My 1st thread / Apostolic Language?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

So you if you were at one of those big time high church havin' apostolic meetings and a preacher came to the pulpit and he started off his thoughts with the following phrase you wouldn't wonder about his beliefs?

(Stealing this from Shag... )

"I thank God the Father, in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, for..."

You wouldn't have any issue with the wording of that opening phrase?

Well no - of course not - because even though it was a bad choice of words, we would know what he reeeeaaally meant!

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Well no - of course not - because even though it was a bad choice of words, we would know what he reeeeaaally meant!

LOL...

So... said phrase would be best accompanied with a "wink.. wink"

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Awe - yes. I wanted to be clear that the Father and the Son are the one same person of God.

Having said that, however, I do not believe Jesus, the Son of God, was his own Father...

The very definitions of Father and Son prevent the mixing of the terms.

The Father is God as He relates to creation, and to His only begotten Son, apart from, and outside of, the incarnation.

The Son is God in and through the incarnation.

To mix the terms is to do injustice to scripture and in some cases promotes a skewed Christology.

So while Jesus, the Son of God, was divine and God himself, it is improper IMHO, to say He is His own Father.


I cannot in good conscience sing the song you referenced... "I know Jesus is the Father..."

Even though I know and understand Jesus is God Almighty.

Steve,
I am preparing to move away from this topic for a while because it can be very upsetting to folks, but I can not leave your post without commenting that it reads to me as something that is quite CIRCULAR.

I appreciate that you are open to consider the dilemnas or even the inconsistencies that may be at work in the way classical oneness teachers present who the Son of God is, but I can not help but read your post as someone who wants to acknowledge something but can not, for whatever reason.

To say:
"The very definitions of Father and Son prevent the mixing of the terms."
and
"So while Jesus, the Son of God, was divine and God himself, it is improper IMHO, to say He is His own Father."

Is a stream of thinking that contradicts itself. At this point, I think you are very close to throwing your hands up in the air and calling it a mystery.

[Praxeas]

Speaking of Loaded language. First of all Paul did not separate anything. Yes grammatically speaking there seems to be a distinction and even a separation. But Paul never said that God is separate from Jesus, or The Father is separate from the Son or "Father, Son and Holy Ghost are separate persons" let alone use the greek word that later church fathers adopted for persons to describe a distinction between them.

Paul does this in my view because there was a distinction, but not a separation. Father and Son were different just as the Divine nature was to the Human.

You will notice that in all those salutations the distinction or separation of the Spirit is lacking.

BTW I say "Father" all the time. Because God is my Father.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by tbpew

Steve,
I am preparing to move away from this topic for a while because it can be very upsetting to folks, but I can not leave your post without commenting that it reads to me as something that is quite CIRCULAR.

I appreciate that you are open to consider the dilemnas or even the inconsistencies that may be at work in the way classical oneness teachers present who the Son of God is, but I can not help but read your post as someone who wants to acknowledge something but can not, for whatever reason.

To say:
"The very definitions of Father and Son prevent the mixing of the terms."
and
"So while Jesus, the Son of God, was divine and God himself, it is improper IMHO, to say He is His own Father."

Is a stream of thinking that contradicts itself. At this point, I think you are very close to throwing your hands up in the air and calling it a mystery.

Don't leave just yet - because I am not at all clear as to what you are saying is contradictory.

Are you saying one cannot claim Jesus is divine without acknowledging He is to be called the Father?

I think it only contradicts if one insists that Son = Flesh, and Father = God.

I don't follow that view.

I believe It can be said the
Father is God,
and the Son is God -

yet there ARE distinctions that can be made. (which stands to reason - otherwise why have the different names/titles?)

The human and divine natures in Christ should not be understood to be synonomous with Son and Father.

As Jason Dulle says - the distinctions between Father and Son are "EXternal" rather than "INternal" to Jesus Christ.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Speaking of Loaded language. First of all Paul did not separate anything. Yes grammatically speaking there seems to be a distinction and even a separation. But Paul never said that God is separate from Jesus, or The Father is separate from the Son or "Father, Son and Holy Ghost are separate persons" let alone use the greek word that later church fathers adopted for persons to describe a distinction between them.

Paul does this in my view because there was a distinction, but not a separation. Father and Son were different just as the Divine nature was to the Human.

You will notice that in all those salutations the distinction or separation of the Spirit is lacking.

BTW I say "Father" all the time. Because God is my Father.

Prax, I understood Shag to be questioning why the SAME language used in scripture seems to be unacceptable in todays churches. Not that he was questioning the extent of the "separation" between the Father and the Son.

[shag]

So the million dollar question is; Why did the monotheistic apostle Paul (and others) go to such an extent of at least "grammatical distinction" between God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, as often as he did?(ex; 1st page).(For that matter, why did he not pin the name Jesus to the title "Father", as he did with the title "Son"?)

And I still wonder what the thought reaction would be at a big Church meeting if some stranger opened up talking the way Paul did. Why not skip the distinction and just say "Jesus", Paul? ("wink")

[Hoovie]

Bump!

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Prax, I understood Shag to be questioning why the SAME language used in scripture seems to be unacceptable in todays churches. Not that he was questioning the extent of the "separation" between the Father and the Son.

Maybe because if we talked like that from the platform of a church people would think we were "going trinity." Maybe we are so afraid of words and terms and how they might be perceived by others.

It is my understanding that the Apostles, elders, and leaders in the early church were originally Jewish and therefore believed in JHVH as the only one true God. They believed that JHVH had indeed come to them in Jesus and was living within them and working upon them and through them as the Spirit of the Lord, or the Spirit of Jesus Christ, or Christ in them. Look how Peter spoke about Jesus in Acts chapter 10:
34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. 36 The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all— 37 that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. 39 And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. 40 Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. 42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

Notice verse 38, he didn't try to explain that Jesus as God anointed Jesus as Son with the Spirit of Jesus and that Jesus as Son was empowered by Jesus as God so He could work these miracles. In verse 40 he just said that God raised Jesus from the dead. He didn't think it was necessary to quote John 2:19-21 how Jesus said He was the One who would raise the temple of His body from the dead.

There was no "trinity vs. oneness" debate. They did not have to be so very careful of the words they used lest they be considered compromisers or weak on the message or trying to hybridize oneness and trinity. The words "persons" vs "manifestations or offices" had not yet become an issue

[jaxfam6]

Originally Posted by shag

So the million dollar question is; Why did the monotheistic apostle Paul (and others) go to such an extent of at least "grammatical distinction" between God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, as often as he did?(ex; 1st page).(For that matter, why did he not pin the name Jesus to the title "Father", as he did with the title "Son"?)

And I still wonder what the thought reaction would be at a big Church meeting if some stranger opened up talking the way Paul did. Why not skip the distinction and just say "Jesus", Paul? ("wink")

Personally I think that their writings are in a much more formal style than we practice now days. Look at many things from 200 plus years back and you see a different format and more formal style. They refer to themselves in a third person, they use titles galore, all sorts of silly things that we look at as formal and for the most part obsolete in our society. Just my humble opinion.