Sin, Life & Death

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

To degrade it no, but to ask about the inconsistencies I see in the view.

But not to see if oneness just might be true?

EDIT: Though, apparently some believe oneness a bit differently than you in ways that take away the inconsistincies I see in these positions.

Please explain.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

But not to see if oneness just might be true?



Please explain.

Segraves in Systematic Theology One (1995)

"Jesus Christ is both God and man.

He is an authentic human being with a material body (now glorified) and an immaterial spirit (or spirit and soul).

He is just as authentically God, with the fulness of deity dwelling in Him bodily.

There is a mystery here, a mystery which has to do with determining exactly how Jesus can be both God and man at the same time, or more biblically, how God (deity) can be manifest in the flesh (humanity).

It is perhaps most correct to say that Jesus has a complete, but sinless, human nature and at the same time a complete divine nature. We cannot, however, separate these two natures. Jesus had a human will, mind, spirit, soul, and body, and the fulness of the Godhead was manifest in all aspects of His human existence. The miracle of the virgin conception means that deity and humanity were as inseparable in Jesus as the genetic influence of a mother and father is inseparable in their son or daughter. Just as no human could exist if all that was contributed to his existence by either his father or his mother were removed, so Jesus could not have existed as the Messiah apart from either His deity (contributed by the Holy Spirit [Luke 1:34-35]) or his humanity (contributed by Mary [Galatians 4:4]).

This means that the incarnation is permanent, e.g. once the human nature was assumed, it could never be discarded. Jesus experienced death as any human being would, e.g. as that which was immaterial about him (spirit and soul) was separated from that which was material about him (body). (See James 2:26 and Matthew 27:50.) But the fulness of deity continued to be expressed in His immaterial being even during the time of His death, and at His resurrection His immaterial and material parts were reunited permanently. The only difference between His humanity before the resurrection and after is that His post resurrection humanity is glorified (John 7:39; Philippians 3:21).

If the deity had actually withdrawn from the humanity at any point in time, including the moments before His death, there would have been at least a period of time when Jesus was not God and when He would have been unworthy of worship. This would also have created both a human Jesus and a divine Jesus, existing separately. And if His humanity is not now permanently united with His deity, there exists at this time a human Jesus who was once the incarnation of God, but is not longer. But Jesus' humanity has been permanently incorporated into the Godhead. All of God we will ever see is God manifest in the flesh (humanity) albeit now glorified humanity, in the person of Jesus Christ.

His humanity was more than merely a body with God inside. Jesus was not, as someone suggested, merely "God with skin on." He was human in body, soul, and spirit, with the fulness of the Spirit of God dwelling in that body, soul, and spirit. The Spirit of God was inextricably and inseparably joined with the humanity of Jesus. The two natures were not actually separated in Him. We can make only a distinction, not a separation, in the two natures."


Please pay close attention to the paragraph and sentences I bolded, and remember this is from Segraves not me.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Segraves in Systematic Theology One (1995)

"Jesus Christ is both God and man.

He is an authentic human being with a material body (now glorified) and an immaterial spirit (or spirit and soul).

He is just as authentically God, with the fulness of deity dwelling in Him bodily.

I agree.

There is a mystery here, a mystery which has to do with determining exactly how Jesus can be both God and man at the same time, or more biblically, how God (deity) can be manifest in the flesh (humanity).

It is perhaps most correct to say that Jesus has a complete, but sinless, human nature and at the same time a complete divine nature. We cannot, however, separate these two natures.

Of course we can. Deity is not humanity. Simple.

Jesus had a human will, mind, spirit, soul, and body, and the fulness of the Godhead was manifest in all aspects of His human existence.

Manifesting in something does make that something into that which manifests in it. There is too much assumption going on here.

The miracle of the virgin conception means that deity and humanity were as inseparable in Jesus as the genetic influence of a mother and father is inseparable in their son or daughter.

How can we compare human genetic infuence from human male and human female with deity and humanity bringing about a Son, except in vague thought?

Just as no human could exist if all that was contributed to his existence by either his father or his mother were removed, so Jesus could not have existed as the Messiah apart from either His deity (contributed by the Holy Spirit [Luke 1:34-35]) or his humanity (contributed by Mary [Galatians 4:4]).

This means that the incarnation is permanent, e.g. once the human nature was assumed, it could never be discarded. Jesus experienced death as any human being would, e.g. as that which was immaterial about him (spirit and soul) was separated from that which was material about him (body). (See James 2:26 and Matthew 27:50.) But the fulness of deity continued to be expressed in His immaterial being even during the time of His death, and at His resurrection His immaterial and material parts were reunited permanently. The only difference between His humanity before the resurrection and after is that His post resurrection humanity is glorified (John 7:39; Philippians 3:21).

Okay.

If the deity had actually withdrawn from the humanity at any point in time, including the moments before His death, there would have been at least a period of time when Jesus was not God and when He would have been unworthy of worship.

The body and humanity was never worthy of worship. It still isn't. Wrong assumption again. He assumes his body is worthy of worship.

This would also have created both a human Jesus and a divine Jesus, existing separately.

Not at all. THE PERSON is one and the same.

And if His humanity is not now permanently united with His deity, there exists at this time a human Jesus who was once the incarnation of God, but is not longer.

I agree there was no actual separation, but not in the sense you mention. His PERSON existed at that time as both divine and human, but one person. His person cannot be separated. But his manifestations certainly are.

But Jesus' humanity has been permanently incorporated into the Godhead.

Not at all. You cannot have humanity in Godhead at all. Humanity must change from being humanity into deity and that simply is offkey.

All of God we will ever see is God manifest in the flesh (humanity) albeit now glorified humanity, in the person of Jesus Christ.

His humanity was more than merely a body with God inside. Jesus was not, as someone suggested, merely "God with skin on." He was human in body, soul, and spirit, with the fulness of the Spirit of God dwelling in that body, soul, and spirit. The Spirit of God was inextricably and inseparably joined with the humanity of Jesus.

Only in some senses. His deity did not become humanity or vice versa.

The two natures were not actually separated in Him. We can make only a distinction, not a separation, in the two natures."


Please pay close attention to the paragraph and sentences I bolded, and remember this is from Segraves not me.

I cannot agree with Segraves here.

[jfrog]

[QUOTE=mfblume;827370]I agree.



Of course we can. Deity is not humanity. Simple.



Manifesting in something does make that something into that which manifests in it. There is too much assumption going on here.



How can we compare human genetic infuence from human male and human female with deity and humanity bringing about a Son, except in vague thought?



Okay.

[quote]

[B]If the deity had actually withdrawn from the humanity at any point in time, including the moments before His death, there would have been at least a period of time when Jesus was not God and when He would have been unworthy of worship.

The body and humanity was never worthy of worship. It still isn't.



Not at all. THE PERSON is one and the same.



I agree there was no actual separation, but not in the sense you mention. His PERSON existed at that time as both divine and human, but one person. His person cannot be separated. But his manifestations certainly are.



Not at all. You cannot have humanity in Godhead at all. Humanity must change from being humanity into deity and that simply is offkey.



Only in some senses. His deity did not become humanity or vice versa.


I cannot agree with Segraves here.

Segraves is oneness right?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Segraves is oneness right?

Sure. I just disagree with some of his points. Humanity was not to be worshiped in Jesus. Only deity is worshiped, and since Jesus' person is the only divine person that exists, I worship His person as God, but not his humanity.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Sure. I just disagree with some of his points. Humanity was not to be worshiped in Jesus. Only deity is worshiped, and since Jesus' person is the only divine person that exists, I worship His person as God, but not his humanity.

Segraves does not believe that Christ's humanity should be worshipped. He believes that Christ's humanity and deity are inseparable.

I believe I have found a compelling argument to reveal a little clearer just how much your views separate the person of Christ. It begins with one of the oldest questions asked to oneness believers I have heard.

Did Jesus pray to himself? As every oneness believer, you will answer this question quickly by saying something similiar to "the human nature of Jesus prayed to the divine nature of Jesus".

Now I would like to examine this response. Your original response is intended to be an answer of "NO". The only way you can say Jesus did not pray to himself would be if Jesus the man and Jesus the God were actually two separate persons, because if you believe that Jesus is a singular person that is fully the Father and fully man then the answer to this question (Did Jesus pray to himself?) must be "YES" Jesus prayed to himself.

So in order to hold your view of oneness, you must answer that Jesus prayed to himself or else it is revealed that you believe Jesus is not a singular person. (Actually I think Segraves view would also would have to admit this... but I can't ask him about it )

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Segraves does not believe that Christ's humanity should be worshipped. He believes that Christ's humanity and deity are inseparable.

I believe I have found a compelling argument to reveal a little clearer just how much your views separate the person of Christ. It begins with one of the oldest questions asked to oneness believers I have heard.

Did Jesus pray to himself? As every oneness believer, you will answer this question quickly by saying something similiar to "the human nature of Jesus prayed to the divine nature of Jesus".

Now I would like to examine this response. Your original response is intended to be an answer of "NO". The only way you can say Jesus did not pray to himself would be if Jesus the man and Jesus the God were actually two separate persons, because if you believe that Jesus is a singular person that is fully the Father and fully man then the answer to this question (Did Jesus pray to himself?) must be "YES" Jesus prayed to himself.

So in order to hold your view of oneness, you must answer that Jesus prayed to himself or else it is revealed that you believe Jesus is not a singular person. (Actually I think Segraves view would also would have to admit this... but I can't ask him about it )

i think your error that is being repeated in all you say is that you are comparing God and His abilities with those of a human being. I think I mentioned this before, but you still have not noticed it, if I did mention it. You are looking at two human beings who must be two persons to communicate with each other. And you are demanding that God's situation must be that of two human persons if a similar thing occurs with Son speaking to Father. You then reason that since humans cannot be one person and do that, then God cannot be either.

We are talking about a human being speaking to deity. If deity is involved in being that manifestation in flesh, then all your limiting views based upon human examples must go out the window. God's person is not a human person. We cannot conceive what His nature is really like and why or how He can do what He does. But to explain it away and say that human examples dictate to us how we understand God is simply not reasonable.

After years of debating trinitarians and hearing them out, while getting a side benefit in learning most oneness do not know actual trinity, I have come to this conclusion.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

i think your error that is being repeated in all you say is that you are comparing God and His abilities with those of a human being. I think I mentioned this before, but you still have not noticed it, if I did mention it. You are looking at two human beings who must be two persons to communicate with each other. And you are demanding that God's situation must be that of two human persons if a similar thing occurs with Son speaking to Father. You then reason that since humans cannot be one person and do that, then God cannot be either.

As far as comparing the Father to a human, I have not. I have insisted everywhere that Christ is fully human, and you say that you agree.

The only limitation I have placed on the Father is that he does not pray to himself, and even you agree with this. So logically, I say there must be another person that prays to the Father, or else the Father would be praying to himself. You say it wasn't a person that prayed but a nature. I say that a nature does not pray and I challenge you to give me one example of a nature praying.

So then our whole disagreement is predicated on that one question: can a nature pray apart from a person? Do you have any evidence that it can? In fact, can you find any difference between a nature that prays and a person that prays, besides saying one is a nature and one is a person?

Originally Posted by mfblume

We are talking about a human being speaking to deity. If deity is involved in being that manifestation in flesh, then all your limiting views based upon human examples must go out the window. God's person is not a human person. We cannot conceive what His nature is really like and why or how He can do what He does. But to explain it away and say that human examples dictate to us how we understand God is simply not reasonable.

I think our biggest point of contention is whether a nature can pray. I challenge you to give one example of a nature, apart from a person, praying to the Father.

Originally Posted by mfblume

After years of debating trinitarians and hearing them out, while getting a side benefit in learning most oneness do not know actual trinity, I have come to this conclusion.

I am not a trinitarian. I do not speak much on my views because I am not sure on them, so I discuss possibilities.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

As far as comparing the Father to a human, I have not. I have insisted everywhere that Christ is fully human, and you say that you agree.

Right. But GOD is in the equation here. The Son is deity as well as the Father, although the Son involves humanity while the Father does not. So a DIVINE PERSON is involved. That immediately removes all possibilities of saying God must be two persons in order for Son to talk to Father, since we can only see huamnity being two persons if a similar thing happens with us.

The only limitation I have placed on the Father is that he does not pray to himself, and even you agree with this. So logically, I say there must be another person that prays to the Father, or else the Father would be praying to himself.

No, you still miss the point I made. God caused the incarnation. So God is the issue here. What God can and cannot do as one person is simply UNKNOWN to us, really. In this light, to say He must be more than one person in order for Son to pray to Father is simply irrational, I think.

You say it wasn't a person that prayed but a nature. I say that a nature does not pray and I challenge you to give me one example of a nature praying.

I never said a nature prays. I said a HUMAN BEING is praying to GOD, and since God is both the incarnation as a human being as well as God, we cannot presume He must be two persons just because Son prays to Father. Such a presumption, again, is based upon conisidering what huamns must be in order for two humans to do the same thing.

I gave a picture of what I am trying to say before, and I was not sure if it was you with whom I spoke about it or not. It must not have been you.

So, let me explain. Imagine a martian is discovered on Mars. It's species is quite different from that of human beings. This creature has two mouths with which to speak simultaneously in two totally different conversations. Its brain is created to be able to do that. But it is one "person" of it species. If we were to look at that, we would reason that since we can only carry on two totally different conversations at the same time by there being TWO HUMAN PERSONS, we might wish to consider this creature as two persons. However, we are talking about a different species. It can do things we cannot do.

As crude as that picture is, I think it adequately explains what I am trying to say. I do not like to call God a species, but to get my point across, He is a different SPECIES than us. Although He is the only One of His kind. And it is error to say He must be more than one person when we see Him do things that would require more than one human person to do. And whether we realize it or not, we ARE comparing God to human beings and our abilities when we reason He is two persons at least. We have no other basis than that upon which to say God is more than one person.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Right. But GOD is in the equation here. The Son is deity as well as the Father, although the Son involves humanity while the Father does not. So a DIVINE PERSON is involved. That immediately removes all possibilities of saying God must be two persons in order for Son to talk to Father, since we can only see huamnity being two persons if a similar thing happens with us.

God does not need to be two persons for the Son to talk to the Father. I am not trying to assert this. I am trying to assert that in this oneness view, Jesus prayed to Jesus. This does not disprove oneness, but it is a logical consequence of oneness doctrine.

I am also asserting that if you do not confess this to be true that Jesus prayed to Jesus, then your only option to deny it is you must be dividing Christ into one human person and one divine person... (which would be a contradiction to your view that Jesus is fully man and fully God, since Jesus would no longer be a singular person)

Originally Posted by mfblume

No, you still miss the point I made. God caused the incarnation. So God is the issue here. What God can and cannot do as one person is simply UNKNOWN to us, really. In this light, to say He must be more than one person in order for Son to pray to Father is simply irrational, I think.

You are the one missing my whole point... IF Jesus is both the Father and man, THEN Jesus prayed to Jesus. That is all I am saying. I am not saying this proves oneness is untrue, but I'm saying that logically following from your conception of oneness, Jesus prayed to Jesus.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I never said a nature prays. I said a HUMAN BEING is praying to GOD, and since God is both the incarnation as a human being as well as God, we cannot presume He must be two persons just because Son prays to Father. Such a presumption, again, is based upon conisidering what huamns must be in order for two humans to do the same thing.

Okay then, since a nature does not pray then my point is proven. Since a nature does not pray then a person prays. Jesus the "person" prayed to the Father, but since the "person" Jesus is the Father THEN Jesus the "person" prayed to Jesus the "person". Again this does not disprove oneness, it is just a logical consequence of it.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I gave a picture of what I am trying to say before, and I was not sure if it was you with whom I spoke about it or not. It must not have been you.

So, let me explain. Imagine a martian is discovered on Mars. It's species is quite different from that of human beings. This creature has two mouths with which to speak simultaneously in two totally different conversations. Its brain is created to be able to do that. But it is one "person" of it species. If we were to look at that, we would reason that since we can only carry on two totally different conversations at the same time by there being TWO HUMAN PERSONS, we might wish to consider this creature as two persons. However, we are talking about a different species. It can do things we cannot do.

As crude as that picture is, I think it adequately explains what I am trying to say. I do not like to call God a species, but to get my point across, He is a different SPECIES than us. Although He is the only One of His kind. And it is error to say He must be more than one person when we see Him do things that would require more than one human person to do. And whether we realize it or not, we ARE comparing God to human beings and our abilities when we reason He is two persons at least. We have no other basis than that upon which to say God is more than one person.

As for your example, you are not asserting that God spoke to God, or even that God prayed to God. You assert that there is no other God for God to speak to. You assert that man prayed to God. In your example you are asserting that one of those mouths was a man and one of those mouths was the Father. This also supports my position. You said there was one person, Christ (of that two mouthed species) and that one mouth was a man and the other mouth was the Father. If the mouth that was a man spoke to the mouth that was the Father, would we not say that Christ spoke to Christ, that the two mouthed creature spoke to itself?