Local Church Discussions - View Single Post

Trapped · 06-10-2020, 08:01 AM

Just thinking out loud here, but I think the very words Father and Son do a good job of showing they are not the same.

God chose to use the words "father" and "son" in the Bible to best describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. A father and son are not the same person, and yet, amazingly, we often describe them in the same way Jesus used to describe His relationship to His Father.

"He's the spitting image"
"Man, when you see him it's like seeing his dad"
"I can't help but hear [the dad] when [the son] opens his mouth!"
"They act/sound/walk/talk just the same, don't they!?"

A son can act on behalf of his father. A son can be sent by his father. A son can, if appropriately endowed with authority from his father, represent his father. A son can be one and in agreement and in accord with his father. A son can submit to his father.

And yet, a son is never actually his father.

Why would God use such a known and understood earthly relationship to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son if the overriding concurrent similarities and distinctions didn't hold?

[of course, we are also talking about spiritual beings, so certain things like being IN each other doesn't translate well to the physical]

If Jesus IS the Father, then their being one isn't anything special because they are each other. They have to be not each other for their kind of oneness to be noteworthy.

06-10-2020, 08:01 AM	#108
Trapped Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 1,523	Re: Modalism Just thinking out loud here, but I think the very words Father and Son do a good job of showing they are not the same. God chose to use the words "father" and "son" in the Bible to best describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. A father and son are not the same person, and yet, amazingly, we often describe them in the same way Jesus used to describe His relationship to His Father. "He's the spitting image" "Man, when you see him it's like seeing his dad" "I can't help but hear [the dad] when [the son] opens his mouth!" "They act/sound/walk/talk just the same, don't they!?" A son can act on behalf of his father. A son can be sent by his father. A son can, if appropriately endowed with authority from his father, represent his father. A son can be one and in agreement and in accord with his father. A son can submit to his father. And yet, a son is never actually his father. Why would God use such a known and understood earthly relationship to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son if the overriding concurrent similarities and distinctions didn't hold? [of course, we are also talking about spiritual beings, so certain things like being IN each other doesn't translate well to the physical] If Jesus IS the Father, then their being one isn't anything special because they are each other. They have to be not each other for their kind of oneness to be noteworthy.