Jesus: Both Son and Father?

[MarcR]

Marc, I don't know anything about Hebrew. Could it possibly be translated as "Father of eternity?"

There is nothing to signal the genitive case. everlasting is a simple adjective.

 

[oldhermit]

There is nothing to signal the genitive case. everlasting is a simple adjective.

Thanks. I was just curious.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Are you OK with Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed regarding Trinity?

Are you kidding? I was raised Catholic, we recited that creed every Mass. It's one of the few things I retained when I gave up Catholicism. The Belief in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three Persons One God.

Is that what you mean?

 

[trofimus]

Are you kidding? I was raised Catholic, we recited that creed every Mass. It's one of the few things I retained when I gave up Catholicism. The Belief in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three Persons One God.

Is that what you mean?

Yeah, thanks. Its some kind of misunderstanding only, then.

 

[MarcR]

Septuagint has "Father of the age to come".

The Hebrew literally reads אֲבִיעַ֥ד "My perpetual father" אֲבִי means My Father. עַ֥ד means perpetual. In Hebrew adjectives follow nouns often attached as we see here. "Father of the age to come" is not a translation; it is a paraphrase and a poor one at that.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Yeah, thanks. Its some kind of misunderstanding only, then.

Because I said Jesus was God The Father incarnate? Perhaps I chose my words poorly and should have left out "The Father"

And just said Jesus was (or is) God incarnate?

 

[trofimus]

The Hebrew literally reads אֲבִיעַ֥ד "My perpetual father" אֲבִי means My Father. עַ֥ד means perpetual. In Hebrew adjectives follow nouns often attached as we see here. "Father of the age to come" is not a translation; it is a paraphrase and a poor one at that.

If Septuagint was a translation of the masoretic text, it would truly be a poor paraphrase.

Dead Sea Scrolls proved that Septuagint is a precise translation of another textual line. So I suppose that Is 9:6 was different in that line.

I think that its the same as in Vulgate.

 

[trofimus]

Because I said Jesus was God The Father incarnate? Perhaps I chose my words poorly and should have left out "The Father"

And just said Jesus was (or is) God incarnate?

I did not read all the convo, I noticed only the first one - that Jesus is incarnated Father.

 

[MarcR]

If Septuagint was a translation of the masoretic text, it would truly be a poor paraphrase.

Dead Sea Scrolls proved that Septuagint is a precise translation of another textual line. So I suppose that Is 9:6 was different in that line.

I think that its the same as in Vulgate.

Thank you! I was not aware of another textual line.

The Septuagint is usually very close to the Masoretic text.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

The Hebrew literally reads אֲבִיעַ֥ד "My perpetual father" אֲבִי means My Father. עַ֥ד means perpetual. In Hebrew adjectives follow nouns often attached as we see here. "Father of the age to come" is not a translation; it is a paraphrase and a poor one at that.

I love the Hebrew letters, I hope God downloads the ability to read right to left when we get our glorified bodies.

Looking it up in my Orthodox Jewish Bible it reads Avi Ad (Possessor of Eternity)

 

[trofimus]

Thank you! I was not aware of another textual line.

The Septuagint is usually very close to the Masoretic text.

If we count the source for Latin Vulgate, its possible that there were at least three lines of Hebrew Scripture texts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Differences_with_the_Latin_Vulgate_and_the_Masoretic_text

 

[bluto]

No, that would mean you have two Gods.

If you have an orange on the left side of the table, and an orange on the right side of the table, and they are not the same orange and yet both are oranges, guess what you have? Two oranges.

Why does this logic all of a sudden differ when we talk about God?

Let me answer you with what you teach as a oneness believer. You teach that Jesus Christ did not preexist His incarnation as a man. In fact, you said in your thread that Jesus Christ is God the Father and you quoted Isaiah 9:6 as your proof.

So can you please explain to me that since the Son of God did not preexist His incarnation then why is the Son identified or presented as the "AGENT" of creation at John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:10 and Revelation 3:14 by the Apostles and by His own Father?

Then to make matters even worse for you since you believe Jesus Christ is God the Father why do the verses I mentioned present the Son as the agent of creation? Why do those verses not just say that the Father is the creator, period? Afterall, Isaiah 44:24 says the following: "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb. I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, STRETCHING OUT THE HEAVENS BY MYSELF. And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."

Why does God the Father (who you say is really Jesus Christ) need a helper with creation if the Son never preexisted before His incarnation as a man?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[MarcR]

If they are not the same person and yet both are God would this not mean that God is a unity?

The word translated 'one' in Dt 6:4 Deut 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:
KJV

is the Hebrew word אֶֽחָד ; which signifies composite unity NOT absolute unity; as seen in Num 13:23
23 And they came unto the brook of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they bare it between two upon a staff; and they brought of the pomegranates, and of the figs.
KJV

 

[MarcR]

If Septuagint was a translation of the masoretic text, it would truly be a poor paraphrase.

Dead Sea Scrolls proved that Septuagint is a precise translation of another textual line. So I suppose that Is 9:6 was different in that line.

I think that its the same as in Vulgate.

That makes sense because Jerome translated to Latin from the Septuagint

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

The language of John 1 does not agree. The Greek is clear. They are presented as two separate persons.

So in John 10:30, Jesus doesn't say he and the Father are one in Greek? He says they are two? (I don't read Greek)

 

[MattG]

i havw always seen when it says the father and son are one ive always seen as one in purpose / unity /reason
i mean Jesus Christ was Gods Word before the logos became flesh anyway.

 

[Locutus]

Acts 7:55 But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.

Obviously in the above God is the Father.

Unless he was beside himself.

 

[MarcR]

I love the Hebrew letters, I hope God downloads the ability to read right to left when we get our glorified bodies.

Looking it up in my Orthodox Jewish Bible it reads Avi Ad (Possessor of Eternity)

That is NOT SURPRISING. They would NOT want the verse to point to Jesus.

Here it is in the Jerusalem Bible:




























Here is the Jewish Publication Society Bible by Alexander Harkevy:






I'm sorry the print came out so small. It is the same as the Jerusalem Bible

 

[MarcR]

So in John 10:30, Jesus doesn't say he and the Father are one in Greek? He says they are two? (I don't read Greek)

He does indeed say they are one; However in John 6:44-46
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
KJV
They are clearly not identical hence their unity in Jn 10:30 can't mean that they are identical.

 

[jb]

Your lack of understanding it seems to be the problem rather than the KJV. It's quite straightforward. It's glorious! The fullness of God is in the man Jesus to which the Holy Spirit testifies. Jesus is God the Father incarnate. John 10:30

what heresy!