[KSA]

Originally Posted by OBW

The answer is a qualified "I don't think so."

When scripture says (actually Jesus says) that Jesus only did what he say the Father doing, is that clearly read as an absolute for all circumstances at all times? Is the nature of the statement a construct of language that identifies Jesus in the present, in the face of his opposers as having a clear view of the Father and His purpose for Jesus’ actions, words, etc., on the earth rather than someone acting of his own volition? Or is it a statement that Jesus is looking at the Father and the Father is acting in a manner that Jesus is mimicking and saying words that Jesus is repeating verbatim? Either way, the thing that is getting done on the earth is what the flesh-and-blood Jesus is doing.

I would not use the word mimic, but I would say that Jesus was in constant fellowship with His Father and depended on His constant leading.

But is Jesus saying he sees the Father do something and so he does it, but in reality he is simply the Father and he has no need to “see” anything? If that were the case, why does he not simply say “I am God and this is what I am doing.” But if he is “seeing” the Father doing something so he does it, then some separateness is implied.

I am not saying that Jesus is the Father. But there is no separateness between Him and the Father, only distinction. If, as UntoHim said, we are to follow "creeds" and "historic faith", then we should avoid this heretical word "separate".

What benefit do we gain by explaining away the very words God used to made the statements that He did?

I am not trying to explain away God's word. Please, tell me how you understand the words of Jesus: "Father, why have you forsaken Me?". Do you take them to mean that God the Father left God the Son. Jesus said that the Father is in Him, was it true on the cross? Or the Father was not in Jesus when Jesus died on the cross?

So I am inclined to say that the Father was more likely an observer to the crucifixion. That does not negate God’s oneness. But it respects the aspect of the three that was revealed in that account. Similarly, the recorded events when Jesus emerged from his baptism provide a look at the three. It makes a strong statement of three, although there is the implication of oneness because they are all present.

Can you describe the nature of this oneness how you see it?