Jesus is GOD the SON...He is NOT the FATHER.

[The-Plural-One-God]

When dealing with doctrine we must go by the end results...
No one in the New Testament identifies Jesus as the Father...
Over 200 times he is called the SON...
The Father Jesus doctrine has no foundation.

 

[SeventhDay]

When dealing with doctrine we must go by the end results...
No one in the New Testament identifies Jesus as the Father...
Over 200 times he is called the SON...
The Father Jesus doctrine has no foundation.

Here in this scripture is the proof that Jesus is the one and only God called the Father.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Here we have one God in expression, and it is God in a Father and Son relationship, and it is indicated by the preposition "with" meaning toward or pointing to God or face to face with God.

If Jesus is the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son, then God has interchangeable roles of his own personage.

God includes Father and Son which Jesus is or there in no God at all!


God bless you.

 

[101G]

When dealing with doctrine we must go by the end results...
No one in the New Testament identifies Jesus as the Father...
Over 200 times he is called the SON...
The Father Jesus doctrine has no foundation.

ADDRESSING the OP.
is not the term "Father" synonyms with "FIRST?" as in the creator or originator of something? yes, please look it up. and is not the Lord Jesus the HEAD/FIRST of the Church? let's check the Record.

Colossians 1:16 "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:" Colossians 1:17 "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Colossians 1:18 "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."
here the term preeminence means, G4409 πρωτεύω proteuo (prō-tev'-ō) v.
to be first (in rank or influence).
[from G4413]
KJV: have the preeminence
Root(s): G4413

to be first in anything is the title rendered.

as HEAD of the Church, head when used as a noun as The person commanding most authority within a group or an organization, as here in Colossians 1:18, it is synonyms with "Father", and since Jesus is the HEAD of us, his Body, the church, then he is our Father of all who are BORN AGAIN.

so clearly the Lord Jesus is referred to as Father in the NT as well as in the Book of Revelation

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

When dealing with doctrine we must go by the end results...
No one in the New Testament identifies Jesus as the Father...
Over 200 times he is called the SON...
The Father Jesus doctrine has no foundation.

Here in this scripture is the proof that Jesus is the one and only God called the Father.

Your correct that Scripture teaches that Jesus is the one and only God. Scripture teaches the Father is the only true God, or the one and only God. But, Scripture also teaches Jesus isn't the Father: "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5. Therefore although they are the same God, there is an eternal I vs you distinction between the Father and the Son.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Here we have one God in expression, and it is God in a Father and Son relationship, and it is indicated by the preposition "with" meaning toward or pointing to God or face to face with God.

So, the Word/Jesus was face to face with God, aka relationally distinct, while the Word was as to his nature God too. Believing both requires one to reject the Jesus as the Father doctrine or God's name is Jesus silliness.

If Jesus is the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son, then God has interchangeable roles of his own personage.

What do you mean by "interchangeable roles"? If you're talking about an eternal relational distinction, that's Trinitarianism. If you are talking about one person putting on different masks to play different roles in the play of existence, that Sabellianism. And, if you're a Sabellian, then John 17:5 shows you to be in error: "I had with you before the world existed."

God includes Father and Son which Jesus is or there in no God at all!

No argument here.

God Bless

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

so clearly the Lord Jesus is referred to as Father in the NT as well as in the Book of Revelation

Jesus is referred to as the everlasting Father in Scripture. So, it is fine to call Jesus the Father in the sense that he is God, but it is not fine to use such to pretend Scripture doesn't teach an eternal relational distinction between the one called Jesus and the one called the Father in the NT: "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5.

 

[SeventhDay]

Your correct that Scripture teaches that Jesus is the one and only God. Scripture teaches the Father is the only true God, or the one and only God. But, Scripture also teaches Jesus isn't the Father: "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5. Therefore although they are the same God, there is an eternal I vs you distinction between the Father and the Son.



So, the Word/Jesus was face to face with God, aka relationally distinct, while the Word was as to his nature God too. Believing both requires one to reject the Jesus as the Father doctrine or God's name is Jesus silliness.



What do you mean by "interchangeable roles"? If you're talking about an eternal relational distinction, that's Trinitarianism. If you are talking about one person putting on different masks to play different roles in the play of existence, that Sabellianism. And, if you're a Sabellian, then John 17:5 shows you to be in error: "I had with you before the world existed."



No argument here.

God Bless

God being personages of himself does not mean God wears a mask but God Christ) does unveil himself to us so what does that tell you. If the scriptures state that Jesus is God and that God is the Father then Jesus is the Father. That is logical and adds up to one not three!

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

A revelation is God unveiling himself to us so we can see what was hidden from us or veiled to us.

hayer Definition:
1) laying bear, making naked
2) a disclosure of truth, instruction
2a) concerning things before unknown
2b) used of events by which things or states or persons hitherto withdrawn from view are made visible to all
3) manifestation, appearance
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G601




God bless you.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

God being personages of himself does not mean God wears a mask but God Christ) does unveil himself to us so what does that tell you. If the scriptures state that Jesus is God and that God is the Father then Jesus is the Father. That is logical and adds up to one not three!

The syllogism isn't that simple when we have the Father and Son talking with each other. So, the starting point of the logical syllogism is
Jesus is God, the Father is God, and Jesus is not the Father. Now, what can you conclude from this?

God Bless

 

[SeventhDay]

The syllogism isn't that simple when we have the Father and Son talking with each other. So, the starting point of the logical syllogism is
Jesus is God, the Father is God, and Jesus is not the Father. Now, what can you conclude from this?

God Bless

What I conclude is that Jesus who is God is both the Father and the Son as personages. It is that simple. Jesus is the one God who is the Father but he is the Son as well. Personages are a plurality of the one singular God. Hope that you understand that. Personages do communicate with one another but it does not change the fact that God is one.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

The syllogism isn't that simple when we have the Father and Son talking with each other. So, the starting point of the logical syllogism is
Jesus is God, the Father is God, and Jesus is not the Father. Now, what can you conclude from this?

What I conclude is that Jesus who is God is both the Father and the Son as personages.

Try flipping it around. God has multiple personages: the Father, the Son named Jesus and the Spirit. Then, you will be using the words the way Scripture does.

It is that simple. Jesus is the one God who is the Father but he is the Son as well. Personages are a plurality of the one singular God. Hope that you understand that. Personages do communicate with one another but it does not change the fact that God is one.

Jesus is the one God. Jesus isn't the Father, but he is the Son. Personages are a plurality of the one singular God. Hope that you understand that. Personages do communicate with one another but it does not change the fact that God is one.

Look, now I've corrected your statement.

God Bless

 

[101G]

Jesus is referred to as the everlasting Father in Scripture. So, it is fine to call Jesus the Father in the sense that he is God, but it is not fine to use such to pretend Scripture doesn't teach an eternal relational distinction between the one called Jesus and the one called the Father in the NT: "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5.

well let's see, NT, 2 Corinthians 6:17 "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you," 2 Corinthians 6:18 "And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."

Colossians 1:17 "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Colossians 1:18 "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."

preeminence here is the Greek word,
G4409 πρωτεύω proteuo (prō-tev'-ō) v.
to be first (in rank or influence).
[from G4413]
KJV: have the preeminence
Root(s): G4413

and First indicate "Father", for no one is BEFORE HIM. and he is the CREATOR of the NEW HEAVEN, and NEW EARTH.
is not "GOD" the LORD God the First? has he changed? Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." Just as in the OT JESUS is First and Last as well as NT.

101G.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Jesus is referred to as the everlasting Father in Scripture. So, it is fine to call Jesus the Father in the sense that he is God, but it is not fine to use such to pretend Scripture doesn't teach an eternal relational distinction between the one called Jesus and the one called the Father in the NT: "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5.

well let's see, NT, 2 Corinthians 6:17 "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you," 2 Corinthians 6:18 "And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."

Colossians 1:17 "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Colossians 1:18 "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."

preeminence here is the Greek word,
G4409 πρωτεύω proteuo (prō-tev'-ō) v.
to be first (in rank or influence).
[from G4413]
KJV: have the preeminence
Root(s): G4413

and First indicate "Father", for no one is BEFORE HIM. and he is the CREATOR of the NEW HEAVEN, and NEW EARTH.
is not "GOD" the LORD God the First? has he changed? Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." Just as in the OT JESUS is First and Last as well as NT.

101G.

Okay. You do realize you didn't really say anything in response to my post.

 

[101G]

Okay. You do realize you didn't really say anything in response to my post.

did I not? in the ECHAD is not Jesus the Father, the Ordinal First and Ordinal Last, G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') while in flesh on EARTH in likeness as a man? did that not answered your post completely...... just put your thinking cap on for a second

101G.

 

[101G]

Let 101G be clear,
God is a plurality. but not in separate and distinct persons, nor in any compound unity. Listen carefully. GOD is the ECHAD, or the Diversity of himself in natural flesh that was to come. and this ECHAD, or Diversity of himself is in "TIME", "ORDER", "PLACE", or "RANK". simply put God is the "EQUAL SHARE" of his own self in "TIME", "PLACE", "ORDER", 'or 'RANK". read that again.

Time in the Beginning only the "LORD", the Ordinal First, made man .... not the Son the Ordinal Last, (while in flesh). Only one person made man male and female. Jesus the Son/the Ordinal Last confirm this. (see Matthews 19:4, and Mak 10:6).

this is why the LORD Jesus is called Father, or the First in the beginning. for he MADE ALL THINGS, (per Isaiah 44:24), and when he MADE ALL THINGS he was "ALONE" and "BY HIMSELF". alone means, "having no one else present". if no one else was present then that means God is not a trinity..... Think people. for if the so-called other two person are supposed to be OMIPRESENT.... where are they at in creation as Isaiah 44:24 points out? which also eliminates any compound unity.

the bible is clear, God is only ONE person.

101G.

 

[SeventhDay]

Let 101G be clear,
God is a plurality. but not in separate and distinct persons, nor in any compound unity. Listen carefully. GOD is the ECHAD, or the Diversity of himself in natural flesh that was to come. and this ECHAD, or Diversity of himself is in "TIME", "ORDER", "PLACE", or "RANK". simply put God is the "EQUAL SHARE" of his own self in "TIME", "PLACE", "ORDER", 'or 'RANK". read that again.

Time in the Beginning only the "LORD", the Ordinal First, made man .... not the Son the Ordinal Last, (while in flesh). Only one person made man male and female. Jesus the Son/the Ordinal Last confirm this. (see Matthews 19:4, and Mak 10:6).

this is why the LORD Jesus is called Father, or the First in the beginning. for he MADE ALL THINGS, (per Isaiah 44:24), and when he MADE ALL THINGS he was "ALONE" and "BY HIMSELF". alone means, "having no one else present". if no one else was present then that means God is not a trinity..... Think people. for if the so-called other two person are supposed to be OMIPRESENT.... where are they at in creation as Isaiah 44:24 points out? which also eliminates any compound unity.

the bible is clear, God is only ONE person.

101G.

God is a singular person but is a plurality and a plurality of what? Also, Jesus was in the beginning as a plurality. John 1:1 and John 17:5 and Genesis 1:26,27.

 

[101G]

God is a singular person but is a plurality and a plurality of what? Also, Jesus was in the beginning as a plurality. John 1:1 and John 17:5 and Genesis 1:26,27

God is a plurality of .... listen, HIMSELF.

then you said,

Jesus was in the beginning as a plurality

Listen carefully, AS LORD yes.

then you said,

John 1:1 and John 17:5 and Genesis 1:26,27

all the same single one person in "TIME", "PLACE", "ORDER" or "RANK...... (smile) ...

101G.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Okay. You do realize you didn't really say anything in response to my post.

did I not? in the ECHAD is not Jesus the Father, the Ordinal First and Ordinal Last, G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') while in flesh on EARTH in likeness as a man? did that not answered your post completely...... just put your thinking cap on for a second

Here is my previous post:

Jesus is referred to as the everlasting Father in Scripture. So, it is fine to call Jesus the Father in the sense that he is God, but it is not fine to use such to pretend Scripture doesn't teach an eternal relational distinction between the one called Jesus and the one called the Father in the NT: "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5.​

You asked in the Echad, is not Jesus the Father, the Ordinal First and Ordinal Last? Of course, such is just affirming my statement: Jesus is referred to as the everlasting Father in Scripture. So, it is fine to call Jesus the Father in the sense that he is God.
You asked κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') while in flesh on EARTH in likeness as a man? Yep, such is entirely tangential everything I said.

did that not answered your post completely......? No, that didn't even attempt to interact with the eternal relational distinction between the one called Jesus and the one called the Father in the NT. Again, Jesus said "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5. Are you going to interact with this at all?

God Bless

 

[101G]

Here is my previous post:

Jesus is referred to as the everlasting Father in Scripture. So, it is fine to call Jesus the Father in the sense that he is God, but it is not fine to use such to pretend Scripture doesn't teach an eternal relational distinction between the one called Jesus and the one called the Father in the NT: "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5.​

You asked in the Echad, is not Jesus the Father, the Ordinal First and Ordinal Last? Of course, such is just affirming my statement: Jesus is referred to as the everlasting Father in Scripture. So, it is fine to call Jesus the Father in the sense that he is God.
You asked κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') while in flesh on EARTH in likeness as a man? Yep, such is entirely tangential everything I said.

did that not answered your post completely......? No, that didn't even attempt to interact with the eternal relational distinction between the one called Jesus and the one called the Father in the NT. Again, Jesus said "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5. Are you going to interact with this at all?

God Bless

to sum it up, ONE WORD... "ECHAD".... do U understand?

if not another ONE WORD, equal "SHARE", which sums up and explains all you said above.

101G.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Here is my previous post:

Jesus is referred to as the everlasting Father in Scripture. So, it is fine to call Jesus the Father in the sense that he is God, but it is not fine to use such to pretend Scripture doesn't teach an eternal relational distinction between the one called Jesus and the one called the Father in the NT: "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5.​

You asked in the Echad, is not Jesus the Father, the Ordinal First and Ordinal Last? Of course, such is just affirming my statement: Jesus is referred to as the everlasting Father in Scripture. So, it is fine to call Jesus the Father in the sense that he is God.
You asked κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') while in flesh on EARTH in likeness as a man? Yep, such is entirely tangential everything I said.

did that not answered your post completely......? No, that didn't even attempt to interact with the eternal, relational distinction between the one called Jesus and the one called the Father in the NT. Again, Jesus said "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5. Are you going to interact with this at all?

to sum it up, ONE WORD... "ECHAD".... do U understand?

Yes, I believe there is only one God. Now, tell me how the word ECHAD denies the clear, obvious, eternal relational distinction between the Father, Son and Spirit that all share the one name, YHWH. (cf John 14:16-17, 26; Matt 28:19).

if not another ONE WORD, equal "SHARE", which sums up and explains all you said above.

The term "share" implies multiple _____ who share in that one, aka Trinitarianism.

God Bless

 

[101G]

Yes, I believe there is only one God. Now, tell me how the word ECHAD denies the clear, obvious, eternal relational distinction between the Father, Son and Spirit that all share the one name, YHWH. (cf John 14:16-17, 26; Matt 28:19).

sure, the ECHAD is in Ordinal Designation. example, Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

ONE .... "LORD" using the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments, "ONE" is the Hebrew term, H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.

Note definition#2. Ordinal "FIRST". as the ECHAD of himself, he's the FIRST and the LAST. let's see it in scriptures. Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." the Lord is "WITH" the Last... correct. just as in John 1:1 the Word was ... "WITH" .... God correct. now this, Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."

did you get that? if not, the LORD is the FIRST and the LAST, the SAME one person. for ALSO means, "in addition; too". same one person, ANOTHER. of himself. which proves 101G point about the LORD and the "Lord" in Palms 110:1 and 5 the same one person, only diversified in flesh, hence the Empathic form of "Lord" in Psalms 110:1 and 5.

now to your other question,

The term "share" implies multiple _____ who share in that one, aka Trinitarianism.

ERROR, ONE of the same. did you not READ? Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." the same ONE PERSON, meaning no trinity...... sorry,

101G.

 

[DoctrinesofGraceBapt]

Yes, I believe there is only one God. Now, tell me how the word ECHAD denies the clear, obvious, eternal relational distinction between the Father, Son and Spirit that all share the one name, YHWH. (cf John 14:16-17, 26; Matt 28:19).

sure, the ECHAD is in Ordinal Designation. example, Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"

ONE .... "LORD" using the Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments, "ONE" is the Hebrew term, H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.

Note definition#2. Ordinal "FIRST". as the ECHAD of himself, he's the FIRST and the LAST. let's see it in scriptures. Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." the Lord is "WITH" the Last... correct. just as in John 1:1 the Word was ... "WITH" .... God correct. now this, Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."

did you get that? if not, the LORD is the FIRST and the LAST, the SAME one person. for ALSO means, "in addition; too". same one person, ANOTHER. of himself. which proves 101G point about the LORD and the "Lord" in Palms 110:1 and 5 the same one person, only diversified in flesh, hence the Empathic form of "Lord" in Psalms 110:1 and 5.

now to your other question,

You can define person with respect to ECHAD if you want, but the word "with" implies at least two. At least two what? Whatever, you want to call it. I have no problem with "ANOTHER. of himself." So far, you're arguing for Trinitarianism while using a different definition of person with this ECHAD argument.. Remember, "the Word was WITH God...the same was in the beginning WITH God." prior to being flesh; so, "diversified in flesh" doesn't explain this diversification. Likewise, Jesus said "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." John 17:5. Therefore, this diversification existed "before then world existed.", aka before the flesh.

The term "share" implies multiple _____ who share in that one, aka Trinitarianism.

ERROR, ONE of the same. did you not READ? Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." the same ONE PERSON, meaning no trinity...... sorry,

Exactly, one of the same. At least two share of the one.

God Bless