The Unwillingness To Accept God's Word As It Stands
Read also:
Further to the earlier article on the same topic, I have cut and pasted below here 3 replies to my questions from someone who tries to argue away that the Jewish word “ab” for “father” does not mean father but something else, claiming ancient Jewish cultural usage. He then tries to apply a similar argument with the Greek word for patēr G3962. . Pater is used 372 times in the New Testament, and like the Hebrew word for father, Ab H1 it is the only word used to refer to father. So, the 3 replies appear to me to be very contrived attempts to mold and massage the meaning of bible words and verses to fit into one's own pre-conceived notions, rather than let the words speak for themselves.
In the 1st reply, the writer claimed a “mistranslation”, but then he went on to point out the mistranslation is on the word “wonderful” which should be “pele”, not on the word father. Well, I am not contending the word wonderful. I am contending the reference of “Father” as applied to the Son. Is it for us to say that God is unable to manifest Himself in any way He wants? Is He not OMNIPOTENT? Is God so small in our eyes that we can limit Him according to our little brain size?
You will notice that all the replies made no attempt to provide an alternative word for father, whether in Hebrew or Greek. All attempts simply insist that there is another cultural use for the word father. All attempts ignore the fact that there is only one word-form used for father, whether in Hebrew or Greek. Of course we all know that there is always a cultural use of the word father in almost all languages. As examples, we use “Bapa Malaysia
The writer in one of his emails also objected to my calling the appearance of Jesus and Holy Spirit as "manifestations", saying:
"All three are eternal existing together so how can they be manifestations? and which one is tthe actual substanvce id all three are manifestations, is this too deep or is it logical."
To his objection, I will now quote 3 verses to rebut him.
- 1Jn 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
- 1Jn 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
- 1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
So you can see, the writer is convinced by his own beliefs that he failed to see that the bible had called the appearance of Jesus as manifestation. So am I wrong, or is the writer of the emails wrong?
Therefore, I am honestly very unconvinced by the explanation given by these emails. Now, you give the emails go and see if you can be convinced by them.
Well, here are the 2 definitions from the Strong’s dictionary:
Hebrew word for father:
Hebrew writing : אב
Transliterated as : 'âb
Pronounced as: awb
Meaning: A primitive word; father in a literal and immediate, or figurative and remote application: - chief, (fore-) father ([-less]), X patrimony, principal. Compare names in “Abi-”
Greek word for father:
Greek writing : πατήρ
Transliterated as : patēr
Pronounced as: pat-ayr'
Meaning: Apparently a primary word; a “father” (literally or figuratively, near or more remote): - father, parent.
---------------------------------------------------------
( Unedited )
1st Reply
From administrator@letusreason.org
To Chan Wangtak <cwangtak@gmail.com>
Date Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 4:32 AM
Subject Re: Jesus not the Father?
Greetings Chan,
this is a mistranslation it actually reads in the Hebrew
Isa.9:6 says, He is the everlasting Father. It is speaking of the Son who is called Wonderful (Hebrew- Pele); this word is exclusively used of God alone. It means unable to comprehend, indescribable.
How can a “Son” be called an “everlasting Father”? The word “Father” (Heb. Ab) is not used in the begetting sense. It refers to the pre-incarnate Christ as Creator. The son in Hebrew is called Abi-Ad the Father of eternity. ” meaning He is eternal, that He is the source of eternal life. He is also called the Prince of Peace a term never used of the Father since it is a Son who is a prince. The phrase “father of” needs to be distinguished from the person who Jesus calls “Father.”
The Father and Son is a relationship term, all three are one as God but not as persons.
In Christs service, Mike O
Reply No:2
From: administrator@letusreason.org
To: Chan Wangtak <cwangtak@gmail.com>
Date : 
Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:38 PMSubject: Re: Jesus not the Father?
Re: Jesus not the Father?Greetings ,
Well i have been brought up reading hebrew and that does not make me a scholar but it has me know more than just surface level arguments by those who are have embraced a false teaching.
when abi ad is combined there is more to it
when we are speaking of father of something or THE Father it is a completely different matter. let me explain further
Among the ancient Hebrews the term Father of, was always used to indicate Him who possessed the thing that followed. God the Father is called the Father of Spirits (Heb.12:9) and the Father of lights (James.1:17). This again does not mean a literal begetting of light nor Spirits. It shows God’s ownership and being the source of life. The Father of lights is a term interpreted in Judaism to mean He is the source of the moon, the sun and stars. For example the ‘Father of” strength means strong; the ‘Father of” knowledge-means intelligent, the ‘Father of” peace means peaceful, the ‘Father of” glory means glorious. So the Son is called more accurately the “Father of eternity,” meaning He is eternal, that He is the source of eternal life
Just as Jesus said to the Pharisees you are of your father the devil
The phrase “father of” needs to be distinguished from the person who Jesus calls “Father.”Just as the son is to be distinguished from the father.
To be called the Father there must be a Son. Which means he too is also pre-existent, and both eternally exist at the same time that is John 17 as john 1-The word was WITH God
John 17:5 "And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
He was with the father in glory before anything was created,. that means Jesus who is the son is God just as the Father is God. Thats two isn't it.He does not say I'm the father before world began but WITH the FATHER
John 8:42: “I proceeded forth and came from God, nor have I come of myself but He sent me.”
The Fathe r sent him, not himself Jeuss make this clear n Jn.16:28 “I came forth FROM the Father and have come into the world. Again, I will leave the World and go to the Father.”
In Christs service, Mike O
Reply No:3
Greetings Chan ,
it has nothing to do with east or west though but being biblical. God manifested himslf not as forms , you cannot find this anywhere. I suggest you read our oneness articlkes becvause as far asi'm concerned you fell for this hook line and sinker ( a western phrase)
the bible says he manifested as the son of Gods - ONLY.
All three are eternal existing together so how can they be manifestations? and which one is tthe actual substanvce id all three are manifestations, is this too deep or is it logical.
yes one can not have salvation if they distort God's nature of the Triunity, and yes if one denies the father and the son the bible says they are antichrist, do you read your bible?
write me after you have read the articles and we can discuss any obstacles, until then please read.
In Christs service, Mike O
Are you convinced? Can you even understand the “run-you-around” arguments? Can you see how a bible-educated person can be so brainwashed by previously drilled-in knowledge that he will try to devise all manners of unfruitful defense to protect what he has believed?
Jesus says in John 8:32 “ And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”.
