Christ as "the Everlasting Father"

[Katzpur]

Hello, all. As you can see, I'm an infrequent poster, primarily due to the fact that I am very active on two other religious forums and am already feeling myself spread a bit too thin. A question was raised on one of these other forums that I could use some help in answering. The subject was the Trinity. I had posted the LDS belief concerning the "oneness" of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Another poster responded by saying: "How do you reconcile Isaiah 9:6 where it explicitly states that the Son who is born will be called the everlasting Father?"

I replied: "I believe there to be at least three senses in which Jesus Christ can be said to be our everlasting Father. (1) He created our physical universe (under His Father's direction) and is His Father's agent in everything pertaining to our universe, (2) We become His sons and daughters in a spiritual sense when we are born again, and (3) He is the source of the resurrection of all life. Through His atoning sacrifice, we are promised a new, immortal body and eternal life.

He then countered: "I do see, completely understand and agree with what you are saying, but the Greek is strict in relation to the subjective noun of the Son, and the adjectives acquainted with this Son, is done so to rule out any confusion as to the names given to Him, that the Son owns these names, as if it were His sole name. The Son is called the everlasting Father, because He didn't just act through Him, He is Him. You must understand the scribes were very careful in making sure Jesus Christ, notably this one, when they transcribed the old texts after the fall of the Temple and Jerusalem to the Romans, penned out any possible reference without compromising any Messianic prophecies that could be held by another source other than Him in the Masoretic work...i.e. Simon Bar Jonah, yet in the Septuagint, written centuries before Christ, by 70+ scribes and linguists, appointed by the priests and judicial arms of the theocracy, within the Temple walls, all coming to 99% accuracy collectively, the grammar is clear. Christ was born of a virgin. He is the Holy One in the flesh. He is called the Prince of Peace, Everlasting Father, Mighty God, and the Counsellor as the Holy Spirit. Many misdirected theologies we have today, and those that have passed into history, are a direct result from this literary coup de etat of the Second Temple and Old Testament literature by the dwindling Old Covenant theocracy, seriously upset they lost practically everything that made Israel what it was, and the fact that this Jesus Christ, predicted all of it, as a result of His death by their hands."

To be perfectly honest, I'm not even sure I understood the point he was making. What did come through loud and clear was the statement, "The Son is called the everlasting Father, because He didn't just act through Him, He is Him." At any rate, I could use some help in responding to this post. If anyone can help me understand his post and know how to best respond, I'd appreciate it very much. Thanks!

[Mark Beesley]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not even sure I understood the point he was making. What did come through loud and clear was the statement, "The Son is called the everlasting Father, because He didn't just act through Him, He is Him." At any rate, I could use some help in responding to this post. If anyone can help me understand his post and know how to best respond, I'd appreciate it very much. Thanks!

He seems to be making a leap by concluding that since Christ is the Everlasting Father, that it is a title that Christ, and Christ alone can possess. Christ is heir to all His Father has, including His name. Thus, the name, Everlasting Father is Christ's as inherited from His Father. But you will never get a Trinitarian to agree.

[LeSellers]

Another poster responded by saying: "How do you reconcile Isaiah 9:6 where it explicitly states that the Son who is born will be called the everlasting Father?"

...

He then countered: "I do see, completely understand and agree with what you are saying, but the Greek is strict in relation to the subjective noun of the Son, and the adjectives acquainted with this Son, is done so to rule out any confusion as to the names given to Him, that the Son owns these names, as if it were His sole name.

One wonders how the Greek has anything to do with this passage as it was written in Hebrew.

I readily admit that I have little or no Hebrew, so the interpretation he advances may be correct (although I am with you: it doesn't seem clear at all). But he cannot honestly claim that the Greek proves (or even evidences) his stance.

Lehi

[David T]

He's referring to the greek? Umm, the Septuagint (LXX) doesn't even list those different titles in Isiah 9:6. It says, "The angel/messenger of great counsel."

Masoretic Hebrew Text, as in the KJV: 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, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

LXX: For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Mesenger [Angel] of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

He then countered: "I do see, completely understand and agree with what you are saying, but the Greek is strict in relation to the subjective noun of the Son, and the adjectives acquainted with this Son, is done so to rule out any confusion as to the names given to Him, that the Son owns these names, as if it were His sole name. The Son is called the everlasting Father,...

[Katzpur]

One wonders how the Greek has anything to do with this passage as it was written in Hebrew.

LOL! That thought did cross my mind, but seeing as I don't want to embarrass myself, I'd like as much evidence as possible before responding to him.

But he cannot honestly claim that the Greek proves (or even evidences) his stance.

I may just have to go with that, but any other thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

[Katzpur]

He seems to be making a leap by concluding that since Christ is the Everlasting Father, that it is a title that Christ, and Christ alone can possess. Christ is heir to all His Father has, including His name. Thus, the name, Everlasting Father is Christ's as inherited from His Father.

Good point!

But you will never get a Trinitarian to agree.

Oh, I'm sure of that, but this particular poster is one of the more civil ones on the forum, so I'd like to at least be able to carry the debate a step or two further before it fizzles out.

[Katzpur]

He's referring to the greek? Umm, the Septuagint (LXX) doesn't even list those different titles in Isiah 9:6. It says, "The angel/messenger of great counsel."

Masoretic Hebrew Text, as in the KJV: 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, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

LXX: For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Mesenger [Angel] of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

Oh, really? This is getting good! Thank you for that additional information. I appreciate it!

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The Title Page of the Book of Mormon, written by Mormon himself, contains a similar statement about Jesus...

"And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations

[urroner]

In ancient Israel, when a new king was anointed, he was considered to have been "born again," not in the Christian sense that he was saved, but that he was born anew and became a son of God.

From Margaret Barker's WISDOM AND THE STEWARDSHIP OF KNOWLEDGE

One of the best known passages in Isaiah is the prophecy read at Christmas:

[ELF1024]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not even sure I understood the point he was making. What did come through loud and clear was the statement, "The Son is called the everlasting Father, because He didn't just act through Him, He is Him." At any rate, I could use some help in responding to this post. If anyone can help me understand his post and know how to best respond, I'd appreciate it very much. Thanks!

So... God/Jesus is standing Beside Himself?

Acts 7: 55-56

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

He landed on himself in the form of a dove? And he was throwing his voice?

Luke 3: 22

22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

He's talking to himself?!?

Luke 23: 34

34

[BCSpace]

Christ can be referred to as a God and a Father, but he is not God the Father John 20:17. He is a completely separate Being. Hebrews 1 also teaches this, that the Godhood of Christ is a separate and distinct Godhood from the Father's.

[Mudcat]

He then countered: "I do see, completely understand and agree with what you are saying, but the Greek is strict in relation to the subjective noun of the Son, and the adjectives acquainted with this Son, is done so to rule out any confusion as to the names given to Him, that the Son owns these names, as if it were His sole name. The Son is called the everlasting Father, because He didn't just act through Him, He is Him. You must understand the scribes were very careful in making sure Jesus Christ, notably this one, when they transcribed the old texts after the fall of the Temple and Jerusalem to the Romans, penned out any possible reference without compromising any Messianic prophecies that could be held by another source other than Him in the Masoretic work...i.e. Simon Bar Jonah, yet in the Septuagint, written centuries before Christ, by 70+ scribes and linguists, appointed by the priests and judicial arms of the theocracy, within the Temple walls, all coming to 99% accuracy collectively, the grammar is clear. Christ was born of a virgin. He is the Holy One in the flesh. He is called the Prince of Peace, Everlasting Father, Mighty God, and the Counsellor as the Holy Spirit. Many misdirected theologies we have today, and those that have passed into history, are a direct result from this literary coup de etat of the Second Temple and Old Testament literature by the dwindling Old Covenant theocracy, seriously upset they lost practically everything that made Israel what it was, and the fact that this Jesus Christ, predicted all of it, as a result of His death by their hands."

Hi Katzpur,

Bold mine. I doesn't sound like your friend is arguing a Trinitarian position. Or if he is arguing such, then he doesn't have a clear understanding of it.

Jesus is not the Father, nor is the Father the Son... From my perspective, 9:6 is referring literally to many specific names for Christs, rather features or characteristics of Christ. The Eternal/Everlasting Father being a reference to the eternal nature of Christ. Certainly it is through his efforts that we have the opportunity to be born again and certainly his character is as the Fathers, so "Father" doesn't seem inappropriate however I think it causes some confusion as I think Christ as our brother is the best understanding.

In order for a Trinitarian argument to make much sense, the term "Father" must be weakened to the comparative, figurative or metaphorical rather than given the force of complete literalism.

Your friend seems to be doing just the opposite and it sounds like your friend is a Oneness Pentecostal or some other sort of modalist given his reasoning rather than a Trinitarian. Isaiah 9:6 is likely the strongest OT verse to support such a view and this seems to be the direction he is headed.

If he claims to be a Trinitarian, if I were you, I would ask him to clarify what he means by the statement I bolded.

Regards,

Mudcat

[Katzpur]

So... God/Jesus is standing Beside Himself?

Acts 7: 55-56

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

He landed on himself in the form of a dove? And he was throwing his voice?

Luke 3: 22

22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

He's talking to himself?!?

Luke 23: 34

34

[Katzpur]

Your friend seems to be doing just the opposite and it sounds like your friend is a Oneness Pentecostal or some other sort of modalist given his reasoning rather than a Trinitarian. Isaiah 9:6 is likely the strongest OT verse to support such a view and this seems to be the direction he is headed.

If he claims to be a Trinitarian, if I were you, I would ask him to clarify what he means by the statement I bolded.

Interesting observation. I'll have to do that. As we all know, every Trinitarian you ask to explain his belief about the nature of God and the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost will do so differently, and yet they generally all will insist that they believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. The fact that there are so many different ways of looking at it is just one more piece of evidence that it's a bunch of nonsense (as if I needed any more evidence).

[Mudcat]

Interesting observation. I'll have to do that. As we all know, every Trinitarian you ask to explain his belief about the nature of God and the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost will do so differently, and yet they generally all will insist that they believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. The fact that there are so many different ways of looking at it is just one more piece of evidence that it's a bunch of nonsense (as if I needed any more evidence).

As a Trinitarian I would disagree with you on the matter.. in regards to the notion that is a bunch nonsense. Given the tone of your reply, I think you have perhaps mistaken me as an LDS or something? I'm actually an evangelical Christian, sorry for not clarifying that.

I don't know that I am insistent on the doctrine of the Trinity, or actually see the Trinity as a doctrine at all. Instead, I might say that the Trinity seems to be the best explanation of the mysterious nature of God, as revealed in the Bible, that can be extracted from Scripture.

I wouldn't be so bold as to say the LDS Godhead is nonsensical, or something like that. But I certainly do think that the notion's of God's nature as regarded by LDS aren't persuasive taking the Bible into consideration alone.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Katzpur]

As a Trinitarian I would disagree with you on the matter.. in regards to the notion that is a bunch nonsense. Given the tone of your reply, I think you have perhaps mistaken me as an LDS or something? I'm actually an evangelical Christian, sorry for not clarifying that.

First of all, I owe you an apology. My tone was decidedly un-Christian and I hope you will forgive me.

I don't know that I am insistent on the doctrine of the Trinity, or actually see the Trinity as a doctrine at all. Instead, I might say that the Trinity seems to be the best explanation of the mysterious nature of God, as revealed in the Bible, that can be extracted from Scripture.

My question to you then would be why if the correct nature of God was revealed in the Bible, an additional "explanation" is really needed? Do you really feel as if the Creeds help you understand God better than reading the Bible does and do you feel as if traditional Christianity today has a better grasp of who God is and what the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is than did the Christians of the first and second centuries?

I wouldn't be so bold as to say the LDS Godhead is nonsensical, or something like that. But I certainly do think that the notion's of God's nature as regarded by LDS aren't persuasive taking the Bible into consideration alone.

Where do you believe they are lacking?

One last question... As inappropriately as I may have stated my opinion, I am curious as to why there is such a huge variation in interpretations of the doctrine of the Trinity. I suspect there is really only one valid explanation, but I can't count the number of times I hear one Trinitarian correcting another one on his or her interpretation. Granted, the LDS doctrine is less "mysterious" and perhaps easier to explain, but it does seem to me that a lot of people really don't have a very good grasp of a doctrine that is pretty central to Christian theology.

[Mudcat]

First of all, I owe you an apology. My tone was decidedly un-Christian and I hope you will forgive me.

Nah.. no apologies necessary. Your tone was fine, if I was LDS XD.... more of a misunderstanding than anything. No worries.

But if you sincerely feel the need for forgiveness from me, well... there isn't much I can do for you. You see,as a matter of practical policy I have found that forgiveness is overrated and I have discontinued its use. Reason being, that grudges are much more entertaining. kidding of course, were good, no worries.

My question to you then would be why if the correct nature of God was revealed in the Bible, an additional "explanation" is really needed?

First off, I think it would be quite impossible for the Bible to give us a complete and correct understanding of the nature of God. It certainly points towards a being that is Omni-"lots of things" or maybe better said Maximally - "lots of thing". If such is the case, then pointing towards the idea of God is about as good as it gets. I mean, since we don't seem to be Omni/Max "anything" there is quite a bit the falls beyond our reach.

edit add -

Sounds like I was being critical of Scripture, when such isn't the case. Has more to do with the notion that I don't think we are fully capable of understanding the nature of God.

What I mean is I don't have any serious expectation that the Bible or any other document, or gathering of documents, statements from individuals and so forth have any real capability of giving us a complete understanding of the nature of God... and even if they were capable of doing so I don't think such statements would actually be fully coherent to us in our present condition.

Certainly the Bible gives us some conceptual understanding of God, but understanding the concept is not the same as a full understanding. Much like a mathematics book might introduce the concept of an infinite series of numbers. I can understand the concept, but I can't actually comprehend all the numbers in such a string.

I hope that made sense.

As to "additional explanations", well I think we as humans try and simplify complicated issues by summing them up. Given your particular faith, I understand your dislike for Creeds. But IMO we all seem to hold to these summaries of things to some extent...."1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."

Which if your friend hasn't brought up yet, would likely be a good conversation piece, given Isaiah 9:6

Do you really feel as if the Creeds help you understand God better than reading the Bible does and do you feel as if traditional Christianity today has a better grasp of who God is and what the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is than did the Christians of the first and second centuries?

To the first. In a respect the Creeds give me a historical view of the summarized beliefs of the majority of Christians. In that, they have distinct value, but no, I don't read the Creed's on any regular as I do the Bible or afford them as authoritative in and of themselves.

To the second. It's a tough question. Yes I think we have a better understanding, but when you mull that in with the culture (I am American) that we have become.. I sometimes wonder. Was a Christian who had only heard a snippet of the Gospel but was prepared to be persecuted(perhaps even die) for what they knew was truth worse off than me.

Where do you believe they are lacking?

There are lots of things that LDS believe about God that the Bible doesn't teach. It's quite a laundry list.

I'll go for one.

In the Bible, I don't think an understanding that the Father has a wife or perhaps wives is available.

... it's just an example, but feel free to rebut.

Just another idea to kick around would be, is it possible for the Father to have sinned? There's been a thread or two on the topic.

LDS views seem to anthropomorphise everything in relation to God. I can certainly see the attractiveness of such a position but I think it's a somewhat contrary.

I am getting sleepy and can go no further.

As to your last bit on divergent views amongst Trinitarians. Well, could you give me some examples?

Regards,

Mudcat