Does God have a father?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

oh, i see what must have somehow happened. One of the seven angels refers to Christ, calling Him "the Lamb," there in the bottom of the quote; a Third Person reference in the original.

So the angel refers to Christ. And??

This has nothing to do with whether or not Christ spoke of himself as God and Father earlier. Third person pronoun does not violate that. Again, John is seeing a series of visions.

[shazeep]

yes, but you say "earlier" when we are in the same vision, the same passage, in Scripture:

5Then the One seated on the throne said, “Look! I am making everything new.” He also said, “Write, because these wordsr are faithful and true.”s 6And He said to me, “It is done!t I am the •Alpha and the Omega,u the Beginning and the End.v I will give water as a gift to the thirstyw from the spring of life.x 7The victory will inherit these things, and I will be his God, and he will be My son.z 8But the cowards, unbelievers,aa vile, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liarsab — their share will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur,ac which is the second death.” 9Then one of the seven angels, who had held the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues,ae came and spoke with me: “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10He then carried me away in the Spirit...

and John is not "carried away" until after the reference, so while i do understand the Isaiah reference to Christ as God--which is likely meant as "God's proxy" when the rest of Scripture is taken into account anyway--it seems that the angel goes to some length here to differentiate the two persons/offices, as in other parts of Scripture.

Of course you won't see it that way, that's cool; but i'm wondering now what the point is? If there are 279 million Pentecostals worldwide, and 17 million of them are oneness, it seems to me that in addressing things Apostolic a more Trinny mindset would be the default, and not oneness? But i don't know the breakdown on AFF, maybe i'm wrong.

[shazeep]

http://forerunner.com/orthodoxy/cu197123.htm

i'm curious if oneness people would find this accurate?

[shazeep]

21When the king of Israel saw them, he said to Elisha, "My father, should I kill them? I will kill them."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

yes, but you say "earlier" when we are in the same vision, the same passage, in Scripture:

5Then the One seated on the throne said, “Look! I am making everything new.” He also said, “Write, because these wordsr are faithful and true.”s 6And He said to me, “It is done!t I am the •Alpha and the Omega,u the Beginning and the End.v I will give water as a gift to the thirstyw from the spring of life.x 7The victory will inherit these things, and I will be his God, and he will be My son.z 8But the cowards, unbelievers,aa vile, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liarsab — their share will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur,ac which is the second death.” 9Then one of the seven angels, who had held the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues,ae came and spoke with me: “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10He then carried me away in the Spirit...

and John is not "carried away" until after the reference, so while i do understand the Isaiah reference to Christ as God--which is likely meant as "God's proxy" when the rest of Scripture is taken into account anyway--it seems that the angel goes to some length here to differentiate the two persons/offices, as in other parts of Scripture.

Of course you won't see it that way, that's cool; but i'm wondering now what the point is? If there are 279 million Pentecostals worldwide, and 17 million of them are oneness, it seems to me that in addressing things Apostolic a more Trinny mindset would be the default, and not oneness? But i don't know the breakdown on AFF, maybe i'm wrong.

“Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10He then carried me away in the Spirit...

...This takes him into another vision.

I still do not see your point of third person pronoun. There's nothing wrong with the syntax and what I am proposing.

Are you saying that if Jesus was the alpha and omega in Rev 21, like it says he is in Rev 1, then the angel would not have used the reference to Him in the third person? I see no problem with that. Please explain why that does not fit, and give examples. You're not being clear, wadr, as you often aren't.

Whether Jon saw Jesus standing there or not, the words used by the angel do not violate the idea Jesus

[houston]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You really never understood oneness, did you?

You didn't ask me, but... Naw. I was taught "God DIDN'T send His Son, He sent Himself" and "Jesus' himan nature prayed to His God-nature."

To me, the doctrine of the Trinity makes more sense. I consider myself to be a Trinitarian. When I read some explanations of Oneness and the Trinity I think some things come down to semantics. Some, not all.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by houston

You didn't ask me, but... Naw. I was taught "God DIDN'T send His Son, He sent Himself" and "Jesus' himan nature prayed to His God-nature."

To me, the doctrine of the Trinity makes more sense. I consider myself to be a Trinitarian. When I read some explanations of Oneness and the Trinity I think some things come down to semantics. Some, not all.

To me, trinitarianism derived from assumptions that God's person is limited to what human persons can or cannot do. If trinitarianism were correct, the understanding of basic one form the Old Testament would have to be clarified in chapters in the New Testament. But there is no such explanation.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by houston

You didn't ask me, but... Naw. I was taught "God DIDN'T send His Son, He sent Himself" and "Jesus' human nature prayed to His God-nature."

Well, there are Oneness teachers who do not explain things very well. Which, by the way, there are trinitarians who likewise(perhaps unintentionally) misrepresent trinitarianism. I had a Baptist argue with me years ago, he began by asking 'now, you don't really believe Jesus is God, do you?' He went on to 'explain' to me that Jesus isn't God, he's God's Son. And this, he claimed, was 'the trinity'. I am sure many trinitarians would have cringed at the thought of this guy making such claims on their behalf.

To me, the doctrine of the Trinity makes more sense. I consider myself to be a Trinitarian. When I read some explanations of Oneness and the Trinity I think some things come down to semantics. Some, not all.

According to the trinitarian experts, if it 'makes sense' it must be an incorrect presentation of the doctrine, because the trinity is an 'unfathomable, incomprehensible mystery that is to be accepted on faith'. So I've been told.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

[B](1) Well, there are Oneness teachers who do not explain things very well.

According to the trinitarian experts, if it 'makes sense' it must be an incorrect...

(1) My thoughts, exactly. The Church should be "preaching"
the gospel: not explaining it!

(2) The illogical becomes logical to them who purportedly
comprehend the incomprehensible.

The Phnixman

[shazeep]