Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Father?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Expand upon the possible meaning of "in". It isn't like being "in" a building or a vehicle. Jesus states that He is "in" the Father and that the Father is "in" Himself. I see this as a mutual "indwelling" of "being". For example, if you take a glass that is half filled with wine and a glass that is half filled with water. Pour them together into a decanter. Now... is the wine "in" the water or is the water "in" the wine? Both. And for all intents and purposes... they are now inseparable.

You said RESIDING in, not just "IN"

Jesus did not say He is INSIDE the Father and Father in Him.

BTW it's impossible for something to be inside another thing while at the same time having that other thing inside it.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I know what "Oneness Theology" states..

I can't believe you are missing the point...this is a ONENESS discussion and you are dropping the term ONENESS as if we all agree with you on what it means

The point wasn't whether or not you know what Oneness theology states

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

A "person" can be defined as one's self-conscious reality, a "self".

So?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

A "person" can be defined as one's self-conscious reality, a "self".

So? Aquila, you are not Oneness

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Eh, not so much Unitarian. Unitarianism denies the deity of Jesus. I'd say... closer to Monarchian.

My mistake. You are one person short of a Trinity

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

For me, it's a matter of language. Even in my understanding, the man (Jesus Christ) is a manifestation of the Father. He was fashioned in the express image of God's own person. So, the human person of Jesus (the man) is still a reflection of the Father's person, albeit in an authentic human being.

that doesn't answer my question

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Denying the human person (or "self") of the man, Jesus Christ, makes every prayer, conversation, and interaction between Himself and the Father a farcical illusion.

I disagree. All He really needed was a Human nature.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Traditional Oneness Theology assumes a transmutation, a morphing of of God into a man.

Baloney! Ive never heard anyone teach God transmuted from God into a man

Bernard teaches Jesus is the Creator incarnate as the Son. That He has a Human nature and Divine nature

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Did the "man" Christ Jesus, the human self-conscious reality, exist prior to the incarnation? Nope. Traditional Oneness Theology assumes a transmutation, a morphing of of God into a man. Incarnation is God's act of infusing His very essence in a divinely created zygote whose nature is fully human, is...a complete human being. This union of being existing from conception, elevatining humanity into the divine reality. Therefore, the man, Jesus Christ, is indeed both man, made of a woman under the law,...and Creator.

Incarnation means simply the act of becoming human.

Being Human means having human qualities and or attributes

God is One person who is both God and Man

And no Incarnation is not an elevation of Humanity "into the Divine reality" whatever that means

All incarnation means or refers to is the Divine person becoming human. Hypostatic Union

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

David K. Bernard emphasized in his book, The Oneness of God, that "the humanity" didn't pre-exist the incarnation. Bernard emphasizes that it is this "nature" that prayed to the Father. However, I disagree with the notion that a "nature" prays. Natures don't pray, "persons" (self-conscious realities) do. Therefore, I propose that it is the human person of Jesus that didn't pre-exist the incarnation. I can quote the source tomorrow, as I don't have my sources with me at the moment.

I propose it was the person of Jesus (the same Person of God) who prayed BECAUSE HE was united with the Human nature. Same one Person. Different "Modes"