Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
I would disagree. I tend to give the words there more weight than those supplied by others. If "I and the Father are one" and I have also heard the Son pray to the Father, then I must assume that the definition of "one" that is in play is not about number, but about unity. Unity does not change number. .
|
I've already apologetically signed off on discussions of the Trinity or the "godhead" or "person(s) of God" and thus will refrain from adding my ideas. But I'll add a point to understanding the text of the Bible, here. OBW has a point about being "operationally one", i.e. representing someone else. The Roman Centurion was operationally one with Caesar, and when he said, "Go there" it was Caesar speaking through him. Thus, his servants obeyed. But the Centurion never said, "I am Caesar". It was enough that he was under authority ("I also am a man under authority") and Jesus marveled at his faith. Jesus didn't give him a remedial lecture on the Trinity.
When Jesus spoke, the Father spoke. Just like the Centurion with Caesar. The Son fully expressed and represented the Father's will, and the Father delighted in Him (cf Psalm 18's 'He [the Father] rescued Me [the Son] because He delighted in Me"). This was true operational oneness. And we also should be one, even as He was one with the Father. One is here taken as a state of being, not a number.