Was the Father, manifest in the flesh?

[JesusIsAll]

I have encountered some people that are willing to acknowledge that Jesus the Christ was "God manifest in the flesh", but are not willing to acknowledge that Jesus the Christ was the "Father manifest in the flesh".
They need to, want to, distinguish between the "Father", and "God". Why?

If I envisioned three co-equal, co-eternal, co-existent, persons, each one with 100% of the qualities and attributes that make them God, God like, God in their nature, I would have three Gods.
If I assigned "personhood", to each of the three, and could prove that they were each individual persons, they were distinct one from the other, I would have only further proven I have three distinct and separate Gods.

Because it is not permitted to have more than one God, I would be required to follow the instruction of my church fathers and SAY I only have One God.
From my youth, I have always been taught that this would be lying.

I could be delivered from this three God view by acknowledging that what some call the "substance", the "essence", that the three share, that makes them "God", is the Spirit, and is actually what is the one God of the bible, even as Jesus said, "God is a Spirit".

However if for some reason, I wanted to continue with the three that are one God view, I would need to find ways to interpret scripture to support my three God view, and even convince the Hebrew people that their scriptures support my multiple Deity, plural person, three God view. I would try to get the Hebrews to acknowledge that their Old Testament taught that their one God was really plural, because if the bible would not require belief in only one God, I would be free to say or admit I have three Gods. I would try to convince all that it is OK to have my three God view.

If only God did not say He was alone, by Himself, there is no God beside Him, He knows of no other God.
This makes me wonder which one of the three was saying this, or was there a fourth, something?

Because I assign each of my three individual, distinct person, the totality of being God within their own selves, when the scriptures say that the Son of God was "God" manifest in the flesh, I can’t have is said that "the Father", one of my three Gods, was manifest in the flesh. I cannot have the Son being the Father manifest in the flesh, this would be one of my Gods, being manifested in another of my Gods, and this would not support my three God view.
I would need to differentiate between "God", and "the Father".

I would need to expound these, and other verses, in a different way, because they teach that it was "the Father", who was that called "God", which was manifest in the flesh.

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
(If only Jesus would have said I and "God" are one.)

Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. Joh 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
(If only Jesus would have said, "God" is in me, instead of "the Father".)

Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
(Why did He say, " ye should have known my Father also", instead of saying "God"?)

Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
(Why did Jesus say: he that hath seen me hath seen the Father, if it was not the Father that was manifested in the flesh?)

(Joh 14:10) Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
(Again, Jesus says it is "the Father that dwelleth in me", and doeth the works)

Joh 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. (And again?)

Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (And again?)

This is getting difficult, but if I acknowledge that, "God is (a) Spirit" , or that God is a Spirit being, instead of God is three co-equal, co-eternal, co-existent, persons, then I can understand that the eternal, invisible, Spirit of God, who is the Father in heaven, was manifested in the flesh, the human Son of God.
I won’t need to differentiate between "God", and the "Father", but then I would be more in agreement with those oneness people, that actually believe there IS only ONE God, and He is a Spirit being.

[Mike]

Are there Oneness who refuse to confess he is the Father manifest as man? How can they be called "Oneness?"

[Mike]

Hey this should be an easy discussion! All Apostolic Oneness believers accept the Father was manifest in flesh right? Is not that THE difference between us and the Trins? After all THEY confess that GOD was manifest in the flesh.

[JesusIsAll]

I don't know of any. n/t

[JesusIsAll]

Some (trinity?) people I have spoken with, are willing to acknowledge that Jesus the Christ was "God manifest in the flesh", but are not willing to acknowledge that Jesus the Christ was the "Father manifest in the flesh". They need to, want to, distinguish between the "Father", and "God". Why?

I posted what would be my reasoning IF, IF, I were a Trinitarian, what I would be up against, and how I would need to interpret the scriptures as a Trinitarian. My reasoning, IF I had a trinity mind set, WHY I would need to differentiate between, Jesus the Christ was "God manifest in the flesh", and Jesus the Christ was the "Father manifest in the flesh".

Why, IF I were a Trinitarian, would I be willing to acknowledge, "God manifest in the flesh", and not the "Father manifest in the flesh".
So far no one has disagreed that this would be a correct explanation of what I would be up against as a Trinitarian, and would not be the correct understanding of the Why?

This is posted on the trinity forum, are there any Trinitarians here, that can show that this is not the correct reasoning, and not the things that IF I were a Trinitarian, I would be up against? And this is what you, as a Trinitarian are up against, and is the Why you must differentiate?

[davidkc]

Trinitarians argue that 'God' in the NT sometimes refers to God, sometimes refers to 'God the Father' (the First Person), eg in 2 Cor 13:14, sometimes to 'God the Spirit' eg in Acts 5:4, sometimes to 'God the Son'.

On the CARM forum and this one I have asked them for the semantic rules that enable them to interpret the Bible this way, and to point to the trinitarian scholarship that validates it. Nobody has yet been able to give me an convincing answer.

In my book Is God a Trinity?
http://www.lulu.com/content/487809 (http://www.lulu.com/content/487809)
I go through the uses of 'Father', 'God the Father' etc. in the NT. I conclude that they are all synonyms for God Himself. I conclude that there is no trinitarian sense of 'God the Father' or 'Father'.

The upshot is, for this question, is that Trinitarians make a distinction where the Bible does not make one. There is no difference between 'God manifest in the flesh' and 'the Father manifest in the flesh' in terms of meaning or use in the scriptures.

[complete]

JesusIsAll: Some (trinity?) people I have spoken with, are willing to acknowledge that Jesus the Christ was "God manifest in the flesh", but are not willing to acknowledge that Jesus the Christ was the "Father manifest in the flesh". They need to, want to, distinguish between the "Father", and "God". Why?

Let's begin by having you clarify Who it was that was manifested in the flesh. Be very specific. Site your sources if other than the Biblical text.

[mizpeh]

Let's begin by having you clarify Who it was that was manifested in the flesh. Be very specific. Site your sources if other than the Biblical text.

Finished,

Why don't you do something original and either post a pro or con arguement in relation to the title of this thread.

You want clarification but you're not specific in what you want clarified.

I think the title is clarification enough. If God is the Father ONLY then the Father was manifest in the flesh. John 17:3

[evalafon]

Recognizing (and acknowledging) that Genesis 1:1 explicitly states that God (alone, after consultation w/his own will - Ephesians 1:11) created the heaven and the earth; and seeing that He (alone, again following such consultation w/his own will) created man in His own image; and that through the words of Isaiah 43:10 this same "One" God advises us that there was NO God formed before Him, neither shall there be another God formed after Him; and also observing that this same "One" God advises us in the words of Isaiah 44:6 & 8 that He (alone) is the first and the last, and that beside Him (that is to say, other than Him) there is no (other) God, no, none that He who possesses all knowledge is aware of, then it is altogether reasonable, logical, and proper for one to conclude that this same "One" God is none other than the FATHER! Furthermore, we are advised through the words of Isaiah 43:11 that this same "One" FATHER of all, explicitly asserts Himself to be mankind's "saviour," and other than Himself there can be no other saviour!

Based upon these rather simple factors, I have no difficulty comprehending the fact that this "One" God, who is the FATHER of all creation, and who is an eternal invisible "Spirit" (John 4:24) manifested Himself (which is to say, He inhabited, and therefore became visible) in a physical human body. Of course, this recognition is somewhat a simple matter for me, seeing that I have been granted this revelation from none other than the "Son" Himself (see Matthew 11:27).

Our Lord Jesus told the apostle Peter that the revelation which he possessed concerning the identity of the "Son" was one that had been granted unto him by the "FATHER." Now, if it was the FATHER who reveals this unto man, and the words of our Lord Jesus Himself (as stated in Matthew 11:27) explicitly asserts that it is the "Son" who discloses such revelations, then should not one conclude that not only was the FATHER manifested in human flesh, but that this same FATHER is also the "SON"?

Oh, how blessed are those, such as I, who have been granted the wondrous privilege of possessing the revelation of the true identity of Christ Jesus our great God and Saviour!

I pray that the things I've written might be helpful in explaining the mysterious relationship between the eternal invisible "Spirit," and His manifestation in human form.

[JesusIsAll]

The Holy Spirit, The Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Father, the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of the Son, are all the SAME SPIRIT that is the eternal, invisible, Spirit being, that is our one GOD.

"God was manifest in the flesh", to live a human life as the Son of God, the messiah.
John did not know He was the Son of God, the messiah, until it was manifest to him, by the visible dove.
Peter and the apostles did not know who was the messiah, the Son of God, until it was manifest unto them.

John was in the wilderness until it was time for his showing to Israel, (Luke 1:80), it became time for John to be revealed, manifest, as the one crying in the wilderness, sent into Israel with this ministry to be the fore runner of Christ. That is the reason John came from the wilderness, and was manifest to Israel. This does not mean that John existed with God before he was sent or manifested to Israel.

Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, was sent likewise as John was sent, but with His ministry to destroy the works of the Devil. Who and what He was, was unknown, until the time came that He was to be sent, and manifest to be the messiah, and the reason He was sent, was to destroy the works of the Devil. He was sent first to the Jews, then to the whole world, but not all recognize Him as the messiah, the Son of God, even though it was confirmed, manifest, that He was the Messiah, the Son of God.

God was manifest in the flesh, as the Son of God, the Son was manifest to destroy the works of the Devil.

[zealwriter]

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

[KJammer]

I am apostolic, but I do not believe that the father manifested himself in flesh.

God manifested himself in flesh. If God was a father before the birth of the son then he fathered some one else before the birth.

God became the father when the man Christ Jesus was born. Then and only then did God become the father.

When you say that the father manifested himself in flesh your saying exactly what the trinitarians are saying we believe when they say that we believe that the father is the son.

The father is not the son.

The father is spirit, the son is flesh.

We as apostolics need to get this doctrine right.

[Mike]

I am apostolic, but I do not believe that the father manifested himself in flesh.

God manifested himself in flesh. If God was a father before the birth of the son then he fathered some one else before the birth.

God became the father when the man Christ Jesus was born. Then and only then did God become the father.

When you say that the father manifested himself in flesh your saying exactly what the trinitarians are saying we believe when they say that we believe that the father is the son.

The father is not the son.

The father is spirit, the son is flesh.

We as apostolics need to get this doctrine right.

Hi friend,

I am afraid you have been listening to Trinitarians or unlearned Apostolics.

YHWH became the Father at his first act of creation. Thats why he is called the EVERLASTING FATHER or as some like to say the Father of eternity.

He is called the Father in various places before he begat the man Christ Jesus.

Like here:

6: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6

Israel knew him as Father:

10: Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? Mal. 2:10

16: Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting. Isaiah 63:16

Yes YHWH was the Father from everlasting and even before if we believe Isaiah 9:6.

[Brother Price]

I am willing fully to confess that Jesus Christ is the Father, and that the Father was manifested in the flesh.

[KJammer]

I am willing fully to confess that Jesus Christ is the Father, and that the Father was manifested in the flesh.

You are right, but that is a different father. If we are talking about the father of the man Christ Jesus, he was not that father until the son was born. Before the son it was the word.

You must differentiate what father we are talking about.

[zealwriter]

The Fatherhood of the Almighty comes by way of Him being the Progenitor of all things. By reason of being "the first cause of a thing" we make reference to the LORD, even in spirit form, as "HE". No gender in the spirit and no mark of TIME when He first brought forth. "In the beginning GOD..." therefore "HE". "All things were made by Him and without Him was nothing made"...therefore deserving the title Father even before the advent of the "only begotten (GOD in Skin) Son" whereas "Son of GOD" is not isolated to the New Testament "only begotten Son" is as far as being brought into fruition. So then Jesus Christ is simply GOD Almighty with SKIN. So was Isaiah wrong for calling Him the "Everlasting Father" or was he short of understanding? The Skin was brutalized and hung on a cross and forsaken but then rose again from the grave wherein the Almighty Placed all power in Heaven and Earth in. You the reader...your skin is only who abides inside which is your soul. This is why when someone dies we don't refer to the body as that person but we refer to the person's body as "their body". So then the body is who abides within; so do we say that someone else set up an abode in CHRIST despite the findings of Paul in the 5th chapter of 2nd Corinthians verse 19? GOD forbid! I declare, He is One LORD O Israel!

[evalafon]

I am apostolic, but I do not believe that the father manifested himself in flesh.

God manifested himself in flesh. If God was a father before the birth of the son then he fathered some one else before the birth.

God became the father when the man Christ Jesus was born. Then and only then did God become the father.

When you say that the father manifested himself in flesh your saying exactly what the trinitarians are saying we believe when they say that we believe that the father is the son.

The father is not the son.

The father is spirit, the son is flesh.

We as apostolics need to get this doctrine right.

God, an invisible Spirit, is also an "eternal" Entity, which simply means that He is not constrainted by nor does He operate within the limitations of time (as we mortals do, for we are finite creatures). For this reason we find that the writer of Romans was inspired to record that God operates outside of such time constraints to which we are accustomed, and therefore "calleth those things which be NOT as though they were." (see Romans 4:17) For this reason it is entirely possible for God to refer to Himself as "Father," and this BEFORE He begat the ONLY substantive human flesh within whom He would dwell without measure. On a more human level, it might also be said that God knows the final score of a ballgame even BEFORE the actual game is scheduled to be played.

When we find that God is referred to within the writings of the Bible, then it is imperative that we recognize it does NOT always necessarily imply/infer that God is speaking in the present tense only. This is where discernment comes into action on our part, lest we find that we are found guilty of mis-interpreting the sound precepts of the scriptures.

IMHO we apostolics DO possess a proper understanding of the doctrine pertaining to the Oneness of God, and His role as the "Father" of the "man," Christ Jesus, as well as His role as the "Father" of ALL things! When we speak of God as the Father of creation (or use this word when referring to His role as the Creator of all things), or with respect to anything which He has created through the power of His spoken Word, then we are accrediting Him as the One who is directly, and solely, responsible for such things coming into substantive existence.

Once again, I would be quick to call attention to the fact that Christ Jesus (the human "in" whom the Spirit of God dwelled w/o measure) informed the apostle Peter that it was the "Father" (Spirit) who was responsible for the "REVELATION" of His true identity (Matthew 16:17), yet we also find our Lord Jesus ALSO made it EXPLICITLY clear that it is He who is directly responsible for such an important, and absolutely essential revelation. (Matthew 11:27)

As a former Trinitarian (48 years), I can understand, and certainly appreciate the extreme difficulty that is experienced by those who wrestle with this important revelation. In this regards I am persuaded that the root cause forsuch difficulty in understanding HOW the eternal, invisible Spirit of God, who is the Father of ALL creation, can ALSO be the Son, rests with their refusal, or unwillingness, to set aside, at least temporarily, their preconceived notions/ideas regarding this matter, so that they might objectively consider everything the scriptures relate about this matter. This is precisely what our Lord advised us to do when He said that except we become as "little children" we cannot inherit the kingdom of God. I find that it is much easier to tell a small child, who has no preconceived concepts concerning the identity of our Lord, than I experience when attempting to relate the same information to an adult whose mind has been clouded/infested with all sorts of erroneous concepts concerning God's habitation (manifestation) of a physical human body.