RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostalism.
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/7/2008 7:01:43 PM
|
|
|
Sabellius
Posts: 51
Joined: 6/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
Those passages were written in some cases hundreds of years after the Pentetuch. I am looking at how MOSES use the word.
I am a Oneness Pentecostal. I haven't been to this forum in some time.
The context determines the meaning of echad. In the Genesis passage a triunness is nowhere implied. If you would like to accept it at the value of a collective unity then what of the indefiniteness? Are you sure it is three? Could be more.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/8/2008 10:14:59 AM
|
|
|
URForgiven
Posts: 544
Joined: 3/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sabellius
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
Those passages were written in some cases hundreds of years after the Pentetuch. I am looking at how MOSES use the word.
I am a Oneness Pentecostal. I haven't been to this forum in some time.
The context determines the meaning of echad. In the Genesis passage a triunness is nowhere implied. If you would like to accept it at the value of a collective unity then what of the indefiniteness? Are you sure it is three? Could be more.
Ah, a Oneness Pentecostal, what an identity.
Well, you would know then. How do the Onenesser's explain away Hebrews? Thanks.
_____________________________
The sin of the world is unbelief.
"I am a Believer, it is impossible for me to be an unbeliever."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/8/2008 3:27:25 PM
|
|
|
Sabellius
Posts: 51
Joined: 6/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: URForgiven
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sabellius
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
Those passages were written in some cases hundreds of years after the Pentetuch. I am looking at how MOSES use the word.
I am a Oneness Pentecostal. I haven't been to this forum in some time.
The context determines the meaning of echad. In the Genesis passage a triunness is nowhere implied. If you would like to accept it at the value of a collective unity then what of the indefiniteness? Are you sure it is three? Could be more.
Ah, a Oneness Pentecostal, what an identity.
Well, you would know then. How do the Onenesser's explain away Hebrews? Thanks.
I suppose "Ah, A Trinitarian Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, or etc, what an identity" is kosher? Funny man. We do not explain away anything. The Scriptures speak clearly to us and do not need extrapolation or anachronisms to interpret pertinent matters of theology proper. I am not perfectly sure, but I believe I could get banned for debating this topic. I would be glad to debate this issue, informal or formal, if it was allowed. God bless.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/8/2008 5:28:51 PM
|
|
|
URForgiven
Posts: 544
Joined: 3/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sabellius
quote:
ORIGINAL: URForgiven
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sabellius
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
Those passages were written in some cases hundreds of years after the Pentetuch. I am looking at how MOSES use the word.
I am a Oneness Pentecostal. I haven't been to this forum in some time.
The context determines the meaning of echad. In the Genesis passage a triunness is nowhere implied. If you would like to accept it at the value of a collective unity then what of the indefiniteness? Are you sure it is three? Could be more.
Ah, a Oneness Pentecostal, what an identity.
Well, you would know then. How do the Onenesser's explain away Hebrews? Thanks.
I suppose "Ah, A Trinitarian Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, or etc, what an identity" is kosher? Funny man. We do not explain away anything. The Scriptures speak clearly to us and do not need extrapolation or anachronisms to interpret pertinent matters of theology proper. I am not perfectly sure, but I believe I could get banned for debating this topic. I would be glad to debate this issue, informal or formal, if it was allowed. God bless.
I believe this is a thread for discussing Oneness Pentecostalism. No
need to debate. Just discuss.
I am sure you have a ready answer, it's no secret that Hebrews is a stumbling block for Oneness. I have just never heard the explanation.
_____________________________
The sin of the world is unbelief.
"I am a Believer, it is impossible for me to be an unbeliever."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/8/2008 5:37:06 PM
|
|
|
Sabellius
Posts: 51
Joined: 6/27/2005
Status: offline
|
How about Hebrews 1:1-3?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/9/2008 12:19:46 AM
|
|
|
URForgiven
Posts: 544
Joined: 3/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sabellius
How about Hebrews 1:1-3?
It would be a start.
Or we could cut to the chase and jump right to the meat.
"During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission." Heb 5:7
"Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Heb. 7:23-25
_____________________________
The sin of the world is unbelief.
"I am a Believer, it is impossible for me to be an unbeliever."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/9/2008 5:30:55 PM
|
|
|
Sabellius
Posts: 51
Joined: 6/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: URForgiven
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sabellius
How about Hebrews 1:1-3?
It would be a start.
Or we could cut to the chase and jump right to the meat.
"During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission." Heb 5:7
"Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Heb. 7:23-25
I appreciate you being willing to take the time. I hope this will not get us banned. I know very few such discussions that do not tend to become debates. I would also like to keep this as intellectual engagement and not necessarily a battle over personalities. I hope you understand.
I would not say this is the "meat" of a discussion on Christology in Hebrews though. This portion does bring us to a decision though on what I believe to be the inseparable, permanent dual natures of Christ, of the person of God who became a man. I believe added a human existence to his already divine one. That is an issue, but I would rather discuss that at the end of this reply. I think you'll understand.
quote:
Hebrews 1:1-3
Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. 3 He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, NRSV
In the very beginning of Hebrews we see an expression that can help us with the rest of the text. In fact, the New Interpreters Study Bible footnotes suggest, "The high Christology of these verses is determinative for the whole book."1
Express Image:
Here we find Jesus is the "express image of his [God's] person" (vs 3). The Greek word for ‘express image’ here is charakter (khar-ak-tare); our English word, character, is derived from this word. However, charakter is found “only once in the NT. . . . This means that the NT use is entirely different from our modern concept of character which develops itself by a will that seeks to conform to principles.”2 The BAGD says here that, “Christ is . . . an exact representation. . . . ”3 Therefore, Christ as the "express image" of His person, the person of God, is another way of saying that Jesus represents God exactly. He is what God chose for man to see Him as. It means imprint (NRSV) or stamp. Moulton and Milligan suggest its use comes from a "tool for engraving" or "an exact reproduction"4
Person of God
The Greek word translated "person" is hypostasis. Although rendered as "person," it is more properly understood as "substance" (See Moulton-Milligan) or "essence of being". The etymology of this word has to do with something that underlies. It is that which underlies, supports, or makes up something. In this context, we are talking about what underlies, or makes up God, i.e. God's subsistence.
Jesus is not just a representation of God, but is the very visible impression or imprint of God's invisible substance and essence. He is God's very nature expressed in humanity. It is consistently taught, in the New Testament, that Christ was the visible form of the invisible God.
The writer of Hebrews also says that Jesus is the image of God’s hypostasis (KJV person; NIV being; NRSV being Grk hypostasis). In context, of these opening texts, the God who spoke to us by His Son is the Father of the Son (1:1-2, 5). Hebrews is declaring Jesus to be the image of the God the Father’s subsistence.
I would further say then, that there is no mention of the Son having His own hypostasis, or any references to plural hypostasis. I believe the whole of Scripture testifies of this as well. I conclude then that Jesus is the image of the invisible subsistence or person (KJV) or being (NRSV) of God.
The Prayers of Jesus:
The person of God took on human nature. This human nature was real and genuine, Jesus was the God-man. Thus his prayers were true and genuine prayers from humanity to God the Father. Alister McGrath suggests this:
In one sense, Jesus is God; in another, he isn’t. Thus Jesus is God incarnate-but he still prays to God, without giving the slightest indication that he is talking to himself! Jesus is not identical with God in that it is obvious that God continued to be in heaven during Jesus’ lifetime, and yet Jesus may be identified with God in that the New Testament has no hesitation in ascribing functions to Jesus which, properly speaking, only God could do.5
The New Testament makes it clear that Jesus was aware that God was someone other than Himself, existing in heaven. He was also very aware that He was God made known in the flesh. So in one sense Jesus is spoken of as God, and in another sense He is not. This is very important in order to understand the relationship between the Father and the Son.
Analogy:
No analogy is perfect; however, this can be likened to the moon. When Apollo landed and the astronauts walked on the moon for the first time. They walked on the moon that had been beyond man’s grasp for as long as man has existed. When they returned they brought a sample of the moon with them. Scientists studied this sample as the moon, yet it was not really the moon. It was only a portion of the moon.
Notice that the Hebrews writer says it was ‘by’ His Son that He made the worlds. This phrase usually encapsulates alot of the controversy in this passage. The preposition ‘by’ in the Greek is dia (dee-ah), the first "by" being en; Spiros Zodhiates places dia in the genitive form. The genitive usually indicates the relationship between nouns and pronouns. Zodhiates defines dia, here, as “through which the effect proceeds, meaning through, by, by means of.”6 The BAGD and Bullinger7 also define dia as “by means of” and Friberg defines it as “spatial through, by way of.”8
Modern translations, like the NRSV, replace the second "by" with "through". Therefore, instead of reading "by whom also he made the worlds" we can read "through whom also he made the worlds". Some translations rendering dia as "through" here as well are ASV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, HCSB, NET.
This account in Hebrews 1:2 is reminiscent of Colossians 1:16, which says, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.” In both passages the preposition dia is employed as the KJV ‘by.’ However, as mentioned earlier, ‘by’ in the first phrase (‘For by him were all things created’) of Colossians 1:16 is en (in). The BAGD prefaces all remarks on this preposition, en, by saying, “The uses of this preposition are so many-sided, and often so easily confused, that a strictly systematic treatment is impossible.” Even though they recognize the complex nuances of narrowing context and meanings by the use of this Greek preposition, they continue to narrow the meaning as a ‘means’ as well.
Zodhiates, speaking of dia in the genitive sense, concedes this much concerning dia (dee-ah): “In this construction diá may also refer to the author or first cause, when the author does anything through himself instead of another, e.g., of God (Ro 11:36, ‘of [or out of] Him and through Him and unto Him all things’ [a.t.]; 1 Cor 1:9, ‘God, through whom you were called’ [a.t.]; Heb 2:10). Also of Christ (Jn 1:3 ‘All things were made by him’; Col 1:16, ‘all things through Him and unto Him have been created.’ ”
This seems congruent with Oneness teacher David Bernard’s logic on Colossians and dia, when he says:
“Because this word can mean ‘through,’ many people claim that Christ was the intermediate agent of creation or another divine person called the Father. The preposition does not require this interpretation, however. For example, Romans 11:36 and Hebrews 2:10 use the same word to describe creation by God, the Father.” Bernard clarifies further by offering this analogy, “ . . . the One who later became the Son created the world. For example, when we say, ‘President Lincoln was born in Kentucky,’ we do not mean he was president at the time of his birth. Rather, the one who later became president was born there.”8
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:" Colossians 1:15-16 KJV
James Moffat commenting on this passage says that Christ “not merely reflects God but in some real sense represents Him; the invisible God becomes manifest in Christ.” He translates the 1:16 passage as “He is the likeness of the unseen God . . . ”9 The ‘image of the invisible’ (vs. 15) is Jesus Christ. ‘Image’ is translated from the Greek word—eikon [ay-kone]. The BAGD offers two possible definitions: “image, likeness—lit. of the emperor’s head on a coin” and “form, appearance . . . a human figure.” Friberg’s decription is “embodiment or living manifestation of God.”
Trinitarians assert that God is the trinity, or that He is comprised of the trinity. Therefore, if Jesus is the “embodiment living manifestation of God” then the three persons of the trinity are in Christ. In this sense, the trinity is indeed unnecessary.
Speaking of Johns Gospel, Marianne Meye Thompson makes this noteworthy statement:
“While John asserts that Jesus speaks the words of God and does the work of God, the Gospel pushes further in claiming that Jesus so fully embodies the Word of God that to see him is to see the manifestation of God’s glory; to see the son is to ‘see’ the Father.”
She goes on to say, “It is clear that the disciples of Jesus do not see God as he does, for whereas the Son sees the Father directly, others see the Father in and through the Son.” This is a very important understanding. Jesus is God. God, in time, became a man. He added to His current existence as deity the nature of humanity. He became the God-man. Therefore, God who would become a a man created "all things".
Colossians could thus very easily be read as, "For in him were all things created". Jesus created the universe, but not as the Son, or that he even did it as Jesus. It means, as Bernard points out, that the one who later became the Son created the universe. Prior to the incarnation He existed throughout eternity as Yahweh himself. But because he was not the Son, yet, or even Jesus at that time does not mean that we cannot say, now in time, that the Son or Jesus created the worlds.
The aforementioned Hebrews and the Colossians passages are concerned with the Incarnation and the Creation; consequently, the Incarnation did not pre-exist the conception in Mary’s womb. Thus, God—the one who would later be called Jesus—created all things, not that Jesus as God became man or as a second person created all things. God is Spirit (John 4:24). Therefore, man can neither see nor touch the Spirit of God, for a spirit is intangible. Jesus said, “a spirit hath not flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39). Yet, God chose, through the Incarnation, to give us the expression of Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ.
In Christ,
Sabellius
References:
1. The New Interpreters Study Bible, New Revised Standard With The Apocrypha. Copyright (c) 2003 by Abingdon Press. Footnotes for Hebrews 1:1-4
2. Ges, J. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Ed. Colin Brown. Zondervan Ref. Software. © 1989-1999 The Zondervan Corp.
3. Arndt, William, F. Wilbur Gingrich, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature : A Translation and Adaption of the Fourth Revised and Augmented Edition of Walter Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch Zu Den Schrift En Des Neuen Testaments Und Der Ubrigen Urchristlichen Literatur. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996, c1979.
4. Moulton, J.H. Milligan G. Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Hendrickson Publishers © 1930 First printing Hendrickson Publishers edition, Oct. 1997 pg. 683
5. Alister E. McGrath, Studies in Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987) pgs. 202-203
6 The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament Copyright © 2002 AMG International, Inc.
7 Friberg, Timothy, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller. Vol. 4, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker's Greek New Testament library. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000.
8 Bernard, David, The of Colossians and Philemon, WAP pg. 46, 47
9 Moffatt, James. The Moffatt New Testament Commentary, Harper & Brothers, New York and London,19-20.
10 Thompson, Marianne Meye – The God of the Gospel of John – Erdmann’s Pub. Copyright © 2001 pg. 104
< Message edited by Sabellius -- 4/9/2008 5:44:15 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/9/2008 7:19:23 PM
|
|
|
URForgiven
Posts: 544
Joined: 3/22/2008
Status: offline
|
I would in no way wish to denigrate your hard work, I fully appreciate the thoroughness of your reply.
But, for the life of me...I cannot find an explanation for how Jesus saves those who come to God through Him, and the fact that He is able to do this because He always lives to intercede for them?
Who is Jesus interceding for us with?
And Who is it that hears Jesus loud petitions and cries?
With respect.
_____________________________
The sin of the world is unbelief.
"I am a Believer, it is impossible for me to be an unbeliever."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/9/2008 11:18:53 PM
|
|
|
Sabellius
Posts: 51
Joined: 6/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: URForgiven
I would in no way wish to denigrate your hard work, I fully appreciate the thoroughness of your reply.
But, for the life of me...I cannot find an explanation for how Jesus saves those who come to God through Him, and the fact that He is able to do this because He always lives to intercede for them?
Who is Jesus interceding for us with?
And Who is it that hears Jesus loud petitions and cries?
With respect.
With respect, I have discussed these very questions. Please read closer and interact with what I have written already. Specifically, under Prayers of Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/10/2008 9:14:50 AM
|
|
|
URForgiven
Posts: 544
Joined: 3/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sabellius
quote:
ORIGINAL: URForgiven
I would in no way wish to denigrate your hard work, I fully appreciate the thoroughness of your reply.
But, for the life of me...I cannot find an explanation for how Jesus saves those who come to God through Him, and the fact that He is able to do this because He always lives to intercede for them?
Who is Jesus interceding for us with?
And Who is it that hears Jesus loud petitions and cries?
With respect.
With respect, I have discussed these very questions. Please read closer and interact with what I have written already. Specifically, under Prayers of Jesus.
So, every time Jesus prays, every time He speaks to His Father, as He is hanging on the cross dying...He is speaking to Himself. Okay.
I understand. I am not going to debate you. I am only trying to understand the belief. I know what I believe, I also know what I believe is in no way complete. It is simply the only explanation I have, that explains the total revelation of Gods nature.
I still see no answer to the "intercede" dilemma. I am sure it is there, but could you state it simply for me?
_____________________________
The sin of the world is unbelief.
"I am a Believer, it is impossible for me to be an unbeliever."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/11/2008 12:06:55 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3557
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sabellius
The context determines the meaning of echad. In the Genesis passage a triunness is nowhere implied. If you would like to accept it at the value of a collective unity then what of the indefiniteness? Are you sure it is three? Could be more. There are a couple of places in Revelations where it uses the term "...seven spirits of God..."
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/11/2008 12:16:58 PM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 4680
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: URForgiven
So, every time Jesus prays, every time He speaks to His Father, as He is hanging on the cross dying...He is speaking to Himself. Okay.
Don't forget, He also forsook Himself.
And we have to go through Him to get to Him.
And He makes intercession to Himself for us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/15/2008 8:32:37 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3557
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
How can one intercede (to go between) to themselves?
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/15/2008 3:28:04 PM
|
|
|
1love1God1way
Posts: 1927
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
quote:
ORIGINAL: URForgiven
So, every time Jesus prays, every time He speaks to His Father, as He is hanging on the cross dying...He is speaking to Himself. Okay.
Don't forget, He also forsook Himself.
And we have to go through Him to get to Him.
And He makes intercession to Himself for us.
He also proceeds from Himself, and sits at His own right hand.
_____________________________
-Ben-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/16/2008 1:53:43 AM
|
|
|
Sabellius
Posts: 51
Joined: 6/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: URForgiven
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sabellius
quote:
ORIGINAL: URForgiven
I would in no way wish to denigrate your hard work, I fully appreciate the thoroughness of your reply.
But, for the life of me...I cannot find an explanation for how Jesus saves those who come to God through Him, and the fact that He is able to do this because He always lives to intercede for them?
Who is Jesus interceding for us with?
And Who is it that hears Jesus loud petitions and cries?
With respect.
With respect, I have discussed these very questions. Please read closer and interact with what I have written already. Specifically, under Prayers of Jesus.
So, every time Jesus prays, every time He speaks to His Father, as He is hanging on the cross dying...He is speaking to Himself. Okay.
I understand. I am not going to debate you. I am only trying to understand the belief. I know what I believe, I also know what I believe is in no way complete. It is simply the only explanation I have, that explains the total revelation of Gods nature.
I still see no answer to the "intercede" dilemma. I am sure it is there, but could you state it simply for me?
I apologize for the delay. I am a husband, father of two, business owner, and a full time student. Hopefully you will understand.
No, that is not what is happening. That sounds skitzo actually. Although some Oneness people have said "Jesus is the Father" this is not actually true but a contradiction of terms. God the Father is God existing as deity. Jesus refers to God existing as man and deity. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. The Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and conceived and brought forth Jesus, the Messiah and anointed one. Therefore, there is deity and humanity in the miraculous Incarnation. God and Mary contributed to this birth, virgin to man. I believe the very same deity of the Father is in the Son. The Son of God was subject to the will of the Father too. His person was God (Hebrews 1:3) and his human nature was Jesus the Christ. I believe there is only one person in the nature of God. Without contribution from the Holy Spirit there could be no Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The same can be said of Mary. God became to exist as a man (John 1:14). As a real human being the Son of God suffered, grew, tired, ate, was crucified, died, was resurrected, and ascended in His glorified body.
Trinitarian and Oneness theologians are forced to employ the same explanation for the communicatio idiomatum in some sense. Christ's prayer involve the existence of a genuine human consciousness. Christ's prayers issued forth, not from His divine person, but from His human mind/consciousness. The communication between Father and Son did not take place between two divine minds/consciousnesses, but between one divine mind/consciousness and one human mind/consciousness. If only one divine mind is necessary to explain the communication between Father and Son, then the Oneness explanation of Christ's prayers is wholly adequate to explain the Biblical data as well as the maxim of communication.
Communication requires the presence of at least two minds, not necessarily two persons. The rule is that there is one mind per person, and thus it follows that genuine communication requires two persons. If, however, one person could possess two distinct minds, communication would be possible within that one person between his two minds. According to Oneness theology this is exactly the case with the Father and Son. With the incarnation the one person of God came to possess two functioning minds-not two divine minds, but one human and one divine. As we know however that the divine and human nature cannot be considered independent of each other, because they are inseparable. Therefore the human nature was subject to the will of the Father. That is why Jesus cried not my will but thy will be done.
< Message edited by Sabellius -- 4/16/2008 2:00:29 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/16/2008 1:59:44 AM
|
|
|
Sabellius
Posts: 51
Joined: 6/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sabellius
The context determines the meaning of echad. In the Genesis passage a triunness is nowhere implied. If you would like to accept it at the value of a collective unity then what of the indefiniteness? Are you sure it is three? Could be more. There are a couple of places in Revelations where it uses the term "...seven spirits of God..."
Yes, I have read that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/16/2008 9:42:25 AM
|
|
|
URForgiven
Posts: 544
Joined: 3/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sabellius
quote:
ORIGINAL: URForgiven
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sabellius
quote:
ORIGINAL: URForgiven
I would in no way wish to denigrate your hard work, I fully appreciate the thoroughness of your reply.
But, for the life of me...I cannot find an explanation for how Jesus saves those who come to God through Him, and the fact that He is able to do this because He always lives to intercede for them?
Who is Jesus interceding for us with?
And Who is it that hears Jesus loud petitions and cries?
With respect.
With respect, I have discussed these very questions. Please read closer and interact with what I have written already. Specifically, under Prayers of Jesus.
So, every time Jesus prays, every time He speaks to His Father, as He is hanging on the cross dying...He is speaking to Himself. Okay.
I understand. I am not going to debate you. I am only trying to understand the belief. I know what I believe, I also know what I believe is in no way complete. It is simply the only explanation I have, that explains the total revelation of Gods nature.
I still see no answer to the "intercede" dilemma. I am sure it is there, but could you state it simply for me?
I apologize for the delay. I am a husband, father of two, business owner, and a full time student. Hopefully you will understand.
No, that is not what is happening. That sounds skitzo actually. Although some Oneness people have said "Jesus is the Father" this is not actually true but a contradiction of terms. God the Father is God existing as deity. Jesus refers to God existing as man and deity. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. The Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary and conceived and brought forth Jesus, the Messiah and anointed one. Therefore, there is deity and humanity in the miraculous Incarnation. God and Mary contributed to this birth, virgin to man. I believe the very same deity of the Father is in the Son. The Son of God was subject to the will of the Father too. His person was God (Hebrews 1:3) and his human nature was Jesus the Christ. I believe there is only one person in the nature of God. Without contribution from the Holy Spirit there could be no Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The same can be said of Mary. God became to exist as a man (John 1:14). As a real human being the Son of God suffered, grew, tired, ate, was crucified, died, was resurrected, and ascended in His glorified body.
Trinitarian and Oneness theologians are forced to employ the same explanation for the communicatio idiomatum in some sense. Christ's prayer involve the existence of a genuine human consciousness. Christ's prayers issued forth, not from His divine person, but from His human mind/consciousness. The communication between Father and Son did not take place between two divine minds/consciousnesses, but between one divine mind/consciousness and one human mind/consciousness. If only one divine mind is necessary to explain the communication between Father and Son, then the Oneness explanation of Christ's prayers is wholly adequate to explain the Biblical data as well as the maxim of communication.
Communication requires the presence of at least two minds, not necessarily two persons. The rule is that there is one mind per person, and thus it follows that genuine communication requires two persons. If, however, one person could possess two distinct minds, communication would be possible within that one person between his two minds. According to Oneness theology this is exactly the case with the Father and Son. With the incarnation the one person of God came to possess two functioning minds-not two divine minds, but one human and one divine. As we know however that the divine and human nature cannot be considered independent of each other, because they are inseparable. Therefore the human nature was subject to the will of the Father. That is why Jesus cried not my will but thy will be done.
I was with you right up to..."With the incarnation the one person of God came to possess two functioning minds-not two divine minds, but one human and one divine." I simply do not know what that means.
I know the "person" aspect is a point with you, could you please explain that further?
_____________________________
The sin of the world is unbelief.
"I am a Believer, it is impossible for me to be an unbeliever."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/16/2008 2:04:54 PM
|
|
|
1love1God1way
Posts: 1927
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
Ok. I am trying to get my head around this. . .
Jesus is God on earth, and the Father is God in heaven. . .
So, when Jesus was God on earth. . . who was in heaven?
_____________________________
-Ben-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/16/2008 2:47:37 PM
|
|
|
abu_khomar
Posts: 98
Joined: 1/7/2008
Status: offline
|
1Love, I really like your user name. Can God be contained to one place or one time, or does he fill all space and all of eternity?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/17/2008 8:48:03 AM
|
|
|
cajunhillbilly
Posts: 176
Joined: 5/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Now we see not only the heresy of Sabellius, but the heresy of Nestorianism as well. Interesting. Jesus did not have two minds. He had two natures in one Person. Jesus was true God and true Man. But One Divine Person, and the Second Person of the Trinity.
_____________________________
"A Stargate. You know, kind of a ring thing. Comes with a dialer. You hit some symbols. The lights come on. It spins around. And then it flushes sideways" Jack O'Neill on Stargate SG1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Let's get a discussion going on Oneness Pentecostal... - 4/19/2008 11:37:49 AM
|
|
|
Sabellius
Posts: 51
Joined: 6/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cajunhillbilly
Now we see not only the heresy of Sabellius, but the heresy of Nestorianism as well. Interesting. Jesus did not have two minds. He had two natures in one Person. Jesus was true God and true Man. But One Divine Person, and the Second Person of the Trinity.
Cajun, I would ask which dictionary you received your information because it is incorrect. In fact, it may demonstrate your bias and misapprehension of the issue. Here is an excerpt from a popular dictionary:
quote:
Nestorius abhorred the concept of the divine nature undergoing suffering or change, and he wanted to hold the two natures separate, distinct, and unaltered.
Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary : The authoritative resource on the Christian world. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Pubs.
As anyone who read my post could tell, I do not agree with any separateness. The humanity and divinity of Christ are inseparably infused.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
