John 14:9 is Jesus - God the Father?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Firstly, you are not a Trinitarian but an anti-Trinitarian as you statement proves: (Quote): 'The ONE who became the Son is, in fact, God.' Trinitarians do not beleive that God or anyone else for that matter BECAME the Son.

Secondly, you are pure Oneness as this statement of yours proves: (Quote): 'Jesus, as God, is eternal. Jesus, as the Son, had a beginning.'

Walter Martin does. He wrote Kingdom of the Cults and took on many groups that did not believe in the Trinity.

Second, an anti-Trinitarian is someone that seeks to attack the Trinity or is set against it. He does not appear that way

Originally Posted by Jeanie

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

How does this prove that Jesus is the Father?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You didn't even answer my last post. Yes we all know in YOUR view the Father and Son are two different persons....though you fudge on that and say they can be manifestations. But a manifestation is not a person. Rather a person manifests Himself. Who is manifesting Himself as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost then if that is the case

But I've always defined 'a manifestation' as personal (not impersonal) as well as eternal and F, S, HS each being not only distinct form the other but eternally and personally distinct. Both terms; 'three manifestations' and 'three persons' are inadequate to fully express God, so I don't make a big issue out of either term.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

But I've always defined 'a manifestation' as personal (not impersonal) as well as eternal and F, S, HS each being not only distinct form the other but eternally and personally distinct. Both terms; 'three manifestations' and 'three persons' are inadequate to fully express God, so I don't make a big issue out of either term.

They you are playing semantical games. In any case, when I say manifestation I mean a way or form or mode by which the person of God reveals Himself

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

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?

Who is Jesus to you?

The Spirit of God nothing but "Works called Law" this is why ...Jesus said......

John 10:25 (KJV)
Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

The reason why many people today.....will not able to understand this verse.. untill they study the law of God in the old testament.

John 7:39 (KJV)
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

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?

If this verse is kept in the natural flow of its context we would notice that Jesus begins by saying, “No man comes to the Father but by Me (v6), and later states, “He who has seen Me has Seen the Father.” Jesus goes from saying that no one come to the Father but by Me, to, I am the Father. This doesn’t line up with the flow of these verses. Also, this claim would make Jesus a liar, because only a few chapters back Jesus said that “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. I guess the question is, did they see the Father or not? I trust if Jesus said NO, then the answer is NO.

Originally Posted by Believer

If this verse is kept in the natural flow of its context we would notice that Jesus begins by saying, “No man comes to the Father but by Me (v6), and later states, “He who has seen Me has Seen the Father.” Jesus goes from saying that no one come to the Father but by Me, to, I am the Father. This doesn’t line up with the flow of these verses. Also, this claim would make Jesus a liar, because only a few chapters back Jesus said that “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. I guess the question is, did they see the Father or not? I trust if Jesus said NO, then the answer is NO.

Hello believer, actually your mistaken in saying that jesus said: (quote) 'I am the Father,' he never says this but instead says at verse 10; 'I am IN the Father and the Father IN me.' So I'd assume from that that the Father and the Son each being omnipresent (verse 23) naturally indwell the other.

In my post at verse one I establish that the use of the verb 'horao' proves that Jesus isn't saying that the people have literally and physically seen (blepo) the Father. Horao prevents this interpretation.

If you..noticed...Jesus will always remind what the scriptures says. Jesus always takes you back to those who are the witnesses. Who are the witnesses? The 144,000 children of Israel. They describe the "Lamb of God"

Why did they describe the lamb of God? Because He performed so many miracles, signs, and wonders to those chosen nation.

This is why when John the Baptist describe Jesus as... "The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world"

Now, we can know that He is the same God from the old testament.

blessings,

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Hello believer, actually your mistaken in saying that jesus said: (quote) 'I am the Father,' he never says this but instead says at verse 10; 'I am IN the Father and the Father IN me.' So I'd assume from that that the Father and the Son each being omnipresent (verse 23) naturally indwell the other.

In my post at verse one I establish that the use of the verb 'horao' proves that Jesus isn't saying that the people have literally and physically seen (blepo) the Father. Horao prevents this interpretation.

That was a typo.

I said:

"Jesus goes from saying that no one come to the Father but by Me, to, I am the Father."

I meant to say: How can Jesus go from saying that no one comes to the Father but by Me..to saying "I am the Father?'

Sorry for the confusion.