Who is God's God?

[Rich R]

It's certainly no secret that according to Orthodox Christian doctrine, Jesus is God. That brings up an interesting question, one that I've not been able to sort out. Paul and Peter said multiple times that Jesus had a God and Jesus himself said the same thing.

John 20:17,

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.​

​

Rom 15:6,

that with one accord ye may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.​

2 Cor 1:3,

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort;​

2 Cor 11:31.

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.​

Eph 1:3,

Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:​

Eph 1:17,

That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:​

Col 1:3,

We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,​

1 Pet 1:3,

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,​

​

I just can't see anything here other than thatGod has a God. But who God's God is escapes me. If God really has a God, maybe we should be worshiping that God? I don't know.

 

[Cassandra]

What? He is saying that God is God but also the father of Jesus Christ, and the Jesus is also God.

 

[marks]

I just can't see anything here other than thatGod has a God. But who God's God is escapes me. If God really has a God, maybe we should be worshiping that God? I don't know.

Jeremiah declared that God is the God of all flesh. When Jesus took on flesh, when Jesus took on the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, being found in the form of a man - He humbled Himself, and took on all that went with being born a man. Including the worship of God.

He worshiped God on our behalf as this was included in all He did on our behalf, fulfilling ALL righteousness. On our behalf, not because it was required of Him. Just like being baptized, and just like dying, He likewise did all that was required - for OUR righteousness.

Much love!

 

[MatthewG]

Try, using Word of God.

 

[Rich R]

What? He is saying that God is God but also the father of Jesus Christ, and the Jesus is also God.

I think I see what you are saying, but I'm still confused. You and I both have the same God, namely the God and Father of Jesus Christ. So I can say, as Jesus said, "...my God and your God..." Wouldn't that mean nothing more than that both of us have the same God? Why would it mean one of is God? Just looking at the simple wording here (probably around 4th grade reading level), I think it'd be a huge leap to suggest that one us is God.

If I said something like, "the God and Father of Cassandra" would that in any way be suggesting you are God? I wouldn't think so. It just says you have a God who is your Father. Why is it any different for Jesus, assuming we leave preconceived ideas out of the equation and just take the words for what the plainly say? And if we do change the meaning of simple words and grammar here, why can't we do that somewhere else in the Bible, making it say something it doesn't really say?

 

[Rich R]

Try, using Word of God.

You mean change the verses? That's not a good idea.

 

[MatthewG]

You mean change the verses? That's not a good idea.

No, I’m saying “Gods Word.”

It’s like in Genesis, when you see God speak. Gods Word ( was allowed to create and through the notion and will of God), Gods Word was sent, and born in flesh, named Emmanuel “God with us” and Jesus “who would saved people from their sins.” Gods Word made flesh, worshiped Yahavah, or Yahweh the God of Israel, by and through faith, prayer, supplication, and doing the will of the Father, learning things to speak of by and through the Father, who was in Christ, and with the Lord Yeshua by the Spirit of Yahavah.


I believe as your post asserts, there is One God, and One Lord. I believe people can call out to Yahavah, Yahweh, Jehovah, in and through Jesus, Yeshua, name.

I also believe that this One God and One Lord, share the same seating, in the throne room of heaven, which shows perhaps Jesus in his glorified form with God being all in all, as the LORD GOD Almighty, once all things are made to be under the feet of Jesus; Jesus would hand over everything back to Yahavah.

With the Kingdom established, with God and the Lamb in the heavenly Jerusalem, I believe that the reason the writers expressed the distinction is because they are distinct from each other.

God being God, and God being Gods Word as he had spoke, it seems enjoined together as the mouth expresses the heart’s intention and God, Yahavah, gave his Word “the ability to create and provide what was spoken.”

I suppose that is why there is also a distinction in there being One God and One Lord, though when they come together they produce the Lord God Almighty.

 

[Rich R]

No, I’m saying “Gods Word.”

It’s like in Genesis, when you see God speak. Gods Word ( was allowed to create and through the notion and will of God), Gods Word was sent, and born in flesh, named Emmanuel “God with us” and Jesus “who would saved people from their sins.” Gods Word made flesh, worshiped Yahavah, or Yahweh the God of Israel, by and through faith, prayer, supplication, and doing the will of the Father, learning things to speak of by and through the Father, who was in Christ, and with the Lord Yeshua by the Spirit of Yahavah.


I believe as your post asserts, there is One God, and One Lord. I believe people can call out to Yahavah, Yahweh, Jehovah, in and through Jesus, Yeshua, name.

I also believe that this One God and One Lord, share the same seating, in the throne room of heaven, which shows perhaps Jesus in his glorified form with God being all in all, as the LORD GOD Almighty, once all things are made to be under the feet of Jesus; Jesus would hand over everything back to Yahavah.

With the Kingdom established, with God and the Lamb in the heavenly Jerusalem, I believe that the reason the writers expressed the distinction is because they are distinct from each other.

God being God, and God being Gods Word as he had spoke, it seems enjoined together as the mouth expresses the heart’s intention and God, Yahavah, gave his Word “the ability to create and provide what was spoken.”

I suppose that is why there is also a distinction in there being One God and One Lord, though when they come together they produce the Lord God Almighty.

I see what you're saying now. The Jews of that time equated "the word of God" with God Himself. That has a huge impact on the meaning of John 1. They would never have seen that as a God becoming a man. They were vehemently against such an idea although it was prevalent among the Greeks and the Egyptians before them. John wrote in terms and ideas of his day. We should try to learn how the original readers understood the "Word."

 

[Bob Estey]

It's certainly no secret that according to Orthodox Christian doctrine, Jesus is God. That brings up an interesting question, one that I've not been able to sort out. Paul and Peter said multiple times that Jesus had a God and Jesus himself said the same thing.

John 20:17,

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.​

​

Rom 15:6,

that with one accord ye may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.​

2 Cor 1:3,

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort;​

2 Cor 11:31.

The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.​

Eph 1:3,

Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:​

Eph 1:17,

That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:​

Col 1:3,

We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,​

1 Pet 1:3,

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,​

​

I just can't see anything here other than thatGod has a God. But who God's God is escapes me. If God really has a God, maybe we should be worshiping that God? I don't know.

I believe one of Jesus's goals was to set an example for us. Therefore, he couldn't call himself God.

 

[Rich R]

I believe one of Jesus's goals was to set an example for us. Therefore, he couldn't call himself God.

A case could certainly be made for that as far as why Jesus said he had a God and a Father, although I don't see a clear scripture saying that.

In any case, it doesn't really explain Peter and Paul saying Jesus had a God as well as a Father no less than 7 times. Assuming the doctrine that Jesus is God is correct, I wonder why Peter or Paul would not have explained exactly who this God and Father of God is. Seems like it'd be important to know who it is; at least to me it does. But, as far as I can tell, the scriptures are silent on that point.

 

[Bob Estey]

A case could certainly be made for that as far as why Jesus said he had a God and a Father, although I don't see a clear scripture saying that.

In any case, it doesn't really explain Peter and Paul saying Jesus had a God as well as a Father no less than 7 times. Assuming the doctrine that Jesus is God is correct, I wonder why Peter or Paul would not have explained exactly who this God and Father of God is. Seems like it'd be important to know who it is; at least to me it does. But, as far as I can tell, the scriptures are silent on that point.

Perhaps there are things God didn't want written in scripture. After all, Satan can read scripture, also.

 

[Rich R]

Perhaps there are things God didn't want written in scripture. After all, Satan can read scripture, also.

Do you mean God doesn't want us (and Satan) to know who His God is?

 

[Bob Estey]

Do you mean God doesn't want us (and Satan) to know who His God is?

No, I mean God maybe has secrets he doesn't want everyone to know.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
There's no one higher on the totem pole than God.

● Heb 6:13 . .When God made His promise to Abraham, since there was no
one greater for Him to swear by, He swore by himself

The thing is: although Phil 2:6-11 entitles Jesus to the rank of God, he
remains human. In other words; when the Word of John 1:1-3 came into
the world as the flesh of John 1:14, he didn't come as a divine man, rather,
he came as a Jewish man; and he's still a Jewish man. (1Tim 2:5 & Rev 22:16)
_

 

[Wrangler]

when Jesus took on the form of a servant

Jesus did not meekly take the form of a servant, he is a servant of God. Many gods can serve Jesus’ God. See Psalm 86.

​

13 For it is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—the God of all our ancestors—who has brought glory to his servant Jesus by doing this. This is the same Jesus whom you handed over and rejected before Pilate, despite Pilate’s decision to release him.
Acts 3:13

 

[Lambano]

The way the doctrine that we are not permitted to discuss is stated, Jesus and God the Father are separate persons but the same underlying reality. (Or as stated in Greek, different hypostases, but a common ousia.) I don't think the subtleties are really understood by most laymen who haven't had training in Greek philosophy, and that includes me. (Doesn't anyone besides me ever ask what the hell it REALLY means for two separate persons to have the same substance or share the same ontological reality?) The doctrine has some inherent paradoxes that come out when we over-simplify it to "Oh, Jesus is God" (as though they were the same person), such as the one stated in the OP: "Who is God's God?"

And to make matters worse, we've made acceptance of a doctrine that few people really understand (and again, that includes me) or have even tried to think through, we make it a litmus test of who is a "real" Christian.

 

[MatthewG]

The way the doctrine that we are not permitted to discuss is stated, Jesus and God the Father are separate persons but the same underlying reality. (Or as stated in Greek, different hypostases, but a common ousia.) I don't think the subtleties are really understood by most laymen (including me) who haven't had training in Greek philosophy (doesn't anyone besides me ask what the hell it means for two separate persons to have the same substance or ontological reality?), and the concept has some inherent paradoxes such as the one stated in the OP, "How does God have a God?" (as though they were the same person).

And to make matters worse, we've made acceptance of a doctrine that few people really understand a litmus test of who is a "real" Christian.

Oh, praise be to the Father. Authentic followers of the one known as Jesus, search and seek out for God, in order to know him, which is life eternal. Placing upon the throne of their own heart, the Father, first before all else. Having and maintaining a relationship which can hold substance and peace, with power which comes from God by the sharing of the “Good News” walking in faith, and deciding to abide in the vine, engraftment into the tree of life which brings forth nurturing waters and food for the soul, to remain steady in faithfulness worshiping Yahavah/Yahweh, in spirit and in truth.

The unfortunate truth and reality is the doctrines which people have taught will always continue to move forward sometimes teaching can be very poor, or more so educational it always depends who it is getting behind the Bible and reading it, prayerfully in seeking for God to help them understand what is happening in and through the narratives given.

Countless debates and interviews and hatred all comes from our will to battle to the death, be it with guns, games, drugs, sex, rock n roll, and ultimately win! Only for a moment of dopamine rush, but what is truly gained from the choices that you make in which brings forth glory to the one whom you’ve decide to call Father. Who raises you up from the dead state into a new world in Christ, who are believers in the Gospel.

May truth always win out, in allowing people to live, experience and grow, in sharing by and through the spirit in order to not make things confusing but for things to make sense, for the good of others.

 

[Rich R]

.
There's no one higher on the totem pole than God.

● Heb 6:13 . .When God made His promise to Abraham, since there was no
one greater for Him to swear by, He swore by himself

The thing is: although Phil 2:6-11 entitles Jesus to the rank of God, he
remains human. In other words; when the Word of John 1:1-3 came into
the world as the flesh of John 1:14, he didn't come as a divine man, rather,
he came as a Jewish man; and he's still a Jewish man. (1Tim 2:5 & Rev 22:16)
_

Do you think having the rank of God is the same as actually being God? Just saying there is no one higher on the totem pole than God doesn't explain the many clear verses that say there is indeed a God and Father of God. And I can see that none of them make a distinction between God part and a man part. That seems significant to me. Wouldn't you think God would want to be clear that He doesn't have a God and a Father? It's a tough nut t crack.

 

[Rich R]

No, I mean God maybe has secrets he doesn't want everyone to know.

That could be, but God keeping His God and Father a secret seems pretty extreme. But then I suppose a case could be made for God being rather extreme. Still, it doesn't seem plausible to me.

 

[O'Darby]

I happen to have just completed a pretty intensive course on Gnosticism. Contrary to popular belief, Gnostic Christianity was not some obscure cult. Long after Jesus, they had churches, a clergy and were infuential enough to be regarded as a genuine threat to orthodox Christianity.

Anyway, their view was that the One True God is completely ineffable, unknowable and impossible even to think about. We know this God only through His "emanations," which included (in some species of Gnosticism) an emanation called the Son. We see the same concept in the OT where God is personified as His Wisdom, Word, etc., which is why the Jews who became Christians could accept Jesus the Son as divine - they were already used to the One God of the Shema being personified. When orthodox Christians speak of the Son being "begat" and the Spirit "proceeding from," this sounds very much like the Gnostic emanations, which is why orthodox Christians carefully avoid what these terms might mean in the context of tne Forbidden Doctrine.

Since we can't discuss the Forbidden Doctrine, any further response is almost impossible. I would simply say that when Jesus refers to His God, He was referring to something like the ineffable One True God of Gnosticism whose fulness can't be captured by limiting terms such as those applied to the persons of the Forbidden Doctrine. I don't think one has to be a Gnostic to understand that all talk of God is ultimately referring to a Wholly Transcendent Other whom we simply can't get our minds around.