Free, it is a purely semantically driven issue. I gave you scripture showing Jesus himself saying he that hath seen me hath seen the Father. If you were present when Jesus said this, would you say to Jesus, "the Son is not the Father, that's the heresy of modalism"...?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Proof of Trinity
- Thread starter Rollo Tamasi
- Start date
No, it is not at all a semantic issue. The Son is not the Father, never has been and never will be. This is what Scripture clearly shows us. That statement by Jesus is not at all saying that Jesus is the Father or that he thinks he is the Father. That would directly contradict his claim to be the Son of God. A son cannot be his own father; that is completely irrational.
Greg Koukl has a saying: never read a Bible verse. What is the context on John14:9?
I honestly see it as It as a semantic issue since I agree the son is not the Father in any earthly sense, but in the spiritual sense the Son is the Father. As in Spirit begets Spirit. The context in my view of John 14:9 is the knowledge of Who God Is, appropriate for our limited comprehension, comes through His expressed Image seen as the Christ. Colossians 1:15. Philip is reported as asking Jesus to show them the Father. Father and son are pro-creative terms. I think that the Son in this application refers to God's presence in the form of the flesh and blood Christ. What exactly are you so adamantly opposed to? Or rather what is it that you think I am believing that is counterproductive to the faith so that I would be seen as scattering rather than gathering.
Last edited:
Not at all a semantic issue. How does claiming that it is "in the spiritual sense" change anything? What does that really even mean? People claim that for all sorts of things but it doesn't mean they're right or that there is even a spiritual sense which is opposed to a non-spiritual sense. Spiritual or physical, a son cannot be his own father.
Error. I am opposed to error, particularly when it comes to Christology and theology proper. I hope you would agree that a proper view of God is vital to the Christian faith. It doesn't mean I have it all right but sometimes error is rather obvious, such as when a contradictory claim is made.
J
jocor
Guest
Your understanding of 1 Cor 8:6 contradicts your understanding of John 1, if I'm understanding you correctly. You believe the Word (Jesus) was God, but 1 Cor 8:6 says there is only one God, the Father, not the Son. You also said the Son is not the Father. Therefore, you have two Gods. As I understand it, there is only one God, Father Yahweh. He brought His Son into existence the same way He brought creation into existence, by speaking His word.
The Greek of Col 1:16 is rendered "in him" in other versions rather than "by him". There is only one Creator who created everything by Himself, Father Yahweh:
Isa 44:24 Thus saith YHWH, thy redeemer, and He that formed thee from the womb, I am YHWH that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
Phil 2:5-8 says nothing about the Son being the "Word".
You ask a difficult question to answer. In my view spirituality is a semantic issue due to our current language, which forms what would appear to be contradictions when describing what is Eternal from a temporal point of view. Zephaniah 3:9. For example, God is in us and yet we are in Him, both at the same time. 1 John 4:13. This creates differing connotations and inferences due to there being both subjective and objective points of view.
Well said. I do not want to err either. But theology is really just systematic theory as pertains to beliefs about God. But what is the conclusion of theology proper when applied to these scriptures?
Hebrews 8:11
And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
1 John 4:13
Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.
Absolutely. However I happen to believe that each man comes to know God through His Christ personally, by means of the Holy Spirit, through revelation rather than through systematic theory. Matthew 11:25, Matthew 11:27.
Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit. Not sperm. God can do stuff like that you know being God. The God who spoke and the dust became a body (Adam) then God breathed life into the body. I would state created Adam (his spirit)
In Rev. Jesus has this name "The Word of God"
It was the Father living in Jesus doing His work. The words belonged to the Father. Hence "the word".
Randy
J
jocor
Guest
When I wrote "sperm", I did not mean man's sperm, but one created through the power of the Holy Spirit. I agree that her egg could have been fertilized without such a sperm, but, on the flip side, we are not told a sperm was not created for that purpose which leaves that possibility open. Would you agree that Mary's egg had to be utilized? Otherwise, she would just be a surrogate mother.
As for "The Word of God", I agree that that is one of Yeshua's names, but I believe he received that name after he was made flesh.
I think the importance is whose words were spoken=>Gods
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
Jesus=>Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
Jesus=>Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
J
jocor
Guest
I agree. The Son did not speak in OT times, but only in these last days. When he spoke in these last days, it was the Father's words he was speaking because the Father was IN him. He was not and is not the Father.
I am not stating Jesus did not speak prior to the incarnation. I don't know on that issue. What I do know is Jesus is the Word of the Father. (God) The Father is in Him and He is in the Father and in that manner they are One. As Jesus stated , "If you have seen me you have seen the Father" Since the fullness was pleased to dwell in Jesus then all the fullness of God dwells in the Son. In that context Jesus is ALL that the Father is. The image of the invisible God and the exact representation of Gods being. Mighty God.
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Randy
J
jocor
Guest
Why don't you know that? You quoted Hebrews 1:1-4 which makes it perfectly clear that, prior to Yeshua's birth, Yahweh did not speak to us through His Son. He only did that in the latter days.
I totally agree.
There are at least 27 names in the Bible with the same Hebrew construction as "the everlasting Father" in this verse. Each one means the "father of (something)." For example, Abishua means "father of plenty." Abimelech means "father of the king". Instead of translating the phrase in Is.9:6 as "Father of eternity," the KJV reversed the sequence making the true meaning harder to discern. Several newer versions correct this mistake such as The Emphasized Bible, The Bible in Basic English, The New American Bible, The Holy Bible; A Translation From the Latin Vulgate in the Light of the Hebrew and Greek Originals, and The New English Bible, just to name a few. Yeshua is the Father of eternity because eternal life comes to us through him. And so it is written in Heb.5:9, "And being made perfect, he became the author (or father) of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"
Based on the context, I believe “mighty God” should be translated “mighty warrior”. The Hebrew reads “el gibor”. The “el” would be translated “mighty” and “gibor” would be translated “warrior” (mighty warrior). Jeremiah 32:18 uses the same phrase for Yahweh of hosts and translates it “Mighty God”. It is the true “Mighty God” (Yahweh) that is giving the child of Isaiah 9:6 to Israel. Therefore, the child is not the "Mighty God” who is doing the giving. If both the child and the giver are the “Mighty God”, then we have two Gods which is totally contrary to the monotheism (one God) taught throughout Scripture. Also, God is not a “prince”, but the King. The “Son” of God or the Son of the King would be the prince.
As typically happens, anti-trinitarians read just half of 1 Cor 8:6, ignoring the implications of the logic of the first half and the implications of the second.
1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (ESV)
You say that this verse "says there is only one God, the Father, not the Son." But that is not all this verse says, is it? Looking fully at what it states: "one God the Father, from whom are all things...one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things."
That is in full agreement with John 1:3, All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV), and Col 1:16, For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. (ESV)
All three state the exact same thing about Jesus. If all things (which is referring to all created things) come from the Father, and this speaks of his always having existed, then the statement that all things (everything that has come into existence) come through Jesus, then the only logical conclusion is that Jesus cannot have been created, or Paul (inspired by God nonetheless) is lying.
Similarly, in John, if everything that was made was not made without the Word, then again, the only logical conclusion is that the Word was not made. And the same can also be said about Col 1:16. The similarities between John's and Paul's statements are abundantly clear, particularly when we consider John 1:14:
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (ESV)
The Word is the Son and the Son is Jesus, who has always existed in some form, just like his Father.
As for "one God, the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ," if one excludes Jesus from being God, the one necessarily excludes the Father from being Lord. This is actually Paul's expansion of the Shema.
Not two Gods; two Persons, one God. Monotheism is a foundational tenet of the Christian faith. Please provide a verse which shows that the Father brought the Son into existence "by speaking His word."
This is what is known as begging the question. You are assuming the very thing you conclude, namely, that Yahweh is only the Father. As for how Col 1:16 is rendered in that regard, it makes no difference to what is said.
No, but I never said it did, but it does say several significant things to us including the existence of Jesus as God. It is a passage that makes clear the Incarnation.
Last edited:
J
jocor
Guest
I did not ignore it. I was only addressing the "God" aspect, not the creation aspect. You did not address my "two Gods" comment. Even if Yeshua helped create (which he didn't), he could not have done so as a second God. Nor was he the first God, Father Yahweh.
It depends on how one understands "through". Did the Father tell the Son to create light and then the Son did the creating? IMHO, no. That means there were two creators, but Isa 44:24 says it was done alone. The Father is the only creator. He created everything with His Son in mind; with His Son in His plan of salvation. When Father Yahweh created all things, He did it because the lamb slain before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8) needed a venue or a stage, so to speak, for that to be fulfilled. Therefore, the impetus for creation was the Son. Without the Son in Yahweh’s mind there would be no creation.
The Word is NOW the Son (it wasn't before Yeshua's conception) and the Son is Yeshua who has always existed in Yahweh's plan of salvation, but was made manifest at the appointed time.
There can only be ONE God, but there are many lords. Yeshua is the mediator between God and man, not between himself and man.
The Christian faith says two separate persons comprise the one God. If the Father is God and the Son is God and they are two separate beings, then there are two Gods. Since Christians cannot explain this dilemma they have created, they say its a mystery. When the word "elohim" (translated "God") is applied to the Son, it is in the same sense that the mighty men of Israel were called "elohim" (Psalm 82:6; John 10:34-36). It is not used of him as the one true God.
John 1:1-4, 14, when rightly understood without reading the Son into the text, shows the Son was spoken into existence.
That is what Scripture teaches. There is only one Yahweh.
"Now therefore, O Yahweh our Mighty One, I beseech thee, save thou us out of his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art Yahweh Elohim, even thou only" (II Kgs.19:19 )
"Thou, even thou art Yahweh alone; . . ." ( Ne.9:6 )
"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Yahweh, art the most high over all the earth" ( Ps.83:18 )
" . . .that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art Yahweh, even thou only" (Isa.37:20 )
"I am Yahweh, and there is none else . . ." (Isa.45:5 )
"That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am Yahweh, and there is none else" ( Isa.45:6 )
"For thus saith Yahweh that created the heavens; . . .I am Yahweh; and there is none else" (Isa.45:18 )
"Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our Mighty One is one Yahweh" ( De.6:4 )
Since Psalm 2:7 tells us the Father of Yeshua is Yahweh and there is only one Yahweh, then the one Yahweh must be the Father."Thou, even thou art Yahweh alone; . . ." ( Ne.9:6 )
"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Yahweh, art the most high over all the earth" ( Ps.83:18 )
" . . .that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art Yahweh, even thou only" (Isa.37:20 )
"I am Yahweh, and there is none else . . ." (Isa.45:5 )
"That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am Yahweh, and there is none else" ( Isa.45:6 )
"For thus saith Yahweh that created the heavens; . . .I am Yahweh; and there is none else" (Isa.45:18 )
"Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our Mighty One is one Yahweh" ( De.6:4 )
jocor said:
As a child, Yeshua "waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of Yahweh was upon him" (Luke 2:40). Even at that time Yeshua knew who he was, knew who his Father was (Luke 2:49), and knew what he had to do. By the time of his baptism he was so filled with wisdom, knowledge, Spirit, and power that Paul says he was "in the form (figuratively; nature) of God." It does not say he "was God."
Yes, I did, and you have responded below. By only addressing 'the "God" aspect,' as you put it, you are taking the verse out of context. You cannot only address part of a verse and hardly ever a single verse alone.
He isn't a second God and to equate the Father with Yahweh is, as I have pointed out, to commit the fallacy of begging the question.
There is no depending on any understanding of a certain word. We have three passages saying the identical thing, by two different authors.
The Son has always existed as a "person," for lack of a better English term.
Now you're sidestepping my argument, which is based on what you previously stated. 1 Cor 8:6 clearly says, "one God, the Father...one Lord, Jesus Christ." If you want to argue that "one God, the Father," excludes Jesus from being God, then it follows that the Father cannot be Lord. You simply cannot now argue to "many lords" because that is clearly not what is in view in this verse.
You're making up a straw man. Three separate "persons" comprise the one being that is God. The Father and the Son are not two separate beings nor are they two separate Gods. This is what Scripture clearly shows and since it is beyond our comprehension, like much to do with the nature of God and his workings in the world, we are forced to call it a mystery. You are forced to this as well, if you're intellectually honest.
Not at all. The very first words, "In the beginning," show, in the Greek, that the Word was already in existence when the beginning began. That is, the Word existed prior to any creation. And this aligns perfectly with what is stated in verse 3 and why the only logical conclusion is that the Word is not one of those things that was created.
Of course there is only one Yahweh, that is precisely what the doctrine of the Trinity states. There is no disagreement there. The disagreement is that you are begging the question by assuming the Father alone is Yahweh, the very thing you think you are proving. You need to prove that Yahweh is only the Father, but you have not done so. Psalm 2:7 is another instance of begging the question. At most, as a messianic statement, Psalm 2:7 is speaking of the person of Christ, but it says nothing about his divine nature nor the nature of God; certainly not that the Father alone is Yahweh.
This is clearly not what Paul is referring to in Phil 2. Paul is referring to a time before the Son took on human form. It simply cannot be any clearer. There is a lot in that passage that undoes your position but I don't have the time at the moment.
I was just adding some thought to your comment about the Word coming into existence. I believe the Word always has existed as John expressed in Chapter 1 of his gospel account. Something being in existence and manifest are two different things so I was suggesting that the Word was manifest or made known but not coming into existence since He always was with God and always was God.
About the Son -He is called both God and Son.
Is Jesus God?
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.
About the Son:
But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”e
Do you believe that God has always existed?
Do I believe the Father has always existed? - I don't know that with any certainty so I don't know. As is written about the Father , "there was no God FORMED before me..."
Do I believe Jesus has always existed? I am quite certain that is a NO. He is Gods Firstborn. The fullness in the Son was given not made and it is the Fathers Spirit. Jesus has His own spirit as in, "Father into your hands I commit my spirit"
Randy
J
jocor
Guest
What Scripture shows the Father and Son are not two separate beings?
Is this diagram not a true representation of the trinity?
I totally agree with this except for capitalizing "Word". What I disagree with is making this word a person instead of the Father's spoken words and thoughts. That is reading the Son into the text.
Psalm 2:7 clearly states Yeshua's Father is "YHWH". Therefore, it is incumbent upon YOU to prove someone other than the Father is YHWH. Also, since you agreed there is only one Yahweh, that forces you to believe the Son is the Father. Try proving that as well.
Last edited by a moderator: