There is one Father in the Godhead. Which is the Trinity.
Eternal Father is speaking of the world to come when God will be all in all....sitting on one throne. His name "shall be called" doesn't mean we can call Christ the Father now. So, I think it is a fair statement....it is not yet so and the scripture you gave makes it clear.
I think that the explanation you provided is less than obvious. You say there is "one Father in the Godhead. Which is a Trinity." My point being is that is what you say. Genesis doesn't say that, neither does Isaiah. What Isaiah does say can be read in the more literal sense and it still works perfectly. When one recognizes who Jesus really was, his name is then called the mighty God, the everlasting Father.
I don't think you understand perfectly. But that shouldn't offend you, as the Trinity doctrine says that the nature of God cannot be understood perfectly by men. If you recognize Jesus the Son of God as God, and do not persecute others that also acknowledge him as their Lord and God, then we should have no quarrel in this. Would you reject God if on that day when you see Jesus face to face, you ask him "where are the other two members of the Trinity?" and he answers, "I am he who created the heavens and the earth alone" I don't think you would turn him away. Thus, potential misunderstanding on this point is minor and moot.
But my point being, please don't say that associating the Son as being the Father is nowhere in scripture. Isaiah 9:6 does make that literal connection. It doesn't say "shall be as a father" but it does use it as the literal name.
... non conclusive, as angels would have been present as part of his creation already by this point, thus could have been the subject of "our" in the plural sense as well. There's no ground to be gained here, there are stronger passages available.
Romans 8:26
Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us[a] with groanings which cannot be uttered.
This is the way the worker bees work. Read what she wrote, and then read the verses below.
John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
Now for full disclosure.....the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are always together, always ONE, a Godhead in unity and never separated.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Now for full disclosure.....the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are always together, always ONE, a Godhead in unity and never separated.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
If "Father Son and Holy Spirit" are always together and never to be separated, and if this was something that Jesus also believed, then how come he left out the Holy Spirit in John 14:23?
It is not proper or respectful to refer to God as she, and it is hard to think of examples that would be appropriate to use the word it.
First, I will use analogy of common usage today. If someone has a gender neutral name in this forum, they may not bother to correct someone's assumption regardless of whether they refer to them as "he" or "she." However, if someone refers to themselves in the gender sense, it is taken as a sign of disrespect if another insists on applying the wrong pronoun after the fact.
Second, God has always introduced himself with the male pronoun. He often uses the imagery of being our father, never as our mother. I made a quick count, and I see at least seven times where God introduces himself as "I am he" using the male pronoun. I didn't count instances with the word in italics (added for English grammar by translators) nor where it was part of another grammatical structure ("I am he who liveth, and was dead, and am alive forever more" isn't part of this list.
Examples below:
Spoiler
Deuteronomy 32:39 KJV
(39) See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
Isaiah 41:4 KJV
(4) Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
Isaiah 43:10-13 KJV
(10) Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
(11) I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
(12) I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.
(13) Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?
Isaiah 48:11-12 KJV
(11) For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.
(12) Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
John 8:23-25 KJV
(23) And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
(24) I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
(25) Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.
John 8:28 KJV
(28) Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
Revelation 2:23 KJV
(23) And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
So to summarize point two, yes, at least seven times in scripture we are instructed to refer to God as he. "I am he" - it's one of his forms of identification, right up there with "I am the first and the last."
Third, when someone refers to God as her or a she, they are no longer speaking of the LORD of Hosts of scripture. It's now referring to the Goddess of the pagan religions. This Goddess is not our God. If you hear someone speak of "the God and the Goddess" this isn't referring to our God either. There is no Goddess, the Goddess is a false god. Please do not refer to our God as a she, as this comes close to blasphemy. Don't even paint our God with that brush or in that light, it's not what he wants.
Fourth, even if for none of the above reasons, please don't do what would offend others. Although I will point out that a Trinitarian probably shouldn't be concerned with referring to God as it, seeing as their traditional interpretation of John 1:32 is to say that the Spirit is the "third person of the Trinity" and the gospel of John refers to "the Spirit" as it.
John 1:32 KJV
(32) And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
This isn't about whether God is male or female. God created male and female, and as such I understand male and female to be his creation. However, God introduces himself as a him, he appeared to us as a male, and he identifies himself as "I am he." We shouldn't add names to him that are already claimed by the false gods.
Thanks, but I asked for scripture specifically saying basically what you just said; that it is wrong to do so.
As far as your analogies are concerned; you sound like one of the polytheists attempting to squirm out of admitting that GOD isn't limited to a person, or three, or the attributes or attitudes there of, yet that is what they try to convince others of, then when you say you understand and agree with the trinity doctrine , just not the coeternal nature of the material son, they say oh you don't understand, you don't get it. To which I should say "no ads, I get it, ibis you who equates man and the material vessel to the almighty GOD. What I am saying is that your analogy is not really applicable here.
What name did I ascribe to GOD almighty by declaring it isn't a he or she technically?
If "Father Son and Holy Spirit" are always together and never to be separated, and if this was something that Jesus also believed, then how come he left out the Holy Spirit in John 14:23?
Golly, could it possibly be that He'd already explained about sending the Spirit to dwell in us?
John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
I know....do yourself a favor and read the entire chapter. Then I won't have to keep spelling this out for you, and you'll be spared the effort of telling me I don't understand perfectly.
Thanks, but I asked for scripture specifically saying basically what you just said; that it is wrong to do so.
As far as your analogies are concerned; you sound like one of the polytheists attempting to squirm out of admitting that GOD isn't limited to a person, or three, or the attributes or attitudes there of, yet that is what they try to convince others of, then when you say you understand and agree with the trinity doctrine , just not the coeternal nature of the material son, they say oh you don't understand, you don't get it. To which I should say "no ads, I get it, ibis you who equates man and the material vessel to the almighty GOD. What I am saying is that your analogy is not really applicable here.
What name did I ascribe to GOD almighty by declaring it isn't a he or she technically?
Baphomet comes to mind. You can Google that if need be, I don't want to post a picture on this forum. Or if you use "she" then Venus or "the Goddess" is the next association.
God always presents himself as "he" even with "I am he" as identification. I really don't want to resort to the hammer approach here. Do you understand why when God says "I am he" you shouldn't be saying "God is she?"
... non conclusive, as angels would have been present as part of his creation already by this point, thus could have been the subject of "our" in the plural sense as well. There's no ground to be gained here, there are stronger passages available.
Golly, could it possibly be that He'd already explained about sending the Spirit to dwell in us?
John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
I know....do yourself a favor and read the entire chapter. Then I won't have to keep spelling this out for you, and you'll be spared the effort of telling me I don't understand perfectly.
But by your own admission in that explanation, and by your own model, they were just separated. First the comforter, but later on it (he) is united with the Son and the Father.
And the original question isn't just applicable in John 14:23, there are plenty of places (most all of them actually) where "Son" and "Father" are used together, but there is no "Holy Spirit" as a third component in the description. You have a model, and it may be helpful for some application, but it isn't a perfect model. I point out flaws when it seems that someone is being too dogmatic and placing this imperfect model a bit too highly.
Which is understandable, because "Trinity" is a man-made model, not a God-given or scripture-given model. As such, please recognize that it is still a model and not to be worshiped as more than that. I could make a model of the solar system which would be useful for explaining certain things, but it wouldn't be perfect in all aspects. That doesn't mean my model is trash, just that it falls short of the real thing.
The difference being Glory, is that scripture tells us that angels were present. Would you be able to snap out of your disrespect mode for a bit, at least to acknowledge the scripture?
Job 38:6-7 KJV
(6) Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
(7) When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
The sons of God were present when the cornerstone of the earth was laid.
You have a tendency to short non-answer and mock and quip and to act like funny emoticons trump having an a legitimate reply. I'd appreciate a legitimate reply instead. I have seen you answer sensibly before. Would you grace us with that consistency please?
But by your own admission in that explanation, and by your own model, they were just separated. First the comforter, but later on it (he) is united with the Son and the Father.
The difference being Glory, is that scripture tells us that angels were present. Would you be able to snap out of your disrespect mode for a bit, at least to acknowledge the scripture?
