My point was that - with a very few "mentionable" exceptions - God being referred to as 'father' always relates to Jesus as His only-begotten Son.
Was Jesus the first man?
- Thread starter VickyK
- 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.
Paul is quoting the OT,
Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. Psa.8:6-8
This applies to Adam,
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. Gen.1:26
While this also applies to Jesus, it is manifest that Jesus, our Creator, is above Adam,
Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. Heb.2:8
It's important to understand how Paul is comparing Adam to Jesus, or you might come away with a false interpretation of that passage, as the Jehovahs witnesses do. Paul isn't teaching Jesus is below God. He's teaching that Jesus is God.
I must disagree. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 is in the context of the Second Coming of Christ and His 1000-year reign.
Paul is not quoting the O.T.
The passage is not about Adam, nor does it apply to Adam.
Jesus is God in the flesh - and/but - in one particular sense He is "below" God - whereby, as the Son, He must do the will of the Father.
Jesus is certainly above Adam.
I believe you are comparing similar phrases in the Bible while not realizing the difference in the context of where those phrases are found.
Technically, there are two ("in a sense"); however, I will not go into that here. You may find it within the explanation in the OP of the thread I linked to earlier.
This statement comes from New Age thinking.
The word 'omnipresent' - as an attribute of God - refers to His presence being in every place.
The suggestion that He is in every thing is not correct.
God is not "a part of" your alarm clock, your car, your pet dog, or the bark on the tree out in your yard.
These things are a part of His creation. (even if some of them are "fashioned" into something by man)
His creation is apart from Him; He is not a part of His creation.
The Word was the Word before Jesus; it was not Jesus before Jesus.
Jesus was/is the God-man.
The 'God' part ==> the Word.
The 'man' part ==> His physical body.
Hence - God in the flesh.
John 1:1
E
EleventhHour
Guest
This is incorrect, God is not divisible.
The Word is God and God is the Word
God is not polytheistic.
T
taylorswiftfan
Guest
I believe in only one God, im just saying that God the Father is not God the Son who is not God the Holy Spirit
my point in that post was that every time the bible mentions "the Word" it refers only to Jesus/ God the Son and not to either God the Father or God the Holy Spirit
I suggest that Vicky’s view of the Word is heavily influenced by her doctrine of God (which in my estimation, is borderline Unitarian). There is no doubt that she thinks Jesus is God incarnate, but it would appear that she also adheres to a form of incarnational Sonship, which is essentially the belief that the Son only became “the Son” at a point in time (the incarnation). At the very least this could possibly mean that she believes the Word existed eternally alongside the Father in an intimate relationship (as a second person), and would later (at the incarnation) be known to us as “the Son.” However, based off much of what has already been said, I tend to think that is not the case, but opts for a form of Unitarianism (Modalism, specifically) that suggests the Word did not pre-exist with the Father as a second person, but as a type of quality – a plan, decree, or expression in the mind of God – if you will, and that it would be God the Father that would later manifest Himself as “the Son.” Modalism is dependent on incarnational Sonship, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that incarnational Sonship is dependent on Modalism.
What John says about the Word of God correlates/corresponds to much of what Scripture has to say about the Son of God. As I mentioned in post #83, the imagery that John uses in his prologue of the Word parallels other NT themes which speak of the Son. The Son is God’s audible Word; His voice to the world. He communicates God. He speaks as God speaks, hence, He is the Word. And it is in this way that He is intimately connected with God. The Son is the eikon (‘image’) of God, God’s enthroned representative — the very vicar of YHWH. When you see the Son, you see God (John 14:9). He acts as God acts (John 5:28) — in perfect union with God. As the vicar of YHWH, the Word is God’s perfect representative; the perfect reflection of His very being.
As the Word (who came in a “vision” to Samuel) made YHWH known (1 Samuel 3:7-9, 22); so too has the Son made known (or exegeted) the Father (John 1:18). No one has seen God at any time, except through the agency of the Word (who, according to John, is the Son); and He has been doing this throughout the entire history of the human race, since ancient times. John intends his readers to make the referential connection between the Son and this mysterious Word of God figure of the OT.
Whereas John speaks of all things coming into existence “through” the Word (John 1:3), we are elsewhere told that it is “through” the Son that all things came into existence (Hebrews 1:2-3).
In addition, John 1:1c speaks about the equality between the Word, and God (I can go into this further, if need be). In like manner, it is the Son of God who is equal to God (“For this reason they tried all the more to kill Him; not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God,” John 5:18). Jesus’ application of the title “Son of God” carries with it its fair share of nuances, but might I suggest that one of the more prominent nuances in NT usage is an extremely Jewish one? What I mean by that, is that the “Son of God” epithet is used frequently of the Davidic King, who is God’s vicar, God’s “right hand man,” who mediates God’s presence, and is in that sense (by way of extension), “equal with God.” But I also understand that Jesus’ application of such title runs even deeper than that of the Davidic King motif, for even the Jews of Jesus’ day understood Jesus’ application (what I would consider a more personal application), as going beyond the scope of what any man could rightfully claim for themselves without the charge of blasphemy being brought against them (hence the, “you being a man make yourself out to be” tid bit in John 10). In both, John 5 and John 10, Jesus acts as God acts — in inseparable union — “For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, ‘My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.’” Jesus uses the present middle indicative for the word “work,” which indicates a presence of past action still in progress. Just as the sustainer of all things (God the Father) continues to work (throughout history) and is thereby exempt from the rules of the Sabbath, in this same manner, the Son too has been working (hence, 5:18). The Son’s works are co-extensive with the Father’s. Thusly, Jesus’ application of “the Son of God” epithet of Himself, is intrinsically tied (in a facet of ways) to the idea of Him being “one with” and “equal to,” God.
What John says about the Word of God correlates/corresponds to much of what Scripture has to say about the Son of God. As I mentioned in post #83, the imagery that John uses in his prologue of the Word parallels other NT themes which speak of the Son. The Son is God’s audible Word; His voice to the world. He communicates God. He speaks as God speaks, hence, He is the Word. And it is in this way that He is intimately connected with God. The Son is the eikon (‘image’) of God, God’s enthroned representative — the very vicar of YHWH. When you see the Son, you see God (John 14:9). He acts as God acts (John 5:28) — in perfect union with God. As the vicar of YHWH, the Word is God’s perfect representative; the perfect reflection of His very being.
As the Word (who came in a “vision” to Samuel) made YHWH known (1 Samuel 3:7-9, 22); so too has the Son made known (or exegeted) the Father (John 1:18). No one has seen God at any time, except through the agency of the Word (who, according to John, is the Son); and He has been doing this throughout the entire history of the human race, since ancient times. John intends his readers to make the referential connection between the Son and this mysterious Word of God figure of the OT.
Whereas John speaks of all things coming into existence “through” the Word (John 1:3), we are elsewhere told that it is “through” the Son that all things came into existence (Hebrews 1:2-3).
In addition, John 1:1c speaks about the equality between the Word, and God (I can go into this further, if need be). In like manner, it is the Son of God who is equal to God (“For this reason they tried all the more to kill Him; not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God,” John 5:18). Jesus’ application of the title “Son of God” carries with it its fair share of nuances, but might I suggest that one of the more prominent nuances in NT usage is an extremely Jewish one? What I mean by that, is that the “Son of God” epithet is used frequently of the Davidic King, who is God’s vicar, God’s “right hand man,” who mediates God’s presence, and is in that sense (by way of extension), “equal with God.” But I also understand that Jesus’ application of such title runs even deeper than that of the Davidic King motif, for even the Jews of Jesus’ day understood Jesus’ application (what I would consider a more personal application), as going beyond the scope of what any man could rightfully claim for themselves without the charge of blasphemy being brought against them (hence the, “you being a man make yourself out to be” tid bit in John 10). In both, John 5 and John 10, Jesus acts as God acts — in inseparable union — “For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, ‘My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.’” Jesus uses the present middle indicative for the word “work,” which indicates a presence of past action still in progress. Just as the sustainer of all things (God the Father) continues to work (throughout history) and is thereby exempt from the rules of the Sabbath, in this same manner, the Son too has been working (hence, 5:18). The Son’s works are co-extensive with the Father’s. Thusly, Jesus’ application of “the Son of God” epithet of Himself, is intrinsically tied (in a facet of ways) to the idea of Him being “one with” and “equal to,” God.
E
EleventhHour
Guest
The Holy Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of Christ in scripture
I and the Father are one
The Word is Logos and John was using Greek concepts to teach about the nature of God.
God the Father and the Word cannot be separated, they are manifestations of one being.
T
taylorswiftfan
Guest
Modalists (or "Oneness") are quite fond of having a very specific vocabulary ("manifestation"), and will often cite very specific texts (such as this user has done). That does not mean that this user is a Modalist, but something to be very watchful of.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Moo.
E
EleventhHour
Guest
That would be incorrect about me, no where in scripture do we see this separation that the poster is making of God into separate entities who are not each other.
That is polytheism
How is what I said in the last post inaccurate? You said I was wrong. I would like to know how I was wrong, because in this post which I am quoting, you only revealed even more Modalistic tendencies (or you are a very confused "Trinitarian"), hence your comments regarding taylorswiftfan's post. Are you just objecting to object to something because there is nothing more substantial to object to?
Just as Modalists have a very specific vocabulary, so too do Trinitarians. You are using "being," and "entity" in a way that any well versed Trinitarian would not use it.
Trinitarians do not conflate "being" with "person." You are using the word "being" and "entity" as if it meant the same thing as "person."
I suggest that you take more care in jumping to conclusions, William Jordan. "manifest" is a Bible word...
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Oyster, I have not jumped to any conclusions. This is an area I have studied for well over 12 years; so in that time I have ran into a fair share of Modalists -- I use to be one.
I know how they talk, I know how they think, and I know how they argue. And this one fits all the criteria. Sit back and watch; you might learn a thing or two.
I am not sure that splitting the Church up into little camps like you do is wise. God is Three and God is One. Nuff said.
E
EleventhHour
Guest
I am not a modalist.
Show me anywhere in scripture where it states the Word is God, but God is not the Word
That is what she posted
And where did the word "person" come from to describe God?
Gather, children. The transcendent master has arrived
.