Is Father a name?

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I pastored in a small town in Newfoundland Canada for five years and came to befriend a High School English teacher. She was elderly and quite knowledgeable. She asked me about our church and our faith, and I explained to her the message and truth of Jesus' Name. She then read Matt 28:19 and noted to me that proper english grammar would cause one to understand the "name" mentioned in that verse is common to Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and fully agreed those terms were titles, not names, that were common to the Name implied. And she fully agreed Acts 2:38 would confirm that the common Name is Jesus Christ. She was then amazed at how trinity could exist with the grammar and literary structure of Matthew 28:19!

Exactly, good post. I see that prax and you both have a good handle on this guy, i just couldn't help but to chime in.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

He is not denying Father is not a name because it is a title. He is denying it is a name because the bible just does not say Father is being used as a man for God

Okay, I see that you guys have everything under control here. What was I doing here?????LOL!

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

What I don't understand is how you Oneness types claim that Father is a title and not a name ... EXCEPT at Isaiah 9:6 where Father mysteriously becomes a name once again.

What I don't understand about you trinitarian types is how you do not understand the dialogue between Jesus and Philip. Let us consider for a moment what happened in John 14:7-11
7: If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, AND HAVE SEEN HIM.
8: Philip saith unto him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9: Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, AND YET HAST THOU NOT KNOWN ME, PHILIP? HE THAT HATH SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER; and how sayest thou then, shew us the Father?

10:Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.11:Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Take these verses into consideration when you try to put the name "Father" into a trinitarian point of view.

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

What I don't understand about you trinitarian types is how you do not understand the dialogue between Jesus and Philip. Let us consider for a moment what happened in John 14:7-11
7: If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, AND HAVE SEEN HIM.
8: Philip saith unto him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9: Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, AND YET HAST THOU NOT KNOWN ME, PHILIP? HE THAT HATH SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER; and how sayest thou then, shew us the Father?

10:Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.11:Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Take these verses into consideration when you try to put the name "Father" into a trinitarian point of view.

“He who has seen Me, has seen the Father.” John 14:9b.

Mr Eastman has used this verse in a misguded attempt to argue that Jesus is God the Father, which I'll now reply to:

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?

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

What I don't understand about you trinitarian types is how you do not understand the dialogue between Jesus and Philip. Let us consider for a moment what happened in John 14:7-11
7: If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, AND HAVE SEEN HIM.
8: Philip saith unto him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9: Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, AND YET HAST THOU NOT KNOWN ME, PHILIP? HE THAT HATH SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER; and how sayest thou then, shew us the Father?

10:Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.11:Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Take these verses into consideration when you try to put the name "Father" into a trinitarian point of view.

Mr Eastman; John 14:10 actually denies this claim of yours that the Father is Jesus, because not only does this verse does not state that the Father is Jesus, but it rather says twice that the Father indwells Jesus; ‘Father is IN me ..… Father who dwelleth in me.’ So if the Father indwells Jesus, then he cannot also be the very same person whom he is also indwelling. Otherwise you would make either a complete nonsense of Jesus' prayers to the Father, as the Father praying to the Father. As if God were really speaking to himself, and so the Father who indwells Jesus could still carry on a conversation with himself, as the Father who is not indwelling Jesus. Or alternatively, if you were to make the Son the flesh of Jesus and Father the deity of Jesus, as most Oneness people do, then you would consequently be denying the deity of the Son by making him out to be a created being. So which is it Mr Eastman?

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

What I don't understand about you trinitarian types is how you do not understand the dialogue between Jesus and Philip. Let us consider for a moment what happened in John 14:7-11
7: If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, AND HAVE SEEN HIM.
8: Philip saith unto him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9: Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, AND YET HAST THOU NOT KNOWN ME, PHILIP? HE THAT HATH SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER; and how sayest thou then, shew us the Father?

10:Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.11:Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Take these verses into consideration when you try to put the name "Father" into a trinitarian point of view.

“If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also: and from now on you know Him and have seen him.” (John 14:7, KJV).

Hello Eastman, please notice here that Jesus is still constantly distinguishing himself from the Father. For example, he says that; “nobody can come to the Father except THROUGH me,” John 14:6, this word “through” implies someone other than the Father. In the next verse, Jesus uses the preposition “ALSO,” to again imply that he is someone other then the Father; “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.” Then at verse 10, Jesus does not say “I am the Father,” but he here again distinguishes himself from the Father, by saying that he is “IN” the Father, and that the Father is “IN” him.

Now because you can’t be in yourself, this must again be a reference to someone other then himself, namely God the Father. Jesus also uses the first person pronouns “I” and “me,” to distinguish himself from the Father in this passage, whom he addresses as “him” in the third person. In verse 10, he again distinguishes himself from the Father, who Jesus says lives inside of him. Therefore as you can’t indwell yourself, the Father must be other than Jesus. Finally in verse 12 he says that he is “going to MY Father,” which again implies a clear distinction between the Father and the Son.

Mr Eastman may have quoted; “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). But the only thing which these Jews could see of Jesus was his human body, which both Oneness and Trinitarian theology would claim was not of itself divine. So although the Son and Father do indeed mutually indwell each other (John 14:10), this is a figurative expression for saying that “he who sees me sees him who sent me.” (John 12:45). In other words, Jesus is the visible and tangible manifestation of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), and to claim that the Father is seen, contradicts John 1:18 which says clearly that he is not, but that the Son declares him to us.

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

What I don't understand about you trinitarian types is how you do not understand the dialogue between Jesus and Philip. Let us consider for a moment what happened in John 14:7-11
7: If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, AND HAVE SEEN HIM.
8: Philip saith unto him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9: Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, AND YET HAST THOU NOT KNOWN ME, PHILIP? HE THAT HATH SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER; and how sayest thou then, shew us the Father?

10:Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.11:Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Take these verses into consideration when you try to put the name "Father" into a trinitarian point of view.

“He who has seen Me, has seen the Father.” John 14:9b. Mr Eastman has used 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? Mr Eastman, you need to answer these questions in order to prove orthodox Christianity to be wrong for two thousand years. Will you attempt to do this?

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

What I don't understand about you trinitarian types is how you do not understand the dialogue between Jesus and Philip. Let us consider for a moment what happened in John 14:7-11
7: If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, AND HAVE SEEN HIM.
8: Philip saith unto him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9: Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, AND YET HAST THOU NOT KNOWN ME, PHILIP? HE THAT HATH SEEN ME HATH SEEN THE FATHER; and how sayest thou then, shew us the Father?

10:Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.11:Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Take these verses into consideration when you try to put the name "Father" into a trinitarian point of view.

John 14:10 states concerning the Son, that the “Father dwelleth in him” please notice this statement; “IN HIM.” So this term means that the Son, cannot himself be God the Father, but is rather that he is someone other than him, simply because you can't indwell (i.e. be inside) yourself! If you get inside of your car, then you are not yourself that car, but rather you are someone who has got inside of that car. Likewise if you eat a burger and it goes down into your stomach, then that food is not you, but it is rather something which is now inside of you.

Now because the Father dwells in the Son, the Son is not himself the Father but is someone other than him. So why then do Oneness people make the Son to be only the flesh or humanity in whom the Father indwells? For this false claim contradicts Scripture, which states that the Son is God (Hebrews 1:8), YHWH (Hebrews 1:10), I AM - ego eimi (John 8:24), eternal (1st John 1:2), creator (Hebrews 1:2), omnipresent (John 14:23) and he is the possessor of every single divine attribute which the Father also possesses. The Bible commands us to honour the Son equally with the Father, that is to honour the Son as Yahweh God (John 5:23), who possesses every divine attribute (John 5:19). Honouring the Son is necessary for salvation (John 8:24).

Oneness Pentecostals won’t honour the Son as Yahweh God but instead, in a similar manner to the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW’s) both religions refuse to honour the Son equally with God the Father. The only main difference between the JW’s and Oneness is that Oneness Pentecostals call God the Father by the name ‘Jesus,’ whilst the JW’s call him Jehovah. Either way both groups pay mere lip service to the Son being God and deny this truth, whilst at the very same time calling him God! So to a JW, the Son (Jesus) is God, but this is explained as a mere courtesy title for Jesus who’s really the incarnate archangel Michael and who isn’t the Almighty god and who therefore lack divine attributes. In Oneness, the Son is also called ‘God,’ but not being the creator, Omnipresent or eternal, this likewise is really just a mere courtesy title for the Son of God, who’s regarded as only a mere man in whom the Spirit of God then indwells.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Now because the Father dwells in the Son, the Son is not himself the Father but is someone other than him. So why then do Oneness people make the Son to be only the flesh or humanity in whom the Father indwells?

First of all we do NOT say the Father is the Son. Second of all you are making a sweeping generalization, a logical fallacy, by saying Oneness people make the Son ONLY the Flesh or humanity, which is NOT what all OPs would say. I have warned you on that dozens of times

Oneness Pentecostals won’t honour the Son as Yahweh God but instead, in a similar manner to the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW’s) both religions refuse to honour the Son equally with God the Father.

Again, you are filling this board with lies. If you want to say some OPs do this, fine, but to say we all do it is a lie and a logical fallacy. You know it is a lie because I have corrected you dozens if not hundreds of times. In the view of many OPs the Son is Yahweh Himself! Not just His flesh, but HIMSELF Diety AND Humanity together.

If you continue to knowingly misrepresent someone elses theological viewpoint here on this board, then we have no need for you. Others here are already tiring of your ignoring their points yet insisting they all respond to your point.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

“He who has seen Me, has seen the Father.” John 14:9b. Mr Eastman has used 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.

He that knows ME knows the Father also. He that perceives ME perceives the Father also...Im sure Mr Eastman would have no problem with this either. In essence Jesus is saying to know the person of Christ is to know the Person of God...is that not another way for Jesus to say "I am God"?