@jdjtcagle - So you're basically saying that Jesus was God's avatar rather than a separate being?
That's a good question - No Jesus is not God's avatar because that would abolish the need for a separation of the Father and Son that is clearly in the bible. Trinitarians maintained that Father, Son, and Spirit are three eternally distinct persons within the one essence of God. They maintained the two truths that God is one and that Jesus is God, but did so at the expense of redefining "one" to mean a "unity" of three persons within the one essence of God. Such a redefining of monotheism brought the church to the borders of Tritheism. While it retained its belief in monotheism on a semantic level, it abandoned monotheism on the conceptual level. This interpretation of the bible tries to explain separation taught within the bible without upholding biblical Monotheism.
So how do you reconcile the passages where Christ speaks (separately from the Father) and the passages where Christ is explained (to be God)?
It's because of His humanity. Let me attempt to show you what the scripture says. (there is
)
Now I will readily admit that on the surface Jesus does seem to speak of himself and the Father as if they were two persons. In fact, I would say that the first indication of Trinitarian thought began with Philip in John 14 when he asked Jesus, "Lord, show us the Father" (v. 8). Jesus had been speaking of God in a distanced way all this time, and poor Philip thought that he was speaking of another person. But, notice Jesus' response. He almost sounded as if he were puzzled when he said, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?" (v. 9). Jesus was saying that he himself was the one that Philip was asking for.
One reason that Jesus so often spoke of God in the third person is that he did not want to appear unto men as God, but he wanted to appear as a man just like one of us, as we read in Philippians 2:5-8 -
Philippians 2:5-8, NIV:
5. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6. Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7. but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross!
But that still leaves the question: Why does the New Testament make a distinction at times? The answer to this goes back to the dual nature of Jesus. In the capacity of being fully man, He was distinct from God. Not just distinct from the Father but from being God at all. This is why we can see references to the God of Jesus Christ (
Matt. 27:46; John 20:17; Eph. 1:17). This is obviously not the God of God. It is the God of a man. Jesus is called a man over and over (
Acts 2:22; 13:38; I Tim 2:5). As a man, there were things He did not know (
Mark 13:32), there were things He could not do (
Mark 6:5), He could only be in one place at one time (
John 16:7), He could be tempted (
Heb 4:15), He could thirst (
John 19:28), and He could die (
John 19:33). So from this point of view He was distinct from God, and could be spoken of that way. But from another point of view He was fully God and could be called such (
John 20:28; I Tim 3:16; I John 5:20). When we see a separate reference it is always something like: "God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ." What you never see is: "God the Father and God the Son." It is always God and man, Spirit and flesh, God the Father and the Son of God. As I Timothy 2:5 puts it, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
Don't let duel nature confuse you... you can't split Jesus down the middle and see to natures. Oneness theology does not see the Father-Son distinction as a distinction between Christ's two natures does not mean that it precludes us from seeing the Father-Son distinction as a result of God's acquisition of a human nature. It goes without saying that the acquisition of genuine human nature affected God's manner of existence. What made the one uni-personal God the "Son" in Oneness theology is the fact that He united human nature to His divine person, personally existing as man. What we distinguish, then, is not Christ's divine nature from His human nature, but rather God's normal manner of existence as God from His human manner of existence as man (made possible only because of the acquisition of the human nature in the incarnation). The distinction is not one of natures, but rather personal manner of existence--and that manner of existence is only different because of the acquisition of the human nature. What we are pointing out, then, is the cause of the distinction, not the location of the distinction.
Isaiah 9:6
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Please ask any question and I would love to help you understand "Oneness Theology", such a broad topic allows questions for more scriptural clarity.
Here's a graph
[attachment deleted by ninja]
