What's left for the Father?

[Elijah John]

More and more I hear Evangelical preachers proclaim that "Jesus is the Creator" or that "Jesus has created us" and variations on the theme.

Traditionally, the role of "Creator" has been associated with the Father, and the Son was considered "Redeemer" and the Holy Spirit "Sanctifier".

That is my understanding of classic Trinitarianism anyway.

So for debate:

-1) Have Evangelicals blurred the lines and strayed from classic Trinitarianism?

-2) If Jesus is now "Creator" as well as Redeemer, what is left for the Father?

-3) Does calling Jesus "Creator" (taking the Father's role) honor the Father?

If so, how so?

-4) Is the Father now just the "proud Papa" cheering on his most favored Son from the sidelines? Living vicariously through His Son?

Seems He is not even the considered sole "Judge" anymore, that role has been given (or taken and given) to Jesus as well.

-5) Is complete and total Jesus-worship the inevitable consequence of the compromised "monotheism" known as Trinitarianism? If so, what are the implications, where will it end?

-6) Whose Kingdom is it? The Father's? or the Son's.

-7) Is it time to refocus on the Father, and honor Him once again?

Happy Father's Day.

[Trump]

[Replying to post 33 by Trump]

The idea that YHWH is Jesus leaves out many things said in the Old Tesament.

Proverbs 30:2  "Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man.
3  I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the holy.
4  Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
5  Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6  Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

So you're saying YHWH is not Jesus, do I understand your message correctly?

[Trump]

[Replying to post 34 by Trump]

We are the very image of it all.

Yes, after the Son was begoten he began begetting.

That is funny, unless you're serious? If so, can you explain?

[Trump]

Jesus said that He was sent by the Father and the works He did glorified the Father.

Jesus sent His followers with the same words and mission as Himself so this shows that they should glorify the Father as He did.


The son of man says;
"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinegrower. He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit. Yet you are cleansed by the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you may ask what you will and it shall be done for you. My Father is glorified in your bearing much fruit and become my disciples.

I read your and others responses, interesting topic by the way. Could it be that we are not seeing the whole picture here?
Someone already mentioned that the Bible didn't say Jesus in particular created the heavens and the earth, but the Bible does say; the Son did. And the Son is referred to as the 'Word'.

It was much later, like what, 4000 years later, counting from the Fall, that the 'Son' came down to earth, born of a virgin, and now was named Jesus the man, or 'the son of man'.

This way, or the Biblical way it all makes sense;
God, through His son Word created all things, and then the son became flesh, and dwelt amongst us. John 1 -

Yes, I agree with your assessment.

You probably have noticed that the Son/Word became flesh, not God. The Word was WITH God so he couldn't also BE God. The Apostle John was not trying to say that Jesus was God Almighty.....but that he was an important, powerful being. That is what "god" means, and humans and angels were referred to as "gods" as well.

Yes, but it does say the Word was God in John 1, so we're back to square one.

No, if the verse was scrutinized we would see that in the Greek, word for word, it would read "in the beginning was the word and the word was with the god and the word was a god." There is no punctuation or capital letters in Greek, and the rules for translating Greek into English are different for Greek that they are for English. There does not exist an INDEFINITE ARTICLE, so when translating into English we have to place one before a word that does not have a DEFINITE ARTICLE. The god that the word was with has the definite article. It is "THE god." In English we give it a capital "G." The "god" that is the word does not have the definite article, so it is not "THE god." In fact, that "god" will receive an indefinite article in English because that is good translation---obeying the rules of Greek translation.

Therefore, John was not saying that the Word was THE God---God Almighty. He was bringing out the fact that the Word was A god, or, an important, powerful individual, like even judges and officials were referred to as "gods." Also angels and even Satan (2Corinth. 4:4). It's no insult to the Word, Jesus, because he is the most powerful important person next to God Himself.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, that if we were to carefully examine John 1, it would say "the Word was a god".

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

How do you understand this verse, as in "begotten of the Father"? We have fathers, so is "the Father" in the above verse indefinite? There is "the" before the father, so it's just a father, no one special, right?

Jesus was "begotten of the Father," meaning, clearly, that the Father caused him to be brought into existence. "The Father" obviously has the definite article. "The"---a definite article---before the Father, means that it is the one and only Almighty Father.

I'm confused with this Greek language?

The father, the man, the bird, the son, so how would you distinguish this "the Father" from all the other fathers?
You mean because "this one is special"? Like we have a lot of inventers, but Tesla is special, we could say he is 'the Inventor', is that it?

[Left Site]

[Replying to post 34 by Trump]

We are the very image of it all.

Yes, after the Son was begoten he began begetting.

That is funny, unless you're serious? If so, can you explain?

This current world, being founded in sin, is the image of imperfect man doing things his own way.

But when God designed the arrangements that man is thus locked into, such as the method and order of man's multiplying, just as the headship arrangement in heaven is reflected (or, imaged) by man's marriages, these arrangements all reflect (or, image) that order in heaven.

Through his Son, God uses all his angels in his work of expanding his heavenly realm. And just as God works through his Son, the Son works with and through other angels. They merely don't have to get married to work together that way. God instituted marriage for man so that our expansion would be done orderly and we would gain a sense of headship principles which then would reflect or image that order in heaven. However, sin entered the picture causing man to fall away from that image of order in heaven. Thus man came to image the way of the lower beasts more so than the arrangement of God.

[Trump]

What about the words "only begotten"? How did God beget the Word?

here again:
18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son(f), who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

Footnote;
(f) John 1:18 NU-Text reads; only begotten God.

If as you say it says that the Word was a god, the NU translation of verse 18 would be correct, right? Maybe not capitalized though, more like 'only begotten god'

Also "the Father" has the word 'the' before it, so it's indefinite, right? This father could not be God?

gets really confusing using Greek grammar to try to interpret something in the English language. They should of have Greek Scholars interpret all this the same way so there would be no confusion. Or simply they should have left these books in their original languages, and if anyone was really interested to know, would have to learn those languages so they could have the Holy Spirit reveal to them their own personal true interpretation. Because from what I understand is that, many of the Scholar interpreters were not even Believers. So why should I trust an atheist nonbeliever Greek or Hebrew Scholar with my soul salvation, right?


Thanks again.

No one can say just HOW God begat the Word, Jesus. It is left up to us to accept the words and what they mean, and leave it at that. We don't have to know the details of Jesus' begetting.

Well, is this what the Greek Bible says, not to ponder how God beget/created the Word, .. or it's just your personal opinion, because I am a very curious person.

The Father is THE god (remember, no capital letters in Greek) and He is "the only unbegotten god," as the earliest "church fathers" called Him many times in their writings. If the Father, Jehovah, is the only unbegotten god, then all the other "gods" are BEGOTTEN. They were created.

That's how I understand it too, except I really thought it said "and the Word was God" as in the God. But you pointed it out that it doesn't, so since it makes sense, I'll go with that.

What is your point about John 1:18? It clearly says that the Son is "the only begotten Son." This is to let us know that Jesus was the only person that God created directly, with no involvement by anyone else. After Jesus was created, he was involved in the creation of everything else. (Yes, Jesus was "the only begotten god.") I have explained a hundred times what the word "god" means.

So Jesus was a-god, not The God, right? I agree with what you said, so let me see how John 1 1-3 says like you taught me:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God (the uncreated One), and the Word was [strike]God[/strike] a god. 2 He was in the beginning with the God (the uncreated One).
3 All things were made through [strike]Him[/strike] him (not to confuse with Him, the uncreated God), and without [strike]Him[/strike] him nothing was made that was made.

How am I doing?

No, if the verse was scrutinized we would see that in the Greek, word for word, it would read "in the beginning was the word and the word was with the god and the word was a god." There is no punctuation or capital letters in Greek, and the rules for translating Greek into English are different for Greek that they are for English. There does not exist an INDEFINITE ARTICLE, so when translating into English we have to place one before a word that does not have a DEFINITE ARTICLE. The god that the word was with has the definite article. It is "THE god." In English we give it a capital "G." The "god" that is the word does not have the definite article, so it is not "THE god." In fact, that "god" will receive an indefinite article in English because that is good translation---obeying the rules of Greek translation.

Therefore, John was not saying that the Word was THE God---God Almighty. He was bringing out the fact that the Word was A god, or, an important, powerful individual, like even judges and officials were referred to as "gods." Also angels and even Satan (2Corinth. 4:4). It's no insult to the Word, Jesus, because he is the most powerful important person next to God Himself.

OK, I understand you now, and if that's how it is written in Greek that, "the word was a god", then we leave it at that.

The article "the" is a DEFINITE article. It shows the one and only.

Got it, so there is no way the Trinitarians could use this to justify the Word who is Jesus in the flesh as the God, correct? And here I was capitalizing the word "he" when referring to Jesus, out of respect, but what I was doing was making Jesus the God by doing that; he vs. He, right?

You have a good idea about leaving the Scriptures in their original languages!

So I better start using the Greek translation, or else I end up supporting false doctrines and not even know it!

Thank you.

[Trump]

[Replying to post 34 by Trump]

We are the very image of it all.

Yes, after the Son was begoten he began begetting.

That is funny, unless you're serious? If so, can you explain?

This current world, being founded in sin, is the image of imperfect man doing things his own way.

But when God designed the arrangements that man is thus locked into, such as the method and order of man's multiplying, just as the headship arrangement in heaven is reflected (or, imaged) by man's marriages, these arrangements all reflect (or, image) that order in heaven.

Through his Son, God uses all his angels in his work of expanding his heavenly realm. And just as God works through his Son, the Son works with and through other angels. They merely don't have to get married to work together that way. God instituted marriage for man so that our expansion would be done orderly and we would gain a sense of headship principles which then would reflect or image that order in heaven. However, sin entered the picture causing man to fall away from that image of order in heaven. Thus man came to image the way of the lower beasts more so than the arrangement of God.

Ah, now that makes Biblical sense.
Not only have we regressed to lower beasts, but made our Creator in their image too, you are so right!

Romans 1:23
and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

And the Evolution so called theory finalizes this, where man even agrees they are animals. Truly terrible.

God bless you.

[Trump]

Jesus said that He was sent by the Father and the works He did glorified the Father.

Jesus sent His followers with the same words and mission as Himself so this shows that they should glorify the Father as He did.


The son of man says;
"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinegrower. He removes every branch in me that bears no fruit. Every branch that bears fruit he prunes to make it bear more fruit. Yet you are cleansed by the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you may ask what you will and it shall be done for you. My Father is glorified in your bearing much fruit and become my disciples.

I read your and others responses, interesting topic by the way. Could it be that we are not seeing the whole picture here?
Someone already mentioned that the Bible didn't say Jesus in particular created the heavens and the earth, but the Bible does say; the Son did. And the Son is referred to as the 'Word'.

It was much later, like what, 4000 years later, counting from the Fall, that the 'Son' came down to earth, born of a virgin, and now was named Jesus the man, or 'the son of man'.

This way, or the Biblical way it all makes sense;
God, through His son Word created all things, and then the son became flesh, and dwelt amongst us. John 1 -

Yes, I agree with your assessment.

You probably have noticed that the Son/Word became flesh, not God. The Word was WITH God so he couldn't also BE God. The Apostle John was not trying to say that Jesus was God Almighty.....but that he was an important, powerful being. That is what "god" means, and humans and angels were referred to as "gods" as well.

Yes, but it does say the Word was God in John 1, so we're back to square one.

No, if the verse was scrutinized we would see that in the Greek, word for word, it would read "in the beginning was the word and the word was with the god and the word was a god." There is no punctuation or capital letters in Greek, and the rules for translating Greek into English are different for Greek that they are for English. There does not exist an INDEFINITE ARTICLE, so when translating into English we have to place one before a word that does not have a DEFINITE ARTICLE. The god that the word was with has the definite article. It is "THE god." In English we give it a capital "G." The "god" that is the word does not have the definite article, so it is not "THE god." In fact, that "god" will receive an indefinite article in English because that is good translation---obeying the rules of Greek translation.

Therefore, John was not saying that the Word was THE God---God Almighty. He was bringing out the fact that the Word was A god, or, an important, powerful individual, like even judges and officials were referred to as "gods." Also angels and even Satan (2Corinth. 4:4). It's no insult to the Word, Jesus, because he is the most powerful important person next to God Himself.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, that if we were to carefully examine John 1, it would say "the Word was a god".

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

How do you understand this verse, as in "begotten of the Father"? We have fathers, so is "the Father" in the above verse indefinite? There is "the" before the father, so it's just a father, no one special, right?

Jesus was "begotten of the Father," meaning, clearly, that the Father caused him to be brought into existence. "The Father" obviously has the definite article. "The"---a definite article---before the Father, means that it is the one and only Almighty Father.

I'm confused with this Greek language?

The father, the man, the bird, the son, so how would you distinguish this "the Father" from all the other fathers?
You mean because "this one is special"? Like we have a lot of inventers, but Tesla is special, we could say he is 'the Inventor', is that it?

Never mind onewithhim, I understand now what you were talking about; Greek into English, not how we use words in the English language, .. got it!

Thanks.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 18 by BusB]

If Jesus did that by giving his exclusive devotion to his God and Father, how can we do likewise if we mistake Jesus for being God? Don't you think that would offend Jesus?

Why should God the Father be so jealous that he could not regard worship given his Son as rebounding back to Him?

And why should Jesus not direct worship to him as back to the father?

Suppose my son is praised for his ability at soccer, skills which he learned from me. Do I immediately butt in upon every applause given him and say, "Hey, what about me?! I taught the kid and could kick his butt any day in soccer"!

And suppose my son responded at every praise, "Thanks, my da's been teaching me." Does this not honor me?

All worship given the Son rebounds to the Father and the Father delights in the Son; for Love is 'other oriented'

"Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others."
(Phi 2:4 KJV)

LOVE itself (i.e., God) then will be 'other oriented' and therefore require an 'other'.

To my mind there are only three options in which the Johanine maxim, God is Love, can consist:

The world is coeternal with God, and therefore the object of His Love.

God is a flat singularity, in which the object of his love is himself; thereby love is 'self-oriented' and the Pauline injunction above finds no ground in ultimate reality.

God's Oneness consists in plurality: thus the Pauline injunction which favors the 'other' above the 'self' is rooted in eternity.

That explanation gave me a headache, especially this; The world is coeternal with God, and therefore the object of His Love.

Love requires an object. The sentence, "I love" is incomplete. It begs the question, "You love what?".

Now, you either love yourself, or you love something else.

So, when John says "God is Love", he seems to be attributing to God an eternal quality. So, what does God eternally Love?

[Trump]

[Replying to post 18 by BusB]

If Jesus did that by giving his exclusive devotion to his God and Father, how can we do likewise if we mistake Jesus for being God? Don't you think that would offend Jesus?

Why should God the Father be so jealous that he could not regard worship given his Son as rebounding back to Him?

And why should Jesus not direct worship to him as back to the father?

Suppose my son is praised for his ability at soccer, skills which he learned from me. Do I immediately butt in upon every applause given him and say, "Hey, what about me?! I taught the kid and could kick his butt any day in soccer"!

And suppose my son responded at every praise, "Thanks, my da's been teaching me." Does this not honor me?

All worship given the Son rebounds to the Father and the Father delights in the Son; for Love is 'other oriented'

"Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others."
(Phi 2:4 KJV)

LOVE itself (i.e., God) then will be 'other oriented' and therefore require an 'other'.

To my mind there are only three options in which the Johanine maxim, God is Love, can consist:

The world is coeternal with God, and therefore the object of His Love.

God is a flat singularity, in which the object of his love is himself; thereby love is 'self-oriented' and the Pauline injunction above finds no ground in ultimate reality.

God's Oneness consists in plurality: thus the Pauline injunction which favors the 'other' above the 'self' is rooted in eternity.

That explanation gave me a headache, especially this; The world is coeternal with God, and therefore the object of His Love.

Love requires an object. The sentence, "I love" is incomplete. It begs the question, "You love what?".

Now, you either love yourself, or you love something else.

So, when John says "God is Love", he seems to be attributing to God an eternal quality. So, what does God eternally Love?

Wait, did you mean that the world is co eternal with God, or the "Word"?

If world, then John 3:16? If the "Word", then he is not eternal since he was created, so neither is really "eternal" except for God. So I still don't understand?

Also, what do you mean by this?
"God's Oneness consists in plurality: thus the Pauline injunction which favors the 'other' above the 'self' is rooted in eternity" ?

Thanks.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 48 by liamconnor]



"So, when John says "God is Love", he seems to be attributing to God an eternal quality. So, what does God eternally Love?"

God does not 'do' love, He is Love itself.

Love is the life, the essence of one's being.