JESUS IS THE FATHER

IN HIS DIVINE NATURE, IS CHRIST "GOD THE FATHER" OR "GOD THE SON"? IF CHRIST IS THE FATHER, DID HE EVER SAY SO DIRECTLY? ARE TRINITARIANS CORRECT WHEN THEY SAY THE ONENESS DOCTRINE IS "OPAQUE" OR "WHOLLY ABSENT" FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT? INDENTIFYING THE DIVINE NATURE // REVELATION OF THE PARABLE // CORNERSTONE OF ONENESS // ONE PLAIN STATEMENT PLEASE // ISAIAH 9:6 // "FATHER" AS A STANDARD TITLE // TURNING THE TABLES // THE FATHERHOOD OF CHRIST IN JOHN' S GOSPEL // JOHN REMAINED ONENESS TO THE END // ON WHAT DO WE STAND? // JESUS IS THE FATHER BY COMPARING SCRIPTURE WITH SCRIPTURE // WHO RESURRECTED CHRIST? // WHO ANSWERS PRAYER? // SENDING THE SPIRIT // DRAWING POWER // RAISING THE DEAD // JESUS AS FATHER IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION // ANCIENT OF DAYS // ALONGSIDE THE THRONE OR ON THE THRONE? // ALHA AND OMEGA // TWO ALPHA AND OMEGAS! ! // CHRIST, THE TABERNACLE OF GOD // THE LAMB WITH THE BOOK // SUMMARY // AN EXJEHOVAH' S WITNESS NOTICES SOMETHING // THE USE OF KAI // JESUS IS THE TRUE GOD

IDENTIFYING THE DIVINE NATURE When Jesus began his public ministry, the Bible records that mysterious and miraculous manifestations emanated from the Him. He could read what was hidden in the human heart, knew the thoughts of the mind, could see people at distances impossible for human vision, and even walked on water (Mark 2:8; John 4:17- 18; John 1:48; John 6:19). There was something within Him that enabled Him to do these things. Once, a woman touched Him and that Power went out from Him to her (Luke 8:46); on another occasion, that same supernatural Power shone from within Him and illuminated His body and "hew was transfigured before them and did shine as the sun" (Matthew 17:2. What was it that was in Christ, working through Him in supernatural power? Christ Himself gave the answer in clear unmistakable terms: "...The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10). The only divine nature that Christ ever identified as dwelling within Him was the Father. This is the biblical explanation of how Christ is said to be God, for "God was in Christ" (2 Cor. 5:19). Three hundred years after Christ identified his divine nature as the Father, men would set aside His statement and look for other explanations. Explanations that were more compatible with Greek Philosophy and pagan culture.. They

would postulate that it was a "divine logos" or "the second Person of the Trinity" that dwelt in Christ. Some would say that it was a "Celestial Christ" that dwelt in the human Jesus and so forth. The Oneness of the Godhead teaching is a return to the original explanation that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave to the world: "Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me." (John 14:11). To the further expansion of this truth the next few pages are dedicated. REVELATION OF THE PARABLE Jesus told His disciples he had hidden the doctrine of the Father beneath a veil of parables: "These things have I spoken unto you in parables (margin): but the time cometh when I shall no more speak unto you in parables, but I shall show you plainly of the Father" (John 16:25). This making "plain" the doctrine of the Father would require a special revelation to the believers: "...no man knoweth who the Son is, but he Father, and who the Father is but the Son, and to he whom the son will reveal him" (Luke 10:22). Without this "revelation" this knowledge of the

Father and the Son is "hidden" from the wise and prudent of this world (Luke 10:21). Those who fail to see that the Father is dwelling in Christ as God and seek to find him somewhere else are in the same pitiful condition as Phillip who asked Jesus "Shew us the Father," while staring at Him! (John 14:8). Such thinking shows a lack of revelation, and a dependence on speculation. CORNERSTONE OF ONENESS Trinitarians are correct when they refer to our teaching concerning the Fatherhood of Christ as the "Cornerstone of Oneness Theology." No one is truly in the message until they acknowledge Christ as Father. A person may proclaim Jesus as Lord from the "rising of the sun to the going down of the same," but until they can say, like Thomas, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28), they have made only half a confession. And to call Him God, and not mean God the Father, is a distorted confession, "for to us there but one God, the Father..." (1 Cor. 8:6). The chain cannot be broken. If He is Lord, then He is God. And if He is God, then He is Father. And He is! This is the line drawn in the sand, and the true litmus test of Biblical Christology. Anything else is a contradiction of Christ's own statement. ONE PLAIN STATEMENT PLEASE We are asked by our opponents to produce some direct statement that Christ is actually God the Father. And before we answer, they answer us

by saying "...of course such language is completely absent from the New Testament" (Boyd, 69). And as a result of this they declare that "UPCI exegetes have to strain to find...farfetched cryptic references to Jesus alleged identity..." (Boyd, 69). ISAIAH 9:6 We did not have to "strain" so hard or "fetch" so far to find direct statements calling Christ the "Father." In fact, one has been on record now for 2700 years. I am referring to Christ's prophetic Birth Announcement in Isaiah 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, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. That is as plain and direct as language can make it. "A son" who is "the everlasting Father." Does this satisfy our opponents? No! Like spoiled children they seem never to be satisfied, no matter what we toss into their play pen. They always cry for more! Dr. Boyd himself starts to back pedal by saying "...even if we were to concede that such esoteric interpretation were possible, there

are yet several basic considerations that immediately render it more improbable" (Boyd, 72). He then begins to enumerate no less than eight different alternatives to believing what it actually says. One more "esoteric" than the next. We are told it could mean: "Father- forever," "Father for all times," "he will not be a despot," "Messiah's paternal role," "Father over his children," "good shepherd," "Father of all ages," "Lord of Time and History" (Boyd, 71-73). Theologians from everywhere are recruited in this effort: Leupold, Herbert, Alexander, Mauchline, Young, Wainright, Barnes, and Bowman (Boyd, 71- 73). Think of it. Eight different interpretations, eight different theologians, nearly seven hundred words, all mustered up in battle array to explain (explain away, that is) just one word - "Father." It seems like an awful lot of firetrucks for such a small fire! And still it won't go out! There is nothing they can do with it no matter how hard they try. The more they chew it, the bigger it gets. they can't swallow any of these interpretations themselves, and they want us to. None of these so-called explanations satisfy them. I read these more and more when I was a Trinitarian, so I ought to know! They will quote and cite anyone, no matter how far afield, to try and thwart this verse's impact. It doesn't matter who they are,

"Catholic, Protestant or Jew; Eskimo, Hottentot or Sioux." As long as they have something to say. Any alternative is better to them than believing what it says - Jesus is the Father. They have no qualms about changing "Father" into "Shepherd," "Lord of Time," or "Messiah's Paternal Role." And they accuse us of "straining" and "fetching far." What could be further fetched or more strenuously strained than that? Trinitarian theologians are not even consistent in this effort. For they will freely admit that the reference to son in Isaiah 9:6 is speaking to his Godhead position, but will deny us the same privilege concerning the reference to him as Father. What will they allow themselves in the first half of the verse, they deny us in the second half! "FATHER" AS A STANDARD TITLE In a desperate bid to blunt the force of this verse, we are told that the word "Father" was not a "Standard title" for God in the Old Testament; hence the reference to Christ as Father in Isaiah 9:6 couldn't mean "God the Father" (Boyd, 72). But let's not take Dr. Boyd's word for it on this point. We shall consult Isaiah Himself. We read in Isaiah 63:16: Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us

not: thou, O LORD (Jehovah- Hebrew), art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting. And furthermore in Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD (Jehovah- Hebrew), thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand. We have thus so far heard two "our Fathers" from an Orthodox Jew, and both referring to God as Father. Malachi bears witness to the same: 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? Malachi 2:10

David said, Wherefore David blessed the LORD before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be thou, LORD God of Israel our father, for ever and ever. 1 Chronicles 29:10 God commanded the children of Israel to call Him "Father" in Jeremiah 3:19: But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a

goodly heritage of the hosts of nations? and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away from me. King David was to cry unto God: He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Psalm 89:26 And yet we are told "Father" was not a standard title for God in the Old Testament. By the time of Christ, the Jews were already recognizing Father as a standard title for God, based on this Old Testament precedent: ...we have one Father, even God. John 8:41. Thus Malachi, Jeremiah, David, and Isaiah himself bear witness that the reference to Christ in Isaiah 9:6 as "Father" is a reference to Him as "God, the Father." Leupold. Mauchline, Wainright et.al not withstanding! TURNING THE TABLES Seeing we have produced a direct statement in which Christ is called Father, would it not be fair to ask our opponents to do likewise as respects their doctrine! We would like them to produce one direct statement which calls Christ the "Second Person of the Trinity" or even "God the Son." Seeing this is a concept they wish to impose on us, is it unreasonable that we should ask for at least one reference to that effect?

And seeing Dr. Boyd likes to define Christ as a "Personally Distinct Way" or a "Personally Distinct Fashion" in which God exists, would he care to give us chapter and verse for those two appellations? Certainly they would not demand of us, what they themselves are unwilling to do! What if, instead of calling Christ the everlasting Father, Isaiah said: "His name shall be called God the Son" or ... "His name shall be called Distinct Fashion?" Our opponents would wear out the verse from use, and demand that we accept it "just as it is written" with no quibbling over interpretation! But Father He is, and Father He shall remain for "everlasting" means just that! THE FATHERHOOD OF CHRIST IN JOHN'S GOSPEL The Gospel of John furnishes abundant proof that the divine nature resident in our Lord was God the Father, and not some other "person." In reading John's Gospel, one must always bear in mind Christ's definition of God. He said in John 4:24: "God is a Spirit." He did not say God was "three Persons" or even "One Person". God is a Spirit, and as such he no material or corporate parts (Luke 24:39). He is

therefore capable of indwelling the body of His Son, Jesus Christ, and using that body as his own and manifest itself within the body of Christ, thus making Christ "God manifest in the flesh." We will now examine the texts from John which establish Christ as the embodied Father. JOHN 10:30 The Jews demanded that Christ tell them plainly who he was. And he did. "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30). He did not state, as Trinitarians teach, that he and the Father were two distinct persons, co-equal in one substance. Rather he proclaimed identity with the Father in this verse. Trinitarians have always used this verse in a contradictory fashion. When arguing with Arians, like Jehovah's Witnesses, they gladly parade it out and say, "you see, Jesus is God - I and my Father are On." But when engaged with Oneness opponents they reverse themselves saying, "the word 'one' is not absolute. It means something like a husband and wife being one." Thus they never seem to be able to make up their minds. I might mention in passing, even though a husband and wife are one in a sense, it is not the same sense as Jesus and he Father. For no husband can say, "He that hath seen me hath seen my wife!" Dr. Boyd advances some of the traditional arguments against this verse when he says,

"...to be one with someone is hardly the same as being identical with that person..." And he uses the example of the Church being "one." He also makes the utterly astonishing assertion that Jesus clearly distinguished Himself from the father in the verses immediately preceding and succeeding John 10:30 (Boyd, 76). This invites examination which will prove the exact opposite of what Dr. Boyd contends. In the verses immediately preceding John 10:30, Jesus referred to his sheep, the true believers, as being in his hand (v. 28). Then he said the very same sheep were actually in His Father's hand (v. 29). The Jews began to wonder within themselves how the sheep could be simultaneously in Christ's hand and also in the Father's. What was Christ asserting? Was His hand the same as the Father's hand? Christ, reading their thoughts, "for he knew what was in man," responded "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30). Instead of denying the conclusion forming in their minds, he confirmed it. The Jews understood the significance of this and picked up stones to stone Him, saying, 'Thou being a man makest thyself God." (John 10:3133). Now when Trinitarians are able to establish a "personal distinction" between a man and his own hand, they will have proven their "separate identity theory" also. And this is as impossible to do as to establish a "personal distinction"

between a man and his own breath, something which they also must do to prove their theory that Christ is not the Holy Ghost, for "he breathed on them and said: receive ye the Holy Ghost" (John 20:28). These tasks are herulean. They cannot accomplish them. They would have to sever from Christ His very hand and stop His own breath. Things they would not do, even if they could, which they can't. Thank God! Oh, but they say, the hand is used here in a figurative sense, it is not literal. Fine. We were hoping they would say that. Figurative speech always has as its goal the teaching of a literal truth. So if Jesus is using hand in a figurative sense, what is the truth he is trying to illustrate? Just this, a man and his hand are identical as to person. Therefore, if Christ's hand is the Father's hand, they are identical as to person. Therefore, if Christ's hand is the Father's hand, they are identical as to person. When a man asks "figuratively" for a girl's hand in marriage, he is expecting a complete person to come down the aisle, not just five fingers. The reality is always greater than the figure used to portray it. As far as the verses succeeding John 10:30 distinguishing Christ from the Father, they prove equally devastating to the separate identity theory. For Christ's concluding statement is: "...that ye may know and believe, that the father is in me, and I in Him" (John 10:30).

Some distinction that! In One last effort to thwart the impact of this verse, Dr., Boyd has found something truly unique while rummaging around in the basement of Church History - something used by the "ancient champions of the Trinity" (Boyd, 75). Christ, he maintains, cannot be claiming identity wit the Father, because if he had, he would have said: "I and my Father am one." he says the use of the plural verb (are) indicates plural persons. But what about John 3:11, where Christ uses plural pronouns and plural verbs in referring to Himself alone? Is there a "plurality" also in the Son, just because Christ says: "We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen and ye receive not our witness?" Or would Dr. Boyd prefer we re-translate it: "We speak what we knows, and testifies what we sees?" "No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you" (Job 12:2). JOHN 14:7- 10 "Whom do you say I am, From whence do you say I came? Do you know the Father, Can you tell His name?" So runs a couplet in an old Oneness song. But it asks a profound question.: Do you know the Father?

Phillip wanted to know the Father and asked Jesus... "Lord shew the Father and it sufficeth us?" Jesus immediately identified Himself as the embodied Father when He responded... "...yet thou hast not known me, Phillip?" Then was immediately added,... "He that hath seen me hath seen the father, and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father" (John 14:8- 9)? What could be more direct? Phillip asked to see the Father and Jesus rebuked him saying "You don't know me yet?" Using the inquiry as a spring board Jesus unveils the doctrine of the Father's indwelling. Believest thou 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 John 14:10. This is the incarnation of the Father in the Son. the Father, who is Spirit as to "essence," has taken up residence in a man, His Son, by supernatural generation, and is operating through Him. God is dwelling in Christ to such an extent that Christ has all the attributes and powers of God and can honestly assert that the prerogatives and titles of Deity. Jesus is the

human temple (John 2:19) of the otherwise invisible Father. The Father is therefore Christ's divine nature. The sheer power of these verses force Dr. Boyd to say something. He comments that ... "In a sense, of course, these verses do imply that Jesus is the manifestation or 'embodiment' of the Father. The main intent of John 14:7- 10 is to assure us that the 'Father' is not a different 'God' than the God revealed in Christ. One does not, and cannot, look someplace else to 'see' and 'know' God the Father" (Boyd, 73). What an admission! Jesus is the "embodiment" of the Father! Webster's Dictionary, or any dictionary for that matter, defines the word "incarnation" as ... "being clothed upon with human flesh, an embodiment in human form." Thus Dr. Boyd has admitted, wittingly or unwittingly, that Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the Father; for "embodiment" and "incarnation" are synonyms. We are even warned not to fall into the trap of picturing the Father (or Spirit) alongside Jesus, or what he dubs a ... "sort of horizontal tri-embodied Trinity" (Boyd, 74). Unfortunately he ignores his own warning, for we find him saying just one page later that...

"...Christ is the one who is at the Father's side and the one through whom we must go to get to the Father" (Boyd, 75). Sounds rather "horizontal" to me this "side by side" doctrine. A little later he starts to tone down what he had previously said about Jesus being the "embodiment" of the Father, by stating that He ... "makes visible ('infleshes' John 1:14) the love of the invisible Father, which otherwise would not be visible. But he is not himself the invisible Father" (Boyd, p. 75). Well this is quite a change. Now he just infleshes the "love of the invisible Father." That could be said of Mother Teresa! We are getting used to Dr. Boyd making bold Oneness sounding statements, thinking them over, then taking them back! JOHN 8:19-30 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? John 8:19. The Pharisees demanded to know the location of the Father that Jesus repeatedly referred to. This question, meant to be a slur on his nativity, prompted a very enlightening discussion. Where was the Father while Christ walked the earth? Most Trinitarians would answer that the Father was watching and waiting up in Heaven. Listen how one well read Trinitarian writer describes

the return of Christ to heaven after His resurrection: "He enters into the presence of His Father. He points to his wounded head, the pierced side, the marred feet...the Father's arms encircle the Son, and the word is given: 'Let all the angles of God worship Him' " (E.G. White, Desire of Ages, p. 834). This type of childish, divine homecoming scene is exactly what results from over 1600 years of preaching the "distinct persons" theory. How did Christ respond to the question, "Where is thy Father?" He answered: Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also. John 8:19 He further states: Ye are from beneath; I am from above: John 8:23 And we have learned that "he that cometh from above is above all" John 3:31 And he that is above all is none other than God the Father (Eph. 4:6)! In the next verse Christ says, ...if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in

your sins. John 8:24 At this point, now that His identity is a matter of life and death, the Pharisees demand to know who he is: "Who art thou?" they cry (v. 25). Jesus responds: Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. John 8:25 And who was He talking about in the beginning when they first raised the question? The Father, of course (v. 19)! Did they finally understand? No, for we read: They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. John 8:27 Though he had provided them the answer to their question by divine inspiration (v. 26), they still could not see beyond the veil of flesh. He finally says: When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself;... (v.28). "Ye shall know that I am He." -- that He is the very Father they have been discussing.

"I do nothing of myself" -- As a Son, or human, He can not do these signs and miracles. It is only through the indwelling Father that these works are done, for "the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10). The next verse is one of the most astonishing statements we encounter from the lips of Christ, for in one sentence He completely sets aside the entire Trinitarian scheme of things: And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; John 8:29. This is contrary to the traditions of centuries which picture the Father up in Heaven, sending the Son to earth. He was not sent alone to do this great work. If the Father was with him, then where was he? This He answers later when he says "the Father is in me" (John 10:38). Now all falls in place. The Father is with Him, inside Him as the divine nature; and this is the "I am he" the Pharisees failed to perceive, the one who came "from above," even God the Father, who is above all! Not willing to recognize the Power operating in Christ as the Father, the Pharisees blasphemously accused Him of having a devil. Jesus met the accusation by saying, I have not a devil, but I honour my Father, and

ye do dishonour me. John 8:49 He was not demon possessed. He was Father possessed! And they dishonoured Him. And he that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father that sent Him John 5:23 A Father that not only "sent him" but was "with Him" and "in Him." Jesus climaxed his discussion with them by saying: Before Abraham was, I am. John 8:58 He here the used the Jehovahistic "I am," drawn from the Old Testament. For it was Jehovah who identified Himself as the Great I Am (Ex. 3:14), and is further revealed as the father (Isa. 63:16). This assertion to supreme Deity was not lost upon his Jewish listeners for "then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple..." (v. 59). Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour. Isaiah 45:15 JOHN 12:44 He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

When you believe on Christ you are actually reposing all faith and trust in his interior divine nature, the Father who sent Him and was in Him. Those who believe in Christ, are simultaneously believing in the Father, for they are One.

JOHN 12:45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. The invisible Father is revealed and made visible in the flesh of His incarnational Son. For "God was manifest in the flesh" and "seen" (1 Timothy 3:16). JOHN 13:20 he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. Did you receive Christ as your personal saviour? Well, you received the father! JOHN 15:23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also. When a person hates Jesus they are actually hating the Father that dwelt in Him and spoke through Him. thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, Even in his prayer life Christ is ever conscious of the Father's indwelling and their mutual

interpenetration of natures. JOHN 17:5 O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. In the resurrection Christ will be glorified with the Father's own self or nature dwelling in His resurrected body. If the father's "self" is in Him, then he is the father Himself! JOHN 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. If Christ is doing the works that only the Father could do, then the Father must be in Him, for the Son can of Himself "do nothing" (John 8:28). JOHN 14:24 The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. All these utterances of things beyond the normal human range spring from the Father who sent Him, and dwelt in Him. No wonder He said: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63 They came from the great Eternal Spirit (John 4:24) and Original Life (1 John 1:2) that was

indwelling the Temple of the Son (John 2:19, Rev. 21:22). JOHN 15:24 but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. When did the Pharisees se the Father and hate Him? When they saw Christ! JOHN 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. Here is a Creed to repeat if you have one "I am in the Father" - This is the doctrine of the Father, for Jesus said, "I am in the Father and the Father is in me." (John 10:38). "And ye in me" -- This is the Doctrine of the Son. "For as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27). "And I in you" -- This is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, which is "Christ in you the hope of glory" (Col. 1:27). This is the true confession of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; and it is all Christ throughout "I", "Me" , "I". It all centers in Jesus! JOHN 8:16 I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

You will note that this verse is rather curious, in that it seems incomplete. Stops abruptly. there is no verb finishing it, simply "but I and the father that sent me." This is because he is describing his person. He is not "alone," for he also embodies "the Father that sent Him." He concludes the thought two chapters later when he says, "I and my Father are One." (John 10:30). JOHN 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, The name of Jesus (Jehovah- Saviour in Hebrew) is the Father's name. This is proven by water baptism which the Apostles were commanded to perform in the Name of the Father (Matt. 28:19). They consistently interpreted this to be baptism in Jesus Name, and so administered it (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 19:5; 10:48). If the name is one, then the Person is One, for there is One Lord and his name One (Zech. 14:9). JOHN 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. Through the indwelling of the Father in the Son, Christ possesses all the attributes of the Father in the Son, Christ possesses all the attributes and prerogatives of God. For by taking up residence in the Son, the Father has transferred all his powers to him. They are now Christ's.

That is what he meant when He said: All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you. John 16:15 and... And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. John 17:10 Col. 2:3 calls these transferred attributes his "treasures." Only by God being in Christ could this be possible, for the Son Himself said: "I do nothing of myself" (John 8:28) and... "The Son can do nothing of Himself" (John 5:19). Therefore: The Father has omnipresence, the Son does also (John 3:13). The Father has life in Himself, the Son does also (John 5:26). The Father knows all things, the Son does also (John 21:17). The Father has all power, the Son does also (Matthew 28:18). The Father has divine nature, the Son does also (Titus 2:13).

Every aspect of His deity is the result of the incarnation of the Father in his flesh. JOHN 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. How could Jesus raise His own body, the "temple," from the dead? the Son of God, the Messiah, was the Temple. Jehovah, the Father, was the divine nature which dwelt in it. and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, Mal 3:1 When Christ the Son was on the Cross, the Father withdrew from the flesh temple of his Son just before He died (Mark 15:34). Three days later he re-entered it and raised it from the dead (Romans 6:4). Thus, the divine nature of Christ, the Father, raised his own body or "temple" from the dead and glorified it. nothing but the doctrine of the Fatherhood of Christ can explain this verse. JOHN REMAINED ONENESS TO THE END As the Apostle John neared death, his vision of Christ as the Father and the Son did not change from what he had written in his Gospel. He writes in Rev. 22:3 and 4: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be

in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. God and the Lamb are described as a "him" with one "face" and one "name" - Just as God and the Lamb constitute one Temple, "For the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the Temple of it" (Rev: 21:22). In his epistles he taught the same message: Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. 1 John 2:23 He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 2 John 9 ON WHAT DO WE STAND? Dr. Boyd has stated that aside from our "cryptic" and "far fetched" verses of Isaiah 9:6 and John 14:10 the Oneness Doctrine has "simply nothing else to stand on" (Boyd, p. 69). Two verses, nothing else! Something sounds a "little off" here, to borrow one of his expressions. If we have just two verses and nothing else, why does it require a book of 234

pages to deal with it. It's an awful lot of printers ink to refute a "two verse religion." "Doth the wild ass bray when he hath grass" (Job 6:5)? Or is this simply "the speeches of one that is desperate, which are as wind" (Job 6:26)? As we have seen, far from standing on just two legs, this doctrine has enough legs to make a centipede jealous! The Scriptures we have considered are abundant in their testimony as to Christ being the Father. He is declared to be the everlasting Father; He is said to be one with the Father; the Father dwells in Him; He that sees Him sees the Father; He that hears Him hears the Father; He that receives Him receives the Father; and he that hates Him hates the Father. He is said to be above all. he said whoever believed on Him was actually believing on the Father. He announced he had the Father's own self dwelling in Him. The words coming out of his mouth, were the Father's. he said He had the Father's name. All the divine attributes of the Father are His. We are told that if you "have" or "abide in" , or "acknowledge" the Son, you have the Father also. The Father and Son are said to constitute one Temple, have one face, and one name. Six times Jesus said the Father was "in Him." The only divine nature He ever said was in Him was the Father. No miracle was wrought by any other, only the Father who dwelt in Him. The Son can do nothing of himself. It is the Father in Him

that works and speaks. His glory is the Father's glory; His honour is the Father's honour; His name is the Father's name; His self is the Father's self. Where is this so-called separate identity of the Father and the Son? They are not separate as to vision, for "He that seeth me, seeth him that sent me." They are separate as to voice, for "the word that you hear is not mine, but the Father's." They are not separate as to doctrine, for "whoever abides in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and Son." And they are not separate as to number, for "I and my Father are one." They are not separate as to location, for "I am in the Father and the Father in me." Pray tell, in what way are they "separate?" Did we have to "strain" or "fetch" so far to see this thing? Are these references so "cryptic" after all? How many times in our investigation did we discover Christ saying "I and the Father are distinct?" Did we encounter any text, even one, that said: "He that hath seen me, hath seen one of God's personally distinct ways of existing?" Did Christ ever thunder forth, "If you believe that I am the Second Person, ye shall die in your sins?" Yet in spite of all this testimony of the Father incarnate in the Son we are told: "not only is this teaching opaque in the Bible, it is wholly non- existent."

We have now been reduced from "two verses" to "wholly non- existent." One can only wonder, what Bible is he speaking about? JESUS IS THE FATHER BY COMPARING SCRIPTURE WITH SCRIPTURE In an attempt to censor honest study on the Godhead question, Dr. Boyd sounds a long and loud warning against what he calls "cross references." Bold letters on page 85 warn us: "Beware Cross Referencing Arguments." What, of course, He really means is, beware of cross referencing unless it proves the Trinity doctrine. For he himself uses cross references, and incorrectly at that! He takes references, that show Jesus Christ is God, and "crosses" them with other references that say Christ died, to produce the hideous doctrine that God died! This bizarre monophysite conclusion would not be possible without inappropriate cross referencing undergirded by the unscriptural notion that whatever happens to Christ's human nature, must also happen to the divine nature. The fact that God is "immortal" and cannot die, is never brought into equation. This type of "exegesis" become in reality an "exit Jesus." Dr. Boyd's faulty cross referencing, which he will not permit others to do, is also illustrated in his discussion on being "filled with the Holy Ghost." He uses Old Testament, and PreAscension examples of people being "filled with the Spirit" and crosses them with references in

the Book of Acts (after Christ's Resurrection and Ascension) to the disciples being "filled with the Spirit," in order to "prove" tongues are not a necessary evidence. This completely ignores the fact that the "fillings" in Acts come as a permanent gift from the resurrected Christ, are quite different Old Testament and Pre Cross times. So different, as a matter of fact, that the Bible says: The Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified. John 7:39 A worse example than this of cross referencing would be hard to find! Cross referencing, when correctly done, is a very helpful too for Bible Study. In fact, how would one study any subject in the bible without cross referencing? That's why the cross references are in the margin, and why Thompson's Chain Reference Bible continues to be an enduring best seller! Jesus Himself used cross referencing in Luke 20:37- 38, when he "crossed" the reference about the burning bush incident (Exodus 3:6) with a statement by Isaiah (Isaiah 38:18- 19), to prove the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the dead. A clearer example of arriving at a doctrine from cross referencing would be hard to find! The Bible itself recommends the cross referencing method to obtain doctrinal truth.

Isaiah wrote: "Precept upon precept... line upon line..., here a little and there a little" (Isaiah 28:9- 10). And this was to be done in order to "understand doctrine." To gain comprehension on any doctrine you must gather in all statements relative to it. All pieces are necessary to complete the "puzzle" and see the whole picture. But just as Trinitarians prefer to leave out the pieces from Acts which show baptism to be in Jesus' name, so likewise they want us to leave out these verses that show Jesus to be the Father! Actually, any Bible student, oneness or not, should resent this arrogant attempt to censor the Word of God by eliminating cross referencing as a valid method. In plain English - it takes "nerve." Especially when the "censor" reserves the privilege to use it himself! It seems inconsistent that a person would object on the one hand to bringing verses together, while on the other hand have no objection to splitting them in half, as he did with Romans 8:1 to obtain his Parking Lot Revelation (which set a "thousand church bells chiming")! I'm afraid the real reason Dr. Boyd, and others, object to our references is because they so effectively get our message "across". The point driven home by comparing these scriptures ("splicing them together" as Boyd puts it) is that not only is it completely unnecessary for two divine persons to perform the same action, it is also mutually exclusive, and self contradictory.

Let us consider some. WHO RESURRECTED CHRIST? The Bible says God the Father raised Christ from the dead (Galatians 1:1), yet John 2:19 says Jesus raised Himself from the dead. Therefore Christ is the Father who raised that body from the tomb that first Easter. But how could He do this? Christ's own divine Spirit nature, which was the Father, withdrew from his body on the cross: "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me" (Mark 15:34)? Three days later, the same Spirit (the Father) re-entered that body, raised it, glorified it, and indwelt it as his permanent Temple. Thus Christ in his divine nature as Father raised his own body from the dead. But Dr. Boyd says "not so." Rather all three persons of the Trinity participated in this work, which was "ultimately performed through the Son incarnate as a man" (Boyd, p. 89). But Dr. Boyd apparently forgot his earlier teaching on page 58, namely that he "Son incarnate as a man" was dead! For "when Christ suffered a forsaken death" he writes, "God suffered a forsaken death." God is dead at this time! So how can a dead person ("the son incarnated") raise a dead person ("The Son incarnated")! What contradictions! First he has God dying (p. 58), then he has a dead man raising Him (P.89)! Do the dead now raise the dead? Is it any wonder he declares further speculation on this point a "fruitless question" (Boyd, p.88). How helpful of him to let us know what questions are "fruitless" ones, so we don't waste our time trying to harvest anything out of them! The point Dr. Boyd is trying to make, whatever it may be, mutates even further. For he says on page 188, "What Jesus endured, the totality of the Godhead endured." If Jesus endured death and died (which He did), then according to this premise "the totality of the Godhead" also "endured" death and died! Who is left alive to do any raising of the dead? The whole Godhead died in Christ according to this doctrine. They can't escape by saying just the "Second Person" of the Godhead died, for that would not be the "totality" of the

Godhead, because there are two other persons in it! Perhaps if Trinitarians ceased, and started believing what Christ said, namely that he was the "Father incarnated" (John 14:10), the problem would disappear. Where does the Bible ever say Christ was "the Son incarnated?" When Trinitarians are asked where they obtained such teachings, they always give the same answer that deceiving Jacob gave to Isaac on that long ago day when goat meat was being passed off as Venison: "The Lord thy God brought it to me!" (Gen. 27:20). WHO ANSWERS PRAYER? Its basic to any religion to identify who ultimately answers prayer. For thereby we ascertain who God is. In John 14:14, Jesus said he answered prayer: "If ye ask anything in my name I will do it." The Greek is even better: "If you ask ME anything in my name I will do it." Yet in John 15:16 the Father (a supposed "distinct person" from the Son in Trinitarianism) is said to answer prayer. The Bible conclusion is obvious, Jesus taught that He Himself was the prayer answering Father in his divine nature. This is confirmed by the verse which reads: The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. John 14:10, ...and that certainly includes answering prayer. This is also proven by John 14:13 which says, And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. Dr. Boyd's response to all this is just an echo of the standard old Trinitarian theory that the "two persons" are in charge of answering prayer, "both the Father and the Son in distinct capacities, answer prayer -namely the Father performs all activities through and in him" (Boy, p. 89).

In other words, the Father actually answers prayer; the Son is the instrument he uses -- the activities are performed through him. Jesus flatly contradicted this theory when he said: At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: For the Father himself loveth you, John 16:26-27 It is all the direct work of the divine nature of Christ, which we have seen is the Father, and no one else. Dr. Boyd says what was true of the "incarnate Son" on earth, is true of the "incarnate Son" in Heaven (Boyd, p. 89). Well, the incarnate Son on earth said that He could do nothing of Himself in Heaven also! So who answers prayer? It has to be the Father. Yet Christ said that He Himself would answer prayer; so the Father must be Christ's divine nature, his other "self." It is therefore the Father in the Son who is answering prayer, and not "two distinct Persons," -- of whom one is on record as saying he can do nothing! SENDING THE SPIRIT In John 14:26, Jesus says that the Father will send the Spirit, But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send... However, in John 15:26 Christ says He will send the Spirit Himself: when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you... Therefore, Jesus is the Father who sends the Spirit. And the Spirit that he sends is His own divine nature: I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. John 14:18 The Comforter then is the one Spirit, called the Father, when referring to Him as Source, come to dwell in obedient believers as the Holy Ghost, who is also the divine nature of Christ, his human Temple. The Spirit is said to "proceed" from the Father, just as a stream of water proceeds from a reservoir or lake, as it's source. The water proceeding from the reservoir as a stream is not distinct from its source, nor separate. It is an outflow of it. So the Holy Spirit is "an outflowing" of the Father, from the Body of Christ, where He is "stored." God said:

I will pour out MY spirit upon all flesh; Joel 2:28 And that is exactly what is happening. The Father is being poured out of the Body of Christ, His vessel, and is falling on us as the Holy Ghost. This is what is meant by the Holy Spirit proceeding "from" the Father in John 15:26. Trinitarians teach the utterly absurd idea that the Third distinct Person, is proceeding from the First distinct Person, at the behest of (and maybe also "through") the Second Distinct Person! But God is not the author of this confusion. We have Nicene Fathers to thank for this and the subsequent "Filoque" clause, which we shall read about shortly. Dr. Boyd attempted to smear the canvas of this beautiful truth of Christ sending the Spirit by some totally baffling discussion of a high school incident and his inability to understand the phrase "from the Father" (Boyd, p.90). I hope this Biblical explanation has clarified that point for him, if somehow late! Part of the problem is that Dr. Boyd, and may other Trinitarians take the position that the Holy Spirit must proceed from the other "two" persons. He says Oneness people "assume that the Holy Spirit can only proceed from One" (Boyd. p.90). This "assumption" as he calls it, was the original doctrine of the Trinitarians themselves! All the early church Fathers shared this assumption. It was the standard doctrine of the Trinitarian scholars. No one in those first centuries denied it alt all. It was endorsed by all the ecumenical councils. It is still the official position of Greek the Orthodox Church. The idea of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father "and the Son" was unheard of until the Roman Catholic Church invented the doctrine and tried to impose it on everyone, over a thousand years after Christ! The Catholics ADDED to the Nicene Creed the words "and from the Son" ("filoque" in Latin). the Greek Orthodox refused to accept this "double procession" theory and a split occurred in 1504 AD. "Over that one word (filoque) mighty debates were held, books in untold numbers were written, and even blood was shed in bitter strife" (Jesse Lyman Hurlbut, The Story of the Christian Church, p. 126). As we see, Trinitarian insights are seldom birthed without "much bloodshed." The Greek Orthodox argument against the "double procession"

theory is quite simple: Christ only mentioned one procession (John 15:26)! The Greek Orthodox are much closer to the truth on this point than Dr. Boyd and Neo-Trinitarians who prefer to follow the Roman Catholic dogma invented late in time. DRAWING POWER Jesus in one passage says the Father will draw men to Him: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: John 6:44 But in John 12:32 He says: And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. Christ is the drawing Father in his divine nature; there is no Trinitarian "tug of war" going on with two distinct persons pulling sinners to Christ. Why not simply accept what Christ said: the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. John 14:10 The Son, of Himself, can draw no one -- "I can do nothing by myself" -- is his testimony. But with the Father, "who doeth the works" incarnate in him, Christ indeed can be said to "draw all men." His human nature (the Son) can't do it; but his divine nature (the Father) can and does. RAISING THE DEAD It is clear that Christ is the one who raises the dead: I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:40) Yet the Father is said to "quicken the dead" (Romans 4:17). And as always, it is not the Son, (the humanity) that does

this, but the life-giving Father that dwells in him. And as we are used to by now, the Trinitarians insist that all "three persons" are involved in resurrecting. Dr. Boyd devotes the least attention to this particular couplet, preferring instead to spend time discussing the supposed Oneness doctrine of "voice switching" (something I had never heard of, though I have been in Oneness over 30 years). But let us not leave this issue quite so quickly. Haste makes waste, even in doctrinal matters. It was precisely concerning the resurrection that Jesus brought out most clearly his dual nature. In John 5:19 He says the "Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do..." "For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth Him all things..." (John 5:20). The source of everything Jesus does is the Father; the same Father he said was incarnate in Him (John 14:10; 10:38). By Himself as Son, without the divine nature, he could do "nothing." But the Father has empowered or enabled the Son, to do these things by placing his life or "essence" or "nature" within Him, and operating through Him. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority... John 5:26-27 This is why Paul could say God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself (1 Cor. 5:18). And that reconciliation will include the resurrection performed by God in Christ, a work he could not do unless the Father dwelt in Him. It is not necessary to postulate "Three Distinct Persons" to understand any of these passages discussed. The doctrine of God in Christ, -- "I am in the Father and the Father in me" -adequately and scripturally illuminates all of them.

Nothing that has ever been advanced by Trinitarians, and Dr. Boyd in particular, can overturn the fact that the Father is the only divine nature ever identified by Christ as dwelling within him. Thus Jesus Christ can properly be called the Father, as Isaiah prophesied would be the case (Isaiah 9:6), and as Christ Himself announced (John 10:30). He is never called the "Son incarnated" as Trinitarians assume. JESUS AS FATHER IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION The last book of the Bible is properly entitled The Revelation of Jesus Christ. It does not claim to be a revelation of seals, beasts, trumpets and bowls, although they are all there. But it is a Revelation of Jesus Christ! Does it teach that He is the Father? We feel it does, clearly and repeatedly. Boyd and the Trinitarians feel otherwise. "It certainly is not the general view of the Book of Revelation" (P. 81), and "This distinction between the Father and Jesus continues throughout the Book of Revelation without qualification" (P. 81). Let us see. ANCIENT OF DAYS The first thing Revelation "reveals" to us is a description of Jesus in his glorified body His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; Rev. 1:14-15 This is Christ who "was dead" and is "now alive" (v. 18). It is also the same exact description Daniel gives us of the Father, the Ancient of Days, that he saw in vision. I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and

the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels (i.e. eyes) as burning fire. Daniel 7:9 Immediately, the Book of Revelation presents us a picture of Christ, as the Ancient of Days, even the Father. ALONGSIDE THE THRONE OR ON THE THRONE? Jesus further states, I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. Rev. 3:21 Jesus is seated in the Father's throne, not alongside of it. But when John sees this throne e informs us one sat on the throne. Rev. 4:2 He does not say, "I saw the Father, one person, and the Son, another person, seated on the throne" -- only One. Yet Jesus says He is seated "with His Father" on the throne. The answer should be apparent by now. When Christ, the visible Temple of the Father, sits on the throne, God the Father is also there, because He dwells and resides in the Body of Christ. "The Father dwelleth in me, He doeth the works" (John 14:10). The Son is visibly seen, but the invisible Father is also there, incarnate in Christ. This constitutes an unanswerable proof of God in Christ in the Book of Revelation. Boyd says that Christ ... "is portrayed as being at times, next to his Father's throne." He cites Revelation 5:13, which says absolutely nothing about Christ being seated "next to the Father." Next is not in the text! He says Christ is also portrayed as

"sitting on his own throne alongside the Father, who is sitting on His own throne." For this he cites Revelation 3:21, which says Christ is seated on his Father's throne! No mention of another throne alongside it! No wonder he doesn't quote the "references," merely citing them. Does he hope we won't look them up? We have learned better. He refers to our "illusory" interpretation (p. 82). If ours is "illusory" his is positively hallucinatory, for he sees thrones that aren't there! ALPHA AND OMEGA In Revelation 21:6-7 the Alpha and Omega, who is unmistakenly Jesus Christ (Rev. 22:12-13,16), tells true believers that he will be their God and Father: I will be his God, and he shall be my son. If I'm his son, then he's my Father, and if he is also God, then He is God my Father! In order to escape this clear declaration of Christ's Fatherhood, Boyd entangles himself again in circular reasoning, a fallacy you learn about in first year logic. His argument, if you can call it that, runs like this: If the Scriptures (which include Revelation) taught that Jesus was the Father then these verses could be read as one further "reference to Christ as the Father." But seeing the Bible doesn't teach it, it must therefore mean something else (p. 80-81)! Reduced and skinned to the bone, this is what is being argued: The Bible can't teach that Jesus is the Father, because the Bible doesn't teach Jesus is the Father! But how do we know the Bible doesn't teach Jesus is the Father? Because Trinitarians keep telling us there are no references for it! But what about these verses we keep finding? they just can't mean Jesus is the Father, we arc informed, because the Bible doesn't teach it! Circular Reasoning!

TWO ALPHAS AND OMEGAS! ! After some convoluted arguments, Dr. Boyd concludes on this sad note (though he feels "very little at this point hangs on this" - good thing): "The fact that the One speaking here refers to himself as 'Alpha and Omega' does not prove the point even though it is also true that there is only one who is 'Alpha and Omega' (CF Isaiah 43:10). In contexts that clearly distinguish him from Jesus, the Father is spoken of in similar terms (1:4-5; 11:15-17)." There is only one Alpha and Omega, which is Jesus, but the Father is also a separate Alpha and Omega, we are told! And when you consider that the Alpha and Omega means the Beginning and the End, we now have two Beginnings and two Endings! What nonsense! The references he cited to prove this do not even contain the words Alpha and Omega, (though he covered himself this time by saying it was only "similar" terminology). In Revelation 1:8, the Alpha and Omega, who is Jesus, identifies Himself as the Almighty. This is the name the Father used in identifying Himself to Moses, when he also received His Jehovahistic Name (Ex. 6:3). It is also the term the Father used to identify Himself to Abraham saying: I am the Almighty God; walk before me, Gen 17:1 Furthermore, it is the term used elsewhere in Revelation to identify the Father (Rev. 21:22). How many Almighties could there be? There's only One and that is Christ, who is also Alpha and Omega, God the Father! CHRIST THE TABERNACLE OF GOD Revelation 21:3 says the "Tabernacle of God" is with men, and he will dwell with them. "Tabernacle," like "Temple," is a Bible term for "body" (2 Cor. 5:4). God's body will dwell with men. And in that Tabernacle or body dwells all the fullness of

the Godhead, including the Father, (Col. 2:9). No wonder Revelation 21:22 says "I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty (i.e. the Father) and the Lamb (i.e. Son) are the temple of it." The Father and the Son constitute One Temple! Not only that, but God the Father, shining gloriously through the Body of the Lamb, in whom he dwells, is the Light thereof (Rev. 21:23). This is what Peter, James and John saw in the preview on the mountain of Transfiguration when the Father shone out of the Body of Christ (Matt. 17:1-2). God the Father and the Lamb are said to have just one Throne, One Face and One name, because Father and Son constitute a "him" and not a "they." But the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. Rev. 22:3-4 No wonder the NIV renders it: His name and his Father's name Rev 14:1 The Lamb's name is in their foreheads, and Rev. 14:1 says this name is also the Father's Name! So the Father's name and the Lamb's (or Son's) Name are one and the same name! Are we surprised therefore that John called this Book the revelation of Jesus Christ and not a Revelation of the Trinity? THE LAMB WITH THE BOOK A "proof" often raised (though Boyd does not) of the "two person" theory is one drawn from Revelation 5:7, where the lamb takes "the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne." If Jesus is the One seated on the throne, then who is the

Lamb that takes the book from him? In this dramatic presentation (mini-play) that John witnessed, a strange creature with "seven eyes and seven horns) (v.6), standing like it "had been slain," comes to the throne and takes the book. This seven-eyed, seven-horned slain Lamb is not a Person, much less our Lord Jesus Christ. Who expects to see Christ with seven horns and seven eyes when they get to heaven? We have a description of the risen Christ in Revelation 1:12-15, and it doesn't include "seven horns and seven eyes." Then what is this multi-eyed Lamb we read about in Revelation 5? It is a created symbol, a creature, which represents the death of Christ, "the lamb that was slain." Because of His death and subsequent resurrection the Seven-Sealed Book can be opened. John the revelator is seeing a symbolic performance in which specially created "props" are used to portray spiritual truths. The seven-eyed, seven-horned lamb is exactly that - a lamb. But it represents Christ, "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world." At the baptism of Jesus God used a dove to symbolize the Holy Spirit, but who would contend that the Holy Spirit is a dove? SUMMARY So that we see that the Book of Revelation, rather than establishing a separate identity of the Father and Christ, actually proves that Christ and the Father constitute the One Person who is seated on the Throne, the Alpha and Omega, the only one we will ever see! AN EX-JEHOVAH'S WITNESS NOTICES SOMETHING Ted Dencher was a slave to Watchtower mechanizations for many years. God miraculously led him out of it and caused him to write his marvelous testimony in a book entitled, "Why I left Jehovah's Witnesses." Even though a Trinitarian, Mr. Dencher has made the same startling "Oneness" discovery about Christ in Revelation that I have brought forth in this chapter. I am quoting from page 241 of his popular book:

"According to Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus and Jehovah are to be thought of a s separate entities, and to think otherwise about them would be error. The most startling texts of the entire Bible which prove them to be wrong on this are Revelation 22:1,3,4. These should be read carefully to receive the full impact of what is said therein. Verse 1 reads, using the right hand column: 'And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb...' Yes God and the lamb occupy the same throne, not two thrones, indicating inequality of rank or nature, but One. "Now to verse 3, right hand column: 'And no more will there be any curse. But the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his slaves will render him sacred service' Di you ever see where both Jehovah and Jesus are referred to together as 'his' and 'him'? Could any unity be more complete? "Now note what verse 4 says: 'And they will see His Face, and His Name will be on their foreheads.' Jehovah God and the Lamb together have but one face and in the finality one Name! Jehovah's Witnesses, What is that Name? Whatever exalted name you choose applies equally to both 'God and the Lamb.' God and the Lamb are not referred to as 'they' but as 'he.' Perfect oneness of name and nature. Not 'faces' but rather 'face.' I ask any Jehovah's Witness to face his congregation from the speaker's podium and read this passage to them! Do you realize you might be escorted bodily from the platform?" (Ted Dencher, Why I Left Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Literature Crusade, Fort Washington, PA., 1985, pp. 241242). If an Ex-Jehovah's Witness, who was trained for years to see "separate throne," "separate persons" and "Gods alongside of gods" was able to see "the perfect oneness of Name and nature" in the Book of Revelation, why can't Dr. Boyd? It's there for any honest soul to read: one throne, one name, and one face for God in Christ, who constitutes One Temple! If

Mr. Dencher were to expound this truth from the "speaker's podium" of a Neo-Trinitarian congregation he might be surprised that they too have an "escort service" for such speakers and their doctrine! THE USE OF KAI Another interesting proof of Jesus' identity as the father is furnished by the New Testament salutations found in the epistles. We read for example: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 1:7 As it reads it presents no obstacle to Oneness doctrine. For we believe in God the Father, and also in the Lord Jesus Christ, his Son. And this in no way detracts from the contingent New Testament Truth that God the Father dwells in the Lord Jesus Christ, His Son. Paul is careful to remind his readers of that truth also (Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16; 2 Cor. 5:19). Biblically speaking, a belief in the Father and the Son is also a belief in the Father in the Son (John 10:38). But something else may be indicated in these salutations, for the Greek word "kai" (and) can also be translated as "even" or "who is." And in fact is so translated in other texts. For example, "Kai" is rendered "even" in 2 Cor. 1:3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort; Also James 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. And 1 Thess. 3:13 God, even our Father, It should also have been translated "even" in Gal. 1:4 which mentions

the will of God and our Father: and also Col. 3:17 which speaks of giving thanks to "God and the Father by him." For the meaning is clearly intended to be "God, even the Father" rather than "God and the father." Even Trinitarians admit "god" and "Father" are one and the same individual! This being true, then it is also possible to render "Kai" as "even" instead of "and" in Romans 1:7 which would then read: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, even the Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Thess 1:2 would be Grace unto you, and, peace from God our Father, even the Lord Jesus Christ And so forth throughout the epistles. This would be a great addition to the already substantial arsenal of texts proving the Fatherhood of Christ. And there is not one grammatical or linguistical impediment to translating it this way. Dr. Boyd and fellow Trinitarians, of course do not like any of this. He feels it would have confused Paul's New Testament readers: "Could anything be more confusing to Paul's readers than to have Paul changing the 'identities' of Jesus from one sentence to the next" (p. 80). Yes, something could have been more confusing to Paul's readers - the "Trinity in Unity," the "eternal generation" and the "Perichoresis." But thank God Paul spared them that! Furthermore, Paul's readers were not confused by the dual natures of Christ as God and man. Paul had taught them that doctrine clearly. (Phillip 2:6-9; Col. 2:9; 1 Tim 3:16; 2 Cor 5:19). It is not a question of "switching identities," whatever that is supposed to mean, but of recognizing two natures as

being operative in one Christ. Before the Introduction of the "Trinitarian Mysteries" early Christians were very "adept" at discerning this distinction in Christ. Even St. Chrysostom was able to follow this "switchery" without being confused, for he wrote: "When thou hearest of Christ, do not think Him God only, or man only, but both together. For I know Christ was hungry, and I know that with five loaves He fed five thousand men, besides women and children. I know Christ was thirsty, and I know Christ turned water into wine. I know Christ was carried in a ship, and I know Christ walked on the waters, I know Christ died, and I know Christ raised the dead. I know Christ was set before Pilate, and I know Christ sits with the Father. I know Christ was worshipped by the angels, and I know Christ was stoned by the Jews. And truly some of these I ascribe to the human, others to the divine nature; for by reason of this he is said to be both together" (Was Christ God, Spiros Zodtheotes, p. 91). The fact that Bible translators did not render "Kai" as "even" in the New testament salutations is not surprising, seeing almost all of them were Trinitarians and worked from that bias: the KJV - all Trinitarian translators; RSV - trinitarians and modernists; NIV - trinitarians; Phillips - a trinitarian; Moffat - trinitarian, and so forth. In short we are being told that when the New Testament speaks of "God and the Father" we should interpret it as "God, even the Father" for it is referring to one person; but when the New Testament speaks of "God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ," we should not do it, even though the conjunctive is the same in both cases - "Kai." And what is the reason we cannot translate it as "even" in the second instance also? Because Trinitarians have more Trinitarian circular reasoning: these verses cannot teach two distinct persons, because there are no verses that teach two distinct persons! And finally Dr., Boyd tells us we are not permitted to do it, because to translate "Kai" as "even" we

"must go against such a reputable tradition to do so" (Boyd, p. 80). And we must be careful never to do that; for tradition must never be "gone against." Yet and fellow Neo-Trinitarians, do not hesitate to "go against" nearly 2,000 years of tradition when they "unbeget" the Son through their freakish mistranslation of "monogenes," which they insist on rendering "unique" instead of the correct translation "begotten." Neither Greek lexicons, nor Irish leprechauns can deliver them from that contradiction! TRINITARIAN BIBLE TRANSLATORS HAVE BEEN INCONSISTENT IN THEIR TRANSLATION OF THE GREEK WORD KAI, THUS OBSCURING THE FATHERHOOD OF CHRIST IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

JESUS IS THE TRUE GOD The Maker of the Universe As man for man was made a curse The claims of laws which he had made Unto the uttermost he paid. His holy fingers made the bough Which grew the thorns that crowned his brow The nails which pierced his hands were mined In secret places he designed He made the forest whence there sprung The tree on which his body hung. He died upon a cross of wood Yet he made the hill on which it stood. The sky that darkened o'er his head By him above the earth was spread.

The sun that hid fro him it's face By his decree was poised in space. The spear which spilled his precious blood Was tempered in the fires of God. The grave in which his form was laid Was hewn in rocks his hands had made. The throne on which he now appears Was his from everlasting years But a new glory crowns his brow And every knee to Him shall bow.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful