On that Jesus is the Father
- Thread starter Tongue-talker
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Remember the former things of old:
for I am God, and there is none else;
I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning,
and from ancient times the things that are not yet done,
saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
calling a ravenous bird from the east,
the man that executeth my counsel from a far country:
yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass;
I have purposed it, I will also do it.
(Isaiah 46:9-11)
for I am God, and there is none else;
I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning,
and from ancient times the things that are not yet done,
saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
calling a ravenous bird from the east,
the man that executeth my counsel from a far country:
yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass;
I have purposed it, I will also do it.
(Isaiah 46:9-11)
- The Father is not the Son (John 3.17, 35; 5.22-23, 31-32; 8.16-18; 11.41-42; 12.28; 14.31; 17.1-26; Rom. 1.7; 1 Cor. 1.3; 15.24-28; 2 Cor. 1.2; Gal. 1.3; 4.4; Eph. 1.2; 6.23; Phil. 1.2; 1 Thess. 1.1; 2 Thess. 1.1-2; 1 Tim. 1.1-2; 2 Tim. 1.2; Tit. 1.4; Phm. 3; James 1.1; 2 Pet. 1.2; 1 John 4.10; 2 John 3)
- The Son is not the Father (John 3.17, 35; 5.22-23, 31-32; 8.16-18; 11.41-42; 12.28; 14.31; 17.1-26; Rom. 1.7; 1 Cor. 1.3; 15.24-28; 2 Cor. 1.2; Gal. 1.3; 4.4; Eph. 1.2; 6.23; Phil. 1.2; 1 Thess. 1.1; 2 Thess. 1.1-2; 1 Tim. 1.1-2; 2 Tim. 1.2; Tit. 1.4; Phm. 3; James 1.1; 2 Pet. 1.2; 1 John 4.10; 2 John 3)
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
“I WILL PROCLAIM YOUR NAME TO MY BRETHREN,
IN THE MIDST OF THE CONGREGATION I WILL SING YOUR PRAISE.”[/FONT]13And again,
“I WILL PUT MY TRUST IN HIM.”
And again,
“BEHOLD, I AND THE CHILDREN WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN ME.”
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]There two distinct persons represented in these two verse designated by the use both first person and second person pronouns.
Jesus joins with his brethren in singing praise to the Father.
Jesus places his trust in the Father, not in himself.
Jesus is presenting us to the Father, not to himself
Jesus is not the Father in this text nor in any other text.
There is no possibly way one can examine the grammatical structure of this text and conclude that Jesus is the Father.
“I WILL PROCLAIM YOUR NAME TO MY BRETHREN,
IN THE MIDST OF THE CONGREGATION I WILL SING YOUR PRAISE.”[/FONT]13And again,
“I WILL PUT MY TRUST IN HIM.”
And again,
“BEHOLD, I AND THE CHILDREN WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN ME.”
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]There two distinct persons represented in these two verse designated by the use both first person and second person pronouns.
Jesus joins with his brethren in singing praise to the Father.
Jesus places his trust in the Father, not in himself.
Jesus is presenting us to the Father, not to himself
Jesus is not the Father in this text nor in any other text.
There is no possibly way one can examine the grammatical structure of this text and conclude that Jesus is the Father.
God is Triune in the same way that man is triune: body(the Son), soul(the Father), and spirit(the Holy Ghost).
[1Th 5:23 KJV] 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and [I pray God] your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I think there is one in Job on this too but I couldn't find it.
[1Th 5:23 KJV] 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and [I pray God] your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I think there is one in Job on this too but I couldn't find it.
First, there should be a rule against people bumping up their posts with the word "bump." If they have more to add to the topic, then ok, but not just for the sake of hoping that people will actually read the post.
Second, this is the first time I have actually opened one of your posts since I read your first one, Tongue-talker, so what someone mentioned in this thread about not opening your posts has certainly come to pass. (Would that make it prophecy, or just common sense?) The only reason I opened it is that I noticed the title in another thread, didn't look to see who was the OP, and came to make the same comment I made in the other post, written again below.
Third - this is sequential modalism, or Sabellianism, which is a heresy (also called Patripassianism), and countered by Tertullian in the 3rd century AD and at the Council in Constantinople in 380 AD and basically faded away after the 6th century.
Finally, this is trying to apply the logic of a limited finite mind to the greatness and grandeur of God.
The best rebuttal for this I have ever read was by Stanley Grenz in Theology for the Community of God.
"God is love." 1 John 4:8, 16
Because love is a direct object in this sentence, it has to be one person operating on another person, or persons as is the case in the Trinity.
Love is active, and it simply cannot be found in the Father, then transferred to the Son, then onto the Holy Spirit - or back to the Father?? Never totally understood Modalism, since things that don't make sense are hard to understand.
So from the beginning of eternity, God the Father loved God the Son who loved God the Holy Spirit. Like Bowman's avatar.
"He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. [SUP]16 [/SUP]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. [SUP]17 [/SUP]And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. [SUP]18 [/SUP]And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. [SUP]19 [/SUP]For in him all thefullness of God was pleased to dwell, [SUP]20 [/SUP]and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven,making peace by the blood of his cross." Col. 1:15-20
For that matter, since Jesus is alive and in heaven, and the Holy Spirit is on earth, and God the Father is in heaven, sequential modalism cannot be right, since the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all exist at the same time.
Where do people come up with these ancient heresies and worse, how do they actually believe them!!? Reading the New Testament about 10 or 20 times, to say nothing of a good knowledge of the Old Testament would help a lot of people in discerning good doctrine!
Sorry if that sounds a bit arrogant and/or condescending. I just get very frustrated with people who have not studied the original Biblical languages, nor the history of the Christian Church, nor theology and come on here and post like they know everything, and the rest of us are wrong.
Second, this is the first time I have actually opened one of your posts since I read your first one, Tongue-talker, so what someone mentioned in this thread about not opening your posts has certainly come to pass. (Would that make it prophecy, or just common sense?) The only reason I opened it is that I noticed the title in another thread, didn't look to see who was the OP, and came to make the same comment I made in the other post, written again below.
Third - this is sequential modalism, or Sabellianism, which is a heresy (also called Patripassianism), and countered by Tertullian in the 3rd century AD and at the Council in Constantinople in 380 AD and basically faded away after the 6th century.
Finally, this is trying to apply the logic of a limited finite mind to the greatness and grandeur of God.
The best rebuttal for this I have ever read was by Stanley Grenz in Theology for the Community of God.
"God is love." 1 John 4:8, 16
Because love is a direct object in this sentence, it has to be one person operating on another person, or persons as is the case in the Trinity.
Love is active, and it simply cannot be found in the Father, then transferred to the Son, then onto the Holy Spirit - or back to the Father?? Never totally understood Modalism, since things that don't make sense are hard to understand.
So from the beginning of eternity, God the Father loved God the Son who loved God the Holy Spirit. Like Bowman's avatar.
"He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. [SUP]16 [/SUP]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. [SUP]17 [/SUP]And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. [SUP]18 [/SUP]And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. [SUP]19 [/SUP]For in him all thefullness of God was pleased to dwell, [SUP]20 [/SUP]and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven,making peace by the blood of his cross." Col. 1:15-20
For that matter, since Jesus is alive and in heaven, and the Holy Spirit is on earth, and God the Father is in heaven, sequential modalism cannot be right, since the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all exist at the same time.
Where do people come up with these ancient heresies and worse, how do they actually believe them!!? Reading the New Testament about 10 or 20 times, to say nothing of a good knowledge of the Old Testament would help a lot of people in discerning good doctrine!
Sorry if that sounds a bit arrogant and/or condescending. I just get very frustrated with people who have not studied the original Biblical languages, nor the history of the Christian Church, nor theology and come on here and post like they know everything, and the rest of us are wrong.
Patripassianism states that the Father died. For more on what I believe on this, go to the thread 1 John 4:15, first post.
I'll share a little of it here. The only sense in which the Father died is that in He turned His face away from the Son (His soul left His body). The Father (soul of God) did not become sin, in the Old Testament even the sin offering was still holy. Also consider also the following verses:
[Isa 53:10 KJV] 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
[Rom 4:24-25 KJV] 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him (not they)that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
[Rom 8:3 KJV] 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Christ (the Son) being the flesh of God, who became sin for us: otherwise you have a big problem: one of the members of the Trinity becoming sin in spirit, such a doctrine is equivalent to blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, since the spirit of Christ is the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost.
[2Cr 5:19-21 KJV] 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
I'll share a little of it here. The only sense in which the Father died is that in He turned His face away from the Son (His soul left His body). The Father (soul of God) did not become sin, in the Old Testament even the sin offering was still holy. Also consider also the following verses:
[Isa 53:10 KJV] 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
[Rom 4:24-25 KJV] 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him (not they)that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
[Rom 8:3 KJV] 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Christ (the Son) being the flesh of God, who became sin for us: otherwise you have a big problem: one of the members of the Trinity becoming sin in spirit, such a doctrine is equivalent to blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, since the spirit of Christ is the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost.
[2Cr 5:19-21 KJV] 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Last edited: