Apostolic But Not Believing Jesus is The Father?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I get your point. However, I am pointing out that your point demands a denial of the Scriptures clear and present language and implications.

No it does not. You assume too much out of pronouns. The same Pronouns could be used to prove the opposite

the subject/object pronoun relationship is merely the result of the incarnation of One Person becoming Human while continuing to exist as God

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I get your point. However, I am pointing out that your point demands a denial of the Scriptures clear and present language and implications.

No, this shows you did not get my point. Anyway....

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, we can't take the language and implications of Scripture at face value. This demands that we impose a theological assumption upon the text that is alien to the implications and clear language of the text itself.

No, it seems we can't picture God beyond the scope of human limitations.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The problem is, what do the words, as written, mean?

Merely being able to read does not mean you understand

Act 8:29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, Go near and join yourself to this chariot.
Act 8:30 And Philip ran there to him and heard him read the prophet Isaiah, and said, Do you indeed understand what you are reading?
Act 8:31 And he said, How can I unless some man should guide me? And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him.

If something doesn't mean what it says, nor what it implies, it can mean anything. It becomes open to private interpretation.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Oneness as it pertains to Oneness THEOLOGY and not a mystical Oneness with the universe, always was about emphasizing that God is ONE as opposed to Three persons

I'd be more specific. It is about emphasizing that God is ONE "divine" person as opposed to three "divine" persons. Therefore, acknowledgement of Christ's being an authentic human person as it relates to His "humanity" in no way violates Oneness thought.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So you believe in 2 Persons...

One divine person, incarnate in an authentic human person, who was made in the express image of said divine person. The human person is a reflection, if you will, of the one and only divine person, God Almighty, the Father.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So you believe in two persons...and they are both God?

BTW your language is explicitly Trinitarian. You are rephrasing the Periochoresis of Persons.

Ah, there are similarities to how I'm approaching the language. However, I do not see a perichoresis between multiple divine persons, but rather the Father (the only divine person) and the authentic human person of the Son. How can one be fully human... without being a human person???

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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.

Nothing is impossible with God. I do not see the Father residing in Christ as merely a vehicle. I see a mutual indwelling and union of being. As I've said before, if you have a half glass of wine and a half glass of water and you pour them both in a single vessel... the water is in the wine... and the wine is in the water. They are one.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

I do know what Oneness theology states. However, I believe it is not an accurate testimony of Scripture. My point is that the man, Jesus Christ, was fully human. Having a human sense of "self" (self-conscious reality), that was distinct from the Father and had an authentic relationship with the Father. Seeing that a being's sense of "self", or self-conscious reality, properly defines it as being a "person", I don't find it in appropriate to refer to the human "self" exemplified in Jesus as an authentic human person.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So?

Then a distinct self-conscious reality or "self" can be said to be a distinct person.