Why is the Father called Jesus' God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter XianThinker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
X

XianThinker

Guest
Why does the Bible say the Father is the God of Jesus if Jesus and the Father are co-equal members of the Trinity?

Here are the verses all from the New American Bible:
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (1Peter 1:3)”
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Eph 1:3)”
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (2Cor 1:3)”
“The God and Father of the Lord Jesus (2Cor 11:31)”
 
Off the top of my head, it is because each member of the Trinity has a different role. God could not appear,as He is, on earth, because our sin-saturated nature will burn up in the presence of the Pure Spirit. He is the originator of all that is, whereas the Holy Spirit motivates all living things, and Jesus is the flesh by which we are redeemed. The Holy Trinity is “consubstantial” meaning “of the same substance” yet each performs a different function. As a crude analogy, think of three different wrenches in a toolbox: a screwdriver, a pair of pliers and a hammer. Three different purposes, but all of the same substance - steel.

Jesus alone has a physical body, since divine flesh redeemed sinful flesh. However, that is a separate subject, being the hypostatic union of God and man.
 
It sounds to me like a round-about way of reiterating Christ’s divinity. Also, it introduces another way to praise him. (Much the same as if my husband were to say, "thanks to the woman who made my dinner and washed my pj’s 😉 It’s a way of praising twice! )
 
I think that your confusion comes from the way that the passages have been translated, if you don’t have the opportunity to see the way that the Greek has been written.

In the original Greek, each of your citations reads, “Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ”.

If you break it down, you have:

Blessed (Εὐλογητὸς)
God (ὁ θεὸς)
and (καὶ)
Father (πατὴρ)
of the Lord – of us – Jesus Christ (τοῦ κυρίου – ἡμῶν – Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ).

So, the subject of the sentence is “God” and “Father”. The phrase “of our Lord Jesus Christ” modifies “Father”, not “God”.

(If memory serves, then the construction that would mean that God (the Father) is also “God of our Lord Jesus Christ” would be "“Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ”. That’s just my “off the top of my head” recollection of Koine Greek grammar, though… 😉 )
 
XianThinker said:
Why does the Bible say the Father is the God of Jesus if Jesus and the Father are co-equal members of the Trinity?

Here are the verses all from the New American Bible:
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (1Peter 1:3)”
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Eph 1:3)”
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (2Cor 1:3)”
“The God and Father of the Lord Jesus (2Cor 11:31)”
Click to expand...
In each of those statements it’s saying that Jesus’ father is God which isn’t like how the rest of us all have a human father. And it calls Jesus “our Lord”. Since our Lord is God, it’s saying that Jesus is God. This is consistent with the Catholic Church’s doctrine of the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity.
Code: 
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" - Deuteronomy 6:4
By the way, the reason LORD is in all caps in some places in the Old Testament is because in those places it originally had God’s actual name. That’s why in the Old Testament sometimes God is called LORD (all caps) and other times God is called Lord.

"therefore thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I am laying in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation: `He who believes will not be in haste.’” - Isaiah 28:16
 
XianThinker said:
Why does the Bible say the Father is the God of Jesus if Jesus and the Father are co-equal members of the Trinity?
Click to expand...
They are co-equal members of the Trinity, as well as they are the same person.

To recognize this, ponder Jesus’ purpose for creating us and how to maintain the everlasting Kingdom of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace for all eternity.

Since Jesus lays down his life for friends, his purpose for creating us is friendship.
To create true friends, given He, by nature of being God knows everything, He must sacrifice all-knowledge because true friends do not know everything the other is going to do at every moment in the future. It is when the Son is begat, that He sacrifices all-knowledge, yet has exactly the same body as the Father. Please know, there is a greater purpose for having to remain the all-knowing Father, while being the not all-knowing Son. It is when the Son demonstrates to the world how to embrace being perfectly patient and kind, even in the face of unjust impatience and meanness, that the Son reveals the Holy Spirit to the world. So Jesus, as one physical person, is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

To maintain the everlasting Kingdom of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace for all eternity, there is a minimum of three distinct/physical persons.
  1. The Father, who remains the all-knowing Judge, who can search the depths of intentions of all people, so that He may determine whether one will always freely choose to be unconditionally patient and kind equally towards others and the self for the blessings of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace for everyone for all eternity.
  2. The Son, who gave up all-knowledge as to be a recipient of the blessings of the physical Kingdom of Heaven (Limitless Happiness with Unbreakable Peace)
  3. The Holy Spirit, the friend of the Son, who freely becomes perfectly and eternally one with the Holy Spirit of the Son.
So to answer the question:
Since the Bible is the Story of What Happened in the Creation of True Friends, and not the Science of Why and How to Create True Friends, given absolutely nothing, the Father being God to the Son is demonstrating that we should offer all glory to the Father for the tremendous sacrifice the Father makes by remaining the All-knowing Judge.
 
**
Philippians 2:5-8 “Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.”
As this selection from Philippians 2 shows, Jesus is God and yet emptied himself via assuming a human nature. The first Person of the Trinity is the Father of the Son, yet He can also be seen as the God of Jesus when one understands the Son to be “[humbling] himself” by “coming in human likeness.” One also has to keep in mind that the doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t fleshed out; the precise words weren’t being used to describe the exact relationship between Jesus and the Father. The followers of Jesus saw him as being obedient to the Father; and this would easily be presumed as being obedient to God.
 
po18guy said:
Might want to revisit your wording here. The Church teaches that they are the same God, not the same Person. One God in three Divine Persons.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for the suggestion to revisit the wording! Please consider the following line of thinking.

Catholicism knows:
-Jesus is God
-Jesus is a single person
-God is three co-existing persons

Therefore, there must exist perspectives which validate Jesus (1 person) is God (3 co-existing persons) and 3 co-existing persons are 1 person.

To solve these Paradoxes of Faith, I first like to consider the following principles:
-God’s Word is Wisdom
-Wisdom is saying one thing, which can mean multiple things
-The Catechism and Doctrines of the Catholic Church are God’s Word

Therefore, a person can mean multiple things. As defined by Merriam-Webster, a person is:
4b. The body of a being
5. The personality of a being

Therefore, the paradoxes can be solved by validating Jesus (1 body) is God (3 co-existing personalities) and God (3 co-existing bodies) is Jesus (1 personality).

In reference to my earlier post, I find that Jesus’ work to create true friends validates 1 body is 3 co-existing personalities, and the means to maintain the Kingdom of Heaven, the complete purpose of God Creating, validates 3 co-existing bodies is 1 personality.
 
jochoa said:
Therefore, there must exist perspectives which validate Jesus (1 person) is God (3 co-existing persons) and 3 co-existing persons are 1 person.
Click to expand...
If by that you mean that the one person (e.g., Jesus) is all three persons, then no, that’s not what the Trinity means. The members of the Trinity are consubstantial (i.e., the share the same substance), but they do not share the same person.
Therefore, a person can mean multiple things. As defined by Merriam-Webster, a person is:
4b. The body of a being
5. The personality of a being
Click to expand...
Except that the word ‘person’, when used theologically, doesn’t mean ‘body’ or ‘personality’. Moreover, when used theologically, the word ‘person’ hearkens back to the Greek word from which it was derived: ‘persona’, or mask. In attempting to understand theology, using dictionary definitions as a basis is typically unhelpful.
Therefore, the paradoxes can be solved by validating Jesus (1 body) is God (3 co-existing personalities) and God (3 co-existing bodies) is Jesus (1 personality).
Click to expand...
Again, no… not really. When we talk about Jesus in the Trinity, we have to be careful to distinguish between the Word (the eternal second person of the Trinity) and Jesus, the incarnation of the Word. So, attempting to hold Jesus’ body up to comparison to the persons of the Trinity leads only to confusion.
 
Gorgias said:
If by that you mean that the one person (e.g., Jesus) is all three persons, then no, that’s not what the Trinity means. The members of the Trinity are consubstantial (i.e., the share the same substance), but they do not share the same person.

Except that the word ‘person’, when used theologically, doesn’t mean ‘body’ or ‘personality’. Moreover, when used theologically, the word ‘person’ hearkens back to the Greek word from which it was derived: ‘persona’, or mask. In attempting to understand theology, using dictionary definitions as a basis is typically unhelpful.

Again, no… not really. When we talk about Jesus in the Trinity, we have to be careful to distinguish between the Word (the eternal second person of the Trinity) and Jesus, the incarnation of the Word. So, attempting to hold Jesus’ body up to comparison to the persons of the Trinity leads only to confusion.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, my friend! Please consider one last concept.

Given:
The Father=God
The Son=God
The Holy Spirit=God
God=Holy Trinity
Holy Trinity=Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Then the following, by some reasoning, must be true:
The Father=Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
The Son=Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit=Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

From my analysis, I would say that each are the 3 different persons in particular ways:
The Father is “soulfully” and physically the Father, and spiritually the Son and Holy Spirit.
The Son is soulfully and physically the Son, and spiritually the Father and Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is soulfully and physically the Holy Spirit, and spiritually the Father and the Son.

Where:
Soulfully would be in reference to a distinct person which has a separate will, which operates according to the same nature, in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Physically would be in reference to a distinct physical body. Each body being a single cell-like entity in the exact same image of the Eucharist.
Spiritually would be in reference to knowledge, image, and actions of the past.
 
jochoa said:
Fair enough, my friend! Please consider one last concept.

Given:
The Father=God
The Son=God
The Holy Spirit=God
God=Holy Trinity
Holy Trinity=Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Then the following, by some reasoning, must be true:
The Father=Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
The Son=Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit=Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

From my analysis, I would say that each are the 3 different persons in particular ways:
The Father is “soulfully” and physically the Father, and spiritually the Son and Holy Spirit.
The Son is soulfully and physically the Son, and spiritually the Father and Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is soulfully and physically the Holy Spirit, and spiritually the Father and the Son.

Where:
Soulfully would be in reference to a distinct person which has a separate will, which operates according to the same nature, in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Physically would be in reference to a distinct physical body. Each body being a single cell-like entity in the exact same image of the Eucharist.
Spiritually would be in reference to knowledge, image, and actions of the past.
Click to expand...
The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.

The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit.
The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son.

That’s my consise answer. I’m typing on my phone right now. 🙂
 
The_Scott said:
The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.

The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit.
The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son.

That’s my consise answer. I’m typing on my phone right now. 🙂
Click to expand...
Please recognize from my analysis, I shared that the Father is not physically the Son nor Holy Spirit, the Son is not physically the Father nor Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not physically the Father nor the Son.

I would personally find my analysis as in alignment with yours.
 
jochoa said:
Given:
The Father=God
The Son=God
The Holy Spirit=God
God=Holy Trinity
Holy Trinity=Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
Click to expand...
Good so far…
Then the following, by some reasoning, must be true:
The Father=Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
The Son=Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit=Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
Click to expand...
No… can you explain how you go from the first step to the second?

The Trinity isn’t a mathematical equation, such that you can do algebraic substitutions on the equations and have something that makes sense result. It seems that you’re essentially saying:

F = G
So = G
Sp = G
G = HT
HT = {F, So, Sp}

Therefore,
G = {F, So, Sp}
and
F = {F, So, Sp}
So = {F, So, Sp}
Sp = {F, So, Sp}

Doesn’t work that way.

If you want to use an algebra of sets, you might get valid results, but you’re not going to get what you want:

F ∈ G
So ∈ G
Sp ∈ G
G = HT
HT = {F, So, Sp}

But this only gives you

F ∈ {F, So, Sp}
So ∈ {F, So, Sp}
Sp ∈ {F, So, Sp}

Even so, we’re still missing an essential property of the Trinity, when we reduce the nature of a person in the Trinity to an element of a set.
From my analysis, I would say that each are the 3 different persons in particular ways:
The Father is “soulfully” and physically the Father, and spiritually the Son and Holy Spirit.
The Son is soulfully and physically the Son, and spiritually the Father and Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is soulfully and physically the Holy Spirit, and spiritually the Father and the Son.
Click to expand...
Where:
Soulfully would be in reference to a distinct person which has a separate will, which operates according to the same nature, in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Physically would be in reference to a distinct physical body. Each body being a single cell-like entity in the exact same image of the Eucharist.
Spiritually would be in reference to knowledge, image, and actions of the past.
Click to expand...
A couple of problems here. First, in terms of your definitions: ‘physically’ doesn’t hold, since there aren’t physical bodies for the Trinity – the Father is pure spirit, the Holy Spirit is pure spirit, and the Word is pure spirit (although there is also the Incarnation of the Word, that is, Jesus). Second, ‘actions of the past’ has no meaning in the context of the Trinity – the Godhead exists in an eternal timelessness. Third, to say that one member of the Trinity is an ‘image’ of any other member, would deny that they have the same nature – instead, it would be saying that they image the nature (which isn’t what the Church teaches). Fourth, to say that one person of the Trinity ‘is’ another member, does harm to the notion of and distinct person-ness of each of the persons of the Trinity.

Blessings,

G.
 
Gorgias said:
Good so far…

No… can you explain how you go from the first step to the second?

The Trinity isn’t a mathematical equation, such that you can do algebraic substitutions on the equations and have something that makes sense result. It seems that you’re essentially saying:

F = G
So = G
Sp = G
G = HT
HT = {F, So, Sp}

Therefore,
G = {F, So, Sp}
and
F = {F, So, Sp}
So = {F, So, Sp}
Sp = {F, So, Sp}

Doesn’t work that way.

If you want to use an algebra of sets, you might get valid results, but you’re not going to get what you want:

F ∈ G
So ∈ G
Sp ∈ G
G = HT
HT = {F, So, Sp}

But this only gives you

F ∈ {F, So, Sp}
So ∈ {F, So, Sp}
Sp ∈ {F, So, Sp}

Even so, we’re still missing an essential property of the Trinity, when we reduce the nature of a person in the Trinity to an element of a set.

A couple of problems here. First, in terms of your definitions: ‘physically’ doesn’t hold, since there aren’t physical bodies for the Trinity – the Father is pure spirit, the Holy Spirit is pure spirit, and the Word is pure spirit (although there is also the Incarnation of the Word, that is, Jesus). Second, ‘actions of the past’ has no meaning in the context of the Trinity – the Godhead exists in an eternal timelessness. Third, to say that one member of the Trinity is an ‘image’ of any other member, would deny that they have the same nature – instead, it would be saying that they image the nature (which isn’t what the Church teaches). Fourth, to say that one person of the Trinity ‘is’ another member, does harm to the notion of and distinct person-ness of each of the persons of the Trinity.

Blessings,

G.
Click to expand...
Excellent points, my friend! Please consider an additional point to state this more simply:
The Holy Spirit is God.
The Holy Spirit dwells within man.
When a person, perhaps the priest during the Mass or Confession, acts in oneness with the Holy Spirit, the person’s physical body is giving physical life to the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the person is the Holy Spirit or the third person of the Holy Trinity.
During the Sacrament of the Eucharist, he is acting in oneness with the Son of God, and during Confession, he is acting in oneness with the Father. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
 
jochoa said:
When a person, perhaps the priest during the Mass or Confession, acts in oneness with the Holy Spirit, the person’s physical body is giving physical life to the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
No, a person doesn’t give physical life to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is purely spiritual; there is no physical manifestation of the Spirit.

When a priest consecrates the Eucharist at Mass, he calls down the Holy Spirit, but he doesn’t become one with the Holy Spirit in any physical way. In the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the priest absolves sins through the ministry of the Church. He is acting according to the authority that Christ handed down to the Apostles. However, the Holy Spirit is not explicitly part of that action.
Therefore, the person is the Holy Spirit or the third person of the Holy Trinity.
Click to expand...
Again, no. The priest acts as an alter Christus, not as Spirit or even an alter Spiritus.
During the Sacrament of the Eucharist, he is acting in oneness with the Son of God, and during Confession, he is acting in oneness with the Father. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
For the reasons given above, I would say that your conclusion is inaccurate. Moreover, we cannot say that one person of the Trinity is the Trinity.
 
Gorgias said:
No, a person doesn’t give physical life to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is purely spiritual; there is no physical manifestation of the Spirit.

When a priest consecrates the Eucharist at Mass, he calls down the Holy Spirit, but he doesn’t become one with the Holy Spirit in any physical way. In the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the priest absolves sins through the ministry of the Church. He is acting according to the authority that Christ handed down to the Apostles. However, the Holy Spirit is not explicitly part of that action.

Again, no. The priest acts as an alter Christus, not as Spirit or even an alter Spiritus.

For the reasons given above, I would say that your conclusion is inaccurate. Moreover, we cannot say that one person of the Trinity is the Trinity.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for the continued discussion!

Please consider one question:
Do you believe Jesus Christ is the physical manifestation of God?
 
jochoa said:
Thank you very much for the continued discussion!
Click to expand...
It is a fun discussion…! 😉
Do you believe Jesus Christ is the physical manifestation of God?
Click to expand...
Not a manifestation, per se. Rather, Jesus is the incarnation of the second person of God (the Logos). It’s an important distinction.
 
Gorgias said:
It is a fun discussion…! 😉

Not a manifestation, per se. Rather, Jesus is the incarnation of the second person of God (the Logos). It’s an important distinction.
Click to expand...
Please share your understandings of the distinction.
 
No problem!

I would define a manifestation as something that makes a thing manifest, or visible. So, when a person does something charitable for another person, then that is a manifestation of God’s love (or, as it were, God is made manifest in the way we love one another). However, when you perform a charitable act, it’s not like God is literally present there (in any way that He wasn’t already).

It’s my understanding that the B’ahai consider a number of prophets the manifestations of God; they don’t think that these prophets are actually God, but are like mirrors, through which one is able to see God reflected.

On the other hand, incarnation means a “being made flesh”: Jesus is the Incarnation of the Logos, the 2nd person of God. In other words, it’s not as if the 2nd person of God was reflected in Jesus, it’s literally that Jesus (in a way unlike anything we’ve ever experienced before or after!) was made a physical being – both fully man and fully God.

Now, don’t get me wrong – when Jesus came to live among us, God was made manifest to us. However, since ‘manifestation’ can mean something less literal than ‘incarnation’, and I know you’re very precise in the way that you want to use words, I don’t want there to be any mistake: Jesus is the literal incarnation of the Logos, and not only a manifestation of God!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top