"The Father" and "The Son"
Let me say at the outset, in the NT there are no such words as Trinity or trinitarian. There is much about God the Father, about Jesus who is called the Son, and about the Holy Spirit.
These terms, "The Father" and "The Son", are used in relations to God. To the chagrin of many, the terms are misunderstood. The terms of “Father” and “Son” in Western thinking carry with them the ideas of origin, dependence, and subordination. In the Semitic or Oriental mind, however, they emphasize sameness of nature. Thus, when the Scriptures speak of the “Son” of God, they assert his divinity.
At the baptism of Jesus, the Father called him “my beloved Son.” The sonship of Jesus, however, is not ontological but functional. In the plan of salvation, each member of the Trinity has accepted a particular role. It is a role for the purpose of accomplishing a particular goal, not a change in essence or status. Millard J. Erickson explains it this way:
"The Son did not become less than the Father during his earthly incarnation, but he did subordinate himself functionally to the Father’s will. Similarly, the Holy Spirit is now subordinated to the ministry of the Son (see John 14-16) as well as to the will of the Father, but this does not imply that he is less than they are".
When one looks closely, Daniel 7:13, 14, 26, 27 and 8:14, 23-25 are parallel passages describing the same event.
- Daniel 7 speaks of a judgment prior to the establishment of God’s kingdom (Daniel 7:27).
- Daniel 8 speaks of the cleansing of the sanctuary, leading to the destruction of the little horn (Daniel 8:25).
- The scene in Daniel 7 describes the seating of the Ancient One in the heavenly court, the coming of the Son of Man, and the restoration of the Son’s “authority, glory and sovereign power” (Daniel 7:14, NIV).
These are the powers Christ had in heaven and the powers Lucifer coveted. Satan would never acknowledge that Christ is coeternal, coequal, and co-powerful with God the Father—a point he contested powerfully and lost in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1-11).
Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCE:
- Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Baker, 1983), 1:338
PS Above, may be the answers to some questions you asked of me elsewhere in the forums.
Comments
-
@C_M_ wrote
These terms, "The Father" and "The Son", are used in relations to God.
This is a somewhat misleading or inaccurate statement ---
"Son" is NEVER used of God Himself. God is said to be the Father, the Almighty, the Creator, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One of Israel, etc ... but God Himself is NEVERcalled "the Son" in Sripture. The reason is very simple => It is by definition IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO BE THE (OR A) SON!! ... if that were the case, God would have to have someone who was before Him, that is another God as a Father, a Mother
Thus, all further ideas about "Holy Trinity" are of necessity beside the point and non-sense, because the premise "God is Son" is false.
-
@Wolfgang wrote: "Son" is NEVER used of God Himself.
Please explain Matthew 14:33 And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are certainly God’s Son!”
New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Mt 14:33.
If Jesus is not God, then receiving worship from humans is sin against God (Exodus 20:3-6 & Deuteronomy 5:7-10) that would disqualify Jesus from being a sinless savior for the world. If Jesus is God, then receiving worship is sinless (& appropriate).
Also please explain what the legion of demons inside a man called Jesus in Luke 8:28 Seeing Jesus, he cried out and fell before Him, and said in a loud voice, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg You, do not torment me.”
New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Lk 8:28.
Keep Smiling [:)]
-
Please explain Matthew 14:33 And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are certainly God’s Son!”
New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Mt 14:33.
If Jesus is not God, then receiving worship from humans is sin against God (Exodus 20:3-6 & Deuteronomy 5:7-10) that would disqualify Jesus from being a sinless savior for the world. If Jesus is God, then receiving worship is sinless (& appropriate).
there is nothing to explain ... correct reading and understanding what is said is the explanation. Does the text read: "You are certainly God" ??? If not, don't read it that into it.
Also please explain what the legion of demons inside a man called Jesus in Luke 8:28 Seeing Jesus, he cried out and fell before Him, and said in a loud voice, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg You, do not torment me.”
New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Lk 8:28.
Same as above ... the sad story yhere is that the demons knew bett than you smiling fellow, because they knew that Jesus was the Son of the Most High God, whereas you seem to be of the opinion that Jesus wass the Most High God or 1 Most High God Person of 3 Most High God Persons
-
@Wolfgang wrote: the sad story yhere is that the demons knew bett than you smiling fellow, because they knew that Jesus was the Son of the Most High God, whereas you seem to be of the opinion that Jesus wass the Most High God or 1 Most High God Person of 3 Most High God Persons
My belief is Jesus (Yeshua) being 1 Person in Loving Community of 1 Most High God that has 3 Persons (Voices) intimately sharing 1 Heart, 1 Soul, & 1 Strength. Matthew 28:19 baptism command reflects the Loving Community of 1 Most High God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).
@Wolfgang wrote: the premise "God is Son" is false.
Your explanation missed two verse examples showing Jesus is God's Son. The Word was eternally being God before the creation of the world, who became flesh (Son of Man) and dwelled among us whose name translation is Jesus. (John 1:1, 14, 18, 34)
Also missing is how Jesus can be your savior. If Jesus is not God, then Jesus could not be the Holy sacrifice for your sins against the 1 Most High God since a man OR angel receiving worship for the Most High God is a sin against the Most High God.
Keep Smiling 😀
Post edited by Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus on -
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus wrote
@Wolfgang wrote: the premise "God is Son" is false.
Your explanation missed two verse examples showing Jesus is God's Son.
I replied to the post with those two verses and commented on thme ... and you claim that I missed those verses ???? You better get your head together as you give the impression of having a severe problem ...
Now, sine you insist that God is a Son, I am sure you can tell us who God's father (and perhals his mother?) is. All your iother words are irrelevant to the question of whther or not God can be a Son, and whose Son God would be.
-
@Wolfgang wrote: Now, sine you insist that God is a Son, I am sure you can tell us who God's father (and perhals his mother?) is.
Before creation, the Loving Community of 1 Most High God had 3 voices: Will, Word, Holy Spirit (intimately & intensely sharing 1 essence: heart, soul, strength). Before God spoke, "Let there be Light !" to begin creation out of nothing, God's design included The Word leaving Holy Heaven to become the sinless Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world while The Will continued to righteously rule. In Psalm 2:7 (today), King David prophesied The Will (God) becoming The Father (God) when The Word (God) became The Son (God within a single human embryo inside the virgin Mary that grew into Jesus).
Holy Spirit (God) miracle inside Mary enabled The Word (God) to leave Holy Heaven for human birth, which did not change the fully human nature of Mary. Hence Mary is the human mother of Jesus (physical descendant from King David = Son of God). The Loving Community of 1 Most High God is the Father of Jesus (Son of Man).
Keep Smiling 😀
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus ... are you able to read? are you able to understand what you read?
-
I know I have been rude on my days here, but I believe this post is out of line as well.
-
I agree. Would it be possible to refrain from personal attacks please, and respond to the arguments instead?
-
how do you folks ask for clarification when something seems to be a certain way? When someone seemingly replies with totally unrelated statements to questions, I consider it a legitimate point to ask if they were able to read what had been written ..
The person can easily clarfiy, for example by stating that they did read and did understand what they read,, but decided to answer with something unrelated, etc ... or that they read but did not understand what was written .... or that they were not interested in really answering and just wanted to write something .... or whatever etc
-
@Wolfgang said:
how do you folks ask for clarification when something seems to be a certain way? When someone seemingly replies with totally unrelated statements to questions, I consider it a legitimate point to ask if they were able to read what had been written ..
The person can easily clarfiy, for example by stating that they did read and did understand what they read,, but decided to answer with something unrelated, etc ... or that they read but did not understand what was written .... or that they were not interested in really answering and just wanted to write something .... or whatever etc
FWIW, Wolfgang, my approach to such a circumstance is to state my belief that the person's response did not address the issues/questions I raised, and to raise the issues/questions again. Something of this fashion: "I respect your point of view on the issues addressed in your response, but those aren't the issues I intended to raise in my last post. In my view, your response is about [INSERT ISSUE(S) HERE] but my post raised/asked about [INSERT ISSUE(S)/QUESTION(S) HERE]. Hence, I raise/ask my issue(s)/question(s) again: [INSERT ISSUE(S)/QUESTION(S) HERE]."
The objective of such an approach is to comply with the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation of these forums. As long as my posts focus on the content of others' posts and NOT the posters themselves, I expect my posts will satisfy that expectation.
In my view, asking posters whether they are able to read or to comprehend/understand what they read is FAR more about posters than it is about the content of their posts. If you don't think a post responds to the issue(s) you've raised, say so, but say it in a way that is about the post, not the poster.
-
@Bill_Coley wrote:
In my view, asking posters whether they are able to read or to comprehend/understand what they read is FAR more about posters than it is about the content of their posts. If you don't think a post responds to the issue(s) you've raised, say so, but say it in a way that is about the post, not the poster.
Did the problem have to do with the post? or did it have to do with the poster and something related to the poster? Was my post to which he replied so complicate or formulated in a manner that one could not read it or understand it? Or was there a problem with the reader who then posted something totally unrelated? Since I had the impression that the problem was related to the reader/poster I asked whether he could read and understand what had been written ... to me, a normal approach of clarifying what is really going on. For example, he can easily answer. "Well, I could read but was unable to understand what you wrote; can you clarify what you are trying to say" .... if that was the case
Is this kindergarten where folks are not able to deal with somewhat direct questions to the point, and instead one needs to "formulate politically correct even questions for clarification because when addressed without "velvet positivity gloves" they fall apart and feel it is not appropriate for their level or manner of talking?
Note: I did NOT state that the @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus participant could not read or could not understand or was unwilling to read or understand and perhaps should take some reading and understanding classes.
-
To whom it may concern, "An apple doesn't fall far from its tree." CM
-
@Wolfgang said:
Did the problem have to do with the post? or did it have to do with the poster and something related to the poster?
In my view, compliance with these forums' expectation that participants will "criticize ideas, not people" requires that we post about problems with posts, not their posters.
Was my post to which he replied so complicate or formulated in a manner that one could not read it or understand it? Or was there a problem with the reader who then posted something totally unrelated?
If you believe the issue is with the substance of a post - whether your own or another's - then address the substance of that post. If you believe the issue is with a person - yourself or another poster - then address the substance of posts. It's that simple, in my view. [Unless you want to limit your personal comments to your personal role in creating the issue. Authentically confessional speech is often both effective and disarming.]
Since I had the impression that the problem was related to the reader/poster I asked whether he could read and understand what had been written ... to me, a normal approach of clarifying what is really going on. For example, he can easily answer. "Well, I could read but was unable to understand what you wrote; can you clarify what you are trying to say" .... if that was the case.
Notice the disparity between the tone and focus of your response to the other poster, Wolfgang, and the response you propose from the other poster to you:
- You ask of him, "Can you read and understand written words?"
- You have him reply to you, "Yes. Could you restate your point?"
To maintain consistency of tone, why don't you have him ask of you, "What's wrong with you that you would ask whether I can read and understand words?"
Is this kindergarten where folks are not able to deal with somewhat direct questions to the point, and instead one needs to "formulate politically correct even questions for clarification because when addressed without "velvet positivity gloves" they fall apart and feel it is not appropriate for their level or manner of talking?
The guideline and expectation is that we will "criticize ideas, not people." How does "Can you read?" or "Can you understand what you read?" NOT violate that expectation?
Note: I did NOT state that the @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus participant could not read or could not understand or was unwilling to read or understand and perhaps should take some reading and understanding classes.
My point is that other posters' reading and comprehension abilities are NOT fair game in forums such as these, whose expectations include that posters will "criticize ideas, not people."
I must also point out, Wolfgang, that IN THIS POST you suggested to him that he had "better get (his) head together as (he gave) the impression of having a severe problem...." How did that advice NOT violate the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation?
-
Maybe it is a cultural thing....
-
@Wolfgang wrote: @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus ... are you able to read? are you able to understand what you read?
Yes.
Hypothesis: belief in what is impossible prevented understanding of my six sentence reply about God. Filtering out "impossible" beliefs left an unrelated mess (pieces of each sentence), which was not understood (so questioned "are you able to ...")
The "rude" replies showed my theological ideas in six sentences were understood by others.
For my personal Bible study, my desire is knowing my own belief bias. God's Truth continues to be True (God's Ways are higher than human ways). My human understanding has limitations so my approach to serious study is asking God to open my eyes to behold wonders in His Holy Word. For Bible treasure hunting, like using S.O.A.P.
Scripture - Where is it at ?
Observe - What jumps out ? (especially Truth in original context)
Apply - What does God want me to do ?
Pray - How to wisely proceed with God ?
Keep Smiling 😀
-
There is only one God, and He is the Father.
Since Jesus is God, he must be that one God the Father come as a Son in the flesh.
1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
-
@YourTruthGod wrote:
There is only one God, and He is the Father.
I agree. And this One, Who Alone is the true God (cp John 17:3) is and is also known as the Creator, the Almighty, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One, etc
Since Jesus is God, he must be that one God the Father come as a Son in the flesh.
This phrase is based on the premise "Since Jesus is God, ....". If that premise were true, there would be two - and not one - who are true God, because Jesus himself declared that he was NOT that God, the Father, but rather emphatically stated that his Father and his God was the same God in heaven, Father in heaven, as the one Who was the father and God of his disciples (cp John 20:17)
Thus, the premise mentioned must be incorrect as it contradicts what other scripture record as Jesus' own words as well as what scripture in general teaches about the man Jesus.
Now, a different question here would be, What do you @YourTruthGod, mean with "God the Father ... come in the flesh" ?? Do you mean something similar to, for example, "God the Father revealed to His people via the Holy Scriptures " ?? While it is true that the Holy Scriptures as God inspired Word could thus be called "divine", nobody would say that the Bible IS God, would they? While it is true that the man Jesus as the only begotten Son of God could be called "divine", nobody should say that the man Jesus IS God.
-
Since Jesus is God, he must be that one God the Father come as a Son in the flesh.
This phrase is based on the premise "Since Jesus is God, ....". If that premise were true, there would be two - and not one - who are true God, because Jesus himself declared that he was NOT that God, the Father, but rather emphatically stated that his Father and his God was the same God in heaven, Father in heaven, as the one Who was the father and God of his disciples (cp John 20:17)
Jesus is the Word of God and was God.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
So that is Jesus speaking in the Old Testament too.
Thus, the premise mentioned must be incorrect as it contradicts what other scripture record as Jesus' own words as well as what scripture in general teaches about the man Jesus.
Now, a different question here would be, What do you @YourTruthGod, mean with "God the Father ... come in the flesh" ?? Do you mean something similar to, for example, "God the Father revealed to His people via the Holy Scriptures " ?? While it is true that the Holy Scriptures as God inspired Word could thus be called "divine", nobody would say that the Bible IS God, would they? While it is true that the man Jesus as the only begotten Son of God could be called "divine", nobody should say that the man Jesus IS God.
God the Father came as a son in the flesh. That still makes only one God.
Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Read this scripture:
Ephesians 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Jesus is over all and through all and in all of the saved.
Who's hands, the Father's or the Son's? They are the same person:
John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
2 Chronicles 6:30 then hear from heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive, and render to each according to all his ways, whose heart You know for You alone know the hearts of the sons of men,
Jesus knows the hearts of all people. So Jesus is God.
John 2:24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
Read this scripture, it is about when a person is saved and receive the Holy Spirit. How else do you receive one Spirit yet have the Father and the Son? It is because they are the same.
“Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and take up residence with him.” (John 14:23)
And many more.
-
Welcome to the forum!
Reading certain replies of yours within three threads have left me with a particular question. The following quotes are provided from three threads on this forum that I find interesting.
The reason why some scriptures say the Father raised Jesus, and some say the Holy Spirit did, and some others say Jesus did is because they are three and the same. (Quoted from Titus 2:13 – The Smoking Gun – Jesus is God: page 2, 3rd post, Emphasis mine)
I believe that there are many scriptures about a thing that says ‘the Father’, or ‘Jesus’, or ‘the Holy Spirit’ because they are one and the same and interchangeable. (Quoted from Titus 2:13 – The Smoking Gun – Jesus is God: page 2, 5th post, Emphasis mine)
The Bible says Jesus will be called Son, Holy Spirit, God, and Father. (Quoted from Jesus? “Not God”? Savior?: page 4, 15th post, Emphasis mine)
Since Jesus is God, he must be that one God the Father come as a Son in the flesh. (Quoted from “The Father“ and “The Son“: page 1, 17th post, Emphasis mine)
God the Father came as a son in the flesh. (Quoted from “The Father“ and “The Son“: page 1, 20th post, Emphasis mine)
Who's hands, the Father's or the Son's? They are the same person: (Quoted from “The Father“ and “The Son“: page 1, 20th post, Emphasis mine)
For clarification regarding your theological position: from the above statements it seems as though Jesus is the name of God (the Father), the Son (himself), and the Holy Spirit; and that Jesus manifests himself in these three different roles (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). If this is the case, what this theological belief describes is a Jesus only modalism – is this your belief?
-
For clarification regarding your theological position: from the above statements it seems as though Jesus is the name of God (the Father), the Son (himself), and the Holy Spirit; and that Jesus manifests himself in these three different roles (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). If this is the case, what this theological belief describes is a Jesus only modalism – is this your belief?
Thank you so much for the welcome.
No, I am not a modalist. However, it might be similar.
I hope you tell me what you think about the scriptures that show the Father and son are one and the same.
-
I hope you tell me what you think about the scriptures that show the Father and son are one and the same.
Well, I think there is no scripture that shows that Father and Son are one and the same. It is impossible for a father to be one and the same as his own son, just as it is impossible for a son to be his own father. The idea that Father and Son are one and the same must therefore be a misinterpretation of what those scriptures in truth do show, totally disregarding most basic meaning of words and language
-
No, I am not a modalist. However, it might be similar.
Interesting, what are the distinctive’s of the theology you embrace?
I hope you tell me what you think about the scriptures that show the Father and son are one and the same.
Well, in brief, I find that scripture makes a clear distinction between the persons of the Father, Son, and Spirit. While I believe there is harmony, purpose, and unity of the Father, Son, and Spirit; I do not believe that the three are “one and the same” – that is simply modalism. I adhere to the doctrine of the trinity, should that help you.
-
@Wolfgang , "Well, I think there is no scripture that shows that Father and Son are one and the same. It is impossible for a father to be one and the same as his own son, just as it is impossible for a son to be his own father. The idea that Father and Son are one and the same must therefore be a misinterpretation of what those scriptures in truth do show, totally disregarding most basic meaning of words and language"The Almighty God can do anything He wants, and He came as a man in the flesh.
Jesus says he only says what the Father says.
He only does what the Father does.
And when you see him, you can say that you see the Father.
Post edited by YourTruthGod on -
@Pages
Interesting, what are the distinctive’s of the theology you embrace?Well, in brief, I find that scripture makes a clear distinction between the persons of the Father, Son, and Spirit. While I believe there is harmony, purpose, and unity of the Father, Son, and Spirit; I do not believe that the three are “one and the same” – that is simply modalism. I adhere to the doctrine of the trinity, should that help you.I never much studied modalism, just briefly when I was said to have the same beliefs as them. I am going by the scriptures in the Holy Bible. I think though that the difference between my beliefs and modalism is that I believe the three exist at the same time. Modalists say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit do not exist simultaneously, but rather consecutively.
-
@YourTruthGod wrote
@Wolfgang , "Well, I think there is no scripture that shows that Father and Son are one and the same. It is impossible for a father to be one and the same as his own son, just as it is impossible for a son to be his own father. The idea that Father and Son are one and the same must therefore be a misinterpretation of what those scriptures in truth do show, totally disregarding most basic meaning of words and language"
The Almighty God can do anything He wants, and He came as a man in the flesh.
Yes, God is able to do whatever He is willing / wants to do.... BUT - please note carefully - God is NOT willing /wants to do whatever some people may want and "smartly" claim that their idea is what God wants !!!
Just because you claim "Father and Son are one and the same" does not mean a lousy thing, especially so since it is something totally non-sensical, illogical, contrary to all evidence in anything where a father and a son are involved.
Jesus says he only says what the Father says.
He only does what the Father does.
Yes, Jesus obeyed God and spoke and did what God wanted spoken and done.
Eh, when you did what your father told you to do, did you all of a sudden become your father, and you and your father were no longer two human beings but only one human being?
And when you see him, you can say that you see the Father.
Yes .... and did that mean that Jesus and his Father were one and the same ? Eh, only a few weeks ago, some old friend of my late father whom I had never met, saw me do something at a little festival organized by the firebrigade in our village and approached me and asked if I was the son of my father, and even used the words, "when I saw you over there helping those people, it was as seeing your father".
As you should be able to easily recognize and understand, the words of Jesus about seeing the Father while seeing him had NOTHING WHATEVER to do with Jesus and his Father are one and the same.
-
@Wolfgang Yes, God is able to do whatever He is willing / wants to do.... BUT - please note carefully - God is NOT willing /wants to do whatever some people may want and "smartly" claim that their idea is what God wants !!!
Just because you claim "Father and Son are one and the same" does not mean a lousy thing, especially so since it is something totally non-sensical, illogical, contrary to all evidence in anything where a father and a son are involved.
Yes, Jesus obeyed God and spoke and did what God wanted spoken and done.
Eh, when you did what your father told you to do, did you all of a sudden become your father, and you and your father were no longer two human beings but only one human being?
Yes .... and did that mean that Jesus and his Father were one and the same ? Eh, only a few weeks ago, some old friend of my late father whom I had never met, saw me do something at a little festival organized by the firebrigade in our village and approached me and asked if I was the son of my father, and even used the words, "when I saw you over there helping those people, it was as seeing your father".
As you should be able to easily recognize and understand, the words of Jesus about seeing the Father while seeing him had NOTHING WHATEVER to do with Jesus and his Father are one and the same.
The scriptures say Jesus is God.
No one is saying that you are your father, are they?
-
@YourTruthGod wrote:
The scriptures say Jesus is God.
No one is saying that you are your father, are they?
Your answer isn't even an answer ... only an evasive comment avoiding an answer
-
@Wolfgang Your answer isn't even an answer ... only an evasive comment avoiding an answer
Too bad that you feel that way. I would still like to discuss with you and show you my beliefs from the scriptures.
-
@YourTruthGod wrote
Too bad that you feel that way. I would still like to discuss with you and show you my beliefs from the scriptures.
then please do so and do so from Scripture rather than from illogical and nonsensical theology ...
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
