Candace. When we reject the term "manifestation" with regards to Jesus, it
is to counter a heresy known as modalism, that says that the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit are not only the same God, but the same Person, who manifests at
different times through Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. While the biblical
truth is that these three are one God, it is also biblically true that they are
three distinct persons. In other words, Jesus is not the Father, the
Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not Jesus, but they are
all three persons in one God. This is the doctrine of the Trinity.
In 1 John 3:5, the operative Greek word here is phaneroo, which means
to make visible, manifest, or known. The KJV is alone in translating this
as "manifested". The NIV, NASB, and every other major translation uses
"appeared" or "revealed", which are more sound ways of translating this
As far as using
"and" to separate God and Jesus Christ in 2 Peter 1:1, I don't remember arguing
that. I did argue that the KJV translation was poor by translating this
"...righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." The NIV and NASB
have a better translation of the text (shared by every other major translation):
"...righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ." The KJV translators
put the possessive pronoun in the wrong place, and renders an unintended
division between God and Jesus Christ. The possessive pronoun goes to
modify the entire title (God and Savior), not simply part of
You list some
verses that show distinctions between the Father and the Son. That's good,
because that gets us away from the modalism heresy of "manifestations".
The Father and the Son have different roles. For instance, the Bible
clearly teaches that Jesus (the Son) was the creator of all things. When
the Son took on flesh (here, you could accurately say he became "manifest" or
"visible" in the flesh), He willingly submitted Himself to the pains and
limitations of the flesh, oncly occassionally exercising His fully divine
attributes. Since the Father had not been submitted to these limitations,
it was accurate for Him to refer to the Father as greater. However, when
Jesus returned to Heaven, His previous glory was restored, and He was again
fully co-equal with the Father. I will soon be posting an article on the
Trinity that outlines this.
John 15:16 as proof that we should pray to the Father in the name of the
Son. Actually, both are acceptable Persons to whom we may direct our
prayer. John 14:13-14 says:
- "And I will do whatever you ask in my
name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.
You may ask me for anything in my name,
and I will do it." (NIV - emphasis added)
- "Whatever you ask in My name, that will
I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If
you ask Me anything in My name, I will do
it." (NASB - emphasis
in verse 14 shows its occasional inadequacy. The KJV was translated from
the Textus Receptus (TR), which was compiled from a handful of manuscripts,
the bulk of which didn't date back much further than the 8th century.
That was not the fault of the KJV translators -- they worked with what they had
available. However, since the publication of the various editions of the
TR and the KJV, a plethora of older manuscripts have been discovered.
These older manuscripts have something in this verse that the TR
(me). This word means in
English the way it looks in Greek. Therefore, the NIV, NASB, and every
other major translation rightly translate this verse to include "...ask
me..." Therefore, it is apparent that it is
appropriate to address either the Father or Son in our prayers, and do so in the
name of the Son.
If you'd like,
we can let you know when the article on the Trinity is posted. I think
you'll find it explains the relationship between Father and Son clearly.