Is the Father God? How Anti-Trinitarian Arguments Prove too Much!
According to Sam Shamoun, many anti-trinitarian arguments could be applied to prove that the Father is not God, in the same way as unitarians try to use them to prove that Christ is not God.
https://answeringislam.net/authors/shamoun/is_father_god.html
In short:
- There is no explicit statement in the NT in which the Father claims to be God
- OT quotes in the NT, in which YHWH speaks, are attributed to the Holy Spirit, not the Father
- All NT passages that unitarians reject as referring to Jesus as God, in the same manner can be rejected as referring to the Father as God
- For NT passages that identify the Father as God, we have passages that identify Jesus as God in a similar or the same way. Rejecting only one set of passages implies double standards
Therefore, dear unitarian friends, is Sam right in his article, or can you actually make a case that the Father is God without reverting to double standards.
Comments
-
@Jan said:
According to Sam Shamoun, many anti-trinitarian arguments could be applied to prove that the Father is not God, in the same way as unitarians try to use them to prove that Christ is not God.Some of the arguments used by anti-trinitarians are not necessarily valid arguments ... for example when they demand that there has to be a single statement with a specific wording, etc. The real problem is that Trinitarians have a wrong picture about the Father in mind (namely, a "God the Father" Trinity person) and do not realize that "the Father" is a descriptive designation used for the ONE single Spirit Person Who alone is the true God.
A rather strange article ... I found it a bit confused and confusing.
In short:
- There is no explicit statement in the NT in which the Father claims to be God
So what? does there have to be? Or is the truth that God is "the Father", just as He is "the Almighty", "the Creator", "the Holy Spirit" established by many Biblical statements?
Cp. Jesus' very own words in John 17:3? Cp. Jesus instruction to his disciples how they were to pray to God and address Him as "Father ..."?- OT quotes in the NT, in which YHWH speaks, are attributed to the Holy Spirit, not the Father
See above comment about Trinitarians having a wrong picture of "God the Father" in mind, the very same applies here, where this argument speaks of "the Holy Spirit" as a separate Trinity God-Person ... instead of realizing that "the Holy Spirit" is simply a descriptive designation for that One Spirit Person Who alone is true God (just as "the Creator" is not a different other God-Person, etc
- All NT passages that unitarians reject as referring to Jesus as God, in the same manner can be rejected as referring to the Father as God
I disagree ... for example, how can John 17:3 be used to claim that Jesus is God, when his own words clearly say that he regards the Father to Whom he is praying is the only one who alone is true God??
- For NT passages that identify the Father as God, we have passages that identify Jesus as God in a similar or the same way. Rejecting only one set of passages implies double standards
See above ... such a claim is plain false.
Therefore, dear unitarian friends, is Sam right in his article, or can you actually make a case that the Father is God without reverting to double standards.
Sam is not right ... in several regards (see above).
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Jan said:
According to Sam Shamoun, many anti-trinitarian arguments could be applied to prove that the Father is not God, in the same way as unitarians try to use them to prove that Christ is not God.Some of the arguments used by anti-trinitarians are not necessarily valid arguments ... for example when they demand that there has to be a single statement with a specific wording, etc. The real problem is that Trinitarians have a wrong picture about the Father in mind (namely, a "God the Father" Trinity person) and do not realize that "the Father" is a descriptive designation used for the ONE single Spirit Person Who alone is the true God.
So you see the Holy Spirit as God, and "the Father" a descriptive designation for Him? That would be exactly one of the inconsistencies that Sam describes, as there's no more or less scriptural evidence that the Father is a descriptive designation for God than that Christ is a descriptive designation for God.
So what? does there have to be? Or is the truth that God is "the Father", just as He is "the Almighty", "the Creator", "the Holy Spirit" established by many Biblical statements?
For a trinitarian, there's a difference. The "Father" is a person of the Godhead, the "Almighty" is a is a synonyme for the triune God. Therefore, let's focus on the Father.
Cp. Jesus' very own words in John 17:3? Cp. Jesus instruction to his disciples how they were to pray to God and address Him as "Father ..."?
See the end of the article where Sam addresses John 17:3 and counters with several examples of Jesus being called God by his disciples in absolute terms, which is not accepted by unitarians.
- OT quotes in the NT, in which YHWH speaks, are attributed to the Holy Spirit, not the Father
See above comment about Trinitarians having a wrong picture of "God the Father" in mind, the very same applies here, where this argument speaks of "the Holy Spirit" as a separate Trinity God-Person ... instead of realizing that "the Holy Spirit" is simply a descriptive designation for that One Spirit Person Who alone is true God (just as "the Creator" is not a different other God-Person, etc
That's why we focus on the divinity of the Father, and not of the divinity of the Holy Spirit (which could not be disproven with anti-trinitarian arguments).
- All NT passages that unitarians reject as referring to Jesus as God, in the same manner can be rejected as referring to the Father as God
I disagree ... for example, how can John 17:3 be used to claim that Jesus is God, when his own words clearly say that he regards the Father to Whom he is praying is the only one who alone is true God??
- For NT passages that identify the Father as God, we have passages that identify Jesus as God in a similar or the same way. Rejecting only one set of passages implies double standards
See above ... such a claim is plain false.
So the words "the only true God" (John 17:3) establish the deity of the Father.
But the words:
- Your throne, O God, is forever and ever (Hebrews 1:8)
- “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)
- Our God and Savior Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 1:1)
are not sufficient to establish the deity of Christ?
Please explain. Which quality does the first statement have that the last three statements lack?
-
@Jan said:
According to Sam Shamoun, many anti-trinitarian arguments could be applied to prove that the Father is not God, in the same way as unitarians try to use them to prove that Christ is not God.https://answeringislam.net/authors/shamoun/is_father_god.html
In short:
- There is no explicit statement in the NT in which the Father claims to be God
No, such references are in the OT, where God, not the "Father," speaks. However, there ARE NT writers who attest that the one they call the "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" is God:
Romans 15.6
2 Corinthians 1.3
Ephesians 1.17
Colossians 1.3
1 Peter 1.3
2 Thessalonians 1.1- OT quotes in the NT, in which YHWH speaks, are attributed to the Holy Spirit, not the Father
Hebrews 1.8, to which your post refers, Jan, quotes God, not the Holy Spirit, as speaking the words of Psalm 45.6-7. Interestingly, Psalm 45.6-7 does NOT report words from God, but rather from the psalmist. The writer of Hebrews, for reasons not obvious in the text, chose to put the psalmist's words in God's mouth.
- All NT passages that unitarians reject as referring to Jesus as God, in the same manner can be rejected as referring to the Father as God
I disagree. I can point to many verses in which Jesus himself (as well as many others in the NT) makes a clear distinction between himself and God, the one he calls "Father." Can you or anyone point to verses in which God the "Father" makes a clear distinction between Godself and God? I don't believe so. That is, the manner in which NT passages reject Jesus as God does NOT reject God - called "the Father" - as God.
- For NT passages that identify the Father as God, we have passages that identify Jesus as God in a similar or the same way. Rejecting only one set of passages implies double standards
No double standard, as I just argued.
Therefore, dear unitarian friends, is Sam right in his article, or can you actually make a case that the Father is God without reverting to double standards.
In my view, "Father" is a name or title for God that Jesus and others in the New Testament use. Jesus calls God his "Father," and encourages his followers to pray to their "Father" in heaven. NT writers call God "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
BOTTOM LINE: My contention is NOT that the "Father" is God, but the "Son" is not God. Rather, my contention is that God is God and Jesus is not. In the NT, "Father" functions as a title or name for God, not as a designation of some portion of a godhead. So if the question is, "Is the Father God?" my response is yes, because God (sometimes called "Father") is God.
-
@Jan said:
According to Sam Shamoun, many anti-trinitarian arguments could be applied to prove that the Father is not God, in the same way as unitarians try to use them to prove that Christ is not God.https://answeringislam.net/authors/shamoun/is_father_god.html
In short:
- There is no explicit statement in the NT in which the Father claims to be God
- OT quotes in the NT, in which YHWH speaks, are attributed to the Holy Spirit, not the Father
- All NT passages that unitarians reject as referring to Jesus as God, in the same manner can be rejected as referring to the Father as God
- For NT passages that identify the Father as God, we have passages that identify Jesus as God in a similar or the same way. Rejecting only one set of passages implies double standards
Therefore, dear unitarian friends, is Sam right in his article, or can you actually make a case that the Father is God without reverting to double standards.
Thanks Jan!
-
You display exactly what I already mentioned ... you use Trinitarian ideas as the basis and premise for your argument.
I already stated rather clearly that "the Holy Spirit" and "the Father" are descriptive designations for GOD, just as "the Creator", "the Almighty", "the Holy One", "the Ancient of Days", etc are.
For a trinitarian, there's a difference. The "Father" is a person of the Godhead, the "Almighty" is a is a synonyme for the triune God. Therefore, let's focus on the Father.
And such Trinitarian view is the root of the problem.
See above comment about Trinitarians having a wrong picture of "God the Father" in mind, the very same applies here, where this argument speaks of "the Holy Spirit" as a separate Trinity God-Person ... instead of realizing that "the Holy Spirit" is simply a descriptive designation for that One Spirit Person Who alone is true God (just as "the Creator" is not a different other God-Person, etc
That's why we focus on the divinity of the Father, and not of the divinity of the Holy Spirit (which could not be disproven with anti-trinitarian arguments).
?? I have no clue what you are trying to say with your comment
So the words "the only true God" (John 17:3) establish the deity of the Father.
Not quite ... there is no "deity of the Father" in the sense in which you are thinking of "the Father". John 17:3 is a NT passage which establishes that God is a Father and is addressed as such.
But the words:
- Your throne, O God, is forever and ever (Hebrews 1:8)
- “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)
- Our God and Savior Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 1:1)
are not sufficient to establish the deity of Christ?
They do not establish that Christ - the Messiah - is GOD or that God is the Messiah. Such claim flat out contradicts the rest of Scripture which (from Gen 3:15 onward) clearly reveals the promised Messiah to NOT be God but to be A HUMAN, A MAN.
Please explain. Which quality does the first statement have that the last three statements lack?
See above ... the biggest lack is your premise of a Trinitarian God concept ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
They do not establish that Christ - the Messiah - is GOD or that God is the Messiah. Such claim flat out contradicts the rest of Scripture which (from Gen 3:15 onward) clearly reveals the promised Messiah to NOT be God but to be A HUMAN, A MAN.Curious about nature of "a great light" seen in Matthew 4:15-16 ? (fulfilled Isaiah 9:1-2)
Who is the antecedent for "he" in Isaiah 35:5 ? (fulfillment in Matthew 11:1-6)
Who follows the messenger in Malachi 3:1 ? (messenger identified in Matthew 11:10-11)
Who can destroy unclean spirits ? Mark 1:24 & Luke 4:34
What did Roman executions declare on the day Jesus died ? Matthew 27:54 & Mark 15:39Keep Smiling
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:
@Wolfgang said:
They do not establish that Christ - the Messiah - is GOD or that God is the Messiah. Such claim flat out contradicts the rest of Scripture which (from Gen 3:15 onward) clearly reveals the promised Messiah to NOT be God but to be A HUMAN, A MAN.Curious about nature of "a great light" seen in Matthew 4:15-16 ? (fulfilled Isaiah 9:1-2)
Who is the antecedent for "he" in Isaiah 35:5 ? (fulfillment in Matthew 11:1-6)
Who follows the messenger in Malachi 3:1 ? (messenger identified in Matthew 11:10-11)
Who can destroy unclean spirits ? Mark 1:24 & Luke 4:34
What did Roman executions declare on the day Jesus died ? Matthew 27:54 & Mark 15:39What does that have to do with what you quoted from my earlier post? How does that relate to my earlier post and the point that from Gen 3:15 already it is clear that Christ is NOT himself God but a human being, a man born of a woman?
-
@Wolfgang said:
How does that relate to my earlier post and the point that from Gen 3:15 already it is clear that Christ is NOT himself God but a human being, a man born of a woman?Genesis 3:15 Messianic prophecy is a human seed
Psalm 2:7 prophecy of The Lord's decree: "You are my son; today I have become your father" was fulfilled in Luke 1:32 "the Son of the Most High" and Luke 1:35 "the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God" so Holy baby had God's nature in the womb. Conception of Holy Son of God included God in Heaven becoming God the Father.
Micah 5:2 Bethlehem => ruler over Israel, His origins are from of old, from ancient days (Daniel 7 uses "Ancient of Days" as a title for God)
Isaiah 9:1-2 Messianic prophecy is "a great light": God is Light
Malachi 3:1 Messianic prophecy is The Lord (God) follows messenger who prepares way
Messianic prophecy is both Man (physically) and God (essence/nature)
Keep Smiling -
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:
@Wolfgang said:
How does that relate to my earlier post and the point that from Gen 3:15 already it is clear that Christ is NOT himself God but a human being, a man born of a woman?Genesis 3:15 Messianic prophecy is a human seed
Indeed ... the Messiah would be a human being, born of a woman
Psalm 2:7 prophecy of The Lord's decree: "You are my son; today I have become your father" was fulfilled in Luke 1:32 "the Son of the Most High" and Luke 1:35 "the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God" so Holy baby had God's nature in the womb.
Careful about this "God's nature in the womb" ... do you not know that women can only conceive a child of the kind "human" (in other words, it takes a female ovum of the human kind and a male sperm of the human kind in order for a conception to take place?
There is no conception possible of ovum and seed are of different kinds ...Conception of Holy Son of God included God in Heaven becoming God the Father.
Indeed. God via His holy spirit miraculously provided what was necessary in order for Mary to conceive a child, seeing that she had not had sexual relations at the time.
By the way, seeing that God was able to make, form and create a complete adult human being in the case of Adam, it certainly would not be impossible for God to provide just a sperm of the human kind in Mary in order to effect the conception in her womb.
Micah 5:2 Bethlehem => ruler over Israel, His origins are from of old, from ancient days (Daniel 7 uses "Ancient of Days" as a title for God)
This does not mean, the baby born in Bethlehem already lived as someone else in days of old ... Instead, remember it was God's plan for a human Messiah in God's foreknowledge which already existed from even before the foundation of the world.
Isaiah 9:1-2 Messianic prophecy is "a great light": God is Light
Careful ... the expression "God is light" is obviously not meant literally ... and the word "light" is used in different contexts as part of various figures of speech.
Malachi 3:1 Messianic prophecy is The Lord (God) follows messenger who prepares way
Careful again ... John the baptist prepared the way before God in the sense of preparing for God's Messiah to minister to God's people. God Himself did not follow after John the baptist, the human Messiah Jesus followed after John.
Messianic prophecy is both Man (physically) and God (essence/nature)
There is no such messianic prophecy in Scripture ... Are you saying that God is an essence, a nature?? Or is God, according to Scripture, an acting living Spirit being,person??
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus said:
@Wolfgang said:
How does that relate to my earlier post and the point that from Gen 3:15 already it is clear that Christ is NOT himself God but a human being, a man born of a woman?Genesis 3:15 Messianic prophecy is a human seed
Indeed ... the Messiah would be a human being, born of a woman
Psalm 2:7 prophecy of The Lord's decree: "You are my son; today I have become your father" was fulfilled in Luke 1:32 "the Son of the Most High" and Luke 1:35 "the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God" so Holy baby had God's nature in the womb.
Careful about this "God's nature in the womb" ... do you not know that women can only conceive a child of the kind "human" (in other words, it takes a female ovum of the human kind and a male sperm of the human kind in order for a conception to take place?
Normally many male human sperms are seeking to be the first to enter female human ovum.
There is no conception possible of ovum and seed are of different kinds ...
Conception of Holy Son of God included God in Heaven becoming God the Father.
Indeed. God via His holy spirit miraculously provided what was necessary in order for Mary to conceive a child, seeing that she had not had sexual relations at the time.
By the way, seeing that God was able to make, form and create a complete adult human being in the case of Adam, it certainly would not be impossible for God to provide just a sperm of the human kind in Mary in order to effect the conception in her womb.Amazing miracle by One True God includes magnitude(s) of miniaturization for the Holy Spirit to transform The Word (God) into a human baby. Holy Spirit could have placed The Word (God) inside a female ovum without using a male sperm (or could have created a Holy special sperm).
Micah 5:2 Bethlehem => ruler over Israel, His origins are from of old, from ancient days (Daniel 7 uses "Ancient of Days" as a title for God)
This does not mean, the baby born in Bethlehem already lived as someone else in days of old ... Instead, remember it was God's plan for a human Messiah in God's foreknowledge which already existed from even before the foundation of the world.
More than foreknowledge, Micah 5:2 prophesied "King of Kings" ruler being born in Bethlehem, which is consistent with Matthew 2:2 "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews ?"
The title "Ancient of Days" appears in many sources written over many centuries with the meaning "Lord God Almighty". Between 222-245, Hippolytus commented about "Ancient of Days" prevails in Daniel 7:22 "At length the Judge of judges and the King of kings comes from heaven, who shall subvert the whole dominion and power of the adversary and shall consume all with the eternal fire of punishment. But to his servants, and prophets, and martyrs and to all who fear him, he will give an everlasting kingdom; that is, they shall possess the endless enjoyment of good." (this "Ancient of Days" understanding as "King of Kings" predates first Nicene Creed by 80+ years)Isaiah 9:1-2 Messianic prophecy is "a great light": God is Light
Careful ... the expression "God is light" is obviously not meant literally ... and the word "light" is used in different contexts as part of various figures of speech.
Matthew 4:13-16 describes fulfillment of Isaiah 9:1-2, which is consistent with 1 John 1:5 "the people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned." 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." Isaiah prophesied of a human Son who is God in the flesh.
Malachi 3:1 Messianic prophecy is The Lord (God) follows messenger who prepares way
Careful again ... John the baptist prepared the way before God in the sense of preparing for God's Messiah to minister to God's people. God Himself did not follow after John the baptist, the human Messiah Jesus followed after John.
Micah 3:1 "I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the Lord Almighty.
My reading of Micah 3:1 sees a physical Lord coming to His temple after John the Baptist prepared the way. Jesus suddenly cleared the temple courts in John 2:13-17 that also fulfilled Psalm 69:9 "for zeal for your house consumes me" plus all the Gospels document Jesus clearing the temple again. The messenger of the covenant, Jesus, included a new command in John 15:12 "Love each other as I have loved you." Thankful for The Word (God) being in human flesh so this command means for me to Love everyone as the Lord God Almighty Loves
Messianic prophecy is both Man (physically) and God (essence/nature)
There is no such messianic prophecy in Scripture ... Are you saying that God is an essence, a nature?? Or is God, according to Scripture, an acting living Spirit being,person??
From my perspective, Messianic prophecy is both Man (physically) and God (spiritually)
Thankful for worship of God in Spirit and Truth
Thankful for One God having three intelligent persona's that intimately share One spiritual essence/nature along with truly loving each other
Keep Smiling -
No, the argument is independent of "trinitarian ideas". The NT explicitly speaks of a person called the "Father". The question whether this "Father" is divine is independent on whether there are other divine persons equal to the same God.
In the same way, the question whether the "Son" is divine, in itself, is void of "trinitarian ideas". Oneness Pentecostals for example would agree on the deity of Jesus, but they are unitarians as well.
For a trinitarian, there's a difference. The "Father" is a person of the Godhead, the "Almighty" is a is a synonyme for the triune God. Therefore, let's focus on the Father.
And such Trinitarian view is the root of the problem.
Show me that the "Father" is the same person as the "Almighty", and we're done...
See above comment about Trinitarians having a wrong picture of "God the Father" in mind, the very same applies here, where this argument speaks of "the Holy Spirit" as a separate Trinity God-Person ... instead of realizing that "the Holy Spirit" is simply a descriptive designation for that One Spirit Person Who alone is true God (just as "the Creator" is not a different other God-Person, etc
That's why we focus on the divinity of the Father, and not of the divinity of the Holy Spirit (which could not be disproven with anti-trinitarian arguments).
?? I have no clue what you are trying to say with your comment
Meaning: the divinity of the Holy Spirit can't be objected with similar arguments.
Therefore, the question is, "Is the Father God", and not "Is the Holy Spirit God" or "Is the Almighty God".So the words "the only true God" (John 17:3) establish the deity of the Father.
Not quite ... there is no "deity of the Father" in the sense in which you are thinking of "the Father". John 17:3 is a NT passage which establishes that God is a Father and is addressed as such.
But the words:
- Your throne, O God, is forever and ever (Hebrews 1:8)
- “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)
- Our God and Savior Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 1:1)
are not sufficient to establish the deity of Christ?
They do not establish that Christ - the Messiah - is GOD or that God is the Messiah. Such claim flat out contradicts the rest of Scripture which (from Gen 3:15 onward) clearly reveals the promised Messiah to NOT be God but to be A HUMAN, A MAN.
Please explain. Which quality does the first statement have that the last three statements lack?
See above ... the biggest lack is your premise of a Trinitarian God concept ...
So your true objection is something like "because Jesus is a human, he can't be God"? How does that fit with multiple occasions in the OT, where God appeared in a body of flesh and blood?
-
@Jan said:
No, the argument is independent of "trinitarian ideas". The NT explicitly speaks of a person called the "Father". The question whether this "Father" is divine is independent on whether there are other divine persons equal to the same God.Jesus' words in John 17:3 settle the matter ... Jesus is speaking to the FATHER, and he states rather emphatically that the Father ALONE is TRUE GOD ... why doesn't Jesus include some other God-Persons in "the true God" ?? Did Jesus not know that he also was true God? Did Jesus believe that "Three" were the true God, and just got it wrong with his "Father is alone true God" in that situation?? Jesus taught his disciples to pray to God and to address God as "Our FATHER which art in heaven" ... or is this "Father which art in heaven" someone other than God? perhaps only 1/3 part of God?
In the same way, the question whether the "Son" is divine, in itself, is void of "trinitarian ideas". Oneness Pentecostals for example would agree on the deity of Jesus, but they are unitarians as well.
In reality they are confused "Bi-nitarians" who somehow mysteriously have "a son who is his own father and a father who is his own son" ... but of course, they will denounce such oversimplified estimation and have more fancy theological language for the same thing.
While there are plenty of Scripture statements speaking of the true God as "the Father", there is NO Scripture statement which speaks of the true God as "the Son".
Show me that the "Father" is the same person as the "Almighty", and we're done...
Have you read about "the LORD God ALMIGHTY" in Scripture? I think Jesus spoke to that same "LORD God Almighty" when he prayed to God and addressed him as "FATHER" and stated that this Father was ALONE TRUE GOD .. do you think Jesus was praying to a different God and not to the Almighty ?
Meaning: the divinity of the Holy Spirit can't be objected with similar arguments.
Therefore, the question is, "Is the Father God", and not "Is the Holy Spirit God" or "Is the Almighty God".You have successfully confused me entirely with your various statements ...
So your true objection is something like "because Jesus is a human, he can't be God"? How does that fit with multiple occasions in the OT, where God appeared in a body of flesh and blood?
Actually, I do not remember reading such "God appearances in a body of flesh and blood" ... I do remember that Jesus stated emphatically that "God IS SPIRIT" (John 4:24). Did Jesus anywhere else add "and also flesh and blood" to that? perhaps also added "and also a bush and a cloud" ?
I also remember reading about God's messenger ("the angel of the LORD") visiting Abraham, and this angels appearing at other occasions ... but surely the angel was not God Himself ... or did God send another God as a messenger? -
@Wolfgang said:
@Jan said:
No, the argument is independent of "trinitarian ideas". The NT explicitly speaks of a person called the "Father". The question whether this "Father" is divine is independent on whether there are other divine persons equal to the same God.Jesus' words in John 17:3 settle the matter ... Jesus is speaking to the FATHER, and he states rather emphatically that the Father ALONE is TRUE GOD ... why doesn't Jesus include some other God-Persons in "the true God" ?? Did Jesus not know that he also was true God? Did Jesus believe that "Three" were the true God, and just got it wrong with his "Father is alone true God" in that situation?? Jesus taught his disciples to pray to God and to address God as "Our FATHER which art in heaven" ... or is this "Father which art in heaven" someone other than God? perhaps only 1/3 part of God?
We discussed John 17:3 before, and so far I've not seen any evidence that it proclaims the Father's divinity in any way stronger than for example Hebrews 1:8, John 20:28 or 2 Peter 1:1 proclaim the Son's divinity.
In the same way, the question whether the "Son" is divine, in itself, is void of "trinitarian ideas". Oneness Pentecostals for example would agree on the deity of Jesus, but they are unitarians as well.
In reality they are confused "Bi-nitarians" who somehow mysteriously have "a son who is his own father and a father who is his own son" ... but of course, they will denounce such oversimplified estimation and have more fancy theological language for the same thing.
So they're no true Scotsmen?
While there are plenty of Scripture statements speaking of the true God as "the Father", there is NO Scripture statement which speaks of the true God as "the Son".
There's plenty of scripture that speaks of God as "the Son". Does it require the adjective "true" to make sure that there's no ambiguity?
Show me that the "Father" is the same person as the "Almighty", and we're done...
Have you read about "the LORD God ALMIGHTY" in Scripture? I think Jesus spoke to that same "LORD God Almighty" when he prayed to God and addressed him as "FATHER" and stated that this Father was ALONE TRUE GOD .. do you think Jesus was praying to a different God and not to the Almighty ?
What I think is irrelevant. I would like to see proof from Scripture.
So your true objection is something like "because Jesus is a human, he can't be God"? How does that fit with multiple occasions in the OT, where God appeared in a body of flesh and blood?
Actually, I do not remember reading such "God appearances in a body of flesh and blood" ... I do remember that Jesus stated emphatically that "God IS SPIRIT" (John 4:24). Did Jesus anywhere else add "and also flesh and blood" to that? perhaps also added "and also a bush and a cloud" ?
I also remember reading about God's messenger ("the angel of the LORD") visiting Abraham, and this angels appearing at other occasions ... but surely the angel was not God Himself ... or did God send another God as a messenger?Angel is a job description ("messenger"), not a form of being. The message can be delivered by a human, by a heavenly being, or by God. Sometimes it's this, sometimes it's that, sometimes the passage isn't clear, and then it's probably irrelevant. (see Mike Heiser's "Angels").
In Genesis 18:2, it clearly says three MEN came to Abraham. One of these men was YHWH. How do we know that? For example Genesis 18:23, when Abraham drew near to YHWH. How could he draw near to a spirit that has no specific physical location? The action "drawing near" by definition requires a physical presence.
-
@Jan said:
@Wolfgang said:
Jesus' words in John 17:3 settle the matter ... Jesus is speaking to the FATHER, and he states rather emphatically that the Father ALONE is TRUE GOD ... why doesn't Jesus include some other God-Persons in "the true God" ?? Did Jesus not know that he also was true God? Did Jesus believe that "Three" were the true God, and just got it wrong with his "Father is alone true God" in that situation?? Jesus taught his disciples to pray to God and to address God as "Our FATHER which art in heaven" ... or is this "Father which art in heaven" someone other than God? perhaps only 1/3 part of God?We discussed John 17:3 before, and so far I've not seen any evidence that it proclaims the Father's divinity in any way stronger than for example Hebrews 1:8, John 20:28 or 2 Peter 1:1 proclaim the Son's divinity.
well, if Jesus plain straight forward direct words are not sufficient evidence for you, then most likely there will be no evidence at all.
The 3 passages you mentioned are no such clear straight forward evidence for "the Son is God" at all ... in fact, if they were they would contradict Jesus' words, aside from producing two Gods.While there are plenty of Scripture statements speaking of the true God as "the Father", there is NO Scripture statement which speaks of the true God as "the Son".
There's plenty of scripture that speaks of God as "the Son". Does it require the adjective "true" to make sure that there's no ambiguity?
would be nice, wouldn't it?
Have you read about "the LORD God ALMIGHTY" in Scripture? I think Jesus spoke to that same "LORD God Almighty" when he prayed to God and addressed him as "FATHER" and stated that this Father was ALONE TRUE GOD .. do you think Jesus was praying to a different God and not to the Almighty ?
What I think is irrelevant. I would like to see proof from Scripture.
The problem is that YOU THINK that presented proof is not saying what it is saying.
Actually, I do not remember reading such "God appearances in a body of flesh and blood" ... I do remember that Jesus stated emphatically that "God IS SPIRIT" (John 4:24). Did Jesus anywhere else add "and also flesh and blood" to that? perhaps also added "and also a bush and a cloud" ?
Your take on this comment of mine, please ? ....
I also remember reading about God's messenger ("the angel of the LORD") visiting Abraham, and this angels appearing at other occasions ... but surely the angel was not God Himself ... or did God send another God as a messenger?
Angel is a job description ("messenger"), not a form of being. The message can be delivered by a human, by a heavenly being, or by God. Sometimes it's this, sometimes it's that, sometimes the passage isn't clear, and then it's probably irrelevant. (see Mike Heiser's "Angels").
In Genesis 18:2, it clearly says three MEN came to Abraham. One of these men was YHWH. How do we know that? For example Genesis 18:23, when Abraham drew near to YHWH. How could he draw near to a spirit that has no specific physical location? The action "drawing near" by definition requires a physical presence.And how do you know that these were not real human beings who were sent by God in heaven as His, YHWH's, messengers? In Biblical culture a representative or messenger was spoken of as if the one whom he represented himself was present ... thus, when the apparent leader or spokesman of the "three men" is spoken of as YHWH, it does not mean that God, YHWHW, Himself had become a man and was speaking with Abraham, no more so than Peter had become God, just because Cornelius said to Peter "we are assembled before God ..." (Acts 10:33)
Are you saying that God, a SPIRIT Being, had changed Himself into a human being in Gen 18? Was that YHWH the same God as "the LORD God Almighty"? was that YHWH the same God as "the Ancient of Days"? or the same God as "the Creator"? Or was that YHWH another God? Are these all different Gods? or different "God-persons" ?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
