Modalism

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

So if I read in the gospels or Acts, "The Father raised Jesus from the dead", there's no separation? Not how I understand writing, nor how I was taught to understand writing. If I say, "I hit the ball" then most of my listeners will understand that "I" and "ball" are two separate and distinct things.

Most will. Unless their theology forbids them.

And then he says, "You shall be one, even as I am one with the Father" then Ohio and aron are not still separate, because they are one just as Jesus and the Father? As far as I understand it, you remain 'you' and I am still ''me. Unless my theology forbids me from this common-sense understanding, which it doesn't. Does yours?

The whole conundrum is easily solved, if one understands the idea of a messenger. The angel says, "I Jesus have sent my angel" and John tries to bow to the angel but it forbids him. The angel can say, "I Jesus" even though the angel is not Jesus. Because it carries the image/substance/will/expression/communication/whatever. It represents. Likewise, Jesus represented the Father. When you saw Jesus you saw the Father. Not complicated, really, and such understanding would be readily available to any first-century reader whose mind was unclouded by theological imperatives.

No respectable theologian is willing to use the word "separate" when referring to God.

Hitting a ball with a bat may be a good analogy for how I am sometimes treated, but not as a descriptor for God Himself.

And besides, Jesus told us He had the power to raise Himself from the dead. Apparently He was not reliant on a "separate" God to raise Him on the 3rd day.

Perhaps it's not my "theology" but the scripture that prevents me from seeing a "separation" between the Father and the Son.