Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Father?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Ferd

? 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?

next time read in context.

the trinity is more concerned with the relationships and differences between the father son and Holy Spirit (whether they be called persons or roles or whatever)

Oneness is concerned with what is common between the father and son and Holy Spirit (whether that is called person or being or whatever)

However trinitarias when pushed will also talk about the sameness of the father son and Holy Spirit (by being). And oneness when pushed will talk about the differences and interactions between the father son and Holy Spirit (by role)

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Why?

Only God is eternal.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Only God is eternal.

Okay.... Well the father and son and Holy Spirit are all that one God. So how exactly does describing them all as eternal and interacting for eternity mean there is more than one God?

Maybe it's help to explain it this way: there is nothing in the oneness explanation of God that by necessity precludes the word or Holy Spirit from being eternal.

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was god.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Okay.... Well the father and son and Holy Spirit are all that one God. So how exactly does describing them all as eternal and interacting for eternity mean there is more than one God?

Interacting eternally is not one God. That's my point. There's no difference between that and polytheism. It's trinity wants to be polytheistic but can't since the Word says One God. So it's the next best thing. lol

Maybe it's help to explain it this way: there is nothing in the oneness explanation of God that by necessity precludes the word or Holy Spirit from being eternal.

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was god.

You really need to learn oneness a bit more. Oneness absolutely denies a preincarnate Son of God. That's why John 1:1 said WORD and not SON.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Interacting eternally is not one God. That's my point. There's no difference between that and polytheism. It's trinity wants to be polytheistic but can't since the Word says One God. So it's the next best thing. lol



You really need to learn oneness a bit more. Oneness absolutely denies a preincarnate Son of God. That's why John 1:1 said WORD and not SON.

Stay on topic man. That wasn't your original premise. Your original premise was that if anything else was eternal other than God then that was polytheism.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Ferd

? 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?

I have no problem with the word Person as long as it's clear we believe God is One Person and not Three

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Stay on topic man. That wasn't your original premise. Your original premise was that if anything else was eternal other than God then that was polytheism.

That's right. But the point is substantiated by what I explained. Unless you're not following what I mean. Anything eternal other than God indeed does make polytheism. Are you thinking the WORD is separate from God? The WORD IS GOD. Just like your thoughts are you. Seriously, you don't know oneness adequately enough.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

That's right. But the point is substantiated by what I explained. Unless you're not following what I mean. Anything eternal other than God indeed does make polytheism. Are you thinking the WORD is separate from God? The WORD IS GOD. Just like your thoughts are you. Seriously, you don't know oneness adequately enough.

Are you thinking the trinity claims the Son is separate from God? The trinity claims the SON IS GOD.

You see, anything that can be said of the Word can be said of the Son. If the word being eternal doesn't bother you then how can the Son being eternal bother you?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Are you thinking the trinity claims the Son is separate from God? The trinity claims the SON IS GOD.

Don't digress. lol. You don't see a purpose and good reason for not saying the SON is eternal but instead saying the WORD is?

WORD/LOGOS is a thought process. Not another person. And interaction with one's own WORD is like the man who said, "Luk 12:19 KJV And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry." That is not another person.

You see, anything that can be said of the Word can be said of the Son. If the word being eternal doesn't bother you then how can the Son being eternal bother you?

An eternal Son bothers me because one's Word is one's thought and plan, which is less than the Son who interacts with the Father. The SON is a sup'd up Word because it's made flesh to be able to interact.

logos
log'-os
From G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ):
There is no interaction with WORD as there is with SON OF GOD after the incarnation. And, so, John put it that way in 1:1 for a good reason.

Why do you want eternal interaction between Son and Father when the Bible does not indicate that? You have to do some mental gymnastics to derive that conclusion.

No, everything about the Word CANNOT be said about the Son. The Son is not the Son made flesh, but the Word made flesh. And Word means what I indicated above in the Lexicon.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Jesus, the Son was God. Yes. But He was also Human

OK. Now, was the flesh of Jesus God?
If the flesh was also God, he didn't need to be anointed. Or was Jesus anointed by the word (God) that was dwelling in him?

Now this: Saying that Jesus is God, and that God's NAME is Jesus sounds the same; but it's not, if the Father and the son have the same NAME! I still believe that some folks are stumbling on the NAME.