Did Jesus believe He was serving a greater Being (His Father) than Himself? I see conflicting messages in the Bible.

[FaithofAbraham]

Honestly, I don’t see a contradiction. It’s the same as what’s been stated all along, Jesus was fully human and fully God.

So if a big man is slapped by a small boy, and the big man “retrains” himself from beating the boy up, that means he’s “losing” his power? If anything, I think the big man would have been showing even more strength in restraining himself. Even though the power would not be “evident” for the boy to see.

Language is a fascinating thing, but we should be more careful not to imply just one meaning to one word.

When did Jesus ever slap a small boy haha? If Jesus ever once existed as a God, he no longer had the power to save himself, he prayed to God to save him.

But I already said I don’t believe Jesus was ever once a God before he was born and didn’t need to lose godhood. But you guys who do believe that have to explain his need to pray to God to save his life.

God is omnipotent but He couldn’t force Jesus - or anyone - to obey. God has never forced anyone to obey.

In any case, He didn’t have to force Jesus to obey. Jesus and God are one, therefore if it’s the Father’s will, Jesus would do it, since it would also be His own desire.

God didn’t have to force Jesus, but of course He can force anyone to obey. Jonah is a great example of God forcing that prophet to get back to work after he tried to run away from warning Nineveh.

It is so clear that John 1:1-5 introduces the Word of God as a being, with its multiple references to Him/He. Clearly, the Word of God in this case is not simply ‘the commandment’ of God.

It’s called metaphor, where abstract ideas are given physical attributes to make them easier to understand. Jesus also said the Word of God was like a seed, but he didn’t mean it was a literal seed.

How does barren equate to virginity? Isaac was not born of a virgin, was he? Did I miss something out? Did something in the OT state or imply that Sarah was virgin?

The issue was being born by a miracle. That alone is not proof Jesus was born a God. Adam was born with no father or mother, Eve no mother. Being born from a virgin doesn’t magically make Jesus a God.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

This is wrong according to the bible.

KJB: 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he GOD made the worlds;

I said “It doesn’t mean Jesus created the universe.” Here it says God created the universe by Jesus, which means according to the final plan of the Messianic Kingdom of Heaven. So it’s correct.

 

[hilaryisaac]

When did Jesus ever slap a small boy haha?

Oh, you understand metaphors but can’t see what I’m trying to say? You’re clearly restricting “retraint” to ONE meaning: loss of power. That’s just not the case. One who restrains oneself simply doesn’t equate to loss of power. I don’t use the power, doesn’t mean I don’t have it.

But I already said I don’t believe Jesus was ever once a God before he was born and didn’t need to lose godhood. But you guys who do believe that have to explain his need to pray to God to save his life.

We never said Jesus lost His “Godhood”.

God didn’t have to force Jesus, but of course He can force anyone to obey. Jonah is a great example of God forcing that prophet to get back to work after he tried to run away from warning Nineveh.

That’s silly. Jonah could have chosen to insist on refusing God’s mission for him.

It’s called metaphor, where abstract ideas are given physical attributes to make them easier to understand. Jesus also said the Word of God was like a seed, but he didn’t mean it was a literal seed.

It was simply put that the Word WAS GOD.

The issue was being born by a miracle. That alone is not proof Jesus was born a God. Adam was born with no father or mother, Eve no mother. Being born from a virgin doesn’t magically make Jesus a God.

Adam and eve were not “born”, were they? I believe God formed them. You’re right. being born from a virgin doesn’t “doesn’t magically make Jesus a God” - Jesus is God. God merely took the form of human flesh. The virgin birth only assisted to “make [His point] easier to understand”.

If Jesus was made a God by God ater His death, then God must believe in Polytheism, eh? But He doesn’t. God was God, God will always be God. No one can be made into God. Jesus, even as man, was God. “Before Abraham was, I AM”, not “I am going to be”.

You claim that Jesus was made to a God as reward for His total obedience? “Before Abraham was, I AM”. Jesus was then equating Himself to the Father - either that or He was simply insulting God by blesphemy. After all, everyone knew who the I AM was. If Jesus, merely man, can say something like that, that doesn’t make Him very obedient, does it? Quite the contrary.

And if you say that Jesus never explicitly said that He was God, I think Jn 8:58 is quite explicit. Even so, John 21:25 tells us that not everything that Jesus said was recorded. But still, He MUST have been very explicit for the Jews to start picking up stones to throw at Him. Why would they do that?

If Jesus said that,

 

[inJESUS]

God is omnipotent, Jesus is not because he is a man who needs power from God.

 

[inJESUS]

It’s called metaphor, where abstract ideas

 

[MH84]

**

I fail to get what you mean by this. When Jesus said “God is my Father”, He meant that He was the Son of God. When I say person X is my father, it entails that I am the Son of person X. God is called Father because He is the first person of the Trinity begetting the second person.

Okay, I’ll try to re-explain what I mean that Ive found a bit confusing:

When Jesus says something like: “God is my Father”, or “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God…” (John 17:3), He is in effect referring to His Father being the Godhead. Why I say this is because when Jesus says “God”, He didn’t clarify which Person of God He was praying to i.e. the Father or the Holy Spirit. Why didnt Jesus say “God the Father”? That would have clarified to everyone, including us, that Jesus thought He was God too. He seems to have said that His God is the Godhead (who consists of one Person).

When Jesus said “My God”, what did He mean (in effect): “My God the Father” or “My Deity”? If the latter, this would mean that His Father was greater than He.

In Trinitarian doctrine “God the Father” is the first Person of the Trinity, however Jesus sometimes doesnt make this distinction. Jesus in effect uses the term “God” in a way that is equal to saying “Godhead”. That would mean that His Father is the only almighty God.

Okay, so far?..

When we say we “prayed to God”, what are we saying? Normally, we would mean that we prayed to the Godhead i.e. the Blessed Trinity; in other words when we say we prayed to “God”, that means we prayed to the complete Godhead, not just one Person of the Trinity. Otherwise, one would probably say that he prayed to the Father specifically, or Jesus specifically, or the Holy Spirit specifically. Its like if one said he was praying to the saints; you wouldnt know if I was praying to all of them, or to a specific saint for their intercession.

I know this may be confusing, but I am not fully able to express what Im thinking. I’ll keep going though , because I think I bring up a good point.

Now, assuming God is triune: when Jesus called His Father, “God” it seems strange that He would have called His Father by His nature, instead of who He is. Jesus used interchangeably “God” and “Father”, however with the Holy Spirit, He only called Him “Holy Spirit”, not “God”, unlike His Father. It seems Jesus never called Himself “God” either. But Trinitarians believe all three Persons of the Deity are “God”!

One more example from the bible: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). Who is the God that Jesus was talking about here? the Trinity? His Father? the Holy Spirit? If He meant His Father, why is the Father called “God” interchangeably with “Father” in the Bible. Its seems that the authors felt it was proper to only call Jesus’ Father “God”…

So, what Ive been trying to say is that Jesus called His Father “God” in a way that He seems to be saying “Godhead”, which would mean that Jesus never thought He was God aswell then, because no one can be God outside the Godhead.

I’ll try again if you don’t understand me. Check out this thread as well: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=213018

The claim to be sitting at the right hand of God actually made Jesus level with God.

Does it? Im not so sure. Like I laboured to say above, Jesus says that He would seat at the right Hand of God, not Father. When I hear the phrase I can imagine that God is one Being, and Jesus is another Being.

In effect, Jesus seems to be saying that He will be seated at the right hand of the Deity. This would mean that Jesus did not think He was the Deity/God as well, because how could one be God, and be able to sit at the right hand of God at the same time.

I really wonder why you use the verb “appear” here. Jesus does not appear to use the divine name for Himself, but He uses it indeed! Why would He use the divine name for Himself if He were not divine?

I used “appear” for two reasons:

1. Maybe Jesus didnt use the term as a name, but rather as a description.
2. If apostles and Jesus Himself didnt say that He was God, John 8:58 must mean something else other than a reference to the divine name revealed to Moses.

It meant Jesus’ having the same substance as the Father. Jews told Pilate that Jesus had to be killed according to the Law. The Mosaic Law ordered the execution of people who claimed to be God.

At this stage I still don’t agree because:

1. why did the Church insist that Jesus is “God the Son”, when “Son of God” means the same thing?
2. Do you honestly believe that in John 1:48-50 when Nathanel met Jesus for the first time and called Him “Son of God” he thought Jesus was God His Creator? Why then was he surprised at the miracles and doubted the Resurrection?
3. Look at the other times Son of God was used. It appears that “Son of God” and “Christ”/“Messiah”/“king” are almost interchangeably:

Matthew 16:16
Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Matthew 26:63
But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”

John 1:48-50 48Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” 49Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”**

 

[MH84]

if what you are saying is true that Jesus prayed to be saved, it means that Jesus wanted to nullify the OT prophecies about His death and hence show previous prophets as liars, in addition to proving his own teachings about His death and resurrection as meaningless and faulty prophecies and hence indirectly saying He is a false prophet who predicted things that might not happen.

What you are saying is not true. Jesus did pray to be saved from death.

Look at Hebrews 5:7:
7In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%205;&version=47;

I think however that death in this context means Jesus may have prayed to be released from death i.e. the resurrection.

 

[inJESUS]

What you are saying is not true. Jesus did pray to be saved from death.

Look at Hebrews 5:7:
7In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%205;&version=47;

“to him who is able to save Him from death” is in light with the suffering Jesus was going through, that is, He prayed to the one who can save Him, but did not ask Him to save Him cuz to say that Jesus prayed “to be saved” means that Jesus will make previous prophets liars, and Himself a false prophet and Messiah.

It’s like if i am sick, i pray to the one who can heal me, but it does not mean i pray to be healed…i pray that His will be done…exactly what the passage says. Jesus prayed to the one who can save (in light of his death) but does not mean He prayed to be saved, otherwise every thing He said about His death AND resurrection after 3 days turn out to be false prophecies by a false prophet.

As to the use of God instead of Father, i do not see a problem with this. The Father is God. The Father is the Head…the Father is the One True God, and this does not mean that the Word and Spirit who proceed from the Father are any different.Whether you say God or the Father is the same.

(Matthew 10:19-20) But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, {20} for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Here we have Father and Holy Spirit.

John 14:26-27) But the Counselor,** the Holy Spirit**, whom the **Father **will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said .

Here we have the Trinity.

(Acts 17:24-28) "**The God who made the world **and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.

we know the God who made the world is the Father, His Word and His Spirit.

 

[inJESUS]

I think however that death in this context means Jesus may have prayed to be released from death i.e. the resurrection.

he already talked about His resurrection previous times before as a fact, not as something that “might happen”. He knows He will not only die, but that He will raise Himself, so how can He pray against what He already said will happen ( He will give His life and take it back again in 3 days).

 

[MH84]

InJesus,
I read a Good News Bible (Catholic version) which has a reflection question near the front that asks the reader something about (I can’t remember what exactly)… “God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit”. (What the question is about is irrelevant to my point).

The phrase makes it look as though God is the only God, and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are separate. Its mentioned not just in the reflection question I read. Its in the scriptures themselves. Christians also use this type of wording? Don’t Christians ever wonder about this?!

Doesnt that above phrase sound strange to you? I have to admit that for someone who is not Trinitarian, it wouldnt be confusing because they see God separate from Jesus. But Catholics believe Jesus is God.

For a Catholic, the phrase, “God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit” is like saying “Trinity/Deity, Jesus and the Holy Spirit”. If a Trinitarian excepts this, doesnt that mean that either God the Father is not mentioned, or God is seperate from Jesus and the Holy Spirit from that phrase.

 

[elt1956]

MH84:
This question was the difficulty between the Western and the Greek Orthodox ?Catholic churches around the 4th Century. The Greek Orthodox believed in subordination. After many arguments, bloodshed and battles, the Western Church proclaimed that the belief in the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirt meant the three persons of the Trinity were equal and said that was that. Athanasius had a hand in this too. The G.O. refused to accept the belief and the result was the shism between the G.O and the RCC. The heresy was called Arianism. Just a bit of history. Interesting that question was brought up on a Roman Catholic forum. Peace.

 

[inJESUS]

MH84, we do not believe the Father is Jesus or the Holy Spirit. We do believe they are distinct, not seperate. You cannot separate God from His Word and Spirit, but you make a distinction in position where God is the Father, yet His Word and Spirit are distinct from the Father (they proceed from Him) yet equal in essence because the Source that begot them eternally is the Father. In this respect, the Father is the Only true God, but The Father’s Word and Wisdom are The Father’s own Wisdom and Spirit so they are distinct but the same one God. You cannot talk about the Father without talking as well about His Wisdom and Spirit since the Father, His Wisdom and Spirit is who God is.

In other words, The Wisdom and Spirit have always existed with the Father…you just cannot seperate them, but you make a distinction because the Father was never without His Wisdom and Spirit.

 

[Angelos]

Sure they do. Jesus was tempted as humans are not as God would be, yet he resisted sin.

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jesus cried and prayed to God to save his life as a man would. God doesn’t pray to anyone to save his life:

Hebrews 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

So it’s fantasy to say Jesus wasn’t a human person.

It is fantasy of yours to presume that Jesus was a human person! I am sick of reminding people to read a biblical verse in its context. Look what the author of the epistle to the Hebrews says about the personality of Jesus:

Hebrews 5:7-8 In the days of His flesh, Christ offered both requests and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death and he was heard because of his devotion. Although he was the son of God, he learned obedience through the things he suffered.

This verse makes it clear that Jesus in human flesh was the same person as the Son. Jesus was one undivided person even after the incarnation: the Son. (His personality was only divine).

You have not learned to distinguish NATURE from PERSONALITY yet.

God is omnipotent, Jesus is not because he is a man who needs power from God. If Jesus was ever God, he lost power to save himself as a God would when he prayed to God to save him, among other things. So what I’m saying is entirely true.

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Jesus was created, made from the seed of David. So I am correct that God’s spirit dwelled in a human prophet who spoke God’s Word, that’s how God’s Word is made flesh, it is spoken through a man not by God directly from Heaven.

Are you not tired of writing the same arguments over and over? I - as well as many people here -have already rebutted your claims. Your repetitive sytle makes me think that you are out of arguments.

Jesus never lost His divine personality or His divine nature. His divine nature underwent occultation. You should study linguistics and logic to see that restriction does not denote loss or replacement.

You just don’t understand what SON OF GOD means. It’s not a claim of divinity, it’s a claim of power from God.

Romans 8:14 For as **many **as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Show me one single verse from the NT where Jesus agrees that all the prophets of the OT were sons of God since they all claimed power from God.

So did Jesus since he is the resurrected son of David and Bathsheba who died as a child for David’s sin, that’s why there was a virgin birth, he was resurrected from the dead into Mary’s womb so he could live again to claim the throne.

Biblical evidence from the NT that Jesus was the resurrected son of Bathsheba??? Base your arguments on the NT instead of your wishful thinking please.

It’s because God gave Moses power to make miracles happen like God would. And Moses spoke the Word of God to Aaron. So he was like God on earth. Same as Jesus, they are spokesmen for God.

Yet the Gospel from the first declares Jesus superior to Moses: The Law was given through Moses, but the truth and grace came through Jesus Christ.

Neither the OT nor the NT teach that Moses is the Word, who takes flesh and dwells among us and comes to His own people to be rejected by them.

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.

 

[elt1956]

MH84, we do not believe the Father is Jesus or the Holy Spirit. We do believe they are distinct, not seperate. You cannot separate God from His Word and Spirit, but you make a distinction in position where God is the Father, yet His Word and Spirit are distinct from the Father (they proceed from Him) yet equal in essence because the Source that begot them eternally is the Father. In this respect, the Father is the Only true God, but The Father’s Word and Wisdom are The Father’s own Wisdom and Spirit so they are distinct but the same one God. You cannot talk about the Father without talking as well about His Wisdom and Spirit since the Father, His Wisdom and Spirit is who God is.

In other words, The Wisdom and Spirit have always existed with the Father…you just cannot seperate them, but you make a distinction because the Father was never without His Wisdom and Spirit.

Where did you find this explanation? If I am reading it right, it is the best explanation, since St. Patrick’s of the Trinity I have read Peace.

 

[inJESUS]

Where did you find this explanation? If I am reading it right, it is the best explanation, since St. Patrick’s of the Trinity I have read Peace.

thank you
these are my words …am glad am explaining myself well in English…i’ll check St. Patricks explanation

 

[Angelos]

This question was the difficulty between the Western and the Greek Orthodox ?Catholic churches around the 4th Century. The Greek Orthodox believed in subordination. After many arguments, bloodshed and battles, the Western Church proclaimed that the belief in the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirt meant the three persons of the Trinity were equal and said that was that. Athanasius had a hand in this too. The G.O. refused to accept the belief and the result was the shism between the G.O and the RCC. The heresy was called Arianism. Just a bit of history. Interesting that question was brought up on a Roman Catholic forum. Peace.

This assertion of yours goes against history of Christianity and the Trinitarian belief of the Greek Church. I am a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church and a natural believer in the Triune God.

Arianism was a heresy condemned by both Churches of Christianity in 325 A.D. The shism between the Western and Eastern Churches took place centuries later than the condemnation of the Arian heresy, in 1054 A.D.

The Eastern Church had never endorsed the Arian heresy, which taught that the Logos (Word) was the first creature God the Father directly created before making him His assistant in creation.

Besides, belief in the subordination of one person to another in the Godhead does not denote their inferiority and does not result in the denial of Jesus’ and Holy Spirit’s divinity.

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.

 

[elt1956]

This assertion of yours goes against history of Christianity and the Trinitarian belief of the Greek Church. I am a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church and a natural believer in the Triune God.

Arianism was a heresy condemned by both Churches of Christianity in 325 A.D. The shism between the Western and Eastern Churches took place centuries later than the condemnation of the Arian heresy, in 1054 A.D.

The Eastern Church had never endorsed the Arian heresy, which taught that the Logos (Word) was the first creature God the Father directly created before making him His assistant in creation.

Besides, belief in the subordination of one person to another in the Godhead does not denote their inferiority and does not result in the denial of Jesus’ and Holy Spirit’s divinity.

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.

You will note please, I do have a question after Greek? Orthodox. And you are absolutely correct, I remember now the final schism, " I think" (correct me if I am wrong) came in the time of the Emperor Theodosius? sp.? But I do know the battle between some of the Orthodox? and Western Bishops had been going on for several hundred years. There are so many Eastern Churches that I get really confused. Straighten me out. Which are in communion with Rome and which are not??? Or is it only the Russian Orthodox church that is not in communion??? Help please. I have just started to read about this and I will keep my mouth shut until I know more. So sorry. Thanks. Peace.

 

[elt1956]

This assertion of yours goes against history of Christianity and the Trinitarian belief of the Greek Church. I am a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church and a natural believer in the Triune God.

Arianism was a heresy condemned by both Churches of Christianity in 325 A.D. The shism between the Western and Eastern Churches took place centuries later than the condemnation of the Arian heresy, in 1054 A.D.

The Eastern Church had never endorsed the Arian heresy, which taught that the Logos (Word) was the first creature God the Father directly created before making him His assistant in creation.

Besides, belief in the subordination of one person to another in the Godhead does not denote their inferiority and does not result in the denial of Jesus’ and Holy Spirit’s divinity.

Angelos, I don’t think this is the final word in the final decision of the person of the Trinity between East and West. There were many arguments before the final statement by the Western Catholic Church and this was “one” of many of the attempts at reconciliation by the Arianists between them…

the Logos (Word) was the first creature God the Father directly created before making him His assistant in creation

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.

 

[Angelos]

You will note please, I do have a question after Greek? Orthodox. And you are absolutely correct, I remember now the final schism, " I think" (correct me if I am wrong) came in the time of the Emperor Theodosius? sp.? But I do know the battle between some of the Orthodox? and Western Bishops had been going on for several hundred years. There are so many Eastern Churches that I get really confused. Straighten me out. Which are in communion with Rome and which are not??? Or is it only the Russian Orthodox church that is not in communion??? Help please. I have just started to read about this and I will keep my mouth shut until I know more. So sorry. Thanks. Peace.

No problem

First, I would like to know what you mean when you say “There are many Eastern Churches”? I am here to represent the view of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Although there are many autonomous Eastern Churches - Assyrian Church, Copts, Ethiopian Church, Armenian Apostolic Church - they cannot be considered Orthodox since they are not in union with the Orthodox Churches following the Byzantine tradition.

The additions of country names to the Orthodox Church did not take place until the late 19th century. After the French Revolution, many communities of the Orthodox Church gained independence from the Ottoman reign and set up their national and semi-autonomous churches. However, they are still Orthodox since they are affiliated with the ancient Patriarchates of Christianity (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem)

Although many nations of the Orthodox faith have their peculiar patriarch for the ecclesiastical administration, they are not autonomous churches (Bulgarian patriarch, Serbian patriarch,
Romanian patriarch and others).

The Russian Orthodox Church is in communion with the other Orthodox Churches, but she sometimes raises objections to the “Ecumenical” title used by the Patriarch in Constantinople (now Istanbul). This is because the Russian Orthodox Church declared herself the third Rome after the fall of Constantinople, which had been named the second Rome.

In short, all these Churches with different names and patriarchs referring to different nationalities of the same Orthodox faith have never supported the Arian heresy, but have always defended the traditional faith in the Holy Trinity.

Peace to all,
Angelos N.B.

 

[Angelos]

MH84 wrote:

Okay, I’ll try to re-explain what I mean that Ive found a bit confusing:

When Jesus says something like: “God is my Father”, or “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God…” (John 17:3), He is in effect referring to His Father being the Godhead. Why I say this is because when Jesus says “God”, He didn’t clarify which Person of God He was praying to i.e. the Father or the Holy Spirit. Why didnt Jesus say “God the Father”? That would have clarified to everyone, including us, that Jesus thought He was God too. He seems to have said that His God is the Godhead (who consists of one Person).

Angelos responds:

It is clear in John 17 who Jesus addresses when He says “you are the only true God”:

17:1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he looked upward to heaven and said, “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, so that your Son may glorify you.

MH84 wrote:

When Jesus said “My God”, what did He mean (in effect): “My God the Father” or “My Deity”? If the latter, this would mean that His Father was greater than He.

In Trinitarian doctrine “God the Father” is the first Person of the Trinity, however Jesus sometimes doesnt make this distinction. Jesus in effect uses the term “God” in a way that is equal to saying “Godhead”. That would mean that His Father is the only almighty God.

Angelos responds:

God always refers to the first person of the Trinity since Jesus is called the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God. This is why when we say God, we first refer to the Father, who is the source of divinity and the primary person in the Godhead. This is why when Jesus says “My God”, He refers to the Father, who is both the Father and God of human Jesus.

MH84 wrote:

Okay, so far?..

When we say we “prayed to God”, what are we saying? Normally, we would mean that we prayed to the Godhead i.e. the Blessed Trinity; in other words when we say we prayed to “God”, that means we prayed to the complete Godhead, not just one Person of the Trinity. Otherwise, one would probably say that he prayed to the Father specifically, or Jesus specifically, or the Holy Spirit specifically. Its like if one said he was praying to the saints; you wouldnt know if I was praying to all of them, or to a specific saint for their intercession.

Angelos responds:

I believe that praying to saints is not a good comparison here. We do not have to divide the persons of the Trinity or distinguish their names for the sake of being specific because we strongly believe in the sameness of the divine nature (deity) along with the distinction of persons. This is why when we say we pray to God, we mean that our prayers are to the same deity (divine nature) that eternally exists as three distinct yet equal persons. If the Father is God, Jesus is also God because He is the Son begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit is also God because He proceeds from the Father.

MH84 wrote:
I know this may be confusing, but I am not fully able to express what Im thinking. I’ll keep going though , because I think I bring up a good point.

Now, assuming God is triune: when Jesus called His Father, “God” it seems strange that He would have called His Father by His nature, instead of who He is. Jesus used interchangeably “God” and “Father”, however with the Holy Spirit, He only called Him “Holy Spirit”, not “God”, unlike His Father. It seems Jesus never called Himself “God” either. But Trinitarians believe all three Persons of the Deity are “God”!

Angelos responds:

Jesus called God “His Father” to reveal His true identity (divinity) to humans. Jesus always spoke of the Son and the Holy Spirit as living persons directly associated with God. After His resurrection, He ordered His disciples to baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This made it clear that the Son and the Holy Spirit has **the same name **with the Father.

to be continued …