Posted on 05/14/2016 8:48:31 AM PDT by Salvation
While Jesus states God is ‘greater,’ it is only in the sense that the Father is the principal source of being
Msgr. Charles Pope 5/11/2016
Question: We read in a recent Sunday Gospel (May 1), that Jesus says the Father is greater than him (Jn 14:28). Since we are all taught that each divine person of the Blessed Trinity fully possesses the nature of God, equally to be adored and glorified, what did Jesus mean by such statement?— Dick Smith, Carrollton, Texas
Answer: Theologically, Jesus means that the Father is the eternal source in the Trinity.
All three Persons of the Trinity are co-eternal, co-equal and equally divine. But the Father is the principium deitatis (the source in the deity).
Hence, Jesus proceeds from the Father from all eternity. He is eternally begotten of the Father. In effect, Jesus is saying, “I delight that the Father is the eternal principal or source of my being, even though I have no origin in time.”
Devotionally, Jesus is saying that he always does what pleases his Father. Jesus loves his Father. He is always talking about him and pointing to him. By calling the Father greater, he says, in effect, “I look to my Father for everything. I do what I see him doing (Jn 5:19) and what I know pleases him (Jn 5:30).”
So, though the members of the Trinity are all equal in dignity, there are processions in the Trinity such that the Father is the source, the Son eternally proceeds from him, and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from them both.
St. Thomas speaks poetically of the Trinity as: “To the one who begets, and to the Begotten One, and to the one who proceeds from them both, be equal praise.” So, though equal, processions do have an order, and the Father is “greater” as source, but equal in dignity to Son and Holy Spirit.
By not believing the whole of Scripture, that Jesus, the Son of God, is also omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.
I define him just as the scriptures define him
No you don't. You only quote the Scriptures that agree with your world view, and you totally ignore the rest of Scripture. Jesus inspired the writing of the entire Bible, "John 8:58 before Abraham was, I am" so just quoting what He said while here on earth and disregarding everything else, puts you in the category of being a "smorgasbord Christian" take what you want, leave the rest.
I can take any passage you present, where you think that you can show separate and distinct deity,
I've given you many, but because they do not fit in with your ideology, you refuse to accept them, or you twist them to suit your personal belief system. But here is another for you.
Genesis 1:26
¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
This passage is plural, so either you believe in many gods, or you believe that God is one, and yet consists of separate and distinct personages. But to say that Christ is a created being is not Biblical, which makes you an unbeliever.
Here is another verse for you.
Hosea 13:4
Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.
Obviously, this verse is referring to Christ being God, because there have been many people over the course of history, who have saved other people from many things, And I'm sure we both agree that they were not God. So this verse is referring to a particular saviour, isn't it?
And another one.
(Isaiah 43:10-11)
"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. {11} I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."
So is the Savior God, or is the Saviour a created being, or perhaps you don't believe Jesus Christ is the Saviour at all.
I take it the professor’s comment relates to the objective of “finally understanding the Mystery of the Trinity.”
That’s the way I took it. We cannot prove the concept of the Trinity in human terms, but we can confidently assert based on revealed truth that the Son of God, the Word made flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, is equally God with the Father, along with the Spirit who gave life to His human flesh.
How do you reconcile your wanting God to literally be flesh, when Jesus Christ and his aposltes declare God to be a Spirit and invisible? (John 1:18, 5:37, Col.1:15, 1Tim. 1:17, Heb. 11:27, 1John 4:12)
You use the word literally. Is this how you resolve your difference with what is written in Scripture? That when John wrote the Word became flesh, he did not mean that the Word literally became flesh?
It's not a matter of "wanting" one thing or another. It's simply that "the word became flesh" signifies that reality of the Divine taking on human form; God in the flesh.
And it is true that no man has seen the Father in His heavenly Glory. But is also true that "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:9). The Scriptures are replete with paradoxes on these points. The correct answer accepts that, rather than simply favoring one set of verses over the others.
After his teaching on the ‘bread of life’, Jesus Christ declared that it wasn’t literally the flesh that gives life, but the Spirit:
“It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John 6:63
But back up 12 verses:
"51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” John 6:51
"My flesh . . which I will give for the life of the world?" Who else can redeem the world but God? And how can that "flesh" give life to the world if it is merely an earthly. carnal thing? It has to be Divine as well or else the efficacy of the Redemption is called into question.
(What does "flesh" refer to in verse 63? Hint: it's not Jesus's flesh; to read it that way leads to contradiction, a flesh that "gives life to the world" that also "profits nothing.")
(sorry, I’m a OTR driver with no smart phone or laptop. Sometimes replies from me take days. My wife can view comments and let me know what has been said, helping me to reply quicker when I actually get home.)
**It’s not a matter of “wanting” one thing or another. It’s simply that “the word became flesh” signifies that reality of the Divine taking on human form; God in the flesh.**
Well, at least you are admitting to defining the Word as “God in the flesh”. Because God is not ‘God the flesh’. God was IN Christ reconciling the world unto himself.
**And it is true that no man has seen the Father in His heavenly Glory. But is also true that “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9). The Scriptures are replete with paradoxes on these points. The correct answer accepts that, rather than simply favoring one set of verses over the others.**
There is no paradox to the teaching from Jesus Christ about the Father dwelling in him, doing the works (Jn 14:10). And I am not favoring one set of verses over others. I can go anywhere you choose to go, and point out these undeniable facts:
God the Father is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient.
He literally dwells in Christ, and Christ in him.
(If God the Father is not literally IN Christ, then the Father is not omnipresent.)
Your body does not define your soul. Your soul defines your body. It’s what you say and do that defines you.
Jesus Christ came to redeem fallen man, but he also came to express the will of God the Father to mankind, man to man, which he did almost constantly.
**But back up 12 verses: “51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” John 6:51**
Back up even more:
“..but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.” Jn 6:32
If you believe that the ‘bread from heaven’ is literally flesh, know that God the Father gave the Son his body (”..but a body thou hast prepared me.” Heb. 10:5)
**(What does “flesh” refer to in verse 63? Hint: it’s not Jesus’s flesh; to read it that way leads to contradiction, a flesh that “gives life to the world” that also “profits nothing.”)**
It is the Spirit of God that kept the flesh of the Son of God sinless, and therefore able to present the perfect will of God, to man, by a man.
If you believe that the ‘bread from heaven’ is words that proceed from that flesh, well, that comes from God the Father also:
Here’s a list of words and references, showing who was the original provider of knowledge (and all other things divine as well):
gave: 3:16, 10:29, 12:49, 14:31
gavest: 17:4,6,8,12,22, 18:9
give: 14:6, 15:16, 16:23
given: 3:35, 5:26,27,36, 6:39,65, 7:39, 13:3, 17:2(2),7,8,9,11,24(2)
received: 10:18
send: 14:26, 15:26, 17:8, Acts 3:20
sent: 3:17,34, 4:34, 5:23,24,30,36,37,38, 6:29,38,39,40,44,57, 7:16,18,28,29,33, 8:16,18,26,29,42, 9:4, 10:36, 11:42, 12:44,45,49, 13:16,20, 14:24, 15:21, 16:5, 17:3,18,21,23,25, 20:21
will (noun): 4:34, 5:30(2), 6:38,39,40, 7:17
will (verb): 5:20, 11:22, 12:26, 14:26, 15:26, 16:23
word and words (actually there are others that should be included, but the Son made it clear in the following ones whose ‘words’ they were): 3:34, 14:24, 17:6,8,14,17
work and works: 4:34, 5:20,36(2), 9:4, 10:25,37,38, 14:10, 17:4
doctrine: 7:16,17: “My doctrine is NOT mine, but HIS that SENT me. If any man will do HIS will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of GOD, or whether I speak of myself.”
**You use the word literally. Is this how you resolve your difference with what is written in Scripture?**
Difference?.....I harmonize the scriptures, not just pick the first portion of John 1:14, and build a doctrine around it. Read the last part: “..full of grace and truth”.
Where does the Son declare grace and truth to originate?....the Father.
**That when John wrote the Word became flesh, he did not mean that the Word literally became flesh?**
He meant that God was IN Christ, as Paul so accurately pointed out many times in his epistles.
BUT......here is a question for you: With your separate and distinct persons of God theology; can you quote a scripture that shows the FATHER receiving anything divine from the Son?
When you place the Father (Spirit) in the Son (divinely created flesh, with a soul), you have defined Jesus Christ in the simplest of terms.
(sorry, I’m an OTR driver. So replies can take days.)
**Genesis 1:26**
I believe that to be God the Father speaking to the firstborn, “the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev. 3:14)
In John 14:2, the Son tells who owns the house in heaven: “in my Father’s house are many mansions..”.
The Son goes to prepare a place alright. But it is the Father that powers him to do so. By the way, it is the Father is who made him Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:32-36)
**By not believing the whole of Scripture, that Jesus, the Son of God, is also omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.**
It is the Father that makes the ‘mind of Christ’ omnipresent. The ‘Comforter’ could not come until the Son physically left this earth. It is the Father that sends the ‘Comforter’.
**You only quote the Scriptures that agree with your world view, and you totally ignore the rest of Scripture.**
Here’s a list of words and references, showing who was the original provider of knowledge (and all other things divine as well):
gave: 3:16, 10:29, 12:49, 14:31
gavest: 17:4,6,8,12,22, 18:9
give: 14:6, 15:16, 16:23
given: 3:35, 5:26,27,36, 6:39,65, 7:39, 13:3, 17:2(2),7,8,9,11,24(2)
received: 10:18
send: 14:26, 15:26, 17:8, Acts 3:20
sent: 3:17,34, 4:34, 5:23,24,30,36,37,38, 6:29,38,39,40,44,57, 7:16,18,28,29,33, 8:16,18,26,29,42, 9:4, 10:36, 11:42, 12:44,45,49, 13:16,20, 14:24, 15:21, 16:5, 17:3,18,21,23,25, 20:21
will (noun): 4:34, 5:30(2), 6:38,39,40, 7:17
will (verb): 5:20, 11:22, 12:26, 14:26, 15:26, 16:23
word and words (actually there are others that should be included, but the Son made it clear in the following ones whose ‘words’ they were): 3:34, 14:24, 17:6,8,14,17
work and works: 4:34, 5:20,36(2), 9:4, 10:25,37,38, 14:10, 17:4
doctrine: 7:16,17: “My doctrine is NOT mine, but HIS that SENT me. If any man will do HIS will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of GOD, or whether I speak of myself.”
That’s over 100 references (from the book of John alone) showing that the Son’s source of ALL things divine, ALL power, ALL wisdom, etc., is from God the Father. There are plenty more alluding to the same.
BUT......here is a question for you: With your separate and distinct persons of God theology; can you quote a scripture that shows the FATHER receiving anything divine from the Son?
**So is the Savior God, or is the Saviour a created being, or perhaps you don’t believe Jesus Christ is the Saviour at all.**
How could Jesus Christ overcome the world, if the Father had not been in him, giving the power to do all things? That is how the Son of God is Saviour of the world.
When you place the Father (Spirit) in the Son (divinely created flesh, with a divinely created soul), you have defined Jesus Christ in the simplest of terms.
I think the biggest problem Trinitarians have, is that they just don’t believe that the Father is indeed a Spirit, and is indeed omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. But, Jesus Christ said that to be the case, in his many words found in the book of John.
After his resurrection, he told Mary Magdalene, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and to your Father; and to my God, and to your God.” Jn 20:17
“touch me not”?? Why? Then upon his return (the same day?) he shows his hands and side to the disciples, minus Thomas. And then, eight days later he encourages Thomas to touch him. The realm of the Father is truly a spiritual realm we just can’t comprehend.
Difference?.....I harmonize the scriptures, not just pick the first portion of John 1:14, and build a doctrine around it.
The question isn’t whether God was in Christ. He was. The Father was in the Son and the Son was in the Father. Neither is it a question of whether the Father ever received anything divine from the Son. Clearly, everything that came from the Son was received from the Father. The question is whether the Son is a separate divine person from the Father.
I could see the harmony in your belief if it were not written in Scripture that the Word was God and the Word became flesh. Jesus Christ could be defined as the Father (Spirit) in the Son (divinely created flesh, with a soul).
But it is written in Scripture that the Word, which was God, became flesh, and I do not see how your explanations that God is not flesh are in harmony with what is written in Scripture.
**But it is written in Scripture that the Word, which was God, became flesh,**
The Son said that the words, and the doctrine, weren’t his, but the Father’s. The following references tell whose ‘words’ they were: John 3:34, 14:24, 17:6,8,14,17
And the doctrine: John 7:16,17: “My doctrine is NOT mine, but HIS that SENT me. If any man will do HIS will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of GOD, or whether I speak of myself.”
The Word is actually the will of the Father. The Son (flesh with a soul) is his chosen means of expressing his will in these last days (Heb. 1:1-3).
You have a body to express your will. The Father didn’t, but chose to make one; the original one, complete with a soul (a will of his own, but would be obedient to the Father that dwelt in him).
(Sounds ridiculous when I say it, doesn't it?)
But, I will answer your last question first, and then move on to the rest of your New World Order View.(I call it that because it is not Biblical Christianity, that's been handed down to us by the Apostles)
After his resurrection, he told Mary Magdalene, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and to your Father; and to my God, and to your God.” Jn 20:17
He did what He said, and later on that same day, He returns from ascending unto the Father and;
he shows his hands and side to the disciples, minus Thomas. And then, eight days later he encourages Thomas to touch him.
The realm of the Father is truly a spiritual realm we just can’t comprehend.
Exactly, which is why you are having such a hard time accepting the truth of who Jesus is. After His resurrection, Christ was in His glorified body, how long do you think it would have taken Him to ascend into heaven and come back? Days? Hours? Minutes? Seconds?
Please remember, God is not the author of confusion,
1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
And God did not want us to be confused about who He is, so the Bible is written in such a way, that any person, with or without formal Bible training can understand it.
2 Corinthians 3:12
Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
(And believe me, your interpretation is extremely esoteric.)
When we desire to understand who God is, and who Jesus Christ is, we must take into account all of Scripture. Why? Because Christ Himself, before He came to earth and took on human flesh, said this:
Hebrews 10:7
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
The English definition of 'Volume' is - a collection of written or printed sheets bound together and constituting a book. So in other words, we must consider every verse in the Bible, before forming our beliefs about who God is.
According to Scripture, Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that God the Father has, including being eternal God.
(Isaiah 9:6)
"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."
John 10:30
I and my Father are one.
(Micah 5:2)
"But thou, Beth–lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
(John 8:58)
"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
Jesus Christ is immutable:
(Psalms 102:25-27)
"Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. {26} They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: {27} But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end."
(Hebrews 1:10-12) "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: {11} They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; {12} And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail."
(Hebrews 13:8)
"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."
Jesus Christ is omnipotent:
(Philippians 3:21)
"Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself."
“the beginning of the creation of God”
In order to get the complete meaning of a particular verse, we must let the Bible interpret itself.
Isaiah 34:16
Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.
Let us mate that verse from Revelation,"the beginning of the creation of God" with
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
And with:
Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Now, we have a true understand of what is meant by that verse in Revelation. That Jesus Christ was there in the beginning, and that all things were created by him and for him.
Now, let's include this verse to get even more understanding.
John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Philippians 2:6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
With these verses as our guide, along with the myriad of other verses you have been shown, the plain teaching of Scripture is evident, and that is that the Godhead, consist of three distinct and separate personages, all equally, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.
That’s over 100 references (from the book of John alone) showing that the Son’s source of ALL things divine, ALL power, ALL wisdom, etc., is from God the Father. There are plenty more alluding to the same.
Yes, Jesus humbled Himself, when he took on human flesh, and even though He had every legal right to His divinity, He did not exercise His divine rights, but submitted Himself entirely to the Father, and took everything that the Father gave Him. It was prophesied to happen that way, not because God needed a sock-puppet to fill up with divinity, as your doctrine suggests.
(Philippians 2:7-8)
"But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: {8} And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Oh, by the way,
with a divinely created soul
That's flat out heresy.
The Word is actually the will of the Father. The Son (flesh with a soul) is his chosen means of expressing his will in these last days (Heb. 1:1-3).
Whatever you say the Word is, Scripture tells us that this ‘will of the Father’ was with God in the beginning and was God, and this ‘will of the Father’ became flesh in the person of the Son. The words and the teachings were from the Father, but the Word was God, which became flesh and dwelt among us.
Maybe I’m asking that which cannot be answered. It is extremely difficult to prove a negative. It is written in Scripture that the Word became flesh; you assert that the Word is not flesh. But none of the Scriptures that you cite support the assertion that the Word is not flesh. They could equally be true with the Word becoming flesh.
Further down in Hebrews 1, the Son (flesh with a soul) is addressed as God.
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Heb 1:8-9
While it is true that nowhere in Scripture is Jesus called God the Son, in this verse, the Son is called God.
So unless you can come up with anything in Scripture that clearly shows otherwise, I will go with what Scripture says, that the Word became flesh and that the Son is God.
**Pretending scripture doesn’t exist doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.**
You mean like you ignoring John 14:10 doesn’t exist? That verse is as black and white as they come, but you won’t touch it.
**I again gave you Scriptures (Hosea 13:4 - Isaiah 43:10-11) that show beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Saviour is God Almighty, and you ignored them,**
I told you that since the Father is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, he is right there in Christ empowering him in every way.
You like Isaiah?...so do I....
“Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles..........Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light unto the Gentiles......”. Isaiah 42:1-6
**..and went right into your diatribe of Jesus being some kind of a sock-puppet that..**
Yes that sounds ridiculous, since a sock puppet has no life in himself, nor a will of his own, contrary to the Son’s own testimony. As I pointed out, the Son testified as to where he received his life, and declared that he was not a witness to his own will, but the will of the Father.
**..the Father created, because he needed SOMETHING to fill up with divinity.**
“..the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgement. And he saw that there was no man, and that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.” Isaiah 59:15,16
**After His resurrection, Christ was in His glorified body,**
Then why couldn’t Mary touch him, yet eight days later, he encouraged it? Granted it’s a question that seems off topic, but there was a reason for everything that the Son did.
**how long do you think it would have taken Him to ascend into heaven and come back? Days? Hours? Minutes? Seconds?**
Well, you tell me, since you seem to think that you know.
**Please remember, God is not the author of confusion,**
No problem there. For example, I believe that the apostles were obedient to Matt. 28:19, fully knowing the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and therefore baptized in the name of Jesus (it’s the name that the Son inherited, and is the name that the Holy Ghost is sent in). Trinitarians have confused that teaching.
**Hebrews 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.**
Your sock puppet talks? (you brought up the woeful concept)
remember that I brought up Heb. 10:5...”a body thou hast prepared me”. And, Heb. 1:5...”Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”
**According to Scripture, Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that God the Father has, including being eternal God.**
The glorified Son said, “All power is GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth. “ Matt. 28:19
And how is that?...it’s because of the Father in him.
**(Isaiah 9:6 “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.”**
So, under your ‘separate and distinct’ theory, when does the Son start being the everlasting Father? Paul opens most of his epistles with this in the greeting: “..from God our Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ...”.
**John 10:30 I and my Father are one.**
Yet you seem to believe that to be separate persons, but still in unity, not as the Son taught throughout the book of John.
Then you go to various verses to attempt to prove that the Son is a separate and distinct person of God, concluding with this statement:
**Now, we have a true understand of what is meant by that verse in Revelation. That Jesus Christ was there in the beginning, and that all things were created by him and for him.**
Paul explains it better than your statement:
“but unto us there is but one God, the Father, OF whom are all things..” (remember that the Son did not call himself God the Son, but the Son OF God)..”..and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we in him.” 1Cor. 8:6
“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and though all, and in you all”. Eph. 4:4-6
**John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.**
So, in your ‘separate and distinct persons of God’ theory, why does the Son credit the Father as the source of all divine will, words, doctrine, works, etc.
Under my belief, the Son came from the Father. That’s not only his teaching, but his disciples. That’s why he is called the Son OF God, not God the Son.
“As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father...’ John 6:57
“And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.” John 8:29
**John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.**
“..glorify thou me with thine own self..”.
The Son is telling you right there that it is the Father’s glory that the Son dwells in.
**Yes, Jesus humbled Himself, when he took on human flesh, and even though He had every legal right to His divinity, He did not exercise His divine rights, but submitted Himself entirely to the Father, and took everything that the Father gave Him.**
So what do you believe?...Was the separate and distinct Father only active during Christ earthly ministry, since you ascribe all creation to the separate and distinct Son?
**That’s flat out heresy.**
The Son said that he is of the Father. I take it that you disagree with him.
The verdict about who is ignoring scriptures is certainly not settled, IMO.
**But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Heb 1:8-9**
Remember the Son saying that the Father is greater than him? (Jn 14:28)
The verse you quote even shows a superiority: “..God, even thy God, hath anointed thee..”.
Jesus Christ called the Father, “my Father”, and “my God”. (Jn 20:17)
The Son expresses the words of the Father, physically. And since the Father dwells in Christ, yes, you will find God there.
Remember the Son saying that the Father is greater than him? (Jn 14:28)
Yes I do remember. This is the question that is being answered in the article. To say that the Father is greater than the Son does not mean that the only begotten Son does not possess the full nature of the Father. It does not refute what is written, that the Word become flesh and that the Son is God.
**To say that the Father is greater than the Son does not mean that the only begotten Son does not possess the full nature of the Father.**
The Son DOES possess the full nature of the Father.........that’s why Paul said in Col. 2:9, “For IN him DWELLETH ALL the fulness of the Godhead bodily”.
Which is not unlike:
“Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that DWELLETH IN ME, he doeth the works.” John 14:10
**..that the Son is God.**
He isn’t if you take the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent Father out of him. Of course, that’s not going to happen.
(John 14:10)
"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
Oh, I'll touch on it, I'm not scared. Two points, first Jesus is not merely God. Unlike the Father, He is truly God, and truly man.(Son of God & Son of man) He is the God-man. As the God-man, He is perfect man, who worships, honors, obeys, and prays to God the Father. In Fact, the incarnate Son is dependent on the Father.
John 5:30
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."
The apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit gives us the answer as to how the Son could be dependent on the Father if the Son is God.
(Philippians 2:6-8)
"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: {7} But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: {8} And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
Isaiah 42:1-6?
Prophesying the coming of the God-man(See above for explanation of Son of God Son of man )
Isaiah 42:1-6
Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles..........Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light unto the Gentiles......”.
Yes that sounds ridiculous, since a sock puppet has no life in himself, nor a will of his own, contrary to the Son’s own testimony.
And yet, this is where your Jehovah Witness/Jewish/Muslim/Unitarianism doctrine leads you.
More (Son of God/Son of man)God-man prophecy
“..the Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgement. And he saw that there was no man, and that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.” Isaiah 59:15,16
Then why couldn’t Mary touch him, yet eight days later, he encouraged it? Granted it’s a question that seems off topic, but there was a reason for everything that the Son did.
The text is clear Mary couldn't touch Him because He had not yet ascended to the Father, but as the resurrected Christ, He would now be free to ascend to the Father, once he did that, (perhaps it was all done in the "twinkling of an eye") He then returned in enough time to encourage the disciples to touch Him.
No problem there. For example, I believe that the apostles were obedient to Matt. 28:19, fully knowing the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and therefore baptized in the name of Jesus (it’s the name that the Son inherited, and is the name that the Holy Ghost is sent in). Trinitarians have confused that teaching.
You must be using your New World Order Bible again, or adding your own words to it, the preserved Word of God says
(Matthew 28:19)
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
Your sock puppet talks? (you brought up the woeful concept) remember that I brought up Heb. 10:5...”a body thou hast prepared me”. And, Heb. 1:5...”Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”
That concept was sprung from your "private interpretation" of the word of God.
The glorified Son said, “All power is GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth. “ Matt. 28:19
And how is that?...it’s because He is truly God, and truly man, the God-man.
(Isaiah 9:6 “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.
So, under your ‘separate and distinct’ theory, when does the Son start being the everlasting Father?
He doesn't start, that's the whole case being made to you, Jesus is not a 'created being' and this verse describes the Oneness nature of the Godhead. Christ has always had ALL the same attributes, He is the God-man
Paul opens most of his epistles with this in the greeting: “..from God our Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ...”.
Right, and Paul making clear to you and to all, the separate and distinct part of the nature of God.
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Yet you seem to believe that to be separate persons, but still in unity, not as the Son taught throughout the book of John.
I believe it, because the whole of Scripture teaches it, God is one, consisting of three separate and distinct personages.
Paul explains it better than your statement:
I don't disagree, why then don't you believe Paul?
“but unto us there is but one God, the Father, OF whom are all things..” (remember that the Son did not call himself God the Son, but the Son OF God)..”..and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we in him.” 1Cor. 8:6
“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and though all, and in you all”. Eph. 4:4-6
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
So, in your ‘separate and distinct persons of God’ theory, why does the Son credit the Father as the source of all divine will, words, doctrine, works, etc.
(John 6:57 John 8:29 John 17:5)
So what do you believe?...Was the separate and distinct Father only active during Christ earthly ministry, since you ascribe all creation to the separate and distinct Son?
The Father and the Son have different roles within the economy of the Godhead. There is equality in nature, but subordination in their personal roles. For instance, the Son submits to the Father, but not vice versa. Therefore, in the above verses, we see that Jesus affirms His relational subordinate role, but He never denies His full deity in any of those verses, and that is where your doctrine falls apart.
**To say that the Father is greater than the Son does not mean that the only begotten Son does not possess the full nature of the Father.**
The Son DOES possess the full nature of the Father.........that’s why Paul said in Col. 2:9, “For IN him DWELLETH ALL the fulness of the Godhead bodily”.
Which is not unlike:
“Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that DWELLETH IN ME, he doeth the works.” John 14:10
**..that the Son is God.**
He isn’t if you take the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent Father out of him. Of course, that’s not going to happen.
This is all true. But it does not mean that the Word is not flesh or that the Son is not God. He is the way, and the truth, and the life.
You say this.....
**You must be using your New World Order Bible again, or adding your own words to it, the preserved Word of God says**
...a while after saying this....
**..first Jesus is not merely God. Unlike the Father, He is truly God, and truly man.(Son of God & Son of man) He is the God-man. As the God-man, He is perfect man, who worships, honors, obeys, and prays to God the Father. In Fact, the incarnate Son is dependent on the Father.**
The “God-man”,....another Trinitarian term never used by the Lord, or his apostles.
The Son is truly man, but it’s the Father in him (as he said) that gives him all power in heaven and in earth. AND not only while he made his incarnate appearance, but after as well:
“...also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” Mark 8:38
And I give you again my response to your scripture quote in the previous post:
**John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.**
“..glorify thou me with thine own self..”.
The Son is telling you right there that it is the Father’s glory that the Son dwells in.
Which answers the following reference you have now given twice, IIRC:
**(Philippians 2:6-8) “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: {7} But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: {8} And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”**
Then you get part of your interpretation of Isaiah 9:6 right....
**this verse describes the Oneness nature of the Godhead.**
...and part of it wrong...
**Christ has always had ALL the same attributes, He is the God-man**
...because,..the verse says ‘shall be’ (not once, but twice), showing positions and titles to be given in future tense.
I brought up the scriptural teaching of water baptism, and how the apostles knew the ‘name’ (singular) that the Lord was referring to, in Matt. 28:19. To which you replied:
**You must be using your New World Order Bible again, or adding your own words to it, the preserved Word of God says(Matthew 28:19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”**
In Acts you find that they baptized in the name of Jesus. Trinitarians apparently feel they have a better understanding than the apostles in the matter, altering the teaching of ‘the whole of scripture’. The following comment you made is a classic example...
**I believe it, because the whole of Scripture teaches it, God is one,**
..Right on that, then...wrong on this:
**consisting of three separate and distinct personages.**
..two of which originate from the Father.
**I don’t disagree, why then don’t you believe Paul?**
Then why don’t Trinitarians baptize as Paul did? The DETAILED accounts show that Paul baptized at least 4 souls in Corinth (1Cor. 1:14,16) in the name of Jesus (verse 13), and likewise about 12 in Ephesus (Acts 19:5). Other detailed accounts in Acts show Peter and Philip baptized in the name of Jesus as well.
Then you give this private interpretation....
**The Father and the Son have different roles within the economy of the Godhead. There is equality in nature, but subordination in their personal roles. For instance, the Son submits to the Father, but not vice versa. Therefore, in the above verses, we see that Jesus affirms His relational subordinate role, but He never denies His full deity in any of those verses, and that is where your doctrine falls apart.**
....while the scriptures prove that the Son of God dwells in God the Father’s glory, and that God the Father’s glory dwells in the Son of God. The Father is the original source of all things divine. The Son is sent from the Father; likewise the Holy Ghost. God the Father has a ‘utility belt’ of unimaginable power.
Isaiah 43:10-11)
"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. {11} I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."
Tisk tisk, I touched yours, now you touch mine. Explain to me how by any stretch of your imagination, your doctrine fits into this verse.
Isaiah 43:10-11)
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. {11} I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.