Why is "God" interchangeable for "God the Father", but not for the Son or the Holy Spirit?

[MH84]

Doesn’t anyone find it strange how in the bible, the Father is referred to by His Nature, but the Son and the Holy Spirit are not? Or put in another way, why isn’t the the Father recognised by His Personhood, but the Son and the Holy Spirit are?

I have wanted to know this for a very long time. In the Bible there are so many many times when “God the Father” is referred to as “God” in the NT. Actually, often the name “God” is used to distinguish God the Father from Jesus. I’ll post some quotes from the NIV to show what I mean:

Matthew 8:29
“What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?”

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

John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Acts 2:36
“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Acts 10:38
38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

www.biblegateway.com

It looks like the authors only thought that God the Father was God, because He is the only one referred to as having the nature of God.

A perfect example is how Jesus is called the “Son of God”. If the apostles knew Jesus was “God the Son”, wouldnt they have called Jesus, “Son of God the Father”, or “Son of the Father” or even “Eternal Son of the God the Father”. Otherwise it would be like me calling myself a “son of man” or son of a human nature, instead of son of my dad (or father).

**I hope you know where I’m coming from now. My question to some up all this (in conjunction with the title of this thread) is:

Since the evangelists wrote the Gospels after Jesus told the people to pray by saying, “Our Father…”, why was God the Father not recognised throughout the New Testament as such (Father), and not only as “God”? **Why I ask this is because I can understand how some non-Trinitarian Christians who take a scripture alone perspective like Christadelphians and Jehovah’s Witnesses etc say that Jesus is not God, and that He is often distinguished from God in the Scriptures (see the above qutoes). Why didn’t the authors of the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles when they wanted to refer to the God the Father, call Him “Father” instead of “God”? It’s as if they thought the One whom Jesus called Father was God, but not Jesus Himself.

** If the authors really knew that God is Trinitarian, why did they call the Father by His Nature (God), but Jesus and the Holy Spirit by their Personhoods (Son and Holy Spirit)?**

I’ll explain what I mean:
Persons:Father_Son________Holy Spirit
Nature:_______God________God____________God

The above shows that the Father is referred to by His Nature (or what He is), but the Son and the Holy Spirit are referred to by who they are (as opposed to what they are).

God the Father in the bible is called “God”. But “God” is only the nature of God the Father isn’t it? not who He is. The Son and the Holy Spirit are referred by who they are, not their natures.

Another perfect example of what I’m talking about in this thread is found in the Mass:
As we have all heard the priest may start the Mass by saying, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” This is taken from one of St. Paul’s greetings I think.

You see. Do you now notice what I mean? that the Father is called by His nature, but the the Son and the Holy Spirit are referred to by their Personhood.

After all this, what may main concern is, is that the authors of the books of the NT thought that God is a separate being from His Son. I don’t think they simply decided to call God by His nature, but by what they thought was both His Nature and His Personhood. I think they (the writers) thought that God (who we claim to be God the Father) is the only God, while the Holy Spirit and Jesus were not equal to God. Or we could say they didn’t know that the Son and the Holy Spirit were of the same substance as God. (I am not saying that this is what Catholics now think of course)

I know that is a controversial inferrence, and I would like to know if there is an explanation to what I’m trying to say in this thread. I actually can’t believe not many people seem to have brought this up.

 

[MH84]

This explains again what I mean:

John 8:
54Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” www.biblegateway.com

See what Jesus said? Jesus said to those men (Pharisees?) that they claimed that the Father was their God. Now why did Jesus say that? Couldn’t Jesus or the Holy Sprit be the God that the Jews were claiming as their God. They are all equal. Why the Father?

I think the author, St. John, thought that God was God - not God the Father in a Trinity - but God, the Father of Jesus, (and eventually our Father to a lesser extent as well thanks to Jesus).

Thus, maybe the authors meant the God is not “God the Father”, but God,(comma) the Father. IOW, not “God the Father”, but “God, who is Father”.

I really hope you understand what I mean before you post.

 

[MH84]

I’ll explain what I mean:
Persons:______Father_______Son________Holy Spirit
Nature:_______God________God____________God

Just in case you didnt understand what I meant by this small table, I’ll add a bit more explanation.

You see, not long ago I was reading from the Good News Bible. What I noticed near the front was some sort of reflection question. I can’t remember exactly what the question was about, but this is how it referred to the Trinity: God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I’m sure it wasn’t meant to be fully theologically correct, but it does emphasise what I mean.

In the Bible, the Persons that make up the Blessed Trinity are basically known by those terms arent they (God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit). The GNB was right in that regard. It is the Church, that has developed over time the Trinitarian formulae more sophisticatedly.

But, how strange would this sound to a non-Christian like Muslims. The bible basically refers to our God as “God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit” **ie. Nature, Person, Person **). No wonder there are so many interpretations of the Bible.

 

[MH84]

:juggle: :yawn:…

I thought this thread wouldn’t generate many responses, but I was hoping from at least a few. :coffeeread:

 

[MH84]

:yawn:

I thought this thread wouldn’t generate many responses, but I was hoping for at least a few. :coffeeread:

 

[Newbie2]

Well, you seem to be having a interesting conversation with yourself without the rest of us.

I’m not sure that this is the correct answer, but methinks the Jewish influence of the nature of God the Father, even through the evangelists in the NT, is what’s being reflected.

 

[japhy]

See what Jesus said? Jesus said to those men (Pharisees?) that they claimed that the Father was their God. Now why did Jesus say that? Couldn’t Jesus or the Holy Sprit be the God that the Jews were claiming as their God. They are all equal. Why the Father?

Well, as far as the Jews were/are concerned, their God and the God of Jesus were the same entity. The Jews knew what God what, but not exactly Who He was.

Another point to bring up: in the Judeo-Christian understanding of things, there is only one “god”, God. The angels are not gods, the Devil and his demons are not gods, there is only God, one god, above all. The reason Jesus is called the Son of God attests to Jesus’ unity of nature with God (the Father). Any son of man is man, but there are billions of men. Man is not “one” as God is one. Jesus, as God’s Son, is of the same nature as God (the Father) Himself. But it stands still that there is only one God, not a hierarchy of gods (no matter how few). Thus, the Son of God is of the same nature as God the Father, including unicity. Jesus, begotten not made, is one in being with the Father.

 

[Ron_Conte]

In the Gospel of John, Jesus speaks at length about the relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit. He goes so far as to say that ‘the Father and I are One’. He makes numerous other statements which clearly and emphatically assert the full Divinity of Father, Son, and Spirit.

The Jews did not understand that God is a Trinity. And Jesus could not begin His teaching with that unfathomable truth. So we find that Jesus speaks most clearly about the Trinity in the discourse prior to His Passion, after about 3 1/2 years of a teaching ministry.

The language used was fitting to allow the Jews, who believed in one God, to arrive at the understanding that God is also Three. So ‘Son of God’ makes for a better expression. It allows one to understand that the Son is sent by the Father, and also contains the truth that the Son is also God, for every son is like his father, and a perfect son of a perfect father must be perfectly alike, except in that one is father and the other is son.

The wording ‘Son of God’ also allows a comparision in which we are all sons of God. The similar wording ‘son of man’ refers to His human nature. So the wording is useful and is easier to understand than an abstract discourse on the Three Divine Persons.

 

[SD_Catholic]

I’m sure you are looking for a much deeper answer than this, but I would think of it as their nature being a “divine” nature rather than a “God” nature. They all are God with a divine nature… I’m sure falling short of what you want to hear, but perhaps someone will nail it down.

SD

 

[MH84]

I’m not sure that this is the correct answer, but methinks the Jewish influence of the nature of God the Father, even through the evangelists in the NT, is what’s being reflected.

I don’t understand what you mean here.

 

[MH84]

Well, as far as the Jews were/are concerned, their God and the God of Jesus were the same entity. The Jews knew what God what, but not exactly Who He was.

Who is the “God of Jesus”? There is no one greater than the Son according to Catholic doctrine. This is something that I am trying ti bring up here. This whole concept that Jesus is the “Son of God”, which seems to imply that His nature is different to God. Otherwise, if the NT writers knew the Son and God the Father shared the same nature ie. perfectly equal, they wouldn’t have used the term Son of God. Others were known as “sons of God”, and no one suspected they had the same nature as God.

Another point to bring up: in the Judeo-Christian understanding of things, there is only one “god”, God. The angels are not gods, the Devil and his demons are not gods, there is only God, one god, above all. The reason Jesus is called the Son of God attests to Jesus’ unity of nature with God (the Father). Any son of man is man, but there are billions of men.

Jesus called Himself “Son of Man”. Are you saying that He was referring to Himself as one of billions of men.

Man is not “one” as God is one. Jesus, as God’s Son, is of the same nature as God (the Father) Himself. But it stands still that there is only one God, not a hierarchy of gods (no matter how few). Thus, the Son of God is of the same nature as God the Father, including unicity. Jesus, begotten not made, is one in being with the Father.

This is not what is found in the Scriptures, but the Church used Scriptures when it established doctrine. To argue my point, the authors knew God is one, this is declared clearly and without doubt, but no where did they explicity say that Jesus being “Son of God” means that Jesus shared the same nature.

 

[MH84]

In the Gospel of John, Jesus speaks at length about the relationship between Father, Son, and Spirit. He goes so far as to say that ‘the Father and I are One’. He makes numerous other statements which clearly and emphatically assert the full Divinity of Father, Son, and Spirit.

I don’t agree that they “emphatically assert” any doctrine of the Trinity. Look at the context of John 10:30 in light of John 17:20-23. How do we known that when John wrote that Jesus said, “I and the Father are one”, that John meant that in no more of a way than we too could be one with the Father.

John 17:20-23 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will[a] believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

What if Jesus meant that we could be one (all believers) to the same extent that He and the Father are one? That would severely lessen the effect of the interpretation of “the Father and I are One”. Also, Jesus said that we too could be one with the Father and the Son! Does this mean that we will have the nature of God?

The Jews did not understand that God is a Trinity. And Jesus could not begin His teaching with that unfathomable truth. So we find that Jesus speaks most clearly about the Trinity in the discourse prior to His Passion, after about 3 1/2 years of a teaching ministry.

But we (Christians) seem to have no problem in believing that Jesus told people that He was God! How is that less complicated. If the Trinity is so clearly spoken, how come the whole of Christendom is not beaming out this truth as one, and with clarity? How come we have all these people (Christadelphians etc) who don’t see what we do? but perhaps love God more than us. That’s possible, at least more than me sadly.

The language used was fitting to allow the Jews, who believed in one God, to arrive at the understanding that God is also Three. So ‘Son of God’ makes for a better expression. It allows one to understand that the Son is sent by the Father, and also contains the truth that the Son is also God, for every son is like his father, and a perfect son of a perfect father must be perfectly alike, except in that one is father and the other is son.

What you are saying from a Catholic view is correct, but not neccessarily from a logical POV. How does being two perfect entities mean that they are perfectly alike? That is Catholic philosophy talking.

The wording ‘Son of God’ also allows a comparision in which we are all sons of God. The similar wording ‘son of man’ refers to His human nature. So the wording is useful and is easier to understand than an abstract discourse on the Three Divine Persons.

I am the son of my parents. We each have human natures. Does me being their son mean that I have the same nature as them? No. So how did the Church know that the evangelists were thinking differently when they expressed that Jesus is the “Son of God”, ie. that they actually meant He has the same nature, but different Personhood?

Finally, how do we know that Son of God is not just another way of saying that Jesus was the Messiah?

 

[japhy]

I am the son of my parents. We each have human natures. Does me being their son mean that I have the same nature as them? No. So how did the Church know that the evangelists were thinking differently when they expressed that Jesus is the “Son of God”, ie. that they actually meant He has the same nature, but different Personhood?

You do have the same nature as your father and mother: human nature. But it is not part of your parents’ nature to be the only human(s). God, by His nature, is One; there is no other. The “Son of God” (implying the Fatherhood of God), if he is truly a Son, has the same (divine) nature as his Father.

Finally, how do we know that Son of God is not just another way of saying that Jesus was the Messiah?

It is certainly possibly that the term “Son of God” was used in the Davidic sense by those who did not know there was a deeper sense. In fact, the high priest equated the Messiah with the Son of God (cf. Matthew 26:63). Whether the Evangelists didn’t understand is pure speculation, but if we accept the Scriptures as inspired, we can reasonably expect the Evangelists knew the meaning of what they were writing.

 

[MH84]

You do have the same nature as your father and mother: human nature. But it is not part of your parents’ nature to be the only human(s). God, by His nature, is One; there is no other. The “Son of God” (implying the Fatherhood of God), if he is truly a Son, has the same (divine) nature as his Father.

What I was getting at is not that the evangelists had to decide theological issues relating to how Jesus and the Father could be one. But that the evangelists might not have thought that Jesus is the same as God. Looking at the some of the NT scriptures, it seems to me that the authors at the time thought that Jesus and God were distinct.

What Im saying is that maybe the apostles thought that “Son of God” didnt mean the same as God, but that literally Jesus was the Son of God. An example: the ruler of a country has a son. That doesnt mean the son has the same nature of the father. Instead he has a separate human nature, and he doesnt have the authority of his father, unless it is passed on to him.

2000 years ago Jesus was known as the “Son of God”.
300-400 years later Jesus was officially defined basically as “God the Son” (this does not mean that Jesus wasn’t considered fully divine earlier on, but perhaps not by the earliest Christians.) Maybe, just maybe, the apostles thought that Jesus was the highest of all of God’s creation. Maybe they thought that Jesus was one with God in all things except being God. Maybe it wasn’t until the gentiles inserted their own philosophies into Christianity. I mean in pagan religions weren’t there others considered to be “sons of gods” like Alexander the Great or Hercules or whatever. It would have been no problem for pagans like the Greeks and Romans to believe that Jesus was divine.

It is certainly possibly that the term “Son of God” was used in the Davidic sense by those who did not know there was a deeper sense. In fact, the high priest equated the Messiah with the Son of God (cf. Matthew 26:63).

That’s right. The high priest said “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”. Notice he doesnt accuse Him of claiming to be God. You seem to be right that here, the priest seems to say that “Christ” = “Son of God”. We know that the Jews were expecting a Messiah to arrive, but in no way did they expect a Messiah to be God Himself. And here, the high priest has no problems seeing that Jesus was claiming to be Son of God. I think the Jews were upset that Jesus actually claimed to be the Christ. Anything more than that was then irrelevant. He would have been already thought of as committing blasphemy by saying that He was the Christ.

Whether the Evangelists didn’t understand is pure speculation, but if we accept the Scriptures as inspired, we can reasonably expect the Evangelists knew the meaning of what they were writing.

I can see Scriptures being inspired without the authors understanding everything that was being written. Otherwise, it would be a purely human message wouldnt it?

 

[MH84]

You do have the same nature as your father and mother: human nature.

I don’t know the technicalities. But from what I understand, I don’t have the same nature as anyone else. But that I have a human nature. I could be wrong though.

 

[japhy]

I don’t know the technicalities. But from what I understand, I don’t have the same nature as anyone else. But that I have a human nature. I could be wrong though.

There is human nature and divine nature. Having a human nature implies certain things: you age, you require food to grow, you have a gender, etc. Having a divine nature implies certain things: you are immortal, you require nothing outside of yourself for your existence, you are above and outside creation, etc.

An additional part of the divine nature is unicity. There is only ONE God. If Jesus has “a” divine nature, he has the divine nature, and he is a Person of the One God. I’m repeating myself in various ways. If you’re not understanding my point, I don’t know how I can be clearer. There is only ONE God, there are many humans. Your personality is built upon your human nature, but it does not change the fact that there is the human nature at your core. Jesus’s Person-ality is built upon both the divine nature and the human nature; as such, he is God.

 

[MH84]

There is human nature and divine nature. Having a human nature implies certain things: you age, you require food to grow, you have a gender, etc. Having a divine nature implies certain things: you are immortal, you require nothing outside of yourself for your existence, you are above and outside creation, etc.

An additional part of the divine nature is unicity. There is only ONE God. If Jesus has “a” divine nature, he has the divine nature, and he is a Person of the One God. I’m repeating myself in various ways. If you’re not understanding my point, I don’t know how I can be clearer. There is only ONE God, there are many humans. Your personality is built upon your human nature, but it does not change the fact that there is the human nature at your core. Jesus’s Person-ality is built upon both the divine nature and the human nature; as such, he is God.

Sorry if Im leading you away from the OP, but you seem to be talking about doctrine and philosophy relating to the divinity of Jesus. I pretty much know the basics of the doctrine. The point of this thread is to clarify what the terms used for Jesus actually mean, and also about who the Apostles thought Jesus actually was when He walked among them. If you read the first three posts, you’ll see that I bring up points about terms used for God and Jesus in the bible, not the actual doctrines and philosophical thoughts relating to God. No one has yet really attacked the main points in my earlier posts.

 

[japhy]

I don’t know why the terms were used the way they were. I know God the Father is often referred to as “God” and as “the Father”, and sometimes as “God the Father”; sometimes even as “the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ”.

But I also know that God is called the savior, and Jesus Christ is called the savior, and if there is to be only one savior of men, then Jesus Christ is Lord and God.

 

[SD_Catholic]

2000 years ago Jesus was known as the “Son of God”.
300-400 years later Jesus was officially defined basically as “God the Son” (this does not mean that Jesus wasn’t considered fully divine earlier on, but perhaps not by the earliest Christians.) Maybe, just maybe, the apostles thought that Jesus was the highest of all of God’s creation.

Actually it was discussed and proclaimed by the ECFs much earlier than that. Ignatius and Justin Martyr specifically spoke of this in their writings and some of the NT may not have even been completed yet when Ignatius wrote (AD 110 ). I would atleast think that if these men understood that Jesus was God than the authors of the NT probably had it figured out also. Many called Jesus “Lord” in the NT and he referred to himself as equal to God many times… I would think someone writing this even if they were in some kind of trance while writing could have figured it out when they read it after coming out of their coma

SD

 

[Noreb]

Could it be that the Trinity is not supported by the Bible?
Ask any trinitarian to prove that the Holy Spirit is the Almighty God.
The Trinity involves three, not two.