Jesus is the Father

larryjf · Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2003 1:04 pm Post subject:

Excellent points.

MoJo · Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2003 9:43 am Post subject:

Just a couple of points here:

1.

Van · Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:14 pm Post subject:

Is Jesus the Father? Yes. Is Jesus the Son? Yes.

When we say "the Father" we are referring to the entity that was in heaven while Jesus in the flesh was on earth. The entity that Jesus prayed to and obeyed His will. Hebrews 1:2 calls the Word, the pre-incarnate Jesus the Son. So the Word appears to be subservient to the "Father" while in heaven before the creation of anything. But the head of a family is called the father and paternalistically, that means the father created the family. Like necessity is the father of invention. So because of the role the Word, the Son had in creation, Jesus is the "father" of creation just as the other entity is the father of creation.

Also, I think many times the "LORD" of the OT appeared or interacted with men, it was not the "Father" but the Son. Jesus was the "I Am".

So, what are we left with? The "Father" had a big role in the revelation of God" during the lifetime of Jesus in the flesh. Prior to that, many times that Yahweh is presented, the entity appears to be the Son. But both still existed. You can see that in the "Angel of the Lord" passages where Yahweh (the entity called Father during the life of Jesus) gives orders to the Angel of the Lord (the pre-incarnate Word, the Son).

Can we then avoid the much disliked trinity? Nope, we still have Yahweh being made up of the Son and the "Father" and we still have the person of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ inspiring the OT prophets. Jesus also said that where two or three are gathered I will be there also, and since Jesus in visible glorified bodily form could not be omnipresent, the Spirit of Christ must be Jesus in some sense. When we are indwelt, both the Father and the Son abide in us, so the Holy Spirit is both the Father and the Son.

Larryjf, if you can come up with a solution to this paradox, I will be all ears since you use all the scriptures. But I think all your original post does is highlight the fact that the OT LORD appears many times to be the Son rather than the entity called the "Father" by Jesus in the flesh.

Lynnore

I am so happy to have found this website and my fellow believers in the faith of Christ. Let me tell you a little about myself.
I was raised a Jehovah's Witness. In the year 2000, I Came to Christ! Before this time, I was a disciple ofthe Governing Body who at this time, reign without us. (1 Cor.4:8 ) My sister came to Christ first, and she helped me to see I needed to trust GOD and ask him for the truth through Christ.This is what I did,
And like most here, I found the scripture John 14:6
That was a real eye opener for me.

If Jesus is THE FATHER then who is his Father?
If Abraham was father of us all, is he Almighty GOD?
Hardly.(Rom 4:11-16)If Jesus is Almighty GOD, then
who is Jesus' GOD? ( compare )(Rev. 3:2 )(Rev. 3:12 )
(Rev. 20:6 )(Rev 18:20 )(Rev 19:2 )

"Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the
spirit of prophecy."
(Rev 19:10)

Do we know the 'testimony of Jesus? If not,
one should search it out and study it.

(John 14:24)"He that loveth me not keepeth not
my words: and the word which ye hear is not mine,
but the Father's who sent me."

(John 14:31) Jesus said:
"but that the world may know that I love the Father,
and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do."

Christ Jesus is the 1st born of the NEW CREATION.
( Col 1:15 )
"who is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn of all creation;"

So why do so many men worship what God created?
Because they are mislead.

Hello RON! I'm glad there are others here who left
the JW org but did not leave their faith in GOD and
Christ Jesus.

I send you all my love in Christ,

Lynnore
_________________
" if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all
men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him."
(James 1:5-6)

Van · Posted: Sun Aug 15, 2004 4:25 pm Post subject:

As I posted before, "the Father" that Jesus referred to during His lifetime is not Jesus. But both were involved in creation and so both can be referred to as "father" because they along with the Holy Spirit are the father of creation. They existed before anything was created, hence the pre-incarnate Word can be termed Eternal Father.

The issue of this thread is the assumption that the OT LORD (Yahweh) is the Father, the same person Jesus prayed to while in the flesh. I say no, often the entity titled Yahweh was the Word, God the Son.

Holywind · Goldfish Joined: 25 Jul 2004 Posts: 61

LarryJf

I don't have time to write tonight as I have to be up at 4:00 a.m. but you said at the beginning of this thread that you were looking for a new perspective on this topic. Believe me, brother, the Lord has given me a NEW PERSPECTIVE, and I can't wait to share it. More later. I Love you Brother Very Happy

_________________
Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be afraid, rightly dividing (correctly parsing) the word of truth.

metothezero · Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2004 12:56 am Post subject:

Larry, over on the Christianviewpoints.com there is a discussion in progress about Modalism, or Oneness Theology. You would perhaps like to take a gander over there and see what you can gleen.

Although, I would ask you, as I asked Crusader, if the theology of Oneness is true, can you define for us what exactly the terms Father and Son refer to?

Most would say that Father is in reference to God, deity, Creator. Would you be in agreement? I would as well.

The next question, the next term is then how would you define Son? The way I see it, you only have two options. Son is either in reference to the combination of the nature of God with the nature of flesh. OR Son is in reference to the nature of flesh alone.

Now the second seems attractable if you would like to explain the passage of the Son praying to the Father. This would explain how Jesus, the Son, as being the nature of flesh prayed to the Father who is the nature of God. This would explain how you would have two different wills.

This is unacceptable however, as if the Son is in strict reference to the nature of flesh that was adorned by God, granted explaining the differing wills, you would still be left with a non-deity Son. If the Son is the flesh adorned by God, then it is not God, therefore the Son, Jesus, is not God.

If this is rejected then we are left with the first option, the Son describing the union of the Nature of God and the nature of the flesh. I would favor this option, I would favor this definition, IF, and only if, you leave it as the Nature of God, rather than the Father. If you say that the Son is in reference to the union between the Father and the flesh, then you have a difficult passage to explain.

The passage is the same used above in support of the second option. Christ praying to the Father in the garden, 'not My Will, but Thine'. Now if the Son is reference to the union of the Father and the flesh, He would be unable to pray this. Or we would have a difficult time explaining this. It would not be the Son praying to the Father, as the Son is the Father plus the flesh, rather it would have to be the flesh praying to the Father. The nature of the flesh praying to the Nature of God, the Father.

Yet this is unacceptable, because the passage does not say that the flesh of Jesus prayed to the Father, it says that Jesus, the Son, prayed to the Father.

This is the difficulty with Oneness, you must give definitions if you are going to use the terms of Christianity. If you are going to use Son and Father, you must redefine these terms, and even in the redefinition problems arise which are difficult to take care of.

Another issue that I have with Modalism is a very simple verse. The most famous verse in all of Christianity. Perhaps you can attempt to explain it from a Modalistic viewpoint, Larry. The verse in question is John 3:16. 'For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.'

The main question is of course, how can one be one's Father, while being one's Son? The relationship given is that of begetting. 'Only begotten'. How can the Son, be begotten of the Father, when the Son is the Father? And how can the Father beget the Son, when the Father is the Son?

What you need to do, Sir Larry, before you continue you research into Modalism, is attempt to define Son and then you may proceed. That is the crux of the entire doctrine, what Son is in reference to.
_________________
The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike.
C. S. Lewis

Atheism is a ferocious system, that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us to awaken tenderness. --R. Hall.