Jesus....Not God?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by shazeep

"Apparently Jesus' Name and Divinity can be questioned, but sleeve length is set in stone."

God was more clear on some things than others

[shazeep]

no kidding

[Ev. Duane Williams]

Originally Posted by jfrog

God was more clear on some things than others

Yeah, it's much more clear about Jesus being God manifest in flesh than it is about how we should dress in our modern clothes.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Yes we have which is why I'm trying to tread lightly. You say God is one HE. I am with you so far. You say the Son is that same God and so is the same HE. I'm still with you so far.

Except there's verses like John 5:26:

For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

I would actually see this verse supporting my view. Whose Life? As the Father has Life in Himself. It's the same LIFE

Now, hear me out. I'm not saying your oneness doctrine cannot explain this verse. I'm not going to bring that up because we've already discussed that to many times. I get it I really do. Your oneness doctrine works.

My contention this time isn't whether it works. My contention is whether your oneness explanation is the only viable explanation for the relationships between Jesus, the Father and God. I think there is more than one solution for the problem at hand.

Well I've never claimed mine is the only viable one. However the reason I am certain is as you've already said.

That is why I ask how you were certain there was only 1 doer of actions? I don't think there is any way you can be certain and to prove that I want to submit an alternate theory.

The biblical data is that there is One God and HE is one He who is Alone and that Jesus is that same He, in Human form

Instead of starting with the foundation that God is one person and interpreting all other events from that perspective I'm going to start with a different foundation.

My foundation is going to be that in John 5:26 and all throughout the new testament Jesus and the Father are distunguished from each other and yet both are shown to be God.

We acknowledge that. However a foundation is what comes first. The Foundational data is the OT and the OT foundational data is repeated in the NT

I'm going to choose to call them manifestations for my new doctrine. So Jesus and the Father are two different manifestations that are each God. However we read in the old testament that there is only one God. OPPS! It almost sounds like we have two gods since we have two manifestations that are each God.

The problem with that is a Manifestation is not a synonym for being. A PERSON is manifested. And so if you say God is manifested as Father and Son you still have One God

So the next step in my doctrine is to explain that God is a single person and manifests himself in different manifestations (sometimes even at the same time) and that's how both Jesus and the Father are both God and appear and interact with each other.

I think this sounds pretty parallel to your doctrine so far. It's just my starting point and terms are a little different but the meaning between our two explanation is basically the same. Wouldn't you agree?

Now with this established I want to make a small change in terminology. Instead of saying God is a person, I'm instead going to refer to God as a being and let everything else be the same.

But God IS a being. We all acknowledge that but How can God NOT be a Person?

I have a being that manifests himself in different manifestations. I think you'll agree that this change isn't really a problem as long as I change my definition of being to be similiar to what my definition of person previously meant. If I make that change then everything is still essentially the same, I'm just using different terms to explain the same concept.

Ok then you really aren't doing anything but playing semantics and In losing interest lol

Now I want to make one more minor change. Instead of calling Jesus and the Father manifestations, I am going to change my term to person. Jesus and the Father are both persons. As long as my new term persons means something similiar to what I previously meant by manifestation then I've still not really changed anything.

Now I have a doctrine that is essentially the same as Prax's except I use slightly different terminology (I just tie different meanings to my terms than Prax does). Why would I rather use person for Jesus and the Father instead of being? The biggest reason is because Jesus and the Father have personal relationships with each other and so it only seems fair in my mind to denote them as different or distinct persons.

And there is my case that Prax's oneness view and the trinity both carry the same meaning.

But it all fails based on the fact you changed definitions and words.

That's like saying a Rock is a Person by going through the same sort of obfuscation of terms

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by elder_brother

So it seems that there is mutual agreement that Father, Son & Holy Spirit are absolutely one in there Divine Nature (Oneness would also contend in Person). It appears that we would also both (Oneness & Trinity) affirm that God is Triune in regards to these three distinctions. So my question: Within the three distinctions, can Oneness assert that the Father is NOT the Son is NOT the Holy Spirit?

Sure but why would we need to say that when we already said they are distinct?

Also, thanks for sharing the difference between the Oneness view of manifestations or modes & The Trinitarians view of persons. Is the Oneness view identical to Modalistic Monarchianism? If not, what are the differences? I am probably off topic here, so I can start a new thread if you would prefer. Thanks for sharing.

Identical? I don't know. We only know about Modalism from those that were it's antagonists and Oneness does not believe in sequential modalism

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Ev. Duane Williams

Just seeing if you guys were noticing this doctrine popping up among Apostolic churches. I know, Arianism and Unitarianism has been around for centuries. However, my concern is it seems like it's starting to take root in the Apostolic church. There are also those who claim that the Name of Jesus is a perversion and that the savior went around being called "Yahwah", or "Yahweh", or some variation of YHWH.

What I have gathered from discussions with both the "Jesus is not Godders" and the "Sacred Namers" is that although there is quite a bit of diversity of belief among them, they invariably have one thing in common:

THEY ALL STARTED AS ONENESS APOSTOLICS. Shouldn't this be an area of concern for the leadership of the UPCI, ALJC, PAW, etc.?

P.S. .....and they're all big on "standards" too. Apparently Jesus' Name and Divinity can be questioned, but sleeve length is set in stone.

They are only concerned with their own "Identity" and finances

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I would actually see this verse supporting my view. Whose Life? As the Father has Life in Himself. It's the same LIFE


Well I've never claimed mine is the only viable one. However the reason I am certain is as you've already said.




The biblical data is that there is One God and HE is one He who is Alone and that Jesus is that same He, in Human form


We acknowledge that. However a foundation is what comes first. The Foundational data is the OT and the OT foundational data is repeated in the NT


The problem with that is a Manifestation is not a synonym for being. A PERSON is manifested. And so if you say God is manifested as Father and Son you still have One God


But God IS a being. We all acknowledge that but How can God NOT be a Person?


Ok then you really aren't doing anything but playing semantics and In losing interest lol


But it all fails based on the fact you changed definitions and words.

That's like saying a Rock is a Person by going through the same sort of obfuscation of terms

What makes your definition of person better than the trinitarian definition of person? You do realize you use a different definition of person than they do right?

[elder_brother]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Sure but why would we need to say that when we already said they are distinct?

Identical? I don't know. We only know about Modalism from those that were it's antagonists and Oneness does not believe in sequential modalism

I agree, "distinct" describes it well enough. As per my earlier discussions, there seemed to be an issue of contention with denoting the distinction in this manner.

Yes, sequential modalism was actually what I was referring to but I couldn't remember the term used. Thanks

[FlamingZword]

Why don't we just take a page out of the Trinitarians book and simply declare the Oneness "A Mystery" beyond comprehension that just has to be accepted by faith.

I mean it works for them. whenever a Trinitarian gets into a tight spot and can not explain a bible verse, they simple say that "The trinity is a unknowable" and that gets them off the hook.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Why don't we just take a page out of the Trinitarians book and simply declare the Oneness "A Mystery" beyond comprehension that just has to be accepted by faith.

I mean it works for them. whenever a Trinitarian gets into a tight spot and can not explain a bible verse, they simple say that "The trinity is a unknowable" and that gets them off the hook.

While I dislike hearing that statement as much as you, there is alot of wisdom in saying that many of the things which pertain to God are unknowable.