John 14:9 is Jesus - God the Father?

John 14:9.


“He who has seen Me, has seen the Father.” John 14:9b. Oneness people use this verse in an attempt to argue that Jesus is God the Father.


Firstly, The word for “seen” in John 14:9 is not Blepo, which is the normal Greek word translated as “to see,” but “horao” (3708 in Strongs) which has the meaning here of to understand. For instance I can see my printer as I type, now to express this in Greek, I would use the word “Blepo.” But I could also say that I can see how my PC’s bios works, now this word for ‘see’ corresponds with the Greek “horao.” So Jesus’ use of horao instead of Blepo, means that he was not saying that he was the Father.

Secondly, God the Father is never seen; Colossians 1:15, “the Son is the image of the invisible God (Father),” which means that he is not himself the invisible God (Father). Also John 1:18 “No one has seen God at anytime …Son … he has declared Him.” At John 5:37 Jesus addresses his critics and speaking to their faces, tells them himself that they have not seen the Father’s face, nor heard his voice. What more must he say to convince us that he is the Son, and not God the Father (John 20:31, 2nd John 3), for it was the Son who was manifested in the flesh, and not God the Father (1st John 3:8).

Thirdly, John in a parallel verse to John 14:9, states of the Son; “He who sees Me sees Him who sent Me.” John 12:45. John is here speaking of the Father, and reveals that the Father, though unseen, is only revealed to us in the incarnation of his Son. Jesus cannot be the Father, else how can he send himself into the world from himself?

Fourthly, John tells us that “the Son of God was manifested” (1st John 3:8), at the incarnation. Now Oneness pentecostals will try to read “God the Father” into the text of the KJV rendering of 1st Timothy 3:16. But in the light of 1st John 3:8, this verse can only be speaking of the Son, and not of the Father. John again confirms that it was the Son, and not God the Father who was sent into this world; “sent his only begotten Son into the world.” 1st John 4:9b. And that the Son was sent into this world by the Father; “the Father has sent the Son as saviour of the world.” (1st John 4:14b).

Finally, a distinction between the Father and the Son is clearly taught within John chapter 14. At John 14:6, a distinction is made between the Son and Father, as it’s only “through” the Son that we can gain access to the Father. So the Son is the intercessor, and the Father is the one through whom intercession is made. At verse 7 the word “also” again implies two distinct persons, who relate to each other, consequently proving that they cannot be each other. At John 14:10, Jesus does not say of himself “I am the Father.” Instead he again distinguishes between himself and the Father by using the word “in,” and saying; “I am IN the Father and the Father is IN me.” Then at John 14:23 Jesus refers to himself and the Father together not as “I” in the first person singular, but as “we are” which is the verb ‘to be’ in the first person plural present tense; “We will come to him and make our abode with him.” This plural form of verb ‘to be’ proves that Jesus is not the Father, but that he is rather “with” the Father. Then at verse 28 Jesus states that he is “going to his Father,” proving that he is other than the Father. Lastly in verse 31 the Son says that he “loves the Father.” But how can two impersonal natures love each other? Or can God be only one person who loves himself in different manifestations as Oneness claims?

[Elizabeth]

"I and my Father are one" (John 10:30).

The Old Testament Testifies That Jesus Is God

1. Isaiah 9:6 is one of the most powerful proofs that Jesus is God: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father The Prince of Peace." The terms child and son refer to the Incarnation or manifestation of "The mighty God" and "The everlasting Father."

2. Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah would be called Immanuel, that is, God with us (Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:22-23).

3. Isaiah described the Messiah as both a branch out of Jesse (the father of David) and as the root of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1, 10; see also Revelation 22:16). According to the flesh He was a descendant (branch) of Jesse and David, but according to His Spirit He was their Creator and source of life (root). Jesus used this concept to confound the Pharisees when He quoted Psalm 110:1 and asked, in essence, "How could David call the Messiah Lord when the Messiah was to be the son (descendant) of David?" (Matthew 22:41-46).

4. Isaiah 35:4-6 shows that Jesus is God: "Behold, your God… he will come and save you." This passage goes on to say that when God comes the eyes of the blind would be opened, the ears of the deaf would be unstopped, the lame would leap, and the tongue of the dumb would speak. Jesus applied this passage of Scripture to Himself (Luke 7:22) and, of course, His ministry did produce all of these things.

5. Isaiah 40:3 declares that one would cry in the wilderness, "Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." John the Baptist fulfilled this prophecy when he prepared the way for Jesus (Matthew 3:3); so Jesus is the LORD (Jehovah) and our God.

6. Micah 5:2 proves that the Messiah is God. "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah… out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

Thus the Old Testament clearly states that the Messiah and Savior to come would be God Himself.

The New Testament Proclaims That Jesus is God

1. According to Acts 20:28, the church was purchased with God's own blood, namely the blood of Jesus.

3. Paul described Jesus as "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13; NIV has "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ").

4. Peter described Him as "God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (II Peter 1:1; NIV and TAB both have "our God and Savior Jesus Christ").

5. Our bodies are the temples of God (I Corinthians 3:16-17), yet we know Christ dwells in our hearts (Ephesians 3:17).

6. The Book of Colossians strongly emphasizes the deity of Christ. "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9; see also 1:19). According to these verses of Scripture, Jesus is not just a part of God, but all of God is resident in Him. If there were several persons in the Godhead, according to Colossians 2:9 they would all be resident in the bodily form of Jesus. We are complete in Him (Colossians 2:10). Whatever we need from God we can find in Jesus Christ alone. (For further discussion of Colossians 2:9 and other proofs of Christ's deity in Colossians, see Chapter 9 - NEW TESTAMENT EXPLANATIONS: ACTS TO REVELATION.)



The Father

The term "God the Father" is biblical and refers to God Himself (Galatians 1:1-4). God is the Father; He is not merely Father of the Son, but the Father of all creation (Malachi 2:10; Hebrews 12:9). He is also our Father by reason of the new birth (Romans 8:14-16). The title Father indicates a relationship between God and man, particularly between God and His Son and between God and regenerated man. Jesus taught many times that God is our Father (Matthew 5:16, 45, 48). He taught us to pray, "Our Father which art in heaven" (Matthew 6:9). Of course, Jesus as a man had an additional relationship to God in a sense that no one else has ever had. He was the only begotten Son of the Father (John 3:16), the only One who was actually conceived by the Spirit of God and the only One who had the fulness of God without measure.

The Bible plainly states that there is only one Father (Malachi 2:10; Ephesians 4:6). It also clearly teaches that Jesus is the one Father incarnate (Isaiah 9:6; John 10:30). The Spirit that dwelt in the Son of God was none other than the Father.

It is important to note that the name of the Father is Jesus, for this name fully reveals and expresses the Father. In John 5:43, Jesus said, "I am come in my Father's name." According to Hebrews 1:4, the Sori "by inheritance obtained a more excellent name." In other words, the Son inherited His Father's name. We therefore understand why Jesus said that He manifested and declared the Father's name (John 17:6, 26). He fulfilled the Old Testament prophecy that stated the Messiah would declare the name of the LORD (Psalm 22:22; Hebrews 2:12). In what name did the Son come? What name did He obtain from His Father by inheritance? What name did the Son manifest? The answer is apparent. The only name He used was the name of Jesus, His Father's name.

Answering a question with yet more questions, is hardly sincere discussion techniques. Anyway for you, I'll answer two of your questions in my next two posts: Isaiah 9:6 and John 10:30. Please will you answer my questions.

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6).


Firstly, some try to read ‘God the Father’ into the actual text of Isaiah 9:6. But the word for ‘God’ or (El) in the Hebrew, is completely missing here, which is why we do not read; ‘God the Father,’ but “Father of eternity.” So the Oneness position is an argument from silence, and the burden of proof rests entirely with Oneness people themselves to establish their point. Their position also contradicts their own Oneness doctrine, for essentially they are trying to make Isaiah 9:6 say that the Son who is given is himself God the Father, which neither they nor Trinitarians affirm.

Secondly, ‘Father of eternity’ is actually a Hebrew construct. This is a combination of a noun and an adjective, where the noun ‘Father’ means either the originator, or more commonly the possessor of something, that the adjective describes an attribute. As an example of a few Hebrew constructs; ‘abi-asaph’ (2nd Samuel 23:21), literally reads the ‘father of strength,’ and means a strong man. ‘Abi-tub’ (1st Chronicles 8:8-11), literally reads, ‘the father of goodness’ and means one who is good. ‘Abi-el’ (1st Samuel 9:1) means the ‘father of God’, and implies that he was a Godly man.

Thirdly, Oneness Pentecostals such as David Bernard, claim that the Son came into existence at a particular point in time, namely at Bethlehem, whilst the Father was always an eternal Father (see his book “The Oneness of God” page 66). This is problematic for how could the Father exist eternally as the Father, without a “Son” simultaneously existing at the same time? Is it possible to be a Father without a Son?

Fourthly, the term “prince” and its resulting titles in Isaiah 9:6, including the phrase “the Prince of Peace,” cannot be applied to God the Father. I make this claim, since it is only the Son of God, and never God the Father, who is called a “prince” in the Bible, and who secondly was killed; “and killed the prince of life” (Acts 3:15).

Fifthly, Oneness folk don’t regard the word “Father” as a proper name, but as a title. One can respond to this claim by pointing out that in the Lord’s prayer, the Father is still addressed as “Father,” and that the Greek word “name,” (onoma) is directly applied to the Father; “Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.” (Luke 11:2).

Sixthly, Oneness Pentecostals might try to counter these arguments by misquoting Luke 1:35; “that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.” They’ll then misquote this verse by claiming that the Jesus was made (created as) the Son at his birth in the Bethlehem stable. But the Greek text of Luke 1:35 actually uses the word “called,” instead of the Greek word “created.” So the human body inside Mary’s womb was indeed created by the Holy Spirit, but nevertheless, the Son was still sent into the world from outside it by God the Father (John 16:28, 1st John 4:9-10, 14) and was both eternal and also uncreated in his deity as the Son. Whilst at the same time, the Son in his humanity was both created and mutable.

Finally, Oneness folk will constantly claim that the name Father isn’t really a name at all, it’s just a title, and that the name of both the Father and also of the Son is Jesus! However, when they get to Isaiah 9:6, they’ll completely ignore the word ‘Son’ and by reading the name ‘Jesus’ into the text they’ll then claim that the name of the Father is Jesus. So that the Son who is given at Isaiah 9:6, they’ll claim, is the Father, and the name of this Father who is given is Jesus. So we need to point out to them that firstly the text here doesn’t read; ‘and his title shall be everlasting Father,’ it instead uses the word name. Secondly, the name ‘Jesus’ is absent from Isaiah 9:6.

‘I and my Father are one.’ (John 10:30).

‘ego kai ho patar ev semen: (John 10:30: The Nestles Greek text).

‘I ((Subject)) and ((conjunction)) my Father ((object)) are ((verb 1st-person-plural)) one ((adjective)).’ (John 10:30).


Oneness people would need to explain the use of the verb ‘to be,’ which a first person plural at John 10:30; ‘I and my Father (we) are one.’ This verse does not record Jesus as saying; ‘I am the Father,’ for such a direct claim by Jesus to be God the Father, would have included the verb ‘to be’ in the first person singular: ‘I am.’ But Jesus at John 10:30 instead applies a plural verb to both the Father and also to the Son; ‘are’ as in ‘we are,’ which is the verb ‘to be,’ (esmen) a present tense, in first person plural. This is why he specifically claimed to be God’s Son, and not God the Father himself at John 10:36; ‘Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?’

Secondly, why is the Greek neuter word ‘hen’ for ‘one’ used at John 10:30, rather than the masculine Greek word for “one,” which is ‘heis?’ This masculine word is always used in the Greek, to describe God as ‘one’ in the strictly numeric sense, and so logically it would be the only word which Jesus could use to claim that he is himself really God the Father in an absolute and literal sense. So the neuter word ‘hen,’ just means to be ‘one in agreement’ or to be ‘one in unity’ with another person, it’s used that way at 1st Corinthians 3:8, where Paul planted and Apollos watered so that were one (hen), which doesn’t mean that Paul is claiming that he was Apollos! Paul is just saying that they worked together as a team, but not that they were both the same one person!

Originally Posted by Jeanie

"

The Father

The term "God the Father" is biblical and refers to God Himself (Galatians 1:1-4). .

Jeanie, will you please answer two questions; firstly who possesses divine attributes in your theology? Is it God the Father alone as in Unitarianism and the Watchtower or Father and Son and Holy Spirit as in Trinitarianism. Secondly, do you believe that the Son is God and that he possesses every divine attribute (Creatorship, eternal, omnipresent) as the Son, or is he merely called God because he's a man (created at bethlehem) who'se indwelt by Yahweh?

Originally Posted by Jeanie

"5. Isaiah 40:3 declares that one would cry in the wilderness, "Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." John the Baptist fulfilled this prophecy when he prepared the way for Jesus (Matthew 3:3); so Jesus is the LORD (Jehovah) and our God.
.

I can't believe that your quoting this verse to me, a Trinitarian, as we're the defenders of Jesus Christ as Yahweh God, and have been for two thousand years. Besides which your still missing the context of Isaiah 40:3 quoted at Matthew 3:3. Which is that John prepaires the way for Yahweh at Isaiah 40:3, but at Matthew 3 and Mark 1 he prepaires the way for the SON, so the Son must therefore be Yahweh, something which Oneness Pentecostals deny.

Please take careful note of Matthew 3:17: "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:17, KJV). So John prepaired the way for the Son, the Son whom Matthew at 3:3 and 3:17 quoting Isaiah 40:3 in the first instance tells us is Yahweh.

Isaiah 40:3 is also quoted again at Mark 1:3 and yet at Mark 1:11 we discover that this verse is quoted from the Old Testament to prove to us that the SON is Yahweh; "And there came a voice from heaven, [saying], Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Mark 1:11, KJV).

So in conclusion, the Son is Yahweh and sects such as JWs, Mormons, Unitarians, Branhamites, Oneness, UPCI, Way International and the Christadelphians who deny this, (even if they all do pay lip service to jesus being called god in some minor sense) need to acknowledge the Son as Yahweh God, or else these people will die in their sins, just as John 8:24 states: 'Unless you believe I AM (he) you will die in your sins.'

Originally Posted by Jeanie

"It is important to note that the name of the Father is Jesus, for this name fully reveals and expresses the Father. In John 5:43, Jesus said, "I am come in my Father's name." .

Jeanie, please Prove that the name of Jesus is God the Father! Just making the claim isn't proof! As for John 5:43;

“I have come in my Father’s name.” (John 5:43).

At verse 43 Jesus makes a contrast which Oneness folk such as Jeanie will always ignore. Here Jesus contrasts his coming in his own name, with the false prophets such as these Jews, who had just been plotting to kill him, who come in their own name. Oneness people ignore this second reference to the false prophets, coming in their own authority, for to “come in their own name” doesn’t means they came quoting a proper name like Eli, Ruben or David. The word for name in the Greek is “onoma” and it here means authority.

So the Son comes in his Father’s name or authority at verse 43, which is why Jesus had so carefully told us in the previous verses that the Father testifies to the Son’s Messiahship. This is then contrasted in the second half of this verse, with those Jews, who having plotted to murder him, had come in their own authority to judge and then to kill the Son of God. Jesus by contrast judges all men (22), and the Father testifies to this judgement (32), which is why Jesus comes in the name or authority of his Father. These wicked Jews however, have not heard the Father’s voice (37), they also deny his word (38), and are spiritually dead (39), because they don’t love the Father (42). So they by way of contrast, they come in their own name or authority, as the Father will not testify of them and their judgement of the Son as he does of Jesus.

[QUOTE=Jeanie;103775]" According to Hebrews 1:4, the Sori "by inheritance obtained a more excellent name." In other words, the Son inherited His Father's name. QUOTE]



Hardly, for the name which Hebrews 1:4 is referring to is SON! This is why in the very next verse at Hebrews 1:5 - Psalm 2:7 is here quoted; 'For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?' The name which is declaired to the world through the resurrection is the name SON (Romans 1:4). If God the Father were the name which Hebrews 1:4 were referring to then verse 5 would instead state; 'For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Father, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me another Father? Theology isn't a matter of making it all up as we go alone Jeanie, we're supposed to let Scripture interpret itself accordint o some common sense rules called 'hermeneutics.'

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Answering a question with yet more questions, is hardly sincere discussion techniques. Anyway for you, I'll answer two of your questions in my next two posts: Isaiah 9:6 and John 10:30. Please will you answer my questions.

Reposting stuff you did years ago and saved on your hard drive and then demanding everyone answer each and everyone of your points is NOT sincere discussion.

I can predict what will happen like clockwork. Someone else will post a long thread for you to respond and you will avoid most of the points by either answering a phantom question that was not even asked, claim you never saw the question (even though you answered others in the same post), respond with your own question, or avoid answering by trying to shift the burden of proof.

All the while you will do to Jeanie like you did here