respect Jfrog, I really dont think you understand what trinitarians believe or what they are interested in....

Trinitarians speak of persons. not roles.

Modalism is expressly concerned with the ROLES that God has. Prax stated somewhere else, that the terms have to be defined to have any rational discussion of the topic. You cant simply redefine the terms to make it sound like you want it to.

It's best not to use terms with disputed meaning like person. In fact it's quite worthless to. If a person cannot describe the trinity without the use of the word person then he doesn't even understand wgat the trinity means when it uses the word person.

A rose by any other name is still a rose

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Because Son is not eternal so there is only temporal interaction. Only "eternal" interactions implies more than one god.

Why?

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by jfrog

It's best not to use terms with disputed meaning like person. In fact it's quite worthless to. If a person cannot describe the trinity without the use of the word person then he doesn't even understand wgat the trinity means when it uses the word person.

A rose by any other name is still a rose

? there is no dispute here. the term person as it relates to the discussion is quite clearly defined and accepted by all parties.

Oneness people dont talk in terms of person(s). That is strictly trinitarian in nature.

However, Oneness people do speak in terms of roles. That is accepted OT/Sablilism/Modalism terminology.

YOU however, have assigned the term Person to OPs. and ROLE to Trinnies. so you seem to be bluring the lines. I dunno why?