Re: Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Fathe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
You do realize that... the essence of your argument above is that, since God can do anything, the text doesn't have to mean what it says or mean what it implies, don't you???
I am arguing that we have to take the very usage of the language of Jesus seriously to draw theological conclusions. You're arguing that we shouldn't because it could mean anything, because God can do anything.
No that is not the case. I've thought long about this, brother. It is God being God and described in a way that uses language created from the basis of humanity interacting with humanity. So we are going to get a tainted description due to that use of language. When you use a language used for human beings that implies more than one person and the language is used between more than one person, and then apply that to God who is not a human when God speaks with HIS OWN MANIFESTATION you are not going to get a perfect picture.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Re: Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Fathe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
I'll gladly be your first. lol
I'd be afraid of that, brother. because it may be a private interpretation. Truth is never found with one person. But it does show you may not essentially be oneness, too.
Quote:
I agree that anything is possible with God. I can assume many different things that would supersede the text. However, the implication of your reasoning is that... Jesus draws a false distinction between Himself and the Father.
No, I already said I agree with you in part in THAT passage of John. You did not catch what I said. I an my Father are one is not saying one person there., but neither is it implying tow persons. It's something else.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Re: Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Fathe
Sorry, really gotta run now. lol
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Re: Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Fathe
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
No that is not the case. I've thought long about this, brother. It is God being God and described in a way that uses language created from the basis of humanity interacting with humanity. So we are going to get a tainted description due to that use of language. When you use a language used for human beings that implies more than one person and the language is used between more than one person, and then apply that to God who is not a human when God speaks with HIS OWN MANIFESTATION you are not going to get a perfect picture.
What if you're wrong and you can trust the words as written?
Re: Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Fathe
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
I'd be afraid of that, brother. because it may be a private interpretation. Truth is never found with one person. But it does show you may not essentially be oneness, too.
There are several versions of Oneness theology Rev. Blume. Not all are Modalistic.
Quote:
No, I already said I agree with you in part in THAT passage of John. You did not catch what I said. I and my Father are one is not saying one person there., but neither is it implying two persons. It's something else.
What if it isn't "something else" and the very words used and their implications can be trusted?
Re: Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Fathe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
What if you're wrong and you can trust the words as written?
Back home again! lol
I believe the words are totally trustworthy, but when we add grammatical terms like first person singular speaking to second person singular, confusing the terms as indication of more than one person misses the mark, I think. The terms and their labels were never meant to dictate to us understanding of the Godhead.
Generally speaking, though, language really is based upon multiple human persons, and it just cannot perfectly apply outside of that limitation.
If God really is one person alone, and used our language to interact in his manifestations then you can see how that would pose confusion to us and start a polypersonal doctrine, right?
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
Linear Mode
